Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 01:12, 19 March 2008.

[edit] 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack

Self nomination. This is a stable, WP:GA-rated article, and was on the Main Page as a WP:DYK in November 2007. It has also had a peer review, and contains some relevant free-use images. I believe that it is of a high enough quality to be considered for WP:FA status, and I will do my best to address points/comments as they come up in this FAC discussion. Cirt (talk) 08:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support, I previously commented on this article's peer review and see that my concerns about images were addressed - it is an incredibly referenced article for an event which far too few people even know occured during their lifetime. Heavily copyedited to meet high standards of prose, contextual images and I couldn't ask for much more. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 09:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support. The article is comprehensive in its coverage, and well-sourced. It was good to begin with, and has had many eyes on it over time, and benefited from extensive review. One minor quibble, I don't see the need for the scanned page of the Congressional Record, which appears to be duplicated in text form on WikiSource. The physical image takes up space without adding any value. I will try to do a more thorough review in the coming days, but would be very surprised if any significant problems turn up. -Pete (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Per this comment from Peteforsyth (talk · contribs), I removed that image from the article. Cirt (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Generally meets the FA standards. I did some tweaking of the intro sentence and the image placement per MOS. Also, the biggest issue I have with the text is the size of some of the paragraphs. It made it rather difficult to read in some sections, especially Investigation and Aftermath. Ideally, paragraphs are 3-4 sentences in length (though I doubt this is in policy anywhere). VanTucky 22:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. I will work on breaking up some of the paragraphs a bit. Cirt (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Cirt! VanTucky 22:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support I thought this was close to FA status back when this article appeared on DYK a few months ago. It's now there for sure. I'll go through the article again and see if I can pick out any issues. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 01:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. FYI, this is the version of the article as of the update when it was added to T:DYK, at 03:31, 23 November 2007. Cirt (talk) 01:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Solid references, informative. Only quibble is some sections/paras might be tightened/trimmed a bit per VanTucky. Awotter (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support - as per the above comment by VanTucky (talk · contribs) I have done some work on a few of the paragraphs in line with his comment, and I'll continue to do some more tweaking. Cirt (talk) 01:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: When two or more references are placed together, my understanding is that they should be in numerical order. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, that is the convention people usually follow for WP articles. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 02:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the clarification. The references in this article are not in the proper order and should be fixed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't understand the concern. The refs are sometimes out of numerical order because a single ref is not assigned a new number the second or third time it's used in the article; thus, ref #1 appearing in the lead, and then again later in the article, will still be ref#1. This is as it should be, and occasionally leads to the numbers being out of order in the article. As long as they're in order in the "references" section, that's fine, because they're easy to locate. -Pete (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I think it's a very minor issue to which he's referring, you currently have "Bob was originally a carpenter[21][7]", and he would rather see "Bob was originally a carpenter[7][21]" on citations where you have multiple footnotes, they should just be placed in numerical order :) Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 17:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support I think the article is very good. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral OpposeComment Is this a neutral point of view? The organization had lacked the sophistication necessary to breed drug resistant strains of the bacteria, and the victims responded to antibiotic treatment. What evidence is there of them even trying to grow antibiotic-resistant salmonellae? And were they treated? Salmonella infections rarely are treated with antibiotics. Also, I find the use of the word agent instead of bacterium or bacteria in some, not all, sections not a neutral word. Same for utilize (also bad grammar). Lastly, that micrograph could be any old (harmless) coliform, (despite what it says at Commons). It's use is subtle non-neutrality--GrahamColm^Talk 14:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the Salmonella image, I will get on these other points soon. Cirt (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm opposing until all the points I've raised above are addressed. My worry is that the article credits this group with more sophistication than was the case. Anyone can grow salmonellae; all you need is a bit of food and a warm place. I'm not going to say here how easy it is to get the bacteria, but it is. The over use of the word agent implies that the culture had been weaponised. It's not a neutral article.--GrahamColm^Talk 21:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The sentence in question above that you highlighted was since removed, or at least that wording was removed. And I could show you literally hundreds of respected scholarly and academic sources, and reports by government agencies, that use the exact same wording as in the article, i.e. "agent". That is NPOV wording for this incident, which has been referred to as a "bioterror attack" in hundreds of sources. Cirt (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: - Done. - I went and removed a few instances of the word "agent". Cirt (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: - Done. - I checked, there is actually only one instance of the word "utlize" in the article, changed to "use". Cirt (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

O.K. I'm going neutral on this. Thanks for your quick responses.--GrahamColm^Talk 21:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No prob, thanks for your quick response to my responses.  :) Cirt (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Here are some observations. I still think it's an excellent article overall, but these points I think need a little attention.
  • "Two waves" of attacks -- what does this mean? The dates are just about continuous. Unless the "two waves" can be described in more detail, I'd suggest eliminating this distinction.
    • Done. See below. -Pete (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "The perpetrators" -- is there a more specific word that could be used? "Osho's followers"? "Rajneeshees"? Don't want to run afoul of libel here, but a more specific word would improve flow.
    • Done. Really not a problem to begin with. -Pete (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The paragraph about the initial health investigation, and the later determination that it was a deliberate attack, could use some work. It repeats several times that the health investigation didn't determine that it was deliberate; it would be better if stated clearly once, and not repeated in the section.
  • "isolated the source" -- can't we just say "located" or "found?" I like simpler language better. "Isolated" sounds more technical than I think is meant here.
    • Done. -Pete (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • There's a sentence "The Rajneesh group is the only known org..." that seems out of place in the paragraph it's in.
    • Done. Moved to "aftermath" section. -Pete (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Using the names Osho, Bhagwan, and Rajneesh interchangeably is confusing. I think it's best if the multiple names are stated clearly at the beginning of the article, and then just one is used from that point on. I chose "Osho," but maybe one of the others is more appropriate?
    • Done. Changed all to "Osho." If a different name is more appropriate, just change it. -Pete (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If it's known, what became of Sheela and Puja after their release?
    • Done. Added a sentence about Sheela; can't find info about Puja. This satisfies my concern. -Pete (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Near the end, the sentence stating that "all but one" of the restaurants went out of biz seems a little out of place; is there a better paragraph for it?

-Pete (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I will begin to address these points. Cirt (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • I think the following sentence in the lede, "After other tactics to gain political control failed, Rajneeshpuram officials decided to incapacitate voters in The Dalles, the largest population center in Wasco County." may still refer to the erroneous idea once present in an earlier version of the article's body that the homeless scheme predated the salmonella attack and had failed; in fact, the homeless scheme continued through September and October 1984 (Carter, p. 215–221). Perhaps something like "Fearing that their votes would not be sufficient, ..." might do instead.
  • More sociological context could be presented. According to scholarly analyses, the commune was subject to immense pressures from its environment. Carter e.g. writes in "The New Renunciates of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh" that "The short life of Rajneeshpuram is attributable to consistent and coordinated pressures from coalitions of existing residents, each group of which seems to have been offended by different facets of the Rajneesh ...". This view is echoed in Latkin: "Seeing Red: A Social Psychological Analysis": "The Rajneeshees did not receive a cordial welcome to Oregon. Soon after the Rajneeshee arrived in Oregon, church leaders began denouncing Rajneesh and his followers. Petitions were circulated to rid the state of this supposed public menace. Letters to the editors in newspapers around the state reviled the Rajneeshees. One such letter stated, 'Are we going to stand by and see another Sodom and Gomorrha rise, or are we going to make a stand for morality and our children's futures?'" Gun clubs in Oregon handed out notices declaring "an open season on the central Eastern Rajneesh, known locally as the Red Rats or Red Vermin" (Carter, p. 203). The political takeover of Antelope was prompted by the Antelope Council dragging its feet over processing requests for building permits and then trying to disincorporate itself rather than processing them (the Rajneeshees were by then present in sufficient numbers to win the disincorporation vote and from then on were in the majority in Antelope). Legal challenges to the incorporation of Rajneeshpuram for land use reasons were later found to have been unwarranted, the Court of Appeals finding in 1986 against 1000 Friends of Oregon that the incorporation of Rajneeshpuram had not violated state land use goals (for details see Carl Abbot (1990). "Utopia and Bureaucracy: The Fall of Rajneeshpuram, Oregon", The Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 59, No. 1. (Feb., 1990), pp. 77-103). The present depiction of circumstances around and leading up to the events in question appears more black and white than in the relevant sociological literature.
  • The language is at times a little reminiscent of TV-style crime infotainment programmes; a more sober style would help to make the article appear more neutral.
    • I read the article closely this morning, and did not notice anything along these lines. If you provide specific instances, I'll gladly work on them. -Pete (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Unless you'd like to provide specific instances, I'd call this Done.. -Pete (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Re the "two waves": Carter refers to two "outbreaks" and dates them September 10–17 and September 22–24 (p. 224).
    • Are these dates contradicted in the Prelass and McCann sources? The dates given here make more intuitive sense than dates that are continuous (though I'd imagine the differing dates probably come from identifying different endpoints on a bell curve.) Maybe we should just replace the word "waves" with "outbreaks" and call it good? -Pete (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Actually, multiple secondary sources use the term "waves" to refer to the two phases of attacks, or two periods in which people became sick due to exposure to the agents. Cirt (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't consider this a major problem. If I can think of a way to slightly adjust the text to improve the flow, I'll do it; otherwise, no further action required as far as I'm concerned. Certainly not something to keep the article from FA. Done. -Pete (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Sheela runs two nursing homes in Switzerland now (see note on article's talk page). I believe she had tapes of her daily conversations with Rajneesh (she had bugged his apartment), which she made available to the US authorities as part of her plea bargain; these did not provide evidence to show that she was acting on his authority. To my knowledge, these tapes have never been released, but it might be worth looking into.
    • The Oregonian story cited on the Sheela article gives enough info to flesh it out a little; I'll take care of that. Might need another source for Puja, I'll look for that too. Done. -Pete (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Jayen466 02:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to above comments

Okay, I will take a look at these soon and address these above points. Cirt (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment The "investigation" section seems to be seven paragraphs long (including one really long para), and some of the later paras (concerning sentencing, etc.) do not seem to fit logically under the heading "Investigation." Ling.Nut (talk) 04:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Response: Okay, I will take a look into that, and perhaps shift some things around so they are in a more appropriate location in the article. Cirt (talk) 05:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ling.Nut (talk · contribs), could you explain this a bit more specifically? How best do you think this could be addressed, could we have a new subsection for the bottom 2 paragraphs of that section, and if so, what title would you suggest for that new subsection? Cirt (talk) 05:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) The simple addition of a "Prosecution" heading helped tremendously. I have many thoughts about reorganizing various sections, sentences etc. However, I don't wanna clog up this FAC, and writing my thoughts may be an ongoing process. I seriously considered merely editing the article as per WP:BOLD, but the changes are nontrivial, and with it in FAC now that might be frowned upon. :-) So I'm gonna start putting my thoughts on the article's talk; will post a link here when I get at least several things written down. Ling.Nut (talk) 06:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. On that note, my thanks to Peteforsyth (talk · contribs) for helping out with addressing some things with the article during this FAC process, much appreciated. Cirt (talk) 06:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

here ya go, some quick thoughts. Ling.Nut (talk) 07:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, these are certainly a lot of points to address. I will do my best to get to all this stuff, and the above comments as well soon. Cirt (talk) 07:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments The title "1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack" gives the leading impression that it involved the whole cult. This is similar to calling (for example) the Omagh bombing the "Catholic Bombing of Omagh" or maybe the "Muslim Bombing of the World Trade Center". Similarly, membership of a group in itself doesn't signify anything unless some aspect of the group has prompted the action. All the perpetrators (bar Knapp) were women, so maybe it could be titled "1984 Womens bioterror attack"? Thought not... The article makes an attempt to implicate a whole group in what was, by the admission of the article itself as well as primary sources, the actions of maybe a dozen people. If the article aspires to be a featured article then it needs to be more neutral. 84.159.117.90 (talk) 08:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC) — 84.159.117.90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Response: If you do searches for this exact term, or terms virtually identical or very similar to the title of this article, you will find that this is the way the incident is referred to, in literally hundreds of WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. This includes both academic sources, scholarly sources, and government reports. Cirt (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore: the "few people" who were prosecuted for the crime were in leadership positions in the cult. Ma Anand Sheela is described as the "main manager and spokesperson" of Rajneeshpuram. And the intended consequence of the action was to increase the power and influence of the cult. -Pete (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Seth Carus pointed out, both in his section in Tucker's Toxic Terror and in his own "Bioterrorism and Biocrimes", that "The case is often cited in the terrorism literature, but the accounts are usually inaccurate and always incomplete." Since the article makes heavy use of precisely this literature, I'll do some more cross-checking on the refs. If it's for FA status, it really has got to be right. However, I don't expect to find much to quibble with; I am confident what we've got is 95–100% there. I'll make any further comments in this regard on the talk page. Jayen466 01:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. Glad to hear that we are 95-100% there. Cirt (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have revised the Investigation section to remove duplications and straighten out the chronology. I have also added info from a couple of sources. Please have a look through. Jayen466 22:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note; the lead is normally slight on citations as it summarizes text which is cited in the body of the article. Why does this sentence in the lead need eight citations?

• The incident was the first bioterrorism attack in the United States, and the single largest bioterrorist attack in United States history.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

And why aren't the eight citations in the body of the article, discussing that it was the first, rather than in the lead? In fact, why are there three citations on numerous statements throughout the article? Also, the link checker shows this as a dead link:

• http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/8DXdR6L9ONyE06Tm3-ZaAeuNwS014ojLnDI0ikzD9f39zUs_UhHAvM5slIW8uP8leS9DTzz5J1lJz0mZdfD6V_bj_UVb3rk/Wasco%20County%201984/wasco_health_fax.pdf HTTP/1 404 Not Found SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Re the broken link: I've removed the reference for now and put the document up here for viewing: [1] I suppose if we have it in the article at all, it should go to Commons. What is the situation with local government documents? I guess we would have to write and ask for permission, as well as confirmation of authenticity.

I agree that the number of cites seems excessive in places. In a few cases, though, the sentence wording used in the article draws on multiple sources, each of which adds another detail that is not present in the others. Will have a look as to which cites are dispensable. Jayen466 12:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

If the sentence wording draws on multiple sources, how is synthesis avoided? Shouldn't each portion be separately sourced and attributed ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I am currently going through the article to remove multiple cites where one is sufficient to cover the entire content of a sentence. Once I've done so, I suggest we can look at the remaining sentences with multiple cites in detail. I can also place individual cites for sentence portions, as you suggest. Jayen466 18:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.