Talk:US military to buy anthrax and bioweapons production systems

I don't think this story is portrayed correctly. I read the reference link and they are going to be used for creating vaccine, not bioweapons. Although the ability to create bioweapons is possible. (Unsigned comment by 195.212.29.75)

I belive the previous comment does not read the reference article correctly. I also read the reference link. There is nothing in there to support the claim that the Anthrax will be used for vaccine purposes, it just explains that this is its common use. The article clearly states that mititary offcials have not commented on the intended use of the Anthrax. (Unsigned comment by Vonbergm)

Agreed. The reference clearly does not state that the equipment is for vaccine production. There is also the small matter of the other 3,000 litre bioreactor, for unspecified purposes. It is equally possible to infer that the systems are for weapons production, with vaccine production being a possibility. Will the first poster please re-read the reference and point out where it says the equipment is definitively for vaccine production, or put the article back in the current news before it goes 'stale'. (Unsigned comment by 202.49.141.2 - VikOlliver, not logged in)

I am the OP. I read the reference article it points to. A quote from it. "Although the Sterne strain is not thought to be harmful to humans and is used for vaccination, the contracts have caused major concern." It makes a POV reference that the items used could produce Ames version of the virus but no where in the story does it say that they are in fact doing this. Looks more like its being sensationalised.

The piece about 9/11 while interesting has absolutly nothing to do with the story either. (Unsigned comment by 195.212.29.75)


 * Hi. Until this is sorted out, do not remove the  tag from the article.  In addition, such a controversial topic like this should be reviewed in its facts by more than one source in order to be published.  A rewrite will be needed for this article to comply with Wikinews standards.  --Mrmiscellanious 10:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I suggest removing the reference to the 3,000 litre batches, as the reference articles are also quite vague about it and it does not add significant content to the article.

Moreover, I agree with the objection raised above that parts of the last paragraph seem disconnected. However, the first sentence reminding the reader of the strong evidence that the agent used in the recent US anthrax attack originated from a US milirary facility is very relevant. The speculations that follow, although interesting, should be deleted as they lead too far away from the core of the article.

No, your wrong, the 3000 litre batches is the main story here, you can possibly remove the references to contracts for anthrax in 1500 litre batches if you like, but it would be a major mistake to remove the discussion of the equipment for the 3000 litre batches. And frankly, I'm not even sure why you'd make such a suggestion.

As for the final paragraph, I dislike articles that present a simple he said she said dichotomy. Just as the article should make it clear that not all production of anthrax is for building bioweapons. It should also present that not all people opposed to bioweapons are "peace and love" types. The 9/11 reference clarify that many anti-bioweapons types have a more "conservative" agenda.

We could create a second article about the FBI's quiet abandonment of the 9/11 investigation, move the currrent last paragraph to that article, crosslink both articles, and create a last paragraph for both articles which extremely briefly explains about the other one (and mentions the general gist of the current last paragraph here). Thoughts?

Mr. Misc, I see virtually nothing contraversial in this article, the news is just the fact that the Army has called for bidders for some contracts, some benign interpretations of what its for, and a bunch of worry due to the fact that they have not said what they what it is for. Everything else is context for the worry. That having been said, I suspect you don't actually have any objection to the first three paragraphs, and what your really calling npov is my final paragraph, which I feel is needed for context. What do you think about my idea for a seperate article on the abandonment of the investigation? - Nyarlathotep 01:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Reread the whole thing and I now agree fully with Nyarlathotep. Making a separate story out of the bottom paragraph and crossreferencing is a good idea and should resolve all remaining issues.

OK, I've removed the lower paragraph and added a link to the other anthrax story in the context of the doubts of the US to live up to its bioweapons commitments. The two are linked, as part of the treaty is the concept that you're not supposed to let dangerous people get hold of anthrax. If such events are not followed up, I belive it might be legitimately considered by the majority of our readers to be a commitment issue.(Unsigned comment by 202.49.141.2 - VikOlliver, not logged in)

Yes, I agree with your argument, but I had shortened the last paragraph already. The investigation hasn't been dropped, they are just pulling personel off it. The dropping of the investigation is related news, but I don't feel it supports this article directly. What does support this article directly is that U.S. military emploies were very likely the "dangerous people" your talking about. I'll try to change it again, let me know what you think. - Nyarlathotep 01:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. The references section keeps the article uncluttered. Vik :v)

Looks done and ready to go!

NPOV tag
I have removed the NPOV tag, as consensus over previous concerns appears to have been reached on the talk page, and the tagger did not list any actionable objections.

When an article is tagged NPOV, I expect to be able to go to the talk page and read a section titled "Neutrality of this article", which details exactly what the tagger thinks is wrong with it, and how it could be fixed.

- Borofkin 07:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It's far from Done, please read my comment below the story

comments moved by Deprifry

The US does NOT rule the world, Nor does it do ANY job of policing it. I cannot Belive that this kind of garbage reporting was posted. (unsigned comment left by Ryanrothwell on article page)


 * That was vandalism and has been removed. --Deprifry | +T+ 13:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Borofkin, while it is technical - it is not required for a user to post reasoning on the article talk page (while it is a courtesy). Whoever originally tagged this with NPOV should be contacted with the latest edits to see if it cleared up any questionable material.  --Mrmiscellanious 19:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Reverting edit by Johnodee to latest version by Deprify
I removed the sentence "Some believe the attack was aided by Lt. Col. Dr. Philip Zack, perhaps with the intent to frame ex-coworker Dr. Ayaad Assaad [3] [4]. No arrests have been made in the anthrax attack case.", because it had previously been removed because of NPOV concerns, and consensus seems to have been reached on the talk page regarding the matter. If you think that sentence should be re-inserted, please justify it here on the talk page. - Borofkin 00:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Regardless of NPOV issues, we should not just drop real names in an article unless there is a serious suspicion. --Deprifry | +T+ 05:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * In what way is the Lt. Col.'s name directly related to the US Military purchase of anthrax and bioweapons production systems? - Amgine/talk 05:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Most likely no relation whatsoever --Deprifry | +T+ 13:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Ironically, the information which Amgine is looking for is contained in the link which Borofkin removed. See here for more details - Raimondo article. --Johnodee 17:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The only reference to Lt. Col. Zack I'm able to find in the link you provided, is the claim that he without authorisation visited Ft. Detrick in 1992 after he was forced out for harassing Assaad. But how that could even be remotely relevant to this story is beyond me, frankly. --Deprifry | +T+ 20:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)