Talk:Mary Pinchot Meyer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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]

[edit] cleanup

Most of this looks more or less supported, however it's still a mess and needs lots of cleanup, citing and some growth. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned up, grown and thoroughly sourced. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

But... scanning the sources further this is still incomplete and there are some little mistakes here and there. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the sources sometimes contradict themselves but the article now gives a more or less helpful overview and mix of their pith. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The article reads like something written by a JFK assassination conspiracy nut.---5 June 2008 Susan Nunes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.228.61.202 (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] KGB

I am wondering why the link to www.scientiapress.com/findings/kgbmeyer.html has been removed. In an otherwise inexplicable case, it offers an explanation of great potential value to readers. They are old enough to judge that value for themselves. My background as a State Department intelligence analyst would seem to provide a reasonable level of credibility. Kenneth J. Dillon Kjdillon (talk) 06:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

My thinking on this: Although the publication otherwise seems ok, the article itself is all unsupported hearsay, rumour and speculation and doesn't seem to meet WP:RS or WP:Notability. If you're the author, you might want to have a look at WP:COI (though I bring that up only because you have re-added the link a few times). Either way, I wouldn't believe anything someone from CIA told me unless it was along the lines of "there are some things we don't talk about, you know." If this line of thinking ever does get picked up more widely in published sources I'd be all for putting it in the article but for now it doesn't seem helpful to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it is a question of background. I knew the CIA officer who told me this information unusually well, and I was familiar with quite a few other people in CIA as well as with how CIA handles information. As for the analysis in my article, it is standard detective work that intelligence analysts regularly do (I was a Department of State intelligence analyst). I am an academic historian and have a good deal of experience in dealing with such problems in history and science. Recently I published a book on how to do this kind of analysis. And, more important than my background, it is hard to imagine a reader of the Wikipedia article who would not also want to have an opportunity to read my article, regardless of whether he or she accepted my conclusion. That's why many, many readers have clicked the link and gone on to read other related articles in www.scientiapress.com. So the issue becomes one of how Wikipedia can best serve its readers. By providing a link, Wikipedia is not vouching for all the information it might contain; Wikipedia is simply being helpful to readers by letting them know about related information. Kenneth J. Dillon Kjdillon (talk)