Talk:David Lifton

Feinman Debate

I removed the entire section on the Feinman debate simply because it reads like a high school name calling rant and because it's far from the accepted (or even Wikipedia) standard of academic writing. If someone can briefly summarize this "criticism" (which, btw, reads like an indictment of Feinman rather than criticism of Lifton), then please re-add it. However, I encourage whoever does this to keep it framed as criticism (else, place it under a different heading) and to keep it neutral (without quasi-libelous content). Thanks! 99th Percentile (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I noticed the "high school name calling rant" seemed to come from one editor[1]. I have reverted the article back to the revision as of 18:19, 25 August 2011 by Rjwilmsi and cleaned it up from there. If there is anything that can be referenced in that old version anyone can follow the link above to get it back. Noaccountaccount (talk) 14:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

--- The Feinman stuff is absurdly unfair to Lifton. As early as 1966 he was fixed on his "body alteration" theory. I know because at the 1993 Chicago Symposium (http://www.assassinationweb.com/p3.htm) he played a tape of a phone conversation between himself and Commander Humes where he was fixated on the "surgery to the head area" business (a key component of his body alteration theory). I was there and heard it. In fact the Marquette library has the tape of the presentation. This whole section needs to be omitted, since it just smears Lifton.

BTW, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and entirely disagree with Lifton's theory. But a smear is a smear. -- John McAdams — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcadams1 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed the Feinman portion as it had no source and, therefore, should not have been in the biography per the rules re contentious materials: All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramcduff (talk • contribs) 05:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

How many times can people repeat Feynman's name and not spell it right even once? JohndanR (talk) 01:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Horrid writing

The numerous grammatical errors may be what this subject deserves, but they aren't what Wikipedia readers deserve. -- 70.109.45.74 (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Major changes

User:MartinEden5, please use this page to discuss major changes in the content or formatting of the article. Your recent edits have removed many legitimate references and you have reverted without any explanation in the edit summary. Thanks! Location (talk) 07:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Best Evidence

Per this edit: I removed the 2nd paragraph because its claims as to where "Part of Lifton's theory comes from" is totally unreferenced and because it is a critique of primary source material, not a review of the topic in question, a secondary source book (Best Evidence). I also removed the 4th paragraph because it is not about the book at all, material being generated after the book was published. Noaccountaccount (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

May 15, 2012

• Regarding one of your recent edits, that is the one you made to David Lifton, it did appear to be a particularly large removal of material, and although you wrote an excellent Edit Summary, it was reverted on the advice of a"bot". I have undone that revision and reinstated your editing.

• May I refer you to the welcome page to learn more about contributing this encyclopedia. Your edit can be found in The History here.

• If I can be of assistance from now on, please do not hesitate in contacting me, either on my Talk page, or via the Wikipedia E-mail system.

• Please accept my apologies, and, for my part, I blame it on that damn "bot" and Wikipedia:Igloo|iGLOO]].

Good editing! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Book summary needed

The gaping hole in the wikipedia entry is that there is no book summary that gives the essential thesis of the book. You can't even tell the book's central thesis from reading this entry (you would think it is about casket switching and the like, which is a minor part of the book and flows from the central thesis and not visa versa). I have been working on one and had planned to post it in the next few days. In the meantime, I noticed that a man presumed to be Mr. Lifton tried to fix that hole last night but didn't provide cites and it was removed. If his material had cites would it have been allowed to remain? Or is there a presumption that if it is coming from the author that it won't have a neutral point of view by definition? I just feel a little silly, on some level, summarizing his work when he has already done it (though probably at a length greater than necessary). Therefore, instead of writing a wholly new summary, is it legit to edit his, add cites? I am new to editing here, but decided to learn for the purpose of creating a summary and a more balanced entry. Before I post, any advice or help articles anyone things I should read, please let me know.Ramcduff (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

MartinEden5 has posted information indicating that he is David Lifton [2] and that he is "closely associated" with Lifton [3]. Conflict of interest (see WP:COI) issues aside, his recent edit removed appropriately cited material in exchange for information that was not cited at all. If you wish to restore the information, please make sure you have citations that are in line with Wikipedia's rules regarding verifiability (see WP:V) and reliable sources (see WP:RS and WP:RSN). Alternatively, you could post your write-up and sources here on this talk page and we can help you with it. Location (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there some reason that I couldn't just post it on the main page, assuming that I do cites for everything as per the guidelines? (And thanks for cleaning up my stuff...I'm just learning, and I am getting it as I go. I saw the changes you made to how I did the footnotes and will follow that as a template.) My general plan is to insert the summary as a subsection to the Best Evidence general category. I will move the middle paragraph of that section into the summary and leave the other two paragraphs as is before the summary.Ramcduff (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Template:Cite book, Template:Cite news, and Template:Cite journal are the citation templates I typically use. Location (talk) 22:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Reception

Ramcduff, regarding your recent edit, are you able to provide a bit more information for the following statements?

Though panned by many for the conclusions, the individual facts on which the theory stands withstood the intense scrutiny of the publisher and even those who considered the claim beyond the pale.[9][2]

I don't believe that it can be stated as fact that "the individual facts on which the theory stands withstood the intense scrutiny of the publisher", particularly given one source's criticism of Macmillan. I think we need in-text attribution for the claim, so do you think you could provide some quotes or context from the new source? Thanks! Location (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

My opinion

I think the article is remarkably good. It may be defective in several ways, but I read Lifton's book when it came out, and the questions he raised have all remain to my mind un-refuted, which this article portrays correctly. (But, there is no question that Zapruder frame 313 depicts a shot from the rear.) ( Martin | talk • contribs 03:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC))