Talk:Steven Hatfill

message: These links seem rather unbalanced and unhelpful. This section needs more attention. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: These edits are heavy on speculation and hearsay. Please stick to hard facts. Mirror Vax 05:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Valerius Tygart]] edits 

message: Can someone explain to me why this article seems bombarded with "(sic)"s or I'll remove them. Kinggimble 18:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't make any sense to me either. Those should only be used in verbatim quotations in which there's an obvious error. They just seem to be used almost randomly in this article.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (sic) use 

message: Most of the verbs are out of date.  68.101.130.214 (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update with past-tense verbs 

message: It seems to me that Steven Hatfill is another example of Trial by media, about which there is already an entry in Wikipedia, and should link to it.
In Trial by media, someone's reputation is besmirched when the media labels him the prime suspect, sometimes falsely.  The Wikipedia page on Richard Jewell already links to the Trial by Media page as an example of it.  So should the Hatfill page, I think.  Right now, the Jewell page links to the Trial by Media page, and the Trial by Media page links to the Hatfill page, but none of the reverse links are there.  So oddly the Jewell page considers itself to be Trial by Media, but Trial by Media chooses Hatfill as its own example.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.239.7 (talk) 02:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I put something in the intro sentence, but it could/should obviously be improved. There's an excellent article in this month's Atlantic Monthly documented the hell this man went through at the hands of an out-of-control federal government and its lapdog media. Hanxu9 (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Trial by media" discussion 

message: With regards to this discussion, the issue is if a party has been found to be not be liable legally for their actions, does the party still have an ethical responsibility to make things right? This is in the context of the party being a media entity that has contributed to the destruction of a person's public image.
I believe The New York Times should be penalised for their role in this case. I like the NYT and I like Nicholas Kristof's columns generally but when someone screws up, the most honourable thing to do is to admit it and make proper amends. The fact that the NYT won in court is irrelevant to what is proper ethical behaviour. I believe the context of why Hatfill was doing certain things (for example, why he was on Cipro) should have been provided to the readers. But it is obvious that when people in the media makes up their mind, the way they report about a subject is not even close to any personal ethical standards, not close to any journalistic standards, and definitely not close to any kind of rigourous scientific standards (look a bit more for the reason why something might have happened instead of just stopping when you find what you want to find; in other words, try to be self critical and disprove a favoured hypothesis). This includes the NYT and of course Nicholas Kristof who is writing an OpEd, not just reporting the news.  If you are right, then it becomes all okay and justifiable (even though I still think it's not the right way of doing things and there should be more self criticalness). But when you are wrong, then you need to correct the consequences of your actions. In this case, the NYT and Kristof in part had a role in destroying Hatfill's life. Even if it was by accident and did not intend malice (which I agree with), it's still a mistake. If you kill someone by accident do you not face the consequences? 
I say "shame on the NYT and Kristof" for this particular incident. Overall I feel the NYT and Kristof have done a lot of good. But this is a black mark on their records.
And look at what Hatfill is planning to do with his settlement and other money he got as a result of this.. he's planning to help poor people in South America, try to discover new drugs and leads, and if he does discover anything, that they would be given to developing countries at cost. The NYT and Kristof should be donating money to support this effort! 
Ram Samudrala (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: The New York Times case

message: Most of the content of this 'biography' is about the extent of Hatfill's involvement (or not) in the anthrax attacks. I submit that much of the content below "anthrax attacks" belongs in 2001 anthrax attacks. Prime example: the lengthy section 'Rosenberg theory' teaches us nothing about Hatfill.  Twang (talk) 08:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, if it wasn't for "the Rosenberg theory," there wouldn't be any need to have any kind of biography about Dr. Hatfill on Wikipedia.  It was Rosenberg's theory that brought Dr. Hatfill the notoriety and ruination that resulted in the lawsuits, etc.  She started it all.  No one ever heard of Dr. Hatfill before Dr. Rosenberg started pointing the finger at him.   EdLake (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Dr. Hatfill was the victim of a "lynch mob" organized and led by Dr. Rosenberg.  It's the MOST IMPORTANT part of his biography.  It's the only reason to have a biography of him.  If or when Dr. Hatfill writes his own autobiography, it will undoubtedly be mainly about how he was fingered as being the anthrax killer - even though it was totally innocent.  EdLake (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The ultimate result was an undisclosed settlement by the New York Times.
As far as I know, the entire lawsuit against the New York Times was dismissed on the basis that Dr. Hatfill was a "public figure" and he had not proved malice on the part of The New York Times.  There was no settlement.  I'll research it when I get some free time. EdLake (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Much of the content is not biographic 

message: David Willman has just written a great book "The Mirage Man: Bruce Ivins, the Anthrax Attacks and America's Rush to War."  This book is very well researched with supporting documentation included. I was working extremely hard when this anthrax attack was being investigated and never had time to read the press coverage. After reading this book, all I can say is that I really feel for Hatfill. Yes, I know he lied on his resume, etc. but his life was destroyed and no amount of money can compensate for this-after all we each only have one life. The book goes into great detail about press coverage of him as well as the fixation on Hatfill from the get go despite the fact that he was a "virus" guy and not "bacteria" and did not have the skills or access to equipment to  manufacture the anthrax in the letters. Mueller comes off particularly badly. His top down micromanagement of the investigation, as well as his inability to accept facts which might indicate Hatfill couldn't have been the perp, combined to lead the FBI on an extremely expensive wild goose chase which destroyed Hatfill. The resources devoted to Hatfill were wasted. The only "good" thing is that Ivins didn't strike again, so the FBI's persecution of Hatfill didn't result in more deaths. FrancisDane (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the Talk Page for this article, not a book-review column.  What point are you trying to make for the improvement of the article? HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Mirage Man 

message: The article has two different numbers for the settlement he received from the government. In the introduction and the section on the lawsuit it says he received a $4.6 million settlement, but in the sections titled Person of Interest and Post settlement life, it says 5.8 million. The cited article says that Hatfill received $5.8 million, including an annuity paid by the government., Scientist Is Paid Millions by U.S. in Anthrax Suit, New York Times, June 28, 2008 The annuity and lump sum payment cost the government $4.6 million. I'm not sure the clearest way to make this distinction in the article, but the current version which lists both numbers without explanation needs revision .Steve Marethyu (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some text to mention it's a $4.6 m annuity totaling $5.8 m. MartinezMD (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government settlement 

message: I have placed the NPOV tag in this article because in  the subject disputes some of the claims, apparent biases, and reliability of some sources cited. The communication is rather lengthy. When I get some time I will go through it and raise points for discussion. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Steven Hatfill. 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/20110125232629/http://www.aolnews.com/2010/02/25/some-doubt-fbi-findings-that-scientist-sent-anthrax-letters/ to http://www.aolnews.com/2010/02/25/some-doubt-fbi-findings-that-scientist-sent-anthrax-letters/
*Added  tag to https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Anthrax-Scientist.html?hp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Steven Hatfill. 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  tag to http://www.harriswiltshire.com/whoweare.aspx?menu=1&seccionIzq=52&seccionIzqImage=55&seccionCen=53&seccionDer=54Thomas
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607011258/http://dir.salon.com/story/politics/feature/2002/06/21/rosenberg/index.html to http://dir.salon.com/story/politics/feature/2002/06/21/rosenberg/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070207055759/http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2007/01/more_on_state_secrets_and_the.html to http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2007/01/more_on_state_secrets_and_the.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060428004339/http://www.mg.co.za/articledirect.aspx?area=mg_flat&articleid=7349 to http://www.mg.co.za/articledirect.aspx?area=mg_flat&articleid=7349
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The section does not appear to be neutral to me. Only the editor originally adding to this section and I have discussed it and have conflicting views. Since this involves WP:BLP, I would appreciate the opinion and input of uninvolved editors. Thank you. MartinezMD (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Relevant section … … source supposedly supporting … … Second source used
*Comment The issue is not whether this text is not neutral, nor whether it offends BLP, nor whether 'Real Clear' or 'Epoch' are WP:RS, none of which need concern us very much. The central issue is that this text is blatant WP:OR based on two primary sources. The whole text is the opinion of the inserting editor, using the sources to 'prove' his case. Hatfill may be the most loathsome pseudoscientific fraudster on the planet for all I know, but the sources do not say that, though the WP editor does his best to argue it. There are other points in the article where 'editorialising', rather than reporting of sources appears to happen, but these sources  do not begin to support this text.Pincrete (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC about the 2020s section

message: Hatfill seems to be back in the news concerning the  Congressional investigation into the U.S. response to COVID-19. He seems to have been an unofficial White House adviser. Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added this info. He was an "unpaid volunteer advisor" to Peter Navarro, but from emails it appears that he was taking quite an influential position, communicating regularly with top administration officials and outside medical companies. I decided not to include the speculation that they listed him as an "unpaid volunteer" so as to avoid the usual conflict of interest and ethics vetting for someone officially on staff. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: New sources?

message: After saying that he was exonerated, it is written that Ivins was determined by the FBI as the sole perpetrator, but he commit suicide before charges could be brought and there was later extreme doubt of his guilt, so I think there should be some sort of follow-up, such as “although his guilt was never proven”  JackSitilides (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other suspect