Talk:Robert F. Kennedy assassination

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Robert F. Kennedy assassination article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This is not a forum for general discussion of Robert F. Kennedy assassination.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
Peer review Robert 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.
Robert F. Kennedy assassination is currently a good article nominee. An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made in order to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article.

Date: 14:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Revamp complete

A lot of editing has now taken place, and I have removed the various maintenance tags that I added late yesterday. There are some edits that I shall explain quickly to preempt any questions! Firstly, the editing philosophy I applied was that the contents of the article should have relevance to the subject. Thus, a detailed exposition of the actions of individual members of the press and media was not necessary (it was also unreferenced) for example, and I have left it some more poignant facts.

The compression and elimination of the conspiracy theories is doubtless my most contentious edit. However, referring to WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV, I feel justified in redressing the balance. I included those theories that were best sourced and most widely held, improved on the references, and then balanced the subsections with evidence supporting the majority position. This is in accordance with my interpretation of policy. One item that I couldn't source was the polka-dot dress girl - well, at least not from sources satisfying WP:RS. However, with my original sub-title of "Contentions relating to actions of officials", a 'short mention of this would be ok - I just couldn't get the sources together.

Outstanding issues for the article: A section entitled "Aftermath and legacy" - what impact did the assassination have? This can include the election, but with this alone, the section looks rather slim and I'm not sure I'm qualified to assess a wider social impact from his death. Nonetheless, I will look into it if a significant amount of time passes.

Any comments, please drop by my talk page. Best wishes and happy editing Fritzpoll (talk) 02:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Compson1 (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Polka-dot dress woman is discussed at length in Moldea's book, the best single source on the assassination.

Multiple sources are preferable, and I don't have a copy to hand. Please include if you can Fritzpoll (talk)

Compson1 (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC) The two legitimate issues that have been raised by conspiracy theorists (and I write as someone completely confident that Sirhan acted alone) are the distance between the muzzle of Sirhan's gun and Kennedy's head (all eyewitnesses put the gun farther away from Kennedy's head than the autopsy report concluded the fatal shot had been fired) and the holes in the bystanders and walls suggesting more than eight bullets were fired. We now have no discussion of those issues but instead have discussion of CIA involvement, which is surely a fringe theory. As far as I know, this article was the only source anywhere providing details of TV coverage of the event, written based on original source documents--recordings of the coverage held by private collectors. Any errors were corrected by other collectors. We're now limited primarily to information provided in a Time magazine article written under deadline the week of the shooting.

The television coverage was unsourced, and accordingly, I removed material for which I could find no source per WP:V. The policy on reliable sources] applies, since Wikipedia is a tertiary source and requires verification. There were no cited sources, and the TIME article gives good coverage of the event, so the article was by no means the only source. The point is that much of that blow-by-blow account was not relevant to the subject of the article. The distance issues are covered in the second gunman section, with reference to the autopsy and subsequent FBI investigations per the 1975 court orders, albeit not with reference to the multiple bullet holes. Although these were covered in the cited FBI documents, I didn't feel they constituted a balanced view, since proponents of second gunman theories would argue a vested interest problem.
My problem last night was finding sources to validate arguments. Moldea's book continues to be cited, but I couldn't find further verifying sources to include anything substantial on the topic. In order to meet policy, and to make the article readable/useful I had to wipe out vast swathes of unsourceable or unnecessary material. I am happy for people to add in well-sourced, balanced and reasonably succinct prose relating to other issues, because these will probably conform with policy (provided they satisfy WP:FRINGE. The CIA involvement theory was widely publicised in the popular press, the serious press and by the UK's public broadcaster. This entire section consists of fringe theories, so it was really a case of finding those that were verifiable! Fritzpoll (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Compson1 (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC) When Cesar drew his gun: The source cited in note 26 doesn't support the text. Cesar himself gave conflicting accounts of when he drew his gun but told police it was when he first heard shots. The editor may be confusing Cesar with security guard Jack Merritt, who entered the pantry with his gun drawn after the shooting stopped.

Possibly. I think I inadvertently undid your initial edit trying to undo vandalism by another editor. Apologies for this. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

At last, the crazies have been defeated and this page looks moe or less respectable. As someone who fought a lengthy edit war with some over this page last year, I congratulate you! Mindstar (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Robert F. Kennedy assassination: Extent of coverage of alternative theories

Following extensive rewrite, alternative theories have been limited and an attempt at balance made. Need to know if coverage is sufficient, and satsifes WP:FRINGE as well as other policies Fritzpoll (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand the point made about TV coverage, but Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, but requires verifable sources. So there are some alternative theories that may be difficult to cover.Doug Weller (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Concerned about WP:NPOV#Undue regarding the weight some editors wish to give to conspiracy theories. DurovaCharge! 18:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Copied the below from a discussion on Durova's talk page:

Hi Durova. I massively reduced the content of the conspiracy theories section during my rewrite the other day, and attempted to included sources to balance these sections back to the majority viewpoint. Can I just clarify: do you think there is a problem with the section as it stands, or are you just concerned that there is a tendency for this section to become massively full of wild fringe theories? Fritzpoll (talk) 09:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, what percentage of the leading experts suppose that alternative theories hold water? Right now the space in the article is about evenly split between conventional and alternative. Unless this is really an open debate with no firm expert consensus, which I doubt is the case, then per WP:UNDUE the alternative stuff is still getting way too much weight. DurovaCharge! 09:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think what is actually lacking is sufficient content about the event itself. I will reduce the content again in the CIA involvement section, since yours is essentially the second concern I've seen, but ultimately, more information in the Event section or in the perpetrator section will probably balance this article out. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a major problem with the Pruszynski mention.
"More recently, analysis of a single audio recording of the gunshots made by freelance reporter Stanislaw Pruszynski appear, according to forensic expert Philip Van Praag, to indicate thirteen shots being fired, while Sirhan's gun only held eight bullets.[34] While this would be highly supportive of a second gunman, other independent analysis by some other experts indicates that there are only eight shots present on the tape.[38]"
Firstly calling it a "single audio recording" immediately implies other recordings don't support it. Then it goes on to imply Van Praag was the only expert to claim 13 shots. Next, the "independent analysis by some other experts" turns out to be a single expert who admitted he worked from inferior copies. The majority expert view actually supports Van Praag's "fringe theory" but that is not reflected in the mention. Obviously the Pruszynski tape analysis should have it's own page and only a summary needs be here but the current wording doesn't even pretend to be nuetral. Wayne (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you propose an alternative, or even edit yourself, provided you can supply relevant sources? Fritzpoll (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The sources are already there. [34] already covers what I explained and includes detailed mention of why the opposing source at ref [38] should not be given undue weight. I'd have to think of an alternative that doesn't take up too much space. Another point I notice has no mention, is the autopsy results finding that the head shot was fired from several inches. As no witness puts Sirhan closer than several feet this is relevant in the second gunman section. Reliable sources find this of interest so it should be in the article. The fact that fringe theories are being given increased credibility by the mainstream media should be given due weight. Currently the article has reduced the weight to the extent that it implies there is no mainstream support at all for them. I'd even argue that coverage of fringe theories should be expanded a little until such time as they have their own article as anyone reading the page would assume there is no real controversy. Wayne (talk) 05:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The proportion of space devoted to any given interpretation should be in keeping with the proportion of recognized experts who adhere to it. DurovaCharge! 05:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Could you either provide information regarding how we are to arrive at the proportion of recognized experts who adhere to either side of the debate about this crime, or criteria which would allow us to determine who is an expert?71.237.161.49 (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at the criteria Jimbo Wales gave at WP:UNDUE - most comonly accepted references say that this is the way it happened, with a significant minority adhering o the alternative theories listed Fritzpoll (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I can only agree with Durova. The overwhelming mainstream opinion is that Kennedy was assassinated by Sirhan. As such, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (particularly WP:Fringe theories and WP:WEIGHT) indicate that conspiracy theories, held by a minority must not be given undue weight in an article. In fact, the relevant sentence is "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. I believe that this balance has been achieved, although the consequences of the assassination (the "Aftermath") have yet to be adequately described to present balance. The fact that there is a section on fringe theories in this article would be indicative to any reader that such theories exist. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Again I'd ask what the basis for the conclusion that mainstream opinion is that Sirhan was guilty? There have been multiple reports from mainstream sources bringing forth new evidence that seems to dispute this conclusion.71.237.161.49 (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Found guilty in a court of law with multiple appeal rejections and no plausible alternative explanation that isn't shot full of holes. This seems extensive enough Fritzpoll (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Larry Teeter, Sirhan's lawyer, asked for recusal from several judges due to their bias against his case, so there is at least counter explanations that should be considered when speaking of the rejections of these appeals. As to whether or not the alternative theories are shot full of holes is certainly an open question when there are eyewitnesses, some of whom were wounded, who after 40 years still hold that there was more than one shooter.71.237.161.49 (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with giving fringe theories due weight but currently they are given almost no weight by ommission. Another point is that while the majority view is that Sirhan shot Kennedy it is also the majority view of the experts who have examined the tapes and evidence that although Sirhan did indeed shoot Kennedy there was probably a second gunman. It is only the theories around Sirhans involvement that are fringe and not the second gunman theory itself because there is evidence accepted by reliable sources that supports the possibility. Wayne (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
But if we accept that the majority viewpoint is that Sirhan shot Kennedy, isn't the fact that there might have been someone else discharging a gun irrelevant to the subject of Kennedy's assassination, in that it doesn't contradict the notion that Sirhan killed him? Plus other evidence mentioned on this talk page(and the archive) indicates a majority view of 4 UK experts vs. van Pragg and one other in the states that eight shots were fired so your assertion of a majority viewpoint in this area seems to be flawed? Fritzpoll (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
It is not true that van Pragg is the only expert who came to the conclusion that there were more than 8 gunshots. Mel Ayton who is a supporter of the official story reported that three experts found that there were more than eight shots, whereas five experts found that there were eight shots. It is not a four to one ratio, but rather a five to three ratio, and further it appears that Mel Ayton's team of five were not working with the master tapes.71.237.161.49 (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Background

The mainstream opinion is that Sirhan killed Kennedy over his opinions about Israel, including support for various Israeli actions. I think that if Kennedy expressed such opinions, this probably needs to be covered in the "Background" section (with sources, of course). The mainstream viewpoint needs to be thoroughly represented or some more of the fringe material needs to be removed per concerns expressed above. Fritzpoll (talk)

[edit] paperless archives

I'm not sure I understand why you can't link to this url? Is it some technical problem? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It is blacklisted as spam. I posted a request to have it delisted, but it was overturned as having been added by someone at the Foundation in 2004. No other rationale was given. It will take a long time to find a replacement, as I'll have to go through all the files at the Mary Ferrell Foundation (external link at the bottom) to find the right document. And there are a *lot* of them!! Fritzpoll (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, OK. The one time I ran into a problem like that I had better luck. Commiserations. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1968 election

Compson1 (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC) The explanation given doesn't really follow. Most states selected delegates at state conventions, rather than in primaries. In the absence of historical context, though, it doesn't follow that Kennedy was unlikely to win, since he could have received support from those delegates chosen at state conventions. The procedure means merely that Kennedy's primary wins did not assure him of the nomination. In fact, it's very unlikely that he would have been nominated, though this point is debated. The delegates chosen at state conventions were party regulars largely loyal to President Lyndon Johnson, who hated Kennedy and viewed Kennedy's criticism of the Vietnam War as a personal affront. Many of them were already committed to Humphrey, either publicly or privately. (The fight for delegates is explained on the second page of this article, published a week before Kennedy's assassination: "In the 'New' Politics".) Humphrey had a huge lead in delegates, and after California, there were no more primaries, so Kennedy's popular support wouldn't translate into delegates.

The explanation is based on the source cited, the author's contention being that the process essentially relied on an "undemocratic" process meaning that Kennedy was unlikely to win as a result. The irony, I suppose, being that Humphrey could win without taking part in primary elections. All I did was try to summarise the source - if you feel it is inadequate, or needs expanding (you clearly have a good source there) you don't need my permission to do it! I would enjoy reading more in this section :) Fritzpoll (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Compson1 (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)I don't think Beschloss means quite what you've written, but I'll try to add something this weekend.

It is quite feasibly a failure in my summarising skills - i.e. that I understand it but for some reason haven't expressed it coherently - I would welcome a correction. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "perpetrator" vs. "man convicted of"

This has been played around with several times over the past 24hours. Let's talk about it here, and come up with some compromise wording. Sirhan is correctly, in my opinion, described as the perpetrator. Per WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV, we want to acknowledge the majority view, which is that Sirhan committed the crime. On the other hand, I accept the criticism of the element relating to the Israel connection, since, althought the sources are highly suggestive, they are not emphatic on this point. Would it be acceptable simply to remove the final clause relating to Israel? Fritzpoll (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Frankheimer as driver

John Frankheimer did drive Kennedy and Fred Dutton to the Ambassador (Witcover, p. 254), but the fact seems too trivial to be included. Compson1 (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Robert F. Kennedy assassination/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    In the Background section, "Robert Kennedy" is mentioned, but reading further, in the Assassination section, "Robert F. Kennedy" is written and it would be best that "Robert F. Kennedy" be mentioned first and then you can add "Robert Kennedy". I'm not an expert with "law terms", but shouldn't this sentence, in the Perpetrator section, ---> "The judge did not accept this confession and it was later withdrawn", be re-written a little better. In the Conspiracy theories, this sentence ---> "Some persons involved in the original investigation and some researchers have suggested alternative scenarios for the crime, or have argued that there are serious problems with the official case", it would be best to replace "persons" with "individuals".
    B. MoS compliance:
    It wouldn't hurt to link "New York" in the lead. In the Media coverage section, it wouldn't hurt to link ABC, CBS, and NBC. The dates need to be linked per here.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Does Reference 27 cover ---> "One doctor slapped his face, calling, "Bob, Bob," while another began massaging Kennedy's heart"? In the CIA section, does Reference 48 cover all the third paragraph info?
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Image:Robertkennedy.jpg appears to have be missing source information and that needs to be fixed. Changed to a free public domain image from the commons. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    If the above statement can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article! Also, contact me if the above statements are answered.

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the comments - give us 24-48 hours (editors in multiple timezones) to get this sorted I'll let you know when we're there Fritzpoll (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, think we're finished. I added a new citation to complement 27 which has the same information that you were concerned was unreferenced. Source 48 doesn't cover all the third paragraph info, just the last line. The first part of the paragraph is covered within the film that it refers to. Do you want the film to be cited inline, even though it is explicitly attributed in the text? Fritzpoll (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
It'd be best to add the film citation. Overall, the article looks well, just adding the film source makes the article be steps from it from becoming GA. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy Theories Section Should be Renamed

The term conspiracy theory is a prejorative. I renamed the section "Problems With the Official Account" but my edits were reverted. Also I tried to add a recent quote from John Pilger indicating he witnessed the shooting and was certain there was a second gunman, but this addition was deleted before I could clean it up. Is there a bot monitoring this particular entry or what?71.237.161.49 (talk) 07:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The problems with what you are tring to add are to do with trying to present the majority view within the article. The conspiracy theory material is therefore limited in size compared to the account accepted by the overwhelming majority of people Fritzpoll (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
My understanding was that Wikipedia aimed at accuracy. Is this not the case? Also could you cite polls or any other source to verify that the majority of the public hold the official view? Finally it seems that many mainstream news organizations have been presenting information that questions the official version lately, specifically regarding the possibility of a second gunman. If I cite mainstream sources and am careful not to overstate will my edits hold? Finally why should the section about problems in the official account be labeled with a prejorative?71.237.161.49 (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I could easily ask you to provide me a 'poll' or 'survey' that proves that the public think something fishy happened. And yet, it wouldn't matter. The majority of reliable source (per the guidelines at WP:RS). As to other mainstream organisations questioning the official view, it probably depends on context. If multiple news outlets decide to go nuts and all start talking about one lone individual's theory that Kennedy was actually assainated by an orangutang, then this probably shouldn't be included. The point is that Wikipedia doesn't simply go for accuracy, it also seeks a neutral point of view whilst not lending too much credence to viewpoints that do not conform to the mainstream view. a month ago, this article was four times the size, and over two-thirds of it was conspiracy theory - this must not happen again. To be honest, your title "Problems with the official account" is equally bad - it assumes that these are actually problems, whilst the text within it balances conspiracy with counterpoints. Personally, I prefer "Alternative theories", but this was changed a few days ago. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there a published study confirming that the majority of reliable sources per Wiki guidelines conclude that the official story is verified? Or is this just an assertion too? Isn't it better to address one source at a time rather than make claims about the totality of available sources?71.237.161.49 (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't make the claim about what the majority POV was, you did. If the majority of news organizations reported this orangutang theory wouldn't it become the majority view? I guess the better approach to just deciding what is crazy and what is not is to examine the evidence. All I'm trying to do is cite a few bits of evidence that have recently been reported by major news organizations. Again, if I can cite reliable sources and am careful will my edits hold? I'm unclear why my title "Problems with the official account" is a bad choice when the second line of the section reads: "Some individuals involved in the original investigation and some researchers have suggested alternative scenarios for the crime, or have argued that there are serious PROBLEMS WITH THE OFFICIAL CASE."71.237.161.49 (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
How about we compromise on the title back to "Alternative theories", which is certainly less prejorative? This is certainly my preference. You can add what you like, but just be aware that this article is now widely watchlisted - your additions may be reverted by other editors. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Alternative theories is less prejorative and acceptable.71.237.161.49 (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Great. As to your insistence on including more alternative theories, I point you to the policies that I have already linked to. Wikipedia works by consensus, not by polls, and this is the current consensus - I didn't revert your edit earlier, so I don't know what it contained. What are you trying to say? Fritzpoll (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm more than willing to hash out whatever additions I have the time to make through discussion. My earlier edit was sloppy as I'm not as familiar with wiki edit tags as I ought be, and while I was trying to correct the edit was reverted. I'll be more careful on that front in the future.71.237.161.49 (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Fritzpoll. DurovaCharge! 10:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mainstream opinion may be divided

CNN international, NBC news, ABC News, the BBC, and many other television news programs and newspapers have recently reported on evidence indicating there was more than one gunman, that the forensic evidence was tampered with before Sirhan's trial, and other reasons to hold a position of skepticism about the official story. I would say that recently the majority view has shifted from a total rejection of alternative theories towards a position of doubt about the official story. This does not mean that any particular narrative or explanation of a conspiracy is held by the majority, however there is certainly an openness amongst mainstream opinion to consider new evidence. The same could not be said about Flat Earth theories. It strikes me that Jimbo Wales' correct assessment that wikipedia should be weighted towards mainstream rather than fringe opinion simply doesn't apply when it comes to the new evidence being reported by mainstream journalists regarding this case.71.237.161.49 (talk) 04:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The recency of he reporting means that we cannot possibly assess that this has become the mainstream viewpoint. News reporting is not sufficient to indicate a shift of opinion - I think we'd be looking towards being able to look in a typical reference (news is not a typical reference for a history) and see that these doubts exist. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This strikes me as a bit of a catch 22. Would peer reviewed scientific papers be adequate sources to shift Wiki's perspective on what constitutes the majority view? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.241.126.114 (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)