Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:57, 14 October 2006

United States: Texas Unassessed

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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Texas.

Template:Controversial (history)

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.

Please use the archive parameter to specify the number of the next free peer review page, or replace {{Peer review}} on this page with {{subst:PR}} to find the next free page automatically.

Biography Unassessed

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 has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Archives

Earlier discussion archived at:

• /Archive01
• /Archive02
• /Archive03
• /Archive04

Sniper Category

Lee Harvey Oswald was not trained as a sniper in the Marines and does not belong in that category, which lists trained professionals in a specific military trade. He was also NOT "good at it" as he never performed as a professional sniper. Competely inappropriate categorization that only reveals ignorance on the part of those that would describe him as such.Michael Dorosh 18:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The term thus emphasises field craft and skills of camouflage as well as marksmanship, and is typically used for infantry soldiers so skilled, who specialize in killing selected enemies from concealment with a rifle at long distances. (Sniper)

I see no use of field craft or camouflage, nor was Kennedy an "enemy" of Oswald's, nor was Oswald an "infantry soldier" nor did he "specialize" in long distance shooting. He was a boxboy.Michael Dorosh 18:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ease up on the ignorance talk, reasonable people can simply differ. You're right Oswald was not an 'official' sniper. But someone can easily say that his alleged (and probable) actions in killing JFK is sniper-like, so they want him categorized as such. It doesn't mean anyone is stupid or ignorant, just have a different viewpoint. Ramsquire 19:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ignorance isn't an insult; each one of us is far more ignorant of the sum total of human knowledge than we are aware...no? As for "sniper-like", I believe that comes under the term "weasel word".Michael Dorosh 19:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a loaded word that can easily be taken the wrong way, and is totally unnecessary in this context. Do you want to try to reach a consensus with other editors (ftr-- I agree with the removal of Oswald from the list)? Or just tell us what to do, by being smug and condescending?

Please remember to sign all comments with four tildes...if we've reached consensus, then why the protracted discussion? Or is it de rigeur for this page?Michael Dorosh 20:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

As to your last comment, we are not the only ones here, and other editors may disagree with us, or have valid points that should be considered. As for the signing, I hadn't finished my edit, I don't know what happened? Here's the entire edit:

"It's a loaded word that can easily be taken the wrong way, and is totally unnecessary in this context. Do you want to try to reach a consensus with other editors?(ftr-- I agree with the removal of Oswald from the list) Or just tell us what to do, by being smug and condescending?

Also, keep in mind that "sniper" has two meanings. One is as you have described, but it has also long been used to describe "one who shoots at other people from a concealed place", which clearly would describe Oswald's actions on 11/22/63. Hence, Oswald was "sniper-like" on that day. "

Ramsquire 20:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oswald took out his selected target from a long distance from a concealed position. If you shoot someone in the head, I think it is fair to say that they are an "enemy", generally speaking. Gamaliel 19:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Depends on your definition of "enemy". In the military sense, which is what "sniper" is, a military and law-enforcement term, it conveys a distinct meaning. JFK doesn't qualify in that sense.Michael Dorosh 19:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

My definition of "enemy" is "someone I want to kill with a sniper rifle". Gamaliel 20:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your opinion of what "enemy" means is largely irrelevant to the definition of a sniper in the generally accepted sense.Michael Dorosh 16:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Let´s clear this up, before we all fall off the right-hand side of the page.

• Was Oswald trained as a sniper? Yes/No
• Was Oswald trained (as any other soldier is) to be able to shoot at a target and hit it? Yes/No

These are questions that need to be asked, and answered. andreasegde 16:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Answer to first question is no. He was a radar operator IIRC, not even in a rifle battalion. Answer to second is irrelevant IMO - check the definition of "Sniper". Shooting someone with a rifle does not make anyone a sniper.Michael Dorosh 16:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not agreeing with you, or disagreeing with you, Michael. I would only like this to be cleared up, but... you did not answer the second question. Yes, or no? andreasegde 17:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think squabbling over the precise language in some US Military definition of sniper will get us anywhere. Like it or not, sniper has entered the general English language and its everyday usage should define how we employ it here. Gamaliel 17:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• First point: We are not "squabbling" "an argument over an unimportant matter" - we are discussing pertinent points.
• Second point: "Sniper" is a precise definition, and not "general English".
• Third point: Please use colons to signify an answer. andreasegde 17:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

When people are calling other people ignorant, that is "squabbling".

I was making a new point, not a reply to an existing one, so I saw no need for a colon.

I believe this now qualifies as a "squabble". Yes, or no? Gamaliel 17:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• I did not call anyone "ignorant", so please refer your remarks to the people responsible by including their user names in your comments, or you will be misunderstood.
• You were not making a new point, you made a comment about the previous comments. andreasegde 17:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say you called anyone ignorant. Read my comments again before you get indignant about something I didn't say. Gamaliel 18:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Please use the right amount of colons to signify an answer. andreasegde 18:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop cluttering up the talk page with inane complaints about formatting. Fix it or let it go. Gamaliel 18:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sniper or soldier

So, Michael Dorosh, Oswald was not trained as a sniper, but how was he trained as a soldier? What did that entail? You obviously know more about this, so please contribute to the article. andreasegde 17:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for not answering the second question - the answer is that he received training on the service rifle just like any Marine. But he was not employed in a combat role during his service from what I can tell. All Marines train as riflemen, and their creed is that every Marine is a rifleman first, and whatever their actual trade is second (in LHO's case, a radar operator). That is often lip service only. But don't confuse that with being a "trained marksman". All Marines achieve a minimum level of competency with the rifle, but indeed, achieve that with a variety of weapons. Oswald actually did better than average with his rifle, according to Posner in Case Closed and of course the Warren Report(sic). As you correctly identify above, though, "Sniper" is a specific term that has been defined in Misplaced Pages to be something Oswald certainly was not. Hopefully that answers the question? Just wasn't sure where you were going with the question. I think it is significant to the article and can find some quotes in Posner if you feel the same way.Michael Dorosh 17:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the answer, Michael. I am definitely neutral about it (unbelievable as it may seem) but what I want to know is this: Was he good? Could he have got off two shots (the second and third) that hit the target, in your opinion? You know more about this, so your answer is important. Was it possible? (I know this is a difficult question, but I´m asking it anyway...  :) andreasegde 18:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Warren Commission had it wrong about 5.6 seconds, and current thought is that the shots took 8 seconds. He had a 4 power scope - some say misaligned, others that it aided him in the shooting. Kennedy was for all intents and purposes 25 yards away when looking through that scope. Anyone with even marginal experience firing a rifle could have made that shot. I took a girl out shooting with my M-1 Garand the other weekend, her first time, and with rudimentary instructions and firing left-handed because of a bad right eye (she is right handed), she was shooting targets about 1/10 as big as JFK's head from 20 yards with great accuracy. For someone with professional training as Oswald had, as well as practice with that specific weapon, I have no doubt that he was capable of doing the shooting. It certainly didn't take a "sniper". But my opinion is irrelevant - Posner cites experts who say the same things.Michael Dorosh 18:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the answer, Michael. So all this talk about Oswald being a good shot, marksman or whatever, is a waste of time. My only thought is about the "25 yards". It seems a bit too short. Note to editors: Does anyone know how far away he was? It must be somewhere... andreasegde 13:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

25 yards is taking into effect the 4 power magnification of the scope - I thought the true range was 98 yards or something like that; I'd have to check the source (I'm at work right now). EDIT - See the discussion here Kennedy range and scope discussionMichael Dorosh 14:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• MR. SPECTER. Would the use of a four-power scope be a real advantage...?
  • SERGEANT ZAHM. ... particularly at the range of 100 yards. ... It allows you to see your target clearly, and it is still of a minimum amount of power that it doesn't exaggerate your own body movements...
• MR. SPECTER. ... would a man with Oswald's marksmanship capabilities be able to complete such a shot and strike the target on the white mark there?
  • SERGEANT ZAHM. Very definitely... With the equipment he had and with his ability, I consider it a very easy shot.
• MR. SPECTER. ... would a marksman of Mr. Oswald's capabilities using such a rifle with a 4-power scope be able to strike the President in the back of the head?....
  • SERGEANT ZAHM. ... This would have been a little more difficult and probably be to the top of his ability, aiming and striking the President in the head. But assuming that he aimed at the mass of the center portion of the President's body, he would have hit him very definitely someplace... (from URL in above post, excerpted from Oswald's Tale: An American Mystery by Norman Mailer, copyright © 1995 Norman Mailer.)

I thank you kindly, sir. andreasegde 15:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have just found this:

Former US Marine snipers, Craig Roberts, and Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock, (who was the senior instructor for the US Marine Corps Sniper Instructor School at Quantico, Virginia) both said it could not be done as described by the FBI investigators.

“Let me tell you what we did at Quantico,” Hathcock said. “We reconstructed the whole thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the obstacles, everything. I don’t know how many times we tried it, but we couldn’t duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did. Now if I can’t do it, how in the world could a guy who was a non-qual on the rifle range and later only qualified 'marksman' do it?” andreasegde 18:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Which time limit did they use? The Warren Commission says 6 seconds but more recent analysis quoted in Posner gives 8 or 9 seconds.Michael Dorosh 18:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The only problem is that I recently saw a stunt team on the Discovery Channel here in the US duplicate the feat. Ramsquire 18:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Which means that we are back at the beginning again. Ho-hum... P.S. If you can find a reference Ramsquire, it should go in the two shooters section on the Theories page. --andreasegde 11:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I wish I could find one but finding those documentary type shows is time-consuming and difficult. There are so many of them. I'll look though. Ramsquire 16:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

What was Jackie reaching for?

No offence, but this is probably the 100th time this statement has been added to one of the JFK articles. I may have added it once myself..... The problem, is it almost certainly is not verifiable. It's just conjecture. Any source will just be guessing. I didn't want to just delete it, so it's tagged. I'm trying to be a warmer, fuzzier Mytwocents 04:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)  :-)

She was reaching for parts of his skull and brain matter. Somebody (I can´t remember off the top of my head ) found a small piece of skull bone on the pavement. Jackie was still holding some pieces in her hand at Parkland. They are both to be found somewhere, and are verifiable.

I think that her reaching back to grab them gave rise to the idea that she was "trying to climb out of the car", which she wasn´t - she was trying to (instinctively) protect her husband. andreasegde 11:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

At the sametime Secret Service agent Clint Hill, runs forward from the car behind. As he reaches the limousine he heard her say: "I have a piece of his brain in my hand." Hill managed to get onto the trunk and shove her back into the car,

Mrs. Kennedy had jumped up from the seat and was, it appeared to me, reaching for something coming off the right rear bumper of the car,

then turned and raised out of her seat as if she were reaching to her right rear toward the back of the car for something that had blown out. --andreasegde 09:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Archive

This page needs an Archive; 0/4 --andreasegde 19:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC) I thank whoever did it. --andreasegde 22:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Paul May

I deleted the following info because it contains unsupportable unsourced speculation. Although it is likely that Oswald saw the article in question, it is impossible to state that he no doubt read it. Since that portion of the article cannot be wikified (under WP:VERIFY, WP:RS or WP:OR) or confirmed, the rest of the paragraph although sourced is irrelevant.

"Per Paul May, Atlanta, the genesis for the assassination may have ocurred on September 7th, 1963. On that date Fidel Castro was interviewed by A.P. Reporter Daniel Harker at the Brasilian Embassy Havana. Castro went on record stating if the American Government continued its' efforts to "eliminate" Cuban leaders, those efforts would result in kind to American Leaders. This story first appeared September 9th in the New Orleans Times Picyune. As a strong pro Marxist and Castro Supporter, Oswald, living in New Orleans at this time, no doubt read this story."

Also, please make sure that the link to Kennedy's assassination page is at the top or bottom of the section, not in the middle.

Ramsquire 18:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

POV

“Critics have asserted“, and “Some conspiracy theorists say” - without any references - are too weak to be allowed. --andreasegde 23:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review/Edits

I have nominated this article up for peer review so in the next few weeks, there may be a few new editors on this page. I welcome the added input. In that vein, one of the complaints was that the article was too long, and contained a lot of fluffy descriptions and background info. To that end, I have deleted and moved several bits of information which I believe were unnecessarily adding length to the article. Please see my edit summaries. Ramsquire 21:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Oswald in fiction and pop culture

This section should be heavily trimmed. --andreasegde 18:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I had started trimming out entries that simply said "An episode of..." but it is very difficult to determine which entries stays and which one goes. Ramsquire 17:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they could be in external links, or further reading? --andreasegde 18:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe we could chuck the entire section, since it's not really that important.Ramsquire 18:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Editing Question

This Oswald page is in need of a drastic overhaul. It is in very poor shape. I am going through cite checking the references used to support the assertions in the article. Few things probably make a worse impression on a reader than looking up a citation and it not supporting the contention in the article.

Here is an example. The article stated that:

Oswald once threatened his sister-in-law with a knife and frequently punched his mother in the face Warren Commission Hearings: Vol. XI - Page 38

Unfortunately, the above passage does not reflect the information on page 38 of the Warren Report to which it cites. Instead, the page states it was the mother that was threatened rather than the sister-in-law who Oswald was, instead, defending against the mother.

Also, the page says nothing about Oswald punching his mother in the face, much less punching her repeatedly. Therefore the above passage was replaced with this passage.

One day, Oswald's mother antagonized Lee, by being very hostile towards Lee's sister-in-law and he pulled out a pocketknife and said that if she made any attempt to do anything about it that he would use it on her, and at the same time Lee struck his mother. Warren Commission Hearings: Vol. XI - Page 38

Another editor then reverted back to the incorrect information and stated: “rv awkward sentence construction.”

That is not a good reason to revert. The page cited doesn’t say what the article claims it said. If there are additional citations that support the punching in the face and threatening the sister, then cite it. Perhaps further pages may contain the information. However, leaving a citation to a source that does not support the text is very unprofessional. A reader will oviously lose confidence in any reference work where that occurs.

Perhaps this sentence structure is better.

One day, Oswald's mother antagonized Lee, by being very hostile towards Lee's sister-in-law. Oswald then pulled out a pocketknife and said that if she made any attempt to do anything about it that he would use it on her, and at the same time Lee struck his mother. Warren Commission Hearings: Vol. XI - Page 38

A suggestion: "One day, Oswald's mother antagonized Lee, by being very hostile towards Lee's sister-in-law. Oswald then pulled out a pocketknife and said that if made any attempt to do anything about it that he would use it on her. At the same time Lee said this, he struck his mother. Warren Commission Hearings: Vol. XI - Page 38" Unfortunately transcripts sometimes contain awkward language, as here, so I think this would be a more easily understand relaying of the testimony. Ramsquire 22:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it a fair reading that he threatened his sister-in-law? If so, I'll put it in that way.

RPJ 23:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

OK... reading comprehension is a must for the editor who first added the entry (just kidding) and to all our subsequent editors (including myself) who did not take the time to read Pic's testimony carefully. Here is the accurate account of Pic's testimony: "One day, Pic's mother antagonized Lee, by being very hostile towards Pic's wife. Oswald then pulled out a pocketknife and said that if made any attempt to do anything about it that he would use it on her. At the same time Lee said this, he struck mother. Pic's mother later denied Oswald pulled a pocket-knife on her.Warren Commission Hearings: Vol. XI - Page 38

The article should be edited accordingly.

Ramsquire 23:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this true about Paine's sister?

This document was at the web site that one editor does not believe should be cited by an encyclopedia.

If this document is true then Paine's involvement with Oswald may be for something other than friendship. It seems odd that a number of right wing supporters would seem to have ties to Oswald. The Oswald letter to H.L. Hunt that was discussed in private by the government for so long makes sense. Either the CIA was keeping close tabs on the "communist" Oswald (recently back from Russia) or Oswald was one of them, infiltrating the other side. May be there is another explanation. The evidence needs to be sorted out a bit.

Here is the real (or allegedly fake) memo. Sylvia Hoke is Ruth Paine's sister.

June 30, 1971

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

SUBJECT: HOKE, SYLVIA H.

FILE # 348 201

1. Subject, under name of Sylvia Hoke with an address of 523 Monticello Drive, Falls Church, Virginia, was identified as a CIA employee in the 1961 issue of the Falls Church Virginia Directory:

2. Since it is known that opposition intelligence services have in the past checked similar publications, it should be presumed that the indicated employment of Subject by the CIA is known to other intelligence organizations. The basic memorandum on which paragraph one is based is available in Volume III of Exposure of CIA Personnel, OS #601 818. This memorandum contains no additional information concerning SAC and further review of file # 601 818 can normally be considered unnecessary. Bruce Solie, Deputy Chief, SRS.

Hill's 1961 Falls Church, Virginia, City Directory contained the listing:

Hoke John (Sylvia) emp US Govt h523 Monticello Drive, (Fax Co)

Hoke Sylvia, Mrs. emp CIA r h523 Monticello Drive, (Fax Co).

RPJ 02:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Even if it is true, what does it actually say? OK, Paine's sister worked for the CIA. There would have to be a lot more evidence tying people together. Even the CIA needs typists, cleaners and receptionists. --andreasegde 10:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It's unclear what it means that a friend of Oswald in 1963 , may have had a sister working for the CIA. But, here is some additional information about another Oswald friend found in Misplaced Pages:

"In 1977, de Mohrenschildt returned to the United States, . . . and claimed that in 1962 a CIA operative in Dallas named Moore asked him to learn what he could about Oswald's activities in the Soviet Union. De Mohrenschildt said that in exchange he received help in an oil transaction he was attempting to negotiate with Haitian dictator Papa Doc Duvalier."

de Mohernschildt's brother also worked for the CIA. It would seem odd if the CIA didn't try to keep an eye on Oswald after he came back from Russia.

RPJ 21:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

That de Mohrenschildt section (death) is not cited at all, and looks dubious. That aside, I agree that the CIA would have been interested in Oswald after he came back. That was their job, afer all... --andreasegde 04:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Mexico needs editing

I'm just perplexed about this historical article, and I hope someone with editorial skills takes it from there. The Mexico section needs heavy editing. Specifically, as documented on the official LBJ tapes someone DID impersonate Oswald in Mexico. Moreover, this person was inflitrating the higher echelons of US secret service apparatus and leaving a trail about Oswald as a communist extremist - as it's documented by the released documentation by the JFK act of 1990s. This is absolutely crucial, since LBJ claims in the tapes he doesn't want neither a rightwing conspiracy nor leftwing conspiracy, LBJ orders Warren and others to have lone nut conspiracy, i.e. taking the innitial FBI report and threatens everybody with the possibility of nuclear war with Soviets. So, you can have two interpretations, that indeed rightwing or leftwing conspiracy occured but in each case clear cover-up has been pushed over it by LBJ. Details here: http://www.jfklancer.com/backes/newman/ Dr. Newman is formerly with NSA.

Using the LBJ tapes to add anything to this article would be synthesis from a primary source, and is original research. Ramsquire 20:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

How can adding something from LBJ's tapes/memos be original research? It's a primary source, is it not? Would quoting from Nixon's tapes be original research? We can not directly quote from a source (for copyright reasons) but we can paraphrase it, or provide a link. I don't understand this... Please explain. --andreasegde 21:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Geeze, I sound like a moving Wiki policy guide today... Anywhoo... Wiki policy is to use secondary sources whereever possible. See WP:OR. An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is, if it introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position or introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source.

To answer your question, the tapes can be used in a limited sense as a source of what the person said, but it can't be used to source a characterization of what that person is saying. For example, you can't say Nixon was a racist and source it by going to a transcript of the tape where he uses a racial slur. That's original research. However, you can use the tape to state that on such and such date, Nixon used a racial slur. So here, you can use the tapes to show that LBJ was concerned about conspiracy, but you can't use it to say he wanted a cover-up.

Ramsquire 21:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ramsquire is wrong. Here is his most recent "legalism"

Ramsquire is a source of much misinformation when he wants to delete relevant information to which he does not agree. Ramsquire states:

Using the LBJ tapes to add anything to this article would be synthesis from a primary source, and is original research.

He wants nothing said about someone impersonating Lee Oswald in Mexico. Why? Because that tends to prove someone was framing Oswald for the upcoming murder of the president.

But, is Ramsquire correct about not using the LBJ tapes about the impersonation for any purpose in this article? No.

In fact, later on in his little argument Ramsquire changes his mind and his new rule now states:

he tapes can be used in a limited sense as a source of what the person said, but it can't be used to source a characterization of what that person is saying. For example, you can't say Nixon was a racist and source it by going to a transcript of the tape where he uses a racial slur. That's original research. However, you can use the tape to state that on such and such date, Nixon used a racial slur.

Ramsquire changes his mind in mid-thought on what he perceives the rules to be.

RPJ 00:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Crappy schoolnet paragraph

“

The HSCA was "unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy." However, it did discover evidence to suggest that anti-Castro Cubans were involved in the assassination. For example, an undercover agent heard Nestor Castellanos tell a meeting of anti-Castro Cubans, "We're waiting for Kennedy (on) the 22nd. We're going to see him in one way or another." The committee also obtained evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald met David Ferrie in New Orleans in the summer of 1963. It concluded that "individuals active in anti-Castro activities had the motive, means, and opportunity to assassinate President Kennedy".

”

• The above was taken directly from http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKassassinationsC.htm and "dropped" into this article. Besides the plagiarism issues, there are reliability issues:
  • HSCA did not "discover" much of anything, it heard testimony others had discovered
  • "evidence to suggest" is usually only evidence to the suggestable. HSAC specifically stated it found no evidence that Castellanos was involved - and said the anti-Castros were more vociferous than dangerous
  • the quote is overly selective & omits context HSCA gives - omitting that Castellanos was holding up a Dallas paper with details of the upcoming visit
  • The "obtained evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald met David Ferrie in New Orleans" was a report made by someone who "thought they might have met"
  • neither the clause "individuals active in anti-Castro activities had the motive, means, and opportunity to assassinate President Kennedy" nor any relevant part of it appears in the searches I have made of the HSCA report
• Rather than give lop-sided websites as sources for what HSCA says, let's go to the source http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/ and specifically http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1c.html#anticastro
• there is far too much detail about other possible conspirators in this article, which is supposed to focus on LHO. All the other stuff should be in the article I proposed long ago - the Evidence for & against LHO - which would not be full of slanted quotes from slanted web-sites

The above Anonymous post

The anonymous post above reflects poorly on the author. He claims Spartacus.schoolnet produces "crappy" material. The secret author is even afraid to use his web site name. The author's need for secrecy is understandable. As we know Spartacus.schoolnet is a professional organization of teachers and educators based in England.

This vicious attack with its bitter tone reveals a profound misunderstanding by the author of the web site policy. The web site takes a neutral position by supplying all significant viewpoints not just those approved by American government agencies and the secret author.

Once the author accepts that Misplaced Pages is a worldwide resource, not an in-house public relations pamphlet for certain U.S. government agencies,he might be able to contribute something constructive to the project rather than exhibiting such poor behaviour.

An editor by the name of Jimwae made a number of deletions related to the anonymous attack. I hope he was not the author of the attack piece cited above.

RPJ 19:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Unassessed United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Texas articles
• Unknown-importance Texas articles
• WikiProject Texas articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Peer review requests not specifying archive
• Unassessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles