Talk:FBI confirms that ricin was not found at the University of Texas

Unprotected Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 21:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)  


 * Yes, but you have not shown any specific examples in stating that this article was biased in any way. Additionally, NPOV goes further into stating that: "But rather than introducing their own cultural bias, they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter."

--MrMiscellanious (talk) – 16:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

npov
Please allow in the "false positive" information as that makes for a more npov story. Neutralizer 14:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The false positve has NOTHING top do with the current at hand news. Therefore there is no need for it. Jason Safoutin 14:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree...we can't be repeating alarmist test results without mentioning they have been often wrong before; and we certainly can't be calling it a "deadly poison" when it isn't usually deadly. Neutralizer 14:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to go out now, but I will place the tag as I see no valid reason whatsoever to not report the previous instances of "false positives" relating to this poison. Neutralizer 14:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This is what the CURRENT news says...unless you can provide a source with a date of today, and that relates in any way to this story or the University of Texas, your edits are not faithful and Unfactual. Jason Safoutin 14:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Moved from my talk page;

Your edit to add a false positve quote and source has no basis for the current news and or reports. The source is not current. Unless you can provide a source from today, on this case. your edits are not faithful. Jason Safoutin 14:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree; what harm does it do to report there have been "false positives" related to test results for this poison? Why should we present it as an absolute fact that the substance is ricin? Neutralizer 14:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * At this monet, this second, as we know, as sources state, there is no false positive. The test at this momnet is positive. The fasle posioticve or a negative has nothing whatsoever to do with this current story. Therefore is considered unfactual to the news at hand and also misleading. The source you provide is old. And unless you7 can provide a source that says the test is negative, from today, related directly to the news at hand, and related to the University of Texas case, then and edits of falses or negatives or anthing that is unfactual to the news at hand, is not faithful. Jason Safoutin 14:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Your objections are not actionable. See above. Jason Safoutin 14:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Not actionable

 * Once again, provide you reason that is actionable. You are at this point, until you can provide sources for your objections, tagging an article without actionable objections, which is site disruption. Jason Safoutin 14:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Jason, your wrong about the false positive not being relevant, leave it in. Nyarlathotep 16:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Therefore I have tagged it . Does not in any way pertain to current events. Jason Safoutin 16:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want to write something about an event a year ago, go to Wikipedia. This is a news site and we report on facts of what they are right now...not a year ago or a year in the future. I removed publish and added develop....misleading remains. Jason Safoutin 16:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does, its give context. It shouldn't dominate the article, hence my leaving N's related news bit commented out, but it should be present.  I rewrote N's sentence to give a bit more info, and not be disparaging of the current tests.  Nyarlathotep 16:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

On a seperate note, do you really need all those sources? I like having lots of links too, so I understand where your comming from, but its maybe best to put some in an external links section. Nyarlathotep 16:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And yet niether of you have given a single actionable objection. Jason Safoutin 16:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Jason, the actionable objection is that the news is about a substance and a test. But you presented the news as if Ricin is definitely the substance in question. The actionable thing to do here is to add the possibility that the test could be wrong. Here is a link to numerous reports of the non-100% certainty of such a test; since you keep reverting my edits; perhaps you can pick out the appropriate source. Please note, the London false test result is not the only such report; the report of ricin at the US Senate was also questionable Neutralizer 17:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

need another contributor
I'm guessing Amgine will unlock this article soonish, so I'd like to point out that, I'm about to disapear off to Paris for several days, and Neutralizer isn't allowed to remove Jason's missinformation tag, as that would be another revert for him. So the article needs another contributor if its to be handled as breaking news today. Otherwise it'll have to wait for a bit. Nyarlathotep 17:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * From REUTERS: "This is not associated with any threats against the campus" in Austin, Texas, Rhonda Weldon said.

According to live TV: "CDC: ricin is not naturally occurring, and if ricin, it was intentionally placed." Jason Safoutin 20:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ricin: Although one seed contains enough ricin to kill an adult human, they may pass harmlessly through the digestive system if swallowed whole. [2]. Typically 2.5–20 raw seeds can kill an adult human...
 * Ricin is easily purified from castor-oil manufacturing waste. The seed-pulp left over from pressing for castor oil contains on average about 5% by weight of ricin. Since 0.2 mg of purified Ricin constitutes a fatal dose, this is a considerable amount of ricin.
 * ''The process for creating ricin is well-known, in part because a patent was granted for it in 1952. ... "Preparation of Toxic Ricin", assigned to the U.S. Secretary of the Army ... The patent was removed from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) database sometime in 2004, but is still available online through international patent databases.
 * The article above must clearly not have quoted the CDC correctly. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 21:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV question
The NPOV tag has been restored after being removed without consensus.

In its current state, are there still NPOV concerns regarding this article? -  Amgine | talk en.WN 17:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone should descide if N's related news link, which I reinserted, but kept commented out, should be included. N can't due this himself, due to being at his revert limit.  I think the London issue is currently covered in the article, which is good.  Nyarlathotep 17:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's NPOV anymore but there are spelling mistakes and I definitely think there should be the related news link to the US Senate false alarm. Neutralizer 18:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

CNN now announcing that 2 out of 3 tests report NEGATIVE
I am a bit annoyed at the rush to support nonsensical allegations thrown out by every terrorist stopper wantabe that has a badge. OBVIOUSLY it would make no sense to a thinking person that anyone would be interested in dropping ricin into a Univeristy.... but then again; only one out of 200 have been educated to actually think in the USA, according to this wikipedia article; which I agree with. Neutralizer 21:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have long thought that a dormitory at a large university would be a prime target for groups wishing to attack the US... Security is lax, generally, young people (who tug at heart-strings), and large numbers of people. Scary stuff... --Chiacomo (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What would be the objective? Are our enemies so stupid as to target everybody's loved ones..students? That would be a PR disaster.I don't think so. Neutralizer 21:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I expect you, Chiacomo, to publish a lead article saying this was another pile of media bullshit...if it turns out to be such a thing. Neutralizer 21:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If you wish to create "terror", I can't imagine anything more terrifying to a parent than to attack his or her child. I can imagine a public outcry at the government for not protecting our children... I'm not certain that the individuals commonly called "terrorists" have public relations personnel on staff. --Chiacomo (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Great point; who is it that benefits from "terror"??? Would Bush be in power today if it were not for "terror"? Would oil have gone from $15. to $62 per barrell since Sep. 10,2001 if not for terror????? who benefits from high oil prices????? does bin Laden? or do the Texas and Saudi oilmen?...you tell me who benefits from "terror" in 2006. Neutralizer 21:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe a stupid student liked to try some "recipe" of this substanse that are available on teh intrawebz? International 22:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * lol. this is likely the source of the likely hoax. Definitely not lead story material,imo. Neutralizer 22:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

AP now reporting "More tests needed"
That's the problem with rushing to report these hysterical "scares" coming out of the USA as if they are factual....they are usually exagerated, false or outright hoaxes. Neutralizer 02:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Live also: "Ricin is not naturally occurring. If this is ricin, it was intentionally placed." Jason Safoutin 02:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * DragonFire, please read Ricin. Please. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 02:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I am reading everything everywhere. Although I am not saying i disagree with you, I am stating what current reports say. I also see that state tests were nagative. Thiats fine. Thats whats happening now ans is factual as of this moment, and should be in the article. Previous assumptions of a false test could not be uased as the reuslts of currents tests were not known at the time. Jason Safoutin 02:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It wasn't an assumption of a false test. It was reporting there had been previous events of false positives. A reasonable element of a news article. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 02:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * At the time. I just do not see the reason for the addition at that time. IMO. That was not a fact of this situation at the time. Jason Safoutin 02:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Think of it as a "Same-day Pregnancy Test" being done by Norwegian Royal Princess the day of the wedding. Sure, it may say she's pregnant, but it's reasonable to report that the test has a number of false positives. Not reporting that would be foolish, in fact. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 02:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I am listeing, but no one seems to understand that speculation is not our job. Its like sayiny "Iran statred uranium inrichment again....and they might bomb someone. Or might have a nuclear bobmb. Don't worry...I will not edit the article anymore. I like to rpoet on what is known as a fact as it happens. Not specualte on something that could or could not be true. Jason Safoutin 02:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Saying a test, which is known to return false positives, is correct in any given case is a form of speculation. There is an entire branch of instrument study which is focused on making sure tests like these only fail positively, rather than negatively, because it is unacceptable to have a negative failure. I tried to point this out to you earlier. The test is supposed to be inaccurate. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 02:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Last I heard, tests were not made or designed, in this nature, to purposely/intentionally give a false positve. IMO thats just a conspiracy theory. I do not see this test only being made for the reults to be purposely wrong. Now thats a big assumption. Jason Safoutin 02:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

2 days later...
they still don't know what it is. Maybe they know whether or not it is ricen by now. Here's a 2-hour old story at the time of this posting: -Edbrown05 06:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

More reporting that show moderation in this case: International 12:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Ricin found in University of Texas dormitory
This was our lead story headline. There was never any reason we should have phrased the event in such a factual way; not even at that time. Fortunately our collaborative process worked,imo, and the article did not stay lead very long. One thing that might be changed for the future is the way the "disruption" word was thrown out by the author during the discourse; the use of that word on article talk pages happens too often and is extremely destructive to the collaborative process, I think, as it is used as a blocking threat to push through the threatener's version of the article. I hope that will stop entirely..if someone wants to warn someone they are becoming disruptive, that should happen on a user's talk page ; not on an article talk page, I believe. Neutralizer 12:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It was on your talk page. But you moved it here. Not my fault you did that. Jason Safoutin 12:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Not so, Jason, please check the history, you put it here. Neutralizer 12:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This article was published too quickly, and was too definitive when all the current listed sources are derived from a single AP report.
 * As to the inclusion of the previous ricin stories, it would have been fair to do so as until that time the general public was completely unaware of the stuff. You do have to be neutral in the way you present that though. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Really Neutralizer? Section: Ricin, I have moved this discussion to the talk page. Neutralizer 14:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC) Check your talk page. Its still there. Jason Safoutin 12:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Jason, please read the edits ; what was moved is not your edit where you made the disruption chategorization...you put that on the article talk page yourself. If you need assistance understanding how to check edit history, please get back to me on my talk page as I used to have trouble with that myself. Neutralizer 13:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Regardless, I am through. I am no longer interested in this article. I obviously have no support, so I am moving on. Do what you like here. You will see no more collaboration from me on this article. My concerns were never consideredand and IMO nearly completely ignored. Jason Safoutin 13:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

If no one is going to develop this, it will be published.
Stop stalling and get something done, this should have been published by now. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 16:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * MrM. Do you think it's in a publishable state? It's simply not up to Wikinews' standards in any way. If you unprotect it, please put a Reason tag on it for me as I think as it's full of format,content and spelling problems; at least that's my opinion; also, have you read the " 2 days later " info above? Neutralizer 17:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Please propose edits, title change, revisions to sources &amp;c. You could start with a rewording of the comment on prior ricin news events.  Eg, Ricin first became publicised in MonthFoo, 20xx with claims of &lt;whatever&gt;.  In MonthBar, 20xx, with considerably less international coverage, the initial positive result in London was confirmed to have been a false alarm when subsequent tests turned out negative. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Why the clamour to report a possible hoax to the world?
I truly do not understand? This so called "story" is collapsing by the hour;..best we not be a part of this hysterical "scare",I say. Neutralizer 21:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If article dont work out then it stays unpublished. Still it may be a news about a hoax but thats to early to say, more of terrorhysteria if that can be called a news... International 21:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

New title suggestion
Analyses of substance found in University of Texas dormitory continue. International 21:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Or "No ricin found in UT student" could be the title? maybe? Neutralizer 22:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You are free to abandon it and start a new article on the scare prompted by one report on a false positive. However, if you choose to do that then be as restrained as you can.  Let the blogs massacre AP for being sensationalist. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

A fair warning to all contributors to this article
The actions taken by some here that have delayed this article from being published without any actionable objections are considered disruptive. Please get this article published within 24 hours of this timestamp, or users may be blocked for their edits. News is time-sensitive. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 22:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you heeded my warnings. Now, don't you think it's sad for an ACCREDITED (dear lord, that's dangerous!) Wikinews (gasp!) Administrator (*faint*) that HAS to point out the idiocy that has been enacted by some users on this talk page?  Don't you think it's a little ridiculous that some users can't take RESPONSIBILITY for their own actions, and instead choose to blame whatever they do on other users?  Don't you think it's ridiculous that you let this topic waste for days without even providing reasoning?  Don't you think it should have been published already?  Don't you think it's long past it's time?  Don't you think contributors here could have been focusing their efforts other places and achieved more?  Don't you think you should heed the warnings of other users?  Don't you wish that I would have blocked you in this case, to further your popularity against the "mean" admin?  Don't you think this is getting out of hand?  Stop doing this.  You've heard this warning.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 22:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * MrM, This was a bad article from it's inception...rushed and poorly sourced.I won't get involved in a personal discussion as I don't see this as personal at all. You are an administrator who threatened to block the editors of this story if we didn't publish it within 24 hours. I published it so I would not get blocked and I alerted the admins to what seems to me to be inappropriate behaviour by yourself....but there is nothing I can do about it, so I am moving forward. All the best. Neutralizer 23:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, you are going to finish this article first. You have repeatedly delayed this article, now you owe it to the community to see that this article be published.  I'm giving you 24 hours.  Get it done, your behavior has been inexcusable on the so-called "development" of this article - never, never do we let articles just linger for days upon end.  Get it published.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * MrM. I published it Brian put it back to develop  Neutralizer 23:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Then maybe you shouldn't give up. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The article should be deleted; I concurr with Brian on that. Neutralizer 23:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright, forget it. You should be ashamed of yourself for decieving the community into thinking this article would ever see the light of day in publish mode, and you have abandoned it, being the sole reason why it isn't published at this time. You are an irresponsible, illogical troll. You've just destroyed Wikinews a little by doing this. You should be ashamed of yourself - and if you aren't, you have some extreme moral issues. You are never going to be considered a contributor to this wiki if you continue this behavior - and I refuse to recognize you as one until that day comes when you stop doing that. Wikinews doesn't need your pitty moves. And no, it shouldn't be deleted. It should be held in responisbility of Neutralizer, who has yet to even disclose a single actionable objection for keeping this from publish for days on end. This is stupid, and deleting this only proves that a small group of contributors can control the content of this wiki because of their disruptive actions and the refusal to communicate with the community. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * MrM; I don't think your methods work anymore; at least not on Wikinews; I'd invite you to try some other platform. Neutralizer 23:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, than I have no problem with telling you to join Indymedia, and get the hell out of here - you are no longer welcome. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

No worries, they'll cool down eventually. Its in the right basic form now to cover what is actually true. Nyarlathotep 23:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Publish?
Can this be published yet? Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 23:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm done with it. good night.  Nyarlathotep 23:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the new and more accurate article is ready for publishing now; so let's get this done. Neutralizer 00:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The last word about this article
At least MY last word;   
 * MrM; are you ok?

1;Weren't you the first person to use these boxes;e.g.? You certainly use them the most; even twice in this article's talk page.

2.If you thought this story's development was so important, where were you the last 2 days?

3.This story when first published was not just questioned by me; have you even looked at Amgine's edits on the talk page?

4.Did you want this to remain our lead article? Why?

Your behaviour has been getting ruder and ruder toward everyone; look at how you yelled at BrianMc when he was trying to fix this article as you demanded and also this.

Anyway, I won't be responding to your personal attacks at all, I really hope you can get better and I'm not kidding.

and finally, I did get the box idea from you,MrM;imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I'm told;  
 * I believe that's more than one final message, Neutralizer. But, based on hindsight, this is expected from you, as you have never fulfilled any of your promises - never to other users, to this wiki, or even promises self-set by yourself.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

yee gads,
... it would have been so easy if this story didn't get off to a rocky start. I think this ranks as the worst published story I've ever read here. I'm tagging it. I don't care for the article content, it makes no sense. The politics, that's inside stuff. -Edbrown05 06:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Jason Safoutin 12:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No I'm not tagging it for 'deletion', after re-reading it. I'm beginning to dislike 'talk pages' though. -Edbrown05 06:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently no one understands that a breaking story can be changed if published as the breaking template says. When the article was published, it was published according to the reports available at that time. No one bothered to change anything or even rename the article. Instead, they decided to enter misleading info that was in no way at all related to what was being reported at the time. Not only was misleading info added at the time of publish, severe POV was added . At the time that this edit was made, there was absolutely no sources anywhere that stated a false positive, in this situation, nor did anyone try to find a source saying it was, that was related to this story. Instead the Washington Post source that was added in the same edit, was not related to this article whatsoever, at the time of reports. Therefore that is misleading and a POV of the user who added it. We are not to report what might be the case or what could be the case. Instead we must report the facts at the time they are known. And I will go again to say this: "Look at the sources. They're attributed in the story. You cannot write whatever you want to write here; we stick to facts, not theories or conspiracies. (MrMiscellanious in talk page of U.S. airstrike targeting Ayman al-Zawahiri leaves 18 dead in Pakistani village)"
 * We have to valuate sources and the fact in them. Big problem for a journalist who dont. Neutralizer saved Wikinews ass this time. Some wikinewsies have something good to learn from him. International 13:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Look at the edit history. At the time of the reports the test was positive. Every major agency said that. That was the fact at that time. That was the report, like it or not. And during that time period, adding any information to suggest that the test was a "false positive" as Neutralizer said, was misleading and incorrect, again at that time. Jason Safoutin 13:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have followed this story from the begining with interest. I also tried to follow your argumentation but its not easy to understand. International 13:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, he hit the nail on the head. At the time of the story, that was the fact.  We don't make our own stories, and we don't delay it just because it may be wrong in the future.  We don't need to save Wikinews' ass, we attribute everything to its source.  Neutralizer didn't save Wikinews, he destroyed it by substituting a theory with what was known as fact at that point.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 20:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I dont understand how using ones brain and putting in background information about how the "ricintest" is prone to show false positive result, as a way to avoid posibly deadly mistakes if the other way around happens, isnt a FACT. International 21:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said, at the time the reports were happening the fact at the time was, the test was positive. Adding ANY information to suggest that the test was wrong. AT THE TIME, was misleading. Period. Any reporter would know that and in fact every report and source ATH THE TIME said the test was positive whether you like it or not. Jason Safoutin 21:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Am I interpreting you right that you dont take any concideration to background fact in articles and will continue to revert otherwikinewsies contributions with bakgroundfacts in "your" articles? International 21:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Why? Because it's not a FACT that false-positives are always prevelent in every case.  Sure, it's OK to state, "in the past, false-positives have been shown..." - but never state something unless it is fact, and you can back it up with attribution.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What is wrong with moderation when things are not sure, in initial stage of a story. Why make an article unnessesary speculative like many other newsagensys that unlike us must earn money by attract readers with sensationalism. Nothing for us. International 21:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I encourage Jason and MrM to go back and read Amgine's edits on this talk page; those edits are enlightening,succinct and say it all,imo. Neutralizer 21:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, good advice. Now I stop flogging the dead horse. International 21:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah I forgot...you guys are always right. Jason Safoutin 22:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)