Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald/Archive 4

message: "Trivia note: there is a photograph of John Wayne eating a meal at a Marine Corps dining facility and standing alone in the background, looking at the photographer is Oswald. John Wayne is facing away from Oswald, and so is everyone else in the picture." 
Is there any proof of this? If so, is that an appropriate section? I think if there is such a picture in existence it should be sourced, as I can't find anything about it other than here on Wiki.
John Wayne was at Corregidor in January 1958, (filming "The Barbarian and the Geisha"), and Oswald was on kitchen police during his visit.  There is at least one and possibly two photos of the two people in the mess hall. It does exist, but, it only serves as a comparrison of two Americans; one beloved by most in the USA and abroad, when he was alive and in the present. The other a symbol of a conspiracy to some, and hated as a person can be by others.24.195.242.116 02:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Triva Note

message: It is disappointing that some editors just can't accept the basic web site rule that all significant viewpoints be included in this article. Editor Gamaliel has a very deep felt belief that Oswald was lying when he said he didn't shoot the president, and that the evidence against him was fabricated. 
However, the Chief of Police for the City of Dallas points out that no one ever did place the alleged murder weapon in the hands of Oswald. There was also a very serious error by the police in identifying the type of rifle that was found in the place where Oswald worked. 
Nevetheless, Editor Gamaliel wants nothing about this in the article. His deep personal belief rejects any viewpoint but his own. 
But if he can't repress his urge to exclude viewpoints contray to his own beliefs, he needs to go to another web site. This web site requires all significant view points be included and let the reader decide--not just those viewpoints that are believed by Gamaliel. 
Gamaliel has been told this time and time again. He just won't accept this rule. 
RPJ 20:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some editors can't accept the that all signifcant viewpoints be included 

message: The web site rules are quite clear. If you and “Gamaliel” don't understand it please don't try to edit, because you are wasting everyone else's time and efforts. All significant view points are included with authoritative and verifiable sources..
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." It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics
There is nothing hard to understand about this. Please read it again and again until it sinks in. Then explain it to Gamaliel. 
Putting in opinions from a person with whom you agree (such as Posner) is acceptable but deleting out information you don't agree with is unacceptable. 
RPJ 01:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Read the rule. This is a basic rule 

message: The House Select Committee on Assassinations writes that Lee Oswald was seen with the bizarre right wing fantatic named David Ferrie soon before the Kennedy assassination. This is the same David Ferrie that was seen in a picture with Oswald when he was younger. 
Two editors that fervently believe in the Warren Report don't want the readers to know about this and want it deleted. What is their reason? The Congressional Committee relied on the statements of a bunch of black men.  
Gentlemen, please, we understand your religious allegence to the Warren Report of 1964. We understand your program is to delete any information in the historical record that refutes it, but don't start sinking to that point. You make this web site look foolish.
RPJ 23:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the link on how the Clinton Witness testimony changed over time. It's simply a matter of whether or not you trust the memories or "identification ability" of people about total strangers they briefly met years earlier, but who later become famous and had pictures everywhere. This is such a perfect setup for recovered memory and bad ID's that it would be funny, if you didn't take it so seriously. You just cannot reliably place people at crime scenes with this kind of testimony. I'm sorry that I have to explain to you why not. But I'm not going to try any more. Suffice to say that Garrison's case was laughed out of court, and I'm frankly amazed they didn't fire and disbar him for bringing it. Any foolishness here isn't in the website, but in the behavior of a public official. Boy, look what undeserved credibility being played by Kevin Costner will get you! Makes me feel bad for poor Wyatt Earp. Steve 00:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Will Gamaliel and Steve stop deleting historical material

message: The Warren Report believers don't understand that deleting important historic documents from an article is wrong. It is similar to book burning. It’s wrong. But,when its pointed out to them, they continue to delete them as if they can erase history,and each time they respond by literally saying:  "So what. I deleted the information because it’s incorrect, and it’s incorrect because babble,  babble, babble ....."  
Please understand, your special reasons for book burning don’t matter. The web site rule is to let the reader decide if the information is wrong. You have no special talents or knowledge in the area. If you did you could publish your ideas in a recognized and reliable source of information and have them included in the article.  But, under no circumstances can you delete important historic documents relevant to an article.  
Just look what you are deleting:
*Transcripts of the Warren Commission's deliberations are deleted.
*Transcripts of testimony of Mrs. Kennedy's bodyguard are deleted.
*Transcripts of conversations between President Johnson and FBI Director Hoover are deleted even though they are talking about Oswald and the assassination. 
And this is a small sampling of the deletions. 
Please stop it.  
RPJ 06:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting important historic information is wrong 

message: A few hours ago, RPJ completely rewrote the first three paragraphs of this article. RPJ failed to add anything to the discussion page justifying these changes. Now I am a newcomer to wikipedia, and only somewhat familiar with policies and etiquette, but my understanding is that what RPJ has been doing is inappropriate.
Further, I find that the quality of RPJ’s edits wanting. Regarding today’s edit, I fail to see how it is appropriate for the second sentence of the introductory paragraph on an encyclopedia entry on LHO to read, “The Assassination Records Review Board made the following findings in 1998.”
Another example: We don’t need three of four separate bullet points listing the names of persons who have indentified Ferrie and Oswald in the 1955 photograph. First of all, this article is not meant to be a stream-of-consciousness list of factoids. Second of all, no one is questioning whether Ferrie and Oswald are in the photograph, only the idea that the fact that they were standing near each other in 1955 has any bearing on whether they knew each other years later.
Also, I would like to note that yesterday I added a paragraph to the Clay Shaw article, and Gamaliel subsequently edited it in a way that was accurate and concise and that added value.
RPJ, please stop this. Full disclosure: I believe President Kennedy was killed as the result of a conspiracy. Joegoodfriend 15:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: For the record

message: :::Mr. "Joegoodfriend." You have many opinions that you don't explain. You start out as if you want  to debate a change I made but then you don't. Instead:
*You tell us you are a "new comer" and "only somewhat familiar with the policies."
**Therefore, my advice to you is: Don't try to edit until you are ready.
**Also, don't critique other edits until you have something useful to say. Subjective opinions without reasons are a waste of time. No one even knows who you are. 
*You tell us that the quality of the edits I did were "wanting" 
**That is odd. I included the synopsis of the Kennedy assassination written in 1998 by the Assassination Records Review Board. The Board was comprised of three noted historians, a federal district court judge and a highly respected rare book librarian.
**I hope you (Sbharris) are not going to be another of a long string of people that read the John Macadams web site for a couple of weeks and start spouting off "know-it-all" critisism of information you don't like and then delete it.
**A dead give away is your use of the phrases such as "We don't need ... " and the use of the word "factoids."
**Your "full disclosure" is not relevant even if true. RPJ 05:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of whom were ever tasked with the job of figuring out who killed JFK and why. Their job was to collect assassination records from the government, using federal powers they'd been given, and archive them. Their opinions about what they've seen are interesting, but ultimately are not to be classed with the Warren Commission, Clark Panel, Rockefeller Commission and HCSA, whose job it actually was to analyze history, rather than to analyze the simple provinance of historical records, which is all the ARRB was supposed to do. I wish you'd note the difference. SBHarris 17:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Um, I think you're mixing up editors. The stuff I think you object to was written by RPJ to Sbharris or JoeGoodFriend. Sbharris's entry begins with "none", I don't see why that is objectionable.  He inserted it into the middle of RPJ's earlier entry, maybe that's why there's confusion. I think.Ramsquire 20:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. The offending comment was written by RPJ, not me. Only the signed paragraph is mine. I've got to learn not to insert comments into somebody else's tirade without re-adding their signatures before them.SBHarris 21:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Ramsquire; I wondered why the bullet-points were so crazy. Can you others please sort this out? Putting comments into the middle of other people´s comments is very confusing. Can you sort out your comments? It would be very nice of you. andreasegde 21:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I fixed it.Ramsquire 21:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A round of (well-deserved) applause. Nice one. Now... can the editors in question go back and sign their comments in? (Better late than never, as they say.) andreasegde 10:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Message for Joegoodfriend

message: This link shows the changes made to the LHO article, August 2nd through 5th, 10:09.  I like the statement on Oswald's marksmenship, I may put a short rephrasing of the old paragraph back in. Overall, I think the effect on the page is good, but I wanted to post the link here, so others could see the changes clearly.  Mytwocents 16:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you did a good job. Some of what you removed was too heavy on speculation.Joegoodfriend 16:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Changes 

message: I think her comments about Oswald "walking fast", and "almost running" are also very important. Why are they not in? Too random? andreasegde 14:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a hint as to how to make Ms. Roberts' statements really relevant. She placed Oswald as standing at the bus stop at 1:04pm. The testimony of Tippit murder witnesses Helen Markham, TF Bowley, and D. Benavides and Sheriff Roger Craig make it clear that the murder took place no later than 1:10pm, not 1:15pm as the WC chose to assume. That gives Oswald 6 minutes to decide to stop standing at the bus stop, walk a mile, and meet and shoot Tippit. Does anyone think that's enough time? The WC itself timed (test conducted by Special Counsel Belin) the trip at just under 18 minutes. Joegoodfriend 16:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here´s something else: "1954: Roger Bannister breaks the four-minute mile."  andreasegde 17:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oswald and the bus stop

message: Roberts was asked about the day that Oswald rented his room.
Mr. BALL. Did he take a bus? (After paying for the room)
Mrs. ROBERTS. I don't know.
Mr. BALL. You don't know?
Mrs. ROBERTS. No, I don't. I don't remember---you know in a place like that---when you rent a room---I didn't pay no attention.
So then, on the day of the assassination - whilst watching TV newsflashes about Kennedy´s murder - she watched Oswald waiting for a bus, and then walking away, which she never mentioned in her Warren Commission testimony, but only to a reporter (Hugh Aynesworth). Credible witness? andreasegde 11:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's up to Wiki editors to reach consensus on whether Ms. Roberts is a credible witness. For purposes of creating an article, we have to consider whether portion of her testimony are credible, and verifiable, but as for her personally, it's irrelevant for us.  The WC, has already decided that question by placing her testimony in their report.  Ramsquire 21:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gamaliel did delete some of her testimony (sorry Gamaliel, but you did...) We can not accept parts of her testimony and then disregard other bits at will. What is acceptable? All (with certain reservations, and factual comments) or nothing (which would be not good.) Let´s make an intelligent comment about her testimony, and move on. andreasegde 21:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? If some testimony is cooberated by what we know about Oswald's movements and actions, should we not accept that?  And if other testimony is contracted by her differing multiple accounts and what we know about the movements of the Dallas Police that day, should we not discount that? Gamaliel 22:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think her seeing Oswald "walking fast - almost running" is credible. He walked past her. The police car should be included, but with a comment that she may have been confused, because another car always gave the same two beeps/honking sound, and she was almost blind in one eye. Her (only in a private interview) "bus stop" comment is not believable at all. andreasegde 12:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any comments before I put it in? andreasegde 18:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it can all go in without editor comment since she said all three things and the fact that she said it can be verified. However, it can't be offered to prove that what she said actually happened.  I would use the same method we used with Dr. McLelland's testimony in the JFK assassination article.  State that she said it, but that it has been controverted by other testimony.Ramsquire 18:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Will do. andreasegde 20:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Roberts´ testimony

message: I have been accused of (see post above) "trying to trap people into conclusions that are the opposite of the ones they actually hold". I find this deeply offensive, and somewhat impossible. It is an insult to the editors on this page, who know exactly what they think, and are not afraid to say it. andreasegde 20:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Life is too short for this nonsense. Let me know when you want to discuss the article again. Until then I'll find something else to do. Gamaliel 20:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Insults

message: *Passport to Assassination by Oleg M. Nechiporenko was published in 1993. Nechiporenko was the Soviet consular official (and highly placed KGB officer) who met with Oswald in Mexico City in 1963. He was afforded the unique opportunity to interview Oswald about his goals including his genuine desire for a Cuban visa. His conclusions were (1.) that Oswald killed Kennedy due to extreme feelings of inadequacy versus his wife’s professed admiration for JFK and (2.) that the KGB never sought intelligence information from Oswald during his time in the USSR as they did not trust his motivations.
*Reasonable Doubt by Henry Hurt. Pretty good read regarding doubts about the WC. Hurt pins the plot on professional crook Robert Easterling, along with Texas oilmen and the supposed Ferrie/Shaw alliance. Joegoodfriend 02:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. If you liked the Coca-Cola theory, read Who Shot JFK?. That's where I got it. There's lots of fun stuff like that in that book. Joegoodfriend 19:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No... I dídn´t go for that one :) I did laugh though. andreasegde 20:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Even Yet Still More Theories

message: Interestingly enough, one of the eyewitness accounts is omitted. Judyth Vary Baker a young star student in cancer research of the early 60s claims to have an intense relationship with L.H.O. from april 1963 till the JFK assassination. Their relationship and frequent contacts with Ferrie and Ruby are corroborated by other witnesses such as Anna Lewis. 
I hope someone will develop it into paragraph in the article. There are obviously detracting opinions on her as well. 
:Please sign you edits.
:That particular account cannot be placed into the article because it violates WP:RS. 
:Ramsquire 21:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  First, please sign your edits by adding four tildes (~~~~)  at the end of your edit.  Second, it has nothing to do with gatekeepers, it has to do with WP:OR, WP:VERIFY and WP:RS.  All additions to wiki must comply with those requirements.  Unlike Ms. Baker's memoirs, and witness recollections on this cite the Warren Commission was peer reviewed by scientists, scholars and others before publishing.  You may not agree with the conclusions, and that's fine, but it is still a reliable source for Wiki purposes.  Also, exceptional claims require exceptional evidence, which her memoirs and witness corroboration is not. Ramsquire 23:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the exclusion of Judyth Baker. I have never read anything that supports her. That dog don´t hunt... andreasegde 10:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Judyth Baker

message: It appears to me that large portions of the sections on the Soviet Union, New Orleans and Oswald's murder seem to be lifted from an exterior source.  If someone did lift those portions from another source, please attribute it or provide cites.  If it is not plagiarism, please add citations to the information.  One example of a seemingly plagiarized paragraph in the article is this one:
::Against the advice of the KGB, a high-level Presidium decision allowed Oswald to remain in the USSR. Although he had wanted to remain in Moscow and attend Moscow University, he was sent to Minsk, west of Moscow in Byelorussia. The city had been rebuilt after World War II and was considered a model of Soviet urban prosperity. Moreover there were no foreign diplomatic missions or press corps in Minsk, where the young American malcontent could be kept away from foreigners and the US press and meanwhile be easily watched by the security services.
Another is the entire New Orleans section until we arrive to the sentence about Ferrie and CAP.  There is not one citation.  Neither is their any citations to the paragraph on Oswald's murder.  I will add tags to the subject articles. Ramsquire 22:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagiarism Concerns

message: One thing that I have noticed is that there are more critics than contributors on lots of WP pages. I fixed quite a few broken links on this page a short time ago. I was very surprised that nobody had done it before. There were lots of grammar mistakes as well. (I do as much as I have time to do.) The question to all you editors out there is: Are you a critic or a contributor? We need more contributors to do some work. andreasegde 10:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking for myself, I prefer people to do their own editing.  Since I didn't write the article, I don't know if the person made an honest mistake, is a bad writer, or is simply trolling.  If I see obvious changes that need to be made, e.g. vandalism, I'll do it.  But I am not going to remove an entire section on the Soviet Union, for example, which someone obviously spent a lot of time working on because they possibly screwed up their citations.  I'd rather give them the opportunity to fix it themselves.  Also, the burden is on the editor who have made the edit or wish for it to remain. Ramsquire 21:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thank you kindly, Ramsquire. Anybody else? andreasegde 14:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Critics and contributors