Talk:Annie Jacobsen

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Annie Jacobsen article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pritzker Military Library Low‑importance

	This article is related to the Pritzker Military Museum & Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Pritzker Military LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/PritzkerTemplate:WikiProject Pritzker-GLAMPritzker Military Library-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Flight 327 description is weak

It portrays the government report as supporting Jacobsen and contradicting Snopes, but this is not the case. The government report is entirely consistent with Clint Taylor's much superior reporting on Flight 327. I recommend adding Clint Taylor's reporting to the references (e.g., http://spectator.org/archives/2004/08/05/rashomon-in-the-skies-the-tang) and updating the description to be more accurate. Snopes does NOT say that Jacobsen's testimony about what happened is false, it says that her conclusion that what she saw was a dry run for a terrorist attack is false, and that appears to be correct. Lippard (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

D.o.B.?

Date-of-birth is standard on Wiki pages. Valetude (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was very interesting

Good 24.38.200.69 (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence should possibly be expanded

In the linked source text that is quoted in the section that talks about her 2014 book, there seems to be context [in the original source that is linked] that would suggest that this person is saying that her book is "perhaps the most comprehensive, up-to-date narrative [ABOUT OPERATION PAPERCLIP] available to the general public".

But since the whole source text can’t be included, what might not be ambiguous in the original text—due to the surrounding context of the sentence there—may lead to ambiguity here; I think the Wikipedia article should be reworded to avoid ambiguity.

At least some people might misread the wording in the Wikipedia article the way it is now and think it is saying that Watkins thought it was “perhaps comprehensive, up-to-date narrative [ABOUT ANYTHING AT ALL/IN GENERAL] available to the general public”.

- I am not sure how I would reword it, as I am not an experienced editor. So, I figured I would write this note. 2603:7000:7FF0:F70:18D6:EB02:F14D:22E (talk) 07:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]