Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy

Active discussions
Assassination of John F. Kennedy was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
June 2, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 7, 2005Good article nomineeListed
October 21, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
March 12, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 22, 2004, November 22, 2005, November 22, 2006, November 22, 2008, November 22, 2009, November 22, 2010, and November 22, 2013.
Current status: Delisted good article

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2020Edit

X "when he was fatally shot by former U.S. Marine Lee Harvey Oswald " Y "when he was allegedly fatally shot by former U.S. Marine Lee Harvey Oswald " Arkons1947 (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  'Not done: Per the Warren Commission there's no "allegedly" about this. Meters (talk) 23:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
More appropriately: per the consensus of reliable sources. We wouldn't normally present an (admittedly somewhat controversial) assertion as flat fact merely because that's the position of a government report. EEng 01:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Yup. Pick your desired reliable sources. There's no "allegedly" about this. Meters (talk) 01:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Come again? EEng 02:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I mean the reliable sources do not entertain any uncertainty here. Per the sources, Oswald shot Kennedy. Meters (talk) 05:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Oops, fixed horrible typo in my post. Meters (talk) 05:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC).

Oswald was accused, not convictedEdit

I have a question about the designation of Oswald as the killer of Kennedy. Usually we make this kind of statement after a person has been convicted. But Oswald was never tried in a court of law. He was charged by the Dallas Police Department but never indicted. We are relying on a government commission—which did not hear all the witness testimony and has been shown to have manipulated or ignored evidence—for its "official" conclusion that Oswald killed Kennedy. It seems to me that Oswald should be referred to as the accused killer and that actions credited to him should be prefaced with allegedly in this and other articles related to the Kennedy assassination. Yoninah (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

See my response to your question at Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald. This has been dealt with many times, and there is longstanding consensus on the topic as written. Acroterion (talk) 11:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Britannica's YouTube channel has sourced the actual filmEdit

It needs to be known what is shown in the exact film. Potential Russian-like hacking to cover up what is in plain site on the video is uncalled for. Britannica is not at all an unreliable source.InsulinRS (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Lee Harvey OswaldEdit

I propose an edit to the pages on JFK's murder as well as the biographical page on Lee Oswald, his alleged (though untried and unconvicted) assassin.

The Kennedy assassination page states declaratively that Oswald fatally shot the president. Given the longstanding controversy regarding the murder of the President in November, 1963, and the unassailable fact that Oswald was neither charged nor convicted of killing the President, I feel it is only appropriate to add the modifier "allegedly" or "alleged" as in "alleged assassin of Kennedy." Neither The Government nor anyone else has produced conclusive evidence of Oswald's guilt or involvement in the Kennedy murder and I feel pages referencing him should be so annotated. Lee oswald was denied due process by the vigilante actions of Jack Ruby. It is therefore improper to state that he was the assassin despite the conclusion of the Warren Commission. Ostormybear (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

There have been many long discussions already about this very topic, and not including "alleged" has been the consensus based on the evidence. One of those discussions is at,_not_convicted Almostfm (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Investigation of Dictabelt evidenceEdit

The last sentence in the the fourth paragraph of this article is: "It was determined that the dictabelt recorded different gunshots which were fired at another location in Dallas and at a different time which was not related to the assassination." This is incorrect. The "acoustic impulses" recorded on the dictabelt, and mistakenly identified as the gunshots in Dealey Plaza by the House Select Committee, were not confirmed as gunshots at all. The sentence above should be reworded as follows: "It was determined that the dictabelt recorded different sounds which occurred at another location in Dallas and at a different time which were not related to the assassination." (talk) 11:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you quote from a source giving this info? EEng 12:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
In the Exec. Summary of its report refuting the claim that the dictabelt evidence proves there was a second gunman, the source cited in note #8 (Report of the Committee on Ballistic Acoustics, National Research Council) states, "Since the recorded acoustic impulses are similar to static, efforts to attribute them to gunshots have depended on echo analyses; but in these analyses, desirable control tests were omitted, some of the analyses depended on subjective selection of data, serious errors were made in some of the statistical calculations, incorrect statistical conclusions were drawn and the analysis methods used were novel in some aspects and were untested at such high levels of background noise." The report also finds that the timing of the alleged gunshots does not match the time when the shots were fired in Dealey Plaza. Thus, in its conclusions, this report states, "The acoustic impulses attributed to gunshots were recorded about one minute after the President had been shot and the motorcade had been instructed to go to the hospital." The report does not say that these "acoustic impulses" were confirmed as gunshots, and in fact the report suggests that the earlier acoustical analysis on which the House Select Committee based its conclusions erroneously assumed that they were the sounds of gunshots. Some have speculated that the recorded sounds were releases of air pressure from the air brakes of a truck stuck in traffic that were recorded on the police motorcycle radio with the stuck mic. No one knows, but the sounds should not be described as "different gunshots which were fired at another location in Dallas." ( (talk) 11:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC))
OK, I ambiguated it. EEng 16:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I think the ambiguation now inserted is better overall than what was there before, and this version of the text should now stand. But the OP is mentioning one of the refutations, and there are several refutations and conter-refutations on this matter. In these scientific analyses, conclusions, refutations, and counter-refutations there is no "supreme court" that can edict a final verdict. And so, the final conclusion on these matters will always be a political one, based on the pre-determined views of the beholder. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 17:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for making the requested change. I think the statement is now accurate. There is a Wikipedia page devoted entirely to the dictabelt recordings, including reference to all of the analyses conducted, with the various conclusions, refutations, counter-refutations, etc. The final paragraph of the introduction, while stating that the acoustic evidence did not definitively prove that a conspiracy existed, still leaves open the possibility of some conspiracy in the assassination.( (talk) 14:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC))

Yes, I agree. Unfortunately, "the possibility of some conspiracy in the assassination," as you put it, will always be there. This is mainly due, in my view, to the elimination of Oswald by Ruby less than 48 hours after the President was declared dead, and because Oswald was indeed the perfect "patsy": with him being named the sole assassin by the FBI, there was no need to create a major international Cold War confrontation against the Soviet Union and Cuba. Oswald's story, as presented by the FBI and later endorsed by the Warren commission, solved all the problems, international and domestic, all at once, in just one fell swoop. Case closed! And so it will remain also. All that will remain is a lingering suspicion, almost a wonder, that all the complex pieces on the momentous murder and elimination of an American President can fit so tightly and neatly together. It is almost like a James Bond movie, and by November 1963 only the first episode/film of the new series had just been released in the US. The second episode was released in London just a month or so before the events of November 22-24. warshy (¥¥) 23:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Return to "Assassination of John F. Kennedy" page.