Talk:Steven Hatfill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri.

[edit] Confession

'In reality, the anthrax attacks were engineered by the CIA to further terrify the civilian population, and thus gain greater control over them. This being done to further the agenda of the New World Order. Trust me, I work for them' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.100.81.48 (talk • contribs). 09:56, 9 February 2006

Interesting confession, thanks for the inside scoop :)

well, someone here will not be employee of the month if you ask me...

[edit] External Links

These links seem rather unbalanced and unhelpful. This section needs more attention. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.124.84.133 (talk • contribs). 21:52, 27 March 2006

I have started properly formatting some of the newspaper articles. There are also some links to personal blogs that I'm not sure should be included, but those are arguably the only ones supportive of Dr. Hatfill. I'm concerned that removing them would make the article less WP:NPOV, but leaving them conflicts with WP:V and WP:RS. Any thoughts? --Satori Son 21:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

External links are not "sources". If they are sources, they should be listed as references. But it is a problem when the selection of further reading reflects a strong bias. Mirror Vax 23:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem, most of them are sources, and some probably shouldn't be included at all. Have you had a chance to review them? I have moved some to a "references" section, but would appreciate some help in evaluating the others. --Satori Son 23:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we aren't speaking the same language. To me, a "source" is information that the article is based on. Mirror Vax 16:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Have you had a chance to look at the article? Thanks, Satori Son 18:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The following link has a false date: "Burger, Marlene, "Murky past of a US bio-warrior", Mail & Guardian, January 1, 2002 (URL retrieved September 11, 2006)."

If one goes to the article, the Mail & Guardian page is in fact marked "January 1, 2002." However, the date is nevertheless false. As of January 1, 2002, Hatfill had not achieved any notoriety related to the anthrax case, and the article refers to events that occurred in August and September, 2002. My hunch is that the year is accidentally off by one year.