Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald/Archive 7

The murder photo
Out of curiosity, why does this article and the Jack Ruby article use a grainy, poor-quality, video-capture taken from many yards' distance for the Ruby-killing-Oswald photo, rather than the universally recognized and far-higher-quality-in-all-ways photo at ? (I just picked the first google images link there.) Is it not a fair use? Tempshill 07:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Because the one you reference is a Robert Jackson Pulizer photo, and some editor here has a personal bug up their rear about using it. First they wanted it attributed. No problem, that was done. Then they objected to parody of it. No problem-- we moved it to the parody George Lucas page, then the TALK page. Then THAT was deleted (See my user page where it survives). Although the original Jackson photo, which is all over the web, is probably indeed fair-use, as a one of-a-kind historic photo, which cannot possibly be reproduced on Wikipedia in a quality approaching the original, and therefore would not interfere with author's rights to make money from the original. If he still owns them. But that photo WAS here, and was deleted in August by somebody without a proper decision or concensus at WP:CP on the process. I've been too lazy to push the issue, but the Altgens photo is here on Wikipedia, as also the Moorman photo, and so on. No reason for the Jackson photo (in poor reproduction) not to also be here. As are Kodachromes of JFK at Love Field and in the limo. And the flag raising on Iwo Jima....  S  B Harris 09:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that's an oversimplification. I have objected to the Jackson photo when it was uploaded with a false claim of public domain and without attribution. Years ago I suggested that anyone who thought we should use the the photo take the time to actually write to Mr. Jackson and ask permission. Anyone done so yet? If you check history, you will see I was not the one who removed nor deleted the most recent version of the Jackson photo in this article. I did however delete Sbharris's "parody", as it is not possible to create a "public domain" image by combining two copyrighted images and because "fair use" images are not allowed in Wikipedia user pages. Uncyclopedia might be an appropriate place for photoshoped parody images; Wikipedia generally is not. -- Infrogmation 19:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Oswald's impersonator episode in Mexico deleted again from Wikipedia
In october I've posted very important information based on both LBJ tapes and released official documentation via the "JFK Act" of 1990s. Both of these sources corroborate that someone was indeed impersonating Oswald in Mexico, the CIA and FBI logged several wires about it and it was perhaps the most debated hot issue in the aftermath of the assassination, because it appeared as someone was trying to frame Oswald up with the soviet assassination dept. #13. Yet, this information was not put into the article, and more over the whole discussion was abruptly deleted on the grounds that LBJ tapes are not an evidence, which could not be accepted but moreover has nothing to do with the more important part of the argument about the documented wires and this impersonating business, see Dr. Newman's slides with those wires and timeline. It's very sad to see infights about tangetial issues of the case and meanwhile leaving the ground for some very agile "wikipedists" who then have a space for constantly deleting the crucial history aspects of the case from this area.

The original entry: I'm just perplexed about this ahistorical article, and I hope someone with editorial skills takes it from there. The Mexico section needs heavy editing. Specifically, as documented on the official LBJ tapes someone DID impersonate Oswald in Mexico. Moreover, this person was inflitrating the higher echelons of US secret service apparatus and leaving a trail about Oswald as a communist extremist - as it's documented by the released documentation by the JFK act of 1990s. This is absolutely crucial, since LBJ claims in the tapes he doesn't want neither a rightwing conspiracy nor leftwing conspiracy, LBJ orders Warren and others to have lone nut conspiracy, i.e. taking the innitial FBI report and ::: threatens everybody with the possibility of nuclear war with Soviets. So, you can have two :::interpretations, that indeed rightwing or leftwing conspiracy occured but in each case clear cover-up has been pushed over it by LBJ. Details here: http://www.jfklancer.com/backes/newman/ Dr. Newman is formerly with NSA.
 * I'm on your side, however, it is generally agreed among those editing pages realted to JFK's assassinaton that any material related to conspiracy goes on the assassination theories page. PS-Please sign your posts using four "~". Joegoodfriend 16:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem with the conspiracy info, isn't usually the info, it is the editors who wish to present it. It is often presented as original research, and with POV.  For example, the above anon poster wishes to write that someone did impersonate Oswald based on LBJ saying so.  You can't do that here.  You can say that LBJ said that someone was impersonating Oswald in Mexico, but that has been disputed.  But no one ever edits in that fashion. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, Ramsquire seems to obfuscate the issue. It's not only LBJ tapes, the most important evidence is in the official historical record, i.e. wires between CIA, FBI and other gov. agencies about Oswald impostor (Dr. Newman's timeline). This has not been disputed. Actually, the LBJ tapes (14mins erased) or in fact their transcript and the rest of the documents are in sync with each other. Links to official documentation. http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Oswald_in_Mexico_City


 * So, I'm of the opinion this is so strong piece of evidence that it is surely beyond the "assassination theories" ghetto where some are still trying to move the important information. This is crucial part of Oswald's bio and the overall historical record and not being native eng speaker I just asked politely another party to edit the Mexico section accordingly. 84.42.179.200 15:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You claim that you are not a native English speaker, but it seems to me that you have a good grasp of the language. The reason I start with this is that you accuse me of blurring the issue.  Couldn't it just be that I misunderstood you?  Why do you immediately refuse to accord me good faith?  From your original post, it seemed that you wish to put original research into the article.  You cannot do that.  Now from this post, I see that it is actually the Newman theory you want in the article.  But Gamaliel discloses the problems with doing so below.Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should reflect mainstream historical consensus and should not be constructed from the theories of one individual. Is there any evidence that Newman's theory has acheived any sort of acceptance from any credentialed historians besides Newman? Gamaliel 15:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it skating the issue yet again? First of all there is no "Newman's theory", he just presented a timeline from the official records about this event. In another version, you can take it directly from the declassified 1978-1996-2003 HSCA "Lopez" report where you have it black on white, there was no real Oswald in Mexico, and the innitial information about the "identity" of Oswald (tapes and photos) was furnished by other US inteligence agency (most probably CIA) to FBI. For instance pages 13 and 14. And now you can inform me that this information does not meet wikipedia rules for some reason or supply another excuse to delete it from here. http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt_2003/html/LopezRpt_0012a.htm 84.42.179.200 23:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again, if you can find a mainstream reliable source supporting your contention, it can go into the article. As it is right now, you are synthesising primary sources, which is original research.  If the problem is you're inability to find a mainstream source supporting your position, then maybe the theory is a tiny minority viewpoint not suited for inclusion. On another note, you claim that you attempted to insert your information into the article in October.  Yet a list of your IP contributions contradict this claim.  Also there is no edit history of the Mexico section in the month of October.  Where is this edit you claim was deleted "once again"?  Andreasegde made this addition  in September.  So unless you are Andreasegde, and are attempting to hide behind an IP for some unknown reason, there is no record of you contributing to the article.   Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, Mr. 84.42.179.200, but could you please elaborate on the phrase, "there was no real Oswald in Mexico." Are you actually suggesting that Oswald never visited the Soviet Consulate in Mexico City? Joegoodfriend 06:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Lead Photo
I changed the lead photo of this article. It's Oswald during his stay in Minsk. I figured it would be nice to have at least one photo of Oswald not in custody or holding weapons used to assassinate JFK. I moved the Dallas mugshot to the Murder of Tippit section and removed the second theater photo. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Castro group
I have deleted this passage from the section on New Orleans:
 * Interestingly, he ran this pro-Castro organisation from a building, which shared offices with an anti-Castro organisation - 'the Anti-Communist League of the Carribean'. The offices were situated in a part of the building which fronted both onto Layfayette Street and Camp Street.

The Secret Service and the FBI conducted an extensive investigation in December 1963 of Oswald's connection to the building at 544 Camp Street. None of the building's five tenants, or the janitor who lived there, recalled ever seeing Oswald visit there, much less rent an office there. None ever heard of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. A militant anti-Castro organization, the Cuban Revolutionary Council, had rented an office in the same building, but had moved out more than a year before Oswald arrived in New Orleans. — Walloon 01:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Guy Banister was definitely one of the building's tenants. Are you suggesting that the FBI interviewed him, and/or his employees who would eventually claim that Banister and Oswald were working together?
 * It's true that there is no evidence that Oswald "ran his organization" from the building, however, he did distribute pamphlets stamped with 544 Camp Street. I think the passage should still be included, although changed to make it more accurate. Joegoodfriend 17:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no question Oswald distributed some flyers with the Camp Street address - which was not the same building as Bannister, who was around the corner in 531 Lafayette Street. And as for Banister's employees, I only recall his secretary, who also thinks that she was the last person to see the Ark of the Covenant, so her credibility is...questionable. Gamaliel 22:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * With a revised passage, acknowledging that there is no evidence that Oswald occupied the building, and that the anti-Castro organization was gone a year before Oswald arrived in New Orleans, the fact that 544 Camp Street was stamped on the flyers ceases to have any relevant interest. Oswald used phony addresses on dozens of applications and forms. This building was one block from Reily Coffee Co., his New Orleans employer. There a 1,001 details about Oswald's life and activities; they can't all go into an encyclopedia article. — Walloon 01:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The address Oswald used on his pamphlets most definitely was the same small building used by both Guy Banister and the CRC. From Anthony Summers' Conspiracy: "Although the CRC had theoretically ceased to use 544 Camp Street by the time Oswald got busy in New Orleans, the reality was rather different. They were still using 544 Camp Street…and they came and went at will throughout the summer of 1963. The exiles found a warm welcome in the offices of Guy Banister."
 * At least five of Banister’s associates have gone of record as saying that Oswald was working for Banister.
 * Also working for Banister was David Ferrie. Warren Commission defenders scoffed for three decades at Banister employee Jack Martin’s claim that Oswald and Ferrie had been acquainted in the Civil Air Patrol, but Martin was finally proven correct. (Ok, the photograph of Oswald and Ferrie at a CAP meeting doesn’t prove they ever spoke.)
 * Now you would claim that Oswald’s use of the address was just an incredible coincidence, and everyone involved is lying or crazy? Fine, you’re entitled.
 * But if this article has enough space for an entire paragraph on the Warren Commission’s purely speculative and point of view beliefs regarding Oswald’s motives, there is enough room for one sentence on this evidence. Joegoodfriend 04:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "Now you would claim that Oswald’s use of the address was just an incredible coincidence, and everyone involved is lying or crazy?" Strawman argument. No one said either of those things. In fact, Gerald Posner suggests that Oswald may have known about the anti-Castro group's previous tenancy in the building (from their literature), and deliberately used the address to antognize local anti-Castro groups.
 * As for Jack Martin, he had previously given statements to the FBI that he had never seen Oswald at 544 Camp Street. Delphine Roberts, Banister's former secretary, is a total nutcase, to be frank, who as pointed out above, believes she has read the sacred scrolls of the Arc of the Covenant. In one interview she told the House Select Committee on Assassinations that Oswald had never visited 544 Camp, and then in her subsequent interview she said he did. The Select Committee questioned six other individuals who worked for Guy Banister in the summer of 1963, and none of them remember seeing Oswald at 544 Camp. — Walloon 09:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Did Martin say that he had never seen Oswald at Camp Street? Oswald was more of a field man any way. Within three days of the assassination, Martin had interviews with the NOPD, the DA, and the FBI. According to his FBI statement, he felt that Ferrie’s association with Oswald “should be the subject of close examination as he personally believed that he could be implicated in the killing of President John F. Kennedy.” I find Martin credible because he told the truth in his interviews. Martin’s claims:
 * 1. Ferrie and Oswald had attended meetings for the same CAP group. This of course was information obtainable by him only from Oswald or Ferrie. Martin was proven correct, and people like Gerald Posner, whose work on the subject is terrible, were proven wrong.
 * 2. That Ferrie owned target rifles similar to Oswald’s. True.
 * 3. That Ferrie drove to Texas immediately after the assassination. True.
 * 4. That Ferrie was concerned that Oswald had been arrested with his library card. True. Both Oswald’s former landlady and a New Orleans neighbor have stated that Ferrie came around looking for the card.
 * Granted, you aren’t the only one around here who believes that none of the Banister/Ferrie/Oswald stuff belongs in the article, and if I try to add anything along these lines it may not last long. But I respect the administrator who closely monitors the JFK assassination pages, and we’ll see what happens. Regards, Joegoodfriend 01:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey JGF, I respect your decision to not add Bannister/Ferrie/Oswald stuff to the article, but if you have something that is properly sourced and relevant to LHO as a person (and not as a the primary suspect in JFK's assassination) feel free to add it. The problems with the info in the past wasn't necessarily the info, but the presentation.  I'm sure you'll be responsible in that regard. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 01:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * More on Jack Martin.
 * David Ferrie's library card. — Walloon 05:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

WEASEL WORDS?
Why is that tag on the article? I've read through the article a few times, and although there are weasel words in it, they all seem to be appropriate under WP:WEASEL. If no one objects, I'd like to remove the tag from this page. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Good question, make the change. Joegoodfriend 01:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk
There is currently a proposal by the Arbitration Committee to deem the above site as an unreliable source, which looks like it may pass. If the proposal does in fact pass, we will need to either delete information sourced to that site or find another more reliable source. I guess my question is do we delete the information now, or wait until a final ruling on the Arbcom on this matter?Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's too bad, I kind of like that site. Do you know what specifically is considered unreliable? Joegoodfriend 22:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's the lack of balance on the articles featured on the site as well as the lack of scholarship on a few of the articles. I personally don't have a problem with spartacus, in and of itself, but it does contain some articles which for lack of a better word are "propagandistic".  Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oswald in New Orleans
I have added a paragraph to this section regarding the HSCA and its beliefs regarding Oswald's associations in New Orleans. My cites are direct links to the HSCA Report, along with two cites of Jack Martin's statements to law enforcement and one reference to Anthony Summers (which can be corraborated by other sources). I am aware that many editors who view this page do not believe that Oswald was associated with David Ferrie, and I am open to criticism on this, but I ask you to give this change some consideration because I think the information is significant and that I have the facts straight. Joegoodfriend 02:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have any problem with the info as presented, but can you find a cite that Ferrie was an "employee" of Marcello. I'll try to look for one as well. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the changes made by another editor to my additions to this section. The editor did not post on the talk page to discuss what I had written or to attempt to gain consensus on any changes.
 * Furthermore, the changes the editor made did not make sense. Regarding Ferrie's attempt to learn the fate of his library card, the editor wrote, "the rumor turned out to be false," yet the editor's cite actually confirms that Ferrie did visit the two people in question regarding the card, thus confirming Jack Martin's original statement. Additionally, I do not feel that the statement that was added regarding the supposed contradictions in the witness testimony from the Clinton, LA witnesses was accurate or in context. Joegoodfriend 05:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No one is disputing that Ferrie visited the two women and asked about the library card. However, it is simply false that Ferrie's library card was found among Oswald's possessions. But Ferrie was told on the day after the assassination that such a story had been reported (the story was eventually traced back to Jack Martin). That Ferrie went to ask the two women about the card means less than was is being inferred — an innocent man can just as much wish to know how a false story about the card originated, and ask witnesses who may have an answer. And it is also a fact that Ferrie showed his New Orleans library card to FBI agents who interviewed him on Nov. 27. I provided good citations for this information. Likewise, I supplied citations for the additional information about the testimony of the witnesses in Clinton, Louisiana. None of the witnesses came forward with these claims after the assassination, and their accounts given in 1969 contradict in many ways the testimony they gave in 1978.


 * For these reasons, I am restoring the additions I made to the New Orleans section of the article. It would be a biased article that could present evidence of conspirary without allowing equally well-sourced evidence against a conspiracy to balance it. — Walloon 08:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I took out the language that said the "rumor was false" to comply with NPOV. I simply stated the facts as we know them to let the reader decide if Martin was telling the truth.  It is possible that Oswald had Ferrie library card that was never found and Ferrie had another one that he was able to produce to the FBI.  Is it likely? no.  Is it even relevant? Probably not. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Two changes.
 * I have removed the reference to the statements of some of the Clinton witnessess from the 1960's. This paragraph is a straightforward summary of the Committee's findings (just as most of the rest of the article is a straightforward summary of the Warren Commission's conclusions). The fact that some researchers believe that some of the Clinton witnesses may have told contradictory stories in the '60's has no relevance to the HSCA opinion that the witnesses were credible.
 * We have a cite from McAdams regarding Ferrie's library card search. An editor first wrote, "The rumor turned out to be false," when the cite in fact says the opposite, and then the editor wrote that Ferrie was able to produce his library card for the FBI, when in fact the cite says no such thing. I don't know what's going on here, but I have changed the wording to reflect what the cite actually says.
 * Lastly, I have to say that I totally disagree with the statement "It would be a biased article that could present evidence of conspirary without allowing equally well-sourced evidence against a conspiracy to balance it." Again, almost the entire article is a summary of the Warren Commission's point of view. I could just as easily claim that the entire article is biased because every reference to the WC is not balanced against well-sourced evidence (which certainly is available) pointing to conspiracy.


 * We are very close to an edit war here. Does anyone have an opinion as to how this can be avoided? Happy Holidays. Joegoodfriend 19:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see the citation to the Warren Commission Document 75, containing an FBI report dated Nov. 27, 1963:
 * "[Ferrie] exhibited New Orleans Public Library card # M.L. 89437 bearing the stamped letter N.R. - P.D. in the upper left corner. Ferrie said the letters N.R. mean non-resident and letters P.D. mean paid. He related that at the time he obtained this library card he was living in Metairie, Louisiana and had to pay for the issuance of the card. The library card shows that it was issued in the name of Mr. DAVID FERRIE, 331 Atherton Drive, and expiration date is shown as March 13, 1963." (pp. 199-200)


 * "Ferrie said he has not made an application for a new card since the above card expired and that this card has been in his possession at all times." (p. 294).
 * Posner reports the same information:
 * "The FBI's interview of Ferrie was prompted by two rumors, later reported in Garrison's investigation. One was that Ferrie's New Orleans library card had been found in a search of Oswald's house in Dallas after the assassination. That was false, and Ferrie produced his library card for the FBI agents in the November 27 interview." (p. 142n)
 * So I don't know what you mean by "then the editor wrote that Ferrie was able to produce his library card for the FBI, when in fact the cite says no such thing."
 * As for the information about the statements of the Clinton witnesses contradciting their 1969 testimony and their 1978 testimony, that is entirely relevant to the subject of whether Oswald was in Clinton as alleged. The House Committee did not have access to the 1967 statements when they came to their conclusion about the witnesses' credibility. If the witnesses' 1978 testimony is relevant to an article on Oswald, so are their statements in 1967 and 1969. An encyclopedia article aims at presenting the reader with balanced information to get at the truth. — Walloon 20:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that some of that information is from Posner's book, which is in the cite. Perhaps the editor could have more clearly stated the information and where it was being cited from.  As for the bias of the article, if it is biased, it's due to the lack of reliable sources on the alternate version.  As  the ArbCom stated, "[since the test is verifiability]... in the absence of verifiable alternative versions of events that have been published in reliable sources, the dull official versions of events may form the bulk of a Wikipedia article regardless of public opinion regarding a matter."  However, I would request that you (and any other) continue to be bold and add properly sourced and relevant information to the article. Merry Christmas, Happy New Year to you as well. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Per your recommendation, I have linked to an online version of Warren Commission Document 75. — Walloon 20:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool! Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Roberts testimony
I have removed the following sentence for lack of sourcing:
 * However, Roberts also maintained that she saw Oswald get into the back of a two-manned police car after a brief discussion with its occupants.

Nothing in Roberts' testimony cited makes that claim. — Walloon 17:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * FTR-- she said it in an interview with an author some time later than her WC testimony. The statement used to be sourced, but with all the reversions and deletions, I believe it may have been lost. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The Posnerphile is right, Roberts says no such thing. She did however state that a police car with two uniformed officers pulled into the driveway beeped before driving away, it was only then that Oswald left the house at 1:03 or 1:04. This contradicts the WC’s conclusion of Oswald leaving at 1:00. And indicates that others were helping to frame Oswald. Only one of Posner’s minions could sum up Roberts’ significant testimony with, “she was blind in one eye.”

Picture
Where's the famous Bob Jackson photograph of Ruby shooting Lee? Why are we using a crappy one from a weird angle that's horribly distorted? I know it's PD (compared to the copyrighted Jackson one), but I think we have a very strong fair use claim for arguably using the better quality and more historically important image. Hbdragon88 23:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see discussions under here,here, and above. Simply put no one has ever decided to ask Mr. Jackson to use his photo, and there is a question of whether its use here would be infringement or fair use.  So in the end we're stuck with that photo. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Spartacus site
Here is an update on the Spartacus situation:

A finding of fact in the RPJ case mentions the site spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk (founder John Simkin), characterised as propagandistic in relation to uncritical inclusions as factual of material on the Kennedy assassination. The Spartacus site contains unrelated historical material on many subjects. Having heard from John Simkin, and having myself linked to Spartacus pages on numerous occasions, I would like to clarify that (as far as I'm concerned) the FoF in the case is not intended as a blanket condemnation. Editors should exercise good judgement as to tone and factual reliability of these pages, case by case. Charles Matthews 20:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Added by Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Use of Allegedly
In the article and the article summary, User: Quadzilla99 bring up an interesting point. In the Walker section he added the word allegedly, as obviously LHO was never convicted in a criminal court, of any crimes relating to General Walker or JFK for that matter. However, two government Commissions, acting under the Federal Rules of Evidence, and commissioned by the Executive and Legislative branch to make findings of fact did find that Oswald committed these acts. I personally believe this is sufficient to overcome the innocent until proven guilty objections, and to therefore remove the "allegedly's" from the article. Of course one is free to disagree with these findings, as is done everyday with jury decisions. What do other editors think. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

FTR-- I deleted the entry to get Quadzilla to comment here. I wanted to hear his thoughts. If someone want's to put it back in after reading the comments, I have no objections. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, this problem comes up again and again when criminals die before they can be convicted. But we don't see much about the "alleged" assassin of Abraham Lincoln. Nor (to pick a modern example) the "alleged" 9/11 plane hijackers. Except when dealing with nut theories, of course. S  B Harris 23:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, Ramsquire. The word "allegedly" is used by journalists to avoid libel suits by living persons. Even among conspiracy theorists, the majority believe that Oswald was part of the conspiracy. — Walloon 06:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Government commissions are not the same as a court of law with defense lawyers and defense witnesses. It's fine to leave it out if that is the majority opinion that's the way Wikipedia works. Way to pull the nutbag card SBHarris by the way, very civil. Quadzilla99 01:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, what can I say? Are you questioning the existence of nut-theories? Or perhaps want to suggest that nut-theories exist, but that are self-created de novo, without any assistance of actual nutcases? I think that either position is untenable. Crazy and paranoid people who refuse to believe in reality, do exist. And they exist in relation to EVERY single historical event of importance, from the Apollo moon landings to the Nazi holocaust. Why should JFK's murder be any different? I used the 9/11 attacks case because the analogy is rather close. As you know, there are a passionate number of people who think the WTC towers were blown by internal explosives after the jets hit, as part of a government conspiracy.  Three generations ago, the analogous event was Pearl Harbor, which many people simply could not accept as the action of a "single shooter government", and figured that Rooseveldt also had to be in on it. But all these theories, besides being amazingly paranoid and bloody-minded, have one thing in common: they are way more complicated and difficult than needed, to explain the known facts. If Oswald and his mailorder rifle didn't do the deed, then they were framed as well as any person ever has been in history, and yet have it still detected. That's remarkable. That good a frame-job requires dozens and dozens of people, and requires that nobody ever talk, from the guy who hired Oswald to work at the TSBD, to the guy who told him (indirectly) there was a job there, to the guys who sent JFK past the building, to various cops who fabricated evidence like the bill of sale some FBI guy found for the rifle in the middle of the night in Chicago, and the guys who made and found the backyard photos, and so on and so on and so on. And if Oswald did do all he's supposed to have done, then it's nearly as wonderful and remarkable that some other sniper managed to hit JFK AT THE SAME TIME (to within a couple of seconds) from another location. It's really better than the twin tower bombs.  S  B Harris 21:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It stays the way it is, everything is fine calm down, seriously. I just didn't appreciate the implication that I was a nutcase for disagreeing. Are you always this on-edge? Quadzilla99 01:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stating the reasons behind your edit. As I said before, you did bring up a good point that needed to be discussed. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Early life and Marine Corps service
Oswald's place of birth was changed from New Orleans, LA to Slidell, LA on Dec 13, 05 — 66.157.39.153 00:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Birthplace
71.81.59.55 17:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC) There seems to be confusion as to where he is born. The reference at the bottom of this page is quite convincing that he was born in New Orleans, but many places along the internet site Slidell as his birthplace. Maybe it is easier to say that he was born in New Orleans instead of the smaller suburb?
 * Oswald was not born in Slidell, and never lived there. His birth certificate comes from Orleans Parish. Slidell is in neighboring St. Tammany Parish. — Walloon 14:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Media coverage of Oswald-Ruby shooting
The additions to the section of Jack Ruby's shooting of Lee Oswald, with reporter's names, and what they said, are really more about the media coverage than Oswald. In other words, the extra details add nothing to knowledge of Oswald. A simple description of the shooting was sufficient for, what is afterall, a biography. I suggest that section be reduced to its essentials. — Walloon 14:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Never tried...
How do we know for a fact that Lee Harvey Oswald killed president John F Kennedy? He never had a jury trial, because Jack Ruby killed him first! --Defender 911 01:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The prevailing evidence points to him being the killer. Just as the prevailing evidence points to evolution, the existence of gravity, and many other things that are taken as fact, but cannot be proven as definitive fact. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 15:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. But in America, you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, which is now impossible. Still, most people (including me) belive that Mr. Oswald killed the former president. --Defender 911 21:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are referring to this article, it does not say that Oswald is guilty. It only states that four government commissions (working under the Federal Rules of Evidence) found him guilty.  As for in general, clearly we cannot know indisputably that Oswald did it alone as we didn't directly witness the assassination and cannot make credibility determinations of the persons who claimed to have seen someone mathing his description committing the acts. But there is enough to make an educated and scientific finding. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not refering to the article. This discussion is over. --Defender 911 20:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Early life section missing
The biography begins with Oswald's life in the Soviet Union. What about his childhood (intelligent, not well adjusted, no friends), family (dead father, distant mother), education (dropped out of school), time in the Marines, etc.? The first five-sixths of his life are really needed in the article. (And I'm not knowledgeable enough to write it.) Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 19:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * On March 28th several sections were replaced with a paragraph of juvenile nonsense. Eight minutes later the vandalism was removed but the sections were not restored. When removing vandalism, editors should also take care to restore any material that may have been removed. I've restored the missing material. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 19:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Aha, should have looked closer at the edit history. Thanks for fixing this. Regards, Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 21:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"Investigations" section
The "Investigations" section is basically irrelevant to Lee Harvey Oswald. All it does is expound on theories of what people other than Oswald did. This information may have a place in Wikipedia, but this article doesn't seem to be it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Antaeus Feldspar, the article takes up a lot of space for something that is worth mentioning but not studying here. Since they deal with his culpability, a mention of their findings would be appropriate in that area. As too the investigations themselves, and the theories, perhaps that kind of information belongs in Reaction to the assassination of John F. Kennedy or as an article in Category:John F. Kennedy assassination. Anynobody 05:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This discussion has taken place before . No consensus was reached, but I figured you could read why some feel the section is necessary.  Ramsquire (throw me a line) 15:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggest mentioning his Sharpshooter status in lead
Given the controversy surrounding whether or not he could've hit Kennedy, the fact that he was an excellent shot seems relevant: Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was a an American Marxist, former USMC Sharpshooter, alleged assassin and murderer, who himself was killed in front of a group of reporters gathered to watch his transport by the Dallas Police Department. According to the United States government, Oswald was responsible for the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy, on November 22, 1963. He was arrested that afternoon for murdering officer J. D. Tippit in full view of several witnesses and then attempting to hide in a theater. After his arrest, witnesses identified him as fitting the assassin's description and as an employee of the book depository from which the shots came. He was charged with the killing of the president and a police officer. Oswald denied the charges, claiming he was a "patsy." Two days later, Oswald was shot and killed by Jack Ruby on live television as he was being led from the back of a Dallas Police station. I also think his political background is worth mentioning in passing as well, even though I doubt that was his motivation, most American's had never lived in the Soviet Union before or would want to at that time anyway. He did both. Anynobody 05:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is relevant, but I am not sure it belongs way up at the top.--Mantanmoreland 20:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Two questions, is there a "sharpshooter badge" handed out by the Marines? Did Oswald get classified as such?  We'd need to verify he was a sharpshooter as opposed to a very good shot. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope I'm not coming off as one of those editors who believe it's "my way" or nothing, so I really appreciate your questions. To address Ramsquire's questions first, yes indeed there is a sharpshooter badge awarded by the USMC. I included it as a link above, I'll repost it without the alternate name:Weapons Qualification Badge. I do agree that the info should be verified, but it shouldn't be too difficult to find. Mantanmoreland I understand your point, but I've been looking at WP:LEAD for another article and it says that an attempt to summarize the article should be made. In summing up his life he did do other things before he shot Kennedy and the police officer. (Usually a Marxist wouldn't want to be a Marine, especially around the mid to late fifties). Oswald was an odd guy, his weird behavior and skill with a rifle should be mentioned before the events of November 1963. Anynobody 02:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's actually why I don't think "sharpshooter" should be in the first paragraph, as it seems to run against summary style.--Mantanmoreland 12:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, the lead should have a sentence or clause dedicated to each subsection of the article. So with that said, I believe that we could add clauses that he was a former Marine, and once lived in the Soviet Union. Mention of the sharpshooter badge, if he recieved one, would go into the early life section. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * One sentence per section is not a hard and fast requirement. In complex articles like this, it would result in very cumbersome leads, which is also discouraged. Right now the lead is pretty good.--Mantanmoreland 16:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually agree with you, but I'd have no problem tweaking the lead to read Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was, according to four United States government investigations, responsible for the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy, on November 22, 1963. A former Marine, who defected to the Soviet Union and later returned, Oswald publicly denied the charges of killing the president and Dallas police officer J. D. Tippit, claiming he was a "patsy." Two days later, Oswald, while in police custody, was shot and killed by Jack Ruby on live television.
 * Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks OK with me. I think adding "sharpshooter" to that would be a bit too much detail.--Mantanmoreland 16:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with it too, the original lead made no mention of him even being a Marine. Since his shooting ability is discussed in that section, it is addressed to my satisfaction. Anynobody 23:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I just tweaked it by removing "charges" in the sentence, as he was not charged with the Kennedy assassination but denied both.--Mantanmoreland 15:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to edit the lead because I think it reads great as currently constructed, but, Oswald was charged with the murder of Kennedy just before midnight on the 22nd. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Normative-Conservative Editorial Policy of Wikipedia
Could be that the editorial prime directive of Wikipedia is normative-conservative. Not entirely sure, but seems to be that might be the case. Kennedy was assassinated; shortly thereafter Martin King was assassinated, a month later Robert Kennedy was assassinated. Those were not independent aleatory events. When Wikipedia can display the true facts/story of those events, then it can aspire to be the world's encyclopaedia! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.202.44.80 (talk) 05:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Not at all, it depends on what can be proven. Can you link Oswald, James Earl Ray, and Sirhan Sirhan in way that conforms with WP:ATT? If so, cite your sources and go for it. We can't use a number of assassinations in a given amount of time to prove conspiracy though. Anynobody 05:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Oswald's culpability
I have a problem with the first sentence in the second paragraph. It says "Public opinion is still divided regarding Oswald's culpability." The ABC News survey cited shows that only seven percent believe Oswald was not involved at all. That contradicts the sentence. I believe that most conspiracy theories say he was culpable to some extent, but say others were involved.--Mantanmoreland 20:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah but the other 93 percent have Oswald culpable in varying degrees, either acting alone, or with other persons who would share the blame. I guess the sentence could use some tweaking to get that point across more clearly.   Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that was my point. The public overwhelmingly believes he was culpable and this entire paragraph, particularly the first sentence, implies otherwise.--Mantanmoreland 21:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It could read "Public opinion is still divided regarding how culpable Oswald is in the assassition, with most Americans believing there was a second gunman." Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm still troubled by the word "culpable," as nine-tenths believe he was involved. How about "Although most Americans agree Oswald had some role in the assassination, most believe there was a second gunman or that other persons were involved." Or words to that effect? --Mantanmoreland 21:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with that. But we can also delete the first sentence of the paragraph entirely, and keep the rest, which simply recite the poll. Ramsquire (throw me a line)

Done. I added about the 7 pct. I trust that's not too much detail. My good editing deed of the day.--Mantanmoreland 22:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think scaling it down makes sense.--Mantanmoreland 00:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

'Former Marine' and Walker in lead
I'm dubious about mentioning the Walker attempt, a secondary detail, in the lead. Also the term "former Marine" is a no-no among many, as Marines will tell you "once a Marine, always a Marine." Perhaps that can be finessed.--Mantanmoreland 22:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is why I was hesitant to add stuff to the lead because then invariably more minor info gets added and the lead becomes a re-telling of the article. I understand what you are saying about Marines.  But I think they'll make the case Oswald is quite the exception.  I don't know how many MArines would defect to the Soviet Union during the height of the Cold War. :). Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point! This may have been the only "former Marine" in history.--Mantanmoreland 13:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"Sharpshooter" or "marksman"..?
The article currently states:

''While in the Marines, Oswald was trained in the use of the M-1 rifle. Following that training, Oswald was tested in December of 1956, and obtained a score of 212, which was 2 points above the minimum for qualifications as a sharpshooter. In May 1959, on another range, Oswald scored 191, which was 1 point over the minimum for ranking as a marksman.''

Sharpshooter and marksman are both wikilinked, however both point to Marksman. The article mentions a "progressive sequence of skills" being "marksman-sharpshooter-expert". I think this should be cleared up in the relevant section. -- Mal 17:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The clarification is in the right place-- the "Marksman" article.  This article is only re-telling the verifiable facts regarding Oswald.  We don't have to explain the difference here. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Texas rules of evidence (civil and criminal)
'''ARTICLE VIII. HEARSAY'''

'''RULE 801. DEFINITIONS'''

The following definitions apply under this article:


 * (a)	Statement. A "statement" is (1) an oral or written verbal expression or (2) nonverbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by the person as a substitute for verbal expression.


 * (b)	Declarant. A "declarant" is a person who makes a statement


 * (c)	Matter Asserted. "Matter asserted" includes any matter explicitly asserted, and any matter implied by a statement, if the probative value of the statement as offered flows from declarant's belief as to the matter.


 * (d)	Hearsay. "Hearsay" is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.


 * (e)	Statements Which Are Not Hearsay. A statement is not hearsay if:


 * (1)	Prior statement by witness. The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is:


 * (A)	inconsistent with the declarant's testimony, and was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding except a grand jury proceeding in a criminal case, or in a deposition;


 * (B)	consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive;


 * (C)	one of identification of a person made after perceiving the person; or


 * (D)	taken and offered in a criminal case in accordance with Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.071 [Testimony of Child Who Is Victim of Offense].


 * (2)	Admission by party-opponent. The statement is offered against a party and is:


 * (A)	the party's own statement in either an individual or representative capacity;

'''RULE 803. HEARSAY EXCEPTIONS; AVAILABILITY OF DECLARANT IMMATERIAL'''

The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness:


 * (5)	Recorded Recollection. A memorandum or record concerning a matter about which a witness once had personal knowledge but now has insufficient recollection to enable the witness to testify fully and accurately, shown to have been made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness' memory and to reflect that knowledge correctly, unless the circumstances of preparation cast doubt on the document's trustworthiness. If admitted, the memorandum or record may be read into evidence but may not itself be received as an exhibit unless offered by an adverse party.

— Walloon 03:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)