This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics: American Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Sociology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Psychology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page would be a great place to feature people well known for their reputation as hatchetmen, dontcha think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcoogan75 ( talk • contribs) 09:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply

The New York Times article is an interesting piece of journalism from another era, but it makes no mention whatsoever of this definition of Hatchet Man.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.46.170 ( talk) 17:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply