Talk:2001 anthrax attacks/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Non-Specific Requests for Citations

I just deleted two notices about needing citations. The first was in the section titled "Amateur Investigators." There's no way of knowing what citations are needed. I added some to the part about Dr. Barabara Hatch Rosenberg, since it was the only part that had no citations. Is that what was needed? There's no way of knowing. It suggests that editors need to guess where citations are needed, and if they don't guess correctly, the entire section will be deleted.

I also changed the name of the section to "Analysts, Researchers and Amateur Investigators" since the term "analyst" seems to better fit most of the people listed. "Investigators" generally do "field work," e.g., going to the scene of the crime to interview witnesses and collect evidence.

I also deleted the notice that was at the top of the section about the "hidden messages in the media letters." WHERE are citations needed? The section is FILLED with citations. The notice makes no sense without some details. It suggests that editors need to guess where citations are needed, and if they don't guess correctly, the entire section will be deleted. EdLake (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

June 28, 2010 - I just realized that some of the citations I deleted from the "hidden message" section because they were in the wrong format were never put back in the right format. So, I just put them back. That may be the reason for the "citations needed" warning that had been placed at the top of the section. EdLake (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Ed, I think that you're starting to learn how this words. North8000 (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I put one individual "citation needed" by the "surveilance / searched his garbage" sentences. Since you already showed me the citation material, I think that I know that it is wrong or unsourcable as written. (I don't have your expertise in this field, and so having the material that you showed me is the only reason I am able to comment on this) What you wrote conflicts with the source in two ways. The FBI did not give that as a reason, and they did not say he was "guilty" while giving their reason. This gives an example of where you wrote something sort of "freehand" that did not come from the source, and, as a result, which was partially wrong. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I changed this:

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."[27]

to this:

"Over the course of the several years between the mailings and his suicide, Dr. Ivins engaged in behavior and made statements that were evidence of a guilty conscience."[27] Behavior example: "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."[28] Just after 1 a.m. on the morning of November 8, Dr. Ivins was observed acting in a suspicious way after 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."[29]

On page 61 of the FBI's Summary, they mention Ivins' suspicious behavior on the morning of November 8, 2007 as being an example of "consciousness of guilt" or a "guilty conscience." They didn't watch his trash just for the heck of it. It wasn't a coincidence. They put surveillance on his trash BECAUSE they knew from experience that, after a search of the kind the FBI did on November 1, guilty people (i.e., people with a guilty conscience) will throw things out that searchers missed. I was just paraphrasing the FBI's report to make things more clear. The new version might be less clear, but I believe it follows the Wikipedia guidelines. EdLake (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool. North8000 (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Whew!! I think with the addition of new information about how the "controversy over coatings and additives" got started and the information about hoaxes and anthrax threats prior to the attacks that I added at the top of the "overview" section, I'm going to let things set for awhile to see if there will be any reaction by anyone except Ken Dillon. I've probably done a hundred updates in the past week or so. It's possible I might add more today or tomorrow, but, at the moment I'm not planning any. I've been thinking too much. My brain hurts. :-) EdLake (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Ed, what a lot of nice work! All of our "being Wikipedian" discussion aside, (and there could be more to come) folks should be thanked for such a contribution of time and expertise such as yours on this article. North8000 (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The decision to discontinue updates lasted about two hours. I just made a change to try to avoid another "citation needed" notification. I also keep thinking I should combine all the "Unrelated Letters" into one place: the Chile letter, the Assaad letter, the Microsoft letter, the Bnai Brith letter, the countless hoax letters, etc. The problem is: As soon as I say they are "unrelated" to the actual anthrax attacks, someone is likely to say that's an "improper synthesis." EdLake (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I also think the article sadly lacks a listing of all the people who have managed to get their opinions into news articles - and even into scientific articles - but they had absolutely nothing to do with actually analyzing the attack anthrax: Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, Richard Spertzel, Stuart Jacobsen, Edward J. Epstein, Barry Kissin, Ross Getman, Kay Mereish, various colleagues of Ivins' from USAMRIID and others. Such a list could be side by side with a list of people who HAVE worked with the investigation and did see and/or work with the attack anthrax: Douglas Beecher, Peter Jahrling, John Ezzell, Joseph Michael, Paul Keim, Matthew Meselson, Bruce Budowle, Roger Breeze, etc., etc. But such a list could be construed as "an original analysis." It's certainly never been published in anywhere. EdLake (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the expertise nor depth of involvement here to give a solid answer on that. IMHO creation of a list such as that does not necessarily violate wp:nor / wp:ver. A list is basically a statement of the "heading" about each entry. Suitably sourcable statements do not violate WP:NOR / WP:VER. Of course depending on what it is, it could have other issues. North8000 (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Changes by Kjdillon

I undid a bunch of changes done by Ken Dillon which appear to be intended to discard the FBI's investigation and return to olden days when no one knew who perpetrated the attacks. EdLake (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Summarizing the article

Kenosis suggested the article can be summarized. I'm open to suggestions. I'll also make a few suggestions later today. EdLake (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with most of the material at the moment. Offhand I'd recommend just taking it one point at a time for starters. Maybe start by combining closely related points into single statements summarizing them, and put those citations at the end of the respective sentences to which they're relevant. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been looking at the section titled "controversy over coatings and additives." I just added all the material in the first 8 paragraphs. Everything beginning with the paragraph that starts with "Thus, early reports suggested the anthrax sent to the Senate had been "weaponized" is a jumble of material left over from the days when very little was known and everyone had their own opinion. What is noticeable to me is that it consists largely of statements from people who had only THEORIES about the case, and every statement by someone who actually had direct knowledge of the evidence (e.g., Douglas Beecher) is followed by counter-statements by people who had NO direct knowledge of the evidence (e.g., Dr. Dany Shoham, Dr. Stuart Jacobsen and Dr. Kay Mereish). That is the main problem throughout the article: Reports with solid, verified information are usually countered by numerous reports explaining theories and beliefs.

The last paragraph in the section is another example of another problem. Here's the paragraph:

Fox News reported in March 2008 that an email written by a scientist at Fort Detrick revealed details of the powder preparation;[76] these details appear to be consistent with a highly specialized powder.

The Fox news article was non specific and only confused the issue, but it was seen by some people as indicating that others besides Dr. Ivins were involved in the crime. At the time of the article (March 2008), the FBI's facts indicate that Dr. Ivins was the only suspect. EdLake (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Another major problem is that for every newspaper article with solid information, there are probably TEN newspaper articles with theories and beliefs and totally FALSE information. Example: ABC news reported that there was bentonite in the attack anthrax. There wasn't any bentonite in the attack anthrax. Someone at ABC evidently just made up everything about the bentonite. EdLake (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Another example: I recently added two paragraphs of new information at the top of the "Silicon content too high?" section (plus the question mark at the end of the section name). The opinions of Richard Spertzel are left over from olden days. Spertzel was NOT involved in the Amerithrax investigation. He has only opinions. Same with Dr. Jacobsen. And Jeffery Adamovicz seems to want to point the finger at Battelle, instead of at the person who he was supposed to be supervising - Bruce Ivins. But how does one summarize this? EdLake (talk) 16:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the three sections "Doubts about FBI conclusions," "Congressional Oversight" and "President Obama threatens to veto intelligence spending bill" can be combined into one section. The problem is doing it without showing bias. EdLake (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Ed, you seem to be learning the Wikipedian way very rapidly. My compliments, and again thanks for all of your hard and expert work!

One next step in the progression of the article is probably a very difficult and expert one. I think that it is a need for more summarization, which, is, of course, a challenge to do within Wikipedian standards, and without losing important detail. This deals with the challenge that, for a typical reader, the article is hard to follow. I don't have the expertise or depth of involvement on this topic to be certain of what I am saying, but here goes anyway. I think that negligably few of the previous complaints against you involved any claim of bias. My advice / opinion is to, while continuing to discuss & explain your actions (in talk section & edit summaries) to go ahead and attempt the summarization and combination. If it's good and unbiased work and you explain yourself, I think that others will support you. As you continue to work off your Wikipedian "rough edges" (as I think you are on the way to doing) then wp:be bold becomes more applicable. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Northe8000 - Thanks. I'm starting to do summaries. I did a few today. At the current rate, I should be done sometime in 2020.  :-( I hope the fact that "summarization" isn't a valid word in Wikipedia's dictionary isn't some kind of omen.  :-) EdLake (talk) 21:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

EdLake, could you give more detailed reasons for your recent edits? As far as I see, you have deleted sourced material, and the "summary" does not reference a number of these sources any more. It may well be the case that some of this material is duplicated, otherwise redundant or actually undue, but you should be more specific about why you think a certain piece of information is undue. Please take into account that we actually do need to include material that we ourselves may assess to be unimportant or even factually wrong, if it has received coverage in reliable sources.  Cs32en Talk to me  15:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Cs32en, Unfortunately, only a certain number of characters are allowed when giving a reason for a particular change. I tried to give good explanations, but there's no way to go into detail -- except by explaining things here on this discussion page. Mostly, I deleted things which seem redundant or no longer relevant to the article. If there is some change that you think needs additional explanation, please ask the question here and I will answer it here. EdLake (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I've made enough changes for today. I'm going to pause to see if there are any reactions to what I've done or if any explanations are needed. If there are no serious problems, I'll continue making changes and summarizing the article tomorrow morning. EdLake (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ed, if you make any substantial removals (including references) on an article where there has been some controversy, my recommendation would be to explain it somewhere. Either split up the edits and use edit summaries, or mention it on the talk page. North8000 (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

North8000: Good point. I was thinking the same thing. I should have made that big change as a series of small changes, with explanations for each change. I may undo it and redo it that way if I have the time today. EdLake (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I don't think I can undo that big change. Too many other changes have been made since then. But, I plan to add back a paragraph I deleted in order to use it as another example of the "controversy" that raged over additives and "weaponization." EdLake (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The best laid plans... I didn't put the paragraph back. Instead, I added a different paragraph mentioning Dr. Jacobsen and his theories. It fits better with the Beecher paragraph that follows it. That's it for today. EdLake (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Continuing to summarize: Does the section below look like an advertisement to anyone else but me?

Private consultants

Blasland, Bouck, & Lee (now Arcadis-BBL) was contracted by both CBS and NBC to manage their Anthrax situations. Jay D. Keough CIH, Greg Ertel MS, CIH, CSP, and Jim Poesl MS, CIE were the site personnel.

I'll leave it to some other editor to delete - if it's just an advertisement. EdLake (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Right now, it looks like the only major summarization left is to somehow combine and/or condense the sections titled "Doubts about FBI conclusions," "Congressional oversight" and "President Obama threatens to veto intelligence spending bill." EdLake (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think I'm done with all the major condensing. The article occupied 112,752 bytes yesterday, it's now 101,465 bytes. It was 143,899 bytes on June 26. There are probably other changes I could make to further summarize the article and reduce it's length a but more, but for the moment I'll just leave things the way they are. Example: The article still contains this in the "Silicon too high?" section:

Dr. Richard O. Spertzel, a microbiologist who led the United Nations’ biological weapons inspections of Iraq, wrote that the anthrax used could not have come from the lab where Ivins worked.[82] Spertzel said he remained skeptical of the Bureau’s argument despite the new evidence presented on August 18, 2008 in an unusual FBI briefing for reporters. He questioned the FBI's claim that the powder was less than military grade, in part because of the presence of high levels of silica. The FBI had been unable to reproduce the attack spores with the high levels of silica. The FBI attributed the presence of high silica levels to "natural variability."[83] However, this conclusion of the FBI contradicted its statements at an earlier point in the investigation, when the FBI had stated, based on the silicon content, that the anthrax was "weaponized," a step that made the powder more airy and required special scientific know-how.[84]

"If there is that much silicon, it had to have been added," stated Jeffrey Adamovicz, who supervised Ivins's work at Fort Detrick.[80] Adamovicz explained that the silicon in the attack anthrax could have been added via a large fermentor, which Battelle and some other facilities use" but "we did not use a fermentor to grow anthrax at USAMRIID . . . [and] We did not have the capability to add silicon compounds to anthrax spores." Dr. Ivins had neither the skills nor the means to attach silicon to anthrax spores. Richard Spertzel explained that the Fort Detrick facility did not handle anthrax in powdered form. "I don't think there's anyone there who would have the foggiest idea how to do it."[80]

I could easily summarize that into a single sentence about how scientists who have other theories do not believe the evidence. But it might be better to leave things the way they are in order to show what those scientists use as arguments. EdLake (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

POV Tag

I don't see there being a POV dispute. Just two people doing a lot of work trying to improve the article, with no particular POV difference, but a difference of opinion on a few writing style details. CS has been cleaning out more of some un-enclyclopedic writing (presumably from Ed's earlier days.) IMHO Cs went a little too far in removing some paragraph titles. I don't see a POV issue here. Unless I'm missing something. North8000 (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Evidently, CS feels that if the article doesn't represent his point of view, then it is not "neutral." Or perhaps CS feels that facts are not neutral.

I don't see where either of you has a strong POV on this. Time for the talk page. North8000 (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"The J-Lo letter" is the common terminology for the letter that was sent to Jennifer Lopez c/o the Sun. I can just as easily call it "The Jennifer Lopez letter," but everyone interested in the case knows about "The J-Lo Letter." People not interested in the case aren't going to be helped by calling it "The Jennifer Lopez letter."

I'm tempted to add "The London Hoax Letter" to the list, since it was a big deal and was used to point the finger at Dr. Hatfill because it was mailed from the London area at a time when Hatfill was in England taking a class at Porton Down. It's commonly referred to as "The London Hoax Letter," but I don't know if any news article uses that specific term.

The "unrelated letters" section NEEDS paragraph titles (names for the various letters), otherwise it will appear to be a section about unspecified letters. EdLake (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Y'all, its time for the talk page. North8000 (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I changed the paragraph title to "The Jennifer Lopez letter." I can see where some people may not know that "J-Lo" is Jennifer Lopez.

I also added a paragraph about the "The London Hoax letter" with two references. I'm trying to find a copy of a third article (from The Washington Post) that I have in my files, but which I can no longer find anywhere else on-line. EdLake (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that a part of Cs's point was that those are written as if they were official titles or official characterizations for those letters rather than paragraph headings. Maybe you could make more basic descriptions. North8000 (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought those WERE "basic descriptions." How else can you refer to "the London Hoax letter," as an example? Here are some quotes about the London hoax letter:

"In November, some of the West's top biowarriors converged on Swindon, England, for an advanced training course for the United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission. One of the big names on hand for the conference was Steven J. Hatfill, a former USAMRIID virologist and a protégé of Bill Patrick's. Those who completed the course and were certified would have a chance to join the search for Saddam's bioweapons in Iraq. While the 12-day course was under way, someone sent another biothreat letter, postmarked in November in London, to Senator Daschle. When the powder proved nontoxic, the letter was filed away and escaped further scrutiny." http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/messageanthrax.html

"Investigators are looking at another hoax letter with intriguing parallels to the real one; that hoax letter was sent to Senator Tom Daschle from London in mid-November, when Dr. Hatfill was visiting a biodefense center in England." http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/042561.P.pdf http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/13/opinion/13KRIS.html

"Clawson said Hatfill did attend a conference in Trenton last year, but it was in late November, well after the anthrax-laden letters were mailed. In addition to the letters that actually contained anthrax, a hoax letter was sent to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle's office from London around the same time." http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/08/14/anthrax.hatfill/index.html

"The most curious thing was the letter's postmark. It had been mailed in mid-November from London. The FBI knew that Hatfill had been in Swindon, England -- about 70 miles from London -- at that time for specialized training to become a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq. Agents determined through rental car receipts that he was the only trainee to hire a car, telling others that he planned to visit old friends. The FBI asked British police to help retrace his every move." http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A49717-2003Sep9?language=printer

As you can see, no where is the term "the London Hoax letter" used. But what else can you call it? EdLake (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is the significant part of the Washington Post article that is in my files, but which doesn't seem to appear anywhere else:

"2nd letter to land in Daschle's office

"By John Lancaster and Dan Eggen - The Washington Post

"January 4, 2002

"WASHINGTON — A suspicious powder was found in an envelope opened Thursday in the tape Capitol building office of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., briefly reviving fears of another anthrax attack.

"But preliminary tests indicated the material posed no danger, and authorities said they suspect the letter was a hoax.

"Capitol police spokesman Lt. Dan Nichols said the envelope also contained a "threatening note," but declined to offer additional details, saying the matter is now the focus of a criminal investigation.

"Other law enforcement officials said that whoever mailed the letter apparently attempted to mimic the handwriting on the envelope of a previous letter to Daschle that contained highly potent anthrax spores. The microbes spread through Daschle's suite in the Hart Senate Office Building — prompting authorities to shut down much of the Capitol for weeks — when it was opened there Oct. 15.

"Unlike the original Daschle letter, which was postmarked in Trenton, N.J., this one bore a London postmark, officials said." EdLake (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is the complete list of paragraph titles as it now appears in the article:

The St. Petersburg letters

The Microsoft, Reno letter

The Chile letter

The Jennifer Lopez letter

The London Hoax Letter

The Dr. Ayaad Assaad letter

Hoax Letters

Are there better descriptions? They all seem basic and as simple as possible to me.

I'm open to suggestions for a better title to the entire section. Originally, it was "Confusion from Unrelated Letters." CS didn't like that and changed it to "Unrelated letters." I didn't like that and changed it to "Unrelated Letters Reported in the Media," but I think the section title needs some mention of how these unrelated letters caused confusion and/or caused people to conjure up alternative theories about the case. EdLake (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the moniker-style characterizations is that they imply a level of notability that these letters simply do not have. They are not the Pentagon Papers. Therefore, we need to use purely descriptive language, without the use of "the", for example. Unless, of course, reliable sources have used these monikers with some consistency, but this is most likely not the case.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

July 27 response to Cs32en: The letters all spawned theories. The letters all needed to be investigated. The letters all turned out to be unrelated to the actual anthrax letters and had no actual connection to the Amerithrax case. All they did was cause confusion. They were not as important at the Pentagon papers, but no one gave them a separate article on Wikipedia, either. They are just paragraph headings. Removing the word "the" would only make the paragraph headings difficult to understand. There was only one "Jennifer Lopez letter," so the use of the word "the" is totally appropriate. I was tempted to also add "The B'nai B'rith" letter, since there were attempts to link that letter to Dr. Hatfill and many people tried to connect it to the anthrax letters of 2001. But that letter was sent in 1997, so it's borderline as to whether it belongs in the section or not.

I have added the POV tag because parts of the article are now written as some kind of textbook, in which the reader is being pushed towards specific conclusions, in a way that the sources that are being used do not support (the sources are generally more nuanced in their statements). It's inappropriate to emphasize parts of the text in a source if the source does not do it itself, as our choice of what is emphasized must follow the sources. Keeping a balanced presentation is already difficult when condensing a long study into few sentences, and adding "clarifications" is likely to increase the selection bias.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

CS32 although this has come a long way since 6 weeks ago, I think I'm with you on the changes in the nature of the wording needed, except for completely eliminating subjects/title for those paragraphs . I just don't think that "POV" accurately describes the issues, nor think it the best approach to go to top level tagging before even having the first discussion on the talk page during this recent flurry of changes. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Admittedly, I have become somewhat tired dealing with every single sentence that deviates from the purpose of presenting the topic as evidenced by reliable secondary sources. Presumably, discussing all these sentences separately would mainly be a repetition of all the arguments that have already been presented on the talk page. That is why I have added a tag for the entire article. I'm not sure whether {{POV}} is the best tag available. I am not very familiar with the different tags, and the problems with the article are very similar to those that usually arise from POV editing, although POV may not necessarily be the motivation for the edits.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

July 27 response to Cs32en: I think it's appropriate to emphasize parts of a text when you are summarizing things. Summarization reduces the number of words being used in order to focus attention on key points. Emphasizing words and phrases is just another way of reducing the number of words used, and it also focuses the attention on key points. A request was made to try to summarize the article to reduce its length and to make it more readable. Emphasizing things helps do that. I emphasized the part of the NAS "mission statement" that shows that the NAS will NOT be examining evidence against Dr. Ivins, because a lot of people seem to believe the NAS will be doing that, and others want the NAS to do that. It's the section of the mission statement that is most important to understanding what the NAS is actually doing, therefore it needs to be emphasized. It helps with the summarization. EdLake (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"because a lot of people seem to believe the NAS will be doing that, and others want the NAS to do that" How do you know this? You should not take take your personal assumptions as a starting point for editing the article.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

How do I know this? I know it because I've been discussing this case with people for NINE YEARS. Do you want links to the places where people argued that the NAS should be reviewing the FBI's investigation or places where people argued that the NAS will be reviewing the FBI's investigation? You can just do a Google search or 'anthrax NAS review FBI' and you'll find many of them. EdLake (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not questioning your knowledge of these issues. The point is that, on Wikipedia, your personal knowledge of a topic is relevant only in so far as it helps you to find appropriate reliable sources for an article.  Cs32en Talk to me  15:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Personal knowledge is also required in order to accurately summarize subjects which are controversial. I showed what the NAS review WILL be doing, and I emphasized what the NAS review will NOT be doing because it is just one sentence in a large quote - a KEY sentence that might otherwise be overlooked. EdLake (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There is as of this moment no reliable source that says that this is a key sentence. Again, the whole problem emerges in part because this content is based on a primary source.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we understand you have an issue with the FBI summary report because YOU personally consider it to be a "primary source," even though it is a SUMMARY of many documents which means it CANNOT be a "primary source" by any definition. Plus, as has been discussed before, there is no rule which says that "primary sources" cannot be used. So, even if the FBI summary were to be considered a "primary source," it can still be used when used "carefully." So, the issue is settled. EdLake (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Cs32en, I see that you have also posted a "tag" at the top of the section about the unrelated letters. The tag says, "An editor has expressed a concern that this section lends undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, controversies or matters relative to the article subject as a whole."

What kind of "undue weight" do you think is being given to what kind of "ideas, incidents, controversies or matters relative to the article?"

As I see it, the section shows that there were a lot of "red herrings" in the case, and the section summarizes the "red herrings" which related to letters of various kinds. EdLake (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I can also see that a summary paragraph at the start of the section might help. I've been avoiding adding things to an article when there has been a request is to "summarize" things. However, a summary paragraph would explain the relevance of the "unrelated letters." Example:

The Amerithrax investigation encountered many "red herrings" which took time to evaluate and resolve. Among the "red herrings" were numerous letters which some felt must somehow be related to the anthrax attacks because of the timing or some other aspect of the letters. Examples:

This summary would make things more clear as to why the section is included and how it relates to the subject of the article. EdLake (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The bold monikers are giving undue weight to the letters.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the "bold monikers" are paragraph headings, identifying the seven subjects summarized in the text that follows each of the headings. There is no "undue weight" given, since every letter is treated the same way. The fact that there are so many different letters gives the subject "weight" i.e. "notability," but not "undue weight." EdLake (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Notability does not depend on the number of items. Also, how do you know that all the letters are equally important, so that treating them in the same way would be appropriate? My concern, however, is not the relative weight given to the individual letters, but the weight given to the letters as a whole.  Cs32en Talk to me  17:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Notability may not depend upon the number of items, but the number of items can generate notability. A one car crash that kills one person may not be notable, but mega-pileup that kills dozens would be notable.

The letters are of equal importance in the context of the section because they are ALL "red herrings" and turned out to be unconnected to the case. If they are all unconnected to the case, it doesn't make any difference if some may have generated more news stories than others.

What is your concern about "the weight given to the letters as a whole?" You say you disagree with things, but you do not explain your reasons for disagreeing. Do you have some theory you do not wish to share?

I can explain my point of view: The Assaad letter, the Jennifer Lopez letter, the London letter and the other letters were all major "red herrings" that caused the FBI and the Postal Inspectors to have to waste time investigating things that turned out to be unrelated to the Amerithrax investigation. These letters were BIG issues with many people. The Hartford Courier must have written a dozen articles about Assaad and the Assaad letter. The alternate theories about the Jennifer Lopez letter continue to this day. The Lopez letter was a key item in CDC reports. The London letter was probably an attempt to create false evidence against Dr. Hatfill. No article about the anthrax attacks of 2001 would be complete if there wasn't something in it about these letters. What I did was combine them in one section in order to reduce the amount of explanation needed for each one. Separately, they might require a lot of explanation. Together they require less explanation. EdLake (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Chile letter - all the other letters tagged for POV review are either hoaxes or potential hoaxes. The Chile letter actually had anthrax, and I don't see why it should be rolled into the hoax category or minimized in its importance. MartinezMD (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a "hoax category." It's a "false lead letters" category. The Chile letter was another "false lead." It had nothing to do with the anthrax attacks, but it created a lot of interest for awhile because people thought it MIGHT be connected to the anthrax attacks. The Microsoft-Reno letter wasn't a hoax letter, either. It initially tested positive for anthrax. But, it was a false positive. The B'nai B'rith letter also contained anthrax, and some people felt it might be connected to the anthrax attacks. I just didn't add it because it was sent in 1997. The Jennifer Lopez letter wasn't a hoax, it was just a letter that Bob Stevens personally examined. The Assaad letter wasn't a hoax, it was a tip or alert. The Chile letter had NO connection to the anthrax attacks. It was evidently just an accident of some kind. It harmed no one. Like some of the other letters, it was only the timing which made it seem important. I think it's better to have a single false lead letter category than to have a separate category and separate heading for every different type of false lead letter: hoaxes, false positives, different strains of anthrax, finger-pointing, copycat letters, coincidences, tips, etc. EdLake (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I just added an explanatory paragraph to the section. It's similar to the one proposed above, except that it uses the term "false lead" instead of "red herring." I think it covers the subject of why all these letters are in one place and why they are important to understanding the investigation. EdLake (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I had added this paragraph:

"The Amerithrax investigation involved many false leads which took time to evaluate and resolve. Among the false leads were numerous letters which some felt must somehow be related to the anthrax attacks because of the timing or some other aspect of the letters. Examples:"

But, as you can see, Cs32en added a "citation needed" to it. So, I revised the paragraph to read as follows:

"The Amerithrax investigation involved many false leads which took time to evaluate and resolve. Among the false leads were numerous letters which initially appeared to be somehow related to the anthrax attacks. Examples: "

This is a SUMMARY of why the various letters appeared in the media and therefore does not need a citation. The citations are part of the individual letter entries. EdLake (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

At least "False leads" and "took time to evaluate and resolve" should be based on reliable sources. I think it's not unlikely that one or more of the sources that are already present in the section can be used as references for this information.  Cs32en Talk to me  17:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If the references are already present as part of the comments about the letters, then there can be no reason to repeat the references.

NONE of the letters listed was ever connected to the actual attacks. Therefore, they can be summarized as "false leads." And they obviously "took time to evaluate and resolve," so no citation is needed for that. They weren't instantly dismissed. The news articles explain that. (The FBI supposedly even sent an agent to Malaysia to talk with the guy who sent the Microsoft-Reno letter, even though it wasn't a threat or a hoax. The sender just returned a check Microsoft had sent him and apparently spit on it. That somehow triggered the false positive test results.) (The FBI kept trying to get a fresh sample of the anthrax in the Chile letter, instead of using a pre-examined sample supplied by Chile, so that obviously took time.) (The FBI went back into AMI to verify how the anthrax spread throughout the building. Their testing showed that the anthrax trail began near Stephanie Dailey's desk, NOT on the third floor where the Jennifer Lopez letter was opened. That took time.) EdLake (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

EdLake, WP:SYNTHESIS explains that the approach that you have outlined above is not allowed on Wikipedia. Furthermore, (a) it is not certain that the information is present in any of the references (b) you cannot force the reader to look through eight or ten references to verify a particular piece of information that you have included in the article.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Cs32en, nonsense. WP:Synthesis says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." That has nothing to do with summarizing, which is what I did. There are no new conclusions reached. There is no dispute between A and B. There is no conclusion C.

You are evidently playing word games and distorting the rules in an attempt to achieve some personal goal which you will not reveal to us. Summarizing is NOT synthesizing. If A goes down a dead end path, and B goes on a wild goose chase, and C follows a lead that goes nowhere, it is NOT synthesizing to say they all ended up in dead ends. It is a SUMMARY.EdLake (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Cs32en, if you cannot explain what you mean by your claim that the unrelated letters "section lends undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, controversies or matters relative to the article subject as a whole" the tag should be removed. Playing word games and distorting the rules isn't sufficient to validate your claim. EdLake (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Cs32en, if you cannot explain what you mean by your claim that "The neutrality of this article is disputed" the tag should be removed. Your tag says, "Please see the discussion on the talk page." but you have started no discussion about the neutrality of the article. I see only attempts to distort the rules to achieve some personal goal. When previously asked about this, you responded, "the whole problem emerges in part because this content is based on a primary source." Is it your plan to distort rules and play word games until everyone sees your point of view about the use of FBI reports in this article? EdLake (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

In part, I actually do want to show that many of the problems with this article emerge because primary sources are not being handled with sufficient caution. As for the tags, I do not see the need for repeating the discussion which now fills almost the entire talk page in a separate section. If you say 'they obviously "took time to evaluate and resolve"', then your are "join[ing] A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources", as WP:SYNTHESIS says. Again, there might well be a source that says that the letters "took time to evaluate and resolve", but you haven't presented that source yet.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

IMHO this still has some of Ed's wording style problems, but no POV problems. If you look at the history of this article, there have been no POV differences evident. North8000 (talk) 00:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree that {{POV}} does not exactly describe the problems with the article. I generally concur with the outline of the problems that you have given below. If there is a better template than {{POV}} to describe the problems, I'd be happy to replace the existing template with a better one.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It does not appear anyone here saw a persisting undue weight conflict, so I revised the first sentence slightly and removed the undue weight tag. If there is more of an argument, we can put it back in.-MartinezMD (talk) 07:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. But the wording (including on some of those titles) might still need some tweaking. Ed, this is much improved over the last 2 months, but some of this still has a subtle "I'm the expert and let me tell you how it is" (and conversational) wording and structure style. Such is unenclyclopedic. I think that this is what Cs is trying to get at, although I wouldn't necessarily have chosen his method of approaching the issue. Just as an example, there is a paragraph in that that starts with "As is visible to anyone examining the attack letters". Also quotes with quote marks without saying in the text who said it. In the section of question, while I defended you decision to give these some type of headings, the letters were given official sounding titles and those titles were used as the headings. IMHO those should be tweaked to be more descriptive rather than official looking titles. North8000 (talk) 11:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

North8000, the sentence that begins with "As is visible to anyone examining the anthrax letters," is a direct quote from the FBI's summary report. That quote is followed by some paraphrasing from the same page in the FBI's summary report. If you click on link #23 at the end of the paraphrasing, there is a reference to page 58 of the Summary report. It all comes from there. I don't know how that could be made any more clear. Do you want me to put a reference after every sentence? What does that accomplish?

No,not necessarily. But when you put quote marks as being a quote of something that someone said, you need to say in the text who/what said it.

North8000, you're going to have to give me a hint as to what you think is "more descriptive" than "The Jennifer Lopez Letter" or "The Microsoft/Reno Letter" or "The London Hoax letter." I don't understand how "official looking" cannot also be "descriptive." I have no clue as to what you mean. It appears to me that you are saying you would write things differently, i.e., in your own style. No two people write or think the same way. Even if two people are both trying to to write in an "encyclopedic" style, if a sentence is more than a few words long, they are NOT going to write the exact same words. As I see it, my "wording problems" are really your problems with my wording. :)

MartinezMD, I have no problems with the changes you made. Thanks. EdLake (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You could write "September 2001 letter to Jennifer Lopez", for example. For the other letters, similar adjustments could be made.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

That's the same answer I would have given. North8000 (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

So, "The St. Petersburg letters" should be "September 2001 hoax letters from St. Petersburg"?

"The Microsoft, Reno letter" should be "September 2001 letter from Malaysia to Microsoft in Reno"?

"The Chile letter" should be "September 2001 letter sent to Chile from Switzerland"?

"The Jennifer Lopez letter" should be "September 2001 letter to Jennifer Lopez"?

"The London Hoax Letter" should be "November 2001 hoax letter to Senator Daschle from London"?

"The Dr. Ayaad Assaad letter" should be "September 2001 letter about Dr. Ayaad Assad"?

And, "Hoax letters" should be "Other hoax letters mailed before and after 9/11"? or something like that?

I think that's a waste of space and a lot of repetition, but if someone wants to make those changes, I won't dispute them. I don't think I can make the changes myself, because I have to assume that everyone will prefer slightly different wording and whatever I write won't satisfy everyone. EdLake (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You can group the letters into subsections "Letters sent in September 2001" and "Other letters" to avoid repetition.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, you can't please everyone. So, now the suggestion is for another level of sub-headings? Of the 7 entries, 5 would be under one subheading, and the wording would go back to the "official looking" wording that North8000 doesn't like. The 2 remaining subjects would go under "other letters" even though the main subject is "Other letters Reported in the Media" and many of the "Other hoax letters" were also from September 2001. EdLake (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The section title could be changed, of course. The phrase "... reported in the media" is unencyclopedic wording anyway. Then, maybe we have specific dates for the letters. If not, we can simply write "Letter to Jennifer Lopez", i.e. not "The J-Lo Letter".  Cs32en Talk to me  15:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't take my silence as agreement. I've merely been banging my head against the wall. I disagree with just about everything you suggest. You need to explain how "reported in the media" is "unencyclopedic." Plus, the wording of the subject heading and the summary paragraph were changed by MartinezMD and I agreed with the changes, so you need three people to agree to override it. I don't see that removing the word "The" does anything but make something seem general when it is really very specific. We're talking about THE Jennifer Lopez letter, not just any old Jennifer Lopez letter. EdLake (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"Reported in the media" is unencyclopedic because that is generally to be expected if an information is included in an encyclopedia. As someone on the street when "the J-Lo letter" has been sent, and the person will most likely reply "Which letter, and who is J-Lo?" Some people may ask "Which letter to Jennifer Lopez are you talking about?" We are providing information about "a letter" that has been sent to Jennifer Lopez, not "the letter", much less "the J-Lo letter". As for the subject title, I have just stated my view that it is not encyclopedic, I haven't ordered anyone to change it, nor am I in a position to do so.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The subject title says the information is from the media because it is NOT from any "encyclopedic" source such as official reports and official documents. None of the letters was actually officially connected to the anthrax attacks of 2001, but the media endlessly reported on claims and beliefs that the letters were connected. So, the unrelated letters are more examples of the media misleading people about the case and causing unnecessary confusion. That's why the subject title is what it is, and that's why the summary paragraph says what it says. Cs32en, if you now reverse your argument and try to claim that the entries should NOT be included because they are NOT from encyclopedic sources, that will just show you are merely being argumentative instead of trying to be constructive. It is proper for an encyclopedia to mention UNRELATED information printed in the media in order to show the context and environment during the time of the Amerithrax investigations. Including the letters also shows other points of view, negating any claim that the article does not show other points of view.

Cs32en wrote: "We are providing information about 'a letter' that has been sent to Jennifer Lopez, not 'the letter', much less 'the J-Lo letter'." No, we are providing information about the Jennifer Lopez letter that some people thought was connected to the anthrax case. When I try removing the word "The" from the six entries which use the word, it looks like bad writing and bad grammar. It looks like bad grammar because it's the beginning of an entry, and it's unnatural to begin an entry with a proper noun. The "hoax letters" entry is different and doesn't need the definite article because there were tens of thousands of hoax letters, and there were attempts to connect only a few of them to Dr. Hatfill. For the other six entries, we're referring to specific letters, therefore the use of the definite article "the" is proper and correct. If you try to use the indefinite article "a" as in "A London hoax letter" it suggests that there were other London hoax letters, and only one such letter is being chosen as an example of a London hoax letter.

The above comment was added by EdLake (talk · contribs).

I deleted the POV tag. Although repeated asked to do so, Cs32en has provided no justification for adding the tag.

The above comment was added by EdLake (talk · contribs).

I would appreciate it if you would not misrepresent what I have suggested. Your attitude of focusing on pointing out that the media got it wrong, and "I'll explain to you how to correctly interpret the data", is the wrong approach to writing an article on Wikipedia. Note that I have never stated that the "the entries should NOT be included", as you are writing. I also have not suggested to use the indefinite article in section or paragraph headers. Also, your opinion that media reports would not be encyclopedic sources is mistaken, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Please re-read and try to understand the Wikipedia policies and guidelines with regard to sourcing and presenting information.  Cs32en Talk to me  17:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, your insinuation that I would not have provided a justification for adding the {{POV}} tag is a blatant lie, and I strongly suggest that you retract that statement, EdLake.  Cs32en Talk to me  17:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Cs32en wrote: "I would appreciate it if you would not misrepresent what I have suggested." The problem is that you do not make specific suggestions, probably so you can claim that others are misrepresenting what you have suggested. No one is misrepresenting what you suggest. I am trying to get you to SAY what you mean instead of playing word games. Saying things are not "encyclopedic" is meaningless unless you provide an example of what you think would be "encyclopedic." Your interpretation of "encyclopedic" is not necessarily anyone else's OR Wikipedias. Your arguments about Wikipedia's definition of "synthesizing" have proven that.

So, the problem is that you are just playing word games and twisting Wikipedia rules. 'You have NOT provided justification for adding the POV tag. So, now you are playing more word games by suggesting that someone said something about how you "would have" done it someday.

No one is "focusing on pointing out that the media got it wrong." The fact that the media got it wrong is a big part of the history of the anthrax attacks of 2001. You may feel that the media got something right, but if you do not say what that something is, so it cannot be discussed. EdLake (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I have suggested to you, as you can easily verify by reading my comments above: "You could write "September 2001 letter to Jennifer Lopez", for example." So your accusation that I would not make specific suggestions is simply untrue. I don't feel under any obligation to provide a detailed solution for every problem of this article, however. The opinion that it would be "a big part of the history of the anthrax attacks" that "the media got it wrong" is your personal opinion. Content of this article can't be based on that opinion, unless reliable sources can be found that have interpreted the "history of the anthrax attacks" in this way. I won't comment on your comments about "playing games" and similar accusations.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Has the requested summarizing been done?

What's the proper way to delete the summary style tag? The article has been greatly summarized in the past month or so. Do I try to contact the person who put the tag on the article? There will always be things that can be further summarized, but there doesn't seem to be any way to test to see if the person who put the tag on the article is satisfied - other than to delete the tag or to try contacting him/her. Deleting the tag seems easiest by far - and most productive. It doesn't require any explanation for why I didn't summarize things further when it is clear that some comments by people who had no direct knowledge of the case and be condensed. Instead, it requires the other party to provide explanations and suggestions about what can be done to further condense the article - if he/she has any. EdLake (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about "proper" but the ideal way is to discuss and get a consensus. Cs, what do you think? North8000 (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Because there was a prior topic about doing it, I just added a new topic heading about whether or not it has been done. EdLake (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with summarizing is the same problem with wording: each individual would do it slightly differently. So, the "consensus" would probably have to be that there isn't anything left worth arguing about. EdLake (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I actually do not think that summarizing the article is the most urgent task. It's probably better to work on a balanced, encyclopedic text that does not try to prove "the media" wrong. After this has been achieved, we should condense the text. As summarizing the text is an important, although not the most urgent, task, I'd leave the tag in as a reminder.  Cs32en Talk to me  17:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Cs32en, your new tags are argumentative, counter-productive and just more of the same - simply phrased in a different way.

You claim, "This article contains too many quotations for an encyclopedic entry." What is the correct number of quotations? If there are too many quotations, it is because if anyone paraphrases anything or summarizes anything, you interpret it as synthesizing and complain about that.

You claim, "This article reads more like a story than an encyclopedia entry. That is a MEANINGLESS statement. It is just YOUR point of view. It is saying it isn't written the way you would write it. What is the solution? To use more quotes? Your arguments appear to be nothing but an endless series of attempts to try to get the article to say what you want it to say, but you do not tell anyone what it is you want the article to say.

The new tags should be removed until you explain in this discussion page exactly what it is you are trying to do. "Balanced" and "encyclopedic" are meaningless words when it appears that 'the article is already "balanced" and "encyclopedic" and you are trying to change that to something else, but will not specify exactly what it is you want. EdLake (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no attempt to "prove the media wrong." The media WAS repeatedly wrong, so the article shows it. What you appear to want is to argue that the media was right and the FBI was wrong. You clearly want to remove everything from the FBI's official reports and replace it with something that was printed in the media, something that supports your own personal theory about the case. But you won't tell anyone what your theory is. So, you endlessly ask for meaningless changes, playing games by twisting Wikipedia rules. EdLake (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I will not comment on your accusations at this time.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I just deleted your new tags. Grabbing tags from the tag box at random because you cannot express what it is you actually want is not productive and does not improve the article. EdLake (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see where the article says anything anywhere about the media being wrong about anything. EdLake (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

EdLake, thanks for the note on my talk page. But, why would you want to delete a tag if the issue still exists. Understand please that this is an encyclopedia, not a catalog of every bit of information constituting the entire story. For that, we refer readers to other sources that do tell the entire story.
This article remains too long and too detailed, to my eye at least. For just one of many examples of what isn't needed:

The areas of scientific evidence to be studied by the committee include, but may not be limited to:
1. genetic studies that led to the identification of potential sources of B. anthracis recovered from the letters;
2. analyses of four genetic mutations that were found in evidence and that are unique to a subset of Ames strain cultures collected during the investigation;
3. chemical and dating studies that examined how, where, and when the spores may have been grown and what, if any, additional treatments they were subjected to;
4. studies of the recovery of spores and bacterial DNA from samples collected and tested during the investigation; and
5. the role that cross contamination might have played in the evidence picture.

The committee will necessarily consider the facts and data surrounding the investigation of the 2001 Bacillus anthracis mailings, the reliability of the principles and methods used by the FBI, and whether the principles and methods were applied appropriately to the facts. The committee will not, however, undertake an assessment of the probative value of the scientific evidence in any specific component of the investigation, prosecution, or civil litigation and will offer no view on the guilt or innocence of any person(s) in connection with the 2001 B. anthracis mailings, or any other B. anthracis incidents.

There are plenty of other examples, both of stuff that could readily be removed outright and stuff that could be combined into shortened summaries without any reduction whatsoever in the quality of the information presented. At least that's my take on it. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Kenosis, I asked you if the summarization issue still exists. Evidently, your opinion is that it does still exist. A lot of work has gone into cutting out things that were unnecessary. The main problem is that this is still a VERY controversial subject. Some people see things as being very important that others don't see as being important at all. Plus, when doing any summarizing, the individual doing the summarizing may have to use words that are not in any source. And that generates arguments about synthesizing.

I have no problem with condensing the section about the NAS review that you mention. It is simple to summarize this:

On September 16, 2008, the FBI asked "the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct an independent review of the scientific evidence that led the agency to implicate U.S. Army researcher Bruce Ivins in the anthrax letter attacks of 2001." [8] FBI Director Mueller "pointed out that the science behind the case had already undergone vetting by the research community through the involvement of more than 60 nonagency scientists consulted by FBI. Nonetheless, "we are in discussions with NAS to review the work that was done during the investigation." The NAS review officially got underway on April 24, 2009 when the mission statement was released.[161]

The areas of scientific evidence to be studied by the committee include, but may not be limited to:

1. genetic studies that led to the identification of potential sources of B. anthracis recovered from the letters;

2. analyses of four genetic mutations that were found in evidence and that are unique to a subset of Ames strain cultures collected during the investigation;

3. chemical and dating studies that examined how, where, and when the spores may have been grown and what, if any, additional treatments they were subjected to;

4. studies of the recovery of spores and bacterial DNA from samples collected and tested during the investigation; and

5. the role that cross contamination might have played in the evidence picture.

The committee will necessarily consider the facts and data surrounding the investigation of the 2001 Bacillus anthracis mailings, the reliability of the principles and methods used by the FBI, and whether the principles and methods were applied appropriately to the facts. The committee will not, however, undertake an assessment of the probative value of the scientific evidence in any specific component of the investigation, prosecution, or civil litigation and will offer no view on the guilt or innocence of any person(s) in connection with the 2001 B. anthracis mailings, or any other B. anthracis incidents.

To this:

On September 16, 2008, the FBI asked "the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct an independent review of the scientific evidence that led the agency to implicate U.S. Army researcher Bruce Ivins in the anthrax letter attacks of 2001," [8] although FBI Director Mueller "pointed out that the science behind the case had already undergone vetting by the research community through the involvement of more than 60 nonagency scientists consulted by FBI."

The NAS review officially got underway on April 24, 2009. "The committee will necessarily consider the facts and data surrounding the investigation of the 2001 Bacillus anthracis mailings, the reliability of the principles and methods used by the FBI, and whether the principles and methods were applied appropriately to the facts. The committee will not, however, undertake an assessment of the probative value of the scientific evidence in any specific component of the investigation, prosecution, or civil litigation and will offer no view on the guilt or innocence of any person(s) in connection with the 2001 B. anthracis mailings, or any other B. anthracis incidents."[161]

This condensation eliminates the need to highlight the one part of the mission statement that says what the committee will NOT do, since it is now a large part of what remains in the section. So, I've applied the change and eliminated the highlighting.

Since you made the suggestion, it seems unlikely that there will be many arguments about it. Thanks for the suggestion.

I'm open to and welcome other suggestions for changes, although I may not necessarily agree with every suggestion. (We just spent about two weeks arguing over whether or not the word "the" was properly used in this context: "The Jennifer Lopez letter." Some felt the word "the" gave the Jennifer Lopez letter too much importance and just "Jennifer Lopez letter" was more appropriate. I disagreed, since the definite article seemed appropriate when discussing THE Jennifer Lopez letter which caused so much debate.)

Later, I'll write more about things I can see that can be summarized. But I'm reluctant to do further summarizing if every new phrase is going to be endlessly disputed. EdLake (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the section about the "Dispute over silicon content" can be easily summarized from this:

Dispute Over Silicon Content

Some of the anthrax spores (65% - 75%) in the anthrax attack letters contained the element silicon inside their natural spore coats. Silicon was even found inside the natural spore coat of a spore that was still inside the "mother germ," confirming that the element was not added after the spores were formed and purified, i.e., the spores were not "weaponized."[19][20]

In 2010, a Japanese study reported, "Silicon (Si) is considered to be a "quasiessential" element for most living organisms. However, silicate uptake in bacteria and its physiological functions have remained obscure." The study showed that spores from some species can contain as much as 6.3% dry weight of silicates.[82] "For more than 20 years, significant levels of silicon had been reported in spores of at least some Bacillus species, including those of Bacillus cereus, a close relative of B. anthracis." According to spore expert Peter Setlow, "Since silicate accumulation in other organisms can impart structural rigidity, perhaps silicate plays such a role for spores as well."[83]

The FBI lab concluded that 1.4% of the powder in the Leahy letter was silicon. Stuart Jacobson, a small-particle chemistry expert stated that:

"This is a shockingly high proportion [of silicon]. It is a number one would expect from the deliberate weaponization of anthrax, but not from any conceivable accidental contamination." [84]

Scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Labs conducted experiments in an attempt to determine if the amount of silicon in the growth medium was the controlling factor which caused silicon to accumulate inside a spore's natural coat. The Livermore scientists tried 56 different experiments, adding increasingly high amounts of silicon to the media. All of their results were far below the 1.4% level of the actual attack anthrax, some as low as .001%. The conclusion was that something other than the level of silicon controlled how much silicon was absorbed by the spores.[85][84]

Dr. Richard O. Spertzel, a microbiologist who led the United Nations’ biological weapons inspections of Iraq, wrote that the anthrax used could not have come from the lab where Ivins worked.[86] Spertzel said he remained skeptical of the Bureau’s argument despite the new evidence presented on August 18, 2008 in an unusual FBI briefing for reporters. He questioned the FBI's claim that the powder was less than military grade, in part because of the presence of high levels of silica. The FBI had been unable to reproduce the attack spores with the high levels of silica. The FBI attributed the presence of high silica levels to "natural variability."[87] However, this conclusion of the FBI contradicted its statements at an earlier point in the investigation, when the FBI had stated, based on the silicon content, that the anthrax was "weaponized," a step that made the powder more airy and required special scientific know-how.[88]

"If there is that much silicon, it had to have been added," stated Jeffrey Adamovicz, who supervised Ivins's work at Fort Detrick.[84] Adamovicz explained that the silicon in the attack anthrax could have been added via a large fermentor, which Battelle and some other facilities use" but "we did not use a fermentor to grow anthrax at USAMRIID . . . [and] We did not have the capability to add silicon compounds to anthrax spores." Dr. Ivins had neither the skills nor the means to attach silicon to anthrax spores. Richard Spertzel explained that the Fort Detrick facility did not handle anthrax in powdered form. "I don't think there's anyone there who would have the foggiest idea how to do it."[84]

To this:

Dispute Over Silicon Content

Some of the anthrax spores (65% - 75%) in the anthrax attack letters contained the element silicon inside their natural spore coats. Silicon was even found inside the natural spore coat of a spore that was still inside the "mother germ," confirming that the element was not added after the spores were formed and purified, i.e., the spores were not "weaponized."[19][20]

In 2010, a Japanese study reported, "Silicon (Si) is considered to be a "quasiessential" element for most living organisms. However, silicate uptake in bacteria and its physiological functions have remained obscure." The study showed that spores from some species can contain as much as 6.3% dry weight of silicates.[82] "For more than 20 years, significant levels of silicon had been reported in spores of at least some Bacillus species, including those of Bacillus cereus, a close relative of B. anthracis." According to spore expert Peter Setlow, "Since silicate accumulation in other organisms can impart structural rigidity, perhaps silicate plays such a role for spores as well."[83]

The FBI lab concluded that 1.4% of the powder in the Leahy letter was silicon, far below the 6.3% detected in some species.

Nevertheless, a number of scientists who were not part of the Amerithrax investigation have disagreements with the official findings. Stuart Jacobson, a small-particle chemistry expert stated that: "This is a shockingly high proportion [of silicon]. It is a number one would expect from the deliberate weaponization of anthrax, but not from any conceivable accidental contamination." [84] Dr. Richard O. Spertzel, a microbiologist who led the United Nations’ biological weapons inspections of Iraq, said he remained skeptical of the Bureau’s argument despite the new evidence presented on August 18, 2008 in a FBI briefing for reporters.[87] And, "If there is that much silicon, it had to have been added," stated Jeffrey Adamovicz, who supervised Ivins's work at Fort Detrick.[84]

Someone just delivered the keys to my new apartment, so I'm going to be very busy moving and doing other chores for the next few weeks. I don't know how much updating and summarizing I'll be able to do, but I'll be checking in here every day to look for comments and suggestions. EdLake (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

We should not add interpretations such as "Nevertheless, a number of scientists who were not part of the Amerithrax investigation have disagreements with the official findings." to the text, unless they are based on reports (not opinion pieces) in reliable sources.  Cs32en Talk to me  15:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It's called summarizing. The references to "reliable sources" are still there. All I did was summarize and condense. But, as expected, there is now a dispute over wording that can easily go on for weeks. EdLake (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

"Nevertheless" is interpretation, as it implies that the scientists had little justification to do so. Highlighting that the scientists were not part of the investigation tends to convey the message that they would have been less acquainted with the issues involved. Furthermore, they did not "have disagreements", but stated doubts and objections about the findings of the investigation.  Cs32en Talk to me  17:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Cs32en, thanks for proving what I said about disputes over wording.

"Nevertheless" is an adverb and means the same as "however" as in: this happened, however that also happened.

The named scientists were not part of the investigation, so they were less acquainted with the issues involved.

On this planet, disagreements are stated as doubts and objections. EdLake (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Philip Zack again

Dr. Zack was a target of neo-Nazis for many years because they thought he was a Jew and that Jews were behind the anthrax attacks of 2001. They thought Zack was a Jewish name. Actually, Zack is a Catholic. Here is what WLRoss is attempting to add to the section about amateur investigators, researchers and archivists:

The Hartford Courant' newspaper ran a series of articles in December 2001 and January 2002 which discussed Dr. Philip Zack as a "person of interest" in the 2001 anthrax attacks, his relationship with Dr. Marian K. Rippy, and their harassment of Dr. Ayaad Assaad at USAMRIID in 1991. After Dr. Zack had been fired from Fort Detrick for unprofessional conduct he continued using the Fort Detrick laboratories for "off-the-books" work after hours. After reports of missing biological specimens, which included anthrax, Ebola and the simian AIDs virus, were published a review of surveillance camera tapes recorded Dr. Zack being let in at 8:40 p.m. on Jan. 23, 1992, apparently by Dr. Marian Rippy. Others have also claimed Zack, who worked at Ft. Detrick where the anthrax came from, is a person of interest. Dr. Philip Zack had the means, access to weaponized anthrax and a hostility towards Arabs and was caught on a security video after being fired entering a lab without authorization where anthrax samples went missing. Before the anthrax letters were reported in the media, but after they had been posted, a letter postmarked September 21 2001 and addressed to the "Town of Quantico police" was received that accused Dr. Ayaad Assaad of being a terrorist who was planning a biological attack. Assaad was questioned on October 2, 2001 by the FBI after which the Amerithrax Task Force declared the letter a hoax and took no further action on it. The letter was analyzed by Don Foster, an expert in the field of textual analysis who found the writing to be a perfect match to a female officer at Ft. Detrick. The timing of the note makes its author a serious suspect in the anthrax attacks.

The attempted addition above is filled with false information.

The first reference is to an archive of articles from the Hartford Courant, and no article at that site mentions Zack as a "person of interest."

1. http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/hcourant.html

The references do not support the claims in the text. The article "Researchers Compare Anthrax Genomes" is a good example. Zack isn't even mentioned.

2. http://www.ph.ucla.edu/EPI/bioter/anthraxmissingarmylab.html Zack is not identified as a "person of interest."

3. http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/02/pr0237.htm%7Cpublisher= No mention of Zack.

The references at the end mostly do not mention Zack, and the one that does says nothing about Zack as a suspect or as a "person of interest."

5. http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/Bioter/messageanthrax.html No mention of Zack.

6. http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/Bioter/fbiretracing.html No mention of Zack.

7. http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2002/01/26/assaad/index_np.html No claim that Zack is a suspect or person of interest. EdLake (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I read the papers wiki artical before adding the text and The Hartford Courant doesn't strike me as a neo-Nazi organisation and I couldn't care less what religion he is. I wouldn't normally take offense at your attempt to link me to neo-Nazis but I have just read your website where you have made offensive comments about other wikipedia editors so please refrain from such behaviour and assume good faith as I have done for you. I also noticed that this artical appears to be morphing into a clone of your website which concerns me if it affects neutrality at all. I admit I didn't read all the references as I transfered the text from another wikipedia artical but I did find another source that covered everything and added that to the edit. Unless you have a source that credibly debunks the edit then you will be in violation of 3RR if you revert again. Please discuss valid reasons for excluding it. Wayne (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no evidence of any kind that Philip Zack was ever an official "person of interest" or a "suspect" in the anthrax investigation. Therefore, there is no reason to even mention him anywhere in the article. The Harford Courant's articles were about happenings at USAMRIID that had nothing to do with the anthrax attacks, and therefore they have nothing to do with this article. And, again, the Hartford Courant's reporters are NOT amateur investigators. EdLake (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The Assaad letter is one of the items in the section about "Other letters mentioned in the media." So, your addition is already summarized there. That's another reason for deleting your addition. EdLake (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Until a few moments ago, the Hartford Courant articles were also summarized in the section about reporters who have reported on the case. This was said:

"Dave Altimari and Jack Dolan have written many of the articles on the anthrax case that have appeared in The Hartford Courant. In their reporting they found incidents of mismanagement, racism, and missing pathogens at the Army's biodefense lab at Fort Detrick, Maryland."

That's what the Hartford Courant articles were about, NOT the anthrax attacks of 2001. EdLake (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Two sections removed

I've removed two sections and am placing them here in case the information is useful for, e.g., the "Further reading" and/or "External links" sections . Immediately below. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

== Journalists ==

Several noted journalists have published major articles about the anthrax case.

Edward Jay Epstein of the Wall Street Journal published “The Anthrax Attacks Remain Unsolved” in January 2010. An article by Barry Kissin asserts that Epstein's WSJ article proves his conclusion that the FBI and DOJ have engaged in a cover-up.

Dave Altimari and Jack Dolan have written many of the articles on the anthrax case that have appeared in The Hartford Courant. In their reporting they found incidents of mismanagement, racism, and missing pathogens at the Army's biodefense lab at Fort Detrick, Maryland.

William J. Broad, a writer for the New York Times, has written a number of articles about the case.

Gary Matsumoto, an investigative reporter and television producer for Bloomberg News who specializes in business, science and military affairs, wrote, "Anthrax Powder - State of the Art?" He also co-wrote, "FBI's Theory On Anthrax Is Doubted" with Washington Post science writer, Guy Gugliotta. Matsumoto discusses the advanced properties of the anthrax found in the Senate letters. In his Science article, Matsumoto reports that the powder in the Senate letters most closely resembled the advanced aerosols now being made in U.S. biodefense labs. On August 6, 2008, the FBI and U.S. Post Service released affidavits suggesting that Freedom of Information Act Requests submitted by Matsumoto in 2000-2001 to the Department of Defense (regarding Dr. Bruce Ivins' work on a second generation anthrax vaccine) helped provoke Ivins into mailing the anthrax letters.

Scott Shane writing for the Baltimore Sun and New York Times has written several articles on the anthrax case.

David Tell, a writer for the The Weekly Standard, wrote two articles critical of the FBI's profile of a lone domestic terrorist being involved in the anthrax case.

David Willman, a writer for the Los Angeles Times, has written many articles about the Amerithrax case and may have been the first to report on the death of Dr. Ivins.

== Analysts, Researchers and Amateur investigators ==

A number of people outside government have taken an interest in the anthrax case, analyzing clues and developing theories.

Kenneth J. Dillon is the author of the article "Was Abderraouf Jdey the Anthrax Mailer?", where he argues that the anthrax in the letters to the senators was a replica of a Soviet technology, most likely prepared by Bruce Ivins for DARPA. Then it was stolen from a DARPA project at George Mason University by an al Qaeda sympathizer. Dillon is an historian who served as a foreign service officer and U.S. Department of State intelligence analyst.

Donald Foster is the author of the article, "The Message in the Anthrax". Unlike other amateur investigators, Foster was an insider in the case and has helped the FBI in the past as a forensic linguistic analyst. Foster believes a series of bioterrorist hoaxes trails his prime suspect, Dr. Steven Hatfill.

According to Hatfill's defamation lawsuit against Foster, Foster had previously argued based on the writing and language of the letters that the perpetrator could be a foreigner who spoke Arabic or Urdu. The lawsuit cited an October 23, 2001 appearance by Foster on ABC’s Good Morning America; an article that quoted him in the November 5, 2001 issue of TIME; and a December 26, 2001 The Times article that quoted him.

Dr. Hatfill's lawsuit was settled on or around February 23, 2007. The statement issued by Dr. Hatfill's lawyers said that it was "resolved to the mutual satisfaction of all parties." Professor Foster, Readers' Digest and the owners of Vanity Fair magazine all retracted any implication that Dr. Hatfill was the anthrax mailer.

Ed Lake operates the web site anthraxinvestigation.com, which contains links to the published information relating to the case. Lake claimed Dr. Steven Hatfill was innocent and now maintains Dr. Bruce Ivins was responsible for the attacks. Lake has self-published a book, Analyzing The Anthrax Attacks, detailing his findings in the anthrax case. Chapter 15 of his book is titled "To Err Is Human".

Dr. Barbara Hatch Rosenberg has been a major figure outside the official investigation. A few months after the anthrax attack, Rosenberg started a campaign to get the FBI to investigate Dr. Steven Hatfill. She gave talks and interviews suggesting the government knew who was responsible for the anthrax attacks, but did not want to charge the individual with the crime. She believed the person responsible was a contractor for the CIA and an expert in bio-warfare. She created a profile of the anthrax attacker that fit Dr. Hatfill. Rosenberg spoke before a committee of Senate staffers suggesting Hatfill was responsible, but did not explicitly provide his name. The highly publicized FBI scrutiny of Dr. Hatfill began shortly thereafter.

Richard M. Smith is a computer expert who publishes on his web site computerbytesman.com. His site was the first to keep track of the anthrax case and was started in 2001. He has many articles about the anthrax case. Smith suggested that if the perpetrator looked up information such as addresses on the Internet, web server logs may contain valuable evidence.

References

END OF REMOVED SECTIONS. 15:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's check which of these texts have been reported on by third-party sources. Those should probably stay in the article, maybe in a different form (i.e. referring to the third-party source, not the primary source). The other texts should probably be left out, unless some of them could be considered expert opinions on relevants aspects of the article's topic.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Consciousness of Guilt - Synthesis?

This section needs editing if nothing else, but I am concerned that much of it is synthesis. I see a lot of links defining what it is, etc, but no statements from sources attributing it to Ivins. Can some others look at this? I'm tempted to strike most of the section but don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water.--MartinezMD (talk) 04:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The large, indented part that begins with a quote mark: "6. Consciousness of guilt. Dr. Ivins engaged in a series of actions ....

and ends with a quote mark: ..... his two best friends, likely committed the anthrax attacks."

is one big quote from page 9 of the FBI's summary report, reference 108 linked at the end of the quote.

http://www.justice.gov/amerithrax/docs/amx-investigative-summary.pdf See page 9.

Everything after that large quote is supported by references to various sources. The brief opening paragraph merely refers to on-line legal sources about the subject "Consciousness of Guilt" and how it is used in court. EdLake (talk) 14:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If Ivins was examined by a psychiatrist who made the judgement that he was suffering from "Consciousness of Guilt" then the section is fine. If it's just scattered statements put together then it should be deleted. Wayne (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"Consciousness of Guilt" is not a psychiatric phenomenon in this case. The main problem is that third-party reliable sources do not indicate that this issue is important enough to include a quote that is a lot longer than some entire article on the project.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Right. "Consciousness of Guilt" is NOT a mental disorder. It is evidence used in court which shows that the "suspect" did things which prove that he had knowledge of the crime that could only be possessed by the person who committed the crime." The FBI's summary report lists those items of evidence. EdLake (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, evidence of guilt such as "Consciousness of guilt" is an important issue whether or not "third-party reliable sources" mention it.

On Wikipedia, is not important whether you, or me, or both of us, think that this is "obviously" an important issue. What is important, however, is whether third-party reliable sources are mentioning it.  Cs32en Talk to me  15:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"What is important, however, is whether third-party reliable sources are mentioning it." That's such an absurd claim, I'm at a loss for words to respond. EdLake (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If there is a single reason that explains why many of your edits are problematic, this comment probably captures it quite well.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

EdLake, could you please try to shorten and paraphrase that quote? (Instead of continuing to remove the quotefarm tag from the article.)  Cs32en Talk to me  14:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If I try to shorten the quote, you'll just complain that I am synthesizing. EdLake (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. But if you summarize it in a neutral and objective fashion, I probably won't complain.  Cs32en Talk to me  15:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you will be deciding what is "neutral and objective." So, there's little chance that what I do will satisfy you, and we'll just end up endlessly debating. EdLake (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

(<-) As an outsider I have to agree that the section is almost entirely synthesis and should be boiled down to no more than one or two sentences at most. These should not put material from published sources together to support a conclusion unless published sources have done exactly that themselves. 85.228.208.58 (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That's another bizarre interpretation of "synthesis." The information is mainly from The FBI's Summary Report. The FBI's report concludes that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer. There is nothing in the section about "consciousness of guilt" that suggests any other conclusion, so there is NO SYNTHESIS of something that is not in the report. Boiling things down "to one or two sentences at the most" would require eliminating some of the facts which pointed to Dr. Ivins' guilt and his "consciousness of guilt." It would be adding bias against the FBI's case by showing less of the actual evidence against Dr. Ivins, thus suggesting that they didn't really have a case against Ivins. There were MANY items of evidence against Dr. Ivins which aren't even mentioned in this Wikipedia article. Only KEY items were used. Cutting out key items of evidence is adding bias to make the reader think there isn't much evidence.

See the new topic below about the definition of "synthesis." EdLake (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is that the FBI report is basically original research itself because it makes theoretical assumptions that can now never be proven as the subject is deceased. When taken individually, some of the "actual evidence" cited is not outside the range of the normal behaviour of an innocent person and this also applies to the "non denial denials". The FBI report is linked for readers to check if they are interested so both sections should be no more than a few paragraphs long to show that the FBI believed this. The detail as it stands is adding bias towards Ivins guilt which, baring the discovery of more physical evidence remains inconclusive. He is the most likely offender on the balance of probability and the artical should not be written to support your own book which does not require the same standard of writting that Wikipedia does.Wayne (talk) 07:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)