Talk:April 2013 ricin letters

Unofficial merge discussion
So recently this article was merged into Incidents involving ricin I want to know if there is a consensus to do so or not, right now this article is little more than a stub it is notable yes that is not placed into question, the question would be: Is the information better presented if it were merged? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Please post your comments below:
 * 1) Keep separate - Since there were multiple targets and crossed state lines, it should be a separate article. I agree, as of 17 April 2013, it is a stub but the noteworthness will come as more information is published in third-party sources.Geraldshields11 (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Keep separate - I think this article will continue to grow and so there is no need to merge now.  If the article does not evolve into something bigger than it is now, we can merge it then. Remember (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Why is it always make short stub entirely redundant to other article first, possibly merge later, rather than expand main article, split when there's actually enough information to require a separate one? In its current state there is no unique information on this page. I'll come back in a week and leave it if more information is discovered, otherwise there's no need to duplicate material in two places. Sorry to blather, but why is the burdon to produce a consensus to merge? I never saw a consensus to split in the first place. Unrelated, but sending poison in the mail isn't exactly an 'attack'. Reywas92 Talk 14:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * @Reywas92: I moved the page to 2013 ricin letters in response to your point that this was not an actual "attack". It's also consisent with the title of an article about a similar incident a decade ago.--Thatotherdude (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Added preliminarily
Many of the news accounts properly note that ricin hits on scanners and field tests are more often than not (actually virtually always) false positives. Let's phrase it as "preliminarily" until controlled lab results likely on the 18th. 03:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.64.230 (talk)
 * Good call. I agree until more info comes in. Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please would someone correct my footnotes. I am getting a red line error and I do not know how to correct it. Lets work together to make good articles with great cites. Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am also going to make a slight change. the sentence noting the filed charges needs to show the actual source of the criminal charge, which is based on the letters' texts, not ricin. Again this is all obviously pending the controlled FBI lab tests which are either still not complete or announced.17:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.64.230 (talk)


 * Frankly I am even concerned with the title. It will need to be changed immediately to "2013 ricin scare" if the actual FBI test returns negative.18:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.64.230 (talk)


 * Back again. My suspicions were correct. NO Ricin found in this guys home, clothes car, no searches for making it on  on computer. Suspect was released. can title of this article be changed to "False Ricin scare 2013" please?108.18.75.172 (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Current last graph seeming to imply a pattern
I don't know how to phrase it in the article, but having worked on the Hill a long time ago, any elevated threat, such as would have occurred after the Boston event, would, as has happened in the past, resulted in all kinds increased "suspicious package reports" (as well as increased scanner hits due to increases in machine sensitivity settings). The current last graph makes it seem that there is a pattern by including Flake and Levin packages, when in fact the pattern is a pattern of innocuous events and derives from increase scrutiny, calibrations settings, and frankly increased caution and fear. Those are facts but I don't know how to address them in a Wikipedia fashion and hope an experienced Wikipedia editor who understands Wikipedia conventions can address this.108.18.64.230 (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree which is why the paragraph starts "In the heightened security after the letters were discovered". It is unlikely these disruptions would have occurred without the letters and shows the pattern of influence of such terrorism events. That is the attack is an attack, the terror is all these related effects. Rmhermen (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And that's why people from the FBI or similar governmental organisations are sending these letters. They're the only ones who profit, getting a lot of attention, more money, aso. These are so poor people, the real terrorists. --178.197.236.170 (talk) 09:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

In the News nomination
This article has been nominated for the front page. You can read or comment here.

I am naming Geraldshields11 and Polarscribe as updaters. If you feel you have done as much work as they (a lot of people have helped) feel free to add your name to the nomination as an updater. μηδείς (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you could use "After releasing a framed suspect, police arrest ..." for the blurb. The article says "[the attorney] claimed in court that his client was being framed, possibly by a man with whom he had been feuding online". This possible connection doesn't support the absolute label of a "framed suspect", in my opinion. My76Strat (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

First suspect
The first suspect has gone public and given interviews, and is prepping for a book deal, so his name should appear in this article -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Source? polarscribe (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Paul Kevin Curtis"
 * using his newfound fame for plugging his book
 * using his fame for his book, etc (Interview on CNN Piers Morgan)
 * and a whole lotta other interviews
 * -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)