![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
There appears to be a second article about these events. I think a merger is necessary. Charles Essie ( talk) 18:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
According to this article, [1], the FBI is investigating the bombing attempts as domestic terrorism. Would it be premature to list that as a motive in the info box? David O. Johnson ( talk) 01:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Jake Tapper @jaketapper Packages to Soros, Obamas, Clintons, Brennan c/o CNN, Holder -- these devices, per law enforcement sources, were rudimentary but functional.
Meaning the intent here was mass murder.24 October 2018 [1]
Adam Housley @adamhousley From fed source: “complete hoaxes” multiple wires when they only needed one. Reports of cell phones being involved was false. So no intention of harm. Now the questions. Dry run, or a false flag from the right or left trying to mess over the other side?
24 October 2018 [2]
The NYT article is unclear, it appears at least one was "detonated" by LEO with a charge but that may have been a precaution in case it was real, FBI release calls them "potentially destructive" which isn't really helping much 2601:246:4D7F:A742:F1F7:290B:A5EB:790B ( talk) 00:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Was going to add an NRO piece that appears to confirm the CNN bomb was harmless, but looks like they might just be misinterpreting the AP article -- doesn't seem to be anything new there. Anons did apparently find the clock and note that it doesn't even have an alarm function, and an EOD expert said they appear fake, but other EOD experts have been quoted as saying the opposite. Probably best to be very, very careful not to promote the claim they are fake unless the FBI goes on the record, as even fakes could be an attempt to lull potential victims into complacency for a real bomb attack. 2601:246:4D7F:A742:F1F7:290B:A5EB:790B ( talk) 14:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
“ | "The devices contained some of the components that would be required to build an operable bomb, but law enforcement officials would not say late on Wednesday whether they were viable. [...] On Wednesday afternoon, New York City’s police commissioner, James P. O'Neill, said that the CNN bomb was “a live explosive device” and that it would be rendered harmless and sent to the F.B.I. to be analyzed. The package that contained the device also included white powder that the police were testing to determine if it was toxic, he said. Some bomb technicians who studied photos of the device that circulated on social media suggested that the bomb sent to CNN had hallmarks of fake explosives — the kind more typically depicted on television and in movies, rather than devices capable of detonating. |
” |
I don't think it's sensible that conspiracies from one side occupy about twice the size of what only the mayor said presumably from the other side. Surely, this site should not exacerbate the lies?
References
We need to take a look at our weight of coverage in the Response section. Why do we dismiss the comments of the targets by simply saying that they "responded", and give one sentence to Bill deBlasio, but we give whole paragraphs including extensive quotes to people like Sanders and Limbaugh? Why do we spell out the "false flag" allegations in detail while giving only two passing mentions to the idea that the attacks might be connected to Trump's attacks on the media? And do we point out anywhere, or quote anyone pointing out, that most of the targets were people whom Trump has been attacking on a daily basis? There are plenty of sources saying so. [3] [4] [5] -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Currently, the timeline section mentions Greg Gianforte. Is this appropriate for this article? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 20:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
On Wed, Oct 24, at approximately 10:30 am, both CNN and MSNBC (and possible others) were reporting that the White House had received a suspicious package at its mail facility. I had to go away and by 2 pm nothing more was said about it. Since this is (so far as I know) the only incident that involved Republicans, I'd like to know what happened? Was it just a heat-of-the-moment report that was rescinded 15 minutes later? Enquiring minds (me) want to know. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 17:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
There's some back and forth re: Bedford vs. Katonah. Can we decide on one and be consistent throughout? @ Wik67: Bringing to your attention, just in case. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 19:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Need to add Kamalia Harris to the summary table and the October 26 section.
An IED was intercepted at the Colonial post office in Sacramento.
Sources:
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article220670830.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/26/politics/sayoc-complaint/index.html (see page 9 of the complaint) Erufailon86 ( talk) 20:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC) Another source: https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/california/Suspicious-Package-Sent-to-Kamala-Harris-in-Sacramento-498684491.html
A table would be the most effective way of listing the various mail bombs sent (when, where, to who). -- 209.249.148.143 ( talk) 15:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
It looks like all of the so-called "Vanifesto" photographs of the bomber's van are all copyrighted, and some of the photos that were taken by Twitter posters before the arrest have denied Fox "News" to use the photos. Is there any effort being made to contact Twitter people who own photographs of the van they took over the past 2 years to see if one might be used for this article? Or is that "self research." SoftwareThing ( talk) 21:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Hey y'all, I nominated this article for ITN. I'm surprised it hasn't been nominated already. Just letting you guys know... Étienne Dolet ( talk) 02:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I think this should be included in the article. The bomb was sent to both Bill and Hillary's New York home and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the former DNC chair who happens to be a resident, was likely a target as well. Sayoc, who misspelled her name, also sent a device to her Aventura office as well. 68.47.65.239 ( talk) 23:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
A lot of people on twitter are showing that the flag on the bomb is likely a parody/fake ISIS flag, but I cannot find an article from a reputable source on this. Any thoughts?
Image comparing the two: https://imgur.com/a/QIB8eIw
Thoughts on the best article title? 2018 American explosive device incidents and October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts were both redirected here, so there are some different options to consider in terms of which key words appear in the title. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 20:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Why has an end date been added? It's too soon to say more packages won't be found and that the suspect is the right guy.
I tried to remove the paragraph about fringe conspiracy theories from fake news websites like the InfoWars but was reverted. They don't belong per WP:ONEWAY, and we shouldn't give them more credibility than to the rest of the "Media" section. Furthermore, these opinions are absolutely irrelevant, as they aren't in any sort of power to influence these events, and weren't targeted. wumbolo ^^^ 16:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
"Fringe views, products, or the organizations who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way."This is definitely met by the secondary sourcing covering those conspiracy theorists. – Muboshgu ( talk) 18:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
From my point of view it would still make sense to include this template at the top of the article. The rules for the usage of the template actually say it's (only) for one day but the topic still is and will be for quite some time in the (breaking) news e. g. on all major networks – especially as details on the perpetrator come to light and the debate(s) about president Donald Trumps responsibility for the attack on the news outlet (CNN) and on the democratic opposition (two former presidents, among his election rival, not unlikely democratic candidates for 2020 and senators, Brooker and Harris, besides one top official of the intelligence agency and his personal critic, ...) continues.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Geheimnisenthüller ( talk • contribs) 10:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Here is an interesting video about him - [8]. 46.70.98.128 ( talk) 23:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC) Recommendation to include aspect of LGTB-Incel aspects of the suspect? 126.3.49.107 ( talk) 11:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
MSNBC is now reporting that devices were also sent to:
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
References
Cesar Sayoc's birth date is 03-17-1962: [9]. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 04:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't have time right now to add this to the article, but someone should: Arrest made in connection to suspicious packages --CNN. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Apologies if I'm editing wrong: can someone MAKE a page for Sayoc instead of having those stub pages redirect here? There's a lot of mystery and misinformation on the interwebs about him, it would be helpful to have a collection of reliable (cited) info in an article about him on Wikipedia.
2600:1010:B02A:C5B8:E0CC:87B:B316:5136 ( talk) 18:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
For now I would keep those as redirects. It is possible he might later qualify for a separate article, but for now WP:CRIME suggests all information about him should be put here. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I think that a link could be made to " Italian Americans in New York City" within the sentence "His father is a Filipino immigrant and his mother was born in the Bronx, having Italian heritage." in the "Suspect" section.
Yep, I Could do that if it's okay with you. Sheldybett ( talk) 22:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC) Italian and what? She could be of mixed heritage herself. Perhaps "Italian Heritage" does not need a link to another article unless it`s certain she is Italian on both sides.
The article just says he wasn`t home. Was he not at the FII (Saudi Crown Prince hosted investment summit), or in the Cayman Islands, and can a wikipedian with enhanced search engine find that relevent info? cheers 126.3.49.111 ( talk) 13:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Would someone please add a point (another mailbox pipebomb)), perhaps under the Synagogue shooting (dunno how that got there)?
Thank You 126.3.9.151 ( talk) 22:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I think some restraint should be exercised here. There are around fifty incidents that could be listed there and we only need three or four of them. I got rid of the shootings and the random link to letter bomb and urge editors not to go adding too many links to the see also section. — Frayæ ( Talk/ Spjall) 23:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Someone has since removed the Synagogue shooting, but no-one has upped the PIPEBOMB in the MAILBOX case mentioned above; the arrest of Cesar Sayoc was due to PIPEBOMBS being sent in the MAIL. See the relevence?
Is someone able to create a graphic illustrating locations where packages were sent? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
My attempt at the map, grabbed from Austin serial bombings -- displayed on the right:
Can be improved or usage can be modified. – The Grid ( talk) 15:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I see the map has been removed. I thought this was helpful. Perhaps there's a way to combine the summary table and map? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
ADD to 'Suspect :
External media | |
---|---|
Images | |
![]() | |
Video | |
![]() "Trump 2020" Rally of Cesar Sayoc, Jr., February 2017. [1] |
code:
{{external media | float = right | width = 300px | video1 = [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opM6YIx3gA8 ''Fahrenheit 11/9'' outtake of <br>"Trump 2020" Rally] <br>of [[October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts#Suspect|Cesar Sayoc, Jr.]], February 2017.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181029193702/https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2018/10/29/michael-moore-releases-footage-mail-bomber-suspect-cesar-sayoc-trump-rally/|title=Cesar Sayoc: Mail bomber suspect was at Trump rally, video from Michael Moore shows|author=Alex Horton|date=29 October 2018|website=The Washington Post|via=archive.org|accessdate=29 October 2018}}</ref> | image1 = [https://www.instagram.com/p/BpfUtwcn1YS/ Michael Moore on Instagram: “My crew first encountered Cesar Sayoc”…] }}
References
69.181.23.220 ( talk) 20:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
An xray of one of the bombs, and a photo of one of the bombs would be good to add to the article -- 65.94.42.18 ( talk) 17:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I have just re-arranged the lead section. I think it flows better but what do I know. I didn't change the lead in place but have listed my new copy here in the talk section. You can use it or not as you see fit.
Major change are:
Here is my version:
In late October 2018, fourteen packages containing pipe bombs were mailed via the U.S. Postal Service to twelve prominent Democrats including, among others, former President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, previous Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and former intelligence chiefs under Obama John O. Brennan and James Clapper. 56-year-old Cesar Sayoc was arrested in Florida four days after the original reporting and charged with five federal crimes in connection with the mailing of the explosives.
The attacks prompted an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. [1] All 14 bombs sent were actual improvised explosive devices, [2] but none of the devices exploded outside of a controlled setting. [3] No one was injured in the attempted attacks.
The intended targets of the mailing were Democratic politicians Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris, Eric Holder, Barack Obama and Maxine Waters; actor Robert De Niro; billionaire investors George Soros and Tom Steyer and former CIA Director John O. Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. [1] [4] [5] [6] (The package sent to Holder had the wrong address and was instead delivered to the Florida office of U.S. Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, whose name and address were on the return labels of all of the packages.) [7] All the intended targets were prominent critics of U.S. President Donald Trump.
The first pipe bomb was placed in the mailbox at Soros's home in Bedford, New York. [1] [8] Later the same day, the United States Secret Service intercepted bombs addressed to Obama and Clinton. [1] CNN received one addressed to Brennan at its New York City studios in Time Warner Center, which was evacuated. [9] [1]
U.S. Representative Waters was targeted with two packages intercepted by authorities, one in Washington, D.C. by the United States Capitol Police, [10] and another in Los Angeles by the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). [11] The New York City Police Department removed a package found in Tribeca at an office used by De Niro. [12] The FBI removed two packages found at postal facilities in Delaware, addressed to former Vice President Biden. [13] The next day authorities found bombs addressed to Senators Booker and Harris, plus Clapper and Steyer. [14] [6]
A suspect, Cesar Altieri Sayoc Jr., also referred to by some in the media as the " MAGA bomber", [15] was arrested in Plantation, Florida, on October 26, 2018, in connection with mailing the explosive devices. [16] The FBI is treating the investigation as domestic terrorism. [17] If convicted, Sayoc could face up to 58 years in prison. [18]
References
RashbaumFeurerOct25
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
Federal authorities took a Florida man into custody Friday in connection with the mail-bomb scare that earlier widened to 14 suspicious packages sent to prominent Democrats from coast to coast.
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
latimes
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
bookerclapper
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
--
RoyGoldsmith (
talk)
07:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Update: MSNBC is reporting a package sent to Kamala Harris was intercepted in Sacramento. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, hi. Newb here. On October 24, amid the chaos of the second round of bombs being reported, "a building containing offices for U.S. Senator Kamala Harris and the San Diego Union-Tribune was evacuated due to a suspicious stack of postal boxes. Roads in downtown San Diego were closed for several hours Wednesday morning , but the contents were determined to be only random items. [11] [12]" I posted this on the page on October 26, but now, three days later, I see that it's been removed and there are so many edits that I have no idea how to find the stated reason why. I realize that it's a secondary issue because it turned out to be a false alarm, but it's directly related to the bombing and it was notable enough to shut down a major city's downtown area for several hours on a weekday morning. I would like to at least see the stated reason for the removal. Thanks. Kire1975 ( talk) 22:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Please don't unnecessarily rewrite references, it counterpolicy and erodes the value of our history mechanism.
Yesterday I added half a dozen references to the article, and I placed the body of those references within the {{ Reflist}} template.
Today I did a diff of the article, to see how many amendments had been made in the last 24 hours or so. I found that diff obfuscated because someone have moved the references I added from within the body of {{ Reflist}} template into the body of the article.
Every time I have asked someone why they did this they pointed to the MOS, and misinterpreted advice there. The MOS, and maybe other wikidocuments, advise contributors to not change the "style" of references. Those who remove perfectly valid references from within the ==References== section have completely misunderstood the MOS.
Here in 2018 almost all articles use references enclosed between a pair of <ref></ref> tags. Generally those tags enclose a {{ cite}} template.
But that style of reference was unknown a dozen years ago. In 2005/2006 earlier, and harder to use styles were in use, like Harvard style references. You can still see echoes of them in the wikimarkup menu, below. {{#tag:ref||group="nb"|name=""}} is an instance of the metadata used by this style.
Articles CAN'T MIX the usual footnote style references with Harvard style references. When they are mixed the references of both kinds start at 1. It is hopelessly confusing.
What the guidelines are telling people is that, when an older article is written using something other than the usual footnote style references, a new contributors should not start adding footnote style references.
Hardly any articles still use the older styles, because footnote style is generally superior, except when an article has many references to a single book, or many refernces to a bunch of books. Harvard style references allow multiple references to a book, each one giving a different set of page numbers.
What I did, putting footnote style references, inside the {{ reflist}} template in the ==References== section is completely compliant with how footnote style references are supposed to be used.
Why is rewriting them for some kind of aesthetic reason disruptive? It is disruptive because it means that diffs light up as if all kinds of changes have been made, when all that is being altered is the article's metadata.
The article's content is what our readers want to see. The article's actual content is what is important. The internal aesthetic appeal of an article, to contributors, is of a distant secondary importance.
Further, any time you unnecessarily alter metadata, for purely aesthetic reasons, you risk making a typo, and busting stuff.
So, don't do it. Geo Swan ( talk) 19:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
There is a very important principle in engineering, and related disciplines. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
You wrote "You put the wrong citation style" I wrote above that the Harvard style of referencing, described at WP:Parenthetical referencing#Origin of author-date (Harvard style), is what the guidelines mean by a citation style. Contributors are not supposed to mix citation styles, like the now rarely used Harvard style and the footnote style. Footnote references, in the body of the article, and list-defined footnote references are what the relevant guidelines refers to as "methods"? Doesn't Help:Footnotes#List-defined references explicitly start with "Some or all of the footnotes can also be defined within the reference section/list, and invoked in the page content"?
I believe this made my original choice of placing references I orginally drafted for use elsewhere within the {{ Reflist}} template compliant with policy and guidelines.
|
WP:Citing sources#Variation in citation methods says: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." And it does say anyone who wants to make that change is supposed to seek consensus. But you and Galobtter misread that passage, and made or justified unnecessary edits, based on confusing citation styles with citation methods.
Yeah but didn't you, Frayae, and Galobtter all refer to passages from the guidelines that warn against mixing citation styles?
Yes, you did. But what you wrote, what Frayae wrote, what Galobtter wrote, all strongly suggest to me you simply didn't know what you are talking about.
Excuse me for being blunt, but I explained this tactfully, and you tuned me out.
I know what is required to change all the references in an article from that old deprecated style, to the newer, superior style, because after I converted to using the new style I converted many of the articles I started using the earlier style to the newer, superior style. Because the two styles were totally incompatible a total conversion was required.
The rewriting of references, by David O. Johnson, Galobtter, Frayae, was not compliant with WP:Citing sources#To be avoided, which explicitly tells contributors to avoid " changing where the references are defined, e.g. moving reference definitions in the reflist to the prose, or moving reference definitions from the prose into the reflist."
On a quick Google News search, half the sources I've found say he could get 48 years ( [14], [15], [16]) and the other half say 58 ( [17] [18], [19]). I'm guessing the confusing part to the media is whether or not they're count the package sent to Hillary Clinton as a "Threat against a former president" due to her being the wife of Bill Clinton. This needs to be cleared up with something official (i.e. an actual court document) but I have no idea where to get one. TomCat4680 ( talk) 01:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Why does the title use the word "attempts"? That makes it sound as if the perpetrator was trying to bomb someone or something and he failed in his attempts (i.e., he wanted the bombs to go off, but they failed to do so). We don't know that to be the case. I read that there was speculation that the "bombs" (crude and simplistic, probably not even feasible) were sent to scare the recipients, not to explode near them (i.e., that they were never intended to explode). In any event, we don't yet know. I think "attempts" is inappropriate in the title. Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 05:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
There are a myriad of sources.
Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 20:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Update: Law enforcement officials told the Associated Press the devices contained batteries and timers but were not rigged to explode when they opened. Source: As national bomb probe continues, authorities turn focus to Florida. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 17:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
All the coverage thus far is focussed on the politicians, What about these rumours of some offshore-capitalists having been targeted? Both Soros and Abramoff are US CITIZENS, but their RESIDENCE is offshore, unlike the politicians; Should they have a seperate section on non-Continental USA residents? 126.3.32.199 ( talk) 12:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
George Soros is an international businessman and travels for work, this nonsense or spindoctoring "A device was found in the mailbox at the home of George Soros in Katonah, New York, on October 22. Soros, a common target of conspiracy theorists, was absent.", without mentioning he doesnt actually live there (for tax reasons) and travels offshore a lot with his billions. They don`t say where he was.why? 126.3.49.111 ( talk) 07:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I think we need to be very cautious about including information from interviews with people who know him or have known him in the past - former employers, former attorneys, cousins, that kind of thing - and I have removed two paragraphs of such material. Such sources are generally not solid enough for an encyclopedia, and lot of what they say is gossip or hearsay or their opinions. The media are frantic to get information about him, so they will interview anyone who is willing, and print everything they say. But these people are not Reliable Sources in Wikipedia’s sense, and some of the information that is coming out from this kind of source is contradictory. In any case we should not include such people’s amateur evaluation of his mental state or (unless we get it from more than one source) his opinions.
I would like to see us piece together some kind of employment history, but that may be difficult; it appears he has drifted from one job to another without establishing any kind of career. We should include only verified jobs - most recently doorman and DJ at a strip joint [27] - not jobs that people think he had (long-haul trucker, really?). And we cannot believe anything he says about himself. I won’t have time to work on this today but I encourage someone to pull together an employment history. For now I have removed all of the material that was cited to a former employer and his former attorney; let’s discuss if some of it is worth restoring. For now, I have challenged the material, so per DS we need to reach consensus before restoring it. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
There appears to be a second article about these events. I think a merger is necessary. Charles Essie ( talk) 18:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
According to this article, [1], the FBI is investigating the bombing attempts as domestic terrorism. Would it be premature to list that as a motive in the info box? David O. Johnson ( talk) 01:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Jake Tapper @jaketapper Packages to Soros, Obamas, Clintons, Brennan c/o CNN, Holder -- these devices, per law enforcement sources, were rudimentary but functional.
Meaning the intent here was mass murder.24 October 2018 [1]
Adam Housley @adamhousley From fed source: “complete hoaxes” multiple wires when they only needed one. Reports of cell phones being involved was false. So no intention of harm. Now the questions. Dry run, or a false flag from the right or left trying to mess over the other side?
24 October 2018 [2]
The NYT article is unclear, it appears at least one was "detonated" by LEO with a charge but that may have been a precaution in case it was real, FBI release calls them "potentially destructive" which isn't really helping much 2601:246:4D7F:A742:F1F7:290B:A5EB:790B ( talk) 00:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Was going to add an NRO piece that appears to confirm the CNN bomb was harmless, but looks like they might just be misinterpreting the AP article -- doesn't seem to be anything new there. Anons did apparently find the clock and note that it doesn't even have an alarm function, and an EOD expert said they appear fake, but other EOD experts have been quoted as saying the opposite. Probably best to be very, very careful not to promote the claim they are fake unless the FBI goes on the record, as even fakes could be an attempt to lull potential victims into complacency for a real bomb attack. 2601:246:4D7F:A742:F1F7:290B:A5EB:790B ( talk) 14:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
“ | "The devices contained some of the components that would be required to build an operable bomb, but law enforcement officials would not say late on Wednesday whether they were viable. [...] On Wednesday afternoon, New York City’s police commissioner, James P. O'Neill, said that the CNN bomb was “a live explosive device” and that it would be rendered harmless and sent to the F.B.I. to be analyzed. The package that contained the device also included white powder that the police were testing to determine if it was toxic, he said. Some bomb technicians who studied photos of the device that circulated on social media suggested that the bomb sent to CNN had hallmarks of fake explosives — the kind more typically depicted on television and in movies, rather than devices capable of detonating. |
” |
I don't think it's sensible that conspiracies from one side occupy about twice the size of what only the mayor said presumably from the other side. Surely, this site should not exacerbate the lies?
References
We need to take a look at our weight of coverage in the Response section. Why do we dismiss the comments of the targets by simply saying that they "responded", and give one sentence to Bill deBlasio, but we give whole paragraphs including extensive quotes to people like Sanders and Limbaugh? Why do we spell out the "false flag" allegations in detail while giving only two passing mentions to the idea that the attacks might be connected to Trump's attacks on the media? And do we point out anywhere, or quote anyone pointing out, that most of the targets were people whom Trump has been attacking on a daily basis? There are plenty of sources saying so. [3] [4] [5] -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Currently, the timeline section mentions Greg Gianforte. Is this appropriate for this article? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 20:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
On Wed, Oct 24, at approximately 10:30 am, both CNN and MSNBC (and possible others) were reporting that the White House had received a suspicious package at its mail facility. I had to go away and by 2 pm nothing more was said about it. Since this is (so far as I know) the only incident that involved Republicans, I'd like to know what happened? Was it just a heat-of-the-moment report that was rescinded 15 minutes later? Enquiring minds (me) want to know. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 17:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
There's some back and forth re: Bedford vs. Katonah. Can we decide on one and be consistent throughout? @ Wik67: Bringing to your attention, just in case. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 19:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Need to add Kamalia Harris to the summary table and the October 26 section.
An IED was intercepted at the Colonial post office in Sacramento.
Sources:
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article220670830.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/26/politics/sayoc-complaint/index.html (see page 9 of the complaint) Erufailon86 ( talk) 20:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC) Another source: https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/california/Suspicious-Package-Sent-to-Kamala-Harris-in-Sacramento-498684491.html
A table would be the most effective way of listing the various mail bombs sent (when, where, to who). -- 209.249.148.143 ( talk) 15:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
It looks like all of the so-called "Vanifesto" photographs of the bomber's van are all copyrighted, and some of the photos that were taken by Twitter posters before the arrest have denied Fox "News" to use the photos. Is there any effort being made to contact Twitter people who own photographs of the van they took over the past 2 years to see if one might be used for this article? Or is that "self research." SoftwareThing ( talk) 21:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Hey y'all, I nominated this article for ITN. I'm surprised it hasn't been nominated already. Just letting you guys know... Étienne Dolet ( talk) 02:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I think this should be included in the article. The bomb was sent to both Bill and Hillary's New York home and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the former DNC chair who happens to be a resident, was likely a target as well. Sayoc, who misspelled her name, also sent a device to her Aventura office as well. 68.47.65.239 ( talk) 23:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
A lot of people on twitter are showing that the flag on the bomb is likely a parody/fake ISIS flag, but I cannot find an article from a reputable source on this. Any thoughts?
Image comparing the two: https://imgur.com/a/QIB8eIw
Thoughts on the best article title? 2018 American explosive device incidents and October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts were both redirected here, so there are some different options to consider in terms of which key words appear in the title. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 20:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Why has an end date been added? It's too soon to say more packages won't be found and that the suspect is the right guy.
I tried to remove the paragraph about fringe conspiracy theories from fake news websites like the InfoWars but was reverted. They don't belong per WP:ONEWAY, and we shouldn't give them more credibility than to the rest of the "Media" section. Furthermore, these opinions are absolutely irrelevant, as they aren't in any sort of power to influence these events, and weren't targeted. wumbolo ^^^ 16:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
"Fringe views, products, or the organizations who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way."This is definitely met by the secondary sourcing covering those conspiracy theorists. – Muboshgu ( talk) 18:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
From my point of view it would still make sense to include this template at the top of the article. The rules for the usage of the template actually say it's (only) for one day but the topic still is and will be for quite some time in the (breaking) news e. g. on all major networks – especially as details on the perpetrator come to light and the debate(s) about president Donald Trumps responsibility for the attack on the news outlet (CNN) and on the democratic opposition (two former presidents, among his election rival, not unlikely democratic candidates for 2020 and senators, Brooker and Harris, besides one top official of the intelligence agency and his personal critic, ...) continues.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Geheimnisenthüller ( talk • contribs) 10:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Here is an interesting video about him - [8]. 46.70.98.128 ( talk) 23:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC) Recommendation to include aspect of LGTB-Incel aspects of the suspect? 126.3.49.107 ( talk) 11:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
MSNBC is now reporting that devices were also sent to:
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
References
Cesar Sayoc's birth date is 03-17-1962: [9]. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 04:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't have time right now to add this to the article, but someone should: Arrest made in connection to suspicious packages --CNN. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Apologies if I'm editing wrong: can someone MAKE a page for Sayoc instead of having those stub pages redirect here? There's a lot of mystery and misinformation on the interwebs about him, it would be helpful to have a collection of reliable (cited) info in an article about him on Wikipedia.
2600:1010:B02A:C5B8:E0CC:87B:B316:5136 ( talk) 18:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
For now I would keep those as redirects. It is possible he might later qualify for a separate article, but for now WP:CRIME suggests all information about him should be put here. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I think that a link could be made to " Italian Americans in New York City" within the sentence "His father is a Filipino immigrant and his mother was born in the Bronx, having Italian heritage." in the "Suspect" section.
Yep, I Could do that if it's okay with you. Sheldybett ( talk) 22:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC) Italian and what? She could be of mixed heritage herself. Perhaps "Italian Heritage" does not need a link to another article unless it`s certain she is Italian on both sides.
The article just says he wasn`t home. Was he not at the FII (Saudi Crown Prince hosted investment summit), or in the Cayman Islands, and can a wikipedian with enhanced search engine find that relevent info? cheers 126.3.49.111 ( talk) 13:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Would someone please add a point (another mailbox pipebomb)), perhaps under the Synagogue shooting (dunno how that got there)?
Thank You 126.3.9.151 ( talk) 22:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I think some restraint should be exercised here. There are around fifty incidents that could be listed there and we only need three or four of them. I got rid of the shootings and the random link to letter bomb and urge editors not to go adding too many links to the see also section. — Frayæ ( Talk/ Spjall) 23:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Someone has since removed the Synagogue shooting, but no-one has upped the PIPEBOMB in the MAILBOX case mentioned above; the arrest of Cesar Sayoc was due to PIPEBOMBS being sent in the MAIL. See the relevence?
Is someone able to create a graphic illustrating locations where packages were sent? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
My attempt at the map, grabbed from Austin serial bombings -- displayed on the right:
Can be improved or usage can be modified. – The Grid ( talk) 15:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I see the map has been removed. I thought this was helpful. Perhaps there's a way to combine the summary table and map? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
ADD to 'Suspect :
External media | |
---|---|
Images | |
![]() | |
Video | |
![]() "Trump 2020" Rally of Cesar Sayoc, Jr., February 2017. [1] |
code:
{{external media | float = right | width = 300px | video1 = [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opM6YIx3gA8 ''Fahrenheit 11/9'' outtake of <br>"Trump 2020" Rally] <br>of [[October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts#Suspect|Cesar Sayoc, Jr.]], February 2017.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181029193702/https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2018/10/29/michael-moore-releases-footage-mail-bomber-suspect-cesar-sayoc-trump-rally/|title=Cesar Sayoc: Mail bomber suspect was at Trump rally, video from Michael Moore shows|author=Alex Horton|date=29 October 2018|website=The Washington Post|via=archive.org|accessdate=29 October 2018}}</ref> | image1 = [https://www.instagram.com/p/BpfUtwcn1YS/ Michael Moore on Instagram: “My crew first encountered Cesar Sayoc”…] }}
References
69.181.23.220 ( talk) 20:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
An xray of one of the bombs, and a photo of one of the bombs would be good to add to the article -- 65.94.42.18 ( talk) 17:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I have just re-arranged the lead section. I think it flows better but what do I know. I didn't change the lead in place but have listed my new copy here in the talk section. You can use it or not as you see fit.
Major change are:
Here is my version:
In late October 2018, fourteen packages containing pipe bombs were mailed via the U.S. Postal Service to twelve prominent Democrats including, among others, former President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, previous Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and former intelligence chiefs under Obama John O. Brennan and James Clapper. 56-year-old Cesar Sayoc was arrested in Florida four days after the original reporting and charged with five federal crimes in connection with the mailing of the explosives.
The attacks prompted an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. [1] All 14 bombs sent were actual improvised explosive devices, [2] but none of the devices exploded outside of a controlled setting. [3] No one was injured in the attempted attacks.
The intended targets of the mailing were Democratic politicians Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris, Eric Holder, Barack Obama and Maxine Waters; actor Robert De Niro; billionaire investors George Soros and Tom Steyer and former CIA Director John O. Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. [1] [4] [5] [6] (The package sent to Holder had the wrong address and was instead delivered to the Florida office of U.S. Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, whose name and address were on the return labels of all of the packages.) [7] All the intended targets were prominent critics of U.S. President Donald Trump.
The first pipe bomb was placed in the mailbox at Soros's home in Bedford, New York. [1] [8] Later the same day, the United States Secret Service intercepted bombs addressed to Obama and Clinton. [1] CNN received one addressed to Brennan at its New York City studios in Time Warner Center, which was evacuated. [9] [1]
U.S. Representative Waters was targeted with two packages intercepted by authorities, one in Washington, D.C. by the United States Capitol Police, [10] and another in Los Angeles by the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). [11] The New York City Police Department removed a package found in Tribeca at an office used by De Niro. [12] The FBI removed two packages found at postal facilities in Delaware, addressed to former Vice President Biden. [13] The next day authorities found bombs addressed to Senators Booker and Harris, plus Clapper and Steyer. [14] [6]
A suspect, Cesar Altieri Sayoc Jr., also referred to by some in the media as the " MAGA bomber", [15] was arrested in Plantation, Florida, on October 26, 2018, in connection with mailing the explosive devices. [16] The FBI is treating the investigation as domestic terrorism. [17] If convicted, Sayoc could face up to 58 years in prison. [18]
References
RashbaumFeurerOct25
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
Federal authorities took a Florida man into custody Friday in connection with the mail-bomb scare that earlier widened to 14 suspicious packages sent to prominent Democrats from coast to coast.
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
latimes
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
bookerclapper
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
--
RoyGoldsmith (
talk)
07:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Update: MSNBC is reporting a package sent to Kamala Harris was intercepted in Sacramento. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, hi. Newb here. On October 24, amid the chaos of the second round of bombs being reported, "a building containing offices for U.S. Senator Kamala Harris and the San Diego Union-Tribune was evacuated due to a suspicious stack of postal boxes. Roads in downtown San Diego were closed for several hours Wednesday morning , but the contents were determined to be only random items. [11] [12]" I posted this on the page on October 26, but now, three days later, I see that it's been removed and there are so many edits that I have no idea how to find the stated reason why. I realize that it's a secondary issue because it turned out to be a false alarm, but it's directly related to the bombing and it was notable enough to shut down a major city's downtown area for several hours on a weekday morning. I would like to at least see the stated reason for the removal. Thanks. Kire1975 ( talk) 22:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Please don't unnecessarily rewrite references, it counterpolicy and erodes the value of our history mechanism.
Yesterday I added half a dozen references to the article, and I placed the body of those references within the {{ Reflist}} template.
Today I did a diff of the article, to see how many amendments had been made in the last 24 hours or so. I found that diff obfuscated because someone have moved the references I added from within the body of {{ Reflist}} template into the body of the article.
Every time I have asked someone why they did this they pointed to the MOS, and misinterpreted advice there. The MOS, and maybe other wikidocuments, advise contributors to not change the "style" of references. Those who remove perfectly valid references from within the ==References== section have completely misunderstood the MOS.
Here in 2018 almost all articles use references enclosed between a pair of <ref></ref> tags. Generally those tags enclose a {{ cite}} template.
But that style of reference was unknown a dozen years ago. In 2005/2006 earlier, and harder to use styles were in use, like Harvard style references. You can still see echoes of them in the wikimarkup menu, below. {{#tag:ref||group="nb"|name=""}} is an instance of the metadata used by this style.
Articles CAN'T MIX the usual footnote style references with Harvard style references. When they are mixed the references of both kinds start at 1. It is hopelessly confusing.
What the guidelines are telling people is that, when an older article is written using something other than the usual footnote style references, a new contributors should not start adding footnote style references.
Hardly any articles still use the older styles, because footnote style is generally superior, except when an article has many references to a single book, or many refernces to a bunch of books. Harvard style references allow multiple references to a book, each one giving a different set of page numbers.
What I did, putting footnote style references, inside the {{ reflist}} template in the ==References== section is completely compliant with how footnote style references are supposed to be used.
Why is rewriting them for some kind of aesthetic reason disruptive? It is disruptive because it means that diffs light up as if all kinds of changes have been made, when all that is being altered is the article's metadata.
The article's content is what our readers want to see. The article's actual content is what is important. The internal aesthetic appeal of an article, to contributors, is of a distant secondary importance.
Further, any time you unnecessarily alter metadata, for purely aesthetic reasons, you risk making a typo, and busting stuff.
So, don't do it. Geo Swan ( talk) 19:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
There is a very important principle in engineering, and related disciplines. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
You wrote "You put the wrong citation style" I wrote above that the Harvard style of referencing, described at WP:Parenthetical referencing#Origin of author-date (Harvard style), is what the guidelines mean by a citation style. Contributors are not supposed to mix citation styles, like the now rarely used Harvard style and the footnote style. Footnote references, in the body of the article, and list-defined footnote references are what the relevant guidelines refers to as "methods"? Doesn't Help:Footnotes#List-defined references explicitly start with "Some or all of the footnotes can also be defined within the reference section/list, and invoked in the page content"?
I believe this made my original choice of placing references I orginally drafted for use elsewhere within the {{ Reflist}} template compliant with policy and guidelines.
|
WP:Citing sources#Variation in citation methods says: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." And it does say anyone who wants to make that change is supposed to seek consensus. But you and Galobtter misread that passage, and made or justified unnecessary edits, based on confusing citation styles with citation methods.
Yeah but didn't you, Frayae, and Galobtter all refer to passages from the guidelines that warn against mixing citation styles?
Yes, you did. But what you wrote, what Frayae wrote, what Galobtter wrote, all strongly suggest to me you simply didn't know what you are talking about.
Excuse me for being blunt, but I explained this tactfully, and you tuned me out.
I know what is required to change all the references in an article from that old deprecated style, to the newer, superior style, because after I converted to using the new style I converted many of the articles I started using the earlier style to the newer, superior style. Because the two styles were totally incompatible a total conversion was required.
The rewriting of references, by David O. Johnson, Galobtter, Frayae, was not compliant with WP:Citing sources#To be avoided, which explicitly tells contributors to avoid " changing where the references are defined, e.g. moving reference definitions in the reflist to the prose, or moving reference definitions from the prose into the reflist."
On a quick Google News search, half the sources I've found say he could get 48 years ( [14], [15], [16]) and the other half say 58 ( [17] [18], [19]). I'm guessing the confusing part to the media is whether or not they're count the package sent to Hillary Clinton as a "Threat against a former president" due to her being the wife of Bill Clinton. This needs to be cleared up with something official (i.e. an actual court document) but I have no idea where to get one. TomCat4680 ( talk) 01:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Why does the title use the word "attempts"? That makes it sound as if the perpetrator was trying to bomb someone or something and he failed in his attempts (i.e., he wanted the bombs to go off, but they failed to do so). We don't know that to be the case. I read that there was speculation that the "bombs" (crude and simplistic, probably not even feasible) were sent to scare the recipients, not to explode near them (i.e., that they were never intended to explode). In any event, we don't yet know. I think "attempts" is inappropriate in the title. Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 05:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
There are a myriad of sources.
Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 20:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Update: Law enforcement officials told the Associated Press the devices contained batteries and timers but were not rigged to explode when they opened. Source: As national bomb probe continues, authorities turn focus to Florida. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 17:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
All the coverage thus far is focussed on the politicians, What about these rumours of some offshore-capitalists having been targeted? Both Soros and Abramoff are US CITIZENS, but their RESIDENCE is offshore, unlike the politicians; Should they have a seperate section on non-Continental USA residents? 126.3.32.199 ( talk) 12:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
George Soros is an international businessman and travels for work, this nonsense or spindoctoring "A device was found in the mailbox at the home of George Soros in Katonah, New York, on October 22. Soros, a common target of conspiracy theorists, was absent.", without mentioning he doesnt actually live there (for tax reasons) and travels offshore a lot with his billions. They don`t say where he was.why? 126.3.49.111 ( talk) 07:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I think we need to be very cautious about including information from interviews with people who know him or have known him in the past - former employers, former attorneys, cousins, that kind of thing - and I have removed two paragraphs of such material. Such sources are generally not solid enough for an encyclopedia, and lot of what they say is gossip or hearsay or their opinions. The media are frantic to get information about him, so they will interview anyone who is willing, and print everything they say. But these people are not Reliable Sources in Wikipedia’s sense, and some of the information that is coming out from this kind of source is contradictory. In any case we should not include such people’s amateur evaluation of his mental state or (unless we get it from more than one source) his opinions.
I would like to see us piece together some kind of employment history, but that may be difficult; it appears he has drifted from one job to another without establishing any kind of career. We should include only verified jobs - most recently doorman and DJ at a strip joint [27] - not jobs that people think he had (long-haul trucker, really?). And we cannot believe anything he says about himself. I won’t have time to work on this today but I encourage someone to pull together an employment history. For now I have removed all of the material that was cited to a former employer and his former attorney; let’s discuss if some of it is worth restoring. For now, I have challenged the material, so per DS we need to reach consensus before restoring it. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)