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.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Q1: Why does the article describe Oswald as the assassin of John F. Kennedy, instead of the alleged assassin, given that he was never convicted in a court of law?
A1: A legal conviction is required before government may label someone a criminal and punish him. But a legal conviction is not required for scholars and historians to draw their own conclusions based on the evidence: they may conclude that a person never convicted of some crime was, in fact, guilty (e.g. John Wilkes Booth); or they may conclude that someone who was convicted was, in fact, innocent (e.g. Timothy Evans). Although Oswald was killed before he could be brought to trial, reliable sources firmly establish that he fired the shots that killed Kennedy.
Q2: What if I still disagree?
A2: Read the discussions found in this page's archives before proposing that Oswald be described as Kennedy's "alleged assassin" or the like. Proposals rehashing old arguments will go nowhere.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
Ella German was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 August 2020 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Lee Harvey Oswald. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2023
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change: "was a U.S. Marine veteran and Marxist who assassinated John F. Kennedy"
to: "was a U.S. Marine veteran and Marxist who allegedly assassinated John F. Kennedy
Oswald was not convicted of the assassination and although the Warren Commission named him as the assassin, the House Select Committee on Assassinations of 1985 concluded President Kennedy's murder was the result of a conspiracy. There is not now, nor has there ever been any indisputable evidence presented that proves Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy. EdinburghSooner (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: Please read the FAQ section at the top of this page, which states why the word "alleged" isn't used. Liu1126 (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, the salient point is missed. Whether Oswald would have been found guilty or not is unknown, but we can determine whether he killed the president. I'm amazed we still, 60 years after the fact, have people making this utterly inane claim that we need to say "alleged." John Hinckley indisputably shot Ronald Reagan, yet he was found not guilty. We nevertheless say he shot Reagan. Because guilty/not guilty and whether someone committed an act are separate determinations. In Oswald's case, we lack a court verdict - he too may have been found not guilty via some defence - but we definitely can determine whether he shot John Kennedy or not. Because that is a separate determination. Two of the most exhaustive investigations in American - and world - history concluded, including the HSCA, that Oswald indeed shot the president. Canada Jack (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the most exhaustive investigations in American - and world - history concluded, including the HSCA, that Oswald indeed shot the president.
In its 1979 report, the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) concluded that Kennedy was likely "assassinated as a result of a conspiracy".
The HSCA concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald shot the president and he fired all the bullets that struck the occupants of the car. There is no inconsistency here. You are conflating the issue of conspiracy - The WC concluded that Oswald shot the president but that there was no evidence of a conspiracy; The HSCA concluded that Oswald shot the president but that there was a conspiracy. Canada Jack (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(...) we definitely can determine whether he shot John Kennedy or not.
We can only use the consensus of reliable sources, which have found that Oswald shot Kennedy. Whether or not there was a wider conspiracy is a different question, but Oswald's actions are not in serious academic dispute. It is not Wikipedia's role to assess and draw conclusions at odds with scholarly and investigative consensus. Acroterion(talk) 21:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But that's contradictory. Those sources not only determine Oswald as the killer, but also that he acted alone. So if those sources are deemed reliable, it's not a different question.
But if there are any doubts about Oswald acting on his own, there also have to be doubts about him firing the lethal shot, no? 2A02:8109:9CB6:9000:EEF2:A5AF:671C:9F42 (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources agree that Oswald fired the lethal shot(s). Whether he was part of a wider conspiracy is not completely settled. Wikipedia is not a forum for logical thought experiments. Acroterion(talk) 21:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Me: " we definitely can determine whether he shot John Kennedy or not." Response: "Can we, though? What is the incontrovertible evidence?" You miss the point. We can separately determine if someone carried out a crime even if they are dead and don't stand trial. That was addressing the claim that we have to say "allegedly" because he didn't stand trial. i.e. we don't need a verdict of "guilty" to say he shot the president, as when say Hinckley was found "not guilty" AND we say he shot the president. Canada Jack (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
House Select Committee findings
In the fourth paragraph, there is an error of fact. It states the House Select Committee supported Warren's conclusion that Oswald acted alone. This is false.
The House Select Committee didn't believe Oswald acted alone. It reported that a conspiracy was probable, as per the Wikipedia article on the findings of the House Select Committee. Thanks. 108.64.36.237 (talk) 03:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The HSCA concluded that all the shots that struck Kennedy were fired by Oswald.....and (based on acoustics that have since been debunked) this second shooter missed the motorcade. So while it is accurate to say the HSCA said other(s) were involved, they also said only Oswald hit the target. Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't dispute what I wrote, which was: "The House Select Committee didn't believe Oswald acted alone. It reported that a conspiracy was probable..."
So the fourth paragraph needs to be corrected to report the truth, please.
And if we say the HSCA finding were debunked, it would only be fair, neutral and unbiased to have all references to the Warren Commission say their findings were also debunked. Just three months ago a Secret Service agent who was there revealed he found the pristine magic bullet in the back seat of the car, after it supposedly passed through Connolly in the front seat(!), according to this reliable source:
No it isn't accurate to say the WC has been debunked. It wasn't a perfect investigation-no investigation is-but their overall conclusions are still endorsed by a large number of RS. This is all old ground. I'd suggest looking the the talk page archive. Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The HSCA findings, of a probable conspiracy, are endorsed by a large number of RS. 108.64.36.237 (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A majority, apparently. Because Wikipedia says this in its article on the HSCA:
"The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy."
Wikipedia would only say this if a majority of RS reported it. 108.64.36.237 (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a quote from the committee.....not what RS says about it (especially since then). Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you go back to the OP of this thread, that's all I want... For Wikipedia to accurately report the findings of the HSCA, rather than biased, non-neutral misinformation. 108.64.36.237 (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll think of a way to re-word it. Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alleged
Lee Harvey Oswald was never found guilty, so it should say "alleged assassin." In America, one is innocent until proven guilty. Canada Jack's analogy with Hinckley is not apropos. Hinckley was found 'not guilty by reasons of insanity,' and served time in an institution. Whereas Oswald never stood trial because he was murdered while he was in police custody.
Canada Jack is betraying a strong bias and also violating Wikipedia's policy of decorum, using words like "utterly inane." 108.64.36.237 (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Please kindly define "reliable sources" from the FAQ when the majority of Americans don't believe the Warren Commission's findings, and we now know the Commission's only purpose was to implicate Oswald, not uncover the truth.
Here is a list of frequently discussed sources: [1]. Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. ABC News is listed as a reliable source.
In the below link, ABC News calls Oswald the "alleged assassin." So should Wikipedia.
ABC News also reports on J. Edgar Hoover's urgent desire to have "something issued so that we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin" two days after the assassination. From that urgent desire to implicate Oswald was born the Warren Commission.
Wikipedia goes by the consensus of reliable sources, not a single source's usage. Acroterion(talk) 23:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Acroterion. Most RS describe him this way and so should we. We do allude to the multiple CTs in the intro. Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How many links from reliable sources will be enough? Five? 10? Happy to provide them.
But because reliable sources disagree, wouldn't it make the most sense to label Oswald neither guilty nor innocent? "Alleged assassin" is the most neutral, unbiased terminology. Also, it has the added benefit of being factual. 108.64.36.237 (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oswald assassinated Kennedy. John Wilkes Booth assassinated Abraham Lincoln. Facts are facts. Cullen328 (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then why do so many reliable sources call him the alleged assassin? 108.64.36.237 (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"So many"? No, we're not going to change to your preferred version based on a couple of editorial decisions by headline writers. We go by the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources in serious, in-depth scholarship and journalism. Acroterion(talk) 00:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Here's 12 reliable, neutral sources who call Oswald the alleged assassin, or the man arrested for killing Kennedy. Is 12 enough? It's apparently good enough for Encyclopedia Britannica but not Wikipedia? What's with the bias, Wikipedia? Be better.
There is no bias. Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated John F. Kennedy. John Wilkes Booth assassinated Abraham Lincoln. Both were killed before they could be tried in court. Both are assassins, and "alleged" is a
weasel word when the evidence is so overwhelming. Cullen328 (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
What we need is an edit filter on the page (and the article itself, I suppose) which, if the submitted edit contains the word "alleged", blocks the edit and throws up a message referring the editor to FAQ #2 above. EEng 14:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would need to apply to all of the peripheral articles too, like
Marina Oswald, not to mention the central article, Assassination of John F. Kennedy. Anything that's not protected at a given moment tends to get that kind of drive-by edit. Acroterion(talk) 14:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the section of the Edwin Walker assassination attempt, the article correctly lists the price of the Carcano rifle of $19.95 + $1.50 shipping, as supported by the citation from https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-14.html. The issue is that on the image next to this paragraph, there is associated text that says it was $29.95, which is actually the price of a Smith & Wesson revolver, also mentioned in the paragraph. The change I'd like made is just to correct this text.
Done , though I have to say I find the caption quite odd. It seems like the price is a reasonable fact to include in the body. The caption could cover all sorts of things, but I'd probably pick "used to assassinate JFK" over "cost $19.95". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
Not done: Please read the FAQ section at the top of this page, which states why the word "alleged" isn't used. Liu1126 (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Done , though I have to say I find the caption quite odd. It seems like the price is a reasonable fact to include in the body. The caption could cover all sorts of things, but I'd probably pick "used to assassinate JFK" over "cost $19.95". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)