|
I recently made an edit to the second paragraph under the section "Assassination of John F. Kennedy" to include the word "allegedly" before the word "fired" in that paragraph to allow for the disagreement between Warren Commission proponents and conspiracy theorists as to Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt. However, my edit was deleted with no explanation. Whatever your opinion on Oswald's involvement, it is a fact that although he was proclaimed guilty by the Dallas Police Department and the FBI, Oswald was never tried or convicted of the crime. And although the Warren Commission named him as the lone assassin, the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded that President Kennedy was probably assassinated as the result of a conspiracy. In addition, the dedication plaque on the Texas School Book Depository Building itself includes the word "allegedly" in its text when referring to Oswald's guilt. I realize that both proponents of the Warren Commission and conspiracy theories are equally passionate about their point of view as to Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt. Each side has very valid criticisms of the other's conclusions. By leaving out the word "allegedly," the article is making a declaration about Oswald's guilt that is controversial and slanted. It's the same thing as if conspiracy theorists declared in an article about the Grassy Knoll that there was definitely an assassin firing from that location -- that is a possibility, but not a certainty, just as Oswald's involvement in the assassination is a possibility, but not a certainty. By leaving out the word "allegedly," the article loses its objectivity and instead becomes a defense of the Warren Commission without acknowledging that many doubt Oswald's guilt. Beuschman (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Broad consensus exists on Wikipedia that, whatever other conspiracies may or may not have existed, mainstream scholarly sources and journalism agree that Oswald was Kennedy's assassin, and that the only controversy is over whether there were other conspirators. We don't call John Wilkes Booth Lincoln's "alleged" assassin either just because he wasn't tried. In any case, this peripheral article is not an appropriate place to propose such a change. As you might imagine, this is extensively discussed in the archives at Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald, and people get a bit tired of explaining the reasoning over and over. An FAQ would be nice there, but it's been kind of stalled. Acroterion (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comparing Oswald with John Wilkes Booth is a false equivalence. Three witnesses in President Lincoln's box, including Mary Todd Lincoln, saw Booth shoot the President and many hundreds more saw him jump to the stage yelling "Sic temper tyrannus" after he shot the President. There was no question at all that Booth was the assassin. In contrast, the only witness who claims to have seen Oswald fire the shots -- Howard Brennan -- was near sighted and not wearing his glasses and initially did not identify Oswald as the shooter. No other witness placed Oswald on the sixth floor of the Depository at the time of the shooting and, indeed, several witnesses -- Carolyn Arnold and Officer Marion Baker, among them -- have provided testimony that places Oswald in a second floor lunchroom immediately before and after the assassination. And as I said before, the historical plaque on the Texas School Book Depository -- the subject of the article itself -- uses the word "allegedly" in its text when discussing Oswald's guilt, so I can't see why it is so out of bounds to want to include the word in this article -- peripheral or not. I can see that I'm not going to win this fight, but I want to go on record that I think that to not include the word "alleged" is intellectually dishonest and mars the article by taking away its objectivity. Beuschman (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- The longstanding consensus on the Lee Harvey Oswald article has been to omit the word allegedly as it does not reflect the historical consensus of professional historians on this matter. Wikipedia policy on original research does not permit articles to dispute that consensus through personal interpretation of evidence. Gamaliel (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Given that the article on the Kennedy Assassination itself contains a section regarding conspiracy theories and a link to a larger article regarding those theories, including those regarding Oswald's possible innocence (for example, those theories regarding the timeline of Officer Tippit's shooting), I can't see why including the word allegedly in the article on the Texas School Book Depository violates that policy. Unless a particular theory has been refuted by the evidence, the article on the conspiracy theories presents the different points of view and lets the readers decide for themselves. By disallowing the inclusion of the word "allegedly" in the article on the Texas School Book Depository, Wikipedia is not only forfeiting objectivity in that article, but contradicting it's approach of presenting differing theories and viewpoints set forth in the article about Kennedy Assassination conspiracies and letting the reader make his or her own decision. Beuschman (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- The approach of Wikipedia is not to present differing theories as equally valid. Wikipedia reflects the consensus of experts. Gamaliel (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- The consensus of professional historians is that Oswald shot Kennedy. This isn't an article on conspiracy theories, it's an article on a building from which Oswald shot at Kennedy. Wikipedia doesn't present every possibility equivocally and let readers make up their minds, it presents the consensus of mainstream authorities on the subject. Wikipedia isn't a platform for credulous or uncritical presentation of conspiracy theories. In any case, this is the wrong article in which to have a discussion concerning "allegedly," it's a tangential discussion that belongs elsewhere if it belongs anywhere. As I noted, there have been years of discussions at the LHO article's archives that have produced this consensus, despite a great deal of drive-by commentary from conspiracy enthusiasts. The plaque wording is interesting (who placed the plaque?) but doesn't trump attributable scholarship. Acroterion (talk)
- (1) There are experts that either believe that Oswald was innocent or at least that there is doubt as to his guilt. (2) The article on the various conspiracy theories does present many conspiracy theories and does seem to take the approach that the purpose of the article is to present the various opinions to inform the reader of alternate viewpoints. Some of these theories are debunked, but others are simply presented with no editorial comment. (3) The plaque was placed by the Texas Historical Commission. I know nothing about this organization and its leadership, but those in charge of the plaque's installation did see fit to include the word "allegedly" in its text -- language that must have been approved by Dallas County since they now own and operate the former Texas School Book Depository Building. I doubt that the Commission or the City or County of Dallas would have included the word "allegedly" unless they felt that its inclusion was warranted. I'm sure that none of these organizations are flat-out stating that Oswald was innocent, but instead are acknowledging that the extent of his participation is still a matter of controversy for many and must be accounted for in the plaque's text. Beuschman (talk) 23:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- What non-experts say on a plaque may differ from the consensus of academic experts. There are experts who differ from the consensus and their views are documented on Wikipedia in the manner you describe. However the introduction must reflect the expert consensus. Gamaliel (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Can you state for certain that those making the decisions at the Texas Historical Commission are "non-experts?" That seems to be a presumptuous conclusion. The Wikipedia article on the organization states that the commission employs personnel in various fields, including history. It doesn't seem to make sense that an organization that calls itself the Texas Historical Commission would not consult with historians when placing historical markers. And again, do you think the City and County government of Dallas would allow placement of a plaque on one of their own public buildings if they felt that the text (and those who wrote it) were of dubious scholarship? Beuschman (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Texas is about to elect this lady to their state board of education, so I wouldn't put too much faith in the Texas Historical Commission. Gamaliel (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- So that automatically means that anyone involved with anything in Texas is automatically cut from the same cloth? I can't believe that that reflects Wikipedia's philosophy. Beuschman (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's a Joke, Son! Gamaliel (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't realize that we had transitioned to yuk yuk mode. Seriously, though -- you might want to be careful and slip in a j/k next time. Beuschman (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
|
