Talk:Political decoy
Add topic | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Where's Hess
[edit]There's a reference to "Hess (above)" but no Hess above. Presumably somebody has deleted the Hess section. I can't be bothered to investigate but maybe somebody else can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.101.136 (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
RfC about the inclusion of Lee Harvey Oswald
[edit]The consensus is that the article should exclude the section about Lee Harvey Oswald. The section has been removed. Cunard (talk) 00:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
Should the article include the section about Lee Harvey Oswald? Location (talk) 02:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- Seeing as the theory is patently absurd, no. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 12:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- There are, and not ever likely to be, any WP:RS about Oswald and any decoys. No sources = no inclusion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- No. I think there are reliable sources discussing that some people claim that there was a conspiracy involving an Oswald body double but that information belongs in John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. This article is about political decoys, which I infer to be about people impersonating political figures. Oswald was not a "political figure". -Location (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Probably No - If we were going to keep it, it would have to 1) be better referenced and 2) be moved to the Alleged section. NickCT (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- No. Unless he was Governor Oswald, Senator Oswald, Candidate Oswald, &cet, he does not belong. Anmccaff (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- No. Just no. Pure unsourced speculation. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 00:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- No as per the others Chetsford (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- No - As per above and WP:OR. Meatsgains (talk) 02:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Exclude, per WP:RS If you read the one source , it does not support inclusion. It repeatedly refers to the two Oswald theory as an unsupported "conspiracy theory." And, while the author finds some items puzzling, the article and its RS editors do not present it as possible, let alone plausible, let alone likely, let alone fact. Chris vLS (talk) 05:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
Bisley boy
[edit]I realise that the story of the Bisley boy is highly implausible, but it's been widely repeated, and anyway it's quite a good story, so I suggest it merits inclusion somewhere on Wikipedia. However it may not strictly speaking count as a political decoy, should it be turned into an independent article? PatGallacher (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Putin
[edit]Should we not mention the many purported examples of Putin doubles? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:47, 18 May 2026 (UTC)