Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald/Archive 7

message: 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)
replies: text: 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....  SBHarris 09:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  The murder photo 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lead Photo 

message: This page badly needs more references/notes. Everything that does not have a reference/note (and book notes must have page numbers included) should be deleted. This is the new Wikipedia standard for FA articles. No more POV... --andreasegde 06:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's one thing to request citations, but if you are going to simply go through pages placing fact tags, you may want to read what's already been cited.  Several of your tags have been removed because the information is either cited in the sentence prior or directly subsequent.  Also WP:NPOV is not a new standard. I hope that this new kick of yours isn't some attempt at making a point because of the comments made over at the user RfC. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: 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)
replies: text: Good question, make the change. Joegoodfriend 01:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WEASEL WORDS?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk

message: 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. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/robertse.htm  
Nothing in Roberts' testimony cited makes that claim. — Walloon 17:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Roberts testimony

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Here is an update on the Spartacus situation:
Added by Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spartacus site

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. SBHarris 23:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. SBHarris 21:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Use of Allegedly

message: 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)
thread_title: Early life and Marine Corps service

message: 71.81.59.55 17:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Birthplace 

message: 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)
thread_title: Media coverage of Oswald-Ruby shooting

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: No, I'm not refering to the article. This discussion is over. --Defender 911 20:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Never tried... 

message: 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.) ProhibitOnions (T) 19:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Aha, should have looked closer at the edit history. Thanks for fixing this. Regards, ProhibitOnions (T) 21:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Early life section missing

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Investigations" section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Normative-Conservative Editorial Policy of Wikipedia 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Oswald's culpability 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Good point! This may have been the only "former Marine" in history.--Mantanmoreland 13:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Former Marine' and Walker in lead 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Sharpshooter" or "marksman"..? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Texas rules of evidence (civil and criminal)