Talk:U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security visit Dartmouth student over library book
Incidently? Totalitarianism? Wow. By who. The FBI has been doing it for years.--Tomtom9041 20:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Its a pretty common theme in the tin-foil hat community, and people generally don't like it much. I wrote that sentence poorly, but my first attemp was worse. :) Nyarlathotep 00:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
More sources
editAnyone have anymore sources on this one? My initial instinct is it's bollocks. The student isn't identified; though the paper claims to know them. I suspect the profs are elaborating and feeding this to the paper. Anyone in the area willing to conduct a phone interview?
- A Dartmouth Professor is a reliable source; here two are quoted. You could just fire off an email to one of the professors if you like; less work then a phone call. Heck, maybe he'd even edit the article himself. Nyarlathotep 00:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Does Wikinews prefer to promote hoaxes?
editThe original story, as reported in Wikinews on December 17, 2005, and as reported in Wikinews as I write this, is a hoax.
On December 24, I added text to this effect and added two newspaper sources:
New Bedfored Standard-Times: http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-24-05/a01lo719.htm Boston Globe: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/12/24/students_tall_tale_revealed?mode=PF
Within one hour, a Wikinews administrator reverted the page back to the original version. By taking this action, Wikipedia readers may incorrectly consider that this story is factual when it is based on a lie.
Unless a Wikinews administrator takes action to correct this hoax, it will appear that Wikinews prefers to promote hoaxes instead of facts.
- It is our practice to preserve articles as published as much as possible. A small notice, with a link to the new article, would be most appropriate. When the new article detailing the hoax is published, I plan to add a one-line notice to the top of article explaining the hoax and linking to the new article. I hope this meets with your approval. --Chiacomo (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, we have our retraction someplace. I think it was doing pretty well, but it may not have been published yet. We should keep the article as is, but end with a one line tag-like italics blurb saying "this story was found to be based upon a hoax". Also, the word "lie" is POV and should be avoided. The word "hoax" is accurate. Nyarlathotep 04:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)