Talk:Charles Lane (journalist)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 15:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

'Rediscovering Judaism'

Lane wrote an article in 1999 about 'Rediscovering Judaism':

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/1999/12/Rediscovering-Judaism.aspx

I think mentioning his Jewish faith in his biography therefore complies with the WP:BLP requirement that:

"Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources".

Given his faith was the subject of an article published about him, it meets the requirement of being "relevant to their public life".

Given Beliefnet.com has a huge readership and professional management:

http://www.beliefnet.com/About-Us/Management.aspx

the article meets the requirement of being a "reliable published source".

And given Lane identified his religion as Jewish, it meets the requirement that "the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief ... in question"

The source is a primary one, but meets the requirements for using one:

primary

A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.

A description of his faith is a straightforward, descriptive statement, that any educated person, with access to the source and without specialist knowledge could verify is supported by the source.

If there are no objections, I'd like to include this in his biography, perhaps in a new 'Personal Life' section or a new infobox. --Cincinatis2 (talk) 08:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

He wrote a fairly brief article 12 years ago on a religion site about rediscovering Judaism. Given that he has had literally hundreds of thousands of his words published, why would one think this particular article would notable for his very brief biography? Do any reliable secondary sources comment about this? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

What categorizes it as "fairly brief"? It was a two page article, and the subject of the entire article was his being Jewish and rediscovering his faith. It was notable in that it's a published piece about some aspect of his life.

why would one think this particular article would notable for his very brief biography

His article has three sections, besides Notes and External Links, so I wouldn't describe it as very brief. Perhaps we could get a third person to weigh in? Biographical information like his Nationality (American) and Occupation (journalist) is already included, and I would like to add what he's Known For (The New Republic editor, Washington Post), his Religion (Judaism) and if possible, Age (~51). His nationality seems to be no more notable than his religion, and it's included, so I don't see mentioning his religion as out of place.

I haven't seen any reliable secondary sources comment on this. I could look for one though, if the general opinion is that this is too brief or not notable.

Since there are a few points where our subjective opinions differ, I would recommend asking if another party could provide their input. I'm OK with any Wikipedia editor/administrator with an established record doing so. --Cincinatis2 (talk) 12:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

His 12 year old article is 1,000 words, which is fairly long for an email, but fairly brief for an article. This biography is just over 400 words, which is even more brief. He's known for his professional career, because that's all reliable secondary sources ever seem to comment on, not his religion, about which no reliable secondary sources seem to comment. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I commonly see articles that are much shorter than his, which is why it doesn't immediately strike me as brief, and many biographies on Wikipedia much shorter than Lane's which is why I don't agree that it's "very brief". Do you have any responses to my other specific questions, points, (for example my point that his nationality is not any more notable than his religion, yet included) and do you think we should get the input of another party? --Cincinatis2 (talk) 09:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

All biographies list nationality - see WP:OPENPARA. The fact that some biographies are shorter than this is not particularly relevant; I could as easily point out that it is very brief compared to E. H. Carr and Solomon Burke, which (as of today) are both over 220k. Regarding specific questions, a) Have you found any reliable secondary sources that comment on his religion, and b) Why are you using a new account? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Valid point on nationality.

The fact that some biographies are shorter than this is not particularly relevant

I commonly see biographies that are much shorter than Lane's. I think that's relevant. Perhaps we could get a third party to provide input on whether Lane's article could be described as 'very brief'.

Have you found any reliable secondary sources that comment on his religion

I want to establish whether it's necessary before spending time finding a secondary source.

Why are you using a new account?

I forgot my password for my old account. --Cincinatis2 (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

You want a third party to comment on a comment I made about whether or not this biography is "very brief" compared to a 220k biography? Those biographies are 4500 percent larger than this one. I get the impression you're not being serious. Please find reliable secondary sources that comment on Lane's religion, we'll start from there. If they don't exist, then this discussion is moot. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I do not want a party to comment on whether this biography is "very brief" compared to a 220K biography, I want them to comment on whether it is very brief in general. A 220K word biography is not typical and can't be used as the standard for a normal biography. These seemingly simple points that you misinterpret is why I'd like a third party to provide their input. If there is a general agreement that the article is "very brief" and that the article about Lane's religion is not notable, I will look for a secondary source. --Cincinatis2 (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I never said it was "very brief" in general though, only "very brief" in comparison to a 220k biography, so why would you want third party comment on that? I said it was "fairly brief" in general. "Fairly" and "very" have significantly different meanings. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You said "very brief" in general. Look at your first comment on it:

why would one think this particular article would notable for his very brief biography

This is why I suggest a third party. We can't even get something as simple as this straight. --Cincinatis2 (talk) 06:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You can do what you like, but I suggest a more useful way of spending your time would be to add actually notable information to the biography that has been mentioned in reliable secondary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I would be happy to find more secondary sources if I can get any more requests from other administrators. In the meantime, I'll see if any experienced admins are willing to review this. --Cincinatis2 (talk) 05:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Charles Lane (journalist). 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/20070927002425/http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/contributors.html to http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/contributors.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. 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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 09:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Charles Lane article inaccuracies, major and minor

Dear Editors, I'm new to this, so please excuse any mistakes in format or procedure, but . . . For several years now I have been meaning to seek correction to the many inaccuracies in my Wikipedia page, some (but not all!) of which cast me in an unfavorable light. I sincerely hope someone will notice this and take action, because it's really quite unfair and though I've let it ride for a while, fearing the hassle factor of trying to fix it, I thought it would be worth a try. Here goes:

1. In the first paragraph, it mistakenly reports that I covered the Supreme Court for the Washington Post from 2000 to 2009. Actually, it was 2000 to 2007 (as the article itself implies in a later reference to may rejoining the Post editorial board in 2007). Also, it is debatable whether I "oversaw, in large part," the work of Stephen Glass, the famous fabricator. I became editor in late 1997, by which point about 2/3 of his pieces for TNR had already been published. I was the one who busted him in May of 1998.
2. My reporting about the former Yugoslavia was not featured in the book "Crimes of War." Rather, it was reporting from El Salvador. I note that there is no citation for this claim in the Wikipedia article.
3. It is not true that after I fired Stephen Glass for journalistic fraud, Martin Peretz "fired Lane, complaining that Lane should have discovered the Glass' (sic) fraud sooner." To the contrary, Mr. Peretz and others praised my conduct in that episode, and I continued as editor for another year. My departure from the editorship occurred in late September 1999 for unrelated reasons; I took another position at TNR for a brief time and my departure from the magazine came in January 2000. All of this is a matter of public record. Mr. Peretz never said, publicly or privately, that I had ignored obvious warning signs of the fraud much less "sullied the good name of the New Republic." Note that the purported footnote 13 for this false information is a busted link.
4. The "Controversies" section is tendentious and out of date. I did not "belittle" Angel Raich, though I admit that is a subjective matter. What is objectively true, however, is that The Post printed no "correction and clarification" to my article on medical marijuana. Rather, I added a clarificatoin at my own initiative, after receiving a request from Ms. Raich. See: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/10/medical_marijuana_is_an_insult.html
5. I made no "disparaging comments" about overweight or obese people in a 2010 article about food insecurity. The article appeared in November 2009 and it was a balanced critique of a USDA study. Judge for yourself: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/11/are_americans_really_food_inse.html

Please correct the record as you see fit. SuzukaBlue (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi SuzukaBlue, I have formatted your comment so that the numbering appears and will take a look at some of the requests. Looks like #1 has been changed and #2 has been removed from what I can tell. For #3, do you have a reference? For #4, I have updated the information. For 5, I removed the clarifier "disparaging". Any additional comments are welcome; please remove the "|P" in {{request edit}} at the top of this section to reopen the request for someone to review. Spencer^T•C 03:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Spencer,

Belatedly replying to thank you and to tell you that all is still not well with my Wikipedia page.

It still says I covered the Supreme Court until 2009.

As for point 3, I can't supply you with a reference except to say that I was personally involved in these events -- I mean, I was the guy who lost his job as editor -- and none of what the article says occurred. It's just flat fabrication. Note -- again -- that the one footnote for all of this (fn 13) is a busted link. Seems odd that I need to supply a reference to refute claims that are themselves not documented!

On a slightly more subjective note, I question the fairness of a Wikipedia article dominated by negative assessments of a couple of articles I wrote more than a decade ago. No doubt I've written a lot of stuff, and some of it sucked -- but not all! Would be nice to have a more balanced and updated assessment.

But, to repeat, my main complaint is the outright falsehoods about Marty Peretz's allegedly blaming me for the Glass scandal. That's just not true. And it's been up on this page, uncorrected, for years.

Thanks for your consideration.

Chuck Lane 216.164.61.233 (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

This page about me is highly inaccurate. The worst part suggests that Martin Peretz publicly declared that I had failed to root out Stephen Glass's frauds at the New Republic and that he fired me because of this. This is totally false. It never happened, and the footnote in the article that purportedly documents this assertion is a busted link. Additionally, the "controversies" section refers to outdated events, the most recent of which is ten years old, and describes them in a totally one-sided manner. I have tried to edit this myself in the last couple of days -- after tolerating it for many years -- but the edits keep getting reverted. I hope someone will take an interest in accurately revising this article which is obviously being maintained in bad faith and with little regard for facts and fairness. Many thanks for listening.SuzukaBlue (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

The merit of these complaints aside, the subject of the article himself-- nor should nobody associated with him-- do a wholesale deletion of content on his own Wikipedia page. Consideration of his complaints should be left to disinterested editors and contributors. Cathradgenations (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

No, the subject does have the right to remove unsourced or poorly sourced material under WP:BLPEDIT. If the cited source does not verify the assertion, it is poorly sourced. When you re-add disputed material as you did here[1], you must ensure that it complies with all policies per WP:BLPUNDEL which it did not. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. In addition, it's a small point, but I added in a reference to my Pulitzer Prize finalist award, with accompanying footnote, and it was removed. Another small point is that my degree from Yale is misstated in the sidebar as "MLS" when it is "MSL" (Master of Studies in Law). SuzukaBlue (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)