Talk:1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack

Osho's press conferences dd. 16/17 September 1985

I believe that the US authorities were not aware of sannyasins' involvement in this matter until Osho's press conferences on September 16 and 17. IIRC, the 1984 enquiry had concluded that the outbreak had been due to a food hygiene problem. As is documented by Frances FitzGerald (writing in The New Yorker – the article later also appeared in her book Cities on a Hill, p. 360/361), at the September 85 press conferences Osho

... said that Sheela and a dozen other commune leaders, including Puja, had left the commune over the weekend and gone to Europe. Calling them a "gang of fascists", he charged them with attempting to poison his doctor, his female companion as well as the Jefferson County district attorney and the water system in The Dalles. He also said that Sheela had mismanaged the commune's finances, stolen money, and left the commune $55 million in debt. ... The next day and then later on in the week, he added a number of new charges to the list: Sheela and her gang had robbed and set fire to the Wasco County planning office and had planned to crash an explosives-laden plane into The Dalles courthouse; they had engineered the bombing of the hotel in Portland; they had poisoned the county commissioner, Judge William Hulse, and quite possibly they had been responsible for the salmonella outbreak in The Dalles.

IIRC, it was only at this point that the enquiry into the salmonella incident was reopened, and investigations of the other specific issues Osho mentioned commenced. The subsequent enquiry confirmed the accuracy of most of his allegations (with the notable exception of the Portland bombing, I believe, which AFAIR was not found to have been instigated by sannyasins). I don't know where in the article that should go, perhaps after the sentence reporting the initial findings, but I think it should be mentioned somewhere, since it was a crucial point in the chain of events leading to the discovery of the plot. -- Jayen466 13:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I will take a look at the source you provided and get back to you. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC).

Thanks. -- Jayen466 16:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The same events are covered in Carter, p. 224–225. The only one who all that time had not been happy with the "food handler" theory was congressman Jim Weaver, and he was ridiculed in the press for continuing to propound the theory that people from Rajneeshpuram were to blame for the salmonella outbreak. This only changed when investigators gained access to Rajneeshpuram in September 1985, a full year after the salmonella incident. And that was due to Osho's public statements to the press that he believed people from Rajneeshpuram were responsible, and his contacting the authorities and inviting them in to undertake an investigation. -- Jayen466 20:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I looked through about 100 sources and did not find mention of Osho contacting authorities. I did find some brief mentions of other members of the Rajneeshee group contacting authorities, but not Osho. Please give me a chance to look into this angle further. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC).

No, sorry, I think you are quite right. In the press conference, he says "We are reporting to the police, to the government", he mentions Interpol had been contacted, etc.; I doubt he meant by this that he had picked up the phone in person. But his public accusations gave the authorities the grounds to come in and investigate.

Brian Ecker, Associated Press, Portland, asked him on Sept. 16, after Osho had talked to the press about an attempt by Sheela to poison the water supply in The Dalles, "There was an outbreak of salmonella last year in The Dalles. Do you believe that these sannyasins had anything to do with that?" Osho replied, "Yes." When Ecker asked if he had evidence of that, he replied that the police would have to ascertain the evidence, but that there were sannyasins who had information on this.

"The guru's revelations produced, as might be expected, an electrical effect on Oregon. Journalists poured into the ranch, closely followed by the representatives of six law enforcement agencies. Jim Weaver said the FBI had promised an investigation, adding that for a year, law enforcement officials had been looking for a 'stool pigeon' (= informer). Now, he said, 'We have got the biggest one of all. The Bhagwan himself.'" (FitzGerald, p. 361) "Bhagwan accused Sheela of the activities listed above, maintained his own innocence, and invited journalists and law officials to Rajneeshpuram to investigate what had occurred." (Fox, 2002, p. 18) Will check further into this tomorrow, getting late here. Cheers, Jayen466 00:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems like we have conflicting viewpoints in multiple secondary sources, with some writing about the bioterrorist attack, and Osho's implicit involvement, and others writing about his seeming double-crossing to other followers and perpetrators, in statements to the press. In order to provide balance, we should talk about this here on the talk page, and then probably add in information from more sources, but with attribution given to who said what in which particular source. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC).

I think we can agree that the records in FitzGerald and Carter show that

1. one year had passed since the salmonella attacks had taken place;

2. the health authorities had come to the conclusion that food handlers were to blame:

3. Jim Weaver, who did not believe this verdict, contacted "health officials, the FBI, and the Federal Center for Disease Control in Atlanta. Many treated his concern as either paranoid or an example of political opportunism (indulging in 'Rajneeshee bashing', which was already in fact worth more than a few votes in Eastern Oregon). When he presented his facts on the floor of the House of Representatives, the Associated Press coverage called it a 'rambling speech made to an empty house'." (Carter, p. 224)

In other words, except for Weaver, who was perceived as a crank or an opportunist, no one believed that the Rajneeshees were to blame; the criminals were, to all intents and purposes, in the clear. This was the situation when Osho called the 16 September 1985 press conference and blew the whole thing wide open. Had he been personally involved, it is difficult to see why he would have made these facts public. At any rate, the facts allow the possibility that he had been unaware of what had been happening, as he claimed, due to being in almost complete isolation, and had decided that the authorities should be informed the moment he learnt of Sheela's wrongdoings – simply because it was the right thing to do.

Osho was never indicted for these crimes or named as a co-conspirator (Carter, p. 233). Sheela's trial was in spring 1986. She got 4.5 years for masterminding the salmonella attack and was required to give lie-detector testimony about Rajneesh assets and operations (Carter p. 237); to my knowledge, this did not result in any indictments of Osho or any further statements by US authorities about his involvement. -- Jayen466 15:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, there are sources and individuals already noted in the article that say otherwise, so I will continue doing a bit more research before adding the above stuff in to the article, but most of what you mentioned above from WP:RS sources will be added soon, I just want to double-check some stuff and check some additional other sources. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC).

Okay. How do you manage to check so many sources? JSTOR? Questia? Or are you working in a library :-) ? -- Jayen466 21:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Still looking through sources... But in answer to your question, no, I do not work in a library, but I do visit libraries from time to time in the course of research. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 03:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC).

"Osho's followers"

One weakness of the – otherwise solidly researched – article is that it presents "Osho's followers" as one homogeneous block, using phrases such as "Followers of Osho had hoped to incapacitate the voting population", "Osho's followers sought after two of three county seats (and) they decided to incapacitate voters", "clinical laboratory operated by the Rajneeshee movement", etc. These were not the "actions of the Rajneeshee movement" any more than the Nixon administration's crimes were the "actions of the American people". As in that case, the criminal activities committed were a strongly guarded secret within Rajneeshpuram, and the reason they were kept secret was that the vast majority of residents there (including a recent Indian secretary of state, as well as a chairman of a White House commission) would have had no truck with any of these shenanigans. I would welcome a discussion as to how we could remedy this. -- Jayen466 20:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That should be a relatively easy fix, I will try to remedy this shortly. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC).

Some actions do apply to all of Osho's followers, such as the "Share-A-Ride" tactic and other tactics, which the entire organization simply must have been aware of. Others, perhaps they were not all aware of and implicitly involved in, and I will make corrections explicitly to those points. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC).

A number of sannyasins thought the homeless scheme quite barmy; FitzGerald reports that about half the contacts she had made on the Ranch left the Ranch (not the movement, necessarily) before matters came to a head. It is much as with any other policy that your local or national government may pursue; the fact that it happens does not mean thatityou and everyone else in your neighborhood agrees with it, or thinks it's a swell idea. -- Jayen466 00:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, made some fixes. Good suggestion, read a little bit better now. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC).

In any event, I made some adjustments in the article and I think that particular issue reads find now. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC).

Still not quite there, IMO. For one, the people in Rajneeshpuram represented a small percentage (about 1 to 5%) of sannyasins. This is based on Carter, p. 122, who gives the resident sannyasin population of Rajneeshpuram (excluding festival visitors) as ranging from 200 to 2500 max.; the Osho movement, at the time, had at least 50,000, probably more like 100,000 members worldwide. By saing "Osho's followers had previously moved ..." etc. it is a little bit like saying, "Muhammad's followers were responsible for 9/11", a statement that is vastly more wrong than it is right. -- Jayen466 22:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Examples of wording usage in secondary sources

Let's take a look at how other secondary sources refer to the incident, and the group involved:

1. U.S. Biodefense and Homeland Security Toward Detection and Attribution - "The Rajneeshee Cult Biological Attacks". - (Bernett)
2. The Bioterrorism Threat By Non-State Actors - "The Rajneeshee Cult". (Thompson)
3. Bioterrorism and Biocrimes - "The Rajneeshees also tried to contaminate the water system in The Dalles." - (Carus)
4. Food Safety: Old Habits, New Perspectives - "Nevertheless, its current low profile as a food-borne pathogen may make B. anthracis a tantalizing tool for bioterrorists who, like the Rajneesh cult, wish to tamper with our food supply." - (Entis)
5. Betrayal of Trust: The Collapse of Global Public Health - "And on the eve of the county election, hoping to make hostile voters too ill to go to their polling booths, the Rajneesh followers put the bacteria in dressings at salad bars in the county's ten most popular restaurants." - (Garrett)
6. Terrorism on American Soil: A Concise History of Plots and Perpetrators from the Famous to the Forgotten - "The first official use of salmonella by the Rajneeshees occurred on August 29, 1984, when the three sitting Wasco County commissioners came to Rajneeshpuram to collect information about the cult's operation to assist in their decision-making on matters before their board." - (McCann)
7. Germs: Biological Weapons and America's Secret War - "The Rajneesh crowd had chosen one of the mildest pathogens and had ignored the airborne delivery of biological agents - the traditional and most effective way of mobilizing microbes for war." - (Miller)

I think we can safely say that this sort of wording is used in reliable secondary sources as well. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 06:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC).

Biased?

Sorry, I don't really know how to use this, and I edited the article, so you might want to put it back. But I do think it's based on very faulty claims. As you point out, the original investigators believed that the outbreak was caused by poor food handling. This was largely because there were other outbreaks about the same time in other areas of Oregon and Washington that no one claimed was related to sannyasins. No one has ever been convicted of the crime and no evidence has ever been presented in a court linking the outbreak in The Dalles to the Ranch. So your article as it stands is defamatory to a lot of people. The story of a discovery of the guitly sample, for example, is pure fabrication. I have a copy of the actual police report of the search. The sample was found in the medical lab where it was being used to conduct tests. This was what it was sold for. There was no evidence that salmonella had ever been cultured so it could be used for contamination purposes. Searces were done, powder was scraped off of lab equipment, but no traces of salmonella was ever found. I have those reports too. The story about salmonellla that came through Osho was a report by one woman that she had been asked to contaminate the water supply in The Dalles, but that she didn't do it. Her claim was never verified. (I know her, and she is a bit emotionally challenged.) There were no claims at that point that this was connected to the salad bar contaminations. Those claims didn't arise till two people, David Knapp and Ava (something) turned state's evidence and tried to get off by testifying to what they thought was wanted. Ava, I believe, managed to get off completely, but Knapp still had to serve some time. Given Weaver's insistence that sannayasins were responsible for the poisonings, it's no suprise that these two offered to confess to this very politicized incident. A close examination of the two stories however shows that they both contradict each other and are inconsistent with the evidence. Ava, for example, claimed to have poisoned the milk in a restaurant. The fact that milk had been contaminated had been reported in the press, but Ava got the restaurant wrong. The original investigator said, I believe in the JAMA article, that he wouldn't have believed it if there hadn't been these confessions. But, since these two had a good reason to lie--to get deals with the prosecution--that wasn't a good reason to change his opinion. Their very faulty testimony is the only evidence existing that any intentional contamination occurred. It isn't illegal for a legal medical lab to own an openly purchased sample of salmonella for a strain that had cause recent outbreaks. It would have been negligent for the lab not to have been testing for that strain. Most importantly, these incidents never happened around election time. This was explained by saying they were dry runs, but since they actually worked, why weren't they done around the time of the elections? It is hardly fair to smear an entire community on this kind of nonproof. Two very dishonest people (remember, they were involved in crimnal activity) tried to save themselves by slandering the community they had already betrayed. If you want to write about them, write about them, but don't write about a community whose main activiy was ecological reclamation and an attempt to build something beautiful.SangeetD (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't resist adding one thing here -- I know it is hopelessly WP:OR -- but the salmonella samples were claimed to have been found in a Rajneeshee laboratory a full year after the poisonings had taken place. Isn't that a little strange? Why would criminals hold on to evidence of their crime for a full year, nurturing this salmonella culture all this time rather than throwing it away, and then escape the scene a year later for fear of being arrested, yet leaving this evidence in plain sight for officials to find?? -- Jayen466 23:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#FORUM

Please note that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum to discuss personal opinions about articles and historical events. If you have a specific point about a sentence or source used in the article, by all means, please discuss it on the talk page. Thanks. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC).

Excellent addition

This article is a great addition to WP. I think the title should be Rajneeshee bioterror attack (1984), however I've experienced the frustration of articles getting renamed multiple times, so I won't change it myself unless there's a broad consensus. Thanks for adding an important event in Oregon's history to the encyclopedia. -Pete (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

On the same topic, I wonder about the use of the word "terrorism." From the lead, it seems that this was an attempt to strategically steal an election which, while repugnant, is not the same thing as terrorism. If the goal of the action was not to strike fear into a population, I don't understand why the title of the article should include "terror." -Pete (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The incident has frequently been referred to as the first bioterrorism attack on US soil, so it is not Wikipedia that is inventing that moniker for it. I believe the Rajneeshees are still listed as a terrorist organisation by the US government -- a fact that causes some puzzlement in India, but true nonetheless. -- Jayen466 21:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, the statement that it was the first bioterrorism attack on American soil is technically incorrect; cf. [1] [2] [3] and many others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayen466 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, many many sources use the word "terrorism" to describe it, one even discusses use of the term, and decided that, because it was an act of violence intended to influence a specific political outcome, it fit the very definition of terrorism. I will find that specific source for you. By the way, thanks for the compliments on the article I created. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC).

As for renaming the article, you're right, I had already renamed it once from 1984 Rajneeshee bioterrorism attack, so unless there is overwhelming consensus to do this, I'd rather the title stay the same. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC).

Bhagwan/Osho

I am aware that we are currently switching from "Bhagwan (Shree Rajneesh)" to "Osho" and back. We should standardise on one name and use this consistently throughout, except for the intro, where both names should be mentioned. -- Jayen466 11:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• A good idea. I would say go with "Osho", for the most part, unless we are being consistent in a particular sentence which is backed up to a specific source that says otherwise in that instance. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 11:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC).

Interposing new comments in between others

• Jayen466 (talk · contribs), I request that in the future, your new comments go at the bottom of whatever thread you are posting in. When you post new comments in between other people's comments, it becomes much more difficult to follow each line of discussion. Thank you, Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 11:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC).

No problem, my bad. -- Jayen466 11:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC).

Sorry about messing up the Harvard cites earlier. I haven't been in the habit of using them and only noticed your edit comments just now. -- Jayen466 12:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted, thanks. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 12:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC).

Only two confirmed uses of biological weapons for terrorist purposes to harm humans

"According to Deadly Cultures: Biological Weapons Since 1945, these are the only two confirmed uses of biological weapons for terrorist purposes to harm humans."

This sentence is accurate, as per this text from this source:

There have been only two confirmed attempts to use BW for terrorist purposes targeting humans: the 1984 use of Salmonella by the Rajneesh cult in Oregon, and the 1990-1995 attempted use of anthrax and botulinum toxin by the Aum Shinrikyo cult in Tokyo. A third incident, the alleged use of a variety of infectious diseases against Native Americans in the Amazon basin during the 1950s and 1960s, is probably but not yet firmly established. A fourth incident, the 2001 anthrax letter attacks in the US, may be bioterrorism or biocriminality, determination of which must await the identification of the perpetrator(s) and motive.

• Wheelis, Mark (2006). Deadly Cultures: Biological Weapons Since 1945. Harvard University Press. pp. 284–293, 301–303. ISBN 0674016998. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 12:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC).

The book explicitly limits its purview to the period after 1945, it does not cover the entire human history of biological warfare and terrorism; the addition of "in recent history" corrected this, as does, to a slightly lesser extent, the naming of the book's title. (By the way, just in case you weren't sure, the wording "electrical effect" in the earlier edit was not mine, but FitzGerald's.) -- Jayen466 12:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the attribution I gave the beginning of the sentence makes it read fine in its present state. And if you did not create the wording "electrical effect", then it should either have been part of a quotation, or paraphrased. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 12:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC).

Electrical effect?

• Do we really need this phrase in the article? It sounds more like sensationalism than anything else, and it does not contribute any additional factual or specific information. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 12:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC).
  • The complete quote, as given in an earlier discussion above, was "The guru's revelations produced, as might be expected, an electrical effect on Oregon. Journalists poured into the ranch, closely followed by the representatives of six law enforcement agencies. Jim Weaver said the FBI had promised an investigation, adding that for a year, law enforcement officials had been looking for a 'stool pigeon' (= informer). Now, he said, 'We have got the biggest one of all. The Bhagwan himself.'" (FitzGerald, p. 361) This quote is verbatim (except of course for my insertion of the paraphrase "informer" for the term "stool pigeon"), without emendation of any intervening text, and is how FitzGerald, a Pulitzer prize-winning journalist writing for the publication with the (then, at least) best fact-checking reputation in the world, describes the arrival of law enforcement agencies in Rajneeshpuram. By separating the two sentences in the way we have them now, as though the one did not have anything to do with the other, we may be obscuring the close temporal relationship between the press conferences and the arrival of law enforcement agencies. If you like, we can quote the whole FitzGerald passage verbatim. Note that Carter too writes, on page 225, that "investigators gained entry to Rajneeshpuram in September 1985", and on page 230, he describes the press conferences and the arrival of the task force in immediate succession, like FitzGerald: "On September 16, Bhagwan called a news conference ... charging that they had poisoned his physician ... and committed other serious crimes. At one point he exclaimed, 'They would even have poisoned me!' A joint federal-state task force of investigators moved to Rajneeshpuram." Again, the sentence reporting the arrival of the task force follows immediately upon the description of the press conference. Cheers, -- Jayen466 13:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Again, this is Fitzgerald's personal inference here, and not facts. We have not once seen a source that says anything like: "Because of Osho's press conference...this happened...". I still think the use of the phrase "electrical effect", provides nothing to the article, and should be removed. Cheers, Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 13:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC).
      • Apologies, but your own personal inferences as to why two sentences are close together or one after another in source texts is all WP:OR. Who knows? - maybe they just put those sentences in that fashion because of chronological order, maybe they just felt like it - but we cannot infer any conclusions from that. Certainly we have no proof or evidence or anything to go on that the sole reason that investigators went into Rajneeshpuram was due to Osho's statements made to the press. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC).
        • I did not put any inferences in the article; I merely put the sentences in the same relationship in which they are found in two independent and extremely reputable sources covering these events. Osho made specific comments about the salmonella incident that had occurred one year earlier, and various crimes he believed had been committed to the press; in addition, he said that he and/or people in Rajneeshpuram ("we") contacted various law enforcement agencies. So is it not natural that an investigation would ensue? But let's take a break on this issue for today, okay? Cheers, Jayen466 14:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Where does it say specifically that Osho contacted law enforcement? Where does it say that as a result of Osho's statements, that was the specific reasoning for why law enforcement decided to investigate Rajneeshpuram? Until there is info to this effect, the two followed each other chronologically, but the first did not cause the second to occur. The current presentation in the article is accurate, as per multiple secondary sources. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC).
            • FitzGerald says that the press conference had this effect, of journalists and law officials pouring into Rajneeshpuram. And, if this is the effect of the conference, then the conference is the cause, which is fully consonant with the presentation in the equally reputable Carter (1990). FitzGerald is a leading investigative journalist who spent months on site; her New Yorker article is one of the most reputable and most widely quoted sources available. Now, you said above, this is Fitzgerald's personal inference here, and not facts. The quality of your Wikipedia work tells me that you know better than to argue this way; we cannot begin to argue here about what is or isn't fact (don't get me started!), we can only review what has been published by reputable, verifiable sources. (As for Osho's contacting law enforcement, this is among the statements he made to the press; it can be verified by the transcript of the press conference, available in the osho.com library, as well as the press conference video; but I am not suggesting at this time that this should go in the article.) Best wishes, Jayen466 14:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
              • This is now going in circles and getting ridiculous, I'm sorry. If Fitzgerald said that the reason law enforcement went to Rajneeshpuram was because of Osho's statements, fine. But if she only made inferences and put sentences close together, as you said, above, then that should not go in the article. As it stands now, the article reads fine. If a reader comes along and reads the material which is written in a chronological order, and then their interest is piqued and they want to read more from the Carter or Fitzgerald source or other sources and draw their own conclusions about Osho's involvement or lack of involvement in the plot, and what led the law enforcement in their investigations - all the power to them. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC).
• I still think this "electrical effect" sentence in the article is just plain silly. It adds no real information, and just sounds funny and awkward. I think it should be removed. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 14:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC).
  • The "electrical effect" sentence should be removed. Barring that for the moment, it is more relevant to a paragraph about Osho's accusations and allegations at his press conference, than the following paragraph about the actions by the Oregon State Attorney General. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC).
    • Glad the combined paragraphs idea with removal of the "electrical effect" sentence works out okay. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC).
      • Yes, fine by me, now, thanks. -- Jayen466 18:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sarin

By all accounts, sarin is a chemical weapon (a nerve gas), not a biological weapon; hence I've deleted, for now, the references describing this incident and the Tokyo subway attack as the "only two" bioterror incidents. -- Jayen466 18:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• The multiple secondary sources in this case are referring to prior, smaller attacks that Aum Shinrikyo carried out, using biological agents. It was my mistake to wikilink to the 1995 Sarin Gas Attacks, but the information itself is sourced to those secondary cites, and is still the same. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC).
  • This could actually have its own Wikipedia article at some point: Bacillus anthracis Incident, Kameido, Tokyo, 1993, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC).
    • Okeydoke, that makes more sense, Carus does refer to such attempts, although it sounds like they remained ineffective. Btw, the ndu.edu link for Carus is up again now, if you want to revert. Cheers, -- Jayen466 22:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
      • No, that's fine. The article is looking a bit better. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC).
        • :-) -- Jayen466 23:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Planning section

"Osho's followers had previously moved into the city of Antelope, Oregon in Wasco County, and had taken over political control, establishing a main presence at the Big Muddy Ranch, which was legally incorporated as the city of Rajneeshpuram.[6][7] The organization sought to gain political control over the rest of Wasco County by influencing the November 1984 county election." Could you double-check your sources there? This sounds a bit as though Rajneeshees had first moved into Antelope, taken control there, and then moved to the Big Muddy Ranch. What happened was, IIRC, that they bought the Big Muddy Ranch for $6 million, but soon ran into problems with zoning and construction permits, which prevented their erecting buildings on their land. I believe it was at that point that they started buying up empty houses in Antelope, until they actually represented the majority of the (very small, just a few dozen) Antelope population, and started to set up various offices or functions there which they were not permitted to have on their own land. -- Jayen466 23:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Those sentences are simply paraphrased and backed up to the relevant secondary sources. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 03:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC).
  • If the Ranch technically belonged to the City of Antelope (quite possibly it did), then what we say is technically correct. -- Jayen466 13:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed sentence

Curt, please have a look at the "Salmonella poisoning" section. I took out a sentence that did not seem to belong there -- you may accidentally have inserted it there when trying to source the preceding sentence. If so, the source needs to be reinserted (at present, the first sentences of the section are unsourced). Thanks. -- Jayen466 13:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think you are correct, this was probably a dup. Can always be reinserted later. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC).

Was not "allowed to leave" United States, but rather was "deported"

According to Rajneesh's biography in Thomson Gale :

Nevertheless, Rajneesh's activities were brought to the attention of the federal government. The religious leader was soon charged with 35 counts of deliberate violations against immigration laws. On a plea bargain, he admitted his guilt in two of the charges and was deported back to his native India in 1985.

• "Acharya Rajneesh". Contemporary Authors Online. Thomson Gale. September 5, 2003. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

This is not the same as being "allowed to leave the United States" and if acceptable sources say he was "deported" then that should be present in the article. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC).

Here is the wording in Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology :

The authorities were never able to connect him with crimes on the ranch, but he was found guilty of immigration violation and conspiracy to evade visa regulations (charges his followers claimed were entirely bogus). He was fined $400,000, given a suspended prison sentence of ten years, and ordered to leave the United States for a minimum of five years.

• Staff (2001). "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh". Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology, 5th ed. Gale Group. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC).

Here is the wording of his being "deported", in Newsmakers 1990 :

Rajneesh arranged a plea bargain and was deported as a result. After being rejected from 21 other countries, Rajneesh settled again in Poona. He had changed his name in 1988 from "Bhagwan," which is a deity's title in Hindi, to "Osho," a Buddhist term meaning "On whom the heavens shower flowers."

• Staff (1990). "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh". Newsmakers 1990. Gale Research. pp. Issue 2. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC).

I assume you posted this in error on the Osho talk page, since the wording it relates to is here (I was just going to move it here). If you meant it to be on both pages, please rvt (note though that this wording is not present in the Osho article). Having gotten this out of the way, the wording "allowed" is present in Carter, marked as a quote, leading me to assume that this was the official wording of the verdict. Carter was very close to events at the time and researched this more thoroughly than anyone else (have a look at the citations listed in his book), and so I believe that in general, his account should be given preference in such matters of detail over accounts published 15 or 20 years after the event. Cheers, -- Jayen466 17:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is the wording of his being "deported", in Almanac of Famous People :

Cult leader known for preaching blend of Eastern religion, pop psychology, free love; deported from US, 1985, for immigration violations.

• Staff (2007). "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh". Almanac of Famous People, 9th ed. Thomson Gale. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 17:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC).

Osho may have been both "allowed" to leave the United States, and "deported" as well. And no, just because some sources were written after others, does not give them any less credibility. The fact that multiple biographical articles in other encyclopedias about Osho contradict Carter should either be noted in the article, or simply used instead of the Carter source. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC).

Here is the "deportation" of Rajneesh, as per a Forbes article from 1991 :

Rancho Rajneesh collapsed following the deportation of the guru to India in 1985 and the subsequent guilty pleas of top lieutenants on charges including arson, attempted murder, wiretapping and immigration fraud. Several Rajneeshee leaders are wanted for conspiracy to murder a U.S. Attorney. Rajneesh died in India last year.

• Stern, Richard L. (June 24, 1991). "Bhagwan Washington? (Dennis Washington's purchase of ranch owned by Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh)". Forbes. 147 (13). {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC).

I just checked FitzGerald. She also does not use the word "deported"; her wording is "He received a ten-year suspended prison sentence, and agreed to pay four hundred thousand dollars in fines and prosecution costs, to leave the country within five days, and not to come back for at least five years without the explicit permission of the United States Attorney General." (The New Yorker Sept 29. 1986, page 111). I think that may be technically different from being deported, since in deportation there is to my knowledge no question of the deportee "agreeing" to anything, but I don't know, so I will have to look further into this. Fox (2002) btw also has "deported". Cheers, Jayen466 18:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so on the one hand we have two sources saying he agreed to leave the United States (though they do not say he was not deported, they simply don't mention it) and then we have these, that do say he was "deported" :

1. "Acharya Rajneesh". Contemporary Authors Online. Thomson Gale. September 5, 2003. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
2. Staff (2001). "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh". Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology, 5th ed. Gale Group. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
3. Staff (1990). "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh". Newsmakers 1990. Gale Research. pp. Issue 2. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
4. Staff (2007). "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh". Almanac of Famous People, 9th ed. Thomson Gale. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
5. Stern, Richard L. (June 24, 1991). "Bhagwan Washington? (Dennis Washington's purchase of ranch owned by Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh)". Forbes. 147 (13). {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Are you saying that they are all wrong? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC).

Curt, I am simply drawing your attention to a discrepancy. I don't believe you have access to the Carter, so I'll give you the complete quote here:

"He was fined $400,000, given a ten-year suspended sentence, "allowed" to depart from the country voluntarily, and placed on probation for five years. An effect of this arrangement is that he is ineligible to reenter the United States for five years from the date of entering the plea."

The wording in the September 29 1986 issue of The New Yorker was: "He received a ten-year suspended prison sentence, and agreed to pay four hundred thousand dollars in fines and prosecution costs, to leave the country within five days, and not to come back for at least five years without the explicit permission of the United States Attorney General."

So in this case, yes, I believe it is possible that the other publications are wrong, simply because we have two extremely reputable, well-researched, temporally and physically close-to-the-event secondary sources substantially agreeing with each other, and contradicting various tertiary sources compiled years later. Frances FitzGerald is a Pulitzer prize winner, The New Yorker's fact checking department is legendary and unparalleled in the history of journalism, and Carter was an American sociologist from a reputable university who I believe spent more time researching Rajneeshpuram than any other scholar anywhere in the world. Compared to that, the "Encyclopaedia of Occultism and Parapsychology" or the "Almanac of Famous People" simply don't cut the mustard. -- Jayen466 19:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• I am sorry, but I have to disagree with you here. Contemporary Authors Online, Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology, Newsmakers 1990, Almanac of Famous People and Forbes are all reliable sources. We have no idea why the Carter and FitzGerald sources did not use the word "deported" to describe Osho's deportation from the United States for immigration fraud, but that does not mean that he was not deported by the United States government. In any event, the current wording in the article is fine, the language is attributed to the respective sources, with proper cites given. The readers can find those sources and read it for themselves. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC).
  • Update: I have found at least (30) or more sources that also use the wording "deported" to describe Osho's deportation from the United States for immigration fraud. I will list them all here for you later. Until then, the current wording attributing the "deportation" to the various sources is fine. But after I list all the various other tens of reliable sources that describe Osho's "deportation" from the United States for immigration fraud, I think we will have to discuss actually simply wording it as a "deporation" in the article itself. We can cite 30 or more sources next to the sentence if you like. We'll discuss this later. Ta ta for now. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC).
    • Carter refers to a "bargain arrangement" in the preceding sentence, FitzGerald refers to Osho's lawyers "cutting a deal" with the US Attorney's Office in the preceding sentence. What they describe, therefore, are simply the terms of the plea bargain. These included Osho's undertaking to leave the country, which he did the same day that he entered his plea, i.e. November 14 1986 (FitzGerald, p.112 The New Yorker 9/29/86 and p. 365 Cities on a Hill). This means that no deportation procedure was ever initiated; there simply would not have been time for one. Likewise, FWIW, the answers.com biography has: "He pled guilty with the understanding that he would be allowed to leave the country." Cheers, -- Jayen466 19:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Government sources also describe Osho (AKA Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) as "deported" and not simply "allowed to leave"

Bolding is emphasis added to quotes :

1. Staff (2007). "Oregon History: Chronology - 1952 to 2002". Oregon Blue Book. Directory and Fact Book compiled by the Oregon State Archives. Retrieved 2007-11-22. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

   "1985 - Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh deported and fined $400,000"

2. Staff. "Wasco County History". Oregon Historical County Records Guide. Oregon State Archives. Retrieved 2007-11-22. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

   "The Bhagwan was indicted on federal immigration charges and deported to India."

3. Staff (September 25, 2006). "Leadership, Director, Office of Policy and Planning, Joseph R. Greene". U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE. Retrieved 2007-11-22. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

   "In 1984, Mr. Greene was detailed to the Portland, Oregon district office to supervise the criminal investigation of the Indian guru, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, whose cult had taken over a small town in Central Oregon. This investigation, which began in 1981, resulted in the criminal convictions and deportations of the guru and many of his principle followers."

• The very website of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement refers to Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh as being deported from the United States, not "allowed to leave." Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC).

• • Okay, thanks for your efforts; we'll assume then that the government know what they're talking about when they use the word, and that it therefore must appropriately describe events here. -- Jayen466 21:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, I would certainly think that the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is the best source to use here to state that Osho was deported from the United States. Thanks. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC).

"Not to worry"

There is an ambiguity in our sentence,

He claimed that Sheela said "she had talked with Bhagwan about the plot to decrease voter turnout in The Dalles by making people sick. Sheela said that Bhagwan commented that it was best not to hurt people, but if a few died not to worry."

The ambiguity lies in who said "not to worry", Sheela or Bhagwan. There is another version of these events on page 30 of Germs: Biological Weapons and America's Secret War. This describes that Sheela played doubters a tape to "prove" that Bhagwan would be fine with poisonings:

"If it was necessary to do things to preserve (the Bhagwan's) vision, then do it," KD reported the guru as saying on the muffled tape. Sheela had interpreted this to mean that killing people in the name of the guru was fine. If a few people had to die so that the Bhagwan's message could prevail, the disciples were "not to worry," Sheela told doubters at the meeting.

This source clearly attributes the words "not to worry" to Sheela, and not to Bhagwan. I wonder if there is an elegant way we could reflect this in our text, and remove this ambiguity.

We also now have rather a lot of statements that "most sannyasins" believed that Osho knew about or condoned Sheela's actions. I would like to point out that there are equally reputable statements to the contrary in the literature, e.g. FitzGerald, p. 378,

"They (sannyasins) also believed that they themselves would never have done violence to anyone on Sheela's orders. The open question was how many of them would have committed crimes if they thought the guru wanted them to. For most of them this was a nonquestion, as they believed Rajneesh incapable of doing, or willing, violence against another person.

However, rather than adding counterbalancing statements of this sort, I think the article would benefit more from removing some of the srecently added statements to the opposite effect, to restore balance. Would appreciate your thoughts on this. -- Jayen466 21:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Again, we have multiple statements from secondary sources that show that many of the Guru's followers believed that he knew well in advance about the planning of these criminal acts. I think it would be better to add counterbalance, rather than to remove anything. Cheers, Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC).

• • Thanks for the changes. These statements about "criminal activities" are very general statements though, and should not be deemed to imply that all these crimes were the same, or that people thought all these various crimes were equally likely to have been committed with Osho's knowledge and consent. For example, there is a great deal of difference between a marriage entered into in order to circumvent immigration restrictions, and the attempted murder of Osho's own physician. It is far easier to believe that Osho might have condoned the former than it is to believe he would have advocated the latter, given that he remained very close to his physician for the rest of his life. Likewise, while arranged marriages might have been compatible with his own statements to the effect that every human being should have the right to live in any country they please, the same cannot be said for attempted murder for cheap political ends. Osho spent a lifetime speaking about the sanctity of every human life. This is also what comes out in the FitzGerald quote; the other cites lack this differentiation, treating wiretapping, immigration violations, poisoning and murder as though they were all the same thing. Cheers, -- Jayen466 01:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
    • That is simply what is there in the secondary sources. I don't think we should get into the details of each of the various multitudes of different crimes associated with Osho and his followers in this article. If you want to explain the whys and hows and the explanations and defenses behind each one, I suggest you start a separate article for that, with secondary sources of course, and write about it there and link to the new article from here. Rajneeshee sham marriages, Rajneeshee wiretapping in Oregon, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh immigration fraud and deportation - there are plenty of sources for all of those various articles - and I may create some of them at a later date, but on this particular article, we should just give them the brief mention that they already have in the article. Cheers, Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC).

Reliability of sources?

The following passage seems questionable to me: "Nuclear Terrorism After 9/11 and Studies in Conflict & Terrorism cite a report which suggests that Osho had initially vetoed the idea of using Salmonella typhi instead of Salmonella typhimurium.[32][33] Salmonella typhi causes typhoid fever, and the report stated that Osho had indicated that although a few fatalities would have been acceptable, the end goal was only to incapacitate people in order to influence voter turnout."

Again, these two sources do not pretend to be authoritative, in-depth studies of this incident, and one of them in fact cites the other as a reference for this statement. Parachini directs his readers to the much more authoritative Carus chapter in Tucker for a more complete account of this case (footnote 4), and Carus writing in Tucker states clearly on page 125:

No information exists in the available records about why Puna decided not to use Salmonella typhi.

He also makes it clear that there was no evidence in the FBI testimony files that would confirm that Rajneesh was involved in the planning of these incidents.

While I can understand the idea to have as many damning statements in the article as we can find, we should not disregard the reliability of sources altogether, and emend less reputable sources where they are in blatant contradiction to the more authoritative ones. -- Jayen466 14:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, both sources are authoritative secondary works on the subject. Methinks you are depending too much on only (2) sources (FitzGerald and Carter), when both of them mistakenly omitted the fact that Rajneesh was deported from the United States, which is acknowledged on a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement website, and in at least (30) or so other secondary sources. Perhaps we should instead be questioning the "reliability" of all of the sentences in the article cited to these 2 sources ? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC).

No, I am pointing out that this statment about Rajneesh objecting to the use of S. typhi

• is only present in Parachini (since the other text cites Parachini as its source for it),
• that Parachini gives no source for the statement,
• that Parachini himself refers his readers to Carus in Tucker for a thorough account of the incident, and
• that Parachini's statement is roundly contradicted by Carus, who says that "No information exists in the available records about why Puna decided not to use Salmonella typhi." and that there is no evidence in the testimony confirming Rajneesh's involvement in planning.

I did not bring FitzGerald or Carter in at all. :-) Note also that Parachini does not "cite a report", as our article says, he simply states this without giving a source (p.390). -- Jayen466 14:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• I assumed good faith re: your quote: "No information exists in the available records about why Puna decided not to use Salmonella typhi." from above, and added it into that section of the article. Hopefully that rectifies this issue for you. Cheers, Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 14:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC).

• • I appreciate the gesture, but it will not do. We still have an invented "report" in the text that we say Parachini "cited", and this is no way to write an article. The reader will not know whether they are coming or going with all these contradictory claims. My feeling is that the Parachini quote should simply go, it is flatly contradicted by what he himself acknowledges as the superior source. -- Jayen466 14:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but I disagree with you. In order for a source to be reliable on Wikipedia, we do not have to pick apart its sources, simply the reliability of the work itself. And the Parachini source itself is reliable as a secondary source, and the statement in the article is attributed to Parachini and not simply given off on its own. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC).

• Jayen466 : - I respectfully request that you revert your last edit. Removing two sourced citations (not to mention creating a citation error in the references section in the process) when both sources are attributed to the sources within the sentence, and both sources are reliable sources, is an inappropriate action here. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC).

Hi Curt, I appreciate you're asking me to do this, and I apologise for causing the citation error; this has now been fixed. Now, please bear with me here, for I have a reason for cutting the passage.

First, the wording that was present said that both the named studies "mentioned a report". This is factually incorrect. I don't know if you have the Parachini to hand; I do, and it makes no reference whatsoever to any third-party report. Such footnotes as are present – there are only two, and the whole account of the case covers less than a page in the document – refer to the Carus study contained in Tucker: Toxic Terror. Frost does mention a report, but his footnote in fact refers to Parachini. Since Parachini does not mention any such report, the "report" mentioned in Frost clearly is Parachini. (The Frost text, by the way, is a published M.A. thesis, so just on these grounds it does not compare to the work of authorities in this field like Carter or Carus.)

Quite apart from this inaccuracy in the wording, the passage given in Parachini makes an exceptional claim, which invokes WP:REDFLAG:

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources. This includes statements likely to surprise the reader and claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Editors should be especially careful with conspiracy theories and with biographical material that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against the interests of a living person. Such claims should only be included when there is a consensus that the sources are indisputably reliable.

A single mention by a reputable author in a work which gives only a very superficial summary of this case, plus one citation of it in a published M.A. thesis, are not enough. In particular not, as this passage is indeed contradicted by the prevailing academic view. It is even expressly contradicted in the one source it cites for its brief presentation of the Rajneeshee case, namely Carus: "No information exists in the available records about why Puja decided not to use Salmonella typhi." The matter of S. typhi is discussed at some length by Carus, Rajneesh's name is not mentioned.

Okay, you may say, perhaps Carus had limited access to sources, and Parachini had more access (even though the only source Parachini quotes is Carus). So let's look at who Carus is and what his study is based on. First of all, Carus is a Senior Research Professor working at the National Defense University (his credentials are here. His review of the available documentation was extensive; it included personal interviews with investigators, prosecutors, and various other government officials. He reviewed all the available court records and testimony at length, and had his article checked by other experts in the field, including Carter (whom he describes as having authored the "best scholarly book on Rajneeshpuram"). All this is detailed on pages 116 and 117 of Tucker. Now, if after such a detailed study, this Professor feels qualified to state categorically that "No information exists in the available records about why Puja decided not to use Salmonella typhi" then I think we should believe him.

I also note that Carus specifically states, on page 115, that "the case is often cited in the terrorism literature, but the accounts are usually inaccurate and always incomplete." We should take this on board and be wary of citing from this literature, restricting ourselves to matters in which there is broad consensus, eschewing citations of exceptional claims. I already fixed a chronological error today, where we stated – quite wrongly – that the Share-A-Home predated the salmonella poisoning cases. This would not have happened if we had sourced this to Carter or Carus – Carter has the actual complete set of dates of how many homeless people arrived when, day by day (pages 216–217), and Carus too points out on page 135 that according to testimony, part of the reason why the leadership de-emphasized the salmonella project was that the Share-A-Home project began to get going and stretched the cult leadership's resources thin. This is exactly the opposite of what our article said, and the reason is the use of watered-down sources.

So, unless you can find other, authoritative academic sources, not just a minor write-up in a generic terrorism study, that back up Parachini's claim – which I think is extremely unlikely, given Carter's and Carus' results – then please kindly agree that the article is more objective and responsible without it. Kind regards, -- Jayen466 23:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• • I have added the full quote from the book Nuclear Terrorism After 9/11, and attributed the quote to the book itself DIFF. In this manner we are not making any inferences, simply including a quote from the book. The quote itself is verifiable back to the book. My request for you to revert your edit that removed two sources still stands, but I will also await for comment from previously uninvolved editors, below. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC).
  • I think the current representation in the article, using the direct quote from the book Nuclear Terrorism After 9/11, is acceptable here instead of the previous text which you had removed. I will go ahead and add back in that Carus statement. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC).
    • I will agree to disagree with you on this, and leave this information out for the time being. I have removed the Request for Comment subsection. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC).