Talk:JFK Assassination File 104-10326-10014

Information about this edition
Edition:
Source:	https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2025/0318/104-10326-10014.pdf
Contributor(s):	United States federal government
Level of progress:
Notes:
Proofreaders:

Israel was behind the JFK assassination

If I read it correctly, in context, it looks more like paragraph 7 is saying that the contact that the agent was visiting was saying, among other things (such as how he tested if his house, how many times he cheated on his wife, &c), that israel was behind JFK's assasination, but the agent does not directly say he thinks so. — Alien  3
3 3 18:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

At any rate, there's room for doubt, and the claim that the document says Isreal killed JFK is not evidently valid in itself. Given this is a rather ... let's say contentious subject, I think it'd be better not to feature that claim in the notes field, which is supposed to be fully neutral, and especially not on the Main Page, which is, you know, the most visible space in the whole site. (oh, forgot to ping you: @WeatherWriter). — Alien  3
3 3 18:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I have removed it from the MP, as that's a very sensible place; awaiting answer here for further discussion. — Alien  3
3 3 18:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Holy shit, I did not expect a new creation to be vandalized a lot and have such a huge discussion. The hell?

Either way, it does not matter what you think or whether you doubt the document. That was a quote from the document. Nothing in the notes parameter is wrong or needs to be changed. I'll go ahead and re-revert since it sounds like all your opposition is based on your own original research and beliefs. Everything stated is directly from the document itself. WeatherWriter (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

On social media: they are very prompt to w:quoting out of context, and are about the least reliable source out there. You'll find a post with a million views saying any false thing.

Putting on the main page, where we sadly can't add a sentence to clarify that the document is itself quoting from someone without necessarily approving the claim, File 104-10326-10014: "Israel was behind the JFK assassination" is liable to generate misinterpretation and to make people believe that the document says that.

You owe me an apology: I in no way commented on the truthfulness of the claim Israel was behind the JFK assassination, but on the truthfulness of the attribution to this document of that claim, attribution which you made: this document says Israel was behind the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Saying it merely includes an comment from the unnamed source blaming Israel for the assassination of John F. Kennedy, which is one of the conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination, as @Tcr25 did, is much more exact, and comes in no way from opinion, belief or personal research, but simply from reading the document. Please do not cast aspersions of bias that liberally. Gratuitous accusations won't help with anything. — Alien  3
3 3 19:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Lots of social media attention around this document and that sentence as well. Here is one post that has over 700,000 views calling out that sentence in this specific document. WeatherWriter (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

It may be getting attention for that sentence, but that's not a reason to overstate what is in the report. It's a random claim made in 1998 by a (likely) Egyptian source stationed in Ethiopia. The way it was presented originally made it sound like this was a conclusion of the reporting officer. I adjusted the note, but agree with Alien 333 that it might be best to not to not highlight the claim at all. Let the document speak for itself. —Tcr25 (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the quote from the main page again and replaced with the formal title and correct date, which aligns with how other files in this series have been presented. —Tcr25 (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)