Talk:David Kay

Ricin

Regarding this statement...

"In an interview with National Public Radio, however, Kay revealed that Iraq had been working on weaponizing ricin up until Operation Iraqi Freedom."

The final, published report does not support this claim. Here are the relevant passages...

• The IIS had a series of laboratories that conducted biological work including research into BW agents for assassination purposes until the mid-1990s. ISG has not been able to establish the scope and nature of the work at these laboratories or determine whether any of the work was related to military development of BW agent.

• Under the aegis of the intelligence service, a secretive team developed assassination instruments using poisons or toxins for the Iraqi state. [...] The aim was probably the development of poisons, including ricin and aflatoxin to eliminate or debilitate the Regime's opponents.

• The evidence surrounding Iraq's investigation of ricin for BW purposes is unclear, and thus ISG can offer no definitive conclusion. It is clear that Baghdad had weaponized ricin in at least a limited fashion prior to the first Gulf war. There is at least some evidence of post-war IIS involvement in ricin research and possible human testing, but ISG developed no definitive information with which to confirm reports of post-war production.

• ISG has investigated claims from several sources that work on ricin toxin continued well past 1992, possibly until the beginning of OIF. The information that ISG obtained on the potential role of ricin in Iraq's BW program post 1991 has primarily been based on single source reporting of unclear veracity.

I can't provide specific page numbers because I'm quoting from a plain text version of the report. [1] ~ smb 23:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Is the lead section fine?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This entry requires for a lead section edit. I tried to sum up important key-points. Is it ok to remove the "Lead Section" Template? Dastephi (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support removing the lead section tag. Though it still may require some cleanup, the lead is adequate. Meatsgains (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - An RfC is not needed for this. There's not even been an attempt to discuss it on the talk page, which should be the first step. Or, if you've addressed the reason for the tag's placement (in this case, a lead that's too short), you can feel free to remove it yourself. If someone disagrees, they'll restore it and you can talk through how to proceed. RfC is a much later step and probably won't be necessary. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Follow-up - The lead was much improved over what was there before, so thanks for working to improve it. There were still some issues, though. We don't typically include honorifics or academic titles (Dr., Ph.D.). It's also best to give a statement of "definition" of sorts of who the person is right up front (rather than that they're best known for something). Finally, I tried to present aspects of his career with due weight to their presence in reliable sources and in the article. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Summoned here by RfC bot. Right now I don't see anything wrong with the lead paragraph. Is this still a live issue? Coretheapple (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Remove the tag and remove "best" from "best known". Collect (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.