Talk:Annie Dookhan

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus, not moved DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Annie Dookhan → Massachusetts drug lab tampering case – According to our guideline on biographical notability, those notable for one event (WP:ONEEVENT) probably don't merit a biographical article. Instead, this article should focus on the incident Dookhan was involved in, the details and the aftermath of the case, rather than the life of Dookhan herself. I think this is a potential WP:FA and I'd like to help get it there, but I don't think it can be an outstanding article if it's just a Dookhan biography. The real issues of this case are out of scope for a biography. I'm happy to support any other suggested title—this is one possibility. Designate (talk) 02:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Hard to say, and WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E are a bit contradictory. Under BLP1E, she is covered only in the context of this event, I'm not sure whether she counts as low-profile (how has this been applied to other criminals?), but the third point is definitely not met. BIO1E, however, says the rule of thumb that it's better to cover the event rather than the person. Personally, I think this article makes more sense on a criminal biography than on an event consisting almost entirely of one person's actions and others' reactions to that. But I'm happy to defer to consensus if others disagree. --BDD (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This wasn't one specific case; this was many many cases over a long period of time, so this isn't "1 event."  BLP1E is more designed so that single bad acts / gossipy incidents / victims don't necessarily get an article; that doesn't really apply here, and see BDD that there's significant coverage.  That said, if you feel there are "real issues out of scope for a biography," please feel free to create a spinoff article?  I'd be kinda surprised if it's really that out of scope, though, I think a long "Aftermath" section that covered the legal ramifications would still be entirely merited in the Annie Dookhan article, too. SnowFire (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. AFAICS, there are 4 strands to this topic:
 * The person (Dookhan), who did the drug tampering
 * The act of the tampering
 * The managerial flaws in the lab which allowed the tampering to continue
 * The consequences of the tampering for the criminal justice system
 * The current article has little about the person; it is about the next 3 points. Those would be better covered in article whose title is focused on the scandal, rather than an article whose title focuses on only one of the four strands.
 * (BTW, I am not so sure that "tampering" is the right word here. I will support it unless there is a better alternative, but it seems to me that the issues here go way beyond tampering.  -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I don't see why those three things aren't relevant to Dookhan, too? Especially the second, as it's something Dookhan did, aka exactly the sort of information that always goes in biographies.  (not really sure the difference between the first & second - if the first just means "biographical details, birth dates", well, things someone did are more important than background anyway.)  Even if this is split into two articles, I'd argue that all of those last 3 points are relevant to the Dookhan article as well, and should be mentioned in some fashion.
 * Also, in nitpicking, if the article is moved or a spin-off article created, I'd suggest "Annie Dookhan drug tampering cases", or at least pluralizing 'case' in "Massachusetts drug lab tampering cases". As far as I know, there's no evidence that anyone else at the lab performed this fraud (even if they "allowed it"), so Wikipedia should cast as narrow an accusation as possible, and regardless, there were multiple cases - this wasn't one specific act of tampering, it was many. SnowFire (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So far, we don't have enough material for 2 articles. That may change, but at this point a split is unwarranted. But the crucial point here is that a) there is little to say about the rest of Dookhan's life she is notable only for this one set of actions); b) the story is much much bigger than Dookhan's acts, because the consequences involve reopening thousands of cases.  All the relevant facts about Dookhan can be included in an article on the case, but the details of the huge impact of those do not properly belong in a biography. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Annie Dookhan. 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/20131230235708/http://bigstory.ap.org/article/guilty-plea-expected-mass-drug-lab-scandal to http://bigstory.ap.org/article/guilty-plea-expected-mass-drug-lab-scandal

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

news 2017
Massachusetts prosecutors are expected shortly to move to vacate the vast majority of the tainted convictions —Tamfang (talk) 07:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Microscope?
'never saw her in front of a microscope'? she was a chemist.they perform tests using reagents, not microscopes. wth?Toyokuni3 (talk) 03:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The article faithfully quotes the cited source.  General Ization  Talk   03:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Tiffany hilbert
She is the reason in cards today let alone the nod of publics observations Breanna Ackerman (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)