Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John F. Kennedy assassination article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Should you wish to make any substantial changes or additions;
  • Before making any such substantial changes, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue.
  • During any such changes, please be careful to cite reputable sources supporting them, and when submitting your edit, please include an accurate and concise description in the "Edit summary" field-box.
  • After making any such changes, please also carefully describe the reason(s) for any such changes on the discussion-page.
Good articles John F. Kennedy assassination has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Peer review John F. Kennedy assassination has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Contents

[edit] Citations

This page badly needs more references/notes. Everything that does not have a reference/note (and book notes must have page numbers included) should be deleted. This is the new Wikipedia standard for FA articles. No more POV... --andreasegde 06:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Citations are provided. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spam Tag

I'm not sure why the spam tag is placed above the external link section. If certain links are indeed spam, they should be identified and moved. Otherwise, I will remove it, if there are no objections. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RPJ case and the Spartacus site

“ A finding of fact in the RPJ case mentions the site spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk (founder John Simkin), characterised as propagandistic in relation to uncritical inclusions as factual of material on the Kennedy assassination. The Spartacus site contains unrelated historical material on many subjects. Having heard from John Simkin, and having myself linked to Spartacus pages on numerous occasions, I would like to clarify that (as far as I'm concerned) the FoF in the case is not intended as a blanket condemnation. Editors should exercise good judgement as to tone and factual reliability of these pages, case by case. Charles Matthews 20:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC) ”

Added by Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Former President Bush defends Warren Commission against Conspiracy theorists during Ford Eulogy

The first President Bush recalled Mr. Ford’s service on the Warren Commission, which investigated the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. “And the conspiracy theorists can say what they will, but the Warren Commission report will always have the final, definitive say on this tragic matter,” Mr. Bush said. “Why? Because Jerry Ford put his name on it, and Jerry Ford’s word was always good. [1] 69.114.117.103 19:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Given that the members of the WC have often been accused of dishonesty in their Report, it does not surprise me that someone at the funeral would take shots at those who believe there was a conspiracy. It does however surprise me that George H.W. Bush would want to broach the subject, given his personal ties to George De Mohrenschildt, the CIA and a lot of other dark forces.[2]
In my view what he was reacting to were the 9/11 conspiracy theories in which published polls have indicated 35% to 45% of the American public have a belief in. He comes up as a prominent figure in many of these. The theories center around the 30 year business relationship between his family and the Bin Ladin Family and more specifically the Carlyle Group in which he several of his cabinet members including James Baker and Bin Ladin's brother had a prominent role as of September 2001. Back on topic I think his remarks should be put in this and the Warren Commission article. 69.114.117.103 06:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
GHW Bush and the CIA: breaking news! [3] Joegoodfriend 17:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

One needn't be labeled a "conspiracy theorist" for faulting the Warren Commission. Here, for example, is Christopher Hitchens in a recent Slate column:

"You may choose, if you wish, to parrot the line that Watergate was a "long national nightmare," but some of us found it rather exhilarating to see a criminal president successfully investigated and exposed and discredited. And we do not think it in the least bit nightmarish that the Constitution says that such a man is not above the law. Ford's ignominious pardon of this felonious thug meant, first, that only the lesser fry had to go to jail. It meant, second, that we still do not even know why the burglars were originally sent into the offices of the Democratic National Committee. In this respect, the famous pardon is not unlike the Warren Commission: another establishment exercise in damage control and pseudo-reassurance (of which Ford was also a member) that actually raised more questions than it answered." [4]

SMB 03:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is up with the Autopsy section

There seem to be some tables and empty images, they need repairing from OP or deletion


[edit] Assassination section

The bullet that struck Gov. Connally in the back did not pass through his lung. It passed around he lung along the 4th rib and removed the last 4 cm of it before striking his wrist. This caused a pneumothorax ("sucking wound" or puncture of the chest chamber surrounding the lung) which would, if air is allowed into the chest, cause the lung to collapse. See: testimony of Dr. Shaw 4 WC 103[5]

The Altgens photograph was taken at same time as frame 255 of the Zapruder film. According to Altgens, it was taken just after the first shot and before any other shots.[6]--Saskcitation 11:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Lovely: many thanks for pointing that out. Extremely sexy 11:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Implicit bias

Why is the "treason" handbill displayed so prominently on the page? It's as if the editors are insinuating something from the start of the article. 129.71.73.248 08:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New film??

The film was not taken in Dealey Plaza, and does not add information to the article. There were numerous films taken of the presidential motorcade before it reached Dealey Plaza. — Walloon 05:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. It does and it is very significant! One of the major conspiracy theories about the JFK assasination is based on the fact that the entry and exit marks on Kennedy's torso and business suit does not match at all. However, George Jefferies' newly surfaced 8mm footage is very good quality and clearly shows that the president's suit was heavily wrinkled as he sat in the car and thus it is quite logical that the bullet holes won't overlap. Jefferies' film thus kills a part of the conspiracy. Definitely, it should be added to the article! 82.131.210.162 09:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The 8mm movie does not introduce anything new: there are numerous other pictures (some quite clear) of the jacket bunching up. Any such discussion belongs in the Kennedy assassination theories article. — Walloon 12:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Just a note for this Talk page -- the Jefferies footage of the TSBD was taken the next day, not November 22. I don't think it belongs in the article, but someone may try to add something about that. I've already seen stills of the footage being advanced to prove the position of Oswald one way or the other.--Dhartung | Talk 11:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural/public impact

I'd be interested in seeing a section on the cultural, political, and popular impact of the assassination on the U.S. and the world; perhaps include the announcement of the assassination, viewership of the funeral/memorial service, and the impact it had on how history views Kennedy's life and presidency. I don't have much direct knowledge of this--any additions would be appreciated. Thanks. TheSPY 16:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just not acceptable

This article is not really that long...other material should be included in this...more information on JFK's wounds, Oswald's involvement in the FBI and with Hoover himself...the oddities found between the doctor's stories in Dallas and the doctors in Washington, D.C....the article is far too vague and seems to output an "accept the Warren Commission" vibe. Someone (an expert) needs to have a serious look at this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mine187 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

The article is already too long as it is. More information could be added and added and added, but at some point, enough is too much. It is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, which summarizes. Individual articles about aspects of the assassination exist, and that is where additional information can be included.
As for point of view, it has been deliberately and carefully worded not to be partisan. For example, there is no claim in the description of the assassination that the same bullet wounded both the President and Governor Connally. And the article also summarizes statistically the contrary testimony of the earwitnesses about the direction of the shots.
But encyclopedia articles should not be used to argue a specific side of a controversy. They should try to be as strictly neutral as possible. — Walloon 19:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The rifle

Nowhere is it written on this page or the page specific to the rifle that it was a cheap hunk of junk that cost 12 bucks, that the sight was like 3 dollars, or that the sight was "supposedly" out of line anyhow. No remarks on the condition of the rifle, i.e.: well kept or rusty, etc. 10 bucks says this ends in bloodshed 18:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe there is a link to the rifle article here. Add that information there (provided it is verifiable, of course). Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
When the FBI ran Oswald's gun through a rigorous series of shooting tests, it concluded "it is a very accurate weapon." The Carcano is rated an effective battle weapon, good at killing people, and as accurate as the U.S. Army's M-14 rifle. The Carcano's bullets, 6.5 millimeter shells, are 30 to 50 percent heavier than the average bullet of that diameter, and travel with the same velocity, 2,100 feet per second, as the Russian AK-47 assault rifle. — Walloon 00:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] President's motorcade

The link to John Ready's wikipedia page is a link to someone else - how do we handle this? Should we remove the link, or create a new page? (I am still a bit new to Wikipedia) -- Dudebri1 13:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/h/Talk%7EJohn_F._Kennedy_assassination_e9c3.html"