Talk:Steven Hatfill

Religion
What religion is this guy? It says he worked on a Methodist missionary, but that doesn't mean he's a Christian.

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

(sic) use
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)


 * 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)

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Most of the verbs are out of date. 68.101.130.214 (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"Trial by media" discussion
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)


 * 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)

Wonderful new book called "The Mirage Man: Bruce Ivins, the Anthrax Attacks, and America's Rush to War" by David Willman. There is considerable material in this book about Hatfill's treatment by the press. Turns out that three of the media's sources for info on Hatfill were the US atty for the DC District, his subordinate in charge of criminal cases and the spokesman for the office. These are the people who were in charge of prosecuting Hatfill. These are three federal employees, two of whom are lawyers, leaking "facts" about the progress of the investigation about Hatfill to the media. I would like to know what internal DOJ sanctions these people suffered when this came out. The federal judge in charge of Hatfill's suit against the Gov't was livid. Read the book. Kristof really gets skewered. FrancisDane (talk) 12:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times case
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)

http://ram.org

Much of the content is not biographic
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

It seems to me that there is a lot of material in the lawsuits sections of the biography that are out of date and/or unnecessary. I believe the lawsuits are all completed one way or another. As I recall, the lawsuit against Don Foster became a lawsuit against Vanity Fair and Readers' Digest, and Don Foster was dropped from the suit (I think Vassar college was also part of the lawsuit at one time). Is there still a need to describe all the intermediate decisions and arguments in the lawsuits? EdLake (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Because of some changes someone just made, I noticed this sentence in the section about Hatfill v The New York Times:
 * 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) Confirmed and changed. EdLake (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ed Lake, just because the lawsuit against the gov't has been settled doesn't mean that the facts disclosed in the suit are not worth preserving. Also, I can't believe that any suit against the NYT was thrown out because Hatfill was a "public" figure. That's like a man who killed his parents throwing himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan!!! Hatfill wasn't a public figure (within the meaning of laws re 1st Amend and libel) until Kristof of the NYT made him a public figure. The new book re the mess has lots of info about Kristof and his violation of journalistic ethics and over all sloppy reporting. Belongs with Judith Miller in the New York Times' Hall of Fame-reporters who helped get us into an immoral and unjustified war by poor reporting. FrancisDane (talk) 12:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The Mirage Man
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)
 * 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)

Government settlement
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. 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)


 * 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)

NPOV tag
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)

External links modified
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)

External links modified
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)

2020s
I've moved this here for now to avoid WP:BLP issues. Epoch times is deprecated (see WP:RSP) and was the only source. This will need better sources to include. MartinezMD (talk) 02:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

"Hatfill has recently spoken out on the COVID-19 pandemic on right-wing media outlets, presenting himself as a “virologist”. (He has never pursued a degree, or been granted one, in virology.) He has praised the Trump administration’s response to the emergency (“My mouth hangs open out of amazement at how fast the federal government has responded to this.”) while blaming local officials for shortcomings (“The blame should go to whoever elected the local authorities. That’s where the problem is.”). "


 * You seem to have misunderstood WP:DEPREC: It says: "The source is considered generally unreliable, and use of the source is generally prohibited. Despite this, the source may be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions". The statement that Hatfill was interviewed by The Epoch Times & the direct referenced quotes from that interview, are exactly "self-descriptions". (Presumably Hatfill himself would not object to being quoted accurately.) The source may be "generally unreliable" (I think it is), but the fact that it interviewed him & that he said the things quoted is not in dispute & not controversial. You say "This will need better sources", but anyone can go to the footnoted link & see for himself. No second "source" is needed to back up the source itself when the issue it not the veracity of something in the text, but rather the fact that something was said.


 * BTW, I also think Breitbart and Fox News are unreliable, but President Trump makes news all the time when he talks to them. Can you imagine not ever being able to repeat something put out by Breitbart and Fox News? Not a workable suggestion.


 * I am reverting the revert.


 * Valerius Tygart (talk) 14:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP applies and so does WP:BRD. We are in the discuss phase of BRD. Since the presentation can be defamatory and can be unreliable, BLP states "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1]" So that's where we are. MartinezMD (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me also expand on the issue to make it clearer. This addition says "right-wing media outlets" (plural) but only one source was included, Epoch Times. Next you wrote "He has never pursued a degree, or been granted one, in virology." - we don't know that. If the claim about the microbial genetics is true (which we don't know from the article), then his claim of studying virology could be accurate. And lastly is the overall non-neutral tone which would violate WP:BLP. Hatfill has successfully sued media outlets larger than WP. The last thing we need to do is violate our own policies that could create a liability. Be accurate, be neutral, and use good sources. If you disagree, please take up an rfc. I don't have an objection to any well-sourced inclusions. MartinezMD (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Rather than making yourself "clearer", you have changed your argument. Formerly, you said simply: "Your addition is not well-sourced. It uses one source only, Epoch times, and that is deprecated." Since you don't even try to refute the things I said about that above, I will assume you have conceded my points and move on to your new argument: That the material/presentation may be "contentious". Ok, then. Who considers it "contentious"? Certainly not Hatfill himself. (He's the one who said it!) Clearly not The Epoch Times interviewer. (He published it.) Certainly not me. (I made the edit.) So who, other than you, considers it "contentious"? Do you consider the quote unflattering ("defamatory") to Hatfill? That would be mere opinion. The quotation is a straightforward & accurate transcription from the source & unless someone thinks it is irrelevant (a hard case to make in today's context), I think it is perfectly appropriate.

Next, you object to my " 'right-wing media outlets' (plural)"... You think The Epoch Times is the only one? How about his interview on Judicial Watch. How about his interview on Sinclair Broadcasting's Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson. How about being interviewed by Steve Bannon (Steve friggin' Bannon!!) on Bannon's radio show War Room? (All of these are recent & available on YouTube near the top of the queue when you type in "Steven Hatfill".) If you really want to be tiresome, go ahead & enter all these as sources after "right-wing media outlets", but I suspect you are the only one who will have a problem with it.

Finally, you dispute that "He has never pursued a degree, or been granted one, in virology." Well, Hatfill's academic degrees (including fake ones) are well documented by now and in the public domain, verified by journalists and innumerable legal procedures. He is probably more scrutinized than almost any other well-known (former) biomedical researcher. And no, studying "microbial genetics" (which he does not in fact have a degree in) would not make one a "virologist" either. (I too can make a "claim of studying virology" at the graduate school level, but I would never call myself a "virologist" unless I was one.) No, this is a strictly factual statement and any "overall non-neutral tone" you may perceive is strictly in the eye of the beholder.

"Be accurate, be neutral, and use good sources" you exhort me! Check, check & check! I think you are out of arguments at this point & I will leave it to you to make an RfC if you disagree. I will restore the material. Valerius Tygart (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * We are still in the discussion phase of WP:BRD. You need consensus first before restoring. Lets start there. Next the Epoch Times was an interview with him, no analysis was provided, which was yours. Also, since you state "right-wing media outlets", again that is PLURAL and you only provided ONE citation. I'm removing the section until we have consensus - WP:BLP applies. MartinezMD (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The original edit being well referenced, accurate & neutral, you will need consensus before blanking it. "No analysis was provided" (by me) quite purposely. Hatfill's statements are quoted without comment as to whether they are good, bad, or indifferent — or flattering to him or not. The reader is left to make up his own mind. Plural "right-wing media outlets"? That is clearly true. (A subsequent editor even added a new one.) I already suggested that you could add these as citations yourself (Judicial Watch, Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson, War Room, etc) & you still can, rather than disingenuously pretending that they aren't there, when you know that they are. No one else is questioning this, but if you want to clutter up the text with eyesore superscripts, knock yourself out.


 * Are we still discussing? After three exchanges, you have still not justified your original action in blanking the edit. How many times do you want your "arguments" knocked down? (BTW, you (inadvertently?) blanked the contribution of another editor, which I had moved. Not cool.) Valerius Tygart (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, we still are. I'll proceed with an RFC since we have opposite views on this and no other editor has offered one yet. MartinezMD (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I object to the reinstating of the reference from the deprecated Epoch Times. I'll explain why by responding to Valerius Tygart's statements from 14:08, 4 August 2020. "You seem to have misunderstood WP:DEPREC: It says: 'The source is considered generally unreliable, and use of the source is generally prohibited. Despite this, the source may be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions'. The statement that Hatfill was interviewed by The Epoch Times & the direct referenced quotes from that interview, are exactly 'self-descriptions'. (Presumably Hatfill himself would not object to being quoted accurately.) The source may be 'generally unreliable' (I think it is), but the fact that it interviewed him & that he said the things quoted is not in dispute & not controversial." No, Valerius, I think the misunderstanding is on your part. What you refer to here is not a self-description. It would be a self-description if the quotes were about the Epoch Times itself but here it has published an interview. The whole point of deprecating sources is that we cannot trust them, and that means we cannot trust them to cite interviewees correctly. Interviewees objecting to being quoted inaccurately hasn't stopped unreliable sources from misquoting people in the past. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree. At any rate, nothing you say reverses the RfC concensus decision of 8 Sept 2020. Valerius Tygart (talk) 13:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC about the 2020s section
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)
 * 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)


 * Comment I would concur with Pincrete that the issues here are not necessarily of accuracy, but rather sourcing. If there are some which can be cited to support the text, I'd say they should be referenced.MichaelProcton (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with the preceding comments. The section doesn't abide by WP:NPOV and shouldn't be included given the lack of sources, which violates WP:BLP and WP:OR. Quorum816 (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I have removed it as offending BLP and including OR to which I alluded in the talk section preceding this one. The onus is on the original editor to provide a source of neutral analysis and not his own. MartinezMD (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The text is not OR because it includes no “facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist”. Read it again. It contains straightforward quotes and facts readily apparent from the sources. Likewise, it does not violate BLP as no conclusions are drawn, and no editorializing or opinionizing is included. (Pincrete complains that Hatfill may be a “pseudoscientific fraudster” …”but [that] the sources do not say that”. But nowhere in the text is it alleged or implied that he is a “pseudoscientific fraudster” or anything of the sort.) I have restored the text (including the contribution of another editor inadvertently blanked by MartinezMD) with the requested additional sources also now included. Valerius Tygart (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I Support this reading of the situation, and the restoration of the content (at least, as it reads now: from the looks of the foregoing discussion before the RfC, there were additional elements that have since been removed that I probably would have agreed needed to go). But speaking to the present reading, is not sufficient to wave "BLP" and "OR" around like magic talismans and suggest this in itself establishes the case (or even the prima facie case) for removing disputed elements: one must present much more particular concerns establishign which specific statements are inconsistent with the WP:WEIGHT of the sourcing in order to establish OR.  Here that has not been done (and again, it may be that a more balanced version has been achieved that both sides finds more or less acceptable and that just hasn't been reflected int he discussion here--that certainly wouldn't surprise me given the fact that the specifics debated int he section above no longer seem relevant to the current version), and as the section currently reads, it only contains reference to direct statements (mostly fully attributed) from the subject themselves, which are adequately sourced, as such. Snow let's rap 23:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

New sources?
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)
 * 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)

Other suspect
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)