Talk:2001 anthrax attacks/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

One paragraph removed from "Overview"

Latest comment: 13 years ago16 comments3 people in discussion

I removed the following paragraph from the beginning of the "Overview" section, placed here in case any of the material is useful elsewhere:

Between 1997 and 2000, "the number of credible bioterror threats or incidents rose dramatically, up to roughly 200 per year, or one biological threat every couple of days. Most of them were anthrax hoaxes."^[1] After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, there were numerous news stories about the possibility that a bioweapons attack could be next. On September 24, Time Magazine asked "Bioterrorism: The Next Threat?"^[2] The same day, in an article titled "Thinking Beyond the Unthinkable," MNSBC reported, "At a time when the unthinkable became reality, the U.S. government is examining the possibility that an attack of an ever greater scale might be launched against America - possibly using biological or chemical weapons. U.S. officials insist no evidence exists to suggest that such an attack is inevitable. However, for years a handful of intelligence officials and military and civil defense experts have been warning that America is titanically unprepared for even relatively unsophisticated attacks involving biological agents."^[3]
References:

^ "The Demon In The Freezer" by Richard Preston (Random House, 2002), pp. 196

^ http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,176066,00.html

^ http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/timing.html

The basic reason for its removal is in the edit summary here. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Your reasons included: "And some of the "prelude" here came after the first anthrax incidents"

Yes, but no one knew that. The Time Magazine and MSNBC reports may have been after the first letters were postmarked on September 18, but no one but the anthrax mailer knew those letters existed until October 12, weeks after the Time Magazine and MSNBC reports. If that was your reason for deleting the paragraph, it is not a valid reason. EdLake (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks. The primary reason was that that paragraph read like a presentation of who-predicted-what, in this case who predicted a bioterrorism or chemical-weapons attack of some kind. As at least one other user has also already indicated, it reads like a storyline when presented in this fashion. Rather like Monday-morning quarterbacking mixed in with a touch of "we warned you something like this would happen", when what's needed there is "cut right to the chase", or "just the facts ma'am" as the guy on Dragnet used to say. Though it's inappropriate for a lead summary paragraph of the overview, conceivably some or all of it is appropriate in another context, which is why I put it here for future reference. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Like I've been saying, summarizing is all a matter of personal preferences.

Yes, the first paragraph "sets the scene," so it is like a storyline. It shows that the anthrax letters were worried about long before they happened. Dr. Hatfill was fingered as a suspect because some people thought he dreamed up the idea of anthrax letters when he commissioned a study about such things. The actual anthrax letters to the media were all ignored, and all but one were thrown in the trash because hoaxes were common and normally harmless. Ivins presumably sent the letters to the media thinking the letters would scare the media into action, but instead the letters were ignored because of all the hoaxes before the actual attacks. People died because of his error. There was an anthrax hoax every couple days before the real attacks. That's why I thought it was important to "set the scene." If you don't know what happened before the story begins, you can't understand why many things happened the way they did. EdLake (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

RE EdLake's statement "Like I've been saying, summarizing is all a matter of personal preferences" : Well, not exactly. There do exist WP policies and guidelines that, while slightly variable over time and flexible to varying degrees according to whether they're policies, guidelines or merely influential essays, reflect broad consensus of the community of WP participants.
..... I've had a chance to review some of what's been added since the beginning of June 2010, mostly by EdLake. As of that time the article had been given a "B" rating by reviewers in several WikiProjects (see the infoboxes at top of this page). Since then, Mr. Lake, you've added a host of material most of which basically appears to serve primarily to argue the FBI's theory of the crime in Wikipedia's voice, based on primary sources (most notably the voluminous FBI report(s)) and weaves a story, as we've already partly discussed, in which all fingers now point at Ivins. In support of the selected aspects of the FBI's theory you've added substantial material such as the entire section on "The Hidden Message in the Media Letters"]. As presently written, this lengthy subsection in its entirety is essentially a poster child for synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. So as I said just above, this article's present issues are by no means limited to summary style. It appears to me that this article has, as a result of the past 7 weeks of editing, been significantly reduced in quality. This is not just a personal preference, but a quick review of the article going by WP's fairly well established good-article criteria.
..... That said, I would agree the FBI's theory of the crime(s) deserves substantial WP:WEIGHT in this article. Thoughts? ... Kenosis (talk) 03:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Kenosis, I responded to some of this in an earlier topic, but you evidently didn't notice it. Here is part of what I wrote:

I summarized what was in the FBI's summary report about the "hidden message," while also trying to make it more readable and understandable. They were making the case against Dr. Ivins. That was the purpose of the report. "Synthesizing" would be adding new conclusions that the FBI didn't make. I didn't do that. The FBI used the "hidden message" to make its case against Ivins. .... There are NO facts proving Dr. Ivins's innocence. See your comment above about "seeking to use the best-possible reliable sources."

I agree that Wikipedia has guidelines. But no two people will write exactly the same words, even when both try to stay totally within the guidelines. Differences will appear based upon writing styles, writing abilities, vocabulary, knowledge of the subject, attitudes about the subject, personalities, etc.

What I added is material that was from the FBI's summary report which no one bothered to add before. It may appear to you that I am arguing the FBI's "theory of the crime," but in reality I just added the FBI's explanation of the evidence against Dr. Ivins because none of it was in the article before.

The case was closed on February 19, 2010. The FBI's Summary Report was released at that time. No previous editor bothered to mention anything in the FBI's Summary or the other released documents until I started adding it. The article was previously mostly material from time before Dr. Ivins was identified as the anthrax mailer. Bringing the article UP-TO-DATE is not the same as arguing the FBI's case. And, as stated above, synthesizing would be adding new conclusions that the FBI didn't make. I didn't do that. So, if you believe the section is a "poster child for synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position," that is your personal interpretation of the guidelines. The guidelines give this explanation of "synthesis":

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

Somehow, you can argue that the using the FBI's Report is combining material from "multiple sources," and paraphrasing what the Summary Report says is "implying a conclusion that is not explicitly stated." How you can make such an interpretation of Wikipedia's rule about synthesis is beyond me.

There is also a difference between "summarizing" and "minimizing." Minimizing the evidence against Dr. Ivins is not summarizing. It is adding bias. The evidence against Dr. Ivins is based upon FACTS. It doesn't make any difference how many people do not believe the facts, the facts are still facts. Condensing information into a few words in order to minimize the facts is pure bias.

Also: Bad writing = making things unreadable = making things difficult to understand. Combining several topics in a single paragraph is bad writing, it is not summarizing.

Thanks for asking for my opinion on this subject. EdLake (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

EdLake, you are stating about the DOJ/FBI "They were making the case against Dr. Ivins. That was the purpose of the report." That's exactly why this source has to be treated with caution, and why it really should be used to complement information that is available from third-party secondary sources. Such sources build their reputation on impartial reporting, they are not parties to a dispute. If someone or some institution wants to make a case against another person, what the source says may well be correct, but it may be biased due to the direct involvement in the matter. Cs32en Talk to me 05:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Cs32en, if you are going to make the claim that the FBI is biased because they relied on the evidence, that's up to you. As I see it, you are just continuing to argue that the FBI's findings should not be allowed on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia should use speculation and theories from the media, instead. That is a dead issue. Playing word games and twisting Wikipedia rules to bring it back up again is just wasting everyone's time, IMO. EdLake (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, EdLake, the material in the Summary Report w.r.t. Ivins' is written very much like a charging document (e.g. a formal indictment or information) in exactly the same format and style of presentation that a charging document would use. It would be normal practice to use only evidence that supports the investigators' and prosecutor's theory of the case in such a document, leaving out potentially exculpatory evidence until such time as the defense demands it in the discovery stage of trial. So Cs32en is not too far off-base here as you appear to believe. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know after studying the case for nine years is, there was no "exculpatory evidence." If there had been, it would have been all over the news and Ivins' lawyer would have been talking about it every day. Ivins would either have had to plead some kind of "diminished capacity" or depend upon convincing the jury that the evidence was not sufficient to convict. Also, I don't think that it would be proper to leave out exculpatory evidence in a charging document. It certainly cannot be left out in the prosecution's case. They would definitely have to explain why the evidence is NOT exculpatory. The FBI's summary report and other FBI reports give Ivins' responses to the various items of evidence, so what you are saying is misleading. In the section on "non-denial denials," it shows that he denied committing the crimes in a way that wasn't really a denial. He claimed he couldn't remember doing it. That wouldn't get him very far in court.

I agree that Ivins committed suicide before he could be tried, but that doesn't mean he had some kind of exculpatory evidence that would have gotten him an acquittal. If he had it, why commit suicide and why go through all the grief that led to the suicide? Or are you suggesting that the FBI had evidence that Dr. Ivins was innocent, but they were saving it to see if Ivins' lawyer was smart enough to ask for it? EdLake (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sheese. Now you're arguing the case. All this is unnecessary if we attribute the material properly. "The FBI Summary Report states that...", "According to the FBI Task Force...", "Ivins' lawyer said ...". "Senator X said...", "Writer Y wrote ...", etc. This is especially important with speculative material such as the extremely obscure "hidden-messages-in-the-codons" trick that he's alleged to have pulled. I'll admit it's fascinating stuff though, in a dark and grotesque sort of way.
..... In any event, there's plenty of much more straightforward evidence in that Summary Report which supports the theory that the attacks were done by Ivins acting alone. Examples of such evidence are the spike in off-hour lab usage by Ivins in September and early October, contradictions and inconsistencies in his statements to the FBI, his lack of an alibi on days when the letters were mailed (e.g. the afternoon taken off of work), etc. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to argue the case. I was frustrated over your apparent suggestion that some charging documents somewhere might have at some time not included "exculpatory evidence," and, therefore, Ca32en has some justification for what he's been writing for the past months. The discussion should be about the article, NOT about how other cases have been handled and speculation that this case might have been handled the same way.

The "hidden message" information is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT because it DIRECTLY links Dr. Ivins to the crime. His time sheets may seem more important to you, but they do not directly link him to the crime. Time sheets like nearly all of the other evidence has to be viewed in its entirety to come to the conclusion that Ivins was the culprit. But, the "hidden message" is the frosting on the cake. It's equivalent to a "smoking gun." It links Ivins and ONLY Ivins DIRECTLY to the anthrax media letters. And that's true whether you believe it is "obscure" or not.

If you want to include information about the other evidence against Ivins, like his lack of alibi, etc., feel free to do so. I would have no objections. I just tried to focus on what I saw as the key points. You obviously see different key points. I'm just trying to convince you NOT to delete KEY points simply because you interpret things differently based upon your new-found knowledge of the case. EdLake (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I already said the stuff is fascinating. It's got my vote to keep it in. But it must be properly attributed. As to your notion that the code links Ivins directly to the crime, that's debatable. Indeed it appears a grand jury was presented with the case and wasn't ready to indict because the evidence was "largely circumstantial".

"Anthrax Evidence Called Mostly Circumstantial" New York Times August 4, 2008

IOW, it appears he was less than the proverbial "ham sandwich" that any competent prosecutor is supposed to be able to indict. But as I already said, this argument is unnecessary if the stuff is properly attributed in the article, and if due weight is given to the FBI's report. Obviously that report carries a great deal of weight, so the material in it should be prominently featured, as you have done, and for which you have my kudos. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. It's YOUR interpretation that the case wasn't all that solid. But "largely circumstantial" only has meaning to people who think that circumstantial evidence isn't real evidence. Nearly every criminal case that goes to trial is "largely circumstantial," because when there is prima facie evidence, the culprit nearly always tries to plea to get the sentence reduced. Going to trial against prima facie evidence only gets you the maximum penalty. Circumstantial cases are presented to juries to let them decide if it's sufficient or not. It doesn't mean the government doesn't have a "real" or "solid" case.

I hope you realize that I've been arguing matters like this for NINE YEARS, and I had nearly 500 emails in my inbox on the day it was announced that Ivins was the only suspect in the anthrax mailings. So, you are bringing up "hot button" issues that I've argued with others a hundred times before. That may result in me seeming blunt or frustrated. If so, my apologies. EdLake (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Now that we've gotten some productive discussion in, I'm confident that the article will continue to take better form as time passes. These improvements commonly come in spurts when multiple users chime in, as has just happened. Talk with ya sometime later on, OK? And thank you for the material you contributed. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I'm supposed to be in the process of moving to a new apartment, and I've already blown half a day without moving anything. :-( EdLake (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent additions

Latest comment: 13 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

Definitely keep the tag in place. There is some good stuff but it needs to be summarized. Way too long. --John (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about the "This article may benefit from being shortened by the use of summary style" tag. The article can definitely use some further summarizing, but now we're in the area where summarizing becomes a matter of personal choice, personal writing styles, personal views on what is important and what is not important, personal knowledge about the subject, etc. EdLake (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Kenosis just removed two large sections with this explanation:"(Removing sections consisting of lists of journalists and other analysts who have published. This stuff belongs, if anywhere, in recommended reading, external links, etc. Placing the sections on Talk)"

That's the kind of "summarizing" or condensing I'd never attempt to do. But, I have no problem with it. EdLake (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Lake, you've spent a good deal of time on the wiki lately, and I appreciate it, and feel sure everybody appreciates the input of a person who is very familiar with this topic. However, may I recommend also devoting some of your time to (a) quickly becoming more familiar with the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and (b) working within them. Some of the things folks have been saying to you do indeed reflect WP conventions. Also, please see WP:Consensus, the core procedural policy. I think some of the extended discussions and back-and-forths here would be more expediently resolved by getting a better feel for how things are expected to be done in WP. Thanks so much. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Kenosis, I appreciate the suggestion, but right now I'm looking for ways to get LESS involved in Wikipedia updates. (I'm going to be spending most of August on personal matters that cannot be postponed.) I was satisfied with the article as it was, and I considered it to be within Wikipedia's guidelines. Obviously, we're now in the area of personal choice, NOT an area of hard rules. I would think that, at some point in time, the two sections that were deleted about reporters and amateur investigators were within Wikipedia guidelines. If not, why were they there for YEARS? But, today someone evidently saw them as unnecessary. Perhaps they were no longer necessary because the case has been closed. What was important when the case was open may not be important after the case is closed. I can understand that. I'm just not the person to do that kind of summarizing. And, I don't want to waste time on endless debates over the meanings of words and whether something is a summarization or synthesizing.

Mostly, I'm just going to be watching for attempts to inject personal theories about the case into the article - like today's attempt to add that material about Dr. Zack. Claims to make the article more "neutral" are generally just attempts to inject personal theories to offset the FBI's conclusions. "Neutral" should be defined as looking a the facts, not looking at the source. But looking at the facts just generates more arguments about synthesizing. I have a problem with discussions where looking at the facts is claimed to be against the rules. EdLake (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

All basically good.
..... *Re "I would think that, at some point in time, the two sections that were deleted about reporters and amateur investigators were within Wikipedia guidelines.": Not necessarily at all-- upon a quick review of the history, it appears to me to have been in need of cleanup for quite some time. But now it's getting some attention, and has the extra benefit of getting help from an expert. Which is why a collaboration between the expert and those who are already familiar with WP is potentially very valuable. Since it appears you don't have the time to become more familiar with WP conventions, maybe we'all might have a hack at bringing the article more into line with what's considered a good article. And you can perhaps correct for misleading POVs and factual inaccuracies in the summaries when you're willing and able?

That's my plan - to only argue about "misleading POVs and factual inaccuracies." I think some of the other changes that have been made reduce readability and add confusion instead of improving things, but that's just my opinion. [this comment interjected within Kenosis' comment by User:EdLake 20:30, 2 August 2010 UTC)]

Incidentally, WP:Summary style is not the same as original research or synthesis which advances a POV (something you hinted at above), nor is seeking to use best-possible reliable sources necessarily inconsistent with WP rules against inappropriate use of primary sources.

I've always assumed that is the case, but that is not how things have been argued in this discussion page and in arguments on other discussion pages. [this comment interjected within Kenosis' comment by User:EdLake 20:30, 2 August 2010 UTC)]

Speaking of advancing a position, the section on The Hidden Message in the Media Letters comes verrry close to being outright synthesis that serves to advance a POV. Specifically it's plainly making a case for the guilt of Ivins, moving as it does from the "hidden code" to statements about Ivins having "engaged in behavior and made statements that were evidence of a guilty conscience". (WTH does that mean?) Etc. So, the needed work here isn't just limited to summary style, but also will need an eye for WP:NPOV--that would be in addition to needing better concision. Anyway, thanks again for your many recent contributions. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I summarized what was in the FBI's summary report about the "hidden message," while also trying to make it more readable and understandable. They were making the case against Dr. Ivins. That was the purpose of the report. "Synthesizing" would be adding new conclusions that the FBI didn't make. I didn't do that. The FBI used the "hidden message" to make its case against Ivins. And the information about "Consciousness of Guilt" was part of the same section in the FBI report, "Section IV - The Evidence Against Dr. Bruce Ivins." Is it wrong to summarize the facts as presented by the FBI? The "other side of the argument" is just theories and opinions. There are NO facts proving Dr. Ivins's innocence. See your comment above about "seeking to use the best-possible reliable sources."

The FBI occasionally used the term "evidence of a guilty conscience." The person doing the writing probably should have stuck with the legal term "consciousness of guilt," but they didn't. It was probably their idea of making things more readable for the layman, proving that such things are often really just personal preferences. EdLake (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Other letters reported in the media vs copycat letters

I'm also going to be looking for errors. NONE of the other letters which are described was a "copycat" letter, with the possible exception of the London Hoax letter. But it was more likely an attempt to frame Dr. Hatfill than a copycat letter. Plus, copycats repeat the crime. NONE of the letters repeated the crime. The title "copycat letters" is a personal theory or belief, not reality.

I have no problem with changing the section title, but "copycat letters" isn't a good choice. IMO.

Previously, the title was "Unrelated letters which caused confusion." That's more descriptive, but it didn't fit some people's ideas of correct wording.

Also, the letters that are listed have already been reduced down to the most significant. There were plenty of others that are not mentioned. EdLake (talk) 16:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I took your edit summary as adequate, and thanks for pointing that out here in a bit more detail. It seems a completely reasonable distinction from the generic layperson's understanding of "copycat". ... Kenosis (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I've trimmed and copyedited the additions and I think it is looking more like an encyclopedia entry now. --John (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Can I take the tag down? --John (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this is reasonable at this stage. More improvement towards WP:SS appears to me to be appropriate, most visibly in the section on Anthrax material. But I easily imagine the article tag can rightly be removed at this point. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice work. --John (talk) 05:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Definition of Synthesis

Latest comment: 13 years ago26 comments6 people in discussion

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SYN#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position

Synthesis of published material that advances a position

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Comment: Some people are evidently ONLY reading the subtitle: "Synthesis of published material that advances a position," and they're interpreting that to mean that "synthesis" means "advancing a position." IT DOESN'T. That subtitle title does NOT include the description of "synthesis." The description is in the paragraph that begins with " Do not combine material from multiple sources ..."

It is NOT a synthesis, nor is it "original research" to summarize information from ONE source. (It isn't even a "synthesis" to summarize what multiple sources say, if no original interpretation of what was said is created.)

It IS a synthesis to do as was done by the person who tried to add the information about Dr. Zack. That person used multiple sources (A & B) to claim (C) that Dr. Zack was a "person of interest" in the Amerithrax investigation. Yet, neither source A nor source B said anything about Dr. Zack being a "person of interest." (In fact, other sources that were cited didn't even mention Dr. Zack.) Suggesting Dr. Zack was a "person of interest" even though no cited sources says such a thing is a synthesis. It's a "new position." It's "original research." EdLake (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have conveniently forgotten than one of the sources provided did make every claim in that edit. If you now claim that that source is synthesis of the other sources then the FBI report also falls into this catagory as it relies primarily on sources promoting theories of consciousness of guilt/non denial denials that do not mention Ivins.Wayne (talk) 07:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

WLRoss: And which source would that be? Provide the link and I'll check it out.

Pointing out that the FBI's Summary Report is a "synthesis" is absolutely hilarious. You've made my day. However, the synthesis rule applies to writing articles for Wikipedia. It does NOT mean that the FBI is not allowed to put two and two together to come to a conclusion as part of their duties in law enforcement. EdLake (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You keep misquoting what editors say then ridiculing the the misquote to support your own edits. Please point out where I said the FBI report was "synthesis". As I have not kept a copy you will need to check the history to find the reference that covers everything which is most likely at the end of the paragraph.Wayne (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Wayne, you said the FBI report was a "synthesis" two paragraphs above, when you wrote at 07:39. August 4, 2010, "the FBI report also falls into this catagory [i.e., the synthesis category] as it relies primarily on sources promoting theories of consciousness of guilt/non denial denials that do not mention Ivins." It's also another bogus claim, since the FBI's report ONLY discusses consciousness of guilt and non-denial denials as evidence against Ivins.

Use this link to find your synthesis and your links about Zack: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2001_anthrax_attacks&diff=376764396&oldid=376761428 EdLake (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Check what I wrote again. You rejected a source so I wrote "If you now claim that that source is synthesis of the other sources then the FBI report also falls into this catagory"Wayne (talk) 05:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

EdLake, since you're the expert here and have drawn my attention a bit more closely to this article via your message several days ago on my user-talk page: I'd like to ask what's up with the sentence in the lead that presently states:

"In June 2008, Ivins was told of the impending prosecution, and on July 27, 2008 he committed suicide by an overdose of acetaminophen.^[1]" [Citing to the LA Times, which doesn't appear to me to say who said to Ivins that he was about to be prosecuted, nor even roughly when in this 30-day window such unnamed person(s) said to Ivins that he was to be prosecuted.]

^ "Ivins case reignites debate on anthrax". LA Times. 2008-08-03. Retrieved 2009-04-05. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Nor do I see any official records mentioned in the article which show that an indictment was imminent. Any ideas here? ... Kenosis (talk) 04:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Kenosis, I don't think I wrote that particular item, although I may have modified it in some way. Ivins was told by his attorney that he was about to be indicted and that he would almost certainly face the death penalty. Looking at the Bruce Ivins TimeLine on my web site, I see that on June 25, 2008, someone called the FBI about this. The FBI report says,

"Ivins' attorney also told him that an indictment is coming and that he should be prepared to face the death penalty."

The quote above is from FBI file #847551, page 54. http://foia.fbi.gov/amerithrax/847551.PDF

However, I think some aspect of it may also have been mentioned in the media somewhere. I recall reading something about Ivins' attorney saying that he should have been more gentle when he broke that news to Ivins, because it may have helped prompt Ivins' suicide. I don't have that link handy at the moment. I need to think about what search argument to use to find it. EdLake (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"Ivins, a leading expert on anthrax vaccines, was on the verge of being indicted in the case, according to officials familiar with the investigation, and took his life by swallowing a large quantity of acetaminophen." Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/01/AR2008080102326.html

"A biodefense researcher committed suicide this week, just as the US government was about to indict him for the 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people and caused a national panic." Source: http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/54907/

I'm still looking for the information about Ivins' lawyer. EdLake (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Here it is: http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/defense-lawyer-paul-kemp-doubts-government-case-against-anthrax-suspect-bruce-ivins/19390595

(March 10) -- Just weeks before government scientist Bruce Ivins' suicide, a grand jury was convening on the third floor of the federal courthouse, near the U.S. Capitol, looking into the 2001 anthrax murders. Things weren't looking good for Ivins, the only suspect in the case.

It was July 2008. His attorney, Paul F. Kemp, according to court documents reviewed by AOL News, had just filed court papers to become a death-penalty-certified attorney in the case -- a little-known fact. And the chief U.S. District judge in Washington, Royce C. Lamberth, had approved the request.

"I thought this was a precaution to take. My job is to anticipate anything," Kemp said. ....

"Kemp acknowledges the government contacted him in the final weeks to say they were concerned about Ivins' state of mind and well-being. ....

Kemp says he still thinks about the suicide and wonders if he couldn't have conveyed the prospect of a death-penalty case to Ivins more gently. He won't get into specifics of the conversations with Ivins, citing client-attorney privilege. But he does share this much.

"I question myself. Maybe I was too strong," he said. "I second-guess a lot the wording I used."

The only information I can find about the specific date that Ivins' lawyer broke the news to Ivins is the FBI report cited above. There could be more somewhere else, but that source should be sufficient. EdLake (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! That helps. I'd like to think a bit about how this might be concisely presented to the reader. We probably should name an actor and use the active voice, cited to a reliable source of course, rather than anonymous passive voice as it's currently written ("In June 2008, Ivins was told..."). ... Kenosis (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI: A lot of what you are doing is what others said I should NOT do because it wasn't "encyclopedic." I had written, "The FBI's Summary Report says,... " and I was told that that was not proper. I was told that, instead, I should just use the quote and put the source in the citation. In other words, I made some changes which you are changing back to the way I originally did things. I only mention this as another demonstration that following Wikipedia guidelines is often just personal preferences and personal styles. EdLake (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't here, and don't have the time to dig for it in the history. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Neither was I. In any case we don't own our work here, but submit it to the scrutiny of others. That's how it works. Could you possibly stop using bold so much? --John (talk) 05:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

John, no problem. I tend to use bold to emphasize important items so they won't be overlooked. I can keep that to a minimum, but I don't expect to be adding much to the article from this point on. I'll also try to avoid using the word "actually" which someone doesn't like. I'll try to work on the section about "Anthrax Material" when I get some free time. There are many changes I could make there, but I know they'll all end up in long debates, and I don't have the time for long debates right now.

John & Kenosis, FWIW and FYI, the section where my writing style was discussed is now in archive #3. I was opening paragraphs like this: "On page 65-67 of The FBI's Summary Report it says ...." And I was told that the page numbers should be in the link, but I didn't know what they were talking about. I was also using things like this "(See page 65)", which people didn't like and wanted part of the link. The long sections in that archive about using primary sources and about the "hidden message" contain many discussions of my writing style. At the time, there were coding techniques I didn't know how to do, like putting the page numbers in the link. And I may have misinterpreted some of the criticism people where making about my writing practices. But, that's all past history now. EdLake (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at the "Hidden message" section, and parts of it are now really BADLY WRITTEN and confusing, possibly even WRONG. The edits also added BIAS by deleting KEY information. I'm going spend a few minutes changing things, making one small change at a time in order to explain why it is BAD WRITING and how BIAS was added. EdLake (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That's fine; as I said, that's how we work. Capitals are even worse than bold. Just write what you want to say and we'll read it. It's like shouting in a discussion. --John (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have left a general cleanup template on the entire article in place of the just-removed summary-style template. The last series of edits did significantly further improve that subsection. IMO this is a good example where EdLake's familiarity with the topic helps a lot in the midst of a collaborative effort. IMO, this version today is a definite improvement over this version of 3 August 2010, which is in turn a huge improvement over this version of 2 August 2010, which didn't even come close to WP:SS and other basic WP criteria. So I fail to see what the BIG complaint is about "BAD WRITING". Seems to me we're presently doing exactly what we're supposed to do--improve the article. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been just an onlooker and occasional "mediator" on this article I've been both an admirer, defender and thanker of Ed (for his expertise and hard work) and critic of Ed in this article. Under the latter, I'm the one who has most often called some of his wording style "unenclyclopedic", and commented on a few of his other rough edges due to having been new to Wikipedia editing. One common critique was on a sort of conversational and "let me tell you how it is" wording style which seemed to give thoughts without knitting them together, and without using the facts to MAKE the statements. I wouldn't overreact to what I said. I don't see that issue here. IMHO you guys are doing fine. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to belabor the point, but deleting key elements which then need to be put back doesn't really improve the article. At most, it just provides an explanation for why the information is key so the information (hopefully) won't be deleted again. It might be termed "bull in a china shop" editing. Removing lots of information isn't necessarily improving the article. But, that's just my opinion. I have no serious problems with the "hidden message" section as it stands now, even though I certainly would do things a lot differently.

North8000's statement "One common critique was on a sort of conversational and 'let me tell you how it is' wording style which seemed to give thoughts without knitting them together, and without using the facts to MAKE the statements" is nearly meaningless to me. Since no before-and-after examples were provided, it was no better than saying, "The writing is different from the way I'd write." And, it seems to me that a lot of facts that "knitted things together" have now been removed. (I used bold to point of the items I was specifically talking about in North8000's comment.) But I really REALLY need to get to work on some other things instead of debating these issues.

I understand that everyone is just trying to "improve" the article, but that applies to me, too. EdLake (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I was just trying to explain my previous "unenclyclopedic" comments because you have been referring to them. Didn't mean to imply any current comments. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

North8000, I understand. And I was just trying to explain my point of view. EdLake (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Cs32en asked this question in a change he just tried to make to the article: "EdLake, or others, could you check if the link is correct? I can't see TTT, AAT or TAT there."

Presumably, Cs32en is suggesting that the fact that TTT, AAT and TAT weren't in the email Ivins' forwarded to his friend, it cannot be compared to what was in the anthrax letters. Yes, it can. (1) The forwarded email showed a "hidden message." (2) It showed that Ivins knew about sending "hidden messages" that way. (3) It showed that Ivins was familiar enough with DNA to understand the "hidden message." And, (4) it showed that Ivins was able to decode the "hidden message." EdLake (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I was referring to the wikilink to Genetic code#RNA codon table, because I was unable to find codons such as TTT, AAT, or TAT there. Cs32en Talk to me 00:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The article isn't particularly clear about explaining this but, AIUI, the table shows RNA codons which use U instead of T in DNA. IANAMB though.--John (talk) 02:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I have retargetted the piped link to Nucleic acid notation. The DOJ/FBI report says the e-mail forwarded by Ivins "e-mail was notable not because of any particular meaning ascribed to those specific nucleic acids, but rather because it demonstrated Dr. Ivins’s familiarity with DNA, specifically As, Ts, Cs, and Gs" (see p. 59, fn. 41). That is a pretty strange statement, given that these four letters are representing four of the five primary nucleobases, the fifth base being uracil. Cs32en Talk to me 02:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

End of Chapter

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Okay, I'm outta here. I just don't have time to review every change everyone makes to see if something important was deleted or incorrectly changed. If I try to fix things fast, I'll just make mistakes, and then I'll have to spend even more time correcting my own mistakes. It takes only a second to arbitrarily delete or change something, but it could take me an hour or more to fix an error because of the need to do research, to write the text in a way that it cannot be misinterpreted and so it won't generate new arguments, and to provide an explanation in this discussion page that doesn't offend anyone.

I need to concentrate on getting moved to a new apartment. And, as soon as that is done, I'll be starting on a MAJOR project that could take three or four months.

So, maybe I'll be back again in the new year to look over what has been done while I've been gone. Maybe. Bye bye. EdLake (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Original interpretation re-added to the article

Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

In my view, this edit restored an original interpretation of the DOJ/FBI report, i.e. a synthesis and personal interpretation of content from the report, to the article. What are your views? Cs32en Talk to me 00:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. --John (talk) 00:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

ditto. I think some editors became a little too involved with the article and were injecting too many personal viewpoints into it. Go ahead and revert it.--MartinezMD (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This revision was much more true to the source, p 59ff, though it needs a bit of cleaning up. (E.g., the second use of "codes" is redundant.) ... Kenosis (talk) 01:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit, removing the second use of "codons". Cs32en Talk to me 01:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Good edit. --John (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I do now see that as of this edit later on 5 August, EdLake had somewhat improved the language to bring it closer to the plain meaning of the source. That said, it's an improvement IMO, which also weeded out my own earlier insertion of the sentence with the wording about Ivins' "intense preoccupation with codes of this general type." My mistake. The only thing that seems clear upon a close reading of the source is that he was fascinated by and familiar with such codes, as were some of his colleagues, and that the FBI summary report merely points out two instances which demonstrate Ivins' general familiarity with such codes, a general familiarity which some of his colleagues quite clearly shared with him. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

... which is probably not really surprising given their occupation. By the way, Gödel, Escher, Bach won the Pulitzer Prize in 1980. So it's also rather unsurprising that Ivins was in possession of the book. What is raising legitimate suspicions, however, is that he threw away his book. Do we know anything about whether Ivins made any sidenotes in the book? Cs32en Talk to me 03:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Link to the probable text of the "Biopersonals: I have single-stranded too long! Lonely ATGCATG would like to pair up with congenial TACGTAG" e-mail that Ivins had forwarded according to the DOJ/FBI report. Cs32en Talk to me 05:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I came across this. I know it's (another) primary source, but I thought it was interesting. --John (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It's much less a primary source with regard to a lot of content than other sources that have been used in the article. I haven't looked through all of the text, but on page 2, the source says that "18 individuals contracted anthrax", while the article's lead section says that 5 died and 17 others were infected. As the source is from 2002, the information may be outdated. Still, I think that this, and possibly other information, should be cross-checked. Cs32en Talk to me 16:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Allegations against Ivins

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The section on Ivins contains very long and detailed presentation of questionable anecodotes about Ivins' behavior, all sourced to the government, and always giving the government's maximally-incriminating interpretation of the incidents. Is this really appropriate? The general reaction among reliable sources to the allegations against Ivins was that they are pretty flimsy, and yet those sources are not used -- instead it's just FBI, Justice, FBI, Justice. It frankly reads like a prosecutor's summation -- without even a defense summation to balance it. TiC (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Er, to clarify; independent sources casting doubt on the allegations against Ivins are used, but only in the intial section, and they are given a relatively brief treatment. Then there are three subsections giving extensive, detailed, prejudicial "evidence" against Ivins. TiC (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The question of how to use the DOJ/FBI report has been discussed extensively on this talk page (and elsewhere) before, and I encourage everyone to read this discussion before posting here. My personal interpretation of the relevant policies and guidelines is that the DOJ/FBI is a primary source, and thus should not be used to introduce new aspects or arguments into the article. Cs32en Talk to me 19:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)