Talk:Eugene Hasenfus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if 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
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This gives the impression Hasenfus was new to the CIA. Hasenfus had flown for Air America in Vietnam and had worked with the CIA operatives on the plane for many years. He may well have also been a construction worker, but this article seems to portray him as a hapless dupe in the situation. He was not.

[edit] Note on categories

Whomever decided to offer their opinion on my father, Eugene Hasenfus, being a criminal WILL BE liable to libel charges. Eugene Hasenfus was a dedicated American soldier and operative for the CIA. His operational responsibilities overseas did not fall into the "White Ops" category in the Agency, but rather he was involved with "Black Ops" which 10 times out of 10 means that whatever the Agency is doing is illegal somewhere, but vital to the US's National Security. If you choose to think of Eugene Hasenfus as a criminal, then consider also many leaders of MY country, who were heavily involved in the CIA, to be crininals as well.

Adam Hasenfus 69.23.97.106 (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Somebody put him in the category over a year ago The conviction is well sourced. John celona (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Especially Egregious Mis-Categorization

The poor fellow deserves better. Eugene Hasenfus is exactly the paradigm of a person who should not be included in the American Criminals category. He's notable for his involvement in Iran-Contra. His later troubles with the law are not notable and any categorization violates WP:BLP because it amounts to WP:Undue Weight. Shameful. David in DC (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If they weren't notable they wouldn't have been reported in major media. Stop edit warring on cases that non-involved users legitimately put in this category years ago. John celona (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"If they weren't notable they wouldn't have been reported in major media." Yup, there's the problem, in a nutshell. No concern for WP:BLP nor WP:WEIGHT, no exercise of discretion, no reflection. Just about the opposite of EDITING. David in DC (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)