Jump to content

Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EEng (talk | contribs) at 03:15, 6 August 2022 (→Arbitrary break: User:Canada Jack). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Calm

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 28, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 24, 2005, and November 24, 2011.

Template:Vital article

Ella German

Why is there so much space given to Ella German? She wasnt notable in her own right, Oswald never married her and should only be afforded a few brief sentences in the article rather than an entire section. Do any other editors share my thoughts and feel her story needs to be cut down? Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've never quite gotten why so much space is devoted to this subject either.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ella German where the decision was made to merge content about Ella German into this article. I agree that the amount of detail is excessive and that it should be trimmed way back. Cullen328 (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can offer a little bit of explanation. Although I haven't edited heavily over the past few years, my experience with Wikipedia was that there were a ton of sub-articles related to the assassination of JFK that served as a breeding ground for the conspiracy-minded to insert all sorts of questionable sources, and it was often difficult to merge these articles. When I first encountered the Ella German article, it was a stub cited to three conspiracy sources and a primary source. I figured that if Wikipedia was to have an article on her, it should be done properly with reliable secondary sources. You can see my June 2014 edit here. Given the merge, I'm all in favor of trimming away. BTW: I still take issue with Wikipedia's notability guidelines regarding people notable for only one event that after all these years still notes Howard Brennan even though he is discussed in fewer reliable secondary sources that Ella German. - Location (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut the material on German to a reasonable amount i.e. about 4 sentences [1]. EEng 04:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits; if you wish to undo the change, it must be done manually.

> The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits; if you wish to undo the change, it must be done manually.

So I am a newcomer to using a "talk" page - this is my second attempt, the first was deleted by Acroterion last night and I cannot now undo the deletion. Is that how different opinions are normally treated?

I thought talk pages were here for "talking". I also thought that people might actually follow guidelines here: > Assume good faith > Be polite and avoid personal attacks > Be welcoming to newcomers

I had simply tried to call out some very unfriendly sarcastic comments on a prior thread that clearly violated the guidelines. I guess maybe it is pointless to challenge the Warren Report here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lee_Harvey_Oswald&diff=next&oldid=1097194678 Vonuan (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vonuan, the purpose of an article talk page is to discuss specific actionable proposals to improve the article, based on published reliable sources. It is not to challenge (or defend) the Warren Report based on the personal opinions of various editors. Please read WP:NOTAFORUM. Cullen328 (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • WIkipedia talkpages aren't fora for your personal reflections on the topic, nor is this a forum for the promotion of conspiracy theories about other editors or Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 23:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the spirit of openness, I'll just disclose here and now that I'm definitely dominated by the powers who killed JFK. It's a lifestyle choice. EEng 00:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    EEng, I always suspected that after you posted that William McKinley image on my user page. I haven't removed it for fear of the KGB/CIA/Mafia/LBJ faction/Mexican Fidel Castro agents/New Orleans nutcase/Trotskyist/Southern KKK segregationists/ZOG/Texas oilmen/Bilderberg/Bohemian Club/Illuminati agents who all coordinated seamlessly to kill JFK. Did I leave anybody out? Cullen328 (talk) 06:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    SPEBSQSA. EEng 02:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vonuan, Humorless pedantry from those who claim to *know* the Truth is a very great affliction on WIkipedia, and on this topic in particular. Sometimes we get tired of it. Acroterion (talk) 13:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would add that at least one point made by Vounan above (who I assume is the same person who posted the removed post about the Warren Report etc) does warrant some action, and that is the creation of a FAQ on this page and probably a few other pages. For example on the "no conviction at trial" point, but also on the Single Bullet Theory, (despite the presence of an entire article on the subject), the number of shots, etc., as Vounan has, like many others, repeated fallacies promoted by the conspiracy community. Like a zig-zagging single bullet. Clearly, a great many people who criticize the Warren Report haven't bothered to read it, or the HSCA report. If they had read those reports, they would see the chain of evidence that points to Oswald as perpetrator, and would not repeat issues that were in some cases addressed in 1964 - like the "changed" motorcade route. Or the fact that the vast majority of witnesses - something like 95% - not only heard a maximum of three shots, but also reported those shots came from one direction, basically eliminating the possibility of multiple snipers. Not sure where we would plonk these FAQ's for input, I guess on the relevant talk pages? Canada Jack (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy

Do the cites have to say Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy 500 million times? It's really tiresome and pompous. EEng 06:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what do you suggest? Also see WP:POINT. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Warren Report"? Also, what's your WP:POINT point? EEng 14:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Allegedly"

Apparently there's been some sort of edit war going on over including the world "allegedly". Could we reach a consensus first? Liliana (UwU) 00:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What edit war? There is a longstanding consensus that "allegedly" keeps getting inappropriately inserted by conspiracy enthusiasts under various pretexts, which are rapidly reverted. This is not going to stop anyhime soon, as long as there are conspiracy enthusiasts. This article is not obligated to cater to their wishes. Please read the archives of this page. Acroterion (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty then, if it's a conspiracy theorist doing that then the consensus is already "don't add it". Thanks for clarifying. Liliana (UwU) 00:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Zarvanov is conducting a slow edit war against consensus, using the long-debunked idea that somebody who died before trial cannot be described as a murderer. The dead have no legal rights to trial and cannot be defamed, and nobody asserts that John Wilkes Booth should be the "alleged" assassin of Abraham Lincoln, or that the 911 hijackers are "alleged." Acroterion (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty then, if it's a conspiracy theorist doing that then the consensus is already "don't add it". No, it's because the major investigations concluded he shot and killed the president, so using the term "allegedly" is not appropriate as we'd be misrepresenting their conclusions. As for being a "conspiracy theorist" supposedly being a disqualification, one of those investigations which concluded Oswald killed the president also concluded... there was a conspiracy. Canada Jack (talk) 01:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, the Warren commissions' conclusion is that Oswald was JFK's assassin & to date, that conclusion hasn't been overturned. Leave out "Allegedly" & other such descriptions. GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

Just have a look at this link from the Library of Congress: [2]
Quote: "The 'sixth-floor' corner window of the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas, Texas, where Lee Harvey Oswald, the presumptive assassin of President John F. Kennedy, found a perch above the plaza on Nov. 22, 1963. It is hyphenated. Are you suggesting that I and the Library of Congress are incorrect?
Here is another such example: [3]
Quote: "A woman has been arrested on suspicion of murder after an 18-month-old baby died following a fall from a 'sixth-floor' window.
Perhaps you should telephone the Irish Independent and their educated journalists and inform them that they are incorrect?
Here is yet another example from WIKIPEDIA: [4]
Quote: The Texas School Book Depository, now known as the Dallas County Administration Building, is a 'seven-floor' building
Perhaps you should edit it, if it irks you?
Another example from The LA TIMES: [5]
"It's a 1940 Italian-made rifle, like the one Lee Harvey Oswald fired from a 'sixth-floor' window at the Texas School Book Depository,"
By all means, write a letter to the LA Times, if it irks you?
These are examples of good Journalism from reliable sources.
And for what it's worth, I don't believe there were a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. But, you can't state publicly, that an individual whether dead or alive is the actual preparator of a crime, if they've never been
convicted in a court of Law. So, with that said, Lee Harvey Oswald is and always will be the alleged assassin in Lawful terms, even though the preponderance of evidence indicates he was the sole preparator !!
Therefore it should be written that he, LEE HARVEY OSWALD IS THE ALLEGED ASSASSIN OF JFK AND ALLEGED SLAYER OF OFFICER J.D TIPPIT.
For example: [6]
Quote: '"accused' assassin of U.S. Pres. John F. Kennedy in Dallas on November 22, 1963
Another example: [7]
Quote "the alleged assassin"
Another example, from THE LA TIMES [8]
"the sniper’s nest from which Lee Harvey Oswald is said to have shot President John F. Kennedy."
"Kennedy's accused assassin."
Is the LA TIMES incorrect also, or is the institutionalized bias and ignorance of some amateur Wikipedia editors better than the LA TIMES?
There are many more such examples.
It is The Sixth Floor Museum, which is not hyphenated !! Zarvonov (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no comment to make on the content matter on this page. With regard to the hyphens, purely in the spirit of offering guidance on how to interpret our MOS, in the examples given above the hyphen is being correctly used in a descriptive phrase, modifying the main noun (e.g. 'sixth-floor window', where 'window' is the main noun). The outlier is the 'Sixth Floor Museum', which is the name of a particular museum so they can style it however they like. It remains the case that 'on the sixth floor', when it is the sixth floor itself that one is referring to, would be unhyphenated. Girth Summit (blether) 17:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zarvonov, we won't be writing to the Library of Congress or Irish Independent about their use of sixth-floor, because the examples are all correct. There are situations in which sixth floor (no hyphen) is correct, and situations in which sixth-floor (with hyphen) is correct, and you'll see both in the article -- each in its correct places. Another editor has explained the difference to you here [9] but you're not paying attention. If you can't understand stuff like hyphens no one's going to waste further time trying to explain the allegedly issue to you. EEng 17:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is not a "right" or "wrong" issue; it's a style issue. Canada Jack (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're talking about the hyphens, no, it's a right-versus-wrong issue. (Note the hyphens. Another way I could have written it is It's an issue of right versus wrong, wherein you will note the lack of hyphens.) EEng 19:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it isn't. I've been in journalism 35+ years and if you'd like, I can pull out the pages on this issue from the Chicago Manual of Style. The style has evolved to dropping hyphens over the past few decades, except in cases where ambiguity arises, now it's pulling back the other way. Canada Jack (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you better pull those pages. There are stylistic choices and conventional exceptions in some narrow situations (e.g. high school vs. high-school), but in the case at hand there's zero wiggle room. EEng 20:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, style often trips people up. A classic example is the use of split infinitives. Long not considered acceptable, now frequently used. Or the placements of quotation marks inside or outside punctuation marks. Usage depends on the style in play, like American vs British English. A recent style issue came in with the use of the word "Black" to describe people - is the "b" capped or lower case? The Style in North America, at least, is to cap the "b."
    As for hyphens:
    Chicago Manual of Style, Section 6.41 from the 14th edition: "Formerly, adjectival compounds, except those beginning with an adverb ending in ly, were generally hyphenated before the noun they modified and open after the noun. The University of Chicago Press now takes the position that the hyphen may be omitted in all cases were there is little or no risk of ambiguity or hesitation. It also means, of course, that when ambiguity is likely, the compound adjective, whatever its position, should be hyphenated."
    The examples they use are "fast sailing ship," where it is ambiguous whether it refers to a ship which is now sailing fast, or to a sailing ship that can go fast. By hyphenating "fast-sailing" that ambiguity can be eliminated if the former sense is intended. But the phrase "much loved friend" has no risk of being misread so does not require a hyphen.
    With these rules in mind, "sixth floor window" does not require a hyphen as there is no risk of ambiguity, as per Style.
    All this being said, I've not seen if there is an update on the Style in the current edition. Canada Jack (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just let me add to clarify - I am speaking about the cases where there is an adjectival compound before a noun; there it is purely a style issue. But this does not apply when it is a stand-alone compound. As noted earlier, phrases like "on the sixth-floor of the building..." are never correct in terms of hyphens, there is no alternate Style there. Canada Jack (talk) 02:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I fear we've been talking at cross purposes; I thought you were saying Chicago would now endorse He was on the sixth-floor -- you can imagine my skepticism. Having said that, I am surprised at the extent to which the passage you quote implies that the unwashed hoi-polloi have infiltrated Chicago. But of course, standards have slipped since Turabian died. EEng 03:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The hyphenation issue, that is! Canada Jack (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Philistine! EEng 19:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And people wonder why I love Wikipedia. Endless entertainment and occasional-facts. --Pete (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes. I do indeed remember the "British Isles" and "Derry/Londonderry" disputes. GoodDay (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lee_Harvey_Oswald&oldid=1102636869"