Talk:2001 anthrax attacks/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Miscellaneous

I moved the comments that were over the table of contents so everything would be included in the table. Some of the comments are unsigned. --MartinezMD (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Why are the two innocent victim postal employees: Thomas L. Morris Jr and Joseph P. Curseen not given more mention, including an internal link? Ian Luria 8/13/08

Someone please fix the Notes & References. After note 41, the layout gets all wonky, and I don't know how to fix it. JosephV 00:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I changed references to Brentwood, Maryland to Brentwood, Washington, D.C.; the postal facility in question is in the Washington, D.C., neighborhood of Brentwood, right by the Rhode Island Ave-Brentwood station on the Metro, not the Maryland suburb of the same name a few miles away. - Erifnam 04:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I heard a report on NPR that the CDC had declared that the package sent to Microsoft in Reno tested negative for anthrax. But I can't find a newspaper article or other info to confirm that. Anybody hear this? --corvus13

OK, NPR repeated today that the Reno tests came up negative. --corvus13

This really needs updating. No mention of the anthrax letters - at least three of them; the dozens of buildings that have been contaminated - both government and post office; the thousands taken Cipro and why that particular antibiotic, the thousands of anthrax scares worldwide; the two US embassies/consulates overseas that found anthrax; etc.; etc. I don't have the time now. ---rmhermen

---

In reference to the timeline, I don't have the exact details, but at some point during the anthrax scare, it was found that mail from the tabloid in Florida had arrived in Montreal, and there was a huge kerfuffle with a large portion of downtown being cordoned off while the mail was carefully removed and found to be harmless.

I found and added information on this incident. -montréalais

I think that this article may merit a POV or Disputed template, or at the very least an Original Research template for unattributed claims. -blumenth

Pedantic Quibbles

a "lone mad scientist"

seriously? a 'mad scientist'? Arae (talk) 09:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Will remove "mad", "lone scientist" is good.--MartinezMD (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Please change "and two about whom their source of exposure to the bacteria is still unknown" to "and two whose source of exposure to the bacteria is still unknown" which I'm sure you'll agree is much gooder.

You've got multiple spellings of Al Qaeda / Al Qaida in the article.

Suggest we change "17 FBI agents were assigned to the case and 10 postal inspectors investigating the case" to "17 FBI agents and 10 postal inspectors were assigned to the case".

SelectSplat (talk) 03:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

These seem both non-controversial and beneficial. Done. Adam McCormick (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Needs Archiving

I doubt many, if any, would disagree the TALK page has grown cumbersome. Many of the discussions are old or have been settled for months if not a couple of years. I don't want to misfile them, so can someone with the proper editing knowledge archive the inactive/settled topics? Thanks. --MartinezMD (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Bruce E. Ivins commits suicide

Bruce E. Ivins, who was facing indictment for the 2001 anthrax attacks, has committed suicide.[1] Badagnani (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald article

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/01/anthrax/index.html

"the same Government lab where the anthrax attacks themselves came from was the same place where the false reports originated that blamed those attacks on Iraq."

Things seem to be adding up. Saying "false flag" as just above isn't logical, but there are questions here to be answered. zafiroblue05 | Talk 19:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Why amateur investigators?

Why are amateur "investigators" in this article? As amateurs, their credibility comes in to question. Also, they don't appear to be gathering evidence as much as commenting on it, so there is no investigation and they are simply talking heads. That doesn't appear to meet inclusion criteria. Can I comment on the public material and be included in the article too? I propose deleting the section. I'd have already done it, but would rather not create an editing war until this is discussed. I will delete it if there isn't a good reason to keep it in the article. A person can look up other sources on the internet without us leaving a weak section in an encyclopedia article. --MartinezMD (talk) 00:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• I had the same thought when I first saw it, but these amateurs are reliably sourced. In other words, they and their hypotheses have evoked comment from mainstream newspapers and magazines. I also noticed that none of them fingered Ivins, even though he was mentioned in the news about the anthrax attacks years ago. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
• I am not compelled to keep them or toss them; this is the first I've heard the section be challenged for what it is. Except for when someone removed the Richard M. Smith bit on March 1st of this year. It was promptly returned to it's original state and the anonymous editor also left this interesting note to another editor. I've helped format lots of references for the article, but I don't know enough to debate the material. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 01:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Remove the entire section and merge any useful content to appropriate sections. -- Banjeboi 22:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Justification for Iraq?

I think the following claim is NOT supported by the evidence:

"A theory that Iraq was behind the attacks, based upon the evidence that the powder was weaponized and some reports of alleged meetings between 9/11 conspirators and Iraqi officials, may have been a contributing prevarication used by the United States government to justify war with that country"

The citation is a newspaper article from Oct 26, 2001, 17 months before the invasion. Iraq was discarded as a suspect shortly after the article was published i.e. long before Bush et al presented their case for war.

If no one comes up with a good reason not to I will delete it.

Lenbrazil (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend altering it instead of completely deleting it, saying it was later discarded as a theory. It was a popular theory and certainly added to the tenor of the US-Iraq politics.--MartinezMD (talk) 03:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A good idea to think..--Bartent (talk) 08:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.108.56 (talk)

Possible Link Section

Can the possible link to the 9/11 hijackers section just be removed? It has nothing to do with the article itself, nor does it actually provide information relating the two events. Firefoxes (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Which link? It is fairly pertinent because one of the main theories is that the perpetrator used the 9/11 event as camoflague for the anthrax attack (ie making it look like it was a part of it). --MartinezMD (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm referring to the section entitled "Possible Link to the 9/11 Hijackers," not a link. I should have been clearer :P To me it seems the section itself doesn't connect the two events at all with the exception of including the word anthrax. If there is more information about a link between the two, then I am all for the section, but right now it says something like "evidence suggests that the events are connected" and only talks about anthrax as it relates to the hijackers.

I can accept the theory that the perpetrator used 9/11 as a camouflage, but the section in the article has nothing to do with that (or, in my opinion, the 2001 antrax attacks). Firefoxes (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now I understand. However circumstantial, that article is fairly damning in associating the two events. Since there is only a single reference, I would think simply reducing the section to a more weighted size (perhaps just a sentence or two considering the single source) would be appropriate and allow us to remove the tag too. What do you think? --MartinezMD (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

To me, all this article does is relate the hijackers to anthrax itself, not the specific attacks that occurred shortly after. But yeah, reducing the information and perhaps including more of the other side found in that article (where the FBI attributes it to one man, a scientist, and also had already finished looking for a connection between the hijackers). In fact, I'm more convinced from the article that if they were going to do something with anthrax, it would have been something like spreading it with a crop duster rather than sending letters. Also, I'm not a huge fan of the article itself, since it uses the fact that one of the letters was sent to Florida and that the hijacker lived in Florida as a connection. This information is very circumstantial to me. However, I can accept that there are others who may disagree with what I'm thinking and perhaps I'm just missing some historical events that others may have (I was a bit young when these events occurred). I don't think it would be inappropriate to include this information, just in a different way. Firefoxes (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It was a temporal association - it started happening immediately after the 9/11 attacks and until later evidence separated the events, it was fairly well accepted that the US was under a large terroristic attack from a single source. That is the primary relevance - not the conclusion but the history of the perception at the time. I'll run a few revisions in my head before I make the change and see if anyone else has an opinion here or beats me to the edit.--MartinezMD (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Tylenol vs. Tylenol w/codeine vs. Tylenol PM

Earlier reports, which have gained their own following, claimed he had ingested "Tylenol 3", which is a mix of "Tylenol" with codeine. It's a pretty common prescription pain killer, a step or two up in effectiveness over regular Tylenol (generic name: acetominophen, or in Europe, paracetamol).

I wondered about that claim and kept looking for any verification - especially since it would have required a prescription. It turns out, per later reports, that what he had purchased was "Tylenol PM", an over the counter compilation. Note that the main ingredient, acetaminophen, is highly toxic.

The NY Times stated: "At 12:31 p.m., according to records checked by the Frederick police, Dr. Ivins stopped in at the Giant Eagle grocery store near his house and bought Tylenol PM, acetaminophen and an antihistamine." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/us/04anthrax.html wiki-ny-2007 (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The LA Times article (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-anthrax1-2008aug01,0,2864223.story) says it was "Tylenol mixed with codeine". This was added to the article as "Tylenol with Codeine", which carries the apparent misimplication that it was the product "Tylenol with Codeine" rather than the product Tylenol, mixed with separate codeine. Someone later put the phrase in quotes, which emphasized the error.

I'll restore it to the use as reported, that it was Tylenol, mixed with codeine. This is consistent both with the L.A. Times report and the find by wiki-ny-2007 that Ivins purchased non-codeine Tylenol. If there is reported information, however, contradicting the reports of use of codeine, then the reference to codeine should be removed, of course. TJRC (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You have to read more carefully. It says "prescription Tylenol mixed with codeine". Tylenol is an over the counter drug in the US. It only becomes prescription strength when specifically formulated with codeine (as in Tylenol #3) or other narcotics. This was simply the LA Times author's diction. You can revert it, but it was correct as previously written in this article. The true error was the LA Times's report of the wrong substance to start with. --MartinezMD (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The NYT article also says that he filled "filled three prescriptions for his psychiatric illness"; whether that could include codeine or not would be speculation and/or WP:OR (and in my case, anyway, particularly unqualified speculation and OR; in your case, given the "MD" suffix, it would probably be less speculative and not unqualified, but still OR). In addition, the LAT was quoting someone else, who may have been in error. I've done some more searching this morning and can't find anything authoritatively establishing the method of the suicide, although http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7538373.stm cites a medical examiner's report for the suicide itself. Given the lack of published information on the method of suicide, perhaps the best approach is to leave it at that, omitting any mention of Tylenol or codeine in the cause of death, unless that can be established. It seems both synthy and fallacious to combine an apparent erroneous report that Tylenol with codeine was used for the suicide with another report that he purchased non-codeine Tylenol, to conclude that he died from an overdoes of non-codeine Tylenol. TJRC (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

(add)Okay, here we go: "Maryland's chief medical examiner, Dr. David Fowler, confirmed Saturday that Ivins died Tuesday morning at Frederick Memorial Hospital; that the cause of death was found to be an overdose of acetaminophen; and that it was ruled a suicide based on information from police and doctors." http://www.latimes.com/bal-te.anthrax03aug03,0,3970920.story I'll update accordingly. TJRC (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree we should not be synthesizing or creating conclusions, although going by facts codeine isn't a psychiatric medication. I was just pointing out, that as initially but apparently erroneously(?) reported, the Tylenol was "prescription" in the article. A medically informed reader can draw their own conclusion, but the relevance is esoteric regardless.

The cause of death would be the acetaminophen in either case (whether Tylenol PM or mixed with codeine) since that is what causes liver (primarily) and kidney (secondarily) failure. The source/specific formulation is the only disputed point. The last section of Ivins article has some listed references. Neither LA Times articles claim the official police report. The police report was only released this year as far as I have been able to find. This is the reference I am going by: http://www.wtop.com/?sid=1565528&nid=25 in addition to the NYT article, both from January 2009. Those articles state it was Tylenol PM. We would be correct in leaving it at "Tylenol" in a summary fashion. To be more specific would require mentioning the contradictory formulations. --MartinezMD (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Suicide

How does someone commit suicide with 'Tylenol'? I have got to know... Jokem (talk) 02:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Very easily - just overdose on it. It happens quite often, and it is a slow and miserable death if a liver transplant cannot be found (which is most cases). Most people survive it if they get medical care early enough. Look up Paracetamol toxicity (generic name of Tylenol).--MartinezMD (talk) 03:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistent information

Hello, I would like to signal the presence of some inconsistent information in this article concerning the real number of people infected by or tested positive for anthrax.
First, in the prologue of the article it's written: "Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two Democratic U.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others", so this leads to a total of 22 infected people, as it is also confirmed by the summary box on the right. But later, in the overview section, it's written: "At least 22 people developed anthrax infections", implying that the actual number of infected people could be larger than 22. Finally, by following the timeline of events given in the section "2001: The attacks" and counting the number of people infected by or tested positive for anthrax presence reported here, one gets a total of 46 people! This is quite confusing. I suggest a clean up of the article, to make it consistent with itself. Furthermore, I found this medical letter by Dr. Cymet and Dr. Kerkvliet, who state that the actual total number of harmed people is 68, not 22.
Can I add a section in the article citing the results obtained by the two aforementioned doctors? Thank you. --ElectricMandarine (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Translation into Chinese Wikipedia

The version 01:31, 2 July 2009 Firsfron of this article is translated into Chinese Wikipedia.--Wing (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Letter to Chile

The "Letter to Chile" had nothing to do with the 2001 anthrax attacks. No authorites have made the claim it did. The section will be romoved.

From the NYT: "But the anthrax was not the strain that had killed five Americans and was most likely to have originated in Chile, officials said." 67.72.98.45 (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't delete until we have consensus. The letter to Chile was temporally associated. Even if not from the same source/person, it is relevant to the topic as a "copy cat" occurance if nothing else. It probably does not merit its own article and would be best suited here imo. --MartinezMD (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

There were dozens of copy cat hoaxes after the attacks. Do you want all of them in this article? - 67.72.98.47 (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The letter to Chile was not a hoax. It actually contained anthrax. Read the section and reference. *That* is why it needs to stay in this article. The examples of anthrax in letters are very limited, and this is the only other known example that just happened to be sent during the same time frame? Coincidence? Doubtful. Sent by the same source? maybe. Temporally associated? Definintely.

From the NYT article used as the reference:

There is no doubt about it, the anthrax is confirmed, said Jeanette Vega Morales, director of the Institute of Public Health, the official Chilean national disease laboratory that conducted the first tests. She said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention told her yesterday of their test results.

--MartinezMD (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, the letter to Chile seems to have been mailed from, or at least passed through NY, another possible connection with the US attacks.--NYCJosh (talk) 04:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Quantico letter

An investigation into the anonomous letter posted just days before the anthrax letters that accused a scientist at Fort Detrick of possible terrorist connections found it to be "most likely" written by a female scientist at Fort Detrick. Although no longer believed to have a direct connection to the anthrax, the FBI investigation noted that the spelling mistakes and writing style of the anthrax letters indicated they were likely written by the same person. Should this letter be mentioned in this article or have the original conclusions been revised? Wayne (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems like this letter is relevant, if expert concluded that it was written by same hand as Anthrax letters and by a female.--NYCJosh (talk) 04:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It turned out the "spelling mistake" wasn't a mistake. It was a "signal" that there was a "hidden message" inside the media letters. The "A" in the misspelled word "PENACILIN" was highlighted by tracing over it. That draws attention to it and to the other A's and T's which were also traced over. So do other oddities, like the fact that every sentence in the media letter is three words long and the A's and T's at the four corners of the message are all highlighted. The FBI/DOJ's Summary report describes the coding method and the hidden message in the media letters on pages 56 to 64. Dr. Ivins was observed throwing away the "code books" on November 8, 2007.

I suggest that this subject and the subject about the Chile letter be combined in some way into a new subject: "POINTS OF CONFUSION" or so something like that. There is also the letter sent to Microsoft in Reno. It had nothing to do with the case, either, but The Washington Post and others tried to use it as evidence that Dr. Hatfill was the culprit because Dr. Hatfill's girlfriend came from the country where the Microsoft letter originated. They're all unrelated side issues which merely confuse the issue that is the subject of this Wikipedia article. EdLake (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Numbers

Umm... The opener notes that 17 people were infected and 5 killed, while the (clearly incorrect) caption under the envelope notes that it infected 21 people and 7 survived... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.22.228 (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Technically, the 5 who died were also infected. So, 22 were infected and 5 of those 22 died. The injured line should probably just say "17" instead of "17 infected." However, then there's the argument that some of the people who had to take antibiotics were also "injured" because they had adverse reactions to the antibiotics. 'Tis a puzzlement. EdLake (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Shouln't we include a section about the conspiracy theories that point out that the attacks were an inside job made by the US government. They usually mention the fact that the anthrax was probably produced in the Dugway Proving Ground [1][2][3]. Francis Boyle discusses this possibility in his book [http://www.amazon.com/Biowarfare-Terrorism-Francis-Anthony-Boyle/dp/0932863469/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272991814&sr=1-9 Biowarfare and Terrorism], and it was also claimed in documentaries such as Zeitgeist and in many websites PDF. Do we include it?Froy1100 (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I can easily add a section about the conspiracy theories if it won't be deleted by the people who believe in the conspiracy theories. I have a chapter in my book which describes how all the conspiracy theories got started. The link: http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/Sample.pdf All it's missing is the LA Times article where what I wrote was shown to be correct when Dr. Jahrling admitted his mistake: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/17/nation/na-anthrax17

I think it's important to note, however, that it isn't just conspiracy theorists who disagree with the FBI's findings. There are also a LOT of "True Believers." Conspiracy theorists believe the attacks were some government plot. True Believers believe they KNOW who sent the letters and they believe the FBI just won't listen to them, or the FBI is incompetent and can't see the REAL facts. The interesting thing about True Believers is that each one has a different belief, which means they also think that every other True believer is wrong. So, each True Believer is a force of one disagreeing with everyone else in the world. The conspiracy theorists and True Believers just look like a "group" because they all agree on one thing: The FBI is wrong. If the FBI is right, then every one of the True Believers and conspiracy theorists must be wrong. EdLake (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Timeline

What does this add? --John (talk) 07:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. The timeline is critical to understanding the sequence of events. It was an EXTREMELY complicated case.

However, the note under the subject heading needs some rethinking. Here's the note:

See also: Timeline of the 2001 anthrax attacks in Florida and Timeline of the 2001 anthrax attacks in New York and New Jersey

When you click on "Timeline of the 2001 anthrax attacks in Florida" it takes you right back to where you are. It appears that the Timeline subject was once just about the cases in Florida.

When you click on "the 2001 attacks in New York and New Jersey," it takes you to a separate article that is wildly out of date and redundant. EdLake (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the FBI/DOJ Summary report a "primary" source?

On June 12, I added some key information about the "hidden message" in the anthrax media letters using the FBI's Summary report of the Amerithrax investigation as the source material for the posting.

On June 17, Cs32en deleted what I posted claiming "Removing section that was *entirely* based on primary sources, per WP:PRIMARY".

The questions are:

(1) Can a "summary" be a "primary" source? Aren't those contradictions in terms? Opposites, even?

(2) Using "primary sources" is NOT forbidden, it is only required that the editor be "careful." I was careful. So, was the deletion proper?

(3) The deletion was made without any debate, and a large amount of information was deleted. Is that proper?

I started a discussion on my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdLake#Primary_Sources The discussion was then moved to a different page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#FBI_reports_as_primary_sources.3F Now I'm told the discussion should be on this page.

In the prior discussion, someone again argued that the FBI summary report cannot be used because it is a "primary source." Therefore, it was argued that some newspaper journalist or other "reliable source" must first analyze and write about the FBI's summary report, and then the improvements to the Wikipedia article must be based upon the reporter's analysis, NOT upon the FBI's Summary. No reporters have done any comprehensive analysis of the FBI's summary report. Therefore, it is argued, NONE of the summary report can be used. Is that a correct interpretation of Wikipedia's rules?

How do I get what I posted put back? EdLake (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

(added later) The mechanics of it is that you or somebody puts the material back in. The normal process is to have a discussion here before doing that. North8000 (talk) 10:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a primary source, because it's a collection of evidence, not a description of the topic. The DOJ and its investigation is part of the topic of the article, so it is not an independent source either. We need to use secondary sources to assess which aspects of the event are relevant and how they have been interpreted by independent observers. We can use primary sources, with due caution, to complement information that is based on secondary sources, but we may not introduce new aspects of the topic that would be based on primary sources only. For the relevant guideline, see WP:PRIMARY.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)+

This was a large amount of material deleted many edits back with the note with the deletion being that it was due to only primary sourcing. It would take a lot of work to address this whole ball of wax at once. The FBI report is a summary by some people of research done by other people. Arguable whether it is primary or secondary...I think a mix of the two. IMHO deleting a large amount of material on that sparse and arguable basis is not justified. My opinion...restore the deleted material, and then start discussing / debating / dissecting/improving/sourcing and selectively deleting it if such is the result of the discussion. North8000 (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• The use of the source is appropriate. As has been discussed elsewhere at length in wikipedia discussions, primary sources are actually preferred in the legal traditions of English-speaking countries. And secondary sources are the ones often prohibited. While wikipedia is not a court of law, the principles underlying the best evidence rule generally apply to wikipedia concerns of verifiability and reliable sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

North8000 - This isn't the first time my entry about the hidden message in the media letters has been deleted. The previous time I just put it back. But that resulted in me getting banned from posting for 55 hours. This time I'm trying to do everything "by the book." I'm looking for some "official" approval for me to put it back. Or I'm looking for someone of "higher authority" to put it back. But, while I'm not new to Wikipedia, I am new to formally following procedures here. And I have no clue as to how an issue gets resolved - or even if it can get resolved. I don't want to put the entry back and just have it deleted again.

Epeefleche - I agree, but in the previous discussion the opposite was argued. It was even argued that the entire article about the anthrax attacks of 2001 should be deleted because the media hasn't considered it relevant enough to write any in-depth analysis of the FBI's summary report. Thus, the subject is not "notable" and not worthy of a Wikipedia article.

Also, since the discussion now appears to be taking place in the right location, there are other changes I'd like to make to this Wikipedia article that would be based upon the FBI/DOJ's Summary report. There is currently nothing in the article about Dr. Ivins' "consciousness of guilt," i.e. all the attempts Dr. Ivins made to destroy evidence, mislead the investigation, intimidate witnesses, etc. I'd like to add something about that.

The Wikipedia article has a massive amount of theories and speculation from before August 2008, and there is almost NOTHING about all that has been learned since August 2008, when the DOJ and FBI began making public the facts about the case. Most of what has been posted since then is speculation and opinion from people who do not trust the FBI. The recent addition of remarks by Dr. Henry Heine is a prime example. Virtually everything he said is WRONG and can be proven wrong. But the correct information is in Dr. Ivins' own emails, which I fear will not be allowed because they will also be considered a "primary source."

Lastly, the use of a "primary source" is NOT forbidden by Wikipedia rules. The rules only say that "primary source" must be used "carefully." I used the FBI/DOJ's Summary report VERY carefully when I added that entry about the "hidden message" in the media letters. I'm still trying to figure out how to get approval to put it back without risk of getting banned. Or how do I get someone unbannable to put it back? EdLake (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest using sources such as this New York Times article. You can then use primary sources to fill possible gaps in the reports from secondary sources, in order to enable the reader to better understand the issues.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Cs32, is there an issue or concern regarding the material or it's sourcing beyond just the primary/secondary classification of the source? North8000 (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is concern about the authenticity of the documents. The controversy seems to be about whether the DOJ report is a primary source or not, and about how to use primary sources.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. When I asked if there is an issue or concern about the material or it's sourcing, I was referring to the deleted article material. Sorry I wasn't clear on that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification! I have mentioned (on EdLake's talk page) that the report was published by the DOJ, not by the FBI, and that the report, on several occasions, appears to be more nuanced with regard to its conclusions than the text of the edit. I have only cross-checked the first sentence of the edit. I don't see any evidence that any potential misreprentation would have been intentional.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

That could mean that the text of the article might make questionable statements that were not clearly supported by the reference(s). I.E. the possibility that Ed took it further than the source(s) did. If challenged, any such statements would need solid, in-line specific citations to support them. IMHO the mass deletion of text based on the "primary" issue is weak on three levels: Questionable whether or not the source is purely primary, questionable whether it should be excluded or considered "B" grade if it were, and whether summary deletion of a large amount of content (vs. tagging etc.) is the proper course of action at this point if the sourcing has issues. This sort of leaves the issue unresolved. What do you think about the idea of tentatively reinserting it, and then reviewing it on those other basises I described above, vs. just the primary/secondary issue? North8000 (talk) 03:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

North8000 - Would there be any problem with me adding new material to the anthrax article while we wait for the response from Cs32en? I'd like to create a new section about Dr. Ivins' "Consciousness of Guilt" as described in the DOJ/FBI reports. There are other additions I'd like to make, too. (Assuming there could be no objection, I went ahead and updated the section of the article about the National Academy of Sciences review.)

By the way, I notice that the New York Times article Cs32en recommended using as a "secondary source" refers to the Summary report as "the FBI report," which is the way I described it in the section that Cs32en deleted. EdLake (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the New York Times describing the report as an "FBI report", I'd say that, unfortunately, reliable sources are not as reliable as we wish they would be. I remember that you have found a number of other potential errors in other secondary sources.

Concerning reinserting the material and then discussing it. This might be fine if we all could spend our time entirely to edit Wikipedia. As this is not the case, checking added material must be practically possible for the Wikipedia community as a whole. This is sometimes already difficult with longer articles from secondary sources. Primary sources, however, often contain even more information, sometimes (although not necessarily in this case) in a poorly structured composition. So, besides my objection to introducing new aspects of a topic solely on the basis of primary sources, I would recommend against inserting the text of the edit into the article. Rather, I'd suggest to paste the text on the talk page here, in a separate section.  Cs32en Talk to me  17:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

On the status of the DOJ source: The source can of course be used, and apart from being a primary source, I would consider it a very good source. The only objection on my part is against using it as the basis for introducing new aspects of the topic, without referring to secondary source. If the DOJ/FBI could be treated as an uninvolved actor here (as is the case in some other criminal cases), we might even say that it would be an independent secondary source (although FBI evidence has been rejected at other articles). In this case, the FBI investigation it itself part of the topic, so it is not properly independent, and is a primary source with regard to the scope of the article's topic.  Cs32en Talk to me  17:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Ed, if you're cool with it, paste the deleted material into a new section in this talk page as CS32 suggested.

Ed, I don't think that there is anybody or anything that is categorically saying don't add new material. I don't even understand or see the "ban" that you spoke of or what led to it. My opinion is that this is in "situation normal" mode regarding brand new material. North8000 (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

North8000 - I don't see any point in putting the information on some talk page - particularly this talk page. No one goes to talk pages for information. They only go to talk pages if they have a problem. I didn't even know these talk pages existed until last week, and I've been using Wikipedia for at least ten years. If you look at the entries on this talk page, you'll see that people ask questions that never get answered.

This information about the hidden message in the media letters "new" material because the FBI and DOJ just closed the case four months ago, on February 19. I can't make any sense at all of leaving the Wikipedia entry about the anthrax attacks of 2001 as a hodgepodge of misinformation from years ago - before all the facts were made known by the FBI and DOJ. The Wikipedia "culture" may consider that to be "normal," but to me it makes absolutely no sense. Why have Wikipedia at all if you can't update an article with NEW information?

I suggest that I put the section back, and I'll change the first sentence from "According to pages 56-64 of the FBI's Summary Report ..." to "According to pages 56-64 of the DOJ/FBI's Summary Report ..." I can also add some references to the four newspaper articles that mention the "hidden message," even though none has anything to add and some are wrong.—Preceding unsigned comment added by EdLake (talk • contribs)

EdLake, the intention of putting the text on the talk page is not to let it stay there until it is being archived. The text should be put on the talk page, so that it can serve as material for a discussion on how to present relevant information on the article's page itself.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be a way of keeping the information off the main article. Nothing will ever get resolved on the talk page. Do you see anything getting resolved on the talk page? I notice that the entry about the Chile letter was deleted. Someone added it back again. It was deleted again. And it was added back again. Then apparently, the person who was trying to delete it just gave up. So, Wikipedia still includes that section which has nothing to do with the anthrax attacks of 2001. EdLake (talk) 21:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The reason you can't see the "ban" and what led up to it is probably because I only started using "EdLake" for posting after the ban. It was one of the steps I followed to make certain that I was not violating any Wikipedia policies when I put the "hidden message" entry back. I was previously posting as 98.144.51.230 Jpgordon deleted the entry (and others I'd done) on June 8. I believe he/she's the one who also banned me for 55 hours. There should be some record of it somewhere. There was a lot of extra stuff in those entries, so I was VERY careful when I put the entry and other stuff back as EdLake. On June 7, Cs32en had delete my entries stating, "Undoing several edits that are mostly (though not exclusively) sourced to http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com, which is not a reliable source. Some of it appears to be unsourced. Please discuss on the talk page of the article." I'd added it that same day. At the time, I didn't know what "talk page of the article" meant.—Preceding unsigned comment added by EdLake (talk • contribs)

While I have removed the content of several of your edits, I have left most of the content that you have added (75% of approx. 12.000 bytes) in the article.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The entire section about the hidden message was deleted. But, I recognized that I was using too many references from my own site. It was just easier. So, I didn't use ANY from my site when I started posting as EdLake. EdLake (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• EdLake--It wouldn't, perhaps, be the first time that arguments were put forth on wikipedia that were wrong.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the meaning of that comment. I don't care about "wrong" arguments. I've been arguing with conspiracy theorists and True Believers about the anthrax attacks for NINE YEARS. The question is: Should I try to bring the Wikipedia entry about the anthrax attacks of 2001 up-to-date, or does Wikipedia prefer obsolete misinformation?

Here's an article that was in my local paper last week which might explain why I'm trying to bring Wikipedia's article up-to-date: http://www.journaltimes.com/whatsyourstory/article_84a809ac-74e5-11df-a708-001cc4c03286.html Here's a Time Magazine article about me: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101021028-366316,00.html

Basically, I just figured it was time. And no one else was going to do it. EdLake (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite the skeptic. I could become an opponent of Ed's on this once its clearer what this is about. :-) North8000 (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It's about getting correct information onto Wikipedia, that's all. I'm an archivist and an analyst. I've tried to collect every bit of information about the case since the very beginning. I even wrote a book about the case. I thought I was doing "the right thing." What is that you will become an opponent of? Updates with new information? EdLake (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI: My hours are basically 9 to 5. So, I'm going to be signing off for the day very soon. EdLake (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Ed, I was just talking about a hypothetical possibility. I was trying to look at the the deleted material but trying to figure out what it was from ancient diffs ran me out of time. Can't wait to read it here! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here it is as a quick conversion without any addition of links to secondary sources:

---

The Hidden Message in the Media Letters

According to pages 56-64 of the DOJ/FBI's Summary Report[], the letters to The New York Post [] and Tom Brokaw [] contained a "hidden message." The Summary says: "As is visible to anyone examining the attack letters, there are instances where the letters 'A' and 'T' were bolded within the text, suggesting that the letters contained a hidden code." This coding method is described in "a book entitled Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid ('GEB'), published by Dr. Douglas Hofstadter in 1979." Dr. Bruce Ivins was observed throwing away a copy of that book at about 1 a.m. on the morning of November 8, 2007. At that time, he also threw away "a 1992 issue of American Scientist Journal which contained an article entitled 'The Linguistics of DNA,' and discussed, among other things, codons and hidden messages." GEB contains a lengthy description of the encoding/decoding procedures and an illustration of hiding a message within a message by making certain characters more bold than others.[] The media letters showed the same type of coding:

09-11-01

THIS IS NEXT

TAKE PENACILIN NOW

DEATH TO AMERICA

DEATH TO ISRAEL

ALLAH IS GREAT

In GEB, the basic message is called "The Frame Message." Then there are "Triggers" or indicators that there is a code within the Frame Message. Examples: "The first letter of the message 'T' is emphasized. The letters at the four corners of the message are highlighted. 'PENACILIN' is misspelled, which draws attention to the word. The 'A' is a misspelling point and is highlighted. Not all 'A's and 'T's are highlighted." Lastly, there are indicators on how to decode the hidden message: Examples: All the sentences are 3 words long. There are nine highlighted characters. A's and T's relate to DNA.

"When they lifted out just the bolded letters, investigators got TTT AAT TAT – an apparent hidden message within the letters themselves." The 3-letter groups are codons, "meaning that each sequence of three nucleic acids will code for a specific amino acid."

TTT = Phenylalanine (single-letter designator F)

AAT = Asparagine (single-letter designator N)

TAT = Tyrosine (single-letter designator Y)

According to the FBI's Summary report, "From this analysis, two possible hidden meanings emerged: (1) 'FNY' – a verbal assault on New York, and (2) PAT – the nickname of [Dr. Ivins'] Former Colleague #2."

"It was obviously impossible for the Task Force to determine with certainty that either of these two translations was correct. However,[...] the key point to the investigative analysis is that there is a hidden message, not so much what that message is." EdLake (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

---

I was also going to add a thumbnail to the full size version of the letter. Someone claimed it was probably copyrighted. I checked with the copyrights office and such things from the Government are not subject to copyrights. EdLake (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Here are the four links that didn't convert: http://www.justice.gov/amerithrax/docs/amx-investigative-summary.pdf http://www.justice.gov/amerithrax/docs/a-post-letter.pdf http://www.justice.gov/amerithrax/docs/a-brokaw-letter.pdf http://www.justice.gov/amerithrax/docs/j-geb-page-%20404.pdf EdLake (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The thumbnail and full-size images I wanted to add would have been taken from this page on my site: http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/Coded-Message.html EdLake (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm signing off for today. I'll be back tomorrow at 9 a.m. EdLake (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

- - -

Ed, this would take some time to respond to thoroughly and thoughtfully. However, I would like to offer a couple of initial "gut feel" thoughts.

• I would consider the FBI/DOJ report to be a reliable source, and would not agree to an argument to knock it out on the basis of it being primary, or even agree that it is primary.
• This writing is very hard to follow, I think that following it depends on having a lot of other knowledge (which you obviously have). This should not be; it should be readable, and supported by other materials, not dependent on them for understanding what you wrote.
• My first guess is that the bad guy did incorporate some code into his messages. Whenever I hear "secret code" I get very skeptical, but, on first quick read, such appears plausible here.
• This reads like the author (you) presenting their idea and research to the public. This could be excellent work, but such is not what Wikipedia is about. (for better or for worse)
• Particularly when the statements are questioned/challenged, WP requires a really solid referencing job. This means that for a questioned/challenged statement, you need an in-line citation pointing to a specific page etc. that supports the statement, not just mentioning an entire document (of block of 10 pages in a document) once in those paragraphs.

My initial gut feel advice/opinion: write a dispassionate summary of that the FBI/DOJ said in this area, and state it as such. And include more in-line references

Finally, on behalf of Wikipedia readers, thank you so much for your investment of time and expertise to contribute to Wikipedia, and to this article specifically. That is the BIG picture, and important to note after me finding wiki-problems with this particular material as currently written. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks. However, I thought I did write a "dispassionate summary of what the FBI/DOJ said in this area." And I stated it came from the DOJ/FBI's Summary report.

The writing might be "hard to follow," but that's because I was trying to avoid any hint of "original analysis," which Wikipedia doesn't want. So, I tried to simply quote from the Summary report as much as possible, in order to avoid writing anything new.

I wasn't presenting "their idea and research to the public." I was presenting the evidence to the public in as few words as possible. Ivins was observed throwing away the "code books" at 1 a.m. in the morning, and he once used similar coding in an email. So, this is SOLID evidence - even if it might be hard to explain.

The evidence hasn't been challenged. It's just disbelieved by some. No one has presented any intelligent counter-explanation. Cs32en merely argued that it was the DOJ's report, not the FBI's report, and he said the interpretation of the code was vague. It's not vague. It's just that because Ivins is dead, it's impossible to know which message Ivins intended - or if it was both PAT and FNY. That's why I put in that last quote where the DOJ/FBI says, "It was obviously impossible for the Task Force to determine with certainty that either of these two translations was correct. However,[...] the key point to the investigative analysis is that there is a hidden message, not so much what that message is."

Instead of citing a page in the Summary for every quote, I assumed Wikipedia readers could look for the quote or search for the quote using a find command. But, I can rewrite it with more citation information. There really isn't any other source for this. The "secondary sources" just try to summarize the FBI/DOJ's information. I don't see any point in mentioning that one of Dr. Ivins' friends doesn't believe what the FBI said. That would be adding bias. I'd have to also add some comment from someone who DOES believe the FBI in order to keep it neutral. The facts are neutral. I just tried to present the facts. Why clutter up a neutral article with competing biases?

Okay. That said, I'll rewrite the section, I'll add more references, I'll add more information (including a reference to the email where Ivins' used a similar code), and I'll use some of my own words instead of just trying to only use the FBI/DOJ's words. Then I'll put the section back in the Wikipedia article about the anthrax attacks of 2001. If they wish to do so, others can then add bias to the article by showing that some people do not believe or trust the FBI or DOJ.

Some readers might still find it hard to follow, but I'll have the references to the four newspaper articles and the DOJ/FBI Summary report where they can go for other explanations. I think it's only "hard to follow" because the idea that there's a "hidden code" in the letters seems crazy. It may seem crazy, but it's undeniably true. And Dr. Ivins put it there, making the "hidden code" also the "smoking gun" that points to Dr. Ivins and only Dr. Ivins as the anthrax killer. EdLake (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Secondary sources, especially newspapers, present content in a way that is accessible to a wider audience. This is another advantage of using secondary, independent sources. While the doubts on the DOJ/FBI's research is not the central aspect, reliable sources have reported on those doubts, so we cannot say that, per our own analysis, such doubts are misguided or irrelevant, and therefore would not merit mentioning in the article. Could you explain why you do not want to to use secondary sources as the basis, and the starting point, of the exposition of the content? I've already said that the DOJ/FBI source can be used, but Wikipedia policy and guidelines clearly favors independent secondary sources that are detached from the actual event over a source such as the DOJ/FBI report.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Cs32em asked: "Could you explain why you do not want to to use secondary sources as the basis, and the starting point, of the exposition of the content?"

Because, I've already researched this issue and written about it using the primary sources. Primary sources are always best, because "secondary sources" are almost always incomplete and weighed down with opinions. Anyone can find opinions to support almost any point of view about anything. And a "secondary source" is one individual's personal selection of what is important and what isn't important in the primary sources. Plus: The Amerithrax investigation is probably the worst reported news story in the past 100 years. It was an endless stream of mostly WRONG information.

Since I've already done the research using primary sources, sifting through "secondary sources" means hunting for the same things over again. The only thing it can accomplish is to perhaps find some phrase or point that I didn't use when I wrote what I wrote. That happened. The New York Times article explains that A = Adenine and T = Thymine. I didn't mention that in my version. It should be mentioned. It can help to explain things more clearly. The information was in the Summary report, but I failed to recognize how it could help to explain things. EdLake (talk) 15:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Seen from the viewpoint of an investigator, your reasoning is correct, of course. At Wikipedia, however, we are not investigators, and we need to be careful, so that our knowledge and analysis may help us find good sources, and organize the structure of articles, but that it must not guide us in choosing the content of articles.  Cs32en Talk to me  15:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an "investigator." I'm a researcher and an analyst. I collect data (from primary sources whenever possible) and analyze it to see what it means. Since I also keep copies of everything I find, I'm also an archivist. That poses a problem on Wikipedia because I have things that cannot be found anywhere else on the Internet, so links would have to be to my site.

In the anthrax case, it sometimes seems I've spent the past nine years trying to determine which scientist is right. It's usually easy to do, since it's usually the opinions of scientists who have never seen the attack anthrax (like Richard Spertzel, Barbara Hatch Rosenberg or Stuart Jacobsen) versus scientists who have actually examined the attack anthrax (like Joseph Michael, Matthew Meselson, Doug Beecher and many others.)

I understand "the Wikipedia problem." People using "primary sources" may wrongly interpret what the information means. The "hidden message" in the media letters is a good example. It was clear to everyone that A's and T's were traced over. But why? What did it mean? It looked like "doodling," but why would a terrorist doodle on a threat letter? If it wasn't "doodling," what was it? Were the initials of the anthrax mailer A and T? An inexperienced "investigator" might come to such a conclusion and use that conclusion as a base for some larger finding. But an experienced researcher/analyst would be cautious and only use an idea with qualifications that there might be some other explanation.

I also know from nine years of experience that most people who only use "secondary sources" for their research almost always begin with a belief and then look for articles which support that belief, ignoring anything that doesn't support the belief.

Example: They're still arguing that the attack anthrax was "weaponized" with silica by relying upon published "secondary source" opinions of people who never saw the attack anthrax, and they ignore the solid scientific findings that the attack anthrax was NOT weaponized with silica.

Example: They're arguing that Dr. Ivins couldn't have made the attack anthrax because it was "weaponized" with silica, which he didn't know how to do, and because a scientist who knew Ivins claimed it would have taken Ivins a year to make the quantities in the envelope. But Ivins' own emails show he could routinely make the quantity in less than three weeks using standard lab procedures - and other scientists have stated that they could make the quantities in a matter of a few days.

Example: The Wikipedia entry has a section called "Silicon content too high" which is nothing but the ill-informed opinions of people who have beliefs but no facts. They assume that the quantity of silicon in the attack spores must mean the silicon was deliberately added, but so far NO ONE has any solid data on what is "normal" and what is "too high." The available data says it is NOT too high, but no one has published anything stating that clearly. You need to interpret data to come to that conclusion.

Example: Some people continue to believe that al Qaeda sent the anthrax letters, and any time they find someone who seems to agree with them, they use that as proof that they are right and the FBI is wrong. The media loves to publish the OPINIONS of politicians who say they still think foreigners could have been behind the attacks. EdLake (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that it cold be argued that the DOJ/FBI report is a collection of primary and secondary sources, and that the summarization and analysis portions could be considered a secondary source. Ed, did you say that you published a book on this? If so, and depending on the particulars, that might also be a secondary source. North8000 (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC) See correction below. North8000 (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought I saw a rule somewhere forbidding the use of self-published books. It probably also violates the Wikiepedia rule against "original research." It sometimes seems that nothing significant can be done on Wikipedia without violating one rule or another. EdLake (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I misspoke, the use of self-PUBLISHED books is discouraged. I meant to say "Ed, did you say that you authored a book?" and then the "particulars" would include other things such as who published it. North8000 (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

However, since you brought it up. I had been wondering how I might use some material from my book to add an "overview" comment at the beginning of the section titled "Controversy over coatings and additives." Chapter 15 of my book is all about how the "controversy over coatings and additives" got started. My analysis has since been confirmed by a report in the Los Angeles Times where Peter Jahrling admitted his mistake. Plus there is a report from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) which further confirms my findings. And there may be other sources, too. Right now, the section about the "controversy" is just a mass of varying opinions and unrelated quotes. I don't see how anything can be deleted without first putting in the "overview" which would show all the various opinions etc. to be just worthless confusion. Something to think about. I don't plan to get to it for awhile. EdLake (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I would have to know a lot more about all of the above to try to answer that. I think that my 23:48 21 June comments remain relevant here. Rules are usually interpreted / applied by consensus, and an article with those issues is unlikely to build a comfort level. But everything I say is just my humble opinion. North8000 (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. To whom it may concern: Chapter 15 of my book is where to get started. Then try the link to the LA Times article. The information I used in my book was largely taken from Richard Preston's book "The Demon In The Freezer." Preston interviewed the USAMRIID scientists shortly after the attacks and before talking with journalists became a no-no. His book shows what everyone was thinking at the time. My book shows how what everyone was thinking turned out to be wrong. It's a rare situation where mistakes are so thoroughly documented. (Preston has no dispute with my analysis. He sent me an autographed copy of his book, and I sent him an autographed copy of mine.) EdLake (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Okay. I just uploaded the revised section about the hidden message in the media letters, hopefully incorporating all the suggested improvements. But, of course, there's no way to please everybody. So, we'll see what happens. EdLake (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the text again. The reports by reliable sources were news articles, not opinion pieces, so you can't say they "commented" on the issue. In particular, you can't include your own viewpoint that the Washington Post would have "got it wrong". You also need to include substantial information from the secondary sources, a casual reference to them is not sufficient. With regard to the style, please try to write this in a way that is accessible to the average reader. For example, if a verbatim quote contains new words or subjects, you need to explain them with information taken – preferably – from reliable sources.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This text is disputed, obviously. Therefore, to avoid edit warring, or the alternative venue of more formalized dispute resolution, I strongly suggest that a revised version of the text may only be added to the article after consensus on the specific content and wording has been achieved.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I expected you would find something wrong with it and would delete the entire entry. You appear to be hostile to using the FBI/DOJ's report. I'm willing to make minor edits - like changing "commented" to "reported" or removing the comment that the Washington Post got it wrong. (They DID get it wrong, that can be seen by comparing what they wrote to the Summary. They weren't doing a different interpretation. They made multiple errors in interpreting what the DOJ/FBI wrote, and the errors conflict with each other.) But, I'm not going to write a totally new section to suit someone who can never be satisfied with anything that describes what the FBI/DOJ concluded. EdLake (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not hostile to using the report, in an appropriate way. Unfortunately, the specific wording, such as "commented", is just the result of a flawed approach to present the the topic on Wikipedia. I have just mentioned the most obvious shortcomings, there are other deficiencies, all related to your tendency to present the content as if it were your personal account of the issue. I would appreciate it if you could present a thorough rewording of the text on the talk page here, so that a revised version can eventually be found to be consensual.  Cs32en Talk to me  17:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Here it is without the working links:

The Hidden Message in the Media Letters

"As is visible to anyone examining the attack letters [sent to Tom Brokaw and the New York Post], there are instances where the letters 'A' and 'T' were bolded within the text, suggesting that the letters contained a hidden code. The Task Force’s investigation found a distinct connection between this hidden code and Dr. Ivins’s own fascination with certain codes. Understanding this connection first requires some background information about deoxyribonucleic acid (“DNA”) and codons." That quote is from page 58 of the DOJ/FBI's Summary Report released on February 19, 2010.. Pages 56-64 cover the entire subject. At least four newspapers have commented upon this information: The New York Times, The Washington Post (which got a lot of the information wrong), The Register in the UK and The Frederick News-Post.

As those sources say, the letters to The New York Post and Tom Brokaw contained the "hidden message" in highlighted characters, specifically A's and T's. Below is the media text with the highlighted A's and T's:

09-11-01

THIS IS NEXT

TAKE PENACILIN NOW

DEATH TO AMERICA

DEATH TO ISRAEL

ALLAH IS GREAT

After the FBI performed a thorough search of Dr. Ivins' home, his office, his lab, his vehicles and his safe deposit box on the night of November 1-2, 2007, they put full time surveillance on him because after such searches guilty people sometimes throw away or destroy materials that the searchers missed. That turned out to be the case with Dr. Ivins, when at 1 a.m. on the morning of November 8, Dr. Ivins was observed throwing away a copy of "a book entitled Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid ('GEB'), published by Dr. Douglas Hofstadter in 1979" and "a 1992 issue of American Scientist Journal which contained an article entitled 'The Linguistics of DNA,' and discussed, among other things, codons and hidden messages." (See page 64 of the Summary Report for more details.)

GEB contains a lengthy description of the encoding/decoding procedures including an illustration of hiding a message within a message by making certain characters more bold than others., the same method of coding used in the media letters. (According to GEB, the techniques are familiar to people who hunt for hidden messages in "normal" communications, everything from messages sent by suspected terrorists to possible transmissions from outer space.)

In GEB, the basic message is called "The Frame Message." (See page 62 of the Summary) Then there are "Triggers" or indicators that there is a code within the Frame Message. Examples: "The first letter of the message 'T' is emphasized. The letters at the four corners of the message are highlighted. 'PENACILIN' is misspelled, which draws attention to the word. The 'A' is a misspelling point and is highlighted. Not all 'A's and 'T's are highlighted." Lastly, there are indicators on how to decode the hidden message: Examples: All the sentences are 3 words long. There are nine highlighted characters. A's and T's relate to DNA. "DNA is a chain of nucleic acids consisting of Adenine (designated by the letter A), Cytosine (designated by the letter C), Guanine (designated by the letter G), and Thymine (designated by the letter T)." (Page 58)

"When they lifted out just the bolded letters, investigators got TTT AAT TAT – an apparent hidden message within the letters themselves." The 3-letter groups are codons, "meaning that each sequence of three nucleic acids will code for a specific amino acid." (Page 59)

TTT = Phenylalanine (single-letter designator F)

AAT = Asparagine (single-letter designator N)

TAT = Tyrosine (single-letter designator Y)

"From this analysis, two possible hidden meanings emerged: (1) 'FNY' – a verbal assault on New York, and (2) PAT – the nickname of [Dr. Ivins'] Former Colleague #2." (Page 60) Dr. Ivins was known to have a dislike for New York City, and four of the media letters had been sent to New York. When questioned about this, Dr. Ivins claimed he hadn't read the part in GEB that discussed the coding/decodings procedures. (See FBI File #847551, pages 74 & 75 if you have a copy from before the June 9, 2008 "off the record interview" was removed.)

Since Dr. Ivins committed suicide before he could explain whether the decoded message was FNY or PAT or both, "It was obviously impossible for the Task Force to determine with certainty that either of these two translations was correct. However,[...] the key point to the investigative analysis is that there is a hidden message, not so much what that message is." (Page 60) In other words, it's not necessary to know what message Ivins intended, it's only necessary to understand that Ivins did place the hidden message in the media letters. The hidden message links Dr. Ivins and only Dr. Ivins directly to the attack letters.

Page 59 of the Summary contains this additional information: "on July 27, 2000, Dr. Ivins forwarded an e-mail to Former Colleague #1 which began 'Biopersonals: I have single-stranded too long! Lonely ATGCATG would like to pair up with congenial TACGTAG, along with a note 'this is some cute humor for anyone who has ever had anything to do with biochemistry or molecular biology.'” and "This 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." And, it's another example of Dr. Ivins using DNA coding to send a hidden message. EdLake (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

---

---

Thank you for adding the proposed text to the talk page! I have already commented on the text in the section above, stating my reservations about both the approach and some specific aspects of the text. It would be best if more editors have a look at the issue and offer their views on it.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, that's not necessary. EdLake (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Ed, for now, my advice is to assume that the DOJ/FBI report is suitable for substantial use here. I would support you on that. Then (to be blunt in a friendly way) start writing this like a Wikipedia article section, which it is miles away from being. A few of the pervasive problems are that it is written like a conversation of you personally telling the reader your personal take of what to think on this. I'm NOT saying that it is, just that that's how you wrote it. Then it is written in an incomplete way, telling the readers to read something else to "fill in the blank" instead of you summarizing what the reference said and just citing it to support what your summary said. Make sure each of the statements is supportable by a in-line citation to a specific place in a reference, even if you do not actually provide that citation in each case. And provide those specific citations on statements which you think that many people would be skeptical of. And it kind of skips around, as if you were throwing out thoughts and points instead of being a cohesive summary of what you are writing about.

To pick a random example that illustrates a few of these things, when you say "they put full time surveillance on him because after such searches guilty people sometimes throw away or destroy materials that the searchers missed", did the FBI report say that this was the reason they put him under surveillance, or are you just imparting your personal knowledge why this is often done, or giving your personal guess on why the FBI did it in this case? Again, please excuse my bluntness, it was genuinely meant in a friendly way. And again, this is all just my opinion. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

North8000 - I have no problem with "bluntness." The example you use is my rewording of what is on page 61:

"On November 1, 2007, Task Force agents executed a search warrant at the Ivins residence. A few days later, on November 7, 2007, agents conducted a “trash run” at his house in an effort to see what he threw out that they may have missed."

And on page 64:

"In the days that followed the search of his home, cars, and office on November 1, 2007, investigators seized Dr. Ivins’s trash to see if there was anything of interest that they may have missed during the search. The agents first set up surveillance in order to avoid detection when securing his trash, and noted the following bizarre behavior of Dr. Ivins: Just after 1:00 a.m., on November 8, 2007, with the front porch light on, he walked out the front door of his house across the street from USAMRIID, wearing long underwear, and stood outside for a few minutes before walking back inside. A few minutes later, the municipal garbage truck pulled up in front of his house and took his garbage. Seven minutes later, Ivins again emerged from the house and walked toward the street. He walked to the garbage cart where the garbage once was and looked inside, closed the lid and pulled the cart back into the driveway. He then walked towards his neighbor’s house, and while standing in the street, looked into the parking lot across the street. He walked towards the wooded area across from his house (where the surveillance agent was making all of these observations) and peered into the wooded area and the parking lot for approximately a full minute. He then went back inside his house. In the other 15 or so trash runs conducted before and after this one, Dr. Ivins was never observed doing anything remotely like this."

I remembered the sections, and I wrote the text, but then I forgot to go back to check the exact words and provide the page numbers.

Ed, (June 25th) this is a minor example, but a good one. According to the above text, your statement is in conflict with the reference on one point (the reason for setting up surveillence) and unsourcable (& wrong) on another implicitly said that at that point FBI determined that he was guilty. This is what I was talking about when I said to review your statements in there. My belief is that you are correct on the general content of this section. But these are the type of things I was talking about when I suggesting checking every statement. North8000 (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I tried to write the article in an easily understandable way. It's a VERY complex subject. I don't think I jumped around. The DOJ's report jumps around. That's why the page number references aren't in order. That's probably why the newspaper articles claim the DOJ report is difficult to follow. I tried to make it easy to follow. EdLake (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I have left a note at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Probematic situation at 2001 anthrax attacks, so hopefully we can get some help from uninvolved editors who have experience in handling difficult situations such as this one.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I went back to the article to add the page number reference (#61 and #64) about the surveillance and saw that the page number reference #64 was there after all. Since I was in the area, I changed "commented" to "reported" and I deleted "(which got a lot of the information wrong)" since it's not important and is a point of contention. I'd just used it because it seemed an interesting point. EdLake (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Initially, I have indeed focused almost exclusively on the aspect of sources. Other editors, including North8000, have correctly pointed out that this is not the only, and in their view, maybe not the main problem with the edit. In my view, for an encyclopedia, the sources that are most detached from a given topic are best, not the sources that are most close to a topic. Most of the other problems of the edit, it seems to me, are a result of looking for sources that are very close to the topic, rather than for sources that summarize and condense the information.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Ed, it looks like the work will be done in main article space rather than here, but IMHO it has to be done. Again, please excuse the bluntness which is intended in a friendly and attempting-to-be-helpful way. Two good starting points would be:

Take out all of the "see xxxx" phrases. To many this keeps looking like a crutch to avoid summarizing the content for the article, evade accountability for proper writing (somebody always has to go read something else first), or provide those notes in lieu of proper citations. I just said "looking", NOT that it IS these things. And then fix it so that your article section can work without them. Assuming that these are mostly (or should be) a citation for something that was just said/summarized, put in a citation to a specific page etc. in these cases.

Review your writing for the "statements" that it contains, and just briefly think about whether you think that each of these is supportable by the references. Take out any where you don't think that this is the case.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

North8000 - Previously, you wrote: "This means that for a questioned/challenged statement, you need an in-line citation pointing to a specific page etc. that supports the statement, not just mentioning an entire document (of block of 10 pages in a document) once in those paragraphs."

Now you say: "Take out all of the "see xxxx" phrases. To many this keeps looking like a crutch to avoid summarizing the content for the article"

I only put in all the "see xxxx" phrases because you suggested it. But, I'll removed them (or look them over to see which should be removed).

I think that each statement I wrote IS "supportable by the references." Please don't take offense, but the dispute seems to be that you would have written things differently. I can't do anything about that. I can't write from your point of view.

Ed, I know that this may seem confusing, but I don't have a dispute, I am just trying to help. And I was trying to suggest a starting point for a process to tidy this up. If you want me to, I will disappear from here.

Regarding citations/references, what I meant is that wherever there is a statement that people are likely to question, to provide an in-line citation that specifically supports it. So you might have multiple references that use the FBI/DOJ report, that point to different pages in it.

Again, I don't have a dispute, I am just trying to help. If you want me to, I will disappear from here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

North8000 - NO, I definitely do NOT want you to "disappear from here." You are offering constructive advice. The problem is: I don't understand your advice. So, further attempts to get things through my concrete head could help both of us.  :-)

Ed (June 25th) When I suggested taking out all of the "see xxxx" I saw this as step 1 of a process that would "force" tidying this section up. As a preface, something clearly identified as a citation in Wikipeda in essence says "the following citation supports what I just said". The "see xxxx" wordings are not this, and nobody knows what they are, they could be:

"The writing elsewhere is an integral part of my writing here, so nobody can critique what I wrote unless they spend the extra time reading all of that other stuff."

" I didn't bother to summarize the complete thought in the article "

"I'm using this vague concept to avoid having to provide real, specific Wikipedia type citations in the article"

" For those interested, here's a place to find further info"

#1 through #3 would be problems, if they existed. So, I thought that if you took out all of the "see xxxx" items, that would be the first step to guide/force you to fix any of those three that are present. Specifically, make sure that you are putting complete thoughts / summaries of key points in the article, make it possible to critique what you wrote on it's own merits, and to clear away the ambiguity so that I (or somebody) could put "citation needed" tags on any statements where it is felt that such is needed. North8000 (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

RESPONSE TO "Ed June 25th":

I thought we had gone over this. You said that mentioning pages 56 to 64 wasn't enough. So, I added "(See page 59)" "(page 61)" etc. to the article to refer people to the exact page where they could find the reference. It does exactly what you request: ""the following citation supports what I just said". Are you saying now that you want to see just an exact page number like [59]? There is no way to provide an exact page number when the document is 92 pages long. Or are you requesting that I repeat the exact same reference to the FBI's entire Summary report over and over? EdLake (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Indent added by North8000 (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC) I hope you don't mind.

What I am suggesting is to start by removing those things. Then the other stuff will follow. But, to answer your final question, there will probably be a few cases where you would need to provide a in-line citation with a specif page #. And that would involve repeating the overall source. If that repetition gets huge, (which I don't think it will here), there are WP referencing formats and tools to handle that. North8000 (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I removed all the page citations that weren't part of the text, i.e., everything that required parenthesis. Why do I have this feeling that you're now going to ask me to put them back one by one? EdLake (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. But it would be "see xxxx", so I wouldn't call that "bakc in" If I become too much of a pain the butt just tell me to go away and feel free to revert anything I did.  :-) Sincerely,

I took a look at the "hidden message" section to see what changes I should make. I looked at the sentence "they put full time surveillance on him because after such searches guilty people sometimes throw away or destroy materials that the searchers missed" and tried to come up with some way to say that they put full time surveillance on his GARBAGE CANS without making it seem silly. But I couldn't. Then I looked at the citations to see which should be deleted. I considered deleting a couple of the minor ones, but the ones that have been indicated as being most objectionable "(See page 64 of the Summary Report for more details.)" and "(See page 62 of the Summary)" are the ones that are required in order to make the abbreviated references understandable "(Page 58)" "(Page 59)" "(Page 60)". So, I'm just going to leave it to you or others to delete the citations you/they think are not necessary. EdLake (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Cs32en - You wrote: "the sources that are most detached from a given topic are best, not the sources that are most close to a topic." Isn't that equivalent to saying that the people who know the least about a subject are best, not the people who know the most about a subject? Also, the people who are "most detached" are also the people who have the least interest in writing about the subject. EdLake (talk) 13:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The people that are least involved in an issue may know less than people closely involved in it. Their accounts, however, are less affected by their personal or instutional involvement. This is especially true for news institutions, that build their reputation on a track record of accuracy and unbiased presentation of relevant facts. The latter aspect is generally much more important than the former. However, once an unbiased structure has been built on the based of such detached sources, we may fill in remaining "holes" with information taken from primary sources. There is no clear dividing line here, and the issue is not whether or not to use primary sources, but to used primary sources as part of an appropriate process in which the presentation is being developed, either as part of the editing process here, or in the mind (or the text editor) of a single contributor to Wikipedia.15:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Someone wrote: "This is especially true for news institutions, that build their reputation on a track record of accuracy and unbiased presentation of relevant facts." That's an interesting point of view. The media's reporting of the anthrax attacks of 2001 has got to be the worst news reporting in the past 100 years. And the consensus seems to be that today's news is more about opinions than facts. Newspapers and magazines are dying because people now look to opinionated Internet bloggers and radio and TV commentators for their information. Just look at the most recent news stories about the anthrax attacks of 2001, and most of what you will see is pure uninformed opinions which are easily shown to be total nonsense. (On my web site, I archive every original news story I can find about the anthrax attacks of 2001.) EdLake (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

September 13, 2009 - Press Accuracy Rating Hits Two Decade Low

"The public’s assessment of the accuracy of news stories is now at its lowest level in more than two decades of Pew Research surveys, and Americans’ views of media bias and independence now match previous lows.

"Just 29% of Americans say that news organizations generally get the facts straight, while 63% say that news stories are often inaccurate.

Source: http://people-press.org/report/543/ EdLake (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Official and Unofficial Suspects

I just divided up the section previously called "Suspects and "Persons of Interest" into two different sections: "The Official Suspect: Dr. Bruce Edwards Ivins" and "Unofficial suspects and "persons of interest."

It seemed pretty silly to have the official suspect third on a list of suspects after Dr. Hatfill and Dr. Zack. Was Dr. Zack was ever a suspect OR a "person of interest" to the FBI? Or was it only neo-Nazis who considered Zack a "person of interest." Many neo-Nazi web sites pointed to Zack as a suspect merely because they thought that Zack was a Jewish name (he is actually Catholic). Link 84 after the Zack entry just leads to an article about Genomes, which has nothing to do with Zack. Link 85 points at Ayaad Assaad as a potential suspect, NOT Zack. Same with Link 86. Link 87 mentions Zack, but it's also about Assaad. I suspect that there used to be an entry about Dr. Assaad, but it was removed for some reason.

I also made the change in preparation for adding a lot more material from the FBI/DOJ's Summary report regarding the evidence of Dr. Ivins' guilt.

If no one has any objections, I'd like to remove the section about Dr. Zack and just have it about Dr. Hatfill. Then, of course, I'd change the heading to "Person of Interest: Dr. Steven Jay Hatfill." EdLake (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated note: Ed, I left you 2 notes buried in the above; they are labeled Ed June 25th Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I put my response after your posting. Here's something I just posted in the administrator's page:

Primary sources vs Secondary sources

Here is Wikipedia's definition of "primary source" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source which agrees with MY definition:

"Primary source is a term used in a number of disciplines to describe source material that is closest to the person, information, period, or idea being studied.[1]

"In historiography, a primary source (also called original source or evidence) is an artifact, a document, a recording, or other source of information that was created at the time under study. If created by a human source, then a source with direct personal knowledge of the events being described. It serves as an original source of information about the topic. Similar definitions are used in library science, and other areas of scholarship. In journalism, a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document created by such a person.

Primary sources are distinguished from secondary sources, which cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources, though the distinction is not a sharp one. "Primary" and "secondary" are relative terms, with sources judged primary or secondary according to specific historical contexts and what is being studied.[2][3]"

So, the arguments I'm seeing here disagree with Wikipedia's definition (and every other definition) of "primary source."

A simple question might help clear things up for me: In the anthrax attacks article, in the section about the National Academy of Sciences review, there is an interview of Dr. Henry Heine by the New York Times. Who is the "primary source" and why? And if the person being interviewed by The New York Times is the "primary source" why isn't that person the "primary source" when the FBI does the interviewing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks#National_Academy_of_Sciences_Review EdLake (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Commentary on non-denial section

Below I will give my commentary on this particular section. It ain't gonna be pretty, but should give you an idea how to write text compliant with wikipedia's wp:manual of style. The section as currently in the article:

Dr. Ivins' "non-denial denials"

The anthrax mailings included a number of indications that the mailer was trying to avoid harming anyone with his warning letters. (1) The seams on the backs of the envelopes were taped over as if to make certain the powders couldn't escape through open seams. (2) The letters were folded with the "pharmaceutical fold," which was used for centuries to safely contain and transport doses of powdered medicines (and currently to safely hold trace evidence). (3) The media letters provided "medical advice": "TAKE PENACILIN NOW." (4) The senate letters informed the recipient that the powder was anthrax: "WE HAVE THIS ANTHRAX." And, (4) at the time of the mailings, it was generally believed that such powders could not escape from a sealed envelope - except through the two open corners where a letter opener is inserted, and those corners had been taped shut.

According to page 70 - 71 of the DOJ/FBI's Summary report, on June 5, 2008, Dr. Ivins had a (recorded) conversation with a witness, during which he made a series of statements about the anthrax mailings that could best be characterized as "non-denial denials." When asked about the anthrax attacks and whether he could have had anything to do with them, here are some of Dr. Ivins' responses:

Ivins: “I will tell that, I will tell you that it’s, I can’t pull that up. And a lot of times with e-mails, I don’t know that I sent an e-mail until I see it in the sent box. And it worries me when I wake up in the morning and I’ve got all my clothes and my shoes on, and my car keys are right beside there. . . . And I don’t have it in my, in my, I, I can tell you I don’t have it in my heart to kill anybody.” ....

Ivins: “And I, and I do not have any recollection of ever have doing anything like that." ....

Ivins: “The only reason I remember some of this stuff, it’s because there’s like a clue the next day. Like there’s an e-mail or, or, you know, when you’re, when you’re in bed and you’re like, you’re like this, you know, that’s, that’s not real fun. It’s like ‘oh shit, did I drive somewhere last night?’”

Witness: “Right, yeah, yeah, that must be awfully scary.”

Ivins: “It really certainly is. Uh, because I can tell you, I am not a killer at heart.” ....

Ivins: “If I found out I was involved in some way, and, and . . .”

Witness: “And you don’t consciously know?”

Ivins: “Have any, any clue. [pause] [groan] ‘Cause like, I’m, I’m not uh, a uh, I don’t think of myself as a vicious, a, a nasty evil person.” ....

Ivins: “Because I, I don’t like to hurt people, accidentally, in, in any way. And [several scientists at USAMRIID] wouldn’t do that. And I, in my right mind wouldn’t do it [laughs]. . . . But it’s still, but I still feel responsibility because it [RMR-1029] wasn’t locked up at the time . . . .”

Commentary

1. Boldface, don't use it. If you really want to highlight something use Italics, but use those sparingly as well. The less text is highlighted, the better it works. Relevant policy is MOS:BOLD
2. Sentences/wordsconsisting of capital leters, also to be avoided. Use Italics if you want emphasis. See MOS:ALLCAPS
3. "The anthrax mailings included a number of indications that the mailer was trying to avoid harming anyone with his warning letters". Unless you have a source which draws the same conclusion, pointing to the same 4 pieces of evidence you are not allowed to say this. Relevant policy is synthesis.
4. "during which he made a series of statements about the anthrax mailings that could best be characterized as "non-denial denials." Same story as above, you are gonna need to have source say this, it can't be you who draws the conclusion.
5. Whole conversation between Ivins and a witness, please just leave it out. If you want to quote some of his statements to show the his "non-denial denials." than do so, but entire phone conversations are serious overkill. I notice you also provide no source for the conversation.
6. According to page 70 - 71 of the DOJ/FBI's Summary report. Don't do this, include the page number in the reference: According the DOJ/FBI's Summary report. Please note, this is just a quick example, I am saying this is the proper way your references should look, although they could use some improvement from mere links.

Also some general comments about the entire article (not saying you are responsible for these points, but you might want to know):

1. It is too detailed and long. Try to condense it.
2. Comments from X sections: Just remove this, it does not belong in a wikipedia article. Some quotes might be integrated into prose elsewhere, but sections consisting purely of quotes are unwanted.
3. Timeline: turn this into a separate subarticle.

Yoenit (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Responses:

1. I can use italics, but bold definitely works better for me.

2. The only place I use all capital letters is when I quote from the anthrax letters, which were written in all capital letters. It makes no sense to de-capitalize them.

3. I have sources, but they may not use those same words. A change will just lengthen the sentences in question. But, I'll give it a try.

4. The sentence begins with "According to page 70 - 71 of the DOJ/FBI's Summary report[4]," which is the source. I didn't put quotations around it because I added "(recorded)". But I can remove "(recorded)" and put back the quotes.

5. Again, the source is pages 70-71 of the Summary Report. I reduced those pages to a few key quotes to reduce the size of the entry.

6. I don't know how to refer to a specific page in a 92 page document. I didn't even know it could be done. It seems more readable the way I did it, but I can make the change if I can figure out what you did. Let's see: Hmm. It appears I won't know if it worked or not until after I do the SAVE PAGE. (Nope, didn't work.)

1. I'd like to condense the entire article and get rid of a lot of garbage, but deletions REALLY get objections. That's why I've tried to only ADD things so far. I'm trying to make the unnecessary stuff clearly unnecessary. I'd like to get rid of entire sections, but all Hell will break loose, I'm sure. This is a VERY controversial subject.

2. "Comments from X sections" I have no idea what you are talking about.

3. "Timeline: turn this into a separate subarticle." Isn't "Timeline" already a "separate subarticle"? It's #10 in the table of contents. Or, perhaps, I have no clue what you are talking about. EdLake (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe there's something you don't know about all this. This whole article has been the FOCUS of a LOT of conspiracy theorists and True Believers who feel that the FBI is wrong about who sent the anthrax letters and whether or not the powders were weaponized. For years I tried to change things, only to have them immediately changed back. So, I gave up for a couple years. Now, I'm back. And I'm CERTAIN that nearly all the debate about using the FBI's Summary report is just a way of preventing the use of newly released facts in the article so that the old quotes from conspiracy theorists and True Believers from 2001 and 2002 will continue to dominate. EdLake (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I tried changing the key statements from Ivins from bold to italics, and the result is that you don't even notice the key statements, so I didn't do the save.

Before:

Ivins: “I will tell that, I will tell you that it’s, I can’t pull that up. And a lot of times with e-mails, I don’t know that I sent an e-mail until I see it in the sent box. And it worries me when I wake up in the morning and I’ve got all my clothes and my shoes on, and my car keys are right beside there. . . . And I don’t have it in my, in my, I, I can tell you I don’t have it in my heart to kill anybody.” ....

Ivins: “And I, and I do not have any recollection of ever have doing anything like that." ....

After:

Ivins: “I will tell that, I will tell you that it’s, I can’t pull that up. And a lot of times with e-mails, I don’t know that I sent an e-mail until I see it in the sent box. And it worries me when I wake up in the morning and I’ve got all my clothes and my shoes on, and my car keys are right beside there. . . . And I don’t have it in my, in my, I, I can tell you I don’t have it in my heart to kill anybody.” ....

Ivins: “And I, and I do not have any recollection of ever have doing anything like that." ....

Maybe I'll try just using the key statements and eliminating everything else. EdLake (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed "(recorded) and put back the quotes. I'm trying to figure out how to strip down the entire quotes from Ivins to just use the highlighted parts, but I'm having trouble getting it to make sense that way. And searching for other sources to replace the part that is "synthesized" is going to take time. I may have to give up for today and try again tomorrow. Other chores are accumulating. EdLake (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah! I had been thinking that I'd have to dig into some Wikipedia manual to figure out how to use hidden page numbers instead of stating them in the text, but while doing chores I realized that I could check the source code in the Wikipedia article. Then I realized that you provided an example, and I can check the source code there. I've done so, so I'm going to go back and change a few things in the article.  :-) EdLake (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

With regards to point 1 and 2. Our opinion is not relevant to this. Wikipedia has a manual of style for these things to make sure it is consistant between articles.

With comments from X I ment the sections "Comments from bio-weapons experts" and "Comments from government officials" which are just unrelated quotes. I am gonna delete them in a minute.

Timeline is currently a section. What is propose is moving everything from section 10 to the new article Timeline of the 2001 anthrax attacks. Also gonna delete Timeline of the 2001 anthrax attacks in New York and New Jersey

about references, almost everything you can do in a normal text can also be done in a reference. You might want to read Wikipedia:Citation templates for very nice preformatted reference templates.Yoenit (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I already fixed the bold to italics problem. I stripped the quotes down to just the needed information, and the results didn't need bold OR italics.

It will be interesting to see if there is any reaction to deleting the sections of "Comments." I would have deleted them myself, if I'd had the nerve.

I fixed all of the page number citations I could find to put them in the links. It's not a problem. I just didn't know who to do it before. One remains, however, and I'm not sure what to do with it. Here it is:

When questioned about this, Dr. Ivins claimed he hadn't read the part in GEB that discussed the coding/decodings procedures. (See FBI File #847551, pages 74 & 75 if you have a copy from before the June 9, 2008 "off the record interview" was removed.)

The problem is: The information WAS on-line in the FBI's files for a few days, but then they realized that it was a "off the record" interview and deleted it. I'd save a copy from before that happened, but my copy isn't on-line. It seems important to know what Ivins response was when confronted with that information, but it's not absolutely critical. What do you think? EdLake (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Changing "TAKE PENACILIN NOW" and "WE HAVE THIS ANTHRAX." to "Take penacilin now" and "We have this anthrax." is wrong, since the original was in all caps. You are creating an INCORRECT QUOTE. But I won't fight it. Are you going to correct the spelling of penacilin, too? That would really screw it up. EdLake (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I support the use of capital letters in those case in which the original source contains capitals. "Off the record" interviews should not be used as sources on Wikipedia, but we can use information about such interviews published in secondary reliable sources, of course.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Ed, I think you are missing the main point of the feedback given. Most folks are saying basically saying to write this in a more Wikipedian / Enclyclopedic way. My general feeling is that you are not seeing that that is the main theme of what people have been telling you, and trying to help you with. I think that you are an expert the field of the subject of this article, with knowledge of many sources, but have a lot of rough edges and things that you don't understand regarding writing for Wikipedia, or enclyclopedic content. Maybe not every suggestion is perfect, but my advice would be to take what folks are saying with this understanding. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I made a whole bunch of changes yesterday because I finally realized what you and Yoenit were trying to tell me. The problem was that I not only didn't understand what you were saying (saying "It's not the Wikipedia way" doesn't really explain much), when I figured out what you were saying, I discovered I also didn't know how to do what you wanted. But, I figured it all out yesterday. So, I went back and changed everything. Where I previously said, "Page 71 of the DOJ Summary report[21] says, 'Ivins' did it.'" I now say, "'Ivins did it'[21]" and reference 21 says "DOJ Summary Report, page 71" and there's a link under "DOJ Summary Report" to the actual report on the DOJ's web site.

I apologize for my snide remark about correcting the spelling of "PENACILIN," but the idea of following the rules even when the rules will make things WRONG and/or less understandable bothers me.

I notice that early this morning "Kjdillon" added this comment to the section about the "hidden message in the media letters":

"Critics of FBI's theory note that various hidden messages have been detected in the letters, including known al Qaeda codewords. Because there is no method for determining which supposed hidden message is the real one, this approach appears to have no probative value. In addition, the nighttime disposal of GEB by Ivins can be interpreted as the act of an innocent man who, knowing that FBI had targeted him, sought to destroy anything that might look suspicious."

No references, no quotes from news sources, just the firm beliefs of "Kjdillon" who thinks Ivins is innocent and the anthrax letters were sent by al Qaeda.

I can't delete that new paragraph without creating a fuss. But I hope someone else can.

Meanwhile, later today I'll take a look at the "improper synthesis" notations to see how to make them proper. When I "fix" them, do I delete the "improper synthesis" notation, or do I wait for the person who put it there to decide the fix is proper?

I also notice someone put a date on the "This section may contain previously unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources" notification. What's that all about?

I think we're making significant progress in improving the article about the anthrax attacks of 2001. I don't know if it was a good idea to separate the timeline from the main article or not, but I think it was definitely a good idea to delete the "Comments from bioweapons experts" and "Comments from government officials" sections. I couldn't have done it without someone immediately putting it back, but those same people clearly tend to think twice when someone else makes the deletion. EdLake (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Ed, you have the same right to challenge, tag or delete other people's insertions, or question or grill them in the talk page as they have to do so with yours. The norm in Wikipedia is a complex mixture/balance, of boldness and cautiousness / seeking consensus, with WP:policies used as a guide or framework. If I were deep in on this article, seeing that, to me, Kjdillon's insertion has a reasonable possibility of being true/sourcable, (it is an assertion that to some significant degree people have raised that question, Kjdillon is NOT asserting that the question is the answer) I personally would put "citation required" tags in 2-3 places in Kjdillon's insertion, or bring it up on the talk page. And, if there was no sourcing provided within a few weeks on any controversial statements, I would delete their insertion. North8000 (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

North8000, I know, but I'm not going to get "aggressive" in deleting things OR challenging other people's postings until I've finished adding new material to the anthrax article. Debating logic and reasoning just takes up too much time. The debate over "primary" versus "secondary" sources went on for over a week without any real resolution. No one has yet answered this question:

If the FBI interviews Dr. Heine and writes a report about it, is that somehow different from the New York Times interviewing Dr. Heine and writing a report about it? Is the FBI always the "primary source" as if Dr. Heine doesn't exist? Does Dr. Heine only really exist when he's interviewed by The New York Times? EdLake (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

EdLake, if you state that "the debate over 'primary' versus 'secondary' sources went on for over a week without any real resolution", then please re-read the comments from editors at WP:RS/N#Primary vs Secondary sources. Three editors have stated their assessment that the DOJ report is a primary source, and no editor has stated that it would be secondary source. While the debate has not formally ended, consensus seems to build around regarding the DOJ report as a primary source (which can nevertheless be used, to be sure).  Cs32en Talk to me  15:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

CS32 I had said there that a huge report prepared by many many of people in many many different roles is inevitably a mixture of primary and secondary sources. I think that the discussion wandered into many interesting places, and don't belive that there was a consensus (or even focus) on classification of the FSI/DOJ report as primary vs. secondary,. And Ed, I don't think that you understand that even if it were purely a primary source, that would not forbid you from using it. And Ed, I don't think that you understand that the primary vs. secondary has not been a big issue here in subsequent discussion. Even CS32 who (I think) is the one most feeling that it's use should be limited is not telling you not to use it. North8000 (talk) 15:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

In my view, the discussion on the reliable sources notice board#Primary vs Secondary sources is the relevant discussion with regard to this aspect. I know that you have stated a different opinion, although it's not a polar opposite. At the same time, you have not added it to the RS notice board (neither did I add my opinion on the DOJ report there). In my view, the feedback that we have got from uninvolved editors on this particular question so far is that the source should rather be regarded as a primary source. The discussion is not closed, however, maybe I should strike out "formally" in my comment above. Overuse of primary sources will make the article even longer, harder to read and difficult to manage with regard to possible original research and synthesis.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not know that that discussion existed. I added a few sentences there. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

As you see, we're getting opinions but NO LOGIC. I'm an analyst. I use logic. I understand that the use of primary sources is no longer an "issue" to some, and that's the reason I'm once again posting material taken from the DOJ/FBI Summary Report and no one is deleting it. But, the definition of primary vs secondary sources cannot be resolved until the question I asked above is resolved.

Just out of curiosity, I know that in other forums too many indentations causes people with small computer screens to see things as if they're a vertical stack of meaningless letters. Is that also the case here. Is there a reasonable limit on indentations? EdLake (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's the definition question again:

If the FBI interviews Dr. Heine and writes a report about it, is that somehow different from the New York Times interviewing Dr. Heine and writing a report about it? Is the FBI always the "primary source" as if Dr. Heine doesn't exist? Does Dr. Heine only really exist when he's interviewed by The New York Times? EdLake (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You can use {{outdent}} to get back to the left side. An interview is always a primary source, unless the interviewee would be a secondary source for some other information. In that case, the interviewee must be considered reliable for the interview to be used (with the exception of using self-published sources per the respective guideline).  Cs32en Talk to me  17:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Cs32en - "You can use {{outdent}} to get back to the left side." Thanks, but that doesn't answer what I asked. I have a 23 inch computer screen. You'd probably have to do 30 or 40 indentations before it would be a problem for me. I was just wondering if 10 or 12 indentations was a problem for anyone else or if there was some kind of limit. (I thought the software limit was 5 until I saw someone use 6.)

"An interview is always a primary source, unless the interviewee would be a secondary source" So, an FBI report of a meeting with Dr. Heine is a "secondary source?" Doesn't that mean that FBI reports are NOT always considered to be "primary sources?" EdLake (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, FWIW, I added material to substantiate the two areas where "improper synthesis" notations were made - and I removed the "improper synthesis" notations. The only one remaining is the boxed thingy at the top of the section about the "hidden message in the media letters." It says: "This section may contain previously unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources." I'm assuming that "may" means that it's just a warning to readers, NOT a threat to delete the entire entry if I don't somehow fix something. EdLake (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Since I was thinking about "improper synthesis" anyway, I plunked four "improper synthesis" notations into Ken Dillon's comment disputing the hidden message findings. His points are all the result of "original analysis" by Dillon and others who believe al Qaeda or an al Qaeda sympathizer was behind the attacks. (Check out Ken Dillon in the "Amateur Investigators" section.) I don't recall any "secondary sources" reporting on such things. EdLake (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Because I was in a good mood, I also added a "preview" to the new article about the timeline. If not me, who else? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2001_anthrax_attacks EdLake (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)