Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories

no "conspiracy theory"

The term "conspiracy theories" was originally circulated in the immediate aftermath of the assassination as a means of distancing anyone who doubted the official narrative from the discussion, and there have been and continue to be ongoing efforts to discredit anyone who expresses such doubts. The term "alternative versions" would be more accurate, since it takes into account the fact that the research done by alternative historians of the JFK assassination, as a whole, is at least as competent and exhaustive as the research advanced in support of the official version.

Marrs and Fetzer are not reliable sources

"However, other researchers, including Jim Marrs and James Fetzer, have concluded the opposite—that Baker's claims are credible."

I would like to delete this text. I submit that (1) James Fetzer is never a RS for wikipedia, as he has embraced (or created) a number of conspiracy theories that are not supported by any other reliable researcher, and (2) Jim Marrs is a highly questionable source whose un-cited opinion is not relevant and does not add value to this article. What do the editors think? Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

In general, a RS should be someone on whose word a credible assertion can be based. In this case, we are talking about claims and counter-claims on various theories, some of which are not necessarily credible or based on concrete facts, so it need only suffice that said authors made the claim/counter-claim, not whether they are in the normal sense of the term a RS. Canada Jack (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

If the editors agree that a claim or counter-claim is not based on fact, tends to be a non-credible POV, and that it adds no value to the article, does it belong in the article? Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

There are a lot of unreliable sources with these conspiracy theories, but if they were said they should be added. We all know that Muammar Gaddafi blames Israel, but even thought it's complete WP:CB, it ought to be left in. If David Icke went on TV tomorrow, and said aliens from the planet zippotron killed Kennedy, it shouldn't be left out no matter how much of a non-RS it is. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Marrs and Fetzer are good sources for conspiratorial claims, but not for factual assertions like the credibility of a particular witness. Gamaliel (talk) 04:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Does every conspiracy theory listed need a paragraph with a laundry list of names of people who've endorsed that specific conspiracy? How about at least moving the names to citations? Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this too. It is sufficient to note the originator of he theory. Gamaliel (talk) 07:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Atomic Energy Commission investigation of John F. Kennedy assassination evidence for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Atomic Energy Commission investigation of John F. Kennedy assassination evidence is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atomic Energy Commission investigation of John F. Kennedy assassination evidence until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Icarus4 (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Communist League of the Caribbean

I would welcome help with Anti-Communist League of the Caribbean if anyone has any expertise there. An anti-Castro group with links to Guy Bannister. Interesting article but needs an expert eye. Ulcerspar12 (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)