Assassination of John F. Kennedy is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 22, 2023.
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, November 22, 2013, and November 22, 2024.
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 Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dallas-Fort WorthWikipedia:WikiProject Dallas-Fort WorthTemplate:WikiProject Dallas-Fort WorthDallas-Fort Worth
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
It’s no longer a conspiracy theory, APL confirmed it’s very likely that there were 2 shooters, we should remove this possibility from the “conspiracy theory” section. Due to the great changes that will come to this article in the future, I also think the featured article status should be put in to question too. V.B.Speranza (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If 'great changes' are made to this article, they'll occur in the context of including more credible refutations of these conspiracy theories. No new evidence or information has come to light -it's the same magic bullet myths and grassy knoll narratives that have been endlessly repeated for decades and discredited by various ballistics experts, computational analysts, intelligence professionals etc. The allegations against the CIA and US government are groundless, and the mafia speculation's based on little more than a hunch. It's clear to me that a significant number of Americans will continue to live in these rabbit holes, despite all the science, evidence and logic telling them they're wrong.[1]Jonathan f1 (talk) 06:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell Luna has said that she believes that there were likely two shooters, but that's just her personal opinion and if it's based on newly discovered evidence the relevant files have not yet been released. The scholarly consensus has not yet changed. Possibly when the new records are declassified and released the scholarly consensus will change, but as of this moment it hasn't. It's also worth remembering that Luna is a politician, not a scholar and not an expert on the Kennedy assassination – our article on her even says She faced scrutiny when she suggested bringing in members of the Warren Commission for questioning about the investigation of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, as all members of the Warren Commission are dead which doesn't suggest to me that we should be blindly trusting her statements! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The ability of such people to mouth off, without embarassment, about something they obviously know nothing about never ceases to amaze. EEng19:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She clearly reviewed the documents and made those exact remarks, something you and I didnt, so it’s hardly surprising that she now carries herself as an authority on the matter. Of course, Jonathan, I’m sure your understanding of the topic is far more extensive. V.B.Speranza (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The audio of the Dallas PD radio traffic in this video has been scientifically analyzed and it is highly compelling. I invite any and all to examine this audio and science behind the discovery (can be found here https://presidentkennedyassassination.blogspot.com/)
Key points:
- The Morse code conclusions are wrong but I now know what the beeps mean, I have not released that information as of yet.
- Discoveries made after I published the video
-- Whistling right before the first shot
-- and Beethoven's 5th right after the President was shot was transmitted (V for victory)
-- A flurry of radio traffic right after the President was shot
-- Chief Jessie Curry smuggled this unedited audio out of the Dallas Police Dept (the provenance of the audio cannot be disputed)
-- The Congressional Hearing audio experts in the 1970's did not decompress the Gray Audiograph machine recording medium and thus got the timeline completely wrong. Rtshawnee (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This person isn't isn't an amateur, audio and music professional with one film credit, published book and one released album. He also works with complex mathematical algorithms. Certainly not an amateur. What's your qualifications? Rtshawnee (talk) 11:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being a musician doesn't make someone a professional forensic acoustic analyst. Wikipedia uses reliable academic and scholarly sources, it does not source from blogs. Acroterion(talk)14:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
