Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2
• /Archive 3
• /Archive 4
• /Archive 5
• /Archive 6

"Editors" must learn that it is improper to delete properly cited information because the editor doesn't like it

(Personal attack removed by Ramsquire 23:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)).

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. Gamaliel 14:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You know what irks me about this? On RPJ's talk page, I explained my edit concerned only Griffith's opinion, and if he wanted to link the doctor's testimony from the WC, I'd have no problem with it. Instead of taking my opinion in a good faith way, he writes this stuff. Ramsquire 18:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, just because a pesron writes a book on the Mormon religion as you claim Griffth has done does not disqualify any of his work on the Kennedy assassination that he has published as source that may be cited in Wikipedia. This is the "stuff" of yours that I find to be incorrect.

Second, the Griffith work that was cited as a link, gathered all the pertinent medical testimony together in one work and saves the reader many many hours trying to locate and gather the information on the subject. Therefore, your alternative of simply citing reams of medical transcripts as an alternative to the painstaking efforts already expended by Mr. Griffith is simply not accepable. Don't you agree?

RPJ 22:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, RPJ, the fact that Griffith has written books on the Mormon religion had absolutely nothing with why I deleted the cite to his website. And to try to link the two is really bad faith on your part. My objection to him was that I don't believe he is notable enough to qualify under WP:RS. I feel that way because he had written four books unrelated to the topic, and the stuff he has written on the topic was mostly in pro-conspiracy bulletins, and the like. Trying to cast an allusion that I'm some kind of bigot is really low, even for you. Grow up, RPJ. Ramsquire 17:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of my cosmetic change

criticism- 1. The act of criticizing, especially adversely. 2. A critical comment or judgment.

Keep in mind that "criticize" means to find fault with or to judge the merits and faults of; analyze and evaluate.

scrutiny- 1. A close, careful examination or study. 2. Close observation; surveillance.

Therefore, what exactly is the beef with my change of words? Scrutiny is just as accurate as criticism here. I used scrutiny because there has been no official condemnation or blaming of the FBI, that I am aware of. It has come mainnly from pro-conspiracy authors. Scrutiny encompasses all views on the Hosty subject. Ramsquire 19:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The editor above must learn that his editing is subject criticism

(Personal attack removed by Ramsquire 23:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC))

Um... you're the one who seems to have a problem with emotions here with your page long responses and all. Anywhoo, back to the topic, nice strawman argument. I have no idea what you are talking about. The changes I made were in relation to Hosty. You're talking about investigation of conspiracy. The FBI has not been criticized because of the Hosty situation. However, Hosty's actions, as an FBI agent has been scrutinized. Ramsquire 00:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The above post left out the necessary citation to the English encyclopedia

Note: In order for readers to draw their own conclusion they need to review the citation which is to the English educational encyclopedia called Spartacus. Here it is:

• Soon after Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, [FBI agent]Hosty was called into the office of his superior, Gordon Shanklin. Hosty was asked about what he knew about Oswald.

• When Oswald was shot dead by Jack Ruby two days later, Shanklin ordered Hosty to destroy Oswald's letter.

• The Federal Bureau of Investigation discovered that Hosty's name and phone number appeared in Oswald's address book. J. Edgar Hoover was worried that this indicated that Oswald had been working closely with the FBI. That he might have been an FBI informant on the activities of left-wing groups such as the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Instead of passing Oswald's address book to the Warren Commission, the FBI provided a typewritten transcription of the document in which the Hosty entry was omitted.

• When it was discovered that Hosty had misled the Warren Commission he was suspended from duty. Later he was transferred to the FBI office in Kansas City. [Apparently the authorities never caught who deleted the FBI agent's name from Oswald's address book]

• It became public knowledge when someone in the FBI tipped off a journalist about the existence of Oswald's letter. Oswald's relationship with Hosty was explored by the Select Committee on Intelligence Activities and the Select Committee on Assassinations.

• Hosty admitted that he had misled the Warren Commission by not telling them about the existence of the letter from Oswald. Gordon Shanklin denied knowing about the letter but this evidence was contradicted by the testimony of Hosty and William Sullivan, the Assistant Director of the FBI.

RPJ 05:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ramsquire is wrong again

Unfortunately, editor Ramsquire is wrong again. Ramsquire wants to delete from the article information that the FBI not only got caught destroying evidence (a letter from Oswald to an FBI agent two days before Kennedy was murdered), but also that a Congressional Committee that was empowered to investigate the Kennedy murder, concluded that the FBI failed in its duty to investigate a conspiracy to murder Kennedy. Congressional Committee said about the FBI. Read it--its history.

RPJ 05:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

A minor point

I have to make a point, which is; if someone scrutinises something (meaning investigating it) they must then absolve someone of wrong-doing, or criticize them/sentence them, for doing something wrong. --andreasegde 16:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your point. Do you think I fundamentally changed the paragraph? If so, please explain. Ramsquire 16:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion on Improving article

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
• Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.
• Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
• Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
• Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
  • allege
  • correctly
  • apparently
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 01:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I added the above information from the peer review information for those of you interested in improving the article. Ramsquire 16:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The video link to the assassaination needs to be authenticated

The video tape needs to be authenticated. about three or four months ago another unauthenticated tape was put on the site and the editors complained and it was taken off. This version is terrible.

Hasn't anyone checked it out?

RPJ 03:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This article has changed for the worse over the last 6-8 months

I've looked at the article and compared it to last spring and its gotten terrible. There is almost nothing about the assassination itself anymore. Almost all the description of what occurred, during the assassination and immediately afterward has been deleted. Why bother having an article on the assassination if it the actual events, that are very well documented, are deleted and replaced by a bunch of argument about Oswald. Isn't there an Oswald article?

63.164.145.198 18:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Be bold. Make any improvements you feel need to be made. Ramsquire 18:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Rifle misidentification

Recently we have had two editors adding the rifle misidentifcation issue to the article. I agree with the administrator on this issue: leave it out. Yes, it's true that NBC and WBAP radio identified it as a British Enfield .303, and the officers who found it initially identified it as a Mauser. However, if the editors feel that this information belongs on Wikipedia, there is already a better page for it, John F. Kennedy assassination:Rifle. Joegoodfriend 16:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting, can you point me to that NBC, WBAP identification? I always thought that the Enfield stuff came about because an officer was photographed seen handing his pump shotgun to another officer outside the TSBD. Ramsquire 16:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we can have a brief mention of the misidentification of the rifle as Mauser and a Enfield. The section clearly explains that the rifle was proven to be a Mannlicher-Carcano. An expanded story of the mis-id, can be told on the rifle sub-page in a neutral, non conspiracy slanted way. Mytwocents 18:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You can find a documented summary of the misidentifications here [1]. Also there exists a news video which shows a rifle being brought out of the SBD by police. In the video, the announcer states that it is the assassin's rifle being brought down from "the roof" of the building. Some have claimed that the rifle in the video is not a Cacarno (or a Mauser) and is, in fact, an Enfield. Joegoodfriend 18:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussing the misidentifications in a brief, neutral way would be fine for the rifle page. Gamaliel 18:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That movement to another page is a "point of view fork." It is prohibited on this web site since it is a tactical device to move information an editor personally doesn't agree with to a separate page. It is not quite as crude as simply deleting material but it is clearly wrong under web site rules.

08:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

"The rifle was proven to be a Mannlicher-Carcano."

Isn't this based on someone, measuring the barrel of a rifle in a picture 15 years after the Warren Report and coming to the belief that it was the same length as a Carcano." Am I mistaken as to the proof?

What is so puzzling is why didn't the Warren Commission just hand the rifle to the police officers who found it and ask them under oath whether that was the rifle they in fact found? That is how they do it in court.

Some one also deleted out of the article the statement by the Dallas police Chief, Jesse Curry who explained to the newspaper later on that they never did have any proof putting the rifle into Oswald's hands.

Another question: wasn’t the rifle booked into evidence as a Mauser? What is very strange is that the rifle that allegedly shot the president of the United States has almost no authentication that would be normal and a history of being misidentified.

RPJ 08:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

How about this as a brief mention on the JFKA page? The mis-id story can be expanded with names etc., to paragraph length on the JFKA Rifle page.

Initial news reports referred to the rifle found in the snipers nest as a "Mauser", a German bolt-action rifle similar in appearance to the Mannlicher-Carcano [2] and also as a "Lee-Enfield". Later reports correctly identified the recovered rifle as a Mannlicher-Carcano.

Mytwocents 18:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The rifle in question was a 23 year-old somewhat obscure surplus foreign military rifle. It was an Italian model 1891 Carcano, but it had an action copied from a German Mauser and it looked like a German Mauser and I'm not surprised the cops thought at first glance it was a Mauser. It didn't SAY Carcano on it. All it said was “Made in Italy”, “CAL.6.5”, “1940”, and the serial number C2766. That information was eventually enough to identify what kind of rifle it was and where it came from, to the exclusion of all others. What's the problem? The rifle still exists. Klein's was known to be selling Carcanos of that period (I happen to own a copy of the American Rifleman with the exact advertisement that was clipped out to buy this weapon). Klein's sold a surplus Carcano to A. Hidell in Dallas at Oswald's PO box, with that particular serial number. The Carcano with the serial number C2766 went from Chicago to Dallas, to Oswald's PO box, in March 1963. There it was picked up by somebody. Who do you suppose it was? The rifle was later found on the sixth floor of the TBD, but it had been bought and shipped long before Oswald ever worked at the TBD (he was at the time working for Stoval), or before JFK's people ever decided to drive him by the Depository. What do you you think the person ordering the rifle to be shipped to Oswald's PO box, intended it to be used for?? SBHarris 18:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

<Deleted PA>

The recovery of the rifle in the TBD was filmed by Tom Alyea AT THE TIME IT HAPPENED. [3] [4]. The rifle was also held up for several other reporters to photograph. These photos show that it was a Carcano, not a Mauser. It really doesn't matter what the police booked the rifle "as". Since the model of the weapon wasn't printed on it, the police could easily have made a mistake in naming it. So what if they did? But we know for certain, because we have many photos of it being recovered, that the TBD rifle was a Carcano. From the HSCA reoport:

The alleged assassination weapon was the subject of many photographs. An hour or so after President Kennedy was shot and killed on November 22, 1963, the Dallas police found a rifle in the Texas School Book Depository. (69) The police photographed the rifle where it was found. During the search of the building, a 16-millimeter motion picture was taken by Thomas Alyea of television station WFAA. This motion picture film depicts the rifle at the time that it was discovered by the police. (70) A police officer carried the rifle from the building and, as he walked east on Elm Street and across Houston Street, reporter Allen, of the Dallas Times Herald, took a series of about seven pictures in rapid succession. (71) As the rifle was carried through the halls of the police station, it was held overhead for reporters to see. Numerous photographs were taken at that time.

These photos all show a Carcano. I would think that would be the end of the disussion. SBHarris 22:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Not end of discussion

These questions need answering on this point:

• Who at the Warren Commission proceedings identified the rifle that the Commission believed was the one found in the building on the day of the murder?
• Why weren't the officers who found the rifle asked to identify the rifle as every other witness would be asked in any other murder case?
• Why wasn't a proper chain of custody kept on the rifle, especially when they knew that Oswald was claiming he was framed?

The rifle was never properly verified under oath as being the weapon found, nor was a proper chain of custody ever kept on the weapon from the time it was found. That would seem pretty important since Oswald claimed he didn't own a rifle and was being framed.

But, you argue it doesn't matter, because the rifle in evidence is the one that was found. Why, because you argue that we can tell from the pictures taken of the rifle at the time it was found. Yet you point out that the rifle can easily be mistaken for an entirely different rifle, and that the police repeatedly did misdientify the type of rifle found. That's fine. Sometime weapons look similar.

But then how can the rifle be so definitely identified from that picture you cited us to look at? Is that what the Commission relied upon?

RPJ 09:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The rifle can be easily misidentified by people making a visual inspection with no materials to assist them. The rifle can be easily identified if you have, as professionals do, books with pictures of every rifle ever manufactured, knowledge of identifying characteristics, etc. Gamaliel 14:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Where did the Warren Commission use any of this "easy" secondary identification?
2. If it did use unusual police methods, why were basic proven procedures abandoned for some secondary source of identification?

• These questions are asked because it is very difficult to find people who will commit perjury to verify a murder weapon as being found on the scene of a crime.
• If one has a weapon that is not verified to be at the crime scene and not kept in a strict chain of custody it is basically useless as evidence.
• It is so odd that the in JFK's murder (the "Crime of the Century") there is no evidence verifying the alleged murder weapon.RPJ 17:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want to state that the rifle was switched, find a reputable source to cite. A conspiracy page, of course, won't do it. The chain of custody was not perfect, but Oswald's M/C rifle was determined to be the murder weapon. But, I think any of your statements on this talk page since your last block, that even hint at a PA or are off subject, should be deleted from the talk page. You need to learn to get along with other editors and stop acting the troll. Mytwocents 18:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

RPJ, Here is the diff of the edits you made this afternoon [5]. You basicly added some conspiracy arguments with POV launguge that implies the rifle was switced and the bullet and palm print were planted. That won't wash in an encyclopedia article. Mytwocents 19:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• All significant points of view are put in a encyclopedia, otherwise it misleads the reader into believing that it has all the significant relevant knowledge on a subject matter when the reader doesn't. The facts should be put in and let the reader decide.

• One should not fear information and knowledge but learn from them. How will the reader understand the controversy over the Warren Commission findings, if the reference work excludes well known facts about the Commission's defective investigation and contrary facts?

• Why should the observations of the Dallas Police Chief about the Kennedy murder be excluded?
• Should we simply put in observations from people who agree with the Warren Commission? RPJ 22:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

outdent

“Made in Italy”, “CAL.6.5”, “1940”, serial number C2766

I'm not sure a perfect chain of custody is even relevant here. The rifle found in the TSBD was identified by as WWII Carcano on the basis of footage of it in the act of being found in the TSBD, by photographic experts in the HSCA, not the Warren commission. This is a unique and odd weapon. A Carcano with serial number C2766 was sold by Klein's in Chicago to A. Hidell (Oswald's alias), and sent by them to Oswald's PO box in Dallas. Where it was picked up either by Oswald, his wife, or by A. Hidell, the only people authorized to get stuff from the post office under that number (no, I don't think the rifle fit in the PO Box hole-- somebody had to physically ask the postal employee for it, and show ID.) That rifle and no other is now in the national archives. How do YOU propose it got there? Carcano C2766 was mailed to Oswald's PO in Dallas. A WWII Carcano was filmed being found at Oswald's place of work 100 yards from where JFK was shot. That Carcano went to the police where it went back and forth from Dallas to DC a number of times, but at the end of all this, Carcano C2766, the one that went to Oswald's PO box, is now in the Archives. If THAT Carcano is not THE Carcano found at the TSBD, we have two old surplus Italian Carcanos. Is that what you're arguing? Don't be shy. SBHarris 23:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The above is a good post that cuts to the heart of the matter. Yes, it's true that due to the chaos of the day's events some evidence was misunderstood, misreported, or its chain of evidence/possession was corrupted. But in the case of the Cacarno, these issues simply don't lead anywhere. Now I believe that there were multiple shooters, but there is no evidence that any other weapons were recovered in Dealey Plaza that day (and of course <snark> Umbrella Man managed to escape with the dart gun </snark>[6]).

Without any evidence of authorities recovering a Mauser, Enfield or any other weapon, the misidentification issue does not belong in this article. Are other historical articles chock full of trivia on how events were misreported just after they occurred? And haven't we already agreed that such trivia is OK fine for the Assassination Theories and the Assassination:Rifle pages? Can't we just close the book on this one? Joegoodfriend 21:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, let’s cut to the heart of this issue

Issue: Oswald claimed he was being framed. But, according to the Warren Commission, key evidence against Oswald was a rifle called a Carcano. The Commission believed it was owned by Oswald and found where Oswald worked—right near the “sniper’s nest.”

Problem: The rifle found was first identified by the police as a Mauser—not a Carcano.

Warren Commission Reply: It was mere “rumor or speculation” that a Mauser was found. Instead, the Warren Commission claimed that the Carcano that was marked as an exhibit was Oswald’s Carcano and was found near the sniper's nest—not a Mauser.

Flaw: No evidence was submitted that it was a Carcano rifle found in the building. The men who found the rifle were put under oath; but the Carcano rifle was never handed to the witnesses nor were they questioned about it being the one they found. This is a stunning error by the Commission especially because:

• The Commission knew Oswald had claimed he had been framed
• The Commission knew that several policemen had identified the rifle as a Mauser
• Yet, the Commission didn’t take steps to authenticate under oath that the rifle marked as the exhibit was, in fact, the one found in the building.

• Remember, this was the rifle the Commission believed was used to murder the president.

The Wikipedia article, as written, wants to tell the reader that the rifle found in the building was a Carcano and not a Mauser. In fact, the article now states:

This[film] footage [of the rifle’s retrieval]shows the rifle to be a Mannlicher-Carcano, and it was later verified by photographic analysis commissioned by the HSCA that the rifle filmed was the exact same one identified as the assassination weapon. (emphasis added)

The HSCA report doesn't say this. Therefore, there isn't a citation for this statement in the article.

We have to face facts: the frame up defense looks good. If you don’t have a citation don't put the statement in the article. Isn’t that a common sense and simple rule? RPJ 02:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Dallas Police Chief's opinion saying no "proof"

Without a word someone deleted from the article the statement by the Dallas Police Chief,Jesse Curry, about Oswald and the rifle. Chief Curry was there during the assassination and later said there was never any proof "that Oswald fired the rifle."

Someone, for no reason, deleted the statement from the article, despite the fact that it is undeniably a significant point of view on the subject. Unless there is a very good reason not to do so, I am going to put it back in:

Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry later said "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in the building (Texas School Book Depository) with a gun in his hand.". http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKcurryJ.htm

RPJ 03:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Where did the bullet come from?

The "magic" bullet was used to plug up many holes in the Warren Commission theory. This is the bullet that is used by the Warren Commission to build a circumstantial case that Oswald was the at least one of the shooters.

However, the evidence was slim, and he said he was framed. Oswald denied shooting anyone and then was murdered. After that, anyone could say anything they wanted about Oswald, and blame him for everything.

However, tne one piece of evidence was the "magic" bullet that it tied to a rifle that Oswald purports to hold in a picture. Where the rifle appeared from and put into evidence is still a mystery, but where the bullet came from is a bigger mystery.

The Warren Commission claims that it came from Governor Connally. On the other hand, the FBI said that the bullet came from Kennedy's body.

Telephone conversation between Lyndon B. Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover (29th November, 1963)

J. Edgar Hoover: All three [bullets were shot] at the President and we have them. Two of the shots fired at the President were splintered but they had characteristics on them so that our ballistics expert was able to prove that they were fired by this gun... The President - he was hit by the first and third. The second shot hit the Governor. The third shot is a complete bullet and that rolled out of the President's head. It tore a large part of the President's head off and, in trying to massage his heart at the hospital, on the way to the hospital, they apparently loosened that and it fell off onto the stretcher. And we recovered that... And we have the gun here also.

[7]

RPJ 07:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is the text that RPJ added to the article. IMO it is four conspiracy arguments strung together and called a encyclopedia paragraph. The text was deleted from the article page for POV pushing. The points made in this paragraph would be better suited on the JFK conspiracy theories page.

A bullet found on Connally's hospital stretcher, was ballisticly matched to the rifle in evidence but that bullet also fell into controversy since it was almost a whole bullet and it is known that the bullet that hit Connally fragmented and left pieces in Connally.[8] Moreover, a week after the assassination, J. Edgar Hoover told President Johnson that the "matching" bullet came out of Kennedy--not Connally-- when Kennedy was given heart massage.[9] The Warren Commission believed that the previous March, the rifle had been bought by Lee Harvey Oswald under the name "Alek James Hidell." [10] A partial palm print of Oswald was purportedly found on the barrel of the gun, but not until much later when someone said they forgot to tell everyone about a palm print was purportedly found much earlier. [11]

Mytwocents 17:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe the details belongs either in the rifle article or in the assassination article. But that is not my only issue. The above phrase encompasses many violations of Wiki policy and cannot remain in the article until fixed.

A brief review of the cites shows that RPJ, is conducting original research and is violating NPOV. Insted of simply repeating what the Warren Commission says, he is editorializing it by adding POV words like "purportedly" and qualification phrases like "The Warren Commission believed". In addition, he is adding unsourced assertions like "that bullet also fell into controversy since it was almost a whole bullet and it is known that the bullet that hit Connally fragmented and left pieces in Connally." The Warren Commission does not say this. The WC lays out why it believes the bullet was from Connally and why it is excluded as possibly coming from the President, in effect answering Hoover's mistake. Finally the WC, matches the print to OSwald, there is no purportedly. Since this is unsourced, as well as the inaccurate phrase above, it is original research, and should not be allowed in any article on the Wikipedia.

Ramsquire 17:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think somebody is also guilty of confusing J. Edgar Hoover with God Almighty. But here are some helpful ways to tell the difference: J. Edgar Hoover, as a fallable human being, has the right to still be confused about some of the facts of the JFK assassination, especially early in the investigation of it. Also, God Almighty would have no need to wiretap Martin Luther King having sex with prostitutes, because God could no doubt hear that directly. SBHarris 19:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

POV Fork

From WP:POVFORK:

“ Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique.

Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others.

Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of View.

However, it is possible for editors to act in bad faith and make article spinouts as POV forks. For instance: Editor A tries three times to insert a statement of his POV in an article section called "Criticism of XYZ"; each time the change is reverted by other editors. So he announces that he is spinning off a new article called Criticism of XYZ, and for the initial text of this article, he uses the "Criticism of XYZ" section of the main XYZ article -- with the disputed statement that he could not get accepted by consensus. This is a POV fork; Editor A is trying to get around the fact that his changes have not met consensus by inserting them in a different location.

”

Since this is not one of the bad faith examples given, it is entirely appropriate to keep the rifle section here brief and concise while having the discussion regarding misidentifications, and speculation about the bullet take place in the rifle article. Otherwise, what is the point of having the rifle article in the first place.

Ramsquire 19:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

A "content fork" where viewpoints are inadvertantly split up on the same topic has the same bad effect on the professionalism of Wikipedia as a "point of view fork." Therefore an alleged "good faith" fork is also outlawed by Wikipedia. Please see discussion below where the rules are quoted.

RPJ 20:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a fundamental policy against forks in articles.

A "fork" will splinter viewpoints on the same issue into two separate articles. Forks often come up in controversial articles where two or more editors will want only one set of viewpoints given to the reader in an article. Wikipedia forbids this because it is bothersome for the reader to go to other articles and sometimes don't know to go or don't have time. Also, it is hard to compare the various viewpoints flipping back and forth.

Sometimes "unpopular" viewpoints on a subject will be relegated to a sub-page so as not to compete for attention with the "popular" viewpoint on the main page.

Here is the Wikipedia policy against forks:

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view".

A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. A POV fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and violate one of our most important policies.

The Kennedy assassination article has a section on the rifle that the Warren Commission believed was owned by Oswald and was used by him to shoot Kennedy. This is the Commission's view point.

• Oswald denied it and said he was be framed but then was murdered.
• The Dallas Police Chief Curry believed there never was any proof that Oswald fired that rifle.
• The Warren Commission did not obtain any verified identification of the rifle that was found, and no proper chain of custody was kept on the rifle that the commission had gotten possession.
• An identification of the rifle is purportedly done 15 years later by a Congressional Committee looking at an old TV film but it was not able to identify it from the film.

Recently the assassination article had a statement that Oswald's Carcano was found in the building and used cherry picked evidence to try to make it seem true.

In fact the warren Commission claimed it was found and made other claims that have created a storm of controversy ever since. Therefore, trying to split the article in two with a fork flies in the teeth of a fundamental policy.

RPJ 19:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no fundamental policy against forks. There is a guideline to avoid them wherever possible. But as I explained above, this is one of the situations where a spinoff has been created and IMO, is the right way to go. And the information you seek to insert, once fixed and in compliance with actual fundament policies of this Wiki, should go into the rifle article. Ramsquire 20:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia does not distinguish between forks as some editors believe and allow "good faith" forks to be used. A "good faith" splintering of relevant views has the same negative effect on the quality of an encyclopedia as a bad faith fork. It is an unprofessional piece of work.

Some editors want to argue an unpopular viewpoint is wrong and therefore should be put "in in the closet" so to speak in a sub article.

Of course that is wrong on two levels:

Editors don't screen out viewpoints because they personally don't believe them; and there is a direct policy against forks.

Editors have to live with the rules.

RPJ 20:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, here's the thing. Above all Wikipedia is a consensus driven community project. Go through WP:LOP and you will see there is no policy preventing forks. What the guideline seeks to avoid is users, like yourself, who has not gained consensus for their information creating forks or mirrors where they then insert previously rejected material. Admittedly that is not the case here, so the fork issue isn't in play. However, Wiki does allow spinoff articles when the main article has gotten too long. This is the situation here. There is a spinoff article on the rifle, therefore info on said rifle should be placed in that article. But while we're on the subject here, let's look at some other actual policies that you seem to not want to discuss, i.e. WP:V and the further explanations of verifiability under WP:RS. Also, there are numerous forums for you to attempt to develop a consensus for your changes but you never use them. Consensus can change, but right now, every editor who has offered an opinion has asked you to stop putting that language into the article for various reasons. Continuously citing Wiki policy, arguing the same points over and over with the same editors or cherry picking a certain paragraph from NPOV will not get anyone past these issues. Ramsquire 20:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What is point of view pushing?

Someone keeps deleting information by paragraph claiming simply "point of view" pushing.

Could he explain what that means and give and example. After he gives an example explain why he doesn't edit rather than revert wholesale?

RPJ 20:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"The Warren Commission believed"

One editor is under the mistaken impression that when one mentions what the Warren Commission said happened should be written as fact and complains that someone would qualify the article by stating:

"The Warren Commission believed." This is the proper form of what should written especially with when the subject is controversial.

RPJ 20:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I will ignore the unnecessary condescension in your tone, and just say I am under no mistaken impressions. And your attempts to mischaracterize my point, once again, is just weak. The WC made findings and conclusions based on expert testimony, scientific evaluations, and several layers of consensus seeking discussions. Is everything in their report accurate? No. But to say "the WC believed" at the beginning of a sentence, then give a misleading summary of the finding in the middle, and then add unsourced contrary information at the end of the sentence is unencyclopedic and violates WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:RS. When dealing with a government commission, the proper format is the "The Commission concluded" and "the commission found".

Conclude: To arrive at (a logical conclusion or end) by the process of reasoning; infer on the basis of convincing evidence.

Ramsquire 20:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The advice and critque above were inaccurate

In the Kennedy article, it said a Carcano rifle was found near the scene of the murder. The particular make of the rifle is important to the guilt or innocence of Lee Oswald.

Oswald claimed, prior to being murdered, that a man had a Mauser rifle in the building two days before the president was assassinated.

At the time the rifle was discovered, the police were all heard to say or believed that the rifle found near the scene of the murder was a Mauser.

Therefore, I inserted at the beginning of the sentence that it was the Warren Commission who reached the conclusion that the rifle found was a Carcano—rather than a Mauser. Here is the sentence with my changes in bold type:

The Warren Commission came to the conclusion that a 6.5 x 52 mm Italian Mannlicher-Carcano]M91/38 bolt-action rifle was found on the 6th Floor of the Texas Book Depository by Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman and Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone soon after the assassination of President Kennedy.

The language I inserted about Warren Commission concluding the rifle was a Carcano was, surprisingly, deleted. One of the editors defends the deletion, and argues:

[T]o say "the WC believed" at the beginning of a sentence, then give a misleading summary of the finding in the middle [of the sentence], and then add unsourced contrary information at the end of the sentence is unencyclopedic and violates WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:RS.

May I respectfully respond to the critique of my sentence?

• After the insertion of the introductory phrase, I simply repeated the sentence as it previously existed in the article.

• I don’t understand your remaining critique of me for the rest of the sentence which you find misleading and in violation of Wikipedia policy.

• I didn't add, subtract or edit the sentence in any other way.

• Here is concluding and puzzling fact:

The indignant editor hasn't taken out what he considers is the "misleading summary in the middle" of the sentence nor corrected any of the other alleged "violations" of web site policy.

The only thing deleted was my proper insertion that identified who concluded the Carcano rifle was found.

RPJ 02:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

1. I am not indignant. Please stop trying to characterize my emotional state, and just respond to the issue, which is my problems with your editing style.

2. One part of your response is correct, it is not one sentence, but actually two. So I admit that the sentence that begins with "The WC believes" does accurately state its conclusion and finding. The other sentence is improper. I will go through the paragraph in question and list my objections.

• • A bullet found on Connally's hospital stretcher, was ballisticly matched to the rifle in evidence

This is fine.

• • but that bullet also fell into controversy since it was almost a whole bullet and it is known that the bullet that hit Connally fragmented and left pieces in Connally.[8]

This is unsourced opinion and original research. The cite at the end contains no information to support the conclusions in the sentence.

• • Moreover, a week after the assassination, J. Edgar Hoover told President Johnson that the "matching" bullet came out of Kennedy--not Connally-- when Kennedy was given heart massage.[9]

Factual, but irrelevant since there is no showing that Hoover did the same kind of research the Commission did to come to his conclusion. The cite given points out how and why the Commission came to conclude the bullet came from Connally. This sentence is misleading to say the least.

• • The Warren Commission believed that the previous March, the rifle had been bought by Lee Harvey Oswald under the name "Alek James Hidell." [10]

As discussed above, the Commissions opinion was based on serious research, I would say Commission concluded, but it is not a big deal.

• • A partial palm print of Oswald was purportedly found on the barrel of the gun,

The Commission found partial palm prints of Oswald all over the gun, there is no purportedly. They found them. If there is a reliable source that has done research on the subject and didn't find Oswald's prints then place it in the article. Otherwise, the use of purportedly is speculation of an editor which is original research.

• • but not until much later when someone said they forgot to tell everyone about a palm print was purportedly found much earlier. [11]

Totally unsourced, and untrue.

Ramsquire 19:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Get page presentable for 11/22/2006

Obviously there will be many readers coming to this article on or around November 22 and this group of related article are not in good shape.

I tried to lay out the three points of view. The Oswald did it and no Conspiracy view. The Oswald did it, and in a conspiracy, and Oswald didn't do it and a conspiracy.

That is why the police chief statement was put at top so that all significant view points are included. Thati how an article is kept neutral.

RPJ 02:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)