Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

The initial sentence in this article is not factual. There are two problems, one is a major objective issue in that non factual information is being presented. The other is possibly subjective, as discussed here

Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. The article's lead was changed to be:

Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was an American former U.S. Marine who assassinated President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963.

Cunard (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

First I am very aware this is a very long and intensely explored subject, and I am simply attempting to correct misuse of a title that is inappropriate, one that clearly is incorrect, without opening the can of worms that any discussion about Lee Harvey Oswald is certain to do. I will agree that there is a lot of historical information "out there" regarding him, and that of course, all of it can not be true, for if one thing we read is true, then several other things logically cannot be. This is NOT an attempt to reopen any such dialog. I am opening this Talk subject because of the first sentence in this article:

Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was an American sniper who assassinated President John F. Kennedy.

The description of LHO as an "American Sniper" must be stricken as it's not only not true, it's an allusion to a very different image of this Major Historical Character. I am not here to debate or call Lee Harvey Oswald anything. But he never held the title of "Sniper" in the Marines, was never hired or given a job as a "Sniper" and the ONLY thing that even suggests the usage is the fact that he allegedly acted in a "Sniper" fashion when allegedly firing upon, and killing John F. Kennedy. That act does support the description of Lee Harve Oswald as an "American Sniper".

If I were to rent a truck to move furniture and while driving it either accidentally or perhaps intentionally run down a man in the street, could I then be described as a "American Truck Driver" or even a Truck Driver at all? If we want to include his title it would need to be "Order Filler" which was his title at the TSBD. If instead, we wish to use his Marine background which would be understandable then we would use the title he was given in the marines; an MOS (military occupational specialty) of Aviation Electronics Operator.

Do we want to even include this in the lead sentence? I would suggest they are not required nor suitable, for the sentence would now read:

Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was an American Order Filler who assassinated President John F. Kennedy. Or just "Order Filler" which sounds patently ridiculous, though no more so than "American Sniper" did when I read it, nor does his Marine Title sound much better or suitable:

Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was an American Aviation Electronics Operator who assassinated President John F. Kennedy.

I wouldn't find it even unusual to say LHO was an "American Defector to the USSR" which would at least be technically correct, if somewhat single dimensional for a guy who appeared basic and single dimensional on the surface but was actually quite complex at least in terms of accurate description. Lastly - to be fair to everyone who reads this page, in deference to the huge amount of speculation and ongoing discussion that he tends to invoke, the proposed edit for the lead sentence for Lee Harvey Oswald is:

Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) allegedly assassinated President John F. Kennedy on Friday, November 22, 1963 with sniper fire from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas Texas.

This presents pertinent facts, stays objective, and does not classify or describe him but simply states what his actions are believed to have been. How better to stay true to Wikipedia and it's mission statement, and to the Wikipedia Content Criteria: Wikipedia content is intended to be factual, notable, verifiable with cited external sources, and neutrally presented.

Both of the corrections proposed - 1.) removal of title/description "American Sniper" and 2.) use of the word "allegedly" is required to be "neutrally presented - particularly in the context of a man who was never brought to trial (other than "mock trials"), never convicted nor acquitted, and only charged with the crime.

- Proposed by Blairware (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)John M. Blair 11/29/2016

But he never held the title of "Sniper" in the Marines, was never hired or given a job as a "Sniper" and the ONLY thing that even suggests the usage is the fact that he allegedly acted in a "Sniper" fashion when allegedly firing upon, and killing John F. Kennedy. That act does support the description of Lee Harve Oswald as an "American Sniper".

Your point would be valid only if Oswald was described as a "Marine sniper." Anyone who picks up a rifle and from a hidden place fires at someone is, by definition, a sniper. Here is one definition: "One who shoots at other people from a concealed place." You seem to be confused in thinking the term defines his occupation - no, it describes the manner in which he shot the president - from a hidden location.

Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) allegedly assassinated President John F. Kennedy

This discussion has been held ad nauseum. Oswald was found to be the culprit in two official government investigations. He was the sniper, there is no "alleged" here, he was found to be the killer. People who don't understand Common Law make the error of saying since he never faced trial, he was not found guilty and therefore should be described as being the "alleged" sniper. In fact, "alleged" is pertinent only when a person is facing trial, not if an investigation has in fact found him culpable. This is why we don't call Booth the "alleged" killer of Lincoln, those mass-killers at Columbine, etc, "alleged" killers, or even Hitler, who "allegedly" perpetrated war crimes but all of whom never faced trial. Canada Jack (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I can see how "American sniper" could be misleading since it is a military role. I think the contention that it is confusing seems less valid because it's coupled with this "allegedly" bit. DIY Editor (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

CJ is absolutely correct, but the term "American sniper" might seem to give credence that he was acting in some sort of official role. The fact that he was an American, and also a sniper are two different things. --Pete (talk) 05:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the phrasing is in keeping with what is common on Wikipedia biography pages but it does stand out as potentially and coincidentally misleading. It's not "American housewife" (just for example) or "American murderer" but "American sniper". The more I think about this one the more it seems like an alternate formulation should be used just to avoid confusion. In this case (nationality) (notable role) sounds an awful lot like (nationality) (profession). DIY Editor (talk) 08:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Then say "LHO was a sniper who assassination the American president JFK."

I am going to be smart and immediately give up going anywhere with "alleged" since I can see opposition to it being fierce and the intent was not to debate or dispute the guilt or lack of guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald, or his actions in any manner, especially after reading Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald#Atsugi – I was shooting for a more accurate/appropriate description (see what I did there?) – especially in the lead sentence. To have the article read neutral was and is the only goal.

Canada Jack - please consider your poin t regarding "alleged" made. Regarding "American Sniper" and "Sniper in general? There’s no dispute about what a sniper is, or the definition of sniper. The page title is "Lee Harvey Oswald" NOT "Lee Harvey Oswald’s Assassination of John F. Kennedy" LHO most certainly WAS a sniper. That day. This page is not about that day. It's about that person. It’s not about that event. It’s about the person. Since John Wilkes Booth is used as an example - The page titled "John Wilkes Booth" does not describe him as an "American Shooter" or “American Marksman”. The lead sentence is: "John Wilkes Booth (May 10, 1838 – April 26, 1865) was an American stage actor who assassinated President Abraham Lincoln at Ford's Theatre in Washington, D.C. on April 14, 1865. -See my point? Lee Harvey Oswald has been described "ad nauseam" in many ways; most are very disparaging – which is understandable considering the despicable act he is believed to have committed. I didn’t weigh in to have a dialog about his value as a person. Anything descriptive needs to be carefully considered for accuracy and neutrality. I would however like to see clearer, less "one dimensional" description. Was he a sniper? We can probably say that without impunity. Is that the most appropriate way to title him" I don't believe so. If John Wilkes Booth page is considered workable (it may not be, but if it is), let’s be consistent. There are a lot of things ascribe to a man, particularly an infamous one, but since Oswald never stuck with anything long enough, he defies an accurate title. Because there’s a lot of eyes on this page, I welcome consensus on this. Thoughts:

Use a lead sentence such as: "Lee Harvey Oswald was an American, who assassinated John Fitzgerald Kennedy as a sniper from the 6th floor of the TSBD on 11/22/1963" - or something similar. I see no issue. As far as semantics, even the proposed "was a sniper" is not as misleading as "was an American Sniper" It sounds wrong. When something rings strangely - but not necessarily untrue, I think re-phrasing should be considered. What does everyone think? Blairware (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Blairware - not to worry about the use of the word "alleged" - most people who don't understand what that means in terms of Common Law make the same mistake in assuming Oswald should be described as the "alleged" assassin as he never stood trial. We most certainly can describe him definitively as the perpetrator, as per the conclusions of several major investigations, and numerous examples exist of people who are considered "guilty" who died before going to trial. I could easily pull 100 examples in a few minutes on wikipedia.

As for "American sniper," I tend to see the point that that sounds... weird. You seem to be fixated on the notion of a profession - when Oswald really didn't have one per se, at least in terms of a career. Booth was famous as an actor before he shot Lincoln, so his profession is front and centre. But I think you are making this more complicated than it really needs to be. I concede that "American sniper" sounds clunky, but all we need to do is say something like... "LHO was the sniper who shot and killed American president JFK." Canada Jack (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Blairware, once again, you are confusing occupation with manner of killing a president. Booth was well known as an actor in addition to assassinating Lincoln. Oswald wasn't known for anything except assassinating Kennedy. It's perfectly acceptable to describe Booth as an actor while at the same time describing Oswald's manner of killing Kennedy. They're two different articles about different people and different behaviors; they don't have to be perfectly parallel. And I don't really see any difference in the meaning of your latest suggested version ("who assassinated John Fitzgerald Kennedy as a sniper") from the current version, except that it creates a very awkward sentence. Oswald is well known, not just for assassinating Kennedy, but also for the manner in which he did it; much has been written about how he planned and set up his sniper's nest. It's how he was able to complete the assassination from the distance between his location and Kennedy's location. There's nothing inaccurate or misleading the way the lead sentence is worded. Sundayclose (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the measure of whether something is potentially misleading is not whether it is accurate (indeed, Oswald was American and was a sniper) but whether it is reasonably likely that the average reader may be confused. The usual wording of biography introductions is not written in stone and in this case I think there is a strong argument that the wording may be read incorrectly. What would it harm to re-arrange the sentence to avoid this? DIY Editor (talk) 04:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

DIY - "LHO was the sniper who shot and killed American president JFK."

<< Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) allegedly assassinated President John F. Kennedy on Friday, November 22, 1963 with sniper fire from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas Texas.>> This suggested language is much more historically neutral than the current opening sentence and more in keeping with the character an encyclopedia should reflect. "Alleged" is entirely appropriate; had Oswald lived to defend himself, we would likely have learned a lot as to why he claimed he was just a patsy. That's what the American justice system is supposed to do - give the accused their day in court to explain their side of the story. We'll never know what a thorough investigation might have uncovered had he lived to defend himself, because he was quickly executed. The Booth analogy doesn't fit at all, since an entire theater audience witnessed him leap from Lincoln's box to the stage and escape after the shooting. There's no such certainty with Oswald. 2601:14D:4100:2864:7957:2721:274F:9F0C (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC) 5198blk (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, using "allegedly" here sounds like the claim is not supported. Personally I could go with "is believed to have" but I think you are going to have a hard time promoting what is going to be viewed as a conspiracy theory angle on this article's lede. —DIY Editor (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I endorse what DIY says above, that the measure is not whether it is true but rather whether the meaning is clear. To me this is a bit like saying Abraham Zapruder was an American filmmaker who ...., strictly speaking true, he made a piece of film, and that establishes why the name is known, but phrasing creates a false impression. As regards how/where to put the word 'sniper', I would say why bother? That there happens to be a word describing 'shooter with a rifle firing from a distance' (ie 'sniper'), isn't very important. That LHW "is believed to have" shot at and killed JFK is why he is notable, he would be no less notable if he had used another weapon. The weapon used and other 'modus operandi' info does not need to be in the lead IMO.Pincrete (talk) 13:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

"Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) allegedly assassinated" This suggested language is much more historically neutral than the current opening sentence and more in keeping with the character an encyclopedia should reflect. Historically neutral? He was found GUILTY by two of the most exhaustive criminal investigations in American history! There is nothing "alleged" about it, and your rather bizarre claim there was no "thorough investigation" of the crime begs the basic question: Have you read the Warren Report and the House report? Canada Jack (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

"That's what the American justice system is supposed to do - give the accused their day in court to explain their side of the story.": Neither history nor Wikipedia is the American justice system. The purpose of a trial in court is to determine guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt so that punishment can be imposed if appropriate. That's not our purpose, and historians are not bound by the same set of criteria as a court in determining guilt. "Allegedly" implies that there is a lot of dispute among mainstream historians, and there is not. WP:FRINGE theories do not apply. Sundayclose (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Canada Jack, you misrepresent my point. You say We'll never know what a thorough investigation might have uncovered had he lived to defend himself, because he was quickly executed. The Booth analogy doesn't fit at all, since an entire theater audience witnessed him leap from Lincoln's box to the stage and escape after the shooting. There's no such certainty with Oswald. 2601:14D:4100:2864:7957:2721:274F:9F0C (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC) 5198blk (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

   Sorry, using "allegedly" here sounds like the claim is not supported. Personally I could go with "is believed to have" but I think you are going to have a hard time promoting what is going to be viewed as a conspiracy theory angle on this article's lede. —DIY Editor (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

       I endorse what DIY says above, that the measure is not whether it is true but rather whether the meaning is clear. To me this is a bit like saying Abraham Zapruder was an American filmmaker who ...., strictly speaking true, he made a piece of film, and that establishes why the name is known, but phrasing creates a false impression. As regards how/where to put the word 'sniper', I would say why bother? That there happens to be a word describing 'shooter with a rifle firing from a distance' (ie 'sniper'), isn't very important. That LHW "is believed to have" shot at and killed JFK is why he is notable, he would be no less notable if he had used another weapon. The weapon used and other 'modus operandi' info does not need to be in the lead IMO.Pincrete (talk) 13:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Canada Jack misrepresents my point. He says <<Historically neutral? He was found GUILTY by two of the most exhaustive criminal investigations in American history! There is nothing "alleged" about it, and your rather bizarre claim there was no "thorough investigation" of the crime begs the basic question: Have you read the Warren Report and the House report?>>

I didn't say there was no thorough investigation. I said "We'll never know what a thorough investigation might have uncovered had he lived to defend himself." However thorough the WC Report, it can't match what would have been learned by Oswald providing details as to why he believed he was a patsy. That possibility was forever silenced by the virtuous and upstanding citizen Ruby. And, no, Oswald was not found "guilty" by the WC. That's a legal term that's impossible to achieve by an investigatory commission without any defense by the accused. Only a trial can conclude guilt. 5198blk (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Sundayclose says: <<historians are not bound by the same set of criteria as a court in determining guilt. "Allegedly" implies that there is a lot of dispute among mainstream historians, and there is not. WP:FRINGE theories do not apply. Sundayclose (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)>>

We'll have to agree to disagree. Your declaration as to what historians are or are not bound by is only your opinion, and your definition of who comprises "mainstream historians" has no validity. Historians are not free to invoke the word "guilt." They may reach agreement (not the case here at all), but they'll never reach the threshold of "guilt" that might be determined by an exhaustive trial. 5198blk (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

<<That LHW "is believed to have" shot at and killed JFK is why he is notable... The weapon used and other 'modus operandi' info does not need to be in the lead IMO.Pincrete (talk) 13:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)>> Seems entirely reasonable to me. 5198blk (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

We are not reporting a legal verdict, and no one here or the article has said that the WC found Oswald "guilty" in the legal sense. You are attempting to create a straw man in order to sidestep the actual issue. The WC (and most historians) concluded that Oswald alone assassinated JFK, and that is our concern here. Again, neither history nor Wikipedia is concerned with the legal concept of guilt, which is an entirely different matter than the issue of whether Oswald actually committed the assassination. No matter how much you try to intermingle those issues to obfuscate things, that doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming weight of historical opinion is that Oswald was the lone assassin. That is the only relevant issue, not the judicial system. As for you comment that my assessment of what mainstream historians think is "only my opinion" and "has no validity", do you think your assessment is not "just your opinion" or has more validity than mine? Wikipedia has a way to settle disagreements when one editor declares that another editor's opinion "has no validity": WP:CONSENSUS. There is no consensus that the sources cited in the article are not mainstream historians. Sundayclose (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

<<no one here or the article has said that the WC found Oswald "guilty" in the legal sense.>> That's exactly what Canada Jack said. I set forth my view that Oswald hadn't been found legally guilty, and Canada Jack vehemently disagreed. He said: <<He was found GUILTY by two of the most exhaustive criminal investigations in American history! There is nothing "alleged" about it.>> That speaks for itself.

<<that doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming weight of historical opinion is that Oswald was the lone assassin>>

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree. You repeatedly claim "that the overwhelming weight of historical opinion is that Oswald was the lone assassin." That's just your opinion, framed by your arbitrary view of who's a "reliable" source and who is "fringe." I find the opposite to be true. For instance, James Douglass is the epitome of an historian - do you label him "fringe?" 5198blk (talk) 04:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

James W. Douglass is not the "epitome" of a historian, since he is not a historian at all. He is a theologian and 9/11 Truther conspiracy theorist, as well as an advocate for the conspiracy theory that the CIA murdered JFK. Yes, he is fringe. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The members of the Warren Commission weren't historians, and they were advocates for the theory that Oswald acted alone. 5198blk (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@5198blk: No one is saying that WC members were historians. Yet another straw man that you have erected. The WC isn't alone in concluding that Oswald acted alone. We understand that you disagree with the rest of us that the article accurately reflects the weight of opinion among notable historians, so you don't have to keep repeating it as you are frequently inclined to do. There is no consensus to support your point of view. It's perfectly acceptable for you to wait and see if a consensus develops instead of repeating the same thing over and over. You did the same thing at Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald#Atsugi, and it didn't advance your position in the slightest. And once again, you continue to use the argument "That's just your opinion"; do you think your claims about reliable sources and adequacy of historians are not opinions? Sundayclose (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

<<no one here or the article has said that the WC found Oswald "guilty" in the legal sense.>> That's exactly what Canada Jack said. I set forth my view that Oswald hadn't been found legally guilty, and Canada Jack vehemently disagreed. He said: <<He was found GUILTY by two of the most exhaustive criminal investigations in American history! There is nothing "alleged" about it.>> That speaks for itself.

Nice try, 5198. OF COURSE Oswald is guilty of killing Kennedy - there just was no trial. He wasn't convicted of murder, but to claim, as you are, that there is therefore official doubt as to his culpability is specious nonsense. Government investigations found that Oswald, indeed, killed the president. (To claim that that was the "government," so we can't go by that ignores the fact that a trial would have been called "government-run" too.) So, while it is true he was not found guilty at a trial, it is specious reasoning to suggest we should only say he "allegedly" shot the president, as he indeed was found culpable - i.e. GUILTY - of carrying out the acts for which he was charged.

Your confusion is understandable - in particular since the conspiracy crowd routinely tries to connect the fact he didn't stand trial and therefore had no trial verdict with the notion that therefore we can't assign guilt. Which is complete b.s. Interesting you say Booth is a different case - because many witnesses saw him leap onto the stage. But in fact NO ONE actually witnessed him shoot Lincoln, many saw the aftermath of his escape. In contrast, we have a witness who actually SAW Oswald shoot at Kennedy, and numerous others who confirmed shots were fired from Oswald's location.

At one point above, I suggested I could find 100 killers we at wikipedia routinely describe as being the killers without them having stood trial. Here are a few.

"John Wilkes Booth (May 10, 1838 – April 26, 1865) was an American stage actor who assassinated President Abraham Lincoln at Ford's Theatre in Washington, D.C. on April 14, 1865." NEVER WENT TO TRIAL

"The Columbine High School massacre... The perpetrators, senior students Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, murdered 12 students and one teacher." NEVER WENT TO TRIAL

"The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting occurred on December 14, 2012, in Newtown, Connecticut, when 20-year-old Adam Lanza fatally shot 20 children aged between 6 and 7 years old, as well as six adult staff members. Prior to driving to the school, Lanza shot and killed his mother at their Newtown home." NEVER WENT TO TRIAL. There are many conspiracy theories who claim the shooting was faked, yet we don't attach caveats to the case, no "allegedly" here.

"Charles Joseph Whitman (June 24, 1941 – August 1, 1966), who became infamous as the "Texas Tower Sniper", was an American engineering student at the University of Texas and mass murderer who shot 49 people on August 1, 1966, before being killed by the police." NEVER STOOD TRIAL

"The Virginia Tech shooting, also known as the Virginia Tech massacre, occurred on April 16, 2007, on the campus of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia, United States. Seung-Hui Cho, a senior at Virginia Tech, shot and killed 32 people and wounded 17 others..." NEVER STOOD TRIAL

I could go on and on. The point is one need not have a "guilty" verdict rendered at trial to have guilt assigned, to be called "the killer" or what have you. And, in some cases, there aren't witnesses who actually saw the guy we call "killer" in fact doing the killing, yet there is no "alleged" affixed. We aren't using the word "guilty" in the article as some will suggest that that is a more legalistic term, only applicable for someone who has faced trial, though I would argue that the meaning can be more generalized than that. But to allay confusion, I'd avoid using the term in an article unless someone has actually faced trial, instead using "killer," "assassin," "perpetrator," or any number of other terms.

As for the more general argument of what "history" says happened, well we have the official investigations which identically concluded Oswald killed the president. So that is the official verdict (which is what we routinely go by with the above-mentioned cases, the official determination was x carried out the crime). As for what "historical" perspective there is on the case, mainstream sources indeed declare Oswald the killer. Your line of attack is similar to that of the Creation science claimants - cite those who are widely seen as cranks who declare those who disagree not only see things wrong - but are knowingly promoting lies - and go outside of normal academic channels in promotion of their beliefs. For example, to describe a political climate in the early 60s as ripe for a political coup and thus the removal of Kennedy is one thing. But the mainstream historian would be faced with the large impediment - if they want to assign responsibility to other players - of both the WC and the HSCA which assigned guilt to Oswald and both finding no evidence linking other players to the assassination. They'd need to either dismantle the case that was made against Oswald or bring forward proof that other players were involved, something that no one has convincingly done in the 53 years since the assassination. But non-mainstream historians have no such impediments, and they often simply ignore the findings which contradict their claims, or wave their hands and with no evidence proclaim the WC/HSCA to be liars or part of a cover-up. That's not history. Canada Jack (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment. I took a look at various other Wikipedia Presidential assassin articles to see how they handled the initial sentence, especially describing the assassin, not to use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS!! as a cudgel, but to see how this issue was worked out in other situations (like Charles Guiteau, John Wilkes Booth, etc). I do think describing Oswald as an "American sniper" is inaccurate in its implied meaning. Yes, it is technically accurate but it implies that Oswald was trained or worked as an American sniper, which is inaccurate. To look at some examples:
Chris Kyle is described as a sniper in the lede sentence: "Christopher Scott "Chris" Kyle (April 8, 1974 − February 2, 2013) was a United States Navy SEAL veteran and sniper." - and that sentence is completely correct. Kyle was known as a sniper and trained as a sniper - that was his job.
John Wilkes Booth is not described as an "American gunman" (which could be held to be technically accurate but is misleading in its implications). Instead, the lede sentence of his article states: John Wilkes Booth (May 10, 1838 – April 26, 1865) was an American stage actor who assassinated President Abraham Lincoln at Ford's Theatre in Washington, D.C. on April 14, 1865.
The lede sentence presently states:

Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was an American sniper who assassinated President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963.

How about one of these (or some other similar wording) for alternatives:

Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was an American held responsible for assassinating John F. Kennedy, President of the United States.

Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was a former United States Marine held responsible for assassinating John F. Kennedy, President of the United States.

Shearonink (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Quite frankly, the solution is dead simple. Move the word "American," as I've suggested several times.

Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was the sniper who assassinated American President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. Canada Jack (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Of the options presented by Shearonink and Canada Jack, Canada Jack's is the most consistent with historical conclusions. Sundayclose (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with Canada Jack's above. Shearonink (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

From Sundayclose: <<do you think your claims about reliable sources and adequacy of historians are not opinions?>> Of course not. My point is that everyone's "claims" are opinions. I did not set out to get into a battle over what is mainstream under this "first sentence" issue. It was Canada Jack's overreaction to my opinion that "alleged" was more historically neutral than the article's existing language that resulted in another exchange, with him introducing the "guilty" terminology. How would you like to be falsely accused of denying that there were thorough investigations of the JFK assassination? 5198blk (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@5198blk: I understand that you were diverted from your main point here. But you had an equal (if not worse) overreaction to Canada Jack's use of the term "guilty". Read Canada Jack's subsequent explanation. "Guilty" has different meanings depending on context. You have treated the term exclusively as a legal term and refused to view it any differently despite considerable explanation about legitimate differences in meaning. Sundayclose (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

My reaction to CJ was only "equal (if not worse)" from your viewpoint. I think my response was well-measured. If you want to convince me otherwise, provide some specifics. Your phrase "considerable explanation" exemplifies the problem with prevailing attitudes on the LHO page. It's not "explanation;" it's opposing opinion. "Explanation" connotes the "we're right, you're wrong" atmosphere here.

If CJ hadn't introduced the word "guilty," which wasn't even proposed, we wouldn't be having this discussion. My opinion is that use of the word "guilty" is inappropriate without a trial. That wasn't an explanation, it was an expression of opinion. "Determined," "concluded," "found," "believed to be" are more appropriate to the Oswald case. No one has even addressed my point that the findings would have been much more definitive had Oswald lived to defend himself. "I'm just a patsy" raises many questions that could have been fully explored if he hadn't been executed before he could explain himself. We will be forever left with the resulting uncertainty. 5198blk (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Canada Jack, thanks for all your research re: killers who never stood trial. But it doesn't do a thing to resolve our disagreement over use of the word "guilty." None of the cites you shared mention the word. The problem is that "guilty" (which hasn't even been proposed for inclusion in the article - it's simply a disagreement we're having) implies a higher standard of proof to many people. The WC didn't find LHO "guilty" of the assassination; it "concluded" that LHO was the lone assassin. That the majority of Americans aren't sold on the WC's findings puts this in perspective. 5198blk (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@5198blk: Geez here we go with another "that's your opinion" argument. Let me get some clarification that may end this discussion between you and me because it may be pointless. A simple yes or no should clarify things. Are you claiming that the word "guilty" has no other meaning than the one used in a court of law? And to clarify further, if I steal a cookie from someone's lunchbox (and let me emphasize that I actually did it so we don't have to quibble about whether it actually occurred) but no one takes me to court where I could get a guilty verdict, am I thus not guilty of stealing because a court has not found me guilty? If the answer is yes, we're finished here because it's a waste of everyone's time. Sundayclose (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read what I actually wrote, 5198. For one, I never proposed to use the word "guilty" on the page - the texts I have proposed don't include that word. Secondly, I even stated that because to some that word implies a court verdict, it is a word to be generally avoided for use on the page we are discussing. When we discussed this in context of Oswald and his lack of a trial, it didn't seem I needed to make that distinction as it was obvious what the context here was.

The WC didn't find LHO "guilty" of the assassination; it "concluded" that LHO was the lone assassin. And the distinction here is...? You are the one who is arguing that we should insert "alleged," but you admit that the WC concluded LHO shot the president! Clearly, the WC - and the HSCA - concluded Oswald was the killer, there's nothing "alleged" about it.

As for "alleged" being "historically neutral," that's the precise reverse of the truth. It suggests that, for historians, there is a controversy over who actually killed Kennedy. Quite simply, there isn't, no more than there is a controversy over whether six million Jews died in WWII, or whether Evolution has actually happened. For to believe those other points of view, one has to either ignore the weight of scientific and historical evidence, proclaim that "evidence" is false and historians/scientists are deliberately hiding the truth, and the historical/scientific method is something which has no particular relevance as it is controlled and manipulated by powers in whose interest these queries must be contained. When it comes to Oswald, there are something like 50 pieces of evidence directly linking him to the crime. Yet, from the standpoint of these self-styled "historians" in the conspiracy crowd, this evidence, when they actually address it (often they pretend it doesn't exist - like in the film "JFK") they claim, without evidence, it has been planted and/or forged.

That the majority of Americans aren't sold on the WC's findings puts this in perspective. Not when you realize that a majority of people in America also believe Evolution is false and a large percentage believe the Holocaust was a hoax.

No one has even addressed my point that the findings would have been much more definitive had Oswald lived to defend himself. Because that is just idle speculation. In all likelihood, he would not have testified as he would not have been a sympathetic defendant given what we know of his character, and he'd not want to get crushed by the cross-examination. Given the evidence against him, this would have been a very easy case for to find a conviction. In fact, because of the open-ended format of the Warren Commission, we likely have MORE information as to what actually happened, and all the permutations, as the State was not limited to a simple prosecution, and the further state-of-the-art forensics done by the HSCA puts to rest the doubts about the WC's shortcomings when it comes to the physical evidence.

"I'm just a patsy" raises many questions that could have been fully explored if he hadn't been executed before he could explain himself. But he did explain himself! When he said that he said he was being arrested because he lived in the Soviet Union and was a convenient scapegoat! Besides, are you aware of how the American justice system works? What makes you believe he would have "explain[ed] himself"in terms of his role in the assassination? He wasn't a Sirhan Sirhan, letting everyone within earshot know that he shot RFK because of his support of Israel in the Six Days War, Oswald didn't admit it and told obvious lies in custody. Even his brother, who knew him better than anyone, realized he did it the moment he saw him in jail. What we will never know is exactly why he did it. Canada Jack (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was an American former Marine who is known for assassinating President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963.
  

Sounds better to me than "American sniper". Could omit the "former Marine" part. —DIY Editor (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Ok. So there are now 2 main ideas for the lede sentence:

• Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was an American former Marine who is known for assassinating President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963.
  
• Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was the sniper who assassinated American President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963.
  

There might be others posted above, but these two seem to be what is now under discussion. I'm fine with either. Shearonink (talk) 04:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

From Sundayclose:

<<Are you claiming that the word "guilty" has no other meaning than the one used in a court of law?>> No.

<<And to clarify further, if I steal a cookie from someone's lunchbox (and let me emphasize that I actually did it so we don't have to quibble about whether it actually occurred) but no one takes me to court where I could get a guilty verdict, am I thus not guilty of stealing because a court has not found me guilty?>> No.

From Canada Jack:

<<Perhaps you should read what I actually wrote, 5198. For one, I never proposed to use the word "guilty" on the page.>> If you were to read what I actually wrote, you would know I understand and stated that.

<<Clearly, the WC - and the HSCA - concluded Oswald was the killer, there's nothing "alleged" about it.>> Where there’s mystery as to the hard evidence – which, in Oswald’s case, remains circumstantial – the conclusion remains “alleged.” BTW, thanks for using "concluded" instead of "found guilty."

<<No one has even addressed my point that the findings would have been much more definitive had Oswald lived to defend himself.>> Because that is just idle speculation. In all likelihood, he would not have testified as he would not have been a sympathetic defendant given what we know of his character, and he'd not want to get crushed by the cross-examination.>> Don’t get hung up on speculation as to whether he would have testified or not. That’s simply trial strategy, whereas comprehensive defense strategy involves the accused providing everything he knows to the defense team so the team run can down the leads. This never happened; LHO was still in police custody and never had a chance to explain his “patsy” claim to a defense team before Ruby shut him up. Had LHO not been executed, he would have been able to tell his story to his defense team, which would have been able to pursue the leads and present them at trial. All we were left with was a government inquiry without any counterpoint. My stated point remains valid. Testimony or no, the findings would have been much more conclusive if LHO had lived to give his side of the story via a criminal trial. Maybe he would have provided real insight; maybe he would have flipped us all the bird. Either way, we’d have more to go on. 5198blk (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@5198blk: If the term "guilty" doesn't necessarily require a trial, please explain this comment: "My opinion is that use of the word "guilty" is inappropriate without a trial." Sundayclose (talk) 03:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

This is going nowhere and it's cluttering the talk page. WP:FORUM. —DIY Editor (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm kind of getting confused as to what the discussion is about anymore...and find following the threaded discussion of some of the responses difficult. Shearonink (talk) 04:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

<<Perhaps you should read what I actually wrote, 5198. For one, I never proposed to use the word "guilty" on the page.>> If you were to read what I actually wrote, you would know I understand and stated that. Then why are you pointing out that that word is not in the examples I cited? I didn't cite them to illustrate when and where to use "guilty" even if someone didn't face trial, I used that to show how we describe Oswald as being the killer of Kennedy despite no guilty verdict in court is completely routine and normal practice. Again, the issue here is not when or whether to use the word "guilty": it is is when and whether to use the word "alleged."

BTW, thanks for using "concluded" instead of "found guilty." The official conclusions are identical - Oswald was the perpetrator, just as Booth was, and all the others. The only difference is the one "found guilty" in court ends up being sentenced.

Where there’s mystery as to the hard evidence – which, in Oswald’s case, remains circumstantial – the conclusion remains “alleged.” Three things here. 1: The conclusions from the investigations were that he killed the president, therefore there is no "alleged." And my examples show that a trial isn't needed to determine that. So you are wrong on the conclusion. 2) "the hard evidence... remains circumstantial - the conclusion remains "alleged": With respect, I don't think you understand what "circumstantial evidence" means in this context: For example, Oswald's rifle being on the floor is "circumstantial evidence," but extremely damaging to his case, indeed, almost fatal to his case, direct evidence - a witness who said he saw him shoot the president - may not have been as damaging: 2) what "mystery" are you talking about? Be specific.

Don’t get hung up on speculation as to whether he would have testified or not. Sure, because it destroys your implication - that we would have learned something exculpatory.

LHO was still in police custody and never had a chance to explain his “patsy” claim to a defense team before Ruby shut him up. AGAIN, Oswald DID explain the "patsy" remark - as he said it! "They've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy!" He's saying "they" - the Dallas police - rounded him up for the simple reason he was a Commie and therefore a convenient scapegoat.

Had LHO not been executed, he would have been able to tell his story to his defense team... Not much of a story to tell, given the evidence which essentially proves he killed Kennedy. What we don't know is WHY he did it. But motive is not needed for conviction, if the evidence points to guilt, which it did in this case. What likely would have happened in a criminal trial would have been an attempt to plea bargain, as the evidence against him was so overwhelming. Perhaps a confession to avoid the death penalty. Your implication that Oswald would have "named names" is also extremely unlikely. Even if you contend that he could have got off by doing so, that is more than unlikely - there was ZERO chance given the huge publicity in the case - as the evidence so strongly implicated him. No more than Booth naming names would have somehow cleared him. Canada Jack (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I see the article's opening two sentences have been improved by edits. So I'm sure we all want to move on from this controversy over the words "guilty" and "alleged." That said, I need to address an open question from Sundayclose and respond to some comments by Canada Jack.

From Sundayclose: <<If the term "guilty" doesn't necessarily require a trial, please explain this comment: "My opinion is that use of the word "guilty" is inappropriate without a trial." Sundayclose (talk) 03:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)>> It's a matter of the gravity of the issue. This is not a matter of stealing cookies. This is one of the most infamous homicides of the 20th Century. The selection of words is very important. If you maintain that Oswald was "guilty" of assassinating JFK, you're inferring to an inquiring public that LHO was found guilty via a full and fair trial, which he (and, just as importantly, we) never enjoyed. However thorough the WC effort, there was no defense presented and no exploration of the ways in which Oswald believed he was set up; and, beyond that, no defense-led investigation of suspicious connections and behind-the-scenes activities that could have vetted them in real time. "Believed" or "concluded" are appropriate - not "guilty." 5198blk (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

So with your reasoning, when John Wilkes Booth, who was seen with a pistol moments after a bullet went through Lincoln's head, who jumped from the Presidential Box to the stage in front of a theater full of people, who escaped and was killed without a trial -- Booth is not guilty of murder because he was never tried. And the school shooters through the years who are seen killing people and then themselves (thus no trial), they also are not guilty of murder with your line of thought. This isn't a matter of us agreeing to disagree. This is me wondering what bizarre alternate reality you learned your version of logic. Words that mean one thing to the vast majority of people have a different meaning for you -- and you expect everyone to accept your meaning. There's no point in discussing further because it is uttlerly pointless. So I'll just exit this very strange conversation with a reminder that you need consensus for your "unique" way of thinking. Sundayclose (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I find it problematic to equate the immediate clarity of the Booth and school shooting events with the more circumstantial case against Oswald, which took 10 months to reach the "conclusion" that he assassinated Kennedy. I note that the Wikipedia "Warren Commission" page does not use the word "guilty;" it states that the WC "concluded..." Nor, for that matter, do the Booth and Klebold pages use “guilty.” So it appears that the "vast majority of people" share my meaning in such a context, not yours. If anyone chooses to believe Oswald was guilty, that's up to them. But it is not, and should not, be used interchangeably with words like "concluded" in a scholarly setting, and for good reason. Even Canada Jack said: <<But to allay confusion, I'd avoid using the term in an article unless someone has actually faced trial.>>

Thanks for the "bizarre alternate reality" comment; there was no reason to get that carried away. And, for the record, I do not "expect everyone to accept" my meaning; that's your inaccurate characterization of what I think. 5198blk (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing "immediate" about Oswald's assassination of Kennedy. It was 53 years ago. And there's a lot more than the WC's conclusions to serve as the basis for any conclusions. You're flip-flopping all over the place. Some people can be said to be guilty without a trial, just not Oswald. And your argument of "circumstantial" evidence has already been refuted by Canada Jack; you just chose to ignore it. And whether or not the Booth article uses the word "guilty", it clearly and unequivocally states in the first sentence: "assassinated President Abraham Lincoln" without the unnecessary phrases "allegedly" or "concluded that" or other such nonsense. So, no, it does not appear that the "vast majority of people" agree with your meaning of the word "guilty". OK, we won't call it "alternate reality". It's simply semantic slight of hand. Sundayclose (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Just a few quick comments here. 5198 is conflating several distinct things here - the issue of whether Oswald killed the president; the issue as to whether he was guilty in a legal sense. He most certainly was guilty of killing Kennedy in the objective sense of the word, but he might have been found innocent in the legal sense of the word - EVEN IF THE COURT DETERMINED HE IN FACT KILLED KENNEDY. IOW, the issue of a "verdict" is neither here nor there in terms of whether he actually killed the president. Because courts aren't as interested in finding the truth of what happened per se as they are in determining the legal criminal responsibility of a person charged with a crime. But the fact that a court could not render a verdict on whether he should bear punishment is NOT germane in terms of whether he in fact killed the president, because of the extensive investigations which indeed concluded he killed the president.

A recent case bears out this distinction. South Carolina policeman Michael Slager shot and killed Walter Scott. No one disputes this, it was captured on a cellphone video. But was he "guilty" of murder or voluntary manslaughter? It seems not. (This is the case of the cop who shot the fleeing motorist in the back, a mistrial was declared the other day.) When we say someone is "guilty" in a casual sense, is Slager guilty of shooting Scott? Well, of course he is. But he may not be FOUND guilty of the SPECIFIC CHARGE.

When we identify on a main page whether someone did or didn't kill someone, we reserve the term "guilty" for those who have been convicted at trial, as it relates to specific charges. But those charges are specifically defined and don't necessarily mean there is any doubt someone actually killed someone else, just the level of responsibility one may face.

As for this being a "circumstantial" case, it is clear that 5198 does not understand what that means. We have DIRECT evidence that Oswald killed Kennedy in the form of an eyewitness. We have CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence which not only places him in the sniper's nest, but his rifle, a bag he made to carry the rifle, bullets which were found in the limo and hospital matched to the rifle, and his actions which show a consciousness of guilt - shooting Tippit, for example. To say there is "only" circumstantial evidence betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how evidence is used in trials. It's usually the only evidence used to convict! And from what I have heard in terms of whether a case could be prosecuted with this evidence, it's very nearly a slam-dunk, as most cases have perhaps one or two pieces of evidence - usually circumstantial - in which to gain a conviction. (And a conviction frequently happens in those cases.) In THIS case, we have upward of FIFTY pieces of circumstantial evidence tying him to the crime. Those who think Oswald would have been easily acquitted, simply put, haven't the slightest clue what they are talking about. Canada Jack (talk) 17:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Re: Sundayclose comments of 15:58 8 December 2016: <<There's nothing "immediate" about Oswald's assassination of Kennedy. It was 53 years ago.>> I'm concerned you've turned bitterly obtuse. The meaning of <<the immediate clarity of the Booth and school shooting events...>> is obvious. It has nothing to do with when the events occurred. It has to do with the instantaneous clarity of who committed the acts in real time, be it 1865, 1963 or 1999. I have not flip-flopped on this "guilty" wording, and Canada Jack has not refuted me. 5198blk (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Point taken on "immediate" (thanks for the clarification), although I don't agree that Booth's act had any more "immediate clarity" than Oswald's. And your explanation of "immediate" doesn't change my conclusion that you are flip-flopping on the meaning of "guilty". On all other items in your last comment, you are wrong, including "bitterly obtuse". If Canada Jack hasn't refuted you on the "circumstantial" issue, why have you not responded to his very detailed explanations (twice) of why "circumstantial" has nothing to do with whether Oswald (or for that matter, Booth and many other assassins) did assassinate (i.e., is guilty of killing) Kennedy? Sundayclose (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Re: Canada Jack's "quick comments:"

You focus on whether a trial would have resulted in a guilty verdict against Oswald, but any verdict is an irrelevant diversion from my point that exhaustive exploration and presentation of defensive issues would have shed more light on the behind-the-scenes contacts, events, relationships and possible deceptions that have been the subject of so much dissension. The vetting involved in the lead-up to a trial would have provided a much more credible outcome.

Regarding your claim there was an eyewitness who identified LHO: you can't be serious about the validity of Brennan's story as a credible identification of LHO as the window shooter. Even the WC found Brennan's testimony unreliable. He couldn't identify Oswald in a lineup right after the event, but, months later, he provided unconvincing testimony before the WC that LHO was the guy he saw in the window. You're the first person I've encountered to even try to resurrect this one.

Also, your repeated position that Oswald fully explained his "patsy" claim with one spontaneous response during live questioning by the press is downright disingenuous. A thorough defense team effort over many months leading up to trial would have fleshed this out the way it should have been. 5198blk (talk) 07:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@5198blk: Yet again you have set up a straw man in order to avoid addressing the real issue. Read Canada Jack's comments more carefully. Let me provide a quotation: "Oswald's rifle being on the floor is "circumstantial evidence," but extremely damaging to his case, indeed, almost fatal to his case, direct evidence - a witness who said he saw him shoot the president - may not have been as damaging". That point is crystal clear to me, and it should be to you if you would actually accept it for what it says. The "circumstantial" evidence is more damaging than the eyewitness account by Brennan (direct evidence), and that is usually true in cases such as this. Please try again. Please address Canada Jack's refuting your argument that circumstantial evidence is insufficient to determine whether Oswald killed Kennedy, unless you're willing to accept CJ's argument as valid. And remember, CJ addressed the issue in two different detailed posts. I'll defer to CJ to correct or expand upon my comments. Sundayclose (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

You focus on whether a trial would have resulted in a guilty verdict against Oswald, but any verdict is an irrelevant diversion from my point that exhaustive exploration and presentation of defensive issues would have shed more light on the behind-the-scenes contacts, events, relationships and possible deceptions that have been the subject of so much dissension. You are missing the point, 5198. The point is not whether we can be sure Oswald would have been found guilty - or not - of whatever charge, the point is that whether he was found guilty or not is INDEPENDENT of whether he actually killed the president. To suppose that Oswald's legal team could have found evidence of this or that does not negate the positive evidence placing Oswald in that sniper's perch, shooting and killing the president. And two exhaustive investigations concluded that Oswald indeed shot and killed the president, period. And the fact of the matter is, with 53 years of time to follow up leads, the evidence a) establishing the rifle found at the TSBD as the murder weapon, b) establishing Oswald's ownership and possession of the murder weapon and c) establishing Oswald's presence in the sniper's nest, ALL stands the test of time.

Regarding your claim there was an eyewitness who identified LHO: you can't be serious about the validity of Brennan's story as a credible identification of LHO as the window shooter. A rather odd comment, 5198. It seems you don't understand what I was saying and have inadvertently buttressed my point. What I was saying was that DIRECT evidence - in this case, eye-witness testimony saying Oswald shot the president - isn't necessarily more damaging than CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence - in this case, for example, the fact Oswald's rifle was not only found on the floor the assassin was firing from, but linked to the bullet and fragments associated with the killing. Why is it not more damaging? Because, as you correctly point out, there are issues with that testimony, and a good defense attorney would have been able to punch big holes in it, especially given he didn't identify Oswald in the first line-up. In contrast, the presence of the rifle is almost fatal to his case. A ton of evidence establishes the particular rifle as the murder weapon AND a ton of evidence links the rifle to Oswald. A defense attorney would have a very steep hill to climb on this one, especially given that Oswald, when asked about the rifle, lied and said he didn't even own one. Which is further evidence for the prosecution as that is evidence of consciousness of guilt. An innocent person would more likely say "yes I have a rifle, but it's in my garage, if it's gone, someone took it and planted it." But he didn't say that, even claiming a photograph of him with it was a doctored image. NONE of the evidence linking Oswald to the rifle and the rifle to the assassination would have been conceivably negated by a defense team's research.

Further, unlike a trial where Marina Oswald could not be called as a witness, in the investigation she COULD be called to testify - and was - and her testimony corroborates in a devastating way Oswald's ownership of the murder weapon. While she now believes he was set up, she has never budged from her claim he owned the rifle and she photographed him with it.

Also, your repeated position that Oswald fully explained his "patsy" claim with one spontaneous response during live questioning by the press is downright disingenuous. He wasn't making a "spontaneous response" to a question about him being a patsy - he was saying the only reason he was there was because as a former resident of the Soviet Union, he was a convenient scapegoat, a patsy. It is crystal-clear what he was saying, and it is not surprising that those who want to make this sound like he was a fall-guy for larger forces conveniently cut out the start of the quote: "They've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy!" Canada Jack (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Just to tie this back, to the use of the word "alleged" in describing Oswald as the man who killed Kennedy, the fact of Oswald's role in the assassination is separate from what verdict might have been rendered in a trial. IOW, it is quote conceivable he could have been found "not guilty" even though it was also established he in fact killed the president. Further, I have cited numerous instances where a person who never faced trial nevertheless is described as being the killer. Still further, unlike with most of those cases, extensive investigation was done on the question of Oswald's role and both official large-scale investigations concluded he in fact killed the president. While a trial conceivably could have brought information that would have shed light on possible accomplices, the evidence upon which the WC and HSCA used to establish Oswald's guilt in killing the president is iron-clad. Canada Jack (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Your focus on LHO's ownership of the rifle as primary proof is... meh. Co-intel experts who routinely set up fall guys go for exactly this kind of "gotcha" stuff. Gerry Hemming very effectively explained that Oswald could have been duped into bringing his rifle to work on 11/22 to sell it for twice what it was worth, with arrangements to hide the gun and wait in the lunch room for the deal to be consummated. (In fact Hemming claimed he was the one who coaxed LHO to bring the rifle to the TSBD on 11/22). Hemming's scenario opens our eyes as to how a hapless guy like LHO made a perfect patsy.

This creates the kind of doubt that can render circumstantial evidence hollow, reinforcing my point that the WC investigation could never match what would have been achieved had Oswald lived and had a real defense effort.

What if a Hemming-style set-up were true? Can you imagine being Oswald that day, suddenly realizing that JFK had been shot and he had been suckered into bringing his rifle to the TSBD? On top of that - his record of defection to the USSR, pro-Castro activities and shooting at General Walker? Realizing he was framed, of course he would panic and flee - which would be seen as reinforcing his guilt. 5198blk (talk) 08:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

May I draw your attention to the boldfaced words at the head of this page? This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lee Harvey Oswald article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

May I - again - draw your attention to WP:INDENT?

Thank you. --Pete (talk) 09:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Skyring. There is a consensus here to change "American sniper" to one of the options discussed (but not to change that LHO assassinated JFK). That's the point of this discussion. As with the Atsugi discussion above, 5198blk has been engaging in endless repetition of the same argument in violation of WP:IDHT. I request that an uninvolved editor close this discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Skyring also, but there were three users involved in this discussion and argument: Canada Jack, Sundayclose and myself. I'm signing off. 5198blk (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

5198blk, my remarks were aimed directly at you, so I'm not sure how you can support them by doing the exact opposite. Given your continued inability to indent, and your continued avoidance of specific article improvements, I'm calling either troll or incompetent at this point. --Pete (talk) 04:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

This entire discussion should be closed and collapsed. I can't do it because I think technically I am involved. —DIY Editor (talk) 04:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC about inserting additional details

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus opposing inclusion of the Atsugi/U-2 information has remained unchanged for two weeks. WP:SNOWCLOSE (non-admin closure)Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

---

Regarding Oswald’s Marine assignment at as a radar operator at the Naval Air Station in Atsugi, Japan, and his interaction with U-2 flights and their pilots

Should the "Marine Corps" section state: "Oswald's assignment in Japan was as a Marine radar operator at the Naval Air Station in Atsugi during 1957 and 1958 . Atsugi was the operating base for 'Detachment C' of the U-2 spy plane operation Oswald and numerous other Marine radar operators in his unit, designated MACS-1, frequently tracked the U-2 flights and, on some occasions, communicated with the U-2 pilot(s). "

NOTE: Editors are urged to read the previous discussion above at Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald#Atsugi. Sundayclose (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

References

@5198blk: Maybe you didn't intend this, but you have !voted twice, one support and one oppose. Please remove one of them. Sundayclose (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I hadn't intended to vote at all yet. I intended to use Wikipedia's template for launching a bot-assisted RFC survey, which suggests setting forth brief "support" and "oppose" descriptions for the survey in Section 3.2. If these are votes, I will remove the first "oppose" item above with my signature. 5198blk (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose It might be relevant if he in fact "touted... his knowledge of US spy plane operations" to the Soviets, problem is he never claimed to have information on US spy plane operations, and the article doesn't say he claimed this! Further, there is no evidence that he in fact knew anything about the program, as the U2 spy planes were one of hundreds if not thousands of flights he might have directed. Being a radar operator gives one no special insight to the working of a program any more than directing Air Force One at an airport means you are privy to presidential decisions. Canada Jack (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose It seems to be a case of trying to string together sources to imply some kind of CIA connection. Creative WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. DIY Editor (talk) 03:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I received this e-mail message sent by Sundayclose: "Sundayclose‬ left a message on your talk page in 'Removing talk page comments at Oswald RfC‬'. I asked you to remove one of your !votes. You also removed Canada Jack's !vote. For now I will assume good faith that you didn't intend this. But..."

First of all, I don't see any message like this on the Talk Page.

Second, I didn't remove a single thing. Canada Jack's vote and comments are still here for all to see. I didn't delete his vote, nor did I remove my previous "support" and "oppose" examples, which are now gone. I'm not sure what is driving these changes. Now we're left with Canada Jack quoting my comment that no longer appears. I think I will have to start another thread to start from scratch. 5198blk (talk) 03:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@5198blk: Then please tell us who was using your account with this edit that removed Canada Jack's !vote? If you gave someone your password, that's your fault. If you didn't, you are the only person who could have made the edit. No, we're not starting a new thread. If you want to add your !vote that's fine, but do not remove anyone else's comments and do not start a new thread. Sundayclose (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@5198blk: This additional edit appears unintentional. Please be careful when editing not to blank material. DIY Editor (talk) 04:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has already been shut down once. DIY Editor (talk) 04:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, Canada Jack's vote and comments are still here. I don't see any evidence that someone else is using my account. I don't even know how to remove things. I stand falsely accused of something that hasn't even happened.

This discussion is now an RFC, launched under Wikipedia's dispute resolution policy. The RFC grew out of the previous discussion, so it's a valid topic. 2601:14D:4100:2864:E096:18E0:8D3F:5546 (talk) 04:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC) 5198blk (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC) 2601:14D:4100:2864:E096:18E0:8D3F:5546 (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC) 5198blk (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@5198blk: I wasn't saying this section isn't valid, I was responding to your suggestion of starting yet another thread (I assume section) on the topic. Please review the links we provided to the edits which do show you twice blanking material. It is going to be difficult to edit Wikipedia without understanding the revision system. DIY Editor (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose This is synthesis structured to imply that Oswald was assigned to a CIA/U2 project. Many types of aircraft flew out of Atsugi, which is a very large air base. Radar operators would have interacted with all aircraft of any type. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I'm guilty of poor editing or "blanking" (I'm new at this), but Canada Jack's vote and comments still appear. Why does Sundayclose say I deleted them? Is it the "-" section in the edits? Why does that matter if the comments are still visible? I've asked 2 times already, but no one explains. And where is the initial message from Sundayclose (re: removals) I quoted? The e-mail notification says the message is on the Talk Page, but I've yet to see it. 5198blk (talk) 05:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@5198blk: Because it has been explained twice, and here it is for the third time. Canada Jack's !vote is still here because I RESTORED IT. Please look at this edit in which Canada Jack's !vote was removed and tell us who made the edit? I'm willing to assume good faith that your removal of his !vote was unintentional, but please stop denying that it was made from your account. If you can accept that we can drop this and move on. And for about the fifth time, STOP editing while signed out. Please add your signature to comments above which have been signed by your IP address Sundayclose (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose There's no evidence for the supposition. WP:SYNTH applies. End of story. --Pete (talk) 05:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose and Speedy Close for all the reasons stated above at Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald#Atsugi. There is no basis for assuming this insignificant portion of Oswald's military activities is any more notable than many other trivial details that are not included in this article. This is an attempt to force unfounded speculation into the article using WP:SYNTH and WP:FRINGE. And this entire issue has already been discussed in a previous section above and closed with no support. Sundayclose (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for bearing with me; I did not understand that when filling in a response that I needed to leave all the remaining discussion in place. That wasn't explained to me by anyone, and I never saw a + and - editing form until you gave me the link. I took it out because I was concerned it would be duplicated. This is a daunting format for those who are relatively new to it and don't use it often. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:4100:2864:90C3:84FA:F3DD:41B6 (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC) 5198blk (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@5198blk: Your error is understandable, but your denial that you removed someone's !vote was a problem. But let's move on. The lesson here is to never, ever alter anyone's comments on a talk page. And again, please log in to edit, and please add your signature on this page where it is signed by you IP. Sundayclose (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose for what's been reasoned above. I do believe his Atsugi MACS-1 stint could be mentioned and referenced to the Warren Commission, however. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I now understand how problematic my denial was, but it grew out of my unfamiliarity with the format here, not an intention to wreak havoc. But, yes, let's move on.

FoCuS makes a great suggestion; let's get rid of the U-2 stuff (at least for now). Maybe we can agree on this edit: "Oswald's assignment in Japan was as a Marine radar operator at the Naval Air Station in Atsugi during 1957 and 1958. He was a member of Marine Air Control Squadron No. 1 (MACS-1), the function of which was to direct aircraft to their targets by radar and communicate with the pilots by radio. It also tracked incoming foreign aircraft, such as straying Russian or Chinese planes.[1]"

It all appears in the WC report, and is at least as significant to LHO's biography as some of the other things already in the article, such as these 3 entries: <<As a teenager, in 1955, Oswald attended Civil Air Patrol meetings in New Orleans. Oswald's fellow cadets recalled him attending C.A.P. meetings "three or four" times, or "10 or 12 times" over a one- or two-month period.>> <<Oswald was court-martialed after accidentally shooting himself in the elbow with an unauthorized .22 handgun, then court-martialed again for fighting with a sergeant who he thought was responsible for his punishment in the shooting matter. He was demoted from private first class to private and briefly imprisoned in the brig. He was later punished for a third incident: while on night-time sentry duty in the Philippines, he inexplicably fired his rifle into the jungle.>> <<In November 1958, Oswald transferred back to El Toro[42] where his unit's function "was to serveil [sic] for aircraft, but basically to train both enlisted men and officers for later assignment overseas." An officer there said that Oswald was a "very competent" crew chief and was "brighter than most people.">> 5198blk (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

What makes the U2 any more notable than any other aircraft that he may have worked with? Why mention them in particular? —DIY Editor (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

My latest proposed edit doesn't mention the U-2. But, historically, the U-2 during the Cold War is much more significant than other aircraft. In Oswald's life - indeed, in any American's life - interaction with the U-2 in the late 50's is historically significant (much more so than going to local Civil Air Group meetings at age 15, already in the article). But I've eliminated the U-2 in my latest proposal. I can see we need to take baby steps here. 5198blk (talk) 02:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Summoned by bot. Excessive and irrelevant detail. Coretheapple (talk) 13:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

<<Excessive and irrelevant detail. Coretheapple >> Sure, because, apparently, a 9,000+ word biography that drones on with excruciating minutia for 21 pages has no place for a 2-sentence tidbit regarding the subject's interaction with the legendary U-2 spy plane while on assignment at a US air base in Japan. Got it. 5198blk (talk) 05:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:Murdered military

I don't want to edit the article but I think it should be placed into Category:Murdered American military personnel —  Ark25  (talk) 19:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

An Issue

Hi all. Please read this without thinking I am some conspiracy nut. I have a big problem with Wikipedia labeling him as the man who killed President Kennedy. While the Warren Commission and other investigations concluded the President was killed by a lone gunman and that the gunman was Oswald, there has since been evidence brought to light in the last 50+ years that at least creates reasonable doubt. Oswald was never tried and convicted in a court of law. And, if he were tried today, it's far from certain he'd be convicted. I believe it should say something to the effect of "is an American believed by government investigations, to have been the man who assassinated President John F. Kennedy"...or "is an American who allegedly, according to the Warren Commission, assassinated President Kennedy"...the word allegedly is important. I wanted to write this before making any edits to avoid a pointless edit war. It may not seem that important, but it is.

Thank you! Cubslakersfan (talk) 04:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes what the full range of reliable sources say about the topic, and the highest quality reliable sources state that Oswald shot Kennedy. Yes, there are a wide variety of sources that put forward other theories, but these tend to be lower quality sources and their various theories are contradictory and convincingly refuted. There is no coherent, alternate theory accepted by academic historians that says that "person x" as part of "conspiracy y" shot Kennedy instead of Oswald. Instead, 53 years later, the best sources agree that Oswald was the assassin. Accordingly, that is what Wikipedia must say as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

As for Oswald not being convicted in court, neither was John Wilkes Booth, and we have no problem stating that Booth killed Abraham Lincoln. The evidence against Oswald is as convincing as the evidence against Booth. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The findings of Chief Justice Warren's inquiry are legally valid, so there's no 'alleged' about it. Khamba Tendal (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

According to the Constitution, defendants must be present at their trials in order for them to be convicted. The fact that "We have no problem stating that Booth killed Abraham Lincoln is irrelevant to Wikipedia. A biggie aong The five pillars of Wikipedia: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view and please don't even attempt to sell the Warren Omission as a "More Reliable" anything. A commission whose stated purpose was never remotely anything resembling a hunt for the truth, but rather a stated purpose of "Reassuring the American People" You don't solve a crime by looking for facts to support a specific conclusion. You start with the evidence and go where it leads you. The Warren Commission Report has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked not just on the science misused and misinterpreted but by the overwhelming amount of data that was stricken, omitted, deleted, limited and buried. Save that kind of talk for the Warren Commission page, not a page that aims to provide true information on Lee Harvey Oswald. because of the huge dispute and the amount of conflicting information on this man, it is more important than most places that the page not put forth ANYONE'S agenda, be it the Warren Commission, or mine or yours. Let's keep it precise, by which I mean at least from a legal perspective. I doubt we will ever see evidence that will determine without a reasonable doubt what happened on 11/22/1963, but we can at least not be armchair quarterbacks on Wikipedia pages. Blairware (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

That we have no problem stating that Booth killed Abraham Lincoln is irrelevant to Wikipedia? Huh? DIY Editor (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

According to the Constitution, defendants must be present at their trials in order for them to be convicted. Sure, but how does that apply here? Oswald wasn't convicted of a crime; two investigations however concluded he killed the president. Conspiracy authors have consistently confused the distinction between a conviction and a finding of fact. We do not need the former to determine the latter, and even if we know that latter - that person x killed person y - that doesn't necessarily mean person x will be convicted.

The Warren Commission Report has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked not just on the science misused and misinterpreted... The conspiracy community, having being stunned by the near-complete destruction of their claims by the HSCA in 1979, have since then largely ignored those definitive findings on the basic issues by simply stating that the WR is a "lie" and has been "debunked." But repeating that nonsense for 38 years does not make it so. Let me guess, DIY, this report you denounce, the Warren Report, is a book you've never actually read, is it? Canada Jack (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, DIY, I meant to refer to Blairware. Canada Jack (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Backyard photos

There is no mention anywhere in the entire article about how the police got backyard photos. The section "police interrogation" reads: Oswald was interrogated several times during his two days at Dallas Police Headquarters. He admitted that he went to his rooming house after leaving the book depository. He also admitted that he changed his clothes and armed himself with a .38 revolver before leaving his house to go to the theater. However, Oswald denied killing Kennedy and Tippit, denied owning a rifle, and said two photographs of him holding a rifle and a pistol were fakes.

A new person/reader will obviously get confused about these photos. It is not mentioned anywhere on wikipedia how the police got possession of the backyard photos. — usernamekiran (talk) 12:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

That's not an issue. Any average reader will assume that the police did a search of his premises, which is exactly what they did (including of his possessions at the Paine's place), and which, everyone knows, is routine procedure when someone is suspected of a serious crime. Canada Jack (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Oswald's stolen identity.

While Oswald was in Russia, some person(s) used his identity. FBI was aware of the fact that identity of person being used in US, who is currently in Russia. Edgar Hoover even sent a memorandum regarding that (i have a hard copy of that memorandum somewhere). I think that stolen identity scenario should be mentioned in the article. usernamekiran (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC) usernamekiran (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

here are some sources. They are not reliable sources, but they have some solid documents there. http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/O%20Disk/Oswald%20Lee%20Harvey%20Russia%20Imposter/Item%2015.pdf the memo: http://harveyandlee.net/Comrade/Comrade_boy.htm usernamekiran (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

This is material which could go on the conspiracy page. There is a rather more benign explanation for these memos - Oswald's mother was concerned about his son's whereabouts as her letters to the school he told her he was going to were returned - and the possibility that his birth certificate fell into someone else's hands as they were unaware of his Switzerland plans. (He had surrendered his passport already, they were unaware of the birth certificate). So, given that, they wanted to make sure that the Oswald in Moscow was indeed the real Oswald when a new passport was issued.

However, and I am surprised the conspiracy page doesn't seem to cover this, there is a common claim that Hickey and Hoover said the birth certificate WAS being used by someone else and, combined with the various claims from 1961 etc of "Oswald" arranging vehicles for the Cuban democracy groups, so I'd say there is definitely a place there to explore some of these imposter theories (Mexico City as well). But this page is not the page for these kinds of claims from non-reliable sources. (The other page in contrast, by definition details claims from non-reliable sources.) Canada Jack (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind suggestion User:Canada Jack. The sources i provided above are not reliable, but the memo is official. I was trying to point at the memo.

Yes, the concern from Oswald's mother was the reason why FBI looked it up. They even directed the official to make sure they give the new passport to the same guy who tried to renounce his american citizenship. They were specifically told to do it in person, and not by post. And yes, Hoover was sure that Oswald's identity was being used to procure vehicles for "friends of democratic cuba". I also am surprised none of the articles cover this issue. I mean, the Hoover memo is official. It is not hearsay. The memo could have been discussed on Oswald's page, and the imposter thing could have been discussed on the conspiracy page. usernamekiran (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

And yes, Hoover was sure that Oswald's identity was being used to procure vehicles for "friends of democratic cuba". I don't see that in any of the memos you referenced - could you provide a link to something from Hoover on that? The one you do reference says nothing about that, but was issued before the claims an "Oswald" was trying to rent cars for FDC (by early 1961, Hoover memo was from 1960). Canada Jack (talk) 01:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

But, yes, this definitely should go on the "conspiracy" page, I am surprised as you are that this isn't already there, along with the general "imposter" claims. Go there and ask for help if you need it. Canada Jack (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

lol you are shooing me. :-D Yeah, the memos i referenced doesnt reflect Edgar's surity. There is a problem with wording though. What i wanted to say is, Edgar was sure Oswald's identity was being used to procure vehicles. Procurement for whom, i dont know edgar's views on that. But he might have been alerted, as this was not a usual identity theft. The imposter was imposting a guy who had defected to russia. A guy who was a marine with security clearance. This guy supposedly knew radar secrets. This guy also tried to renounce his citizenship. So yup, it was sensitive issue for fbi/edgar. So they wanted to find out that imposter first. Maybe the imposter got the news about feds looking for him, and laid low. Wow! My 5 years old ipad mini just rurned 3D!! I should have slept as soon as i consumbed ambien. Yay! My ipad is wobbling now lol User:Canada Jack, talk to you after 12 hours from now. I hope i find my file of Edgar. There are few memoms in it. Goodnight Jack. usernamekiran (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure, just want to see that from him. Hoover said a lot of stuff, of course, just was curious about the basis for this one. Canada Jack (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I am surprised as you are that this isn't already there, along with the general "imposter" claims.

Good point. As (ridiculously) long as that article is, it's often been short on substance. For years, it didn't have a single mention of David Ferrie and Clay Shaw. Or any discussion of the Three Tramps. If I had unlimited time, I'd write up something about the Oswald double scenarios:

1. The strange identity theft stories while Oswald was in Russia. Ever read the 'The Bolton Ford Dealership Story'? [1]

2. The suspicion of someone impersonating Oswald during his trip to Mexico.

3. The many reports after the assassination from public tipsters about a "Lee Harvey Oswald" behaving in a strange or incriminating manner in Dallas just before the assassination - at times and places when the person in question could not possibly have been the real Oswald. Joegoodfriend (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, please, no. This article is afflicted by enough cruft as it is. If you want to start bandying about conspiracy theories, there's already an article for that. There's certainly no need to put such poorly-sourced fringe nonsense here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Joegoodfriend: would you be interested to do it on the conspiracy page like Canada Jack suggested? And if we get some content which is not conspiracy or hearsay, but is fact, then we can put it here too.

That's what I meant, on the conspiracy page. A pretty big job, but I'll start outlining it if I can find the time. It might be a better idea to work on shrinking that article down to size before adding more topics. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I've been thinking about downsizing both the article since a very long time now. But the consensus seems to be very sensitive about each n every word published there. ‎I will start trying to shrink the articles in couple of days. I will start discussions on the talk page, before actually doing it; cuz of the attachment of the people with the article. usernamekiran (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking forward to it. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

This old TALK discussion details some of what I'd like to work in re the 'Oswald double' in Mexico.[2] Joegoodfriend (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

That talk discussion is about another editor wanting to add the supposed impersonator to the article, getting reverted, and then failing to convince others it should be re-added. I fail to see why the result would be different this time around. Please refrain from bringing up old, settled and conspiracy-flavored information unless there is new source information that passes WP:V. Verifiability is a core content policy that surpasses any consensus that may be reached on a talk page so even if you were to succeed in persuading editors on this page to add it, it would likely be revoked to concur with global policy, anyway. As previously mentioned, a page already exists for this type of information. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• I skimmed through the talk page to which a link was provided by Joegoodfriend. @Eggishorn: I did not know this issue was discussed before. It was done by a user NYCJosh. I apologise for the confusion, but Joegoodfriend was talking about adding this discussion to the conspiracy page, not here :) and most of you guys talk so mechanically, it feels like one is talking with bots/AIs. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Damn! They found me out! Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Revolvers don't automatically eject cartridges

"Four cartridge cases found at the scene were identified by expert witnesses[179] before the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee as having been fired from the revolver later found in Oswald's possession...". This makes no sense at all, and the article needs to discuss this. No say would a killer waste time manually ejecting revolver cartridges at the crime scene. Rcbutcher (talk) 05:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

You'll need to find a reliable source that actually raises that issue then. It does seem rather strange though, and in fact, looking through the transcripts of police communications at the time of the shooting, Officer H.W. Summers reports to the dispatcher that the suspect "was apparently armed with a 32 dark-finish automatic pistol" and shortly thereafter Sergeant Gerald L. Hill adds that "the shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic 38, rather than a pistol". Now the ammunition used in automatic pistols and revolvers is not interchangeable and easily distinguished by visual inspection of the casings themselves. Whether they reached their conclusions using that particular method or just due to the fact that there were casings laying on the ground is anyone's guess though. Earl of Arundel (talk) 07:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

This is an example of an issue that some in the conspiracy community have used to mislead people about who killed Tippet. Often, the above is quoted as an indication that an automatic pistol was used to kill the officer, not the gun that Oswald had on his person when arrested. The problem is, we have multiple witnesses who actually saw a man they identified as Oswald stop to remove the spent shells from his revolver: Domingo Benavides, Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis. Further, we have no reports of shells being found by Tippit's body where the shells presumably would have fallen. Shells were found further away from the crime scene, consistent with the testimony of the witnesses who say the killer eject the shells. Those who claim Sergeant Hill couldn't have been wrong obviously don't know many cops - who almost to a person won't admit an error even when it is clear as it is here that he HAD to be mistaken. Going by the consistent eye-witness testimony, we know an automatic was not used, end of story. This is similar to those claims that a Mauser was found at the Texas School Book Depository, not a Carcano, where some police witnesses never admitted they were wrong, even with photos of the untouched rifle and film of its recovery, proving it's the same Carcano now in the Archives. (The Carcano's design was based on the far more common Mauser, a rifle most veterans would be familiar with - few would have been familiar with a Carcano, making the error understandable.) And still further, the "automatic" claims come not from witnesses but from police who may have presumed, as the above editor did, that no killer would foolishly stop to remove his spent shells, therefore the shells had to have been ejected automatically. In fact, as I stated, we have multiple witnesses who said the killer did exactly that. Canada Jack (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, another weapon possibly could have been used to murder Tippit and then disposed of, so in any event failing to match the bullet casings with the revolver neither helps nor hinders the case against Oswald. Earl of Arundel (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with everybody except Earl of Arundel. And it is my request to everybody, this is not a discussion board or forum like user Sundayclose said in an earlier post. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Earl: "...so in any event failing to match the bullet casings with the revolver neither helps nor hinders the case against Oswald." Earl: Either you spoke loosely or were not aware - the casings WERE matched to Oswald's revolver. The HSCA did extensive tests on this issue and concluded the four shells were indeed fired by the revolver Oswald had on his person when arrested. But because the bullets themselves were of a smaller caliber than the barrel of the gun, determining if they were fired from the revolver was not as clear-cut as the characteristic barrel striations were not present or ambiguous. And, some of the bullets were deformed. While there was evidence that some of these bullets were fired in a gun whose barrel was of a larger diameter, the committee could neither confirm nor reject the contention they indeed were fired by Oswald's gun. Attempts to match the bullets to the casings were fruitless too as, the committee noted, there is no established method to conclusively match these components. The recovered bullets and casings, however, were consistent. Canada Jack (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm speaking strictly in terms of the analysis of evidence from the perspective of prosecution in the criminal case against Oswald. That is to say, it would be unuseful (and perhaps even harmful) to attempt to obtain a verdict based on the examination results of those shell casings by ballistics experts. The PCAPK and HSCA were subject to a much lower threshold of accountability and so it was acceptable, but in an actual legal case you would have to deal with the prospect of appeals and whatnot so you would probably want to be a bit more careful in those areas. Earl of Arundel (talk) 07:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Jack is right, the casings WERE matched.

I think User:Earl of Arundel is not aware. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

"we have multiple witnesses who actually saw a man they identified as Oswald stop to remove the spent shells from his revolver: Domingo Benavides, Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis". This sounds convincing. Can somebody add this to the article ?Rcbutcher (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Earl of Arundel: you forgot to change the time-stamp of my comment, and yours. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Implausible theory

In "Other investigations and dissenting theories", a whole paragraph is devoted to just about the most ridiculous theory imaginable, that Oswald was really a 'Soviet double". Many serious people have real doubts about the 'lone gunman' conclusion. To put this one 'potty' theory forward as the only content in this section distorts the picture as to why many people continue to have doubts. Pincrete (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and have removed the relevant paragraph. This article can touch on the fact that many people don't buy the official conclusions, but anything more than that should go in John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories or in the articles about whomever is pushing whatever theory. While it is appropriate to briefly discuss the role that Michael Eddowes played in obtaining the exhumation, relevant details of the "Soviet double" theory should be discussed in the Michael Eddowes article... and they are. -Location (talk) 00:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Pincrete and Location: I agree too. —usernamekiran[talk] 02:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Roger Craig and LHO Interrogation

The section on Oswald's interrogation now incorporates Roger Craig's claims that he was present during Oswald's interrogation. This is sourced to ratical.org, which notes that the 'book' it came from was an unpublished manuscript by Craig. Craig's claims on the interrogation were hotly disputed by, among others, Will Fritz, who said Craig was never in his office during the interrogation. Craig's claims should not be put into the article without some indication of this. Craig testified about some of this to the Warren Commission, while Fritz has an affidavit to the WC; all of these are better sources than unpublished manuscripts from the internet. Rgr09 (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. WP:REDFLAG is relevant here. I don't see the need to insert primary sources into the article to refute the claims. His claims should be omitted because there is a lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources. Whatever reliable secondary source coverage there is about Craig might warrant inclusion in John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories but not here. -Location (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Lack of objectivity

WP:DENY

This page is biased towards a theory that LHO assassinated Kennedy. That Kennedy was assassinated by Oswald is not an indisputable fact. The credibility of the evidence against Oswald was drawn into question, as it suggests he might have been framed. I resent the immediate revision of my revision on this point without explanation. N0MINAY (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Do a very thorough read of this talk page and archives, as well as Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy and its archives. This accusation of bias in the article pops up from time to time. A persuasive argument (with evidence) that LHO did not assassinate JFK has never been made. Wikipedia gives little to no weight to fringe theories. Wikipedia gives no weight to personal opinions of individual editors such as you or me. Wikipedia is written based on reliable sources, and if there is disagreement about the meaning of those sources, it is decided by consensus. There is a separate article, John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, that more fully addresses ideas like yours, but those conspiracy theories are not presented as facts because there is no credible evidence. Sundayclose (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The idea that Oswald having shot Kennedy is uncertain and controversial is a "fringe theory" is preposterous. This page with the likes of you are intolerant of credible research which contradicts the official version. Any person half familiar with the case knows that it is the Warren Commission that lacks credibility. I have no doubt that compelling evidence which casts doubt on Oswald's innocence would unfaze you, and would be a waste of time to introduce here. N0MINAY (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me, the word "innocence" should have been "guilt" instead. N0MINAY (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:TRUTH and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS EvergreenFir (talk) 06:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Why is the claim that Oswald did not kill Kennedy considered "fringe"? Because to make that claim, one has to reject the overwhelming evidence which points to a single assassin of Kennedy and to, further, claim without substantiation that the evidence that suggests Oswald killed Kennedy was planted or faked.

Any person half familiar with the case knows that it is the Warren Commission that lacks credibility. And any person who has is more fully familiar with the evidence assessed by the Warren Commission, which was, in light of the critiques of said Commission, re-examined by the HSCA, knows that the evidence strongly supports the conclusion Oswald shot and killed the president and the officer. The WC can be faulted for many things, but the competence or lack thereof of that body does not negate the reality of what actually happened in Deally Plaza. And the HSCA, while criticizing the Warren Commission, nevertheless confirmed that basic conclusion: Oswald killed Kennedy. And they did so with the critiques in mind. For example, addressing the "anomalies" in the photos of Oswald with the rifle, checking for fakery with the autopsy photos, etc.

Other theories are called "fringe" because they a) either ignore the mountain of evidence pointing directly to Oswald, and/or b) claim, with no evidence, that evidence was faked and/or planted. They are considered "fringe" for repeatedly raising issues with the evidence which in large part were addressed by the HSCA in 1979, and lying that these questions have been "ignored." And they reject standard forensic techniques, all the while creating elaborate scenarios without addressing the evidence which links Oswald to the crime beyond unsubstantiated claims of faked evidence. Canada Jack (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

N0MINAY, the first sentence of your first post said it all. This is a very biased forum controlled by a small cabal of passionate LHO-solo advocates. This is why Wikipedia should never be taken seriously as an authoritative source; unfortunately, I imagine the general public will never figure that out. 5198blk (talk) 05:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not familiar with everyone who has edited this article, but I looked up the numbers and saw that the #1 and #4 editors of this article are conspiracy believers who have edited primarily, if not exclusively, in JFK conspiracy articles. Rather than being "passionate LHO-solo advocates", the others who have edited most in this article tend to be editors who have years of experience in Wikipedia, edit in a wide variety of articles, and are likely to have more familiarity of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (including those pertaining to WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and sourcing). In other words, the POV-pushers around articles like this tend to be those single-purpose editors who are passionately convinced that some cabal was responsible for the assassination of JFK. -Location (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@N0MINAY: I agree with Location, and Canada Jack. I read the Warren Commission for the first time four years ago I think. Later I read the HSCA report, and since last then I have been literally studying the assassination. And yet, I still cant make a cofirm decision. I mean, I still cant say for sure what really happened. But the fact remains the same, all the evidence point to Ossy as the assassin. Maybe he did assassinate Jack. Maybe he was framed by experts, with absolute perfection. Maybe he was manipulated by someone or some organisation to do it. Maybe he did it on its own. The history, and documents are muddled with confusion. The more one studies the assassination of Jack, the confusion keeps on increasing. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Unless an editor is going to suggest specific changes to the article, I suggest the editors stop commenting on this thread, as Wikipedia is not a FORUM. Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

"The history, and documents are muddled with confusion. The more one studies the assassination of Jack, the confusion keeps on increasing."

Not a big surprise there. Historical mysteries, unsolved crimes, and even some suicides often involve contradictory contemporary accounts, confused primary sources, and secondary sources trying to make sense of it all based on their author's particular understanding of it. Among some cases that come to mind:

• Edward II of England was effectively deposed in January 1327, after losing a military conflict with his wife Isabella of France and her allies. He was imprisoned, though his loyalists kept plotting to release him and restore him to the throne. A second war was considered likely. In late September, 1327, Edward's death was officially announced, without mentioning cause of death. Both natural causes and murder were considered likely. By 1330, rumors circulated that Edward II had been murdered and/or tortured to death. Graphic accounts of his murder were recorded in the 1330s and 1340s, and this became the "official" version of the tale. But the Fieschi Letter (written c. 1337), claimed that Edward II's death was faked, that he had managed to flee the country, and that he was still living in exile. Modern historians are still examining what happened to the deposed king, and have often come to much different conclusions about the reliability of the primary sources.
• Gilles de Rais was a Marshal of France and a highly accomplished military leader, but was forced into civilian life by 1435 and his relationship with the king deteriorated. In 1440, he was arrested on charges of kidnapping a cleric and investigations of other crimes begun. In a sensational trial, Gilles was accused of kidnapping, sodomizing, and murdering boys aged 6 to 18 over a period of several years, and of summoning demons. He confessed under threat of torture and was accused of at least 200 different murders. He was executed for his crimes. A number of historians suspect that some or all of the charges were false, and that the trial was orchestrated by his enemies among the Catholic Church and the nobility, in part to get their hands on Gilles' estates. The chief prosecutor in his trial confiscated most of Gilles' estates, claimed them for himself, and then distributed them among his own favorites. What actually happened is still disputed.
• Jack the Ripper was an unidentified serial killer who was supposedly active from 1888 to 1891 (with some attributing to him an early murder in 1887). The case got much attention from the police and the press, and there are still plenty of "Ripperologists" studying it. There is a wealth of details in records. The problem is that many of the primary sources are mutually contradictory or unreliable, life accounts of the victims and several of the suspects often lack essential details, and that in many cases it is even unclear why the police suspected particular people. For example, Montague Druitt. He was an upper-middle class barrister, assistant schoolmaster, and relatively well-known cricket player. He was fired from his job (for reasons that have not been recorded), disappeared for a while, and then his decomposing corpse was found floating in the River Thames. The verdict was suicide by drowning, though there are even doubts about that. Within a few years of his death, several accounts surfaced that Jack the Ripper committed suicide and most of them were eventually traced to the apparently widely-held belief that Druitt was the Ripper. There is no real evidence connecting him to any of the murders.
• Pat Garrett was an American lawman, bartender, customs agent, and celebrity author who was murdered in 1908. On the day of his death, Garrett was traveling with a man called Carl Adamson and they were approached on the road by another man, called Jesse Wayne Brazel. With only the three of them present (according to the official account), Garrett was shot and killed and his body was abandoned by the side of the rode. Brazel rode to the nearest town, surrendered himself to the authorities, claimed that he shot Garrett in self-defense, and pointed to Adamson as his witness. In the murder trial, Adamson did not bother to testify, and Brazel was acquitted for lack of evidence. Nobody was ever convicted of the crime, but several historians have examined the case. Several of them suspect that Brazel was lying and Adamson himself was the killer. Others suspect that Garret was ambushed and killed by either W.W. "Bill" Cox, Archie Prentice "Print" Rhode, or James Brown Miller, and that Brazel and Adamson was covering for them. At the time of his death, Garrett was involved in a complex land dispute and was trying to negotiate with all five suspects. The suspects were connected to each other as friends, business partners, and even family. Intriguingly, Miller was later discovered to have had a secret career as an assassin for hire. He was never convicted, but was executed by a lynch mob in 1909.

There are many other examples. Dimadick (talk) 08:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

This is seriously converting into a forum discussion. Which wikipedia explicitly forbids. We must stop.

As Joegoodfriend said above "Unless an editor is going to suggest specific changes to the article, I suggest the editors stop commenting on this thread".
—usernamekiran(talk) 10:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Just to reiterate on the claim that "the history, and documents are muddled with confusion. The more one studies the assassination of Jack, the confusion keeps on increasing..." in terms of whether this page, given that "confusion," accurately presents the historical consensus.

Again, this "confusion" is mostly on the part of those who claim there was a conspiracy and seek to muddy the waters, and they do so using non-historical methods which is why they are considered "fringe," much like Holocaust deniers are. That's because the reams of physical evidence supports the contention that a) Kennedy was shot from behind, with a bullet to the back and a bullet to the head, and b) the sniper was Oswald. And despite the often justifiable criticisms of the Warren Commission, the HSCA - which otherwise concluded there were likely others involved - nevertheless confirmed those two basic conclusions, and they did so with access to the actual evidence in most cases, unlike the vast majority of the critics. Almost the entirety of these claims are built on the testimony of a few witnesses who say "a" when the conclusion was "b," even though there are many witneses whose testimony matches the official conclusions, such as with the president's head wounds. Typically, physical evidence trumps witness evidence, but for many in this case the reverse is true - witness A is right, therefore the physical evidence is faked or forged. To suggest Oswald had no hand in the assassination requires you to reject normal historical, scientific and forensic approaches. Which is why it is considered "fringe." It's fake news! Canada Jack (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia is a subject that interests me greatly. Does it interest me enough to be endlessly reminded -for the past ten years or so- that I'm the moral and intellectual equivalent of a holocaust denier? It's a tough call. Do you have anything add regarding specific edits to this article? If not, how about you stop commenting? Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lee Harvey Oswald. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5QivShfp7?url=http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clark.txt to http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clark.txt
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://pages.prodigy.net/whiskey99/thomas.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160801184321/http://www.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx to http://www.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lee Harvey Oswald. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031023104538/http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pdf/WH17_CE_826.pdf to http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pdf/wh17_ce_826.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Image

Why do we use a fair use image when there are several free ones available? MB298 (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Content removed

I have removed the following from the article and am placing it here for future reference:

Some have suggested that Oswald might have used equipment at the firm to forge identification documents.

This is not supported by the primary source documents, and the speculation of a conspiracy source does not warrant inclusion. I will preserve it here in the event someone has more on this which can be found in reliable secondary sources. -Location (talk) 03:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lee Harvey Oswald. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170106060329/http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/oswald/ to http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/oswald/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Oswald in Mexico

A recent edit to the article added the following:

A CIA cable recorded on November 23, 1963 and declassified in October 2017 revealed that Oswald was staying in the Soviet and Cuban Embassies during this trip and that a CIA agent who worked in the Soviet Embassy as a Russian translator was able to identify him due to his poor ability to speak Russian.

The source for this claim is the newly released docid-32403593, which says:

On 28 September 1963 joint phone tap reported fol: starts woman outside .... Northamerican "Well I'll be there right away." Station Russian translator, a staff agent, noted Northamerican spoke terrible, hardly recognizable Russian. On 1 October 1963 at 1045 hours man called Soviet emb and said Hello this is Lee Oswald speaking ... Soviet man hangs up. Station Russian translator who did transcriptions says Oswald is identical with person para one speaking broken Russian who called from Cuban embassy 28 September to Soviet Embassy.

The "Station Russian translator, a staff agent" is reported in both cases to be transcribing a phone tap. He is nowhere identified as a CIA agent who worked in the Soviet embassy as a Russian translator. 'Station Russian translator' means he was the Russian translator in the CIA Mexico City station. The translator is able to identify Oswald as Oswald because Oswald says this is Lee Oswald speaking in the second phone call. He recognizes the voice of Oswald in the second call as being the same voice as in the first call (where Oswald did not identify himself), but the cable does not imply that the translator "was able to identify him due to his poor ability to speak Russian." Nor does the cable anywhere state that Oswald was staying in the Soviet and Cuban embassies during this trip. I removed this inaccurate summary of the cable, but it has now been inserted again. I suggest others take a look. Rgr09 (talk) 23:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

References

The user has since changed it a bit. I think they mean the person identified him as the one calling from the Cuban embassy (the first call) after Oswald identified himself in the second, and he was recognized as being the same person due to his due to that broken Russian. But I don't see anything that implies he visited the Soviet embassy. Also agree on it being unclear who and where the translator is. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 12:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I think Rgr09 is correct. The "staff agent" is just the Soviet embassy translator, not connected at all to the CIA, and the caller identified himself regardless of the quality of his spoken Russian. But certainly, nowhere in this story there is anything about Oswald "staying in the Soviet and Cuban embassies during his trip." Oswald may have visited one or the other, or both, if he indeed was in Mexico City at the time, but he certainly never "stayed" in either one. So this whole addition is completely unwarranted at this time, in my view. The whole addition should be removed. warshy ^(¥¥) 21:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

This can't be included in the article as it is a primary source, we need a secondary source to cite this evidence and to put the information in context, whatever the accuracy of it. Further, the article is largely built on what the WR and HSCA found and concluded. Inserting claims willy-nilly based on some primary sources without being framed by an investigation or reliable source is not something this page and sister pages should be doing. Canada Jack (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Canada Jack on the basic problems with primary source material, especially on this subject. As a cautionary note, I also now see that the cable in question is by no means a 'new' document. It was first publicly released in 1999 (See Mary Ferrell here). The only thing new in the October 2017 release is that a redaction has been lifted. The 1999 version redacted a single word. The new version shows us that this was the word 'joint'. Perhaps this was redacted because it suggests the CIA phone tap involved another party (the Mexican government?) In any case, by no means something to get excited about now, despite featuring in a WP story. Rgr09 (talk) 09:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Correct. Thank you very much for straightening the matter out regarding what is new here, i.e. basically nothing other than a single word redaction. Now the user also added this unwarranted primary sourced material (agree with CanadaJack also) in the JFK Assassination page, and it needs to be removed from there too. Thank you. warshy ^(¥¥) 14:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Leavelle interrogating Oswald on 22?

I just noticed that this article (great job, btw, it certainly deserves its star) contradicts what Jim Leavelle originally said. This article says Oswald was questioned by Detective Jim Leavelle about the shooting of Officer Tippit on the 22nd after his arrest. But Leavelle’s Warren Commission testimony states the exact opposite - that he only interrogated Oswald on the 24th - the morning Oswald was shot, and that he had never talked to him before. Not accusing Leavelle of being unrealible or a liar but his interviews he has done in recent years are in contray to his WC testimony. Memory always distort from time to time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.235.20 (talk) 06:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

External links sucky

Seriously, why are we linking to websites constructed in HTML2? --Pete (talk) 06:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lee Harvey Oswald. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202230704/http://www.modbee.com/2013/11/25/3052132/bob-ray-sanders-a-monday-of-funerals.html to http://www.modbee.com/2013/11/25/3052132/bob-ray-sanders-a-monday-of-funerals.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Oswald’s whereabouts?

The article currently says that Marrion Baker saw Oswald on the second floor, but JFK historian Stan Dane has pointed out in his book and research, “Prayer Man”, that Baker originally said he saw a man walking away from a stairway on the 3rd or 4th floor, a man who doesn’t match Oswald’s description, and that original interrogation reports say Oswald was on the first floor, at the entrance, (not in the first floor room or second floor lunchroom) and may have captured on film outside, and is the figure called “Prayer Man”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.235.62 (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

See archives for discussion of the topic, rather than the article. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by that. So, this is where it's going to stay at the moment. Plus, it's a new original theory, and it does put Baker's claims into question and seems to suggest that Oswald's claims of where he was at the time Kennedy was shot have been misinterpreted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.101.6 (talk) 07:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The page reflects the conclusions, in large part, of the official investigations. The "Prayer Man" claim is an example of a claim (like the Hickey "shot" at Kennedy) which is based on an extremely flimsy piece of evidence (a very blurry image of a man in the TSBD doorway in the Couch film who, the author and others claim, was Oswald) which requires the reams of evidence placing Oswald elsewhere to be discreditied, dismissed or ignored. So, while Roy Truly positively identified Oswald as the man Baker stopped (Truly, after all, hired him) and confirmed the location as the 2nd floor, he is therefore a liar and somehow involved with the "conspiracy." Baker's statement that the person he encountered was on the 3rd or 4th floor and that the man was "about 30" is elevated to the level of gospel truth that this "couldn't" have been Oswald (who was 24), despite both Baker and Truly saying they encountered the same man. The fact that Baker had never set foot in the building and therefore could easily be unsure of where the encounter took place (he didn't specify a floor, after all) is neither here nor there in the realm of conspiracy theorists. Of course the fact that Oswald HIMSELF confirmed the encounter... well, that was planted evidence, he never said that, etc. Others who saw Oswald leave the area and go through the office with a bottle of Coke are also dismissed, as is the fact that the numerous employees who would have seen Oswald on the steps but never identified him... well, they must have part of the "conspiracy" as well!

In other words, this is not simply a "new" theory, it is a "fringe" theory as it dismisses, out of hand, positive, corroborating evidence in order to accept flimsy evidence placing Oswald elsewhere. It more properly resides on the conspiracy theory page. Canada Jack (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Editing TALK history

Just wondering what "your" criteria is for why some discussions remain on here, while others are deleted. Thanks. N0MINAY (talk) 07:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Unless it is obviously disruptive, nothing is deleted. The older threads get archived periodically, and you can find the links at the top of this page. Active conversations remain. Currently, this talk page has 15 lengthy pages of archives. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift reply. I don't see the 15 archived discussions, only 4 short ones here. Would you mind linking me? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N0MINAY (talk • contribs) 07:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Scroll to the very top of this page, N0MINAY, and look at the yellow information boxes. I am not sure how it displays in mobile view but it is easy to see in desktop view. You will see the 15 numbered links to the archive pages. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

There is also a search box that allows you to look for mentions of specific items in the archives of this page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Oswald's behavior when shot

When he was shot, Oswald didn’t went out right away, because you hear him moan a few times.

Jim Leavelle’s article crites an interview by Doctor Robert McClelland, in which he says Leavelle spoke of having "leaned over Oswald and said, 'Son, you're hurt real bad. Do you wanna say anything?' He looked at me for a second. He waited like he was thinking. Then he shook his head back and forth just as wide as he could. Then he closed his eyes."

Should any reference be made to Oswald’s last moments, or can anyone find any more information to the story?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.234.90 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

If an editor is interested in such matters, they need to do some specific research. If any mention of Oswald's last moments were included in this WP article one would need to also include the reliable sources that state the facts about his demise. Shearonink (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

This is the KLT IP. Acroterion (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Childhood

How odd that there is no mention in this entire section of any family income or work of any kind. What was his father's occupation in New Orleans? Did they have proceeds from a life insurance policy when he died during the pregnancy with baby Lee Harvey? It also seems strange that a man of only 43 would die of a "heart attack" in an era when all males were more physically active, as a rule, and the average lifespan was 64. Did his mother work outside the home in an era when that was not common, other than in war production until 1945? How did they subsist? How did she pay for all of these frequent moves? Surely some of that family financial background must be documented by now, somewhere. All of this goes to the essence of the question "What influences created Oswald, as an assassin?"Starhistory22 (talk) 05:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe that's because editors haven't found reliable sources that go into depth about Oswald's childhood... If you or any other editors can find reliable sources and these sources go into depth-about Oswald's childhood then have at it. If asserted information is found but it is not from a reliable source (as many theories connected to Oswald & the JFK assassination tend to be) then that asserted information is not verifiable and cannot be added to the article. Shearonink (talk) 06:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2018

Requesting that Oswald is being mentioned as the suspected murderer of JFK just like most other wikipedia pages have done. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald

Daisai Gaming (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The English Wikipedia is not obligated to follow any other Wikipedia's decisions. Oswald is only "suspected" in the sense that he never survived to trial. Any suggestion that he was not the assassin is WP:FRINGE. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2018

add "allegedly"

Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was an American former Marine and Marxist who allegedly assassinated United States President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. Someoneovahere (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The note at the top of the page and the very next sentence both acknowledge or imply the existence of conspiracy theories, which are mentioned in the fourth paragraph. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Adding "allegedly"does not imply the existence of consiparacy theories, Oswals was never brought before trial for the murder of JFK and the justtice system works that someone is innocent untill proven quilty. However what might be better is to say that Oswald is suspected of shooting JFK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daisai Gaming (talk • contribs) 19:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Oswals was never brought before trial for the murder of JFK and the justtice system works that someone is innocent untill proven quilty. Wrong. When someone is FACING TRIAL they are presumed innocent until proven guilty. The signifigance is that in Common Law jurisdictions, the onus is on the prosecution to present evidence to establish guilt, NOT for the defendant to produce evidence establishing they are innocent, presuming they are guilty.

Since he's not facing trial, we don't need to say "allegedly," particularily given multiple investigations concluded that Oswald in fact shot and killed the president. Despite the blather from the conspiracy crowd, we don't need a trial to state that someone commited a crime, especially if they are dead. Which is why it is routine to declare, for example, Booth the killer of Lincoln, or Hitler the mastermind of WWII, despite the fact neither went to trial. The same applies to all those mass shooters who are killed or kill themselves before capture. We don't declare the Columbine killers "alleged" because they didn't stand trial. The investigation concluded they were culpable, therefore we can cite that, as we cite the Warren Commission or the HSCA Report. Canada Jack (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

As for the columbine shooters, there were witnesses that seen the shooters commit those crimes and there has been recordings of it and they were pretty much sort of caught in the act. As for your example of hitler ( godwin's law ? ) saying he is the mastermind of ww2 is wrong, however as for the holocaust it is not sure if either him or perhapse Goebbels was the mastermind of it and there have been plenty of people going to trial for the crimes committed on their orders.

However in the case of Oswald, there has been no one that has seen him shoot JFK, there is no recording of him saying that he is going to kill JFK. Untill there has been a court ruling where the evidence is presented, only then one can say that Oswald did indeed shoot JFK , untill then he is suspected of shooting JFK, however i do agree that using the word allegdly is wrong in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.241.206.39 (talk) 11:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Were the Columbine shooters convicted in a court of law? No. Therefore by your "innocent until proven guilty" logic, we can't describe them as anything other than "alleged." Same applies to Booth, and the same applies to anything Hitler may or may not have done, by your logic. So, obviously, your logic doesn't apply because in all those cases, and many, many more where the killer doesn't face trial owing to their death, we routinely describe them as being the killer(s) even with no trial.

What's different about Oswald? In fact a great deal. Unlike those other cases, we have two of the most exhaustive criminal investigations in American, maybe world, history. And they both concluded Oswald shot and killed the president. The tired line that he must be called the "alleged" assassin betrays an ignorance of what the function of a trial is and what "truth" a trial determines - a trial determines a person's culpability, not necessarily whether they killed the person in question. So, was the trial for the cop whi shot the black motorist in the back while he fled the killer? The trial in his case was to determine his culpability. He most certainly was the killer - but was he guilty of murder? That was an open question, dependent on the circumstances. So, if he got off, he would indeed have been found "not guilty" but we can still call him the killer. If he had died before trial, we could still describe him as the killer but his culpability would have been an ope question as he didn't face trial.

In Oswald's cirmunstance, obviously you know little about the case. We in fact DO have a witness who saw him fire the shots and positively identify him. For a half-century, the conspiracy crowd has done everything to denigrate that witness, but when you repeat the lie that "no one" saw Oswald shoot the president, well... that is a bold-faced lie. But even the Warren Commission said that dismissing that testimony was no problem as there was more than enough evidence to conclude Oswald shot the president. For all those reasons, there is no reason to couch the words. Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed president Kennedy. Period. Canada Jack (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why you are focusing on this page, 84, you might start "cleaning up" some other pages where people who didn't stand trial nevertheless are described as being perpetrators of terrible crimes. You said my claim that Adolf Hitler was "mastermind" of WWII "is wrong." Seems like you better clean up that page: "As dictator, Hitler initiated World War II in Europe with the invasion of Poland in September 1939, and was central to the Holocaust" is in the lede. Such a terrible thing to say about someone who didn't stand trial! Better add "allegedly." John Wilkes Booth "was an American actor and assassin, who murdered President Abraham Lincoln at Ford's Theatre in Washington, D.C. on April 14, 1865," according to his page. He died before he faced trial, better add "allegedly" to his name as well. The Columbine high school massacre? These guys never stood trial, yet look at what is said on that page: "The perpetrators, senior students Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, murdered 12 students and one teacher." As for your claim that, well, witnesses reported they saw the two firing away, notwithstanding the fact we have an eyewitness saying he saw Oswald firing shots at the president as previously mentioned, here is a recent case where we have precisely ZERO witnesses who actually saw this man fire any shots, yet check out how the 2017 Las Vegas shooting page describes Stephen Paddock: "64-year-old Stephen Paddock of Mesquite, Nevada, fired more than 1,100 rounds from his suite on the 32nd floor of the nearby Mandalay Bay hotel." He is also described as being the "perpetrator" in the info box. His own page opens with this statement: "Stephen Craig Paddock (April 9, 1953 – October 1, 2017) was an American mass murderer responsible for the 2017 Las Vegas shooting."

Might do yourself a favour and stay away from the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories on the Kennedy assassination, 84. Their level of denial is such that they pretend that there is "no" evidence placing Oswald in the sniper's nest, this despite his fingerprints, his rifle - with his fingerprints - nearby, and the witness who positively identified Oswald as the gunman. Hell, they even pretend that Oswald didn't kill officer Tippit despite the 10 eyewitnesses who either saw him shoot the officer or flee immediately thereafter with all but one positively identified him. Instead, they focus on a single witness who they find fault with, ignoring the rest. This push to add "alleged" to Oswald's crimes falls in this category of denial. Canada Jack (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Every single wikipedia page i have checked that talks about Lee Harvey Oswald talk about the suspected, if you would have spend more time reading what i posted you would known by now that i do not think that using the word alleged is the right word the use in this context, however i do think that using the word suspected is the right word to use in this context, just like the 4 other examples i posted below have done. That the public in the US seem to have an approach of "guilty untill proven innocent" ( which is shown by plenty of examples) does not have to mean that the english wikipedia page should follow that reasoning.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald talks about suspected https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald talks about suspected https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald talks about suspected https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald talks about suspected — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daisai Gaming (talk • contribs) 13:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Daisai - the investigations didn't end up calling him a "suspect," they concluded he shot and killed the president, period. And that is the basis for what we say here. And as I pointed out with the other pages, those who do not face trial because they have died are ROUTINELY described as being the "perpetrator," "killer," or what have you. If you would instead of focusing on the b.s. fed to you by the conspiracy crowd and look at what the other pages in wikipedia have done in terms of those who died before they are tried, you will see that how we describe Oswald is the norm.

The fact that you cited "innocent until proven guilty" indicates you have been fed b.s. by others as that betrays an ignorance of how the justice system works in Common Law jurisdictions. Saying "suspect" instead of "alleged" is semantically saying the same thing and it implies his culpability is at question. It isn't as several large-scale investigations were held and all concluded he killed the president.

If other wikipedia projects describe him as merely a "suspect," then they are ignoring the reliable sources we use here. Canada Jack (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi. The editors have debated this issue at length, and consensus is that Oswald should be referred to as the assassin and not the alleged or suspected assassin. You don't have to agree with the idea, but you do have to let the consensus of the editors determine the text of the article, because that's the way Wikipedia works. Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Sloppy sourcing:

I noticed that Youtube was used as a source in a few spots in this article. These were just re-hosted videos, and I went ahead and replaced them with better sources. It wouldn't shock me if sourcing is a little sloppy in other areas in the article as well. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Evidence Oswald meant "scapegoat" by "patsy"

I agree with Cullen328's removal of the link and that "patsy" is not a direct synonym for "scapegoat". There is more than one nuance to its meaning and we need cited evidence as to which Oswald meant, which is going to be pretty hard to come by. Canada Jack re-inserted this wikilink so I think the onus is on him to provide a citation that Oswald in particular meant scapegoat by this. I'm pretty sure the dictionary definition comes from the mid 20th century. Whatever the case may be, M-W for example isn't strongly enough worded to support saying this is definitely what the term means. The synonyms listed are "chump, dupe, gull, pigeon, pushover, sap, sucker, tool" - notably missing is scapegoat. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I restored the original link, and the onus is to gain consensus for the removal of material that had been there for ages when editors are not in agreement, not the reverse.

Is "patsy" synonymous with "scapegoat"? From the patsy page, we read this: "The popularity of the name has waned with the rise of its, chiefly North American,[3] meaning as "dupe" or "scapegoat". So a definition of "patsy" is indeed "scapegoat." And what do we have on the scapegoating page? "Scapegoating is the practice of singling out a person or group for unmerited blame." Sure, there are differing interpretations as to what, exactly, "patsy" means, so where do we get the idea that Oswald meant not that he was a fall guy for some nefarious unidentified group, but a convenient "scapegoat"? From his own words! "They've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy!" Claiming he was arrested for the mere fact he lived in the Soviet Union is the DEFINITION of "scapegoat." The inanity of claiming otherwise is that we'd have to believe that immediately after saying he was simply arrested for where he lived, he now claims some unidentified people duped him and set him up - which is admitting at least partial complicity! (!) Canada Jack (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

It's the kind of argument I can imagine Michael Cohen making. "Your honour, the only reason my client was arrested was because he happened to have lived in the Soviet Union and the police saw a convenient scapegoat. Also, the guys who actually carried out the crime tricked him into putting himself into a circumstance whereby he'd look guilty." I can imagine the judge saying "I thought you just said the only reason he is here is because he lived in the Soviet Union - and now you're telling us he was set up? Clearly he knows these people and is therefore a possible accomplice - I hope you aren't charging your client a lot, mister, because you just admitted to a possible conspiracy."

Well, if you believe Oswald would in effect admit to that after saying he was a mere scapegoat... well, I really don't know what else to say.

Obviously, since "scapegoat" is a definition of "patsy," and Oswald defined "scapegoating" by the Dallas Police, that is what he meant by "patsy." Otherwise we'd have to believe he just confessed to a conspiracy. Canada Jack (talk) 04:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

My interpretation (which does not belong in the encyclopedia) is that Oswald, who was neither completely stupid nor very perceptive, blurted the "patsy" comment to falsely portray himself as an unwitting tool of others after he was unexpectedly arrested. He probably imagined that he would escape to Cuba or the Soviet Union, to be acclaimed as a hero. The word "patsy" comes from the true crime magazines popular in the 1950s and early 1960s. The bottom line is that the comment provides zero evidence that Oswald was innocent. Guilty people routinely say very foolish things. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Canada Jack: I think you know that a wikipedia page is not a reliable source and that WP:PROVEIT says "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Yes, I think it is possible Oswald meant the more accurate definition of patsy in this case, "fall guy". We have no way of knowing so there should be no link - all you offer is your original analysis, violating WP:OR. You are also edit warring. Please revert yourself until this discussion is concluded. That's four guidelines or policies you have violated here. People can look up the definition of "patsy" if they need to. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you DIYeditor! I completely agree with your argument above. There is no way to interpret what Oswald said or meant. The reader will have to judge by him/herself what he might have meant with the expression. warshy ^(¥¥) 14:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Plus, from what I understand looking at the history of this discussion, the word "patsy" is already linked once in the article. The insertion of the double-link here in Oswald's speech is a very clear interpretation/POV. warshy ^(¥¥) 15:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I think you know that a wikipedia page is not a reliable source.... This is getting rather silly. "Patsy" as "scapegoat," and the attendant definition of "scapegoat" don't derive from what pages on wikipedia say - these are the common, everyday defintions of those terms.

Yes, I think it is possible Oswald meant the more accurate definition of patsy in this case, "fall guy". We have no way of knowing so there should be no link - all you offer is your original analysis, violating WP:OR. He himself defines "patsy" as "scapegoat" and there is no way around that, DIY. It doesn't matter what YOU think "patsy" means, it matters what Oswald thought it meant. And it's not my "original analysis." This is a common interpretation of what he said. Vincent Bugliosi, for example, made the precise point I make. Therefore, to avoid the OR critique I will insert his citation when I have the book at hand. And, "it's only possible" that he meant "patsy" in the other way if you ignore his comments about the Soviet Union. Which is what the conspiracy crowd routinely does - they leave out his Soviet Union comment. Otherwise, you are making the rather astonishing claim that in the same breath Oswald said he was picked up only for the fact he lived in the Soviet Union, that he was set up to be a fall guy by people he presumably knew (how would he know he was a "fall guy" otherwise?) which are two different and mutually exclusive things.

You are also edit warring. Please revert yourself until this discussion is concluded. I am edit warring? The existing text was removed - with no discussion - and I reinstated it. And it has been removed THREE times - I reverted TWICE. The onus is on the editor making the original claim to justify it if an editor has reverted it. The original text should be reinstated until a decision has been made one way or the other.

By applying the cite from the reliable source who says Oswald meant "scapegoat" by saying "patsy," the text as it stood should stand. Canada Jack (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

And... just to emphasize this point, because "fall guy" is the common modern interpretation of what "patsy" means, all the more reason to emphasize the "scapegoat" definition. It'd be the same if someone in 1963 called Oswald a "gay" young lad...well, there has been a semantic shift with that word, as there has been with "patsy." Because Oswald actually defines the "scapegoat" meaning of "patsy," there is no doubt what definition he intended... but, as has been pointed out, this has to be sourced, which it will be. Canada Jack (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it is only "the common modern interpretation", as far as I know "dupe" or "fall guy" is the original 20th century sense. I personally feel that Oswald as not part of a conspiracy. The question is solid evidence of what he meant. Linking the scapegoat article seems to be a case of ramming it down the throat of the reader that this was not a conspiracy - POV-pushing.

I directly quoted the guideline explanation of adding or removing material. The burden is clear, unequivocally, on the person restoring uncited material to provide citation before restoring it! The long standing version does not take precedence. The challenge/removal takes precedence. Please self revert your edit warring. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Patsy has its own page, and a subsection is about how it's been used by Oswald and others. Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

That section actually describes a "fall guy" rather than "scapegoat" usage despite its use of "scapegoat". Fall guy is before the fact, scapegoat is after the fact. Not that I personally believe Oswald was part of a conspiracy. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Just link to the page patsy, and let people on that page worry about defining it. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

That's certainly better than linking to scapegoat. Sounds like we have a solution. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I have the reliable source now that says the only possible interpretation of what Oswald said was "scapegoat." I will re-insert the link later with the missing citation and, for clarity, reproduce the relevant text here establishing this. Since those who claim otherwise typically a) omit the part about the Soviet Union which establishes the "scapegoat" interpretation and are b) conspiracy authors and therefore non-reliable sources, there should be no issue letting this stand. As it stood, I admit that without a citation this sounds like a POV assertion.

This is an important point to make, as the meaning of "patsy" has shifted in the 50+ years since the assassination as to basically exclude the "scapegoat" meaning. It would be a similar issue if, say, "gay" was used in its original sense to describe someone in 1963 - a note might be necessary to establish it isn't being claimed someone was a homosexual.

For the sake of interest, as DIY rather oddly claimed that me supplying a link to another page with the "scapegoat" definition found on the "patsy" page violates the tenet that wikipedia itself can't be its own "reliable source" - as if this definition is only limited to wikipedia (the only real issue here is what reliable source says Oswald meant "scapegoat" and not "fall guy" - any good dictionary has the "scapegoat" definition included for "patsy"). Here is what the Oxford English Dictionary says: Patsy: A person who is easily taken advantage of, esp. by being deceived, cheated, or blamed for something; a dupe, a scapegoat. So, indeed "scapegoat" is a definition for "patsy."

What is interesting about the OED citations is it is clear "patsy" had these multiple senses until as late as the 1970s - it is only now that the "fall guy" sense has become predominant, "scapegoat" not as common, so a clear semantic shift has occured since Oswald used the term some 55 years ago. Ironically, it's probably because of the conspiracy crowd's use of the Oswald quote - out of context - that has helped cement that interpretation even though he obviously meant it in the "scapegoat" sense.

Further, for interest's sake, here is one of the earliest published uses of the word that they found, from a play with a character named "Patsy," which explains how for many years the term was capitalized, and that the first sense of the word was "scapegoat": 1889 H. F. Reddall Fact, Fancy & Fable 404 A party of minstrels in Boston, about twenty years ago, had a performance... When the pedagogue asked in a rage, ‘Who did that?’, the boys would answer, ‘Patsy Bolivar!’... The phrase..spread beyond the limits of the minstrel performance, and when a scapegoat was alluded to, it was in the name of ‘Patsy Bolivar’..the one who is always blamed for everything.

Just to reiterate, I am simply by referring to the OED in this post establishing that a definition of "patsy" - indeed, the original definition - was the "scapegoat" one. The citation I will later insert will establish that that was what Oswald's sense of the word was, and not "fall guy," an issue explicitly covered by the reliable source. Canada Jack (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I have just re-instated the "scapegoating" link to "patsy," as I have also added the reliable source who makes that point. As DIY correctly pointed out, as I erred on this point, once the uncited claim was removed, the onus was on me to supply the cite, which I have now done.

And, as promised, here is the text and argument from the reliable source (Vincent Bugliosi) establishing that Oswald's clear meaning when he said "I'm just a patsy" was that he was a convenient scapegoat, arrested by the Dallas police for the sole reason he had defected to the Soviet Union. And, further, his dissection of the argument that Oswald meant "fall guy" by laying out the scenarios which render this interpretation implausible and nonsensical, putting aside for the sake of argument the clear meaning from the context of what Oswald said.

We already have Bugliosi on this page for several other references. From "Reclaiming History," pp 841-2 (Italicized portions as in Bugliosi's text):

xxx

Finally, we have the most famous and enduring words ever uttered by Lee Harvey Oswald, "I'm just a patsy," which surprisingly were only recorded in one place in assassination literature. Scripps-Howard newspaper reporter Seth Kantor jotted the words down when Oswald spoke them to reporters, Kantor's notes say, at 7:55 p.m. on the evening of the assassination. Oswald's declaration, which is audible in TV footage, has been repeated for years by conspiracy theorists far and wide as evidence of his innocence. "Maybe, just maybe," New Orleans DA Jim Garrison tells his staff in Oliver Stone's movie JFK, "Lee Oswald was exactly what he said he was—a patsy."

The only problem is that Oswald's declaration has been taken out of context by the conspiracy theorists, who want people to believe that when Oswald said he was just a patsy he was referring to being a patsy for the conspirators behind the assassination. But it appears from the context that he was not. From TV footage we hear this exchange:

First reporter: "Were you in the [Book Depository Building] at the time [of the shooting]?"

Oswald: "Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir."

Second reporter: "Back up, man!"

Third reporter: "Come on, man!"

Fourth reporter: "Did you shoot the president?"

Oswald: "No. They've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy."

It is clear from the context that Oswald is saying that the Dallas authorities (who he obviously is not suggesting are responsible for and behind Kennedy's murder) are blaming him for the assassination simply because of the fact that he had defected to the Soviet Union and he was a convenient person for them to accuse.

xxx

Bugliosi then spends several pages dissecting the "fall guy" interpretation set forth by conspiracy authors and why it is implausible, by accepting for the sake of argument that that is what Oswald meant. Most obviously, Oswald would have been admitting to being a part of a conspiracy, as either a witting or unwitting "fall guy." Remember what happened to the Lincoln assassination conspirators? (That WAS a conspiracy, btw.) They were all hanged even though only one guy fired a shot. Oswald, therefore, was no innocent bystander by claiming to be a "fall guy": He in effect was admitting he was part of a conspiracy if he meant "fall guy" by saying "patsy" and would bear responsibility. Next, was he a witting or unwitting "fall guy"? If Oswald was a witting "fall guy," why in hell would he agree to take the fall in the first place? Further, since he tried to escape and avoid arrest, it is clear he was not willing to take the fall for this, so this interpretation makes zero sense. But if he was an unwitting "fall guy," how could the conspirators know that Oswald would not be surrounded by witnesses, say in the lunchroom, at the moment of the assassination, thus providing him with an alibi? But, say conspiracy authors, they would have instructed Oswald, oblivious to the assassination plan, to be somewhere where no one would see him. But that is even less plausible, says Bugliosi, given what we know of his character - he was completely unreliable. Are we really expected to believe the fate of such a consequential act would rest on the shoulders of such a completely unreliable guy? Yet these are the scenarios we are forced to embrace if we accept the "fall guy" interpretation of "patsy," per Bugliosi. Canada Jack (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Stick to facts. Link to patsy, and then say "according to writer Bugliosi, Oswald meant scapegoat.". Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The fact is Oswald meant "scapegoat," as per the reliable source, and as per his actual quote. Canada Jack (talk) 01:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no need to couch it by saying "according to...", just because conspiracy authors, which are unreliable sources, claim otherwise by omitting the context - same as we don't couch the lede which says Oswald was the one "who assassinated United States President John F. Kennedy" just because the same conspiracy authors beg to differ. Canada Jack (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

As a bit of a Lincoln buff, I want to offer just a slight clarification regarding Canada Jack's technically correct statement, "They were all hanged even though only one guy fired a shot." Lewis Powell was assigned by John Wilkes Booth to murder Secretary of State William H. Seward, who was then recovering from a broken jaw which was the result of a runaway carriage accident. Powell attempted to shoot Seward's son at the door of his house, but his gun jammed. He then pistol whipped Seward's son, severely injuring him. Powell then ran upstairs and repeatedly stabbed Seward, who was grievously wounded. Seward's life was probably saved by his metal jaw brace which prevented Powell from cutting his throat. Powell stabbed and seriously injured another person while escaping. I know that this information is not relevant to this article but I think it is important to remember how pernicious John Wilkes Booth's conspiracy really was, and that there were other victims besides Lincoln, so I hope this comment will be forgiven. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I have again removed the second wikilink of "patsy" to scapegoat, which was in a direct TV quote from Oswald. The Manual of Style says: "Be conservative when linking within quotations; link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author. Where possible, link from text outside of the quotation instead – either before it or soon after." (Emphasis added.) Please note that the word "patsy" is already wikilinked before the quote, in the lead, where it is not part of a direct quote. We cannot be 100% sure what Oswald meant by that word, since he was soon dead, so I believe that it is best to let the quote stand on its own, without a wikilink, to allow readers to interpret it on their own. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cullen - I was thinking in terms of Lincoln about Mary Surratt - she arguably did not deserve to be hanged, her link to the conspiracy was arguably tenuous.

But, to the reversion, how can readers "interpret this on their own" when most readers (see above) are unaware "scapegoat" is even a definition of "patsy"? When we even have DIY baldly - and incorrectly - stating that "fall guy" is the original definition? "Fall guy is before the fact, scapegoat is after the fact." "Scapegoat", as I have shown, is the original meaning of the word, "fall guy" came much later. Unless you are an etymologist, how would you possibly know this? It is therefore no solution to simply link to the "patsy" page from the lede to let readers "decide for themselves", as most people would be unaware of the alternate meaning, and as that page reflects what we understand the word to mean in 2018, where "scapegoat" is a secondary meaning and even archaic meaning, not what it meant in 1963, when "scapegoat" was a more universally understood definition. This entire discussion underlines what I've been saying - without an explicit link, few people would know that Oswald simply meant (or if you want to argue about it POSSIBLY meant) "Scapegoat." To do otherwise would be to mislead readers into thinking Oswald said he was set up by conspirators when he was likely just sounding off about the Dallas police.

As I said earlier, when there is a semantic shift, we should at least flag that the word may not mean today what it meant 55 years ago, as with words like "gay."

Therefore, we should add text which says something like, "while many interpret Oswald as saying he was a "fall guy" by saying "patsy," the word also means "scapegoat." THAT would truly allow people to "interpret this on their own." The same Bugliosi link would suffice. Canada Jack (talk) 03:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem adding content about the meaning of the word, Canada Jack, if it is properly referenced. Instead, I object to wikilinking the word a second time within a direct quotation, which the Manual of Style recommends against. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a line to underline the different meanings - and that line is referenced to Bugliosi, with no link to "scapegoating" or "patsy" or "green onions," for that matter... Actually, this works better as you'd have had to hit the link to realize there was a semantic difference in the first place (if you didn't already know) - whether you hit "patsy" or "scapegoating." Canada Jack (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I like green onions, and I like your solution to the problem. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Well then, here's the link! [3]

And all this semantic acrobatics, that really leave you like an intellectual 'pretzel' just hanging up in the air out there, just to "prove," according to the biggest and most respected Warren Commission Apologist currently in existence (Mr. Bugliosi, of course), that not only there was no conspiracy ever, but even Oswald's recorded declarations cannot in any way, shape, or form ever possibly even refer to any hypothetical conspiracy. I.e., it has been proven by the Warren Commission and by Mr. Bugliosi, that even any possible hint to anything but the lone nut Oswald scenario is just pure and simple "conspiracy theory." And, of course, there are quite a few indefatigable WP editors whose only purpose here is make sure that only Mr. Bugliosi's arguments appear in the end as the correct ones, as opposed to any other possible arguments, which again are all just mere "conspiracy theories." Kudos! warshy ^(¥¥) 17:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

More like, when you scratch the surface of the conspiracy claims, they are often based on deliberate misrepresentations of the evidence. The "patsy" claim is a prime example of how authors for decades have been misleading the public. Have you ever heard that perhaps Oswald meant "scapegoat"? If you read them, definitely not. Worse are examples like how Mark Lane lied about Lee Bowers' description about who and what was behind the picket fence and grassy knoll., etc. Canada Jack (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Let me be very clear: Since I first heard his declaration back in 1963, "patsy" never meant for me anything but "fall guy," never anything close to scapegoat. For me also, that is still what was meant by Oswald in this context. The possibility that there were other people besides Oswald involved in the assassination in one form or the other cannot ever be discarded, not the least because Oswald himself was eliminated and silenced forever just a few hours after his "patsy" declaration. Only Warren Commission Apologists of Bugliosi's stripe will make semantics acrobatics such as the ones you described and repeated several times so well above to "prove" that even a slight possibility that there were other people besides Oswald involved somehow in the assassination does not even exist. It is a fundamental matter of American "patriotism": For this kind of belief, you either elevate the conclusions of the Warren Commision to the level of God's own words, as Bugliosi does, or you are a mere "conspiracy theorist," with all the cultural disdain that the term has acquired in American culture and society since November 1963. warshy ^(¥¥) 22:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Since I first heard his declaration back in 1963, "patsy" never meant for me anything but "fall guy," never anything close to scapegoat. Then I suggest you consult a good dictionary. It's what the word meant when coined, and it retained that meaning when Oswald said it. Look it up. Further, from the context, the "scapegoat" meaning makes perfect sense in relation to his comments about the Soviet Union, "fall guy" makes little sense, indeed it contradicts what he just said as it implies he was part of a conspiracy and set up, instead of simply being a former Soviet resident.

Only Warren Commission Apologists of Bugliosi's stripe will make semantics acrobatics... Here is what was said: Fourth reporter: "Did you shoot the president?" Oswald: "No. They've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy." What do you call blaming someone for something solely on the fact they lived in an enemy country? Scapegoating. He immediately says the "patsy" line - what is a definition of "patsy"? Scagegoat. You call this "semantic acrobats"? Is English not your native language? It's a plain reading of what he said, and, not incidentally, conspiracy authors typically omit his "Soviet Union" line, thus dishonestly hiding that possible meaning.

Another problem here is if Oswald was so readily willing to point the finger at a conspiracy, why was this the only time he said something that could be read that way? For someone so loudly proclaiming his innocence, while he sure repeatedly suggested they arrested the wrong guy and he was the focus of rotten cops, he otherwise doesn't make claims that there were conspirators who did this and they should go after them. Except here, if we read "patsy" to mean "fall guy." For Oswald, doesn't that strike you as odd?

to "prove" that even a slight possibility that there were other people besides Oswald involved somehow in the assassination does not even exist. Migod, warshy, I was a conspiracy theorist for some 30 years, and whatever Oswald meant by "patsy" does nothing to "prove" anything. I mean, he steadfastly maintained his innocence, is that supposed to establish he wasn't involved?

As for the common conspiracy trope that the Warren Commission's word is "god" to the "true believers," well, no. The EVIDENCE is "god," and the evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that Oswald did it, and did it alone. Was there a knoll gunman? Well, one witness was behind the picket fence in the railway tower, with an unobstructed view of the rear of picket fence. What did that liar Mark Lane do when, on camera, Lee Bowers stopped him and said, to clarify, when the motorcade he was watching went behind the fence from his point of view and he heard shots, there was NO ONE behind the fence? Bowers OMIITED that crucial piece of eyewitness testimony from his 1966 film and book and made it sound like Bowers implied something going on behind the fence, a "commotion." Well, yeah, there was a "commotion" - on the other side of the fence the president was being murdered! Duh! Fortunately for Lane, Bowers died later that year and was unable to correct Lane's dishonest account of what he said. Think of it - if Bowers wasn't killed in that car crash, we might not have had this "grassy knoll assassin" b.s. being peddled the last half-century. And Bowers wasn't the only person whose testimony Mark Lane, often descrbed as the father of the conspiracy theories, manipulated, often to the anger of those very witnesses.

And, this is my favourite "emperor has no clothes" argument, which, using common sense, suggests only a single gunman in Deally Plaza: A total of about 10 people either saw a man fire from the TSBD, the barrel of the rifle in the window or heard bullet casings dropping from overhead. There therefore is no serious doubt a sniper fired from there. Further, about 97% of witnesses reported a maximum of 3 shots, and about 96% of witnesses reported shots from ONE direction, though there was confusion about the source of those shots. Well, since we know there was a TSBD sniper, and virtually everyone says the shots came from one direction, those who reported hearing shots from the knoll area - and virtually to a person ALL reported hearing ALL the shots from the knoll - were actually hearing the SAME shots the TSBD sniper was firing but were confused by the acoustics of the plaza.

Yet the dishonest conspiracy crowd to this day makes head counts to try to establish there was a knoll assassin while never explaining how ALL the shots could have come from there given we know there was a TSBD assassin AND routinely claim at least 4 shots were fired even though the VAST majority said a maximum of 3 shots were heard. If their scenario was correct, we'd expect a substantial number of witnesses to have heard shots from multiple directions, not 3 or 4 per cent. Look it up if you don't believe. I know you won't though, you are a "true believer," aren't you? They've been peddling this obvious LIE for a half-century now - had me snookered for 30 years!

As for a conspiracy that put Oswald up to it, that remains more possible, but 55 years after the fact, we have nothing that establishes that.

So who is the naive one here, warshy, who is being fed nonsense and b.s. in order to come to a "correct" conclusion? It ain't me. Just took me a while to learn to think for myself instead of taking the word of conspiracy authors. And many make a fine living peddling this snake oil!Canada Jack (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)