Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Warshy (talk | contribs) at 20:39, 23 November 2023 (→‎Wikipedia and the Warren Commission conclusions: For the record here.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Israeli involvement

I was trying to add a book about the possible involvement of Israel in the assassination of JFK. That book is titled Accomplishing Jim Garrison's Investigation on the Trail of the Assassins of JFK. I tried to explain the relevance of that book, but I was censored. That book was praised by James DiEugenio, one of the main experts on the assassination of JFK, and by many others. Enough reason to add it. 93.41.114.124 (talk) 11:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You were not censored. You were reverted because you attempted to add fringe material from a non-notable book by a non-notable author. I am sure conspiracy theorists think it is a good book, but you will likely need a better argument because inclusion of that material would run afoul of WP:SPS, WP:REDFLAG, WP:FRIND, etc. -Location (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grossly UNDUE and WP:PROFRINGE

This page is egregiously unbalanced with numerous claims sourced only to WP:FRINGE sources and with little or no counterbalance. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you might imagine, this article has been a magnet for conspiracy enthusiasts of all stripes. Experienced editors have become exhausted by CT fans on the regular articles, where there are perennial demands to satisfy one or another pet CT. Nobody has had the patience to wade through all of the CTs and work out which have any actual notice in RS. It has been enough to deal with the constant "alleged" insertions on every conceivable peripheral article. This topic is also haunted by a couple of serial sockpuppeteers and IP hoppers. Acroterion (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For now I have tagged the article and am watchlisting it. There is going to have to be a dramatic improvement before I will be ok with taking down the tags. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just now came upon this article while doing some reading for my own interest. It seems to me that an article about conspiracy theories ought to cover stuff that is pro-fringe. It's essential that we identify these conspiracy theories accurately, as things that are unlikely to be true. It's also important to have enough reliable sourcing to indicate that a given conspiracy theory has attracted enough interest for us to take notice of it. However, so long as we do not mislead readers into taking this stuff seriously, I don't have a problem with the page covering outlandish stuff. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with @Tryptofish. Writing about conspiracy theories requires fringe sources. Even non-fringe sources have fringe sources as their source. @Ad Orientem, do you claim there should not be an article on conspiracy theories? 123popos123 (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@123popos123 Only if the conspiracy theories have been extensively discussed in reliable secondary sources, such that they ring the WP:N bell. In this case, at least some of them clearly do pass GNG. But we should be relying primarily on RS sources. FRINGE sources should never be quoted in a context that could lead to their being mistaken as RS. Wikipedia does not base its coverage on public opinion polls, or which well-known figures subscribe to certain beliefs. We confine ourselves to what is reported in reliable sources. And some popular conspiracy theories have been excluded entirely because they do not have sufficient coverage from reliable sources to merit their inclusion. Certain fringe theories surrounding the death of Dorothy Killgallen being one example. Courtesy ping @Acroterion @Happyyap1 @Tryptofish. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, both of you, for the pings. WP:N is about having a standalone page on a topic, not about inclusion of a topic as a part of a broader page. But in terms of WP:DUE, we should consider how much attention WP:RS sources give to a topic. It's OK to cover wacko theories, but we must identify them as such. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Like -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is alledged that no one has the patience to wade through all of the material in the article to determine which material is supported by reliable sources. In fact, the article is the result of years of back and forth among hundreds of editors, which included debate about reliable sources. Conspiracy theorists are ridiculed. However, many anti-conspiracy theorists are loathe to acknowledge that the House Select Committee on Assassinations ruled for conspiracy in the case of the JFK assassination. Other prominent voices have also alledged conspiracy, including President Lyndon Johnson, Sen. Richard Russell, Sen. Gary Hart, Sen. Richard Schweiker and Sen. Ralph Yarborough. Happyyap1 (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is a major issue, and I've had this article watchlisted for a long time hoping that I'll eventually amass the time and gumption to tackle it. I picked a subsection at random and got [John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories#Tampering with evidence|§Tampering with evidence]], which is sourced only to [1]. Though we get the disclaimer "Some researchers have alleged ...", there is otherwise no questioning of the alleged tampering or presentation of the mainstream view.
I agree enthusiastically with the view that this article must include coverage of fringe views, but restricting ourselves to ones that are covered in high-quality, mainstream sources seems like the only approach to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is explicit in the WP:FRIND part of the fringe guideline:

the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles ... Fringe sources can be used to support text that describes fringe theories provided that such sources have been noticed and given proper context with third-party, independent sources.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question

(Seen elsewhere in the Wikiverse.)

Would not it have been better to go for the 'You do what we want or we will release information in the election year' option - the comeback if the action was discovered would be far less than for 'propaganda of the deed'.

That 60 years have passed and there is a totally different set of worldviews (there are now children whose parents were born after the end of the Cold War) and it is difficult to visualise the world as it was then will affect perceptions. Jackiespeel (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 60th Anniversary

Will there be a mention on the Main Page?

And, given the various controversies and claims should this article be suitably monitored for the next week or so? Jackiespeel (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parkland doctors say neck wound was an entrance wound. Meaning more than one shooter

Partially due to the 60th anniversary of the JFK assassination there are many articles recently concerning the Paramount+ original documentary, "JFK: What the Doctors Saw". The end of the official Paramount trailer says it premieres Nov 14, 2023.

And many more articles. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't here to relitigate the investigation of the assassination or change official conclusions, we are here to summarize independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See reliable sources above. 7 doctors who were there. WP:NPOV requires their points of view be included in this article. WP:NPOV presents info from reliable sources, and lets the readers decide. Whether readers choose to believe the Warren Commission or not is their prerogative according to WP:NPOV. Wikipedia does not present the Warren Commission conclusions as fact in the narrative voice of Wikipedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly this article can have this information added in the context of theories about the assassination, if it's not here already, but it can't claim that there was "more than one shooter" in Wikipedia's voice until the preponderance of sources make that claim- any more than it can claim in Wikipedia's voice that the Warren Commission was correct. 331dot (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "more than one shooter" can't be claimed in Wikipedia's narrative voice. The doctors came to that conclusion. And that can be stated as their conclusion. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's an issue for the article about the assassination itself, and you might want to review that talk page and its archive carefully before proposing it there, as it sounds like this general issue(if not the sources you use here) might have been brought up before now. As to this article, I agree that you probably could mention these claims in the context of theories, if it isn't already mentioned. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that this has been brought up before and ignored. There is not one word, as far as I can tell, in the current versions of Assassination of John F. Kennedy and John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories about any Parkland doctor saying the neck wound is an entry wound. Even though various Parkland doctors have been saying this for years. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then the only thing you can do is attempt to gain a consensus on the talk page of the assassination article, but you will need to do more than just repeat prior arguments to have any chance at succeeding. Personally I don't think you are likely to succeed, and it will likely be a long, hard effort, but that's what you can do. 331dot (talk) 12:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why it's not mentioned in this article as a theory. 331dot (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think it would be hard to get in the main assassination article? It's completely verifiable info from 7 doctors who were there. From reliable sources. It's not tin foil stuff. Wikipedia has some really weird herd instincts at times. I am saying this as someone who has edited Wikipedia for over 18 years. Some advice please. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely classic primary source. We can include what secondary sources say about these "7 doctors" but as first-hand witnesses to the event, their stuff is not something Wikipedia editors can comment on or analyse. Bon courage (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:PST. All the links I provided are secondary sources, including the documentary. And some of the Parkland doctors have been saying this publicly for years. There are secondary sources reporting that too. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even the idea that we should include what the "7 doctors" said is poor without additional sourcing. Ideally, we would use a strong, recent-ish independent source to present the mainstream view. As a fall-back, we could use the Stokes report, which says the Warren report relied on the testimony of the Parkland doctors and the autopsy performed in Bethesda. The Stokes committee's own panel of doctors re-evaluated that evidence, as well as X-rays and photos from the original autopsy, and re-confirmed the Warren findings. Both found that one of the bullet's paths involved an exit out of the front of JFK's neck.
This article has a serious WP:FRIND problem, and no conspiracy theory content should be added without a balancing mainstream view. Much content should likely be removed, since it's lacking such context. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage in question is entirely and specifically related to the release this month of the Paramount+ documentary "JFK: What the Doctors Saw". I could not find any RS with an independent review and analysis of the doctors claims. So it may be due for a brief mention in John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, but the text must make it clear the claims are the result of a television program - and not any study by independent experts. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the doctors have been reporting what they saw for years. Others, as the documentary reported, laid low out of fear. There are reliable sources for all of this. I linked to just a few. They mention the older claims by some of the doctors. And this is not a "fringe theory". The doctors are just reporting what they saw. And then they made the logical conclusion that there had to be shooters from different directions. That's all they claimed. No fringe theories. Just basic stuff that ER doctors see all the time with gunshot victims, as reported. You can also report all the stuff from the Warren Commission, the Stokes report, etc.. As long as it is not claimed as "the truth" in the narrative voice of Wikipedia. WP:NPOV requires that people be allowed to make up their own minds. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
just reporting what they saw. An argument that is frequently invoked about Bob Lazar's claims. That doesn't mean they aren't forwarding a conspiracy theory. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The documentary and previous articles report what the doctors saw. Multiple doctors who were there. Not just one person. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so is this about this "What the doctors saw" documentary? There's something on that in the NYT.[2] TL;DR - it's a nothingburger. Bon courage (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From the NY Times article you dismiss: "the professional opinions of the physicians present in the president’s Parkland Memorial Hospital emergency room. ... What did the staff observe? An entrance wound on Kennedy’s throat. What does that suggest? A bullet entered from the front. Why is that significant? It contradicts the findings of the Warren Commission. ... You will finish the film agreeing that what the doctors saw is crucial." --Timeshifter (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You left off the concluding sentence, the best one! So there is no knowledge here, just some stuff. I don't see a problem with recording how this is another arrow in the conspiracy theory quiver, but we'd really need some decent (think scholarly) sourcing to make sense of it. Bon courage (talk) 15:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"But what it all means for America’s most enduring mystery is less clear." That's very Wikipedia of them to say. As in WP:NPOV, and letting the readers decide what to make of it. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV is certainly not that, it is reflecting accepted knowledge on topics, and putting fringe material in a box with a warning label on it. The accepted knowledge on this seems to be that it is ... meaningless (other than for fuelling another round of conspiracy theory excitement). Bon courage (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV: "This page in a nutshell: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." --Timeshifter (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Explaining. Not just putting stuff out there and 'letting the reader decide'. This is especially so for WP:FRINGESUBJECTS. Bon courage (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV: "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. The aim is to inform, not influence."
This is not a fringe theory or pseudoscience. These are ER doctors describing what they saw. ER doctors who frequently see gunshot wounds. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doctors are often wrong about things. In any event, we need second secondary sources to comment. Until then there's not much to say? Bon courage (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said earlier, all the articles I linked to, and also the documentary, are all secondary sources. As is the NY Times article you found. See: WP:PST (Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources). --Timeshifter (talk) 18:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, most are WP:NEWSPRIMARY repetitions of the claims, or advancing novel opinions. For anything authoritative on this we'd want something weighty (scholarly, academic). Anyway, this is an article focused on conspiracy theories, so what conspiracy theory are you proposing to add? Bon courage (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:NEWSPRIMARY the articles I linked to are both primary and secondary sources. A documentary is about as weighty as one can get. These are not novel opinions. Some of these doctors have been saying this for years.
According to you this is a fringe theory. So it belongs here according to you. Anything that contradicts the conclusions of the Warren Commission is considered a fringe theory by some. When the Innocence Project contradicts the conclusions of a trial it is not considered a fringe theory. We can let reliable sources call certain testimonies and theories whatever they want. In the form of X says Y about Z. It shouldn't be in the narrative voice of Wikipedia. WP:NPOV. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this is the article specifically about conspiracy theories. What conspiracy theory are you wanting to expand on with this latest documentary fluffage? Please make a specific proposal. Bon courage (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you been paying attention at all? The Parkland doctors said the throat wound was an entrance wound. They said that indicated more than one shooter. So that by definition is a conspiracy. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So that's a conspiracy theory? Or are you in fact proposing that this TV show moves the dial on the actual historical account (in which case this is the wrong article) ? Bon courage (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my previous replies. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be maintaining that the TV show has "No fringe theories", in which case it would follow that you don't want its content here, but in the serious article (i.e. Assassination of John F. Kennedy). Have you actually proposed an edit anywhere? Note WP:NOTFORUM. Bon courage (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't WP:OWN this article or the other one. I have already answered all your questions so far. If you happen to make a relevant comment I am interested in responding to, I will do so. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! I do not own this article. More to the point, YOU don't. However, I am still unclear about what you are proposing exactly for us to relay to our readers wrt knowledge about JFK conspiracy theories with the source(s) you are producing. Specifics please! Bon courage (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and the Warren Commission conclusions

Anything stated about this major event in recent American history on any Wikipedia page, that does not conform strictly to the conclusions of the Warren Commission, is immediately labeled as fringe and/or as "conspiracy theory" on Wikipedia. I contend that the Wikipedia official view of this event is the strict view of the Warren Commission, nothing else. warshy (¥¥) 17:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the article on conspiracy theories. Editors are proposing to add stuff here, so conspiracy theorising would be relevant. For the historical event, see: Assassination of John F. Kennedy. Bon courage (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen you much around on these pages over the years. My contention above is not about this page, it is about what I called "the Wikipedia official view of this event." I am challenging you to prove me wrong. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 18:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This page is for discussing improvements to this article. So I would expect conspiracy-relevant content. How is your comment "I haven't seen you much around on these pages over the years" relevant to anything? Bon courage (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It means that I've been reading, and following, and studying the developments in this area on Wikipedia over many years. I am making the above contention based on these studies and observations. This article is just the garbage dump where everything else that has no place on Wikipedia just gets dumped in the end. But I am talking about the entire area of studies related to the assassination of President Kennedy on Wikipedia, where anything that does not conform strictly to the conclusions of the Warren Commission eventually gets erased, or is just tagged as fringe "conspiracy theories." Again, on this 60th anniversary day, I am contending that the Wikipedia official view of this key event in recent American history is the strict view of the Warren Commission, nothing else. warshy (¥¥) 20:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories&oldid=1186531642"