Talk:Mark Lane (author)

Mark Lane and WSI

The source you cite seems to be a little confused. I'm talking about the source that claims Herbert testified at the WSI. (He didn't. He testified at the CCI vets inquiry.) I'm talking about the source that calls the CCI the Concerned Citizens Inquiry. (A nonexistent group.) The source that claims Fonda and Lane filmed the event. (They didn't, and in fact Fonda didn't see the film until a year later.)

It was veterans, according to the Nicosia source, objecting to any more interference by Lane or Fonda in the production of WSI. Try reading it, please. They still helped with fundraising events, Fonda primarily, but they were no longer on the steering committee or involved with the production. Xenophrenic 18:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Either you or Nicosia has the narrative wrong here:

The origins of the WSI lay on the collaboration between VVAW and CCI. CCI wanted Lane out of the project because they thought he was a tool, Fonda said no, and VVAW sided with her. CCI and VVAW split, and WSI became the sole responsibility of the VVAW.

Todd Ensign

During the summer of 1970 we were approached by Al Hubbard who had become a full-time organizer with Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Al proposed that CCI join forces with Jane Fonda, Mark Lane, Rev. Dick Fernandez of CALC, and Donald Duncan (the Green Beret who had testified at the Russell Tribunal in Denmark).

In retrospect, we entered into a close collaboration with Fonda, Lane and the others without any real discussion of roles and responsibilities. Since we all agreed that our goal was a national hearing lasting several days, we assumed that other problems would take care of themselves.

At any rate, less than three months into planning for the Winter Soldier Investigation, most of the Vietnam veteran coordinators and Jeremy Rifkin had become adamant that WSI disassociate itself from Mark Lane. He had published a book, Conversations with Americans, which was denounced by a Vietnam expert in the Sunday Times Book Review as a shoddy piece of research.

Al Hubbard, the VVAW's representative on Winter Soldier, had originally been one of the veterans most critical of Lane. However, once he learned that Fonda wasn't willing to jettison her pal Mark, he promptly reversed himself. Al was to have some additional credibility problems later on when it was disclosed that, despite his war stories, he'd never served in Vietnam.

So, a split occurred and the work of organizing national hearings proceeded along two parallel tracks. We at CCI set our sights on a December event in Washington, DC, while the WSI's new organizers continued with the original plan to hold its hearings in Detroit. Fonda had insisted on this obscure venue because she saw it, mechanistically in my opinion, as a way to reach out to blue-collar America.

Hunt Pg 63

But the worst setback to the WSI occurred in early November when a bitter schism occurred between VVAW and CCI.

In early November, Ensign and Rifkin proposed that the WSI steering committee expel Mark Lane, but Jane Fonda was fiercely loyal to him. For months the two had become inseparable, traveling to college campuses and parties, raiding funds, rallying support. He had defended her when she was arrested in Cleveland on trumped-up drug charges. Now a group of impetuous antiwar organizers were demanding that she jettison her close friend. “Fonda, Lane, and the VVAW came as a package,”, wrote James Simon Kunen. When Fonda “threatened to withdraw her cash” Ensign recounted. The VVAW stuck with them and we split”.

Hunt Pg 67:

Lane’s involvement with the planning of the WSI had been extensive. His legal and Financial assistance had proven invaluable. Few VVAWers doubted this sincerity or devotion to the effort. Yet they feared that associating with Lane could tarnish months of difficult work. “Then the question became, how do we protect our integrity? Recalled Joe Urgo, “how do we separate ourselves from this guy”

Organizers hoped Lane would maintain a low profile. Their wishes were fulfilled”

In short, Lane was involved, until the end, of the Detroit Winter Soldier Investigation. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Please check the dates and events you outline above. The VVAW and CCI split in early November. Lane and Fonda backed the VVAW (the CCI guys, Uhl, Ensign and Rifkin would have nothing to do with them). Then 2 months later, out comes Sheehan's book review that demolishes Lane's reputation and credibility. Lane was never put back on the new steering committee, although he did continue to help with fundraising. See this.

Nicosia, 83-84

From the point when Fonda and Lane began drawing boundry lines over the various veterans' groups--one hesitates to say, like victors dividing the spoils of war, but the metaphor is irresistible--the veterans saw that they had no one to depend upon for their salvation but themselves, a situation they had known all too well the first time around, in Vietnam itself. This recognition, which could have been demoralizing, galvanized the veterans to take the reins into their own hands. A group of veterans who had testified for CCI in Washington, D.C.--including Mike McCusker of Oregon, and Ken Campbell, John Beitzel, and Nathan Hale from Philadelphia--went to Al Hubbard and put Al's leadership on the line. They told him that they would not stand for any more interference from the likes of Lane and Fonda, and that they intended to make the Winter Soldier Investigation a Vietnam veterans' production from start to finish.

In the end, Winter Soldier would be just that.

In short, Lane was an initial organizer, steering committee member, coughed up money for the CCIs various events and raised funds for the CCI-VVAW joint venture. Then he irritated everyone, caused the CCI-VVAW rift, got slammed in book reviews, lost his steering committee position and any control he may have had in the WSI project. You appear to want to portray him as Grand Poobah of the event from start to finish, and we both know that isn't so. Xenophrenic 20:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You see, this is why it is important to WP:CITE your sources so others can verify them. None of the sources you provided earlier said that Lane was not part of the new steering committee, and suggested, indirectly at least, that his status had not changed. And despite his removal from the steering committee, he was still very much involved in the WSI. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is important to cite sources so others can verify them. Just as I have always done, and will continue to do. None of the sources I cited "suggested his status hadn't changed." You see, this is why it is important that you not form your own conclusions, and convey instead only what the sources do. After his ouster, his involvement with the WSI consisted of not much more than being an observer, and tending to his already pre-arranged fund-raising efforts. Xenophrenic 23:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Revert of recent edits by Cudgel

You inserted the following statement:

Through his association with Jane Fonda, Lane became a key figure in several of the non governmental “war crimes” investigations that took place during the Vietnam War, most notably the Winter Soldier Investigation originaly sponsored by the Citizens Commission of Inquiry and the Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

You cite Hunt as your source. Reviewing Hunt reveals just the opposite is true. Lane was investigating war crimes (for his book) before he met Fonda. VVAW first contacted Lane, then Lane introduced Fonda to the VVAW. VVAW then approached CCI, and encouraged the combining of efforts. You also removed edits and citations indicating VVAW vets insisted that Lane be removed from the project. I reverted it. Xenophrenic 23:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Further changes: You inserted statement that Sheehan's review showed "at least 4..." It is exactly 4, so I modified the wording to more accurately reflect the review. You inserted a statement implying Sheehan revealed some of the servicemen were never in Vietnam. Incorrect, it is Lane's book that reveals that, not Sheehan. I corrected it. Took out your statement that Sheehan revealed some servicemen deserted before going to Vietnam, when it was Lane's book that actually revealed that. Also trimmed some minutiae more appropriate to a CCI or WSI article, rephrased Lane's response to Sheehan to be more accurate, and included your source info. Xenophrenic 20:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet you still insist on writing Lane out of the actual events in Detroit? The source, from Hunt is clear, although he kept a low profile, his relationship with Fonda, the primary source of money for the event, meant that they could not exclude him completely. Also, the quote from Nicosia about WSI being an “all veteran’s affair” is a joke, there were lots of non-vets at WSI, like Marjorie Nelson, Stephanie Caldwell. The statement just does not hold up to scrutiny. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, CCI ditched lane before the book review, and VVAW staed with him because they couldnt lose Fonda's funding. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I insist on removing conjecture and conclusion that, while it may be loosly derived from the source, is not actually contained in the cited source. Fonda was Lane's "girlfriend?" On what page of Nicosia's book does he say (and let me get your quotes exact here) WSI was an “all veteran’s affair”? I don't see that in the article either. I do see in both the article and source where he says the vets wanted it to be an all veteran "production" and they wanted no more interference from outsiders like Lane and Barbarella. Produced by vets it was, but you are correct that non-vets attended. Hundreds of them did. Reporters, protesters, politicians, curious onlookers, guest speakers on chemical defoliants, psychology, international law, etc. Let me ask you, what part in "the actual events in Detroit" did Lane play after the reformation of the final steering committee? Include sources, please.

As I noted above, this BLP should reflect solid sources, and information specific to Lane. You can expand on the nuanced conflicts between CCI, VVAW, Fonda, Rifkin, etc., in more detail in more appropriate articles. Your source, by the way, starts out by saying, "Different factions offered conflicting explanations." You give only one of those explanations. Xenophrenic 03:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that this quote: "Ultimately, the WSI was an event produced by veterans only, without the need of "so-called experts" such as Lane" is from Todd Ensign, who was not a part of WSI, but CCI right? So how can you take a quote about one thing, CCI, and apply it to WSI?

That quote is from Nicosia, page 84, and it states right in the quote which event it was about: WSI. Ensign is a source used, and even quoted, by Nicosia, of course, but the above quote is from Nicosia. Xenophrenic 20:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong again: "As Ensign says, with Just pride: “we began that process (of holding hearings based on the testimony of veterans). It was a bottom up force. It didn’t need so-called experts or pseudo-Star-trekker type guys'", although the end does say the "Winter Soldier Investigation", Ensign was not part of it, he split with the CCI because he could not stand Lane.

That quote is from Nicosia, page 84, and it states right in the quote which event it was about: WSI. Ensign is a source used, and even quoted, by Nicosia, of course, but the above quote is from Nicosia. Now you are introducing another quote that really is from Ensign this time. You can't bait & switch here. Ensign, by the way, was a more significant part of WSI than Lane was. Ensign was integral to the initial development. Xenophrenic 21:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ensign was not a part of WSI in detroit, he bolted. The current article text makes it seem like Ensign is speaking about WSI, when in fact he is speaking about CCI. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ensign was very much a part of WSI. As organizer, he focused the direction, interviewed veterans and collected testimony (several would testify at both events), laid out the structure of the event... Just because he split off to handle the Wash, DC event doesn't mean all the months of work he did on the WSI project just disappears. By that same token, Lane raised funds and used contacts that benefited CCI and VVAW organizers equally, before the split. The reason the article makes it seem like Ensign is speaking about WSI is because the source specifically states he is speaking about the WSI. Try reading it. Xenophrenic 06:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Lane was very much a part of WSI. As organizer, he focused the direction, interviewed veterans and collected testimony (several would testify at both events), laid out the structure of the event... Just because CCI dumped him and a few months later VVAW formed a new steeing committee with him doesn't mean all the months of work he did on the WSI project just disappears. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy we are finally in agreement about Ensigns statement on the WSI event. Xenophrenic 19:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Lane was talking about CCI, as he was not involved in the final Detroit media event. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ensign was not at WSI in Detroit, as he left to be a part of CCI in Washington exclusively because he did not want to work with Lane. Do you have a source that indicates that Ensign was at the Detroit hearings? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

When did I ever say he was at the WSI event? I believe you are responding to a different thread. I'll repeat the pertinent part of this thread here to get it back on track: Ensign was very much a part of WSI. As organizer, he focused the direction, interviewed veterans and collected testimony (several would testify at both events), laid out the structure of the event... Just because he split off to handle the Wash, DC event doesn't mean all the months of work he did on the WSI project just disappears. By that same token, Lane raised funds and used contacts that benefited CCI and VVAW organizers equally, before the split. The reason the article makes it seem like Ensign is speaking about WSI is because the source specifically states he is speaking about the WSI. Try reading it.Xenophrenic 18:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

But the worst setback to the WSI occurred in early November when a bitter schism occurred between VVAW and CCI. In early November, Ensign and Rifkin proposed that the WSI steering committee expel Mark Lane, but Jane Fonda was fiercely loyal to him. For months the two had become inseparable, traveling to college campuses and parties, raiding funds, rallying support. He had defended her when she was arrested in Cleveland on trumped-up drug charges. Now a group of impetuous antiwar organizers were demanding that she jettison her close friend. “Fonda, Lane, and the VVAW came as a package,”, wrote James Simon Kunen. When Fonda “threatened to withdraw her cash” Ensign recounted. The VVAW stuck with them and we split”. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what point you are trying to express with the above quote. Xenophrenic 21:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

And the other line "Vietnam veterans involved with the Winter Soldier Investigation, insisted that there be no interference from the likes of Lane.", is also ridiculous because he was involved, at the insistence of Fonda. As far as what role Lane played in the Detroit hearings (with sources, naturally)

You are correct that Lane was involved at the insistence of Fonda. It is also correct that he was later removed from involvement at the insistence of the vets producing WSI. I've seen the quote below (almost verbatim from Wilbur Scott's The Politics of Readjustment) before. Lane, Fonda and all of the organizers wanted the event filmed and distributed. Ultimately it was not Lane and Fonda that did so, despite the implication of that quote. It was done by the WinterFilm Collective instead. Can you point to a film made or distributed by F&L? In this BLP, we should strive for a better degree of accuracy. Xenophrenic 20:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I have cited a WP:RS citing the information that Lane filmed the event and that’s the criteria for inclusion. Lanes was removed from the steering committee, but not from the project. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

BLPs typically require a raised RS bar. Or did I misinterpret the WP:BLP page? Xenophrenic 21:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, here is another: The Politics of Readjustment: Vietnam veterans since the war By Wilbur J. Scott, pg 19. Here too it says that Lane filmed the event and along with Fonda arrainged for its distribution. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that is the same source. Sandra Bloom (from your ISTSS source) practically cuts & pastes Scott into her document, and also cites him. BLPs typically require a raised RS bar. Or did I misinterpret the WP:BLP page? Xenophrenic 06:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If the source meets the criteria for inclusion, and by all indications both of these do, then it can be a part of the article (especially considering that you have presented nothing that states that Lane did not film the Detroit hearings) . So yes, you did misinterprate the BLP policy. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The single source you cite does not meet the inclusion requirements for a BLP. Xenophrenic 18:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Please cite the relvant portion of BLP that would call for the exclusion of the citation. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

In January of 1971, they organized war crime hearings called the "Winter Soldier Investigation" in Detroit, sponsored by Jane Fonda, among others. One hundred and fifteen veterans, as well as Robert Lifton, presented testimony about atrocities committed in Vietnam, while Fonda, and antiwar activist, Mark Lane, filmed the testimony and arranged for distribution[1].

Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Other notes on changes you made: Lane "became a key figure" in the inquiries? Conjecture. Key fundraiser, perhaps. "most notably the WSI"? Incorrect. The CCI event was more notable, with much more national coverage than the WSI. "according to their service records"? Not completely accurate. Non-service record related comments made by the DoD were incorporated into the review, too. Xenophrenic 20:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Lane was a key figure, Nicosia describes him as a "chief planner", and its interesting that you would refer to him as a "Key fundraiser" here, when you continue to remove the reference in other articles. Whether CCI or WSI was more notable is a matter of opinion, and but a quick google search for CCI yields 746 hits verses 18,700 hits for WSI. The material that Sheehan uses in his review always refers to "Marine Crops records" and "Army records" which would be another name for their service records. There is also a detail account in of many more of these individuals in Stolen Valor, however I don’t have my copy in front of me. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The material Sheehan uses in his review sometimes comes from MC and Army records, and sometimes he says things like, "The Marine Corps contends it does not give courses in torture," which is not a statement from a service record but a DoD person. Info from service records as well as from DoD personnel all fall under the source: Department of Defense.

I remove the qualifier "primary funder" when Fonda, Nash, UAW and others are far above him in bringing in the cash. And Marine Crop (sic) records were indeed one of the DoD sources - I don't see the problem. Xenophrenic 21:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Nicosia's book would seem to disagree with that assesment. 23:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If it does, I'm sure you'll point out where. Until then, it will remain an unsourced assertion and fail to remain in the BLP article. He raised funds (but not even close to Fonda's efforts) and that is conveyed in the article already. You seem to be trying to inflate his importance. After the veterans took over the project, Lane's importance was reduced almost to zero. Xenophrenic 06:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That is certainly the POV you are trying to have dominate the article, but unfortunately the sources do not back this interpretation of events. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If it does, I'm sure you'll point out where (that means cite a source). Until then, it will remain an unsourced assertion and fail to remain in the BLP article. Xenophrenic 18:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions and comments on Cudgel's edits

The war crimes inquiries were indeed sponsored by antiwar organizations, and you should quit trying to hide that fact. Is "non" a word in the english language? It's not in my dictionary as anything other than a prefix. Lane became a key figure in several (as in, 3 or more?) inquiries? Can you name them, define level of "keyness" in each and source it please? You removed a source citation to Ensign while leaving the material from Ensign? That can only be an accident, so I replaced it. From the article, "Lane's close association with CCI and VVAW would be short-lived." You keep trying to remove VVAW from that line while ignoring the fact that Lane's association with VVAW went from close to distant (at best) after the vets took over the WSI project. "Then the question became, 'How do we protect our integrity?'" recalled Joe Urgo, "'How do we seperate ourselves from this guy?'" (That's from the source you cited.) Seperate they did. Lane spent the rest of his time jetting around the country trying to defend his book, but he did make it back in time to see the WSI event. No, he didn't film it (his partner Mugar admits Lane sucks at using even the simplest of cameras) and neither did Fonda, although everyone involved with the project wanted it filmed. Fonda had some comment about the filming of WSI that I'll dig up for you. Xenophrenic 07:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Define “keyness”, ok, he along with Fonda were the primary fundraisers (lots of sources on that one), Nicosia refers to him as one of the “"chief planner", the name of the event, the “Winter Soldier Investigation”, was Lane’s idea (Hunt); calling him a “key figure” is very appropriate here. I removed the VVAW from the passage, because although he was not part of the newly formed steering committee, he was still involved in the event (at the behest of Fonda and Hubbard), and filmed it (two sources on this one, cited in the article). If you have a source that states that Lane was not at the hearings, and a source that specifically states he did not participate in the media event in Detroit, by all means bring it to the table, because so far, I have cited two WP:RS’s that state that he was there.

Where is that "chief planner" comment page, again, if you don't mind? I'd like to see which period it relates to: pre-CCI ultimatum, pre-sheehan review, or post-VVAW Vets ultimatum.

You state Lane was "still involved in the event" and also filmed the event? Can you please state clearly what that involvement was after the non-Lane committee was formed, with clear sources?

Is "non" a word in the english language? Xenophrenic 18:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well the filming, (two sources on that one now) and the fact that they were glad he "kept a low profile" would seem to indicate that he had involvement in the Detroit media event. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"would seem to indicate?" Please don't draw your own conclusions and try to squeeze them into an article, especially a BLP. Convey what the sources say, nothing more, nothing less. Xenophrenic 19:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the sources say he filmed it, its good that we are in agreement on this key point. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree. You have one unreliable source claiming he and Fonda filmed it (Scott), and countless others that quote Scott's incorrect info. Scott, in the same breath, also claims Herbert testified at the WSI when he did not. Scott refers incorrectly to the Citizens' Commission of Inquiry as the "Concerned Citizens Inquiry" - clearly the man is confused. Do you have second source (one that doesn't quote the Scott errors, please) showing Fonda and Lane filmed the event and distributed it? What was the name of the film and the distributor? I know only of the film from the Winterfilm Collective, and they make no mention of Lane in the filming credits or distribution credits (although they do credit Fonda, Nash and Sutherland among financiers - still no Lane). We have to get this "right," according to the BLP instructions. Xenophrenic 21:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting on your source page for the "chief planner" designation you claim is in Nicosia's book. Google can't find it, and neither can I. Xenophrenic 21:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Were there people in VVAW who didn’t like him and wanted to see him go (like Urgo), yes, the sources are clear on this point, but they are also clear that Fonda’s inbsistence on keeping him around, coupled with her cash meant that they could not afford to kick him out and upset her.

Did the VVAW not like him and wanted to see him go, yes, the sources are clear on this point. Sources are clear that when the CCI threatened to go if Lane didn't... VVAW stuck with the money. Moving down the timeline (after Sheehans Review), sources are equally clear that VVAW veterans also gave an ultimatum, and the vets took control of the project without Lane. You keep trying to hide this. Xenophrenic 18:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not, its still in there, but so too is his continued involvement. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It is still in there now, correct - until you edit it out again. As for Lane's continued involvement, that consisted of what, again (something other than the tired "he filmed it" myth)? Xenophrenic 19:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

And where, exactly,is your source that Lane did not film the event and was not present for it? I am struggling to find it here in talk? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

So you say Lane wasn't even present, Cudgel? Please provide a source for that as well. Add that to the list of sources you need to provide about Lane's "involvement" after the vets took over. Xenophrenic 01:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If you feel so strongly about this, file an WP:RFC and get some other editors to comment on this. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Feel strongly? I'm just conveying what the sources say. I feel strongly that editors shouldn't extrapolate conclusions and try to insert them into BLPs. Xenophrenic 18:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy and Neutrality of whole article in dispute

(A dispute tag has been placed in the article, but temporarily removed until specific details of the dispute are presented here for discussion.) 1) RESOLVED. Lane was present in Detroit for the hearings. Scott confirms this. Scott meets all the criteria for a WP:RS and WP:BLP. Furthermore, no source specifically denies that Lane was present in Detroit. This is a factual concern.

Lane was present during the WSI. Even I confirmed this (see above discussions). His presence was never up for debate. The factual concerns were over whether Lane was still "involved" in the production after the vets took over the project, and whether Lane "filmed the event." Scott is an error-ridden source. He bungles the name of the CCI, claims Herbert was at the WSI (uh uh, he was at the CCI event), and totally confuses the joining of Lane with the CCI by claiming Lane and Fonda "hired Rifkin and Ensign" as organizers. In truth, the CCI (started by Rifkin and Ensign, not F&L as Scott says) had already been running inquiries long before Lane and Fonda even heard of the antiwar movement. Scott may meet the weak criteria for WP:RS, but he falls short of the additional accuracy needed for WP:BLP. I'm collecting additional sources that accurately define Lane's level of participation after the vets took over. Xenophrenic 20:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You have fought every attempt to include material demonstrating that Lane was present, as you continue to remove the following: "Lane kept a low profile during the actual hearings, relieving those were worried about his sinking reputation.". As far as your comments on the reliability of Scott, he does not say explicitly where Herbert spoke and the narrative given is a fairly good representation of the events. Considering that you have finally agreed that Scott is a WP:RS the material is suitable for inclusion into the article. Nowhere in WP:BLP does it mention any need for additional accuracy. Please cite the policy properly if you are going to policy shop. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity..." - From WP:BLP

"Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims." - From WP:BLP

"We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references." - From WP:BLP

"Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

Repeating above: Never had a problem with you showing Lane was there. I do have a problem with you showing any involvement of Lane after the vets took over, and/or showing that he filmed it. As for Scott, I disagree that he is a reliable source. I said he "may meet the weak criteria for WP:RS" but not as a source for a WP:BLP. In addition, if you are implying that Scott says Herbert testified not at WSI, but at a CCI event, then I guess that is where Lane must have been shooting his elusive film, too.

"Material about living persons available solely in questionable or dubious sources should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links." - From WP:BLP

Scott has shown himself to be about as questionable as possible. Let's see if we can find a backup source (who isn't just looping back to Scott). Please continue. Xenophrenic 06:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You have not cited any specific policy that applies here. If Scott is a WP:RS (as you have already said) then he is an WP:RS, as there is no such category of kinda-sorta-maybe RS. Scott is not self published, the material does not come from a blog, and this particular book of his was published by a fairly reputable publisher. Nothing in it is derogatory in nature to Lane, and there is nothing contentious about the material, except to you, and that’s certainly not part of any editing guideline. In fact, others WP:RS’s have thought the material to be reliable enough to use in their own work . The material will go back in, and if you feel so strongly about it, post it on the WP:BLP board and have others weigh in about it.Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

From the very first paragraph of WP:RS: The relevant policies on sources are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, and additional restrictions in biographies of living people. Additional restrictions for BLPs it says, over and above the RS requirements. So heading to the BLP page to see what kind of special handling BLPs require, we find it admonishes us to get it "right," and we "must take particular care..." and "such material requires a high degree of sensitivity..." Read it yourself; I've already outlined all this previously. If you didn't feel there was something contentious about the material, you wouldn't be trying so hard to insert it. The multiple errors in that same passage by Scott demonstrate the dubiousness of this source. Beyond that, you haven't produced this film Lane supposedly made (and I can't find one); haven't shown the channels through which Lane distributed it; and you seem to ignore Scott claiming Fonda filmed it too. Fonda has already indicated the film was shot, produced and distributed by someone else, although she proudly says that her fundraising helped make it possible. Inserting that Lane filmed the event is not "getting the article right." Let's find a second source. Xenophrenic 09:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well the Scott citation is not original research, is very easily verifiable, and as you have already stated is a reliable source. I dont feel that the material is in any way shape or form contentious, but for some reason you do. I don’t have to provide more citations for this to be included, one, from a WP:RS is all that’s required, and I don’t have to “produce” anything else or show the channels that Lane used to distributed it. Saying that Lane filmed the even is most certainly "getting the article right" as the material is cited to an RS.

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 quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The relevant policies on sources are Verifiability ... and additional restrictions in BLPs. Xenophrenic 18:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There are no additional restrictions in BLP that apply here. But, do pelase show me these additional restriction clauses. I gave you a chance to make a case why the material cannot be added, you have not done so; I will replace at my earliest convience. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The restrictions on that questionable material was given above. Twice. You could ask for additional clarification on the WP:BLPN. Found that correct Stacewicz cite yet? I'm still waiting on that Saturday Review transcript from Reston. Xenophrenic 18:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not a "questionable material" section in BLP, and Reston was also cited to a WP:RS. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Not part of any guideline, Reston material was taken from a WP:RS and thats the extent of the policy. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I never said the Reston info was questionable, I was just updating you on my progress in getting a full copy of the book review. The Reston review does exist, unlike a Lane film, so it will be finding it's way back into the article. Shall I consider the Stacewics issue resolved for now? Xenophrenic 19:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

2) RESOLVED. The name “Winter Soldier Investigation” was Lane’s idea, see Hunt pg 59: “The idea behind the name came from the New York City attorney Mark Lane”. This is a factual concern.

I've seen this in a couple sources, so no argument from me. Not sure it's really an encyclopedic addition, but if it goes in it should have a small blurb as to "why" that name was suggested by Lane. (The Paine reference about summer soldiers only fighting the fair weather battles, and shrinking when it gets rough, etc...) Xenophrenic 20:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is this unencyclopedic and why have you continued to remove it? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject." - From WP:BLP.

It wasn't intentionally removed; probably swept away when the BLP violations were removed. I don't see any reason why it can't find a home in the article though. Xenophrenic 06:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

the source is reliable, and definitely of note ,as Lane was responsible for the name of the event. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I stuck it back in the article. Xenophrenic 10:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

3) RESOLVED. The removal of the review by James Reston Jr, whichas of my last edit had a specific page # in Stolen Valor, pg 132. That too meets the criteria for inclusion. This is a POV concern.

Page 132, as of your last edit, and no page number at all in previous edits. Page 123 now? I'd like to know for sure, since I will be checking it. I've no doubt more than one person reviewed Lane's book, but I'd like to see those reviews accurately represented. Xenophrenic 20:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I did mean pg 132, mistyped in the comment above, and that’s been fixed. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No prob, I'll have a full transcript of the material before the day ends. This one should be resolved fairly quickly. Xenophrenic 06:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see what interesting interpretation is placed on this one. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing too interesting, it looks like Reston was quite critical, too. Your source is on page 131, by the way, not 132. Sheehan's stuff is on 132. I only have about 1/3 of the text of the actual review, but I'm having the whole transcript emailed to me. It was in the Jan. 9, 1971 issue of the Saturday Review. I'm curious to find out specifically which interview Reston refers to in his "raped by the whole battalion" reference. Xenophrenic 10:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I added the Reston review to the article. Not surprisingly, he makes many of the same observations Sheehan does: Lane went for the sensational, bloodcurdling tales over the more common war crimes and atrocities, and he didn't fact-check anything. And because of this, he did a serious disservice to the real and serious issue of atrocities in Vietnam. Reston says the real problem with Lane's book isn't unchecked details. The problem is the book focuses on such extreme examples, it makes it easy for "Americans to dismiss their collective responsibility for the war as a whole... This emphasis on atrocities misdirects the sense of shame that the American people should feel about the concept of the war of attrition, recommended and executed by General Westmoreland, applauded at the Pentagon, approved by two presidents and by political implication, the majority of U.S. citizens." Reston also spends several paragraphs of his review applauding the CCI's National Veterans Inquiry. Xenophrenic 08:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

4) RESOLVED. The removal of the following “Lane collaboration with VVAW did not end with his involvement in the Detroit Winter Soldier hearings in Detroit, he later joined forces with VVAW again, when he along with Fonda and Mike Hunter of VVAW traveled to Paris in March of 1971 where they met with representatives of the North Vietnamese government” was done even though there was a citation associated with it, Stacewicz. You claim the citation does not exist, but another citation for the material can also be found here. Citation meets criteria for a WP:RS and WP:BLP. This is a factual and POV concern. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Your first source claimed page 284 in Stacewicz' book. An incorrect cite, and Lane isn't even mentioned in that section. Do you have another page number? I know from other sources that there was a meeting in Summer of 1972 of peace delegations where many attended. I'm still looking for sources that support Lane's "collaboration" with anyone; Lane's "joining forces" with anyone; or even Lane travelling with anyone. Those sound like conclusions or conjecture. Xenophrenic 20:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I have the Stacewicz book in my hand. I am looking at page 284. There is no mention of Lane, and no mention of a 1971 trip to Paris. Just to be sure we don't have a page number mix-up due to different editions, I've checked every mention of Lane throughout the book. I see nothing even remotely resembling the above material. I'll ask one more time for you to provide a correct citation, before putting this Stacewicz issue to rest. Xenophrenic 06:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

5) RESOLVED. Stacewicz pg 284 was a valid source for the material (in number 4 above), but since no readily available online source can be cited for all to see, I have also used the following. Why did you not comment on this source as well? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Stacewicz is not a valid source (see issue 4 above). As for your Rothrock source, I decided to pick up a copy. The library didn't have it. The state-wide library system didn't have it. They didn't even have a catalog entry for it. Any other published works by this guy? No. So I hit the bookstore, and they didn't have it. Never did -- but they could order it. Same thing with Borders, Barnes & Noble, Amazon -- they never had it, but they would be happy to have one printed off just for me. This seemed a bit odd, so I researched the book further. Self-published by AuthorHouse! [2] I should have guessed.

From WP:Verifiability: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."

"Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable_sources.

I looked a little closer at the link you provided to the Google-Book page, and checked the citations used by the esteemed Mr. Rothrock for the material you indicated. He sources it back to the partisan humor and spoof website wintersoldier.com! His whole book is infested with such citations. I'll stop here, before I really start "commenting." The Rothrock issue is now closed. Xenophrenic 06:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I had not realized it was self published. I will photocopy Stacewicz, and upload it for all to evaluate. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if you email the Freep-heads, they will doctor up a photocopy for you. (Yes, I Googled up Lane+Hunter+Stacewicz+284 etc., trying to discover where you got such a wild notion, and I got 1 hit.) I'd suggest reading sources yourself; less likely to come back and bite you in the ass. You won't be providing a Stacewicz source for that material. Issue closed. Xenophrenic 08:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Significant Conjecture

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)

I rewrote the paragraph to an NPOV, with sources.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Lane and the One Juror Who Thought He Proved Conspiracy

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)

Another source on Mark Lane, Oswald, Helen Markham and James Earl Ray

Please read this statement about Lane in the report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

"Many of the allegations of conspiracy the committee investigated were first raised by Mark Lane, the attorney who represented James Earl Ray at the committee’s public hearings. As has been noted, the facts were often at variance with Lane’s assertions. . . . In many instances, the committee found that Lane was willing to advocate conspiracy theories publicly without having checked the factual basis for them. In other instances, Lane proclaimed conspiracy based on little more than inference and innuendo. Lane’s conduct resulted in public misperception about the assassination of Dr. King and must be condemned." (House Select Committee Report, Page 424, footnote 16)

The committee said that 15 years before Mark Lane came out with his book on the King case titled Murder in Memphis (co-written by Dick Gregory).

Here's where I got that statement by the Capitol Hill committee as well as other negative comments on Lane's credibility.

Dr. John McAdams on Mark LaneEarththings (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you find the same information in sources that meet Wikipedia's reliable source requirements? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Many libraries have the book of conclusions from the House Select Committee on Assassinations. The first half is on JFK; second is on Dr. King. I used to own a paperback copy. We have a page number in the excerpt that Dr. McAdams included in one of the pages on his web site. You might be able to make a case that his web site is unreliable (consider that it's not user-driven), but the book of conclusions from the House Select Committee on Assassinations? That's absolutely reliable. Earththings (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is the damn source: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=69492 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.48.30.18 (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You might also consider that a review of my web site by one of your own editors is very favorable, based on standard library reference sources. (John McAdams) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.48.30.18 (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Let us not forget the interesting comments on Lane from Earl Warren, in Warren's interview by Joe Frantz (available at the LBJ Library at http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/oralhistory.hom/Warren-E/Warren-e.PDF:

BEGIN QUOTE:

F: Were most witnesses disposed to be completely cooperative, or did you have to fight a good number of them?

W: No, we had very, very little trouble of any kind except from one fellow by the name of Mark Lane. And he was the only one that treated the commission with contempt.

F: And still does!

W: He still does, yes. But he was giving lectures, saying that he had people who could put Oswald and Ruby and some big oil men of Texas -- see, he was on the leftist conspiracy theory -- some big oil men of Texas in Ruby's establishment there, entering into this conspiracy. He said he had witnesses to that effect. We called him to the stand, and asked him about it. He said that it was confidential to him and that he would not divulge who the witness was. And so I said to him, "Well, if you can get the consent of your informant, will you do it then?"

And he said, "Yes, I will."

And I said, "All right, if we excuse you will you try to do it, try to get the consent?"

So he said, "Yes," he would, and so we let him go. But he never did. And he went over to Europe and made a series of speeches over there telling the same thing, you see, so we subpoenaed him from Europe, brought him back here. And I'm sorry to say we had to pay his expenses to get him back in this country. [We] put him on the stand again and he still refused, claimed that he was a writer and he had a privilege and so forth. He had no such privilege at all.

First he was a lawyer, and then next he was a writer. He had no such privilege at all. And we could have cited him for contempt, and I'm sure a court would have sustained us because he was really contemptuous, but I knew that if we did we'd be in the courts for a long time and we never could make our report final. So we just put all of this in the report and let it go for what it's worth, don't you see. But it's pure fabrication, there's absolutely nothing to it, nothing corroborative of it. And he never has mentioned to this day, as far as I can find out, the name of any witness who would so testify.

END QUOTE

The transcripts of Lane's testimony to the Warren Commission show Warren getting very hot under the collar at him: "Do you call that cooperation?!"

And this article also tries to use the tape of Lane interrogating Helen Markham to show she described the Tippit shooter as someone other than Oswald. No, the tape in its entirety shows Lane claiming that and trying to coax Markham into going along with it (Jedi mind tricks, it seems) -- and she wouldn't. Transcript can be easily found on John McAdams' website, as linked by previous posters on this thread. (Great website, JM.)

I believe that Lane wouldn't play the tape for the Warren Commission unless they granted him immunity, and on inspecting it I can see why. Vincent Bugliosi liked to play the tape in debates with Lane for the education of the audience, until Lane furiously threatened to sue him for defamation if he did. Bugliosi wondered how playing an unedited tape of Lane's own words could be grounds for a defamation suit. Greg Goebel 70.56.53.105 (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Markhams "identification" is ridiculous, she could not really identifiy Oswald, she had bad feelings ("cold chills"). I mean...

The quote (HSCA Report, Page 424, footnote 16) at the beginning of this disk. section reads, ""Many of the allegations of conspiracy the committee investigated were first raised by Mark Lane". This is untrue. It was not Mark Lane but Joachim Joesten in his 1964 book Assassin or Fall Guy? (besides Thomas Buchanan in Paris) who suspected a conspiracy - like most Americans when Ruby shot Oswald as polls show - months before the WC was completed, and the WC (Rankin) wrote to Joesten to get a copy. The very first one who raised conspiracy claims - more exactly, claims of a "worldwide conspiracy" - was Lyndon B. Johnson, when Kilduff was going to announce the death of JFK, and who knows why he did that. Not to mention the FBI concerning conspiracy thoughts (see R. Andrew Kiel, J. Edgar Hoover. The Father of the Cold War. How His Obsession with Communism Led to the Warren Commission Coverup and Escalation of the Vietnam War, University üpress of America, 2000).

Markham said she had no doubts Oswald was the shooter who killed Tippet. She wasn't very articulate, and at first she said she didn't recognize anyone in the lineup. On questioning, she meant she wasn't personally familiar with them, and when asked if she knew Oswald was the shooter, she replied: "I am certain." I mean, either she recognized him or not, she said she did, and when Mark Lane tried to shove words in her mouth that the shooter didn't look like Oswald, she spat them back out. No more to it than that, don't wanna believe her, nothing more I can say. MrG 70.56.53.105 (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Joesten, Buchanan, Lane et. al. were the "first" ones who suspected a conspiracy not out of hand but on the basis of research. Why this Lane bashing, especially in a personal article? --Thalimed (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Jean Davison quotation

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)

Antiwar activism

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)

"you don't attribute a statement of fact as if it were not"

To follow a more detailed discussion of this matter, please see: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Mark_Lane_.28author.29

I'm not sure what this edit-summary by Xenophrenic is intended to mean, but the fact is that we should normally attribute statements where they contain significant elements of opinion. We should only state things as fact when they are uncontested. That does not mean that we have to have a reliable source contradicting them. We have to show common sense in deciding what is an expresion of opinion by any historian, even hightly respected ones. Paul B (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

If you are not sure what an edit summary is intended to mean, you can always ask. :) I agree with you 100% that "we should normally attribute statements where they contain significant elements of opinion" and "We should only state things as fact when they are uncontested". So far, we are on the same page. Then you said, "That does not mean that we have to have a reliable source contradicting them." Uh, yeah, we do, especially when common sense tells us that (so far) the only "contesting" is coming from Wikipedia editors, instead of reliable sources. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk)

[Partially cross-posted from the discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard.] That edit-summary was given in conjunction with a cite to WP:YESPOV. That part of policy refers to five principles to follow: 1) "Avoid stating opinions as facts." 2) "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." 3) "Avoid presenting uncontested factual assertions as mere opinion." 4) "Prefer nonjudgmental language." 5) "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views." If "the Warren Commission ignored witnesses" is an opinion, it must be attributed. If it is a statement of fact, it is "seriously contested". While it may give too much weight to someone with only high school teaching credentials, I am OK with it's current version attributing the opinion to Kiel. Location (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• If "the Warren Commission ignored witnesses" is an opinion, it must be attributed.

Agreed. It doesn't appear to be an "opinion". Do you have information to the contrary?

• If it is a statement of fact, it is "seriously contested".

Awesome, now we are getting somewhere. Please provide the source(s) and content that "seriously contests" the text we are discussing. I would like to review it. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

First of all, a statement of fact without evidence is not a statement of fact. Does Kiel have evidence that the Warren Commission deliberately disregarded important testimony? Please cite it. I would like to review it. Secondly, any reliable source that indicates that the Warren Commission was acting in good faith would be a contradiction to the statement that they deliberately ignored specific witness testimony. Are you seriously stating that you cannot find any sources who believe that? Location (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Does Kiel have evidence? Why would he make such an assertion without evidence? Have you read the citations on pages 501-2? As for the fallacy that, "any reliable source that indicates that the Warren Commission was acting in good faith would be a contradiction to the statement that they deliberately ignored specific witness testimony" -- that has already been demonstrated to be false. There are a number of reasons why the WC, while still acting in good faith, ignored evidence and testimony, as outlined here. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The current version has it right. A flat statement of fact such as "the Warren Commission ignored witnesses" falls under WP:EXCEPTIONAL and needs multiple, reliable sources if you want to include it without any attribution. In this case, the burden is on the editor who wishes to add the material to show that the statement is so widely considered by multiple reliable sources as fact, that it needs no attribution. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that flat statement being discussed, nor is it in the current version of the article. The actual text under discussion is: "After the Warren Commission Report was published in September 1964, Mark Lane interviewed numerous witnesses who were ignored by the Commission, and then used these interviews..." Do I understand you correctly that there is something "exceptional" about that text? May I ask you to elaborate on what that is? Xenophrenic (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think there is anything particularly terrible about the word ignored, but it does have negative connotations. There is no rule that we have to use the exact words of sources, unless to do so would be to misrepresent them. Likewise there is no reason whatever not to atrtribute the statement. Paul B (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with the word "ignored", but some editors are insisting that "ignored = conspiracy to cover-up", which is nonsense. The sourced wording only conveys that Lane used witnesses the Commission decided not to use, for whatever reasons (not elaborated on in that specific section). I've no problem with using alternative wording that conveys that same meaning. As for reasons to not attribute, the biggest one is that we do not want to wrongly convey factual information as if it were merely opinion. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Xenop, what is your objection to changing "ignored" to "not interviewed"? --108.45.72.196 (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Xenop, I think most people will agree that the phrase "numerous witnesses who were ignored by the Commission" contains a non-ambiguous assertion that the Warren Commission ignored witnesses. It's a very specific claim. It's exceptional because, while it's a notable opinion expressed by Jim Garrison and other conspiracy theorists, it's not considered by multiple sources that Wikipedia considers reliable as fact. I hope that clarifies it for you. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

My objection to "not interviewed" is for the exact reason explained by LuckyLouie: it lacks the non-ambiguous assertion that some witnesses were known, but not used. "Ignored" conveys that the Commission was at least aware of their existence, whereas "not interviewed" does not.

I'm not seeing that some witnesses were consciously "not used" as "an opinion of conspiracy theorists", but rather a widely acknowledged simple fact. Now the conspiracy nuts may try to take that simple fact and attribute sinister intent to it, but that's a different matter entirely. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I disagree. I suppose one could argue that the word "ignored" - taken out of context - has multiple meanings, etc. However in context (an article about a Warren Commission conspiracy theorist) it strongly infers a negative connotation. Which is probably why there's a current consensus of editors to attribute it rather than have the encyclopedia state it as fact. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

If by "negative connotation" you mean it connotes that the Commission didn't avail itself of all witnesses or evidence of which it was aware, then I fully agree. That is indeed negative, but it's not "opinion". Even sources supportive of the WC and its Report conclusions still acknowledge that those conclusions didn't properly reflect the evidence before it, and that "the language employed in the report left the impression that issues had been dealt with more thoroughly than they actually had". Critics like Lane, as I understand it (please keep in mind that most of this is new territory for me), use these failings of the Commission to bolster their theories -- but that does not make the existence of those widely acknowledged deficiencies "opinions" in themselves.

So in a nutshell, what I am asking is: How are you making the leap from the known fact that the WC "consciously decided" not to investigate evidence and witnesses on its own (instead opting to use only what was advanced by the FBI and CIA) to your conclusion (above) that its only "a notable opinion expressed by Jim Garrison and other conspiracy theorists" that the WC did so? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

For fuller context, the HSCA Report states: "The committee found, further, that the Commission consciously decided not to form its own staff of professional investigators, choosing instead to rely on an analysis by its lawyers of the investigative reports of Federal agencies, principally the FBI and CIA." Perhaps they didn't know about certain witnesses then, but it doesn't state that they ignored witnesses. The context that LuckyLouie referred to is also important. One can conclude from the HSCA Report that the Warren Commission made mistakes or was even inept, but Lane wasn't merely asserting those things. Page 248 in Beyond verité. Emile de Antonio and the new documentary of the 70s by Thomas Waugh quotes Emile de Antonio director of the film/documentary version of Rush to Judgment stating that he and Lane intended to take on the FBI and the Warren Commission and "prove that they had lied". Location (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Your interpretation of that fuller context is "perhaps they didn't know about certain witnesses"? Okay, so they "consciously decided" to not know about certain witnesses, if you prefer that wording. I don't see how that differs from "witnesses ignored by the Commission". To your point that "Lane wasn't merely asserting" that the WC made mistakes and was inept, no one is arguing against that point. Lane takes the fact (if the HSCA is reliable) that the WC made mistakes and chose to not independently investigate witnesses and evidence, and then uses it to support his theories. That appears to be at the heart of the confusion here. In the laudable attempt to defend the WC from "fringe" attacks and conspiracy theories, you inadvertantly also toss out widely held factual criticisms. (By the way, Waugh actually quotes Sergei M. Eisenstein Weiner, who then purports to quote Antonio, who said "What I wanted to show...", not that "he and Lane intended to".) Xenophrenic (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess we're at loggerheads on this. The HSCA doesn't state that the Warren Commission ignored witnesses. "Consciously deciding not to form its own staff of professional investigators" is not the same as "ignoring witnesses" or "consciously deciding to not know about certain witnesses". I guess I'm OK with your last edit providing attribution to Kiel. (Reference #11 on page 248, noted on page 258 as"Ibid., p. 8", appears to reference Weiner's 1971 interview with de Antonio; Sergei M. Eisenstein died in 1948. The point here is only that Lane thought the WC lied.) Location (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction; I've struck and replaced the misread name in my comment above, which nonetheless still conveys the very same point. Whether Lane "thought the WC lied" (an assertion not conveyed by the above mentioned sources, by the way) is besides the point. The point here is that witness testimony was indeed "ignored" by the WC, regardless of what Lane thought about the WC's intentions. As indicated in Lane's own words (in an interview linked during the Fringe noticeboard discussion), Lane asserts that the WC was operating under a preconceived conclusion that Oswald did it and acted alone, and ignored, discounted or distorted witness testimony that did not support that conclusion (see page 181). The HSCA concurs that the WC intentionally didn't investigate, and chose to ride with the FBI & CIA investigations instead, but stops short of conjecturing as to the why behind that conscious decision, unlike Lane. There is no disagreement among sources, however, about the conscious decision part. That's why proposed changes of the word "ignored" to "not investigated" or "not inverviewed" is neither accurate nor neutral, because those do not convey the factual "consciously decided not to..." meaning. A known fact doesn't transform into mere opinion just because someone known for opinion and theory cites it as part of his argument, contrary to the "context" reasoning advanced above. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't make the leap from "consciously decided not to form its own staff of professional investigators" to "intentionally didn't investigate" to "ignored witnesses" either, for all the same reasons Location mentioned. But since the section is OK in it's present form as an extended quote, I think we're done here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I had one last MOS-type question: with Kiel's quote being so long, don't we set it apart using "blockquote"? --108.45.72.196 (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm still trying to get a handle on what is considered RS for the assertion of fact here (I'm still learning which names belong to the conspiracy theorist team, and which do not). I assume the select committee report linked above is reliable. Kiel, who is described as an "instructor of American History at the secondary and post-secondary level for twenty years", and has been published by a publisher of academic text books, is presently being examined at WP:RSN due to his lack of notability, and quality concerns regarding his publisher. Can someone here with a better understanding of this subject matter provide some input on the reliability (for assertion of fact, not just opinion) of:

• Dallas Morning News investigative reporter Earl Golz
• Former police detective Mark Fuhrman, author of A Simple Act of Murder
• COPA - "Coalition on Political Assassinations", and related publications
• HSCA - "House Subcommittee on Assassinations", and related reports
• JFK-Lancer

Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

As you know, there is context for the reliability of sources. Last summer I placed a citation to Earl Golz in the article for Gordon Arnold (not the one mentioned below). I wouldn't take everything he has to say as fact. Location (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Kiel

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 [3], but since when is COPA a reliable source of anything? Despite his background as a history teacher [4], Kiel is clearly a JFK conspiracy theorist [5] and we don't use information from conspiracy theorists to build articles about conspiracy theorists. -Location (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

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)

Alternative sourcing

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)

Conspiracy theorist

Applicable to the current activity in the article, plenty of sources refer to Lane as a "conspiracy theorist" (e.g. [6] and [7]). Location (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Claiming that "plenty of sources refer to Lane as a "conspiracy theorist" is an empty argument. Plenty of "sources" refer to Barack Obama as a Muslim. Should we call him that, citing numerous, "reliable" sources? Of course not.

The term "conspiracy theorist" is a pejorative label used to bypass consideration of one's ideas or views. It has no substantive merit. One could say that, technically, the term is accurate in that it describes one who theorizes about a conspiracy. But by that criteria, almost everyone who thinks and reads the news is a conspiracy theorist, rendering the term meaningless.

For example, anyone who's read about the Libor scandal involving big banks rigging interest rates, and who possesses the slightest degree of curiosity, has probably speculated (theorized) about various aspects of that case. Does that make them "conspiracy theorists?" Prosecutors develop theories of their cases that frequently involve conspiracy. Does that make them "conspiracy theorists?"

No, the definition of conspiracy theorist applied to Mark Lane here is not technical. Nor is it neutral. In the modern use of that term, it means someone who believes in certain conspiracies -- those that are deemed by most in society to be "nutty" or "out there." UFOs, Faked Moon landing,etc. And while most of these theories deserve the mockery they receive, one must remember that many theories throughout history that were deemed nutty and out there turned out to be true. The idea that a president would bug his opponent's party's headquarters sounded pretty out there at once point.

Look, this is not about Mark Lane. This is about a principle. Is it Wikipedia's role to brand people with labels that even those people would not attribute to themselves? (If you can cite one occasion where Mark Lane refers to himself as a "conspiracy theorist", then we'll obviously have a whole different situation.) And by whom, and what criteria, is the label assigned. Can we label Dick Cheney a warmongerer? Barack Obama a Muslim? I tell you there is no difference. And to see one is to fail to acknowledge that now, in this time, calling someone a "conspiracy theorist" is absolutely equivalent to calling someone a "crazy conspiracy theorist."

Now, for me personally, I've seen and heard a lot of people for whom that label, in my own estimate, is perfectly applicable. But I'm not Wikipedia. And my personal impressions do not, should not, qualify for the content here.

Wikipedia's function is to cite facts. Mark Lane is a lawyer, author and an American. He could probably add a few more labels that would fit - his religious affiliation, or maybe Yankees fan. I don't know.

But labeling him, or anyone for that matter, a conspiracy theorist, tells us nothing about his life, his actions, or his views. Worse, it makes us stop asking questions.

The best antidote to bad speech, is more speech. You want to discredit Mark Lane, attack his arguments. But calling people names is beneath this site and its purpose. Subjective labels are for politicians and propaganda. Not an encyclopedia. --Laborinvain (talk) 05:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which in turn point to material published in reliable sources, are the primary criteria used to determine whether someone is described as an American, a Muslim, an attorney, an author, or a conspiracy theorist. The term "conspiracy theorist" does have a generally understood context (i.e. one who espouses the generally understood context of conspiracy theory) and as such, it serves as a useful concept in the description of a person. No, it does not by itself tell us all there is to know about a person's life, actions, or views, but neither do the terms "American", "Muslim", "attorney", or "author" by themselves.

I agree that this issue is not unique to Mark Lane. It has been discussed in various forums and consensus seems to support the usage of the term where supported by WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, etc. If you wish to obtain further input on this, an Rfc can be opened in WP:NPOVN, the Village Pump, or some other appropriate place. Location (talk) 10:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Source citation must be faithful to the source

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)

Intro needs to foretell/summarize what article is about

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)

Why are Bugliosi and Kiel books identified separately as Sources but not shown other than by author last name in the Reference section?

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)

Kennedy assassination

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)

Merge?

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)

I have redirected the article here. - Location (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Rush to Judgement published before 1990 in at least one Eastern block country

I have the 1967 Romanian edition of Rush to Judgement (translated title is "O judecata pripita"), so the phrase about the book not being published before 1990 in countries behind the Iron Curtain is clearly wrong. You can see the book for sale in many Romanian auction sites (e-bay like), eg. http://www.okazii.ro/cautare/o+judecata+pripita.html?autoc=write

Birth place

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mark Lane (author). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Not true Rushed Judgment not published behind Iron Curtain before 1990

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Lane's Testimony to the WC

In the article it says this: "Lane testified that he had contacted witness Helen Markham sometime within the five days preceding his appearance before the Commission and that she had described Tippit's killer to him as "short, a little on the heavy side, and his hair was somewhat bushy".[17] He added, "I think it is fair to state that an accurate description of Oswald would be average height, quite slender with thin and receding hair."[17]

In addressing the assertion that Markham's description of Tippit's killer was not consistent with the appearance of Oswald, the Warren Commission stated that they had reviewed the telephone transcript in which she was alleged to have made it.[18][19] The Commission wrote: "A review of the complete transcript has satisfied the Commission that Mrs. Markham strongly reaffirmed her positive identification of Oswald and denied having described the killer as short, stocky and having bushy hair."[20]''"

That leaves out just why Ms. Markham supposedly described him that way to Lane: Lane was putting words in her mouth. If you read the transcript of the conversation, that's clearly where he was leading her. He asked for immunity from prosecution before he would play the tape of him talking to Markham to the WC.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Rja13ww33: Agreed. I added that second paragraph with this edit over three years ago to balance the typically cherry-picking that conspiracy theorists are accustomed to doing. A few sources have criticized Lane for his methods (e.g. Sid Moody), but I probably didn't find one that addressed that specific example. Lane claimed a lot of things in his testimony to the Warren Commission, so in my opinion this all should go since it is cited to primary source material. -Location (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I did find that John McAdams wrote: "Lane, in fact, engaged in a heroic feat of manipulation to get Markham to say anything even remotely resembling that, and even then had to serious misrepresent what Markham said." p.175 -Location (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Here is a source that addresses Mark Lane's interview of Helen Markham:

Richard Warren Lewis, The Scavengers and Critics of the Warren Report. Based on an investigation by Lawrence Schiller. New York, Dell Publishing. 1967. pp. 52-4. "In truth, no one was more guilty of leading witnesses than Lane himself. One of many examples concerns a witness to the killing of Officer J. D. Tippit." (Lewis 1967: 52). Excerpts from the interview follow. The first chapter of the book is devoted to Lane's work on the Kennedy assassination. Jpgarry (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Notable works

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)

The Silent Slaughter

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)