Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
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. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
view·edit Frequently asked questions
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 Misplaced Pages'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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dallas-Fort WorthWikipedia:WikiProject Dallas-Fort WorthTemplate:WikiProject Dallas-Fort WorthDallas-Fort Worth
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 Misplaced Pages. 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
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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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
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
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 Misplaced Pages. 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
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.
"a former U.S. Marine during the Korean War"
"Lee's elder brother Robert Jr. (1934–2017) was a former U.S. Marine during the Korean War."
So, was he
1. a marine during the Korean War, or
2. a marine during some earlier time, preceding the Korean War, who left the Marines during the Korean War, after which he rejoined the Marines?,
According to an obit for Robert Oswald, in the then Wichita Times Record News, now just the Times Record News, Robert Oswald "spent his youth in Louisiana with his brothers Lee and John Pic before joining the Marine Corps in 1952 at age 18. He proudly served his country as a Marine in the Korean war. Upon returning from Korea, he met and married Vada Mercer on November 21, 1956 in Ft Worth, Texas."
So, we know this Oswald joined the Corps in 52', and was married (after leaving the service?) in 56', so it does seem like that falls in the time of the Korean War (50'-53'). So it looks like the answer is C. A proper rewrite would likely read something like this: Lee's elder brother Robert Edward Lee Jr. (1934-2017) was a U.S. Marine who served during the Korean War." Not going to make that edit at this time, as I'm uncertain how to mark this as resolved, but anyone who wishes to, feel free to.
I've also included Robert's FindAGrave page; uncertain if that falls under the umbrella of a RS or not, but I will say I use it regularly when tracking burials on Ancestry.com; it quotes the WTRN obit verbatim.
Find-a-Grave is not a reliable source -- WP:USERGENERATED. The obit would normally be a usable source, but stuff like this is in any of the many, many books on the subject, and given the contentious nature of every little thing about the JFK assassination, that's what we should be using, because someone will have checked records, cross-compared, etc. EEng16:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
The opening paragraph is clearly a baldly false statement. Whilst it is 'widely believed' or taken as accepted that he was the assassin of Kennedy, be this as a conclusion of official investigations or later historical work, it is wholly impossible to definitively state that he 'was' the assassin. The example given in the talk page yellow box offers 'John Wilkes Booth' as a comparable example. This is invalid, since Booth was actually recorded as being in Lincoln's theatre box, and was seen committing the act by eyewitnesses! This cannot be said for Oswald. The comparison is absurd.
'Accepted as being..' or 'Charged with...' or 'Widely believed to be..' are about as much as can be justifiably stated. Anything else is wilful misinformation. Daisne (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
See the talkpage archives. Your recommendations on watering-down the lead contradict the consensus of reliable sources, no matter what the disparate assertions of conspiracy enthusiasts may claim. The FAQ is there because there are a lot of people who insist that Oswald's rights to a presumption of innocence survive his death, which is legalistic nonsense, hence the comparison to Booth's case. Proposals rehashing old arguments will go nowhere. Acroterion(talk)13:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps the FAQ section in this talkpage should have a third point about the validity of him being the assassin. I dont believe a majority of people who take issue with the opening line of the lead stating he is the assassin are taking issue specifically that he cant be *legally* called the assassin, just that it's said he is so bluntly. I believe this would be good to add. AssanEcho (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
That's a great idea! I think that and a third question would drastically reduce the amount of people who'd have a kneejerk reaction to the lead, since it would show that editors are aware of the alternative viewpoints and aren't just saying he's the assassin due to a bias or shilling, ect. Anyone else who would still make a topic on this talkpage against the lead would likely be people with a more constructive argument or be such a tiny group they can be much more easily be dealt with. AssanEcho (talk) 04:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Death section
The death section currently reads LHO was unconscious when in the ambulance; but a medical student rode with Oswald in the ambulance (ambo drivers back then were just that merely drivers). He stated that Oswald fought him as he tried to provide medical assistance during the ride. He was probably in an altered conscious state (maybe) and unless I'm misunderstanding Beiberdorf's wording he is applying cardiac massage on route to the Hospital. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the "thrashing about" and resisting efforts to support his life may have been his own body's reflex actions. Of course I'm no Doctor so he certainly could have been "fighting" with them but because Oswald expired not long after the journey to hospital it would make sense that he was in the stages of "dying" on route to Parkland. The section could be rewritten as;
“Drifting in and out of consciousness, Oswald was placed in an ambulance and was driven to Parkland Memorial Hospital, the same hospital where President Kennedy had died just two days earlier. Frederick Bieberdorf, a medical student on duty, rode in the ambulance, said that several blocks before reaching the hospital, Oswald started thrashing about, resisting Beiberdorf's efforts of heart massage and attempting to free an oxygen mask over his mouth.” 92.40.218.226 (talk) 13:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC) 92.40.218.226 (talk) 13:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
The source says nothing I can see about "drifting in and out of consciousness". The rest might be OK -- I haven't checked in detail. EEng12:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
This was probably posted by the UK Kennedy/Lincoln/Titanic IP, who had a particular fascination with this point. They were most active about ten years ago from southern England. Acroterion(talk)13:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Pretty much. The IP had a fascination with articles about violent or tragic death with a particular focus on those three, and the Halloween movies, so it was all probably a joint John Carpenter/James Cameron/CIA operation 1863-1963 (Booth seemed to have focused on Lincoln in November 1863 - coincidence?). Acroterion(talk)13:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
view · edit Frequently asked questions
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.
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
Referencing and citation: criterion met
Done