Jump to content

Talk:1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 98.246.173.73 (talk) at 13:12, 10 September 2010 (→Hyperbole?: comment added --Alan Hartley). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured article1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 10, 2010.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 2, 2008Good article nomineeListed
January 12, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
March 19, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 23, 2007.
Current status: Featured article

But...

But... = this sort of wording change is not NPOV. Best to just keep it to matter-of-fact statements. Cirt (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The change was just meant to be grammatical. Quoting one opinion, then an entirely different (opposite) one, is normally separated by "but." I don't think the word gives excess weight to either opinion. Rumiton (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The use of "but..." in this fashion is POV. It does indeed appear to give weight to the POV that is presented after the "but..." Cirt (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have reverted everything I did. Are the above the only contentious parts? I have no POV about this subject, BTW, I would just like to see a less clumsy and better-written article. (Though it is well written on the whole.) Rumiton (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC) I can see ways of getting around the "but" problem". I will think more about it. Rumiton (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you could suggest an alternative way of improving the wording, without simultaneously introducing POV problems, that would be most appreciated. Cirt (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still thinking. Rumiton (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)The first two paragraphs in the Prosecution section I find quite difficult. There seems to be a misplaced set of quote marks, and the ideas seem disjointed. Perhaps some of the sentences could be reworked and incorporated in a new section. "Culpability", perhaps? Rumiton (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that particular subsection is already of an appropriate size length. Cirt (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the size is fine, but interviews by researchers to establish culpability outside of the court process seem out of place in a section called Prosecution. Not a big point. Rumiton (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that one particular paragraph is big enough to warrant its own separate subsection. Cirt (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the search box go? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.171.155.245 (talk) 01:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction?

The first sentence of the third paragraph, section "Salmonella poisoning", says, "Local residents suspected that Rajneesh's followers were behind the poisonings, and turned out in droves on election day to prevent the organization from winning any county positions, thus rendering the terrorist plot unsuccessful." However, the third sentence says, "Only 239 of the commune's 7,000 residents voted." Doesn't it contradict the previous statement? Was it "droves" or "only 239"? — Kpalion(talk) 08:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "droves" (local non-cult residents) and the 239 (Rajneshee commune residents) are two different groups, there is no contradiction 77.247.11.82 (talk) 09:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbole?

  • The attack is one of only two confirmed terrorist uses of biological weapons to harm humans.

Are you sure? this document counts more. Moreover, this depends highly on your definition of terrorism versus partisan action -- always a shaky thing to talk about as this depends upon the context of the analyst. You might also want to cross check with the article on Well_poisoning. As I recall, and this is by no means my area of experties, the use of dead carcasses to poison water sources is reasonably common, historically speaking. User A1 (talk) 09:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also incorrect, according to the above document:

  • The Rajneesh group is the only known organization to have cultured its own pathogen for terrorist purpose

User A1 (talk) 09:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, bioterror is one of those loaded words that really should be avoided. "Biological attack" would be so much better. I'm not claiming these people were anything but nuts, but it implies a level of organisation that the article suggests just was not there. User A1 (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, depending upon your definition, there are early accounts of biological attacks for political reasons in region now the USA. Siege_of_Fort_Pitt#Blankets_with_smallpox User A1 (talk) 09:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently I am still going. [1] makes for interesting (and contradictory to this article) reading, particularly Unit 731, and the bit about Georgi Markov User A1 (talk) 09:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'bioterror attack'. hybeerbole alert! how on earth has this made featured article and the main page with that as a name!? 83.91.89.186 (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the previous comments. "Bioterror Attack" makes it sound like the Rajneeshies are affiliated with al Quaida and is really quite inappropriate. --Alan Hartley, a user from Oregon

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1984_Rajneeshee_bioterror_attack&oldid=384016857"