Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald/Archive 3

message: I believe that the section regarding Officer Tippit's murder should be changed so it does not display the point of view that Oswald did it without a shadow of a doubt, seeing as there are many conflicting theories regarding this.  Instead of phrases such as "Oswald then shot Tippit" it should be "The suspect then shot Tippit" or somthing to that effect.
:I am keeping this in the main talk rather than archiving, because it is undated Gaijin42 18:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oswald shooting Tippit 

message: The comments made above by editor "Jimwae" indicates a misunderstanding of the rule requiring the inclusion of all significant viewpoints--not just those viewpoints adhered to by the editor.
Editor "Jimwae" disagrees and states:
No, the rule would apply as such - IF one side is presented, then the other side should also be presented (with some exceptions). 
"Jimwae"  is incorrect that an entire subject matter can be deleted because no one wants to include the other viewpoint. 
This would create a giant loophole. 
For example,if some editors admire a famous politician, and include his exploits in the article. Then, another editor wants to include references to an incident of public failure by the politician. The inclusion of the failure, even if it is contentious, cannot be excluded by the admiring editors simply by arguing that they haven't said anything about the failure by trying to show it wasn't too bad, and therefore evidence of the failure should be excluded because "both sides aren't presented."
Such a rule would lead to no article. The political supporters of the politician would want to exclude everything "bad" and the opponent would want to exclude anything "good" merely by stating they don't want to discuss certain subjects and therefore "both sides wouldn't be presented."  
Editor "Jimwae" then argues the information he doesn't like should be segregated out and put in a seperate article:
There is no rule that both sides on all issues must be presented in any single article.
"Jimwae's" statement is incorrect. "Both sides" of the issue must be put in the same article. Otherwise it is like sticking the arguments one doesn't agree with in the closet out of sight. The web site prohibits this unfair and evasive tactic to hide "unpleasant" viewpoints. This prohibited tactic is called a "point of view fork." The rule states:
A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV  guidelines [including all significant viewpoints] by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Point of Views on a certain subject are treated in one article.
The editor that wants to engage in such a prohibited practice of a pov fork will often revert out the information that he finds unpleasant; and then offer to start another article to cover the conflicting point of view and hide it out of sight. 
::Application of the web page rules to this article
The excluded viewpoint and evidence relates to Lee Oswald being framed as a "patsy" for the murder of the president.
"Jimwae"  believes that Oswald, in fact, did murder the president. This view point ("Oswald the killer") is repeatedly mentioned in the article. Opinions of government panels and circumstantial evidence are given prominent display to support the "Oswald the killer" view point throughout the article. 
On the other hand, "Jimwae" wants to exclude highly relevant evidence of Oswald being framed ("Oswald the patsy"). Besides the statements by Oswald that he was a "patsy" and that the photograph of him holding the alleged murder was fabricated, "Jimwae" wants to exclude from the article any other opinions or evidence supporting Oswald's defense that he was framed including the following evidence that PBS claimed to have "electrified" government officials but was withheld from the public: 
Immediately after the assassination, high government officials up to and including J. Edgar Hoover and Lyndon Johnson  discovered that some one, in fact, had been found impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald and, within 60 days before the assassination, had, while pretending to be Oswald, contacted the Russian Embassy and Cuban Consulate in Mexico trying to contact a known assassin who the CIA and FBI had been following for over a year.  
The transcripts of the telephone call are on the internet at the one citation. The PBS reference has a long transcript of its coverage in 2003, where the information is supported by additional information of deception and concealment of the information by the CIA  for more than 40 years.
Why does "Jimwae" revert the information? In his own words he writes:
::"19 February 2006 JimWae (remove jumping to conclusions POV)"
::"19 February 2006 JimWae (remove junk "evidence" & POV from intro - there are witnesses he was at embassy - see talk)"
On the talk page "Jimwae" adds this:
::"not everything on the PBS site comes from the news department - they show numerous "speculative" programs --JimWae 15:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The pbs site is also jumping to conclusions. I presented a link to witnesses above. Why do you repeatedly start a new topic instead of replying to issues addressed? There is no clear-cut evidence of impersonation - there is only evidence that a picture the FBI/CIA thought was of Oswald was not of him --JimWae 05:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Why are you lecturing JimWae on wikipedia rules?  If you think an editor or editors are violating any wikirules, do a RfC or ask for mediation..... until then, assume good faith, and stop lambasting other people for alleged grievances. Mytwocents 04:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The rule of this webpage 

message: I added 'Acceptance of the Conclusions' section towards the end of the page, as a place to mention the conspiracy theories. This can relieve a lot of the pressure to POV push in the main article.  I trimmed the intro and removed the NPOV tag.  The article , as it stands today, does read reasonably neutral.  The Soviet Union section is too long, but I'm pressed on what could be trimmed out.  I'll leave that to other editors.
Mytwocents 19:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acceptance of the Conclusions section 

message: It would be helpful if Marina Oswald had her own page. Ditto for Oswald's kids. At least then someone could verify their birth and death dates. Is there a specific reason  why "Marina Oswald" should always redirect to LHO?
Only because no one has written an article for her yet. Gamaliel 03:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marina 

message: Gamaliel deletes information with these types of comments:
[deleted long list of edit summaries already posted in multiple article talk pages by RPJ - G]
There are several things wrong with Gamaliel's "debating style"
::1--The congressional committee that investigated the Kennedy murder concluded in 1979 President Kennedy  was probably assassinated as the result of a conspiracy. See, House Select Committee on Assassinations.However,  since "Gamaliel" thinks this finding is "nonsense", he doesn't want any of the specific evidence of the conspiracy mentioned in the article. 
::2--70% of Americans believe there was a plot to kill Kennedy--Gamaliel is in the small minority of people that still believe the Warren Report.
::: If you look at the survey, it says that 40% are sure it was a conspiracy, and 30% have a hunch. What does that mean exactly? Does it mean that they simply think it's fun to believe in conspiracies? I'd like to know also how many believe in UFOs, alien abductions and astrology - whether it's just a "hunch", or whether they'd put money on it. You'll note also, that since Posner's work, the percentage is dropping. Bipedia 15:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 3--Gamaliel simply refuses to adopt the policy of this website that all significant viewpoints be presented and allow the reader to make up his or her own mind. Instead, if Gamaliel decides something is "nonsense" because some author he likes has allegedly "rebutted" the viewpoint or evidence, then Gamaliel deletes the viewpoint or evidence he doesn't like.  
Gamaliel has got to face facts that this is wrong under web site policy. All significant viewpoints must be presented. Gamaliel is not the "gatekeeper" of knowledge.
RPJ 02:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: RPJ, if you have a complaint about my conduct, please direct it to the proper forum.  You have been repeatedly informed about how to do this. I'm sure all of us would appreciate it if you stop posting long diatribes here and file your complaints in the proper manner.  This talk page is for discussing the article, not for complaining about other editors. Gamaliel 03:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gamaliel's debating style

message: ::::The evidence of the fabricated photograph is a significant viewpoint that was discussed in the HSCA report. Some experts believe it shows fabrication--some don't. Under the rules of this web site all significant viewpoints should be presented. 
*Claiming that someone else disagrees with a significant viewpoint on a subject is not a ground for excluding it from the article. 
*Arguing it is not the "most important thing ever" is not a ground for excluding the view point that the photographs are fabrications. 
*Arguing that evidence that the photographs were fabricated is evidence of a conspiracy,  is not a ground for excluding the evidence.
Gentlemen. These are basic web site rules.
RPJ 07:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Web site rules of inclusion of all significant viewpoints

message: Might I suggest a rephrasing of the introduction, to (Oswald) "was identified as the assassin of US President John F. Kennedy by the Warren Commission and..." would be more NPOV? As things are, the initial sentence looks very much as though it prefers the POV of the Warren Commission, and until this is fixed there will be no end of attempts to correct it. The only way, it seems to me, is to be *strictly* NPOV here, of all places in the article. My wiki activity is so sporadic it's unlikely I'll create an account, so I won't make this change myself, but clearly something should be done.
:I do not think the intro over emphasises the warren commission point of view, however I have added some clarifying words to the intro, and re-arranged some of the sentences to make clear that a) oswald was identified as a suspect, but not convicted (because of his own murder), but that the warren commision did find him to be the lone gunman, but that there are alternate theories still around.  The last sentance needs some work I think, as it gives too much weight to crackpot theories. Not all the alternate theories are crackpot, but I dont know how to distinguish between legitimate alternate investigations, and "communist UFOs did it" Gaijin42 20:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: The new picture of Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle and other incriminating evidence is much better than the similar one that was in the article.  See, Exhibit 746-A from the Warren Commission.
The new picture is much darker and conceals the apparent  fabrication of the photo as complained about by Oswald before he was shot. 
We have to keep in mind that the fabrication of photographs back in 1963 was still rather primitive.  The similar pictures that the Warren Commission had available are either blow ups of the picture (which are too revealing with disastrous results), or the print is not dark enough to conceal the cut and paste job on the face of which Oswald  complained.  See, for example Warren Commission Ex 746-E with the face pasted on at the level of the chin. 
It was also a wise choice not to use Exhibit 749 because it has that embarrassing oversight where someone drew in what appeared to be the butt of the gun stock for another photograph and re-used it with the triangular piece of gun stock still drawn in. (See, third picket from Oswald's leg).
It actually might be better just to describe the pictures and not reproduce. If the reader looks at one picture the reader might look at the rest.
RPJ 05:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The new picture cinches it--Good work 

message: Why are there so many differnet investigations into kennedy's killing? Which one is the correct one?
:if we could answer that question definitevly, then this wouldnt be a controversial topic would it? :) Gaijin42 20:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which of the four investigations into the assassination is accurate? 

message: The talk page has a lot of old discussion, and a lot of (at this point) quiet topics. I think it would make it easier to see currently live debates, if we archived some of the settled items. The downside is of course new editors coming in and not seeing the existing negotiations.  Ideas? Gaijin42 21:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Archiving is a good idea, we should keep the , and use the  and  templates. --Mytwocents 22:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am moving all comments to archive2 that have not had activity in the last month. Gaijin42 18:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have completed the move of all out of date topics.  I believe there are still several topics worthy of moving, but they are more recent, so I will let others have their input.  Sorry about the mass amounts of edits, I was trying to make sure work wasnt lost, and that individual topis could be pulled back if so desired. Gaijin42 18:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup of Talk

message: Lee Harvey Oswald’s Motives By Mel Ayton, 10th April 2006
Jpeob 10:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have replaced the article text posted here with a weblink to the article due to copyright concerns. Gamaliel 16:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article from History News Network