This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.
The charges were voluminous and have mutated over the arbitration to new ones by the arbitrators based on some new principles. Defending editor needs additional time to put on his defense. RPJ 05:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Jayjg appears to be one of the administrators helping Gamaliel with the first block. This is a conflict and a new arbitrator should be appointed in his place. RPJ 05:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
1)
:Second comment by RPJ
This is to respond to the above question.
You are assuming the answer to the issue: Was it a Mauser that was found or was it not a Mauser found?
The Warren Commission made a finding that a 6.5 x 52 mm Italian Mannlicher-Carcano M91/38 bolt-action rifle that it believed was owned by Oswald was found on the 6th Floor of the Texas Book Depository by Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman and Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone soon after the assassination of President Kennedy. [1] Before he was shot to death in police custody, Oswald denied owning a rifle and claimed the photograph purportedly of him holding the weapon was a simple fabrication made by pasting his face on a picture of him holding the weapon.
The Warren Commission said there was “speculation” that the rifle found was a Mauser which was not the type of rifle the Commission believed that Lee Oswald owned and kept in the garage of the home where his wife lived. [2] The Warren Commission then said that deputy Weitzman was the source of, what it considered, was "speculation" that the rifle was a Mauser. The Commission therefore made a finding that Weitzman did not handle the rifle and did not examine it at close range. The Warren Commission said that Weitzman “had little more than a glimpse of it and thought it was a Mauser, a German bolt-type rifle similar in appearance to the Mannlicher-Carcano.” [3]
Officer Boone who, with Sheriff Weitzman, found the weapon testified that he thought at the time it was a Mauser, and according to his testimony before the Commission, Captain Fritz, believed at the time the rifle was a Mauser.
Mr. BALL - There is one question. Did you hear anybody refer to this rifle as a Mauser that day?
Mr. BOONE - Yes, I did. And at first, not knowing what it was, I thought it was 7.65 Mauser. [4]
Mr. BALL - Who [else] referred to it as a Mauser that day?
Mr. BOONE - I believe Captain Fritz. He had knelt down there to look at it, and before he removed it, not knowing what it was, he said that is what it looks like. This is when Lieutenant Day, I believe his name is, the ID man was getting ready to photograph it. We were just discussing it back and forth. And he said it looks like a 7.65 Mauser. [5]
Captain Fritz later denied having identified the rifle as a Mauser.
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
Question to Gamaliel:
On 20 November 2006 you asked this question: [12] “Does RPJ think it is appropriate to accuse those with whom you disagree of being mentally ill . . . ?”
Answer: I would think it is almost never appropriate to do so. Probably a history teacher would find it appropriate to both disagree with certain policies of a tyrant and also accuse him of being mentally ill; for example Hitler and Stalin.
However, I’m sure complaining editor means in the sense of do I think it is appropriate in everyday discussion with other people to accuse one of them of being mentally ill in order to hurt them out of spite; or call in to question their reasoning ability to then attack their credibility in argument.
I can’t think of an appropriate situation to do so at least in context of Wkipedia.
Do you believe that has occurred? If so could you provide the citation? RPJ 04:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Question 1 to complaining editor Tbeatty:
You state in your claim that:
"My experience with him forced me to do research on the Carcano rifle" "This was six months ago and I thought it was settled since it is overwhelming."
Could you give me the cite to the change you made based on the research I forced you to do? RPJ 06:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Question 1 to complaining editor Joegoodfriend:
How do you define "a single purpose account?"
Question 2 to complaining editor Joegoodfriend:
What do perceive to be RPJ's "one purpose on Wikipedia?"
Question 3 to complaining editor Joegoodfriend:
Do you agree that, all other things being equal, a "single purpose account" editor provides editing services of the same value as a non-single single purpose account editor?" I agree ___ I disagree ____
Question 4 to complaining editor Joegoodfriend:
If you disagree, please explain why you disagree?
Question 5 to complaining editor Joegoodfriend:
Which of the complaining editors (including yourself) are single purpose account editors?
RPJ 02:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
1) All significant published points of view are to be presented. See, [13] [14] RPJ 22:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Gamaliel(rvspeculation; [20] [21] [22] [User:64.105.82.58|64.105.82.58] 18:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC) RPJ 15:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC) RPJ 01:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC) RPJ 03:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
1) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires [fair representation of all significant points of view] that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly.See, [26]
RPJ 22:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
1) A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. See, [27] RPJ 22:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree this particular deletion puts the Wikipedia neutrality policy to a good test. It involves evidence at the crime scene where the suspected murder weapon was found, and involves conflicting evidence. The neutrality policy of presenting conflicting viewpoints by its very nature tends to create uncertainty.
In the place of the neutrality policy, this website could adopt a policy that when conflicting viewpoints exist, that one be presented with all the sustantial evidence that supports it. Whatever its drawbacks, such a method of deleting conflcting viewpoints would lessen any possible confusion among the readers of what viewpoint is held by the website on such issue.
If, instead, the neutrality policy continues to be followed and all viewpoints presented, then one needs to explore what are the viewpoints on any particular issue. Regarding the Kennedy assassination, there are very well established viewpoints that have persisted for decades. One of these persistent viewpoints is an overwhelming rejection of the Warren Report. RPJ 07:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Another persistent viewpoint held by many people (68% of the public) [28])is the suspicion that there was an official cover up involving Kennedy’s murder.
• One possible part of a cover up would be whether Oswald's rifle was really found at the crime scene or was it a German Mauser, and then later the official story changed.
• Is there “substantial” supporting information of the Mauser and then a change in the official position?
• Or is the information trivial, redundant or marginal piece of information that should be excluded, since even courts limit the amount of evidence.
The fact situation is this: Defendant Oswald denied the killings and claimed he was a “Patsy.” The Warren Commission Report said an Italian made rifle was found at the scene of the crime. But, there were news stories soon after the murder, that the police did not find an Italian made rifle but, instead, a German made Mauser was found at the scene of the crime.
1) Generally, material used in articles should come from reliable secondary sources, not from primary data, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Types_of_source_material. As applied to this case where the Warren Commission Report contains extensive accounts of primary evidence, use of the primary evidence to draw novel conclusions is inappropriate. It is the interpretation of the primary evidence by the Warren Commission which is usable as a secondary source.
1) Wikipedia editors may summarize reliable secondary and tertiary sources but may not conduct original research. As stated at WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, synthesis of primary documents into a new argument constitutes original research.
1) It is inappropriate to use information from unreliable sources devoted to an extreme partisan point of view, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Partisan_and_extremist_websites.
1) The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed, see Wikipedia:Verifiability. As applied to this case, the policy may mean that, in the absence of verifiable alternative versions of events that have been published in reliable sources, the dull official versions of events may form the bulk of a Wikipedia article regardless of public opinion regarding a matter.
1) The use of public opinion polls, although sometimes helpful, is insufficient in and of itself to determine majority and minority viewpoints. This is especially the case in areas where some technical and detailed knowledge is required.
1) {text of proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
1) RPJ ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edited in an aggressive biased manner, see this edit and this explanation.
1.1) RPJ's interpretation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is more liberal than is appropriate, taking the position that "all significant information is put in the article." This statement was made in response to a protest regarding adding questionable information [33] referring to the Mauser edit. See also this edit and this assertion.
1.2) RPJ has expressed his opinion that other users are using techniques of disinformation, [34]. See also "Below is a response of a person who may want only one viewpoint in the article" and [35]. extended characterization of another user, taunting of another user, and more taunting
1.3) RPJ has advanced original research based on primary sources edit by RPJ citing primary source, primary source, primary source, primary source, unreliable secondary source, primary source, primary source, and primary source. Some of the primary reports of evidence are included in the Warren Commission Report, but do no loose their primary status by such inclusion. In at least one case the information advanced by RPJ is not contained in the cited source, eg, information about the chain of custody is contradicted by the source cited. In another instance a friend of Oswalds is described as "[holding] extreme right wing views" in this edit, an assertion not supported by the source cited, see this comment.
RPJ 05:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
1.4) RPJ regularly cites information from an unreliable site dedicated to a propagandistic point of view, spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk, [41] ( [42]) and [43] ( [44]). See also this, this, and this. material from another conspiracy theory site: ratical.org.
2) RPJ has continuously and improperly used a 2003 ABCNews poll as a basis for edits which violate WP:NPOV [52] and to taunt other editors [53].
Defending editor RPJ believes he responded to this in a reasonable way:
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) User: RPJ should be banned from editing at Wikipedia. RPJ's accompanying anon IP's listed in the evidence section of this arbitration should be banned from editing the JFK articles.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
The complaining editor argues the defending editor exhibits bad faith on talk pages when he “continuously changes the topic from the original issue.” The four citations given by Joegoodfriend rebut the claim of wrongful “topic changing.” The defending editor had urged the key photographic evidence against Oswald be put in the article. Oswald said the evidence was a fake by pasting his picture on some else’s body and could prove it. American experts claim it was real and foreign experts claim it looked fake.
There were four such pictures all published by the government. The defending editor suggested all four photos be put in the article. [59] The complaining editors strongly resisted this suggestion. One of the complaining editor’s then suggested inserting a large portfolio of Oswald pictures but the pictures had nothing to do with the key evidentiary photographs being discussed.
The defending editor RPJ then replied that: “The collection of photos [being suggested]. . . does not appear to contain any of the "back yard" photos.” RPJ 08:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The complaining editor, Joegoodfriend, then jumped in and changed the topic from the photographs and asked:
Then, he argued RPJ's position was “illogical” and the purpose of the article was not to allow the reader "to reach definite conclusions regarding a controversy.”
[61]
He then concluded by asking why editor RPJ starts a new thread when the topic hasn’t changed? [62]
The defending editor RPJ then tried to get it back on track by starting over:
RPJ 22:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Complaining editor Joegoodfriend’s arbitration statement alleges defending editor RPJ “abuses” the talk pages by alleging Joegoodfriend is “personally part of a conspiracy to hide this key evidence [photographs] from the public.” (Emphasis in Joegoodfriend's arbitration statement)
Defending editor never said that. The fact finder simply needs to go to the RPJ post, in question, and type in “conspiracy” and one finds that RPJ does not even mention the word conspiracy let alone say that Joegoodfriend was “part of a conspiracy.” [63] RPJ 22:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• When this defending editor started contributing to Wikipedia over a year ago (first under an IP addresses) the information in the Kennedy articles appeared 40 years out-of-date.
• The defending editor’s purpose wasn’t, and isn’t, to spend much of his project time on the Kennedy assassination. It is a choice of either accepting that the article will be left outdated and reflecting badly on the project as a whole or to stay with it and try to update it.
• The complaining editors who want the defending editor banned do not want new information included. They delete out as much information as possible, and it is much harder and much more time consuming to gather and place information into the articles than it is for the complaining editors to simply delete the information out.
• Most of the public today, even in the United States, do not accept the findings of the 42 year old Warren Report, and instead accept the 1979 Congressional Report finding the murder was the probable result of a conspiracy.
• The defending editor realizes that it may seem best for the project from a cost-benefit standpoint just to accept what exists and focus resources elsewhere.
• On the other hand, this issue isn’t going away. The public retains a high interest in the subject. Moreover, under a special act of Congress, in 1998, all the relevant documents have been gathered by a special federal agency and placed in the National Archives and are being slowly released to the public and won’t be completed by 2017. This is and will be a constant source of new information and revelations about this event. [64]
RPJ 03:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
RPJ 06:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The article on the Kennedy assassination contains almost no information about the assassination itself. The article discusses events before the assassination, it describes events after the assassination but almost no information about the assassination itself. This collection of inserts is from reliable sources. They are excerpts from Warren Commission stenographic transcripts of sworn testimony by the participants and other reliable sources. The testimony is about the events the witnesses saw and what they heard. This information has been deleted. Reasons for deleting such information vary. Some believe "primary" sources of what was seen and heard at historic events shouldn't be used. This is not correct.
For example this would cover the statements by eyewitness participants including Secret Service agent Clint Hill, Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, Abraham Zapruder, emergency room physicians Dr. Jenkins, Dr. Peters, Dr. McCellend.
In this case they are included to describe what happened when the assassination took place. Defending editor reviewed and included excerpts from the testimony of the actual assassination.
The article has very little direct evidence about the actual murder itself. There are conclusions from the Warren Report about what happened that very few people today believe. For many years the evidence itself was kept secret.
The Assassination Records Review Board noted in 1998 that "the public doesn't want secrecy about the assassination to be continued," and neither does Congress. It passed the "President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992" to gather and disclose the evidence. Congress concluded that most of the records related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy are almost 30 years old, and "only in the rarest cases is there any legitimate need for continued protection of such records." Congress decided that "All Government records concerning the assassination of President John F. Kennedy should carry a presumption of immediate disclosure, and all records should be eventually disclosed to enable the public to become fully informed about the history surrounding the assassination" [69]
The Board went on to say: "Numerous records of previous investigative bodies such as the Warren Commission, the Church Committee, and the HSCA were secret. Yet members of these commissions reached conclusions based on these investigative records. The American public lost faith when it could not see the very documents whose contents led to these conclusions. The Board, consisting of noted historians, and other professionals said: "Doubts about the Warren Commission's findings were not restricted to ordinary Americans. Well before 1978, President Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and four of the seven members of the Warren Commission all articulated, if sometimes off the record, some level of skepticism about the Commission's basic findings." [70]
The evidence was presented from the viewpoint of the bodyguards,Mrs. Kennedy, Governor Connally and the emergency room doctors of the president as well as Abraham Zapruder who took the famous Zapruder film. The presentation tried to recapture the scene with quotes from the witnesses. This format, that enhances the drama of the event, is subject to debate. But what is being vigorously being deleted is not the form of presentation as much as the information itself, no matter what format presented.
The same deletions are made of testimony and drawings of the emergency room doctors and nurses.
RPJ 18:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The Text deleted by complaining editors:
The shooting took place in front of Abraham Zapruder who was filming the president as he passed below his position and his secret testimony has now been released:
Mr. Zapruder: I heard the first shot and I saw the President lean over and grab himself like this holding his left chest area.
Examiner: He was sitting upright in the car and you heard the shot and you saw the President slump over?
Mr. Zapruder: Leaning, leaning toward the side of Jacqueline. For a moment I thought it was, you know, like you say, "Oh, he got me," when you hear a shot you've heard these expressions and then I saw, I don't believe the President is going to make jokes like this, but before I had a chance to organize my mind, I heard a second shot and then I saw his head opened up and the blood and everything came out and I started I can hardly talk about it [the witness crying].
Mr. Zapruder: Then I started yelling, "They killed him, they killed him." [71]
Governor Connally was also seriously wounded by a bullet and screamed, "No, no, no. They are going to kill us all!" At the end of the shooting, the president's body bounced off the back of the rear seat and slumped lifelessly leftward towards his wife. Mrs. Kennedy cried out to her bodyguard, Clint Hill, "My God, they have shot his head off." [72]
Clint Hill was riding in the car that was immediately behind the presidential limousine. As soon as the shooting began, Hill jumped out and began running to overtake the moving car in front of him with the plan to climb on from the rear bumper and crawl over the trunk to the back seat where the stricken President and frightened First Lady were located.
Just as Hill was grabbing the small handrail by the trunk that was used by the bodyguards to climb onto a small back platform, he heard another gunshot and saw a portion of the President’s head blown away. The driver then sped up causing the car to slip away from Hill, who was in the midst of trying to leap on to it. He somehow succeeded in regaining his footing and jumped on to the back of the quickly accelerating car As he got on, he saw Mrs. Kennedy, apparently in shock, crawling onto the flat trunk of the moving limousine possibly retrieving piece of the presidents skull. Agent Hill crawled to her and guided the frantic Mrs. Kennedy back into her seat and placed his body above the President and Mrs. Kennedy. [73]
As the car moved at high speed to the hospital, Hill maintained his position shielding the couple with his body, and was looking down at the mortally wounded President. Agent Hill later testified:
The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car.
Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head. [74]
In the emergency room, the President had been placed on his back. His face was not damaged, but some brain tissue was present near the head indicating brain damage. When the doctors arrived they quickly cut into the president's throat and inserted a small tube for breathing (a tracheotomy).
But then, Dr. Jenkins, one of the five treating doctors in the emergency room, lifted Kennedy's upper half of the body, looked at the back of Kennedy's head and announced:
"Boys you better come up here and take a look at this brain before you do anything as heroic as opening the chest and massaging the heart" directly. [75]
Dr. Peters did look and observed:
"There was obviously quite a bit of brain missing." [76]
Dr. McClellend provided this description:
"You could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out." [77] See drawing by Dr. McClellend who examined the head injury in the emergency room. [78]
"We never had any hope of saving his life", one doctor said.
Roy Kellerman, a Secret Service Agent, who was in the car with the president, later testified a gunshot removed a section of the president's skull in the back right-hand side of the head measuring about five inches in diameter. [79] RPJ 02:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC) RPJ 19:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• It was rejected a year ago; • It was used as a cross-reference on a very controversial subject (Kennedy assassination) a year ago • It supports a viewpoint that Mytwocent’s supports • Mytwocents has shown no other interest in the Shoemaker biography • Mytwocents did the same thing in the Comair 5191 dispute several months ago, except this time in a much less obvious way. [81] RPJ 19:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I replaced the statement regarding Dr. Shoemaker's alleged skull experiments back into the article, with a {{fact}} tag .Here is the diff. Adding text with a 'citation needed' tag is one way to add material. It would make a notable addition to his biography, if he did this experiment and that fact can be cited. But, as with any statement in Wikipedia, it has to be verifiable. Wikipedia:Verifiability is a community policy, it isn't up to any one editor to 'enforce' it. If the statement can't be cited to a published, reliable source, then it won't last. Somebody will delete it. It's just that simple. Mytwocents 05:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
This reference work originates in the UK and is put together in a very simple and easy to read format. It is well linked. The citations given don't appear unusual, and there is neutral text. [90] I am sure someone can find something not to like about it but it looks like a good readable reliable source to me. I have cited this from time to time and this is part of the reason the complaining editors have given for wanting me banned. This argument is not well taken. RPJ 19:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
One of the complaining editors provided what he believes is a “perfect example” of RPJ’s wrongful editing where he has “refused” to provide a neutral point of view
This is a good example of what has taken place over the last 12 months. Whenever the defending editor updates one of the Kennedy assassination articles, the new text is immediately deleted. Some rule may be also announced in connection with the deletion with allegations that RPJ is in bad faith.
In this situation, the defending editor RPJ included information from an article in the official CIA magazine about Clay Shaw. The author of the article discussed new information that had become public that cast doubt on the denials by the CIA and Clay Shaw that they were connected. The alleged connection between Shaw, the CIA and the Kennedy assassination is what makes Mr. Shaw notable enough for an article.
Shaw and the CIA denied any connection. When new information became public the CIA conceeded new information had been found but downplayed its importance in the magazine article. RPJ included factual information from the magazine in this form:
Over an eight year period, Shaw relayed information on 33 separate occasions to the CIA. His reports about devaluation in Peru, a proposed new highway in Nicaragua, and the desire of Western European countries to trade with the Soviet block were graded by the CIA “of value” and “reliable.” the CIA relationship with Shaw was one of the secrets which the CIA hid from the public for many years while it denied any relationship. This information is contained in a magazine article written by Max Holland and published by the CIA called: "The Lie That Linked CIA to the Kennedy" Assassination" [91] As of today, the CIA won't release any documents describing the relationship between Shaw and the CIA after the first eight years of Shaw's affiliation. The Lie That Linked CIA to the Kennedy Assassination In the article, Max Holland defended the CIA and argued that Communist propaganda was the source of what he believes are false allegations that Shaw was involved in the Kennedy assassination.
Complaining editor Ramsquire deleted all the information. He announced a new editing rule that an editor has to agree with every opinion in a source before any data from the source can be used.
In response to the deletion of this updated information RPJ said this:
Whatever the intent was for publishing the article, the article can be cited for the material it contains. The editor who deleted the information in this article on Shaw believes that if the CIA's intent was to "debunk" some theory or another, that the factual information presented in the article is only valid for that purpose. This is inaccurate. What does one believe the CIA is doing, giving one set of facts for one issue and change the facts when another issue comes up that relates to the same facts? The editor needs to explain himself.
RPJ 02:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.
The charges were voluminous and have mutated over the arbitration to new ones by the arbitrators based on some new principles. Defending editor needs additional time to put on his defense. RPJ 05:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Jayjg appears to be one of the administrators helping Gamaliel with the first block. This is a conflict and a new arbitrator should be appointed in his place. RPJ 05:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
1)
:Second comment by RPJ
This is to respond to the above question.
You are assuming the answer to the issue: Was it a Mauser that was found or was it not a Mauser found?
The Warren Commission made a finding that a 6.5 x 52 mm Italian Mannlicher-Carcano M91/38 bolt-action rifle that it believed was owned by Oswald was found on the 6th Floor of the Texas Book Depository by Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman and Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone soon after the assassination of President Kennedy. [1] Before he was shot to death in police custody, Oswald denied owning a rifle and claimed the photograph purportedly of him holding the weapon was a simple fabrication made by pasting his face on a picture of him holding the weapon.
The Warren Commission said there was “speculation” that the rifle found was a Mauser which was not the type of rifle the Commission believed that Lee Oswald owned and kept in the garage of the home where his wife lived. [2] The Warren Commission then said that deputy Weitzman was the source of, what it considered, was "speculation" that the rifle was a Mauser. The Commission therefore made a finding that Weitzman did not handle the rifle and did not examine it at close range. The Warren Commission said that Weitzman “had little more than a glimpse of it and thought it was a Mauser, a German bolt-type rifle similar in appearance to the Mannlicher-Carcano.” [3]
Officer Boone who, with Sheriff Weitzman, found the weapon testified that he thought at the time it was a Mauser, and according to his testimony before the Commission, Captain Fritz, believed at the time the rifle was a Mauser.
Mr. BALL - There is one question. Did you hear anybody refer to this rifle as a Mauser that day?
Mr. BOONE - Yes, I did. And at first, not knowing what it was, I thought it was 7.65 Mauser. [4]
Mr. BALL - Who [else] referred to it as a Mauser that day?
Mr. BOONE - I believe Captain Fritz. He had knelt down there to look at it, and before he removed it, not knowing what it was, he said that is what it looks like. This is when Lieutenant Day, I believe his name is, the ID man was getting ready to photograph it. We were just discussing it back and forth. And he said it looks like a 7.65 Mauser. [5]
Captain Fritz later denied having identified the rifle as a Mauser.
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
Question to Gamaliel:
On 20 November 2006 you asked this question: [12] “Does RPJ think it is appropriate to accuse those with whom you disagree of being mentally ill . . . ?”
Answer: I would think it is almost never appropriate to do so. Probably a history teacher would find it appropriate to both disagree with certain policies of a tyrant and also accuse him of being mentally ill; for example Hitler and Stalin.
However, I’m sure complaining editor means in the sense of do I think it is appropriate in everyday discussion with other people to accuse one of them of being mentally ill in order to hurt them out of spite; or call in to question their reasoning ability to then attack their credibility in argument.
I can’t think of an appropriate situation to do so at least in context of Wkipedia.
Do you believe that has occurred? If so could you provide the citation? RPJ 04:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Question 1 to complaining editor Tbeatty:
You state in your claim that:
"My experience with him forced me to do research on the Carcano rifle" "This was six months ago and I thought it was settled since it is overwhelming."
Could you give me the cite to the change you made based on the research I forced you to do? RPJ 06:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Question 1 to complaining editor Joegoodfriend:
How do you define "a single purpose account?"
Question 2 to complaining editor Joegoodfriend:
What do perceive to be RPJ's "one purpose on Wikipedia?"
Question 3 to complaining editor Joegoodfriend:
Do you agree that, all other things being equal, a "single purpose account" editor provides editing services of the same value as a non-single single purpose account editor?" I agree ___ I disagree ____
Question 4 to complaining editor Joegoodfriend:
If you disagree, please explain why you disagree?
Question 5 to complaining editor Joegoodfriend:
Which of the complaining editors (including yourself) are single purpose account editors?
RPJ 02:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
1) All significant published points of view are to be presented. See, [13] [14] RPJ 22:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Gamaliel(rvspeculation; [20] [21] [22] [User:64.105.82.58|64.105.82.58] 18:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC) RPJ 15:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC) RPJ 01:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC) RPJ 03:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
1) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires [fair representation of all significant points of view] that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly.See, [26]
RPJ 22:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
1) A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. See, [27] RPJ 22:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree this particular deletion puts the Wikipedia neutrality policy to a good test. It involves evidence at the crime scene where the suspected murder weapon was found, and involves conflicting evidence. The neutrality policy of presenting conflicting viewpoints by its very nature tends to create uncertainty.
In the place of the neutrality policy, this website could adopt a policy that when conflicting viewpoints exist, that one be presented with all the sustantial evidence that supports it. Whatever its drawbacks, such a method of deleting conflcting viewpoints would lessen any possible confusion among the readers of what viewpoint is held by the website on such issue.
If, instead, the neutrality policy continues to be followed and all viewpoints presented, then one needs to explore what are the viewpoints on any particular issue. Regarding the Kennedy assassination, there are very well established viewpoints that have persisted for decades. One of these persistent viewpoints is an overwhelming rejection of the Warren Report. RPJ 07:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Another persistent viewpoint held by many people (68% of the public) [28])is the suspicion that there was an official cover up involving Kennedy’s murder.
• One possible part of a cover up would be whether Oswald's rifle was really found at the crime scene or was it a German Mauser, and then later the official story changed.
• Is there “substantial” supporting information of the Mauser and then a change in the official position?
• Or is the information trivial, redundant or marginal piece of information that should be excluded, since even courts limit the amount of evidence.
The fact situation is this: Defendant Oswald denied the killings and claimed he was a “Patsy.” The Warren Commission Report said an Italian made rifle was found at the scene of the crime. But, there were news stories soon after the murder, that the police did not find an Italian made rifle but, instead, a German made Mauser was found at the scene of the crime.
1) Generally, material used in articles should come from reliable secondary sources, not from primary data, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Types_of_source_material. As applied to this case where the Warren Commission Report contains extensive accounts of primary evidence, use of the primary evidence to draw novel conclusions is inappropriate. It is the interpretation of the primary evidence by the Warren Commission which is usable as a secondary source.
1) Wikipedia editors may summarize reliable secondary and tertiary sources but may not conduct original research. As stated at WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, synthesis of primary documents into a new argument constitutes original research.
1) It is inappropriate to use information from unreliable sources devoted to an extreme partisan point of view, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Partisan_and_extremist_websites.
1) The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed, see Wikipedia:Verifiability. As applied to this case, the policy may mean that, in the absence of verifiable alternative versions of events that have been published in reliable sources, the dull official versions of events may form the bulk of a Wikipedia article regardless of public opinion regarding a matter.
1) The use of public opinion polls, although sometimes helpful, is insufficient in and of itself to determine majority and minority viewpoints. This is especially the case in areas where some technical and detailed knowledge is required.
1) {text of proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
1) RPJ ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edited in an aggressive biased manner, see this edit and this explanation.
1.1) RPJ's interpretation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is more liberal than is appropriate, taking the position that "all significant information is put in the article." This statement was made in response to a protest regarding adding questionable information [33] referring to the Mauser edit. See also this edit and this assertion.
1.2) RPJ has expressed his opinion that other users are using techniques of disinformation, [34]. See also "Below is a response of a person who may want only one viewpoint in the article" and [35]. extended characterization of another user, taunting of another user, and more taunting
1.3) RPJ has advanced original research based on primary sources edit by RPJ citing primary source, primary source, primary source, primary source, unreliable secondary source, primary source, primary source, and primary source. Some of the primary reports of evidence are included in the Warren Commission Report, but do no loose their primary status by such inclusion. In at least one case the information advanced by RPJ is not contained in the cited source, eg, information about the chain of custody is contradicted by the source cited. In another instance a friend of Oswalds is described as "[holding] extreme right wing views" in this edit, an assertion not supported by the source cited, see this comment.
RPJ 05:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
1.4) RPJ regularly cites information from an unreliable site dedicated to a propagandistic point of view, spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk, [41] ( [42]) and [43] ( [44]). See also this, this, and this. material from another conspiracy theory site: ratical.org.
2) RPJ has continuously and improperly used a 2003 ABCNews poll as a basis for edits which violate WP:NPOV [52] and to taunt other editors [53].
Defending editor RPJ believes he responded to this in a reasonable way:
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) User: RPJ should be banned from editing at Wikipedia. RPJ's accompanying anon IP's listed in the evidence section of this arbitration should be banned from editing the JFK articles.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
The complaining editor argues the defending editor exhibits bad faith on talk pages when he “continuously changes the topic from the original issue.” The four citations given by Joegoodfriend rebut the claim of wrongful “topic changing.” The defending editor had urged the key photographic evidence against Oswald be put in the article. Oswald said the evidence was a fake by pasting his picture on some else’s body and could prove it. American experts claim it was real and foreign experts claim it looked fake.
There were four such pictures all published by the government. The defending editor suggested all four photos be put in the article. [59] The complaining editors strongly resisted this suggestion. One of the complaining editor’s then suggested inserting a large portfolio of Oswald pictures but the pictures had nothing to do with the key evidentiary photographs being discussed.
The defending editor RPJ then replied that: “The collection of photos [being suggested]. . . does not appear to contain any of the "back yard" photos.” RPJ 08:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The complaining editor, Joegoodfriend, then jumped in and changed the topic from the photographs and asked:
Then, he argued RPJ's position was “illogical” and the purpose of the article was not to allow the reader "to reach definite conclusions regarding a controversy.”
[61]
He then concluded by asking why editor RPJ starts a new thread when the topic hasn’t changed? [62]
The defending editor RPJ then tried to get it back on track by starting over:
RPJ 22:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Complaining editor Joegoodfriend’s arbitration statement alleges defending editor RPJ “abuses” the talk pages by alleging Joegoodfriend is “personally part of a conspiracy to hide this key evidence [photographs] from the public.” (Emphasis in Joegoodfriend's arbitration statement)
Defending editor never said that. The fact finder simply needs to go to the RPJ post, in question, and type in “conspiracy” and one finds that RPJ does not even mention the word conspiracy let alone say that Joegoodfriend was “part of a conspiracy.” [63] RPJ 22:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• When this defending editor started contributing to Wikipedia over a year ago (first under an IP addresses) the information in the Kennedy articles appeared 40 years out-of-date.
• The defending editor’s purpose wasn’t, and isn’t, to spend much of his project time on the Kennedy assassination. It is a choice of either accepting that the article will be left outdated and reflecting badly on the project as a whole or to stay with it and try to update it.
• The complaining editors who want the defending editor banned do not want new information included. They delete out as much information as possible, and it is much harder and much more time consuming to gather and place information into the articles than it is for the complaining editors to simply delete the information out.
• Most of the public today, even in the United States, do not accept the findings of the 42 year old Warren Report, and instead accept the 1979 Congressional Report finding the murder was the probable result of a conspiracy.
• The defending editor realizes that it may seem best for the project from a cost-benefit standpoint just to accept what exists and focus resources elsewhere.
• On the other hand, this issue isn’t going away. The public retains a high interest in the subject. Moreover, under a special act of Congress, in 1998, all the relevant documents have been gathered by a special federal agency and placed in the National Archives and are being slowly released to the public and won’t be completed by 2017. This is and will be a constant source of new information and revelations about this event. [64]
RPJ 03:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
RPJ 06:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The article on the Kennedy assassination contains almost no information about the assassination itself. The article discusses events before the assassination, it describes events after the assassination but almost no information about the assassination itself. This collection of inserts is from reliable sources. They are excerpts from Warren Commission stenographic transcripts of sworn testimony by the participants and other reliable sources. The testimony is about the events the witnesses saw and what they heard. This information has been deleted. Reasons for deleting such information vary. Some believe "primary" sources of what was seen and heard at historic events shouldn't be used. This is not correct.
For example this would cover the statements by eyewitness participants including Secret Service agent Clint Hill, Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, Abraham Zapruder, emergency room physicians Dr. Jenkins, Dr. Peters, Dr. McCellend.
In this case they are included to describe what happened when the assassination took place. Defending editor reviewed and included excerpts from the testimony of the actual assassination.
The article has very little direct evidence about the actual murder itself. There are conclusions from the Warren Report about what happened that very few people today believe. For many years the evidence itself was kept secret.
The Assassination Records Review Board noted in 1998 that "the public doesn't want secrecy about the assassination to be continued," and neither does Congress. It passed the "President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992" to gather and disclose the evidence. Congress concluded that most of the records related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy are almost 30 years old, and "only in the rarest cases is there any legitimate need for continued protection of such records." Congress decided that "All Government records concerning the assassination of President John F. Kennedy should carry a presumption of immediate disclosure, and all records should be eventually disclosed to enable the public to become fully informed about the history surrounding the assassination" [69]
The Board went on to say: "Numerous records of previous investigative bodies such as the Warren Commission, the Church Committee, and the HSCA were secret. Yet members of these commissions reached conclusions based on these investigative records. The American public lost faith when it could not see the very documents whose contents led to these conclusions. The Board, consisting of noted historians, and other professionals said: "Doubts about the Warren Commission's findings were not restricted to ordinary Americans. Well before 1978, President Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and four of the seven members of the Warren Commission all articulated, if sometimes off the record, some level of skepticism about the Commission's basic findings." [70]
The evidence was presented from the viewpoint of the bodyguards,Mrs. Kennedy, Governor Connally and the emergency room doctors of the president as well as Abraham Zapruder who took the famous Zapruder film. The presentation tried to recapture the scene with quotes from the witnesses. This format, that enhances the drama of the event, is subject to debate. But what is being vigorously being deleted is not the form of presentation as much as the information itself, no matter what format presented.
The same deletions are made of testimony and drawings of the emergency room doctors and nurses.
RPJ 18:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The Text deleted by complaining editors:
The shooting took place in front of Abraham Zapruder who was filming the president as he passed below his position and his secret testimony has now been released:
Mr. Zapruder: I heard the first shot and I saw the President lean over and grab himself like this holding his left chest area.
Examiner: He was sitting upright in the car and you heard the shot and you saw the President slump over?
Mr. Zapruder: Leaning, leaning toward the side of Jacqueline. For a moment I thought it was, you know, like you say, "Oh, he got me," when you hear a shot you've heard these expressions and then I saw, I don't believe the President is going to make jokes like this, but before I had a chance to organize my mind, I heard a second shot and then I saw his head opened up and the blood and everything came out and I started I can hardly talk about it [the witness crying].
Mr. Zapruder: Then I started yelling, "They killed him, they killed him." [71]
Governor Connally was also seriously wounded by a bullet and screamed, "No, no, no. They are going to kill us all!" At the end of the shooting, the president's body bounced off the back of the rear seat and slumped lifelessly leftward towards his wife. Mrs. Kennedy cried out to her bodyguard, Clint Hill, "My God, they have shot his head off." [72]
Clint Hill was riding in the car that was immediately behind the presidential limousine. As soon as the shooting began, Hill jumped out and began running to overtake the moving car in front of him with the plan to climb on from the rear bumper and crawl over the trunk to the back seat where the stricken President and frightened First Lady were located.
Just as Hill was grabbing the small handrail by the trunk that was used by the bodyguards to climb onto a small back platform, he heard another gunshot and saw a portion of the President’s head blown away. The driver then sped up causing the car to slip away from Hill, who was in the midst of trying to leap on to it. He somehow succeeded in regaining his footing and jumped on to the back of the quickly accelerating car As he got on, he saw Mrs. Kennedy, apparently in shock, crawling onto the flat trunk of the moving limousine possibly retrieving piece of the presidents skull. Agent Hill crawled to her and guided the frantic Mrs. Kennedy back into her seat and placed his body above the President and Mrs. Kennedy. [73]
As the car moved at high speed to the hospital, Hill maintained his position shielding the couple with his body, and was looking down at the mortally wounded President. Agent Hill later testified:
The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car.
Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head. [74]
In the emergency room, the President had been placed on his back. His face was not damaged, but some brain tissue was present near the head indicating brain damage. When the doctors arrived they quickly cut into the president's throat and inserted a small tube for breathing (a tracheotomy).
But then, Dr. Jenkins, one of the five treating doctors in the emergency room, lifted Kennedy's upper half of the body, looked at the back of Kennedy's head and announced:
"Boys you better come up here and take a look at this brain before you do anything as heroic as opening the chest and massaging the heart" directly. [75]
Dr. Peters did look and observed:
"There was obviously quite a bit of brain missing." [76]
Dr. McClellend provided this description:
"You could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out." [77] See drawing by Dr. McClellend who examined the head injury in the emergency room. [78]
"We never had any hope of saving his life", one doctor said.
Roy Kellerman, a Secret Service Agent, who was in the car with the president, later testified a gunshot removed a section of the president's skull in the back right-hand side of the head measuring about five inches in diameter. [79] RPJ 02:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC) RPJ 19:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• It was rejected a year ago; • It was used as a cross-reference on a very controversial subject (Kennedy assassination) a year ago • It supports a viewpoint that Mytwocent’s supports • Mytwocents has shown no other interest in the Shoemaker biography • Mytwocents did the same thing in the Comair 5191 dispute several months ago, except this time in a much less obvious way. [81] RPJ 19:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I replaced the statement regarding Dr. Shoemaker's alleged skull experiments back into the article, with a {{fact}} tag .Here is the diff. Adding text with a 'citation needed' tag is one way to add material. It would make a notable addition to his biography, if he did this experiment and that fact can be cited. But, as with any statement in Wikipedia, it has to be verifiable. Wikipedia:Verifiability is a community policy, it isn't up to any one editor to 'enforce' it. If the statement can't be cited to a published, reliable source, then it won't last. Somebody will delete it. It's just that simple. Mytwocents 05:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
This reference work originates in the UK and is put together in a very simple and easy to read format. It is well linked. The citations given don't appear unusual, and there is neutral text. [90] I am sure someone can find something not to like about it but it looks like a good readable reliable source to me. I have cited this from time to time and this is part of the reason the complaining editors have given for wanting me banned. This argument is not well taken. RPJ 19:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
One of the complaining editors provided what he believes is a “perfect example” of RPJ’s wrongful editing where he has “refused” to provide a neutral point of view
This is a good example of what has taken place over the last 12 months. Whenever the defending editor updates one of the Kennedy assassination articles, the new text is immediately deleted. Some rule may be also announced in connection with the deletion with allegations that RPJ is in bad faith.
In this situation, the defending editor RPJ included information from an article in the official CIA magazine about Clay Shaw. The author of the article discussed new information that had become public that cast doubt on the denials by the CIA and Clay Shaw that they were connected. The alleged connection between Shaw, the CIA and the Kennedy assassination is what makes Mr. Shaw notable enough for an article.
Shaw and the CIA denied any connection. When new information became public the CIA conceeded new information had been found but downplayed its importance in the magazine article. RPJ included factual information from the magazine in this form:
Over an eight year period, Shaw relayed information on 33 separate occasions to the CIA. His reports about devaluation in Peru, a proposed new highway in Nicaragua, and the desire of Western European countries to trade with the Soviet block were graded by the CIA “of value” and “reliable.” the CIA relationship with Shaw was one of the secrets which the CIA hid from the public for many years while it denied any relationship. This information is contained in a magazine article written by Max Holland and published by the CIA called: "The Lie That Linked CIA to the Kennedy" Assassination" [91] As of today, the CIA won't release any documents describing the relationship between Shaw and the CIA after the first eight years of Shaw's affiliation. The Lie That Linked CIA to the Kennedy Assassination In the article, Max Holland defended the CIA and argued that Communist propaganda was the source of what he believes are false allegations that Shaw was involved in the Kennedy assassination.
Complaining editor Ramsquire deleted all the information. He announced a new editing rule that an editor has to agree with every opinion in a source before any data from the source can be used.
In response to the deletion of this updated information RPJ said this:
Whatever the intent was for publishing the article, the article can be cited for the material it contains. The editor who deleted the information in this article on Shaw believes that if the CIA's intent was to "debunk" some theory or another, that the factual information presented in the article is only valid for that purpose. This is inaccurate. What does one believe the CIA is doing, giving one set of facts for one issue and change the facts when another issue comes up that relates to the same facts? The editor needs to explain himself.
RPJ 02:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)