Talk:Mark Lane (author)

message: Quotes such as the following tend to indicate bias in this article. They make accusations without either confirming or denying the subject at hand: "Lane later wrote a book about the tragedy, The Strongest Poison. That book, since its publication, has been criticized by some as a long list of conspiracy theories, and as a repeat of the stories told by Rev. Jim Jones to keep his followers in a state of fear, such as that CIA-employed mercenaries were posted nearby and slaughtered Jonestown residents as they tried to flee through the jungle."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.171.66 (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I rewrote the paragraph to an NPOV, with sources.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Significant Conjecture

message: I deleted (and somebody didn't like my doing that) a lengthy and arcane quote from the one juror in the Howard Hunt trial who agreed that Lane proved a conspiracy.  The others (at least all quoted in the press) disagreed.  You might read it and see whether you don't think it harms the readability of the article chasing down a rabbit hole. (John McAdams)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.48.30.18 (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Lane and the One Juror Who Thought He Proved Conspiracy

message: The quotation Jean Davison (controversy Ruby) is to be deleted or to be specified. That is an unacceptably sweeping claim - everybody could claim it out of hand - there should be specific examples which the reader can verify.--Thalimed (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Jean Davison quotation

message: More Lane bashing. Four out of five paragraphs are representing the (negative) point of view of Lane's critics. That is quite unbalanced. It should be reduced to reasonable proportion and furthermore balanced by Lane's point of view. --Thalimed (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antiwar activism 

message: Following up on this, there are currently two passages cited to Kiel that I am removing from the article:
:1) According to R. Andrew Kiel in J. Edgar Hoover: The Father of the Cold War, "After the Warren Commission's final report was completed in September 1964, Lane interviewed numerous witnesses ignored by the Commission."
:2) Lane published an indictment of the Warren Commission, entitled Rush to Judgment, using these interviews as well as evidence from the 26 volumes of the Commission's report. Despite the fact that the majority of Lane's material for his book came from the Warren Report itself, as well as from interviews with those who were at the scene, sixteen publishers canceled contracts before Rush to Judgment was published.[29]
Regarding the first passage: As LuckyLouie alluded to previously, the use of the term "ignored" in this context implies deliberate intent on the part of the WC to prevent certain details about the assassination or its investigation from being revealed, and that is a fringe claim. Regarding the second passage: Disregarding for a moment that it fails WP:COPYVIO in its current form, Kiel cites that information in his book to "COPA, Dallas, 1998." The Coalition on Political Assassinations apparently did meet in Dallas in 1998 , but since when is COPA a reliable source of anything? Despite his background as a history teacher , Kiel is clearly a JFK conspiracy theorist  and we don't use information from conspiracy theorists to build articles about conspiracy theorists. -Location (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. #2 always bugged me anyway since a lot of Lane's work was taken from Harold Weisberg's research.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Kiel

message: Given that this is an article about Mark Lane, why don't we look for reliable secondary sources that discuss Lane and his views of the Warren Commission? For example, page 75 to 76 in Conspiracy Theory in Film, Television, and Politics by  Gordon B. Arnold (not the Gordon Arnold in Earl Golz's report, by the way) appears to present a neutrally worded discussion stating what Lane perceived the Warren Commission had done. While this source is not a history teacher, he is an academic who has been published in reliable sources and most importantly, he actually attributes Lane's views to Lane. Location (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative sourcing

message: Sentence was amended because the author of the cited source did not say this, either directly or by implication.  In his own discussion he mentions what two actual jurors said, only ONE of which mentioned "sloppy" journalism.  An unidentified juror was cited two different times , which logically AND by Professor McAdams's own statement in the source material could have been the same person.  So the most that can be said for sure is that THREE of the jurors did not depend on the conspiracy for their verdict.  This is also an example of synthesis, because several different jurors' thoughts are being combined into the WP article author's summative assessment, not supported by Prof. McAdams's own analysis.  Finally, there is the issue of "He said she said."  The original sources should probably be cited.  But at the very least, Professor McAdams's analysis needs to be accurately represented if it is to be included. Paavo273 (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Source citation must be faithful to the source

message: From the intro that appeared prior to my edit, it would appear that this article is about Lane's work as a lawyer.  In fact there is very little, other than the Jim Jones representation, about Lane's lawyering.  There is even less about his role or non-role in writing Executive Action.  Prior to my edit, there was more in the intro about his EA screenwriting than in the body of the article.  An instance of hit and run editing?  The other thing, if Lane's role in EA is important to someone, although primary sources are not prohibited, since there appears to be a conflict of info, a secondary source would be preferred. Paavo273 (talk) 06:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro needs to foretell/summarize what article is about

message: Can anyone shed light on why it was done this way?  I cannot find any authority in Wikipedia: Citing Sources.  Nor can I recall ever seeing this format in any other article on WP or off Wikipedia.  Bugliosi and Kiel do not even appear to be the most heavily cited sources in this article, although that is no logical basis to do this either.  Could someone please point me to a WP authority that authorizes this and/or any other WP article that does this (except, perhaps an article by the author who did this)?  I would propose to delete the Source section and incorporate the two books into the Reference section, OR alternately if the Source section reasonably belongs there, then to at least include the same info in the reference section.  Given the unusual format, it appears to the reasonable unsuspecting reader who is familiar with standard rules of citing references(e.g., WP, MLA, APA) that the Bugliosi and Kiel cites are just MISSING.  I will wait a reasonable time to make the proposed change, pending others' input.  Thanks.  (I'm familiar with the separate Reference and Bibliography sections of a research work, but that obviously doesn't apply here because the Source section is of cited works. Please see especially Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to create the list of citations.  I have no problem with specific terminology for the headings.  The Reference section could be called Sources or whatever. The problem is they're all cited references, but TWO of them appear in a different section not usually found, which leads a reasonable reader to the conclusion that the full reference information has been deleted or not originally included. Paavo273 (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Why are Bugliosi and Kiel books identified separately as Sources but not shown other than by author last name in the Reference section?

message: Kennedy assassination did not occur on December 19th, but November 22rd <wikipedia page, Assassination of John F. Kennedy>
~~GregoryBowerman~~  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.31.203 (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kennedy assassination 

message: I think Citizens Commission of Inquiry -- JFK should be merged into this article; not only is it a non-neutral essay, but it also seems like a content fork. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have redirected the article here. - Location (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: In his autobiography "Citizen Lane", Lane wrote that he was born in the Bronx and raised in Brooklyn. Since he was born in The Bronx his birth place should read that. The New York Daily News article is wrong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.25.65 (talk) 09:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth place 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Mark Lane (author). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110622085009/http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20060320&s=exchange to http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20060320&s=exchange
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I give here the link where can be seen the book published in Romania in 1967:
http://www.librarie.net/p/20349/judecata-pripita-critica-adresa-anchetei-efectuate-Comisia-Warren-legatura-asasinarea
If no-one will remove that sentence, I will do it later. Mcris31 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 10:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not true Rushed Judgment not published behind Iron Curtain before 1990 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Mark Lane (author). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151208191602/http://www.skyhorsepublishing.com/book/?GCOI=60239100045440 to http://www.skyhorsepublishing.com/book/?GCOI=60239100045440
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Famous Authors (Arthur Connan Doyle, Mark Twain etc.) have a side panel with notable works that link directly to the wiki page for their work.
This is also done with Warren Commission advocates like [Bugliosi].
This Page shows inherent bias by not doing so. Instead listing "Known for: Conspiracy theorist". This should be changed to "Notable works: A Rush to judgement, A Citizen's Dissent, Plausible Denial
--Epideme12 (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable works 

message: Wikipedia put me on notice that the link I provided is from a blog hosting platform that is not necessarily a reliable source.  In this case, the referenced page has the full text of the pamphlet to which Lane contributed, which I added to his bibliography. So following Wikipedia's instructions, I went ahead to publish the edit anyway, and make note here of my justification for doing so. Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''The Silent Slaughter''