Hello, EdLake! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Dawnseeker2000 16:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my biggest problem at the moment is the three tilde thing. I used it in the edit summary sections, but it didn't seem to do anything. I'll try it here to see what happens. EdLake (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Okay. I see what happens on the talk pages. It doesn't happen on the edit summaries. I understand now. No need for signatures on the edit summaries.
It really needs a picture of either the Brokaw or the New York Post letter to show the highlighting of the A's and T's. I have large versions on my site, but I can create any size new version. Large versions:
As regards the size, we like to just use the 'thumb' option to make thumbnails, which are of a standard size (and can be changed by users, in their preferences) - e.g. [[File:flower.jpg|thumb|this is a flower]] (shown here). Chzz ► 19:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The large images for which I provided links were obtained from the FBI via FOIA requests. I don't see how any copyrights could apply. If it's still a problem, there are smaller versions on the FBI's web site. Since the FBI is a government organization, the images MUST be in the public domain:
There's already a picture of the Senator Daschle letter as part of the article. All the images come from the same source: The FBI. The author is dead. If he filed a copyrights application, that would be an admission of guilt and BIG news. :-)
I submitted a question to the U.S. Copyrights office to see if it is even possible to copyright a photo taken by the FBI of a piece of evidence from a closed case. They responded: "Copyright ownership belongs to the author of the work. However, works created or produced by the U.S. government are considered in the public domain and are not subject to copyright protection."
I took great care when updating the Wikipedia entry about the 2001 anthrax attacks with information about the "hidden message" in the media letters. But cs32en deleted it all because I only used "primary sources," i.e. the FBI/DOJ's Summary Report, The rule about using primary sources says:
Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge.
I used quotes from the Summary report, making NO interpretations of my own. What is in the Summary report "can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge."
The only "secondary sources" I've been able to find are either wrong, biased or too brief. The Washington Post's article is WRONG, absurdly claiming the hidden message was on labels on the envelopes. Even their illustrations are WRONG, claiming only the first letters of certain sentences comprise the "hidden message." Here are the links:
If I put the section back, it will become a debate over what "reliably published" means and what "interpretation" means, and it will probably be removed again.
I could add links to the "secondary sources," but they wouldn't add anything of value to the entry and I'd probably have to do an "original analysis" of them.
The information about the hidden message in the media letters is too important to the case to just leave out of the Wikipedia article entirely.
You're in a gray area, but I think you make a valid point. While I have not restored the edit, I have alerted Cs32en to the issue and asked him to discuss it with you. Let me know if you require further assistance. I will be watching this page. N419BH15:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources should be used to complement information from secondary sources, otherwise the risk of misinterpretation becomes too large. The edit contained the wording "According to pages 56-64 of the FBI's Summary Report [...], the letters to The New York Post [...] and Tom Brokaw [...] contained a "hidden message." However, the source says: "any hidden message that might be contained within them" (p. 57), "suggesting that the letters contained a hidden code. The Task Force’s investigation found a distinct connection between this hidden code" (p. 58), "an apparent hidden message" (p. 59), "two possibile [sic] hidden meanings" (p. 60). The DOJ thus does not appear to make a definite statement in the part of the text that you have referred to. Also, the report is published by the DOJ, not by the FBI (see page 1 of the report for details). Cs32enTalk to me15:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: What makes the "hidden message" so important? This is the first time I've ever heard of it. I'm not doubting you, but you said it's important without explaining why. N419BH15:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably the other important problem with primary sources. Given the large amount of information, the selection of information easily becomes rather arbitrary. With secondary sources, you can do a survey of the available sources, and then focus primarily on such aspects which are reported on by the majority of sources. This is not possible in the case of primary sources, leaving much room for personal preference. Cs32enTalk to me17:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To User:N419BH: What makes the "hidden message" so important? It directly links Dr. Ivins to the anthrax letters, making it the "smoking gun" in the case. He was observed throwing away the "code books." He had an obsession with codes. The code book was one of this favorite books. I added it to to the entry BECAUSE most people do not know about it, yet the FBI/DOJ devoted 8 pages to it in their summary report. It's hard to explain why it's so important without making an "original analysis." I tried to use the words from the Summary report to explain why it was so important.
To User:Cs32en: Since Dr. Ivins is dead, there is no possible way to prove which decoding of the message is correct. I quoted the FBI/DOJ to that effect (page 60): "It was obviously impossible for the Task Force to determine with certainty that either of these two translations was correct. However,[...] the key point to the investigative analysis is that there is a hidden message, not so much what that message is."
N419BH, if you don't "see the connection" please ask a specific question. I think I'm going to need your help on this. The Wikipedia article is about a crime. The "hidden message" and Dr. Ivins actions in throwing away the code books is the "smoking gun" that conclusively proves who committed the crime. I took special care to avoid writing anything that could be objectionable, but is the FBI/DOJ's summary a "neutral point of view?" I guess the question you asked on the other side could answer that.
I see your point as to how the code can be interpreted as a smoking gun (somewhat skeptical that it truly is, but I haven't read the full report). What we're trying to determine over at the other thread is whether or not the primary sources rule applies to FBI reports. You might keep researching and see if there is another newspaper or journal somewhere that makes a better case than the articles you already mentioned. N419BH16:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've already done the research. The media mostly just says "the FBI closed the case" and doesn't go into detail. They just refer people to the FBI & DOJ's web site. The exceptions are opinion pieces and articles about people who have opinions that Ivins didn't do it.
If this change goes through, I'll also want to post information from the FBI/DOJ's summary report about Dr. Ivins' "consciousness of guilt," i.e., other information proving Dr. Ivins was guilty (proving he tried to cover up the crime, destroy evidence, mislead investigators, etc.) but which no "secondary sources" mention in detail. And Wikipedia doesn't mention it either.
There's an abundance of "secondary sources" in the Wikipedia entry involving opinions from people who had no actual knowledge of the case or the evidence. I'd like to show some of the actual evidence.
There's also an entry about Dr. Henry Heine's comments which needs debunking. Dr. Ivins himself wrote emails showing that what Dr. Heine said about Dr. Ivins' abilities was total nonsense. However, Dr. Ivins' emails might also be considered a "primary source." EdLake (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I followed all the rules and all the suggestions, and the revised section I added about "The Hidden Message in the Media Letters" was simply deleted again because Cs32en disagreed with what I'd written. The discussion was on the discussion page for the Wikipedia article about the anthrax attacks of 2001: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2001_anthrax_attacks
I don't know how these things work. I don't know if anyone else will even notice that this happened. So, I'm looking for help on what to do next.
I'm not willing to endless try to please someone who can never be pleased with anything that shows Dr. Ivins to be guilty or which uses FBI information about the case.
CS32en's explanation was: "Sorry, but you have to take *information* from the secondary sources. You can't just say they "commented" on the topic, or that the Washighton Post "got it wrong".
Don't get downhearted about being reverted! The last think we want is for you to leave because someone disagreed with you. I think though that you may want to get more familiar with policy. Maybe get into editing some other articles as 2001 anthrax attacks and its associated talk page are your only major contributions. Please make sure that you cite sources since sources allow people to know that your information is at least partially correct. Mr. R00tTalk17:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mr00t - You evidently do not understand. This is like the FOURTH time I've tried to get that information on the the page only to see it totally deleted. I cited THE FBI/DOJ's official summary report, quoting from it extensively.
I have no interest in updating anything on Wikipedia other than the section about the anthrax attacks of 2001. That is my area of EXPERTISE. Should I give up? Or can this matter be resolved? You seem to be suggesting that I give up. EdLake (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained my viewpoint on the article's talk page, and I would appreciate it if you would present my viewpoint in an accurate way when you are referring to it. In particular, I have reverted about 25 % of your entire additions to the article, and I have repeatedly said that the DOJ report may be used, if it is used in an appropriate way. Cs32enTalk to me17:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I have reverted about 25 % of your entire additions to the article" - NO. For the THIRD TIME, you deleted 100% of the section about the hidden message in the media letters. That is the issue at hand. I used the DOJ report in "an appropriate way" as a "secondary source." Your claim that a SUMMARY is a "primary source" is not appropriate, since a "summary" by definition cannot be a "primary source." "Primary" means "first." A "primary source" is the RAW DATA, the testimony from witnesses, the letters, the anthrax, and perhaps the field reports written by FBI and USPIS agents during the course of the investigation. EdLake (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This edit summary shows all your 20 subsequent edits to the article. I really would appreciate it if you would cease to create the impression that I would somehow intend to suppress information that you want to add to the article. Cs32enTalk to me20:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that you think I should be grateful that you didn't delete everything I posted. And you think I should show my gratefulness by not disputing your interpretation of "primary source," even though you are obviously wrong and using a primary source is NOT forbidden. EdLake (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I posted the following information to the 2001 anthrax attacks discussion page, but it's also appropriate here:
September 13, 2009 - Press Accuracy Rating Hits Two Decade Low
"The public’s assessment of the accuracy of news stories is now at its lowest level in more than two decades of Pew Research surveys, and Americans’ views of media bias and independence now match previous lows.
"Just 29% of Americans say that news organizations generally get the facts straight, while 63% say that news stories are often inaccurate. EdLake (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
