Jump to content

Talk:2007 Boston Mooninite panic/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Astroturf

People should be aware that Interference, Inc. is a company that specializes in astroturf campaign -- a lot of the commentary you see posted by them on blogs, reddit, and similar was either posted by them, or "me too" blogs. It's impossible for me to say how much. Here's some more detailed background from a student at MIT (disclaimer of bias: who is currently sitting in the same apartment as me) [1]. When you look at the history of the incident, you can see that Turner Broadcasting hired a company that it knew specialized in breaking the law for profit to engage in trespass and vandalism on their behalf. Vandalism is a first degree misdemeanor (highest level of crime below a felony). The level of trespass on government property varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but is most likely also a serious crime in Boston. This is neither the first incident of corporate vandalism (which is a growing problem engaged), nor the first incident of Interference, Inc. engaging in it, or otherwise breaking the law. 71.235.234.182 15:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Untitled

We should find the people who have them (selling them on ebay, writing about them in their blogs) and ask for high quality CC or GFDL pictures from a variety of angles, so we can see exactly what they look like and how "bomb-like" they are(n't). — Omegatron 23:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There actually were several pictures but some were hosted on Flickr who holds copyright on their pictures. Others were deleted for various fair use problems. Gdo01 23:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Flickr does not hold the copyright on their pictures. Each individual photographer does, and a lot are released under a CC license that we can use with no problems. You can ask them by flickr mail to release under a CC license, too, if they haven't. (Also, the fair use deletions were probably frivolous.) — Omegatron 00:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't my rationale. All I'm saying is what I saw happen. I was told that Flickr owned the pics but apparently they don't. There were lots of good pics too. Gdo01 00:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Here are a few pictures I found linked on the Adult Swim message board:
Picture 1Picture 2
I'm not familiar enough yet with Wikipedia's policies to know if these can be used, so I'll leave that up to someone else to decide. --Amanojyaku 02:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's a youtube video of one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAendcUMKKc —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ENDelt260 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Separate Article?

You really can't be serious. This is just a small misunderstanding. This will be forgotten in less than a week. Why does this need a Wikipedia article? I'm sad to say that the AFD for this article is probably going to last longer than the story itself. In fact, I'm officially requesting this article be merged into Aqua_Teen_Hunger_Force#Boston_Magnetic_Light_Scare. Gdo01 03:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. D4S 04:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree as well, too many people have been turning wikipedia into a news site, which it is not. This article should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.30.23.234 (talk • contribs) 05:05, February 1, 2007 (UTC)
Merge discussion on the ATHF talk page. Purifiedwater 04:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree folks, I think it's a sound article about a historically interesting rumor panic and policing failure that transcends its ATHF origin, and not just pretentious fan fad mongering. Sort of like the Orson Welles 'War of the Worlds' broadcast. I live in Massachusetts and find the (hopefully brief) panic to be all too genuine; the current govt. (Democrats yet!) seems to be going ape. Roads closed off, confused and angry commuters on an already over saturated road system. We have the Governor, a congressmen, and a big city mayor publicly denouncing popular cartoon characters. The Boston Globe perversely refers to the ad lights of Err and Ignignokt not as mere ad lights, but in ominous sounding terms like "the devices". Mayor Menino is making threats like "Two to five years for each infraction," & "We're not playing around", and wanting a big settlement. Local talk radio shows are doing call-in shows on it, creating echo chambers with clueless non-ATHF aware listeners chiming in about "devices", "closed bridges", "terrorism", "9/11"... etc. It's remarkable for a panic to be amplified by a city and state government -- in the USA it's usually the ignorant mobs that start public panics, seldom a government of college educated bureaucrats.
As a bit of background, Boston the city is still smarting from recent humiliations, letting the 9/11 hijackers on at Logan Airport in 2001, and more recently from revealed Government contracting corruption scandals in the Big Dig (a tunnel to Logan) leading to bad tunnels with falling blocks that have killed innocent commuters. Menino's administration might have a chip on its shoulder.
Yet ATHF is indeed popular in Massachusetts. Chain record stores display the series DVDs in the front of stores. Local public libraries carry the same DVDs. T-shirts, and insignia abound. And so forth.
A separate article would serve people interested in Boston history, sociology, rumor panics, hoaxes, civil liberties, (if this indeed goes to court), advertising methods, etc. these readers may not wish to wade through the whole ATHF article. --AC 07:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
magnetic light scare???...jesus you gotta be kidding me —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.185.185 (talk • contribs) 07:06, February 1, 2007 (UTC)
Here's why this is important, and I hope future revisions to this entry will articulate this. This is important because of how FREAKED OUT Boston was by simple LEDs in the shape of a cartoon character. I watched CNN the day this happened. They called these things "packages." They weren't inside a box, they weren't even laid down on the ground, they were put up on walls just as clearly as neon budweiser signs. Yes, I understand they looked somewhat suspicious with four D batteries rigged visibly underneath them, but how long does it take a bomb squad to figure out "wow, this is just a circuit board that lights LEDs in the shape of a cartoon character" ? It's amazing to me that had a teenager been employed in the Boston police department he or she could've simply said "Wow, that's a character from Aqua Teen Hunger Force, and this is probably just some sort of irregular add campaign." It is noted in this article that the same ad campaign had been active for two weeks in several other major US cities including Los Angeles and Philadelphia. Scarier yet is the fact that rather than admit stupidity on their part, Boston officials will likely crucify the person or persons behind this ad campaign. If this article itself shouldn't be a "separate article" perhaps it ought to be incorporated into a larger "Wow, completely unwarranted and somewhat idiotic post-9/11 anxiety" section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.19.178.125 (talk • contribs) 07:42, February 1, 2007 (UTC)
I would generally agree with this, although I am similarly unsure where the line is between a seperate article and listing on Recent Bomb Scares or somesuch. At this point, I think it should be a seperate article since there is so much to connect with it (info on the actual items, info on the news event, info on Boston's reacion, info on where they came from, info on arrests and statements made, etc.). Mike wiki 17:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


The fact that these characters are specifically from Aqua Teen Hunger Force is barely mentioned in the media, so it's not really that appropriate for the ATHF article (the importance of this story stems from the reaction to the "devices," not from the specific cartoon). Jeff Silvers 09:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

According to some of the more recent news I've been hearing, Boston city officials seem pretty furious at Turner Broadcasting and expect them to foot the bill for all the trouble. If that turns out to be the case, I'd say this is definitely something worth maintaining an article about, especially if they end up trying to write some new laws/being more strict about enforcing old ones (I don't know Mass. legal code at all, much less Boston's - were any laws actually broken?) about what kind of advertising is legal/who you have to ask first, etc. Intooblv 13:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally can't believe the way they're describing it on the news as basically "jumbles of wires and circuit boards". Yeah, that sounds like it could be a bomb, but if you say "a light up display of Cartoon Network characters" it suddenly sounds as silly as it is. Leebo86 14:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There is definitely merit in the possibility of continuing this article. The article should probably be expanded or maybe added to the Guerilla Marketing article. In this new internet-intense ADD world of ours, it's becoming increasingly harder for companies to get notice and some of them are turning to new tactics. It also brings up the question of what is legal for marketing and advertisements; and also, what is socially acceptable and what is (or is not) socially irresponsible. It's interesting to note that only hardcore ATHF fans seemed to shocked, SHOCKED, that the public was startled by these "advertisements." I, like many other Boston residents, am quite in tune with pop culture and even I have only vaguely heard of this show. And seeing these blinking ads ("devices") up close does not quite have the same silly affect as seeing one LITERALLY HANGING FROM A SUPPORT BEAM ON A BRIDGE from 100 feet away. If it was something really huge and depicted something arguable recognizable by the general public (coca cola, for example) it would generate less buzz than something that only a select percentage of the general population would recognize. This is a really interesting topic because within one day ATHF has skyrocketed into the public eye (in Boston, anyway). Was this part of the plan? It certainly created a buzz. And it brings up more possibilities for discussions about the future of marketing in (I hate to say it because it's already cliche) this post-911 world where it doesn't take much to get people scared senseless in about 2 seconds. Ringo902 15:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the reaction is silly. I was referring to the presentation by some of the media. Calling it simply "a jumble of electronics" doesn't present the original intent of the advertisers (regardless of how irresponsible that intent was). An official said something along the lines of "It had a sinister appearance; it had a battery and wires." Any kind of electronic advertising is going to have batteries and/or wires. Leebo86 16:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh my JESUS, it's got BATTERIES AND WIRES! Call the bomb squad! Panicpanicpanicpanic! Yes, this is worth keeping, because it's now transcended ATHF, and the implications of something so innocuous causing something like this reach far beyond the original incident. Don't merge it. Suntiger 17:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, considering the media attraction (although, I personally call this a huge overreaction of post-9/11 paranoia from people who've never watched the show), this article has gotten a life of its own. It doesn't need to be merged, but it should still have its own section on the ATHF article. Plus, the charges of the guys who set up the signs may keep this interesting. D4S 17:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else on here from Boston feel really embarrassed for the reactions of the city? I watch the show when it's on and I really enjoy it. When I turned on the news and saw footage of the bomb squad using some sort of wire to pick up a large Brite-Lite reminicent square thing of Err, I started laughing.

I think embarrassment would be a very healthy reaction for anyone from Boston, not for the city itself, but for it's officials. Personally, I don't feel that Turner is at fault at all. If this campaign has been going on for several weeks prior in multiple cities without incident then I don't see how Boston officials can justify blaming Turner when THEY jumped the gun and started blowing things up when everyone else (including the thousands of Bostonians who must have seen the signs prior to this) managed to get along fine with it. It's like a line of people seeing a puddle of soda on the floor in the mall and most everybody manages to just sidestep it, then along comes one guy who isn't watching where he's going who slips, falls on his ass, and wants to get huffy and sue someone instead of admitting that he should have been paying attention in the first place.

I vote we keep it separate, with a summary of the events being put in ATHF. For one thing, the fall out from thsi incident is likely beyond the scope of ATHF, since it involves Turner, Cartoon Network, and Adult Swim as a whole and not just the show and movie. Xuanwu 18:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this should remain its own article. While initially I was skeptical, it has received enough main-stream media attention and front page reports on MSNBC, BBC News, etc., that I feel it has become notable. --tomf688 (talk - email) 19:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, if it remains its own article, then the main ATHF article needs to have that section gutted and replaced with a link here. Conversely, merge this article in. Either way, it doesn't need to exist in two places. Duplication of effort is a bad thing. --SilverhandTalk 20:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Article Title

Is "magnetic light" the appropriate term? As far as I understand, the lights were LEDs, which are not magnetic. Mike wiki 17:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The backing panels were magnetic, so they could stick to metal buildings and signage. Suntiger 17:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest we change "magnetic light" to "throwie." From what I've read, "throwie" is the technical name for these devices. They were created by Graffiti Research Lab. So the title should be "2007 Boston Throwie Scare." Xuanwu 18:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Makes them sound like LED throwie signs, though, which they are not: [2] [3] I think it needs a better name. — Omegatron 18:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? I've heard they were LED throwie signs. Xuanwu 18:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Check out the references posted, according to LED throwie they are individual LEDs. Mike wiki 19:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it would be better to rename the article "2007 Aqua Teen Hunger Force magnetic light advertising campaign", or something along those lines, since the campaign was nation-wide. While the significant events occurred in Boston, there is already a section about "other cities", and I have a feeling that this article will also expand to cover areas such as "history and development of the devices", "design specifications", etc. --tomf688 (talk - email) 19:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
This article is about the Boston incident, where these lights were mistaken for dangerous bombs, not the history, use, or details of the lights themselves. Perhaps another article could be devoted to this particular advertising campaign, or created within an article about this type of advertising. Mike wiki 19:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
In the interest of a more NPOV article, might I suggest a name change that conveys to duality of this issue? Namely, the fact that these are magnetic lights/throwies is less important than the fact that they were mistaken for bombs. Police did not respond to what they thought were lite-brites, but rather thought they were tracking down explosives. "2007 Boston explosive scare" might not be innapropriate, as this was, at its a root, a scare, and not an actual incident involving explosives. Even if the police figured out these were harmless devices early on, the general public did not know this until the evening, and thus were operating under the premise there were bombs placed all over the city, rather than "scary lights". Thoughts? Hiberniantears 19:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The event is important because of the impact of the widespread bomb scare, because the "suspicious" items were harmless, and because they were part of an advertising campaign that did not intend for them to be suspected as explosives. The title should reflect these imporant qualities. Perhaps "2007 Boston Advertising Bomb Scare" or somesuch? Mike wiki 19:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
concurHiberniantears 20:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
@Mike: Articles aren't confined to the scope of their titles. If this event remains publicized by the media, the article will evolve in the direction I mentioned above, I can assure you of that. --tomf688 (talk - email) 19:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I realize that, but a more accurate title is a nice way to summarize so that readers know what's going on. But I'm not exactly sure what to call these things, let alone what this article should be titled. Mike wiki 19:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've heard they were LED throwie signs.

They are not. These are circuit boards with LEDs on them and the entire circuit board is mounted with magnets. Throwies are individual LEDs with magnets and the only way to put them in a pattern is to put them in a "stencil" first, like the "FREE BORF" on the Alamo I linked to.
"Explosive scare" is certainly wrong, since the devices aren't explosive or bomb-like in any way. Should be something neutral like Boston Mooninite advertising scare. — Omegatron 20:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I'm not familiar with LED throwies; thank you for the info. I like the idea of "2007 Boston Mooninite scare." Maybe drop the word "advertising," since the scare was over the image of the Mooninites and caused because Boston officials, unlike the officials in the other 9 cities, didn't initially realize it was advertising. Also, it reads better. Xuanwu 21:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I still think either "explosive", "bomb", or "terrorism" has to be in the title somewhere. Granted, the threat was a total joke, but the scare was in reaction to publicly perceived explosives of some type. The real key word here is "scare", which demonstrates that this was not what the rest of the title would imply. People were scared that there were bombs placed around the city, not Mooninites. I just think the title is getting emotionally biased toward the outrage felt over the two people who ended up getting arrested for what ended up being the paid placement of advertisements (I honestly don't think they did anything illegal). At the end of the day, in 2007, Boston had a bomb scare... "2007 Boston bomb scare" would be a logical description of the overall events. Whereas a title describing the placement of lights, or advertising only addresses a piece of the overall event. Hiberniantears 21:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That would make it sound like they're actually bombs or look like bombs, though. I don't know of any news articles that called them bombs or insinuated that they were actually bomb-like. Some Google News headlines: "ad stunt scare", "security scare", "marketing ploy", "Hoax Case", "Net ploy", "advertising fiasco", "cartoon publicity ploy", etc. I like "security scare".
The news just calls them "suspicious devices". Maybe "suspicious device scare", "LED device scare", or something? — Omegatron 22:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Great point... I would vote for "2007 Boston Security Scare". Hiberniantears 22:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The current title, "2007 Boston magnetic light scare", seems descriptively appropriate to me. (jarbarf) 22:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. "2007 Boston magnetic light scare" reflects the two most important aspects of this story:
  • That the devices were completely harmless.
  • That the devices caused a public panic.
Naming it something like "2007 Boston bomb scare" or "2007 Boston security scare" would express the second point, but not the first. Jeff Silvers 23:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, the word "scare" accurately reflects that the object of the scare was not actually dangerous. I do, however, think another word might be better, but I haven't seen or thought of one and so "scare" seems the most appropriate term. If someone wants to find out exactly what it was that caused the scare, they can find details in the body of the article. Mike wiki 22:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"2007 Boston Security scare" isn't very specific. Where's the mention of the lights? I suggest "2007 Boston "Mooninite" Scare" or "2007 Boston Advertising Scare." D4S 00:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

2007 is barely begun. THere could be, God forbid, any number of security scares. Plus, if someone is looking for this article a few months down the line (and despite what others have said, people will be looking), I don't think they'll be thinking "Where's the article on that 2007 Boston Security Scare"? It's hopelessly vague. --Iustinus 02:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved this article to 31 January 2007 Boston bomb scare for the following reasons:

  • "Boston magnetic light scare" is completely inaccurate on two accounts: 1. these were LEDs, not magnetic lights (whatever those are); 2. no one in boston was scared of the devices because they were lights, the commotion was caused because they were presumed to be IEDs.
  • There may well be another bomb scare in boston in 2007. Just like it's not prudent to title an article the "2007 Baghdad car bombing," it's not wise to assume that the won't be a "30 March 2007 Boston bomb scare" (though, of course, to a lesser degree). ˉˉanetode╦╩ 13:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to my original point..."2007 Boston Mooninite Scare" is clearly the wrong title. I live in Boston, and have not heard this event referenced in such manner. I think we were on the right track earlier with the "security scare" aspect. I believe that "Mooninite scare" is just poking fun at the event itself by suggesting people were scared of Mooninites, which was never the case at any point. Hiberniantears 20:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

concurMike wiki 20:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
IMHO "2007 Boston Mooninite Scare" is a fine title, and "2007 Boston magnetic light scare" a second favorite. "Security scare" tends to legitimize the panic, through abstractly addressing what was dreaded by some, rather than what was specifically present. "Security" is vague; the term lacks distinguishing information since any scare involves security. "Mooninite" seems more accurate and distinctive: those ad signs were intended as depictions of Mooninites, in the same way as a Barbie doll is intended or appreciated as "Barbie" by toystores and children. Suppose that a Barbie doll were falsely suspected of housing a bomb, we might call that a "Barbie Bomb Scare", "Barbie Scare" or something else, but merely calling it a "Doll Scare" seems vague.
The wording should depend on the nature of the scare. If it were a real bomb that fizzled or was defused, then the fact that an actual bomb existed should be foremost; that would be a true "bomb scare". If the scare was deliberate, but the bomb was not, (with letters to the media and authorities from a known terrorist cell advertising the threat), then the fact that terrorists intended to cause a scare should be foremost; that would be a "bomb hoax".
Yet this Mooninites Scare was not deliberate and not inevitable. Two interpretations remain: either the scare was caused by negligence, (so cautious people could have and should have foreseen and avoided it), or else it was a panic, (which nobody could predict). Some Boston pols of course contend the former, but their claim hardly seems neutral -- it's important to recall, as mentioned before, Boston has been negligent about security and corruption recently and is ashamed of it, and has now taken to the opposite fault, of over-vigilance, and hopes to avoid further humiliation by casting blame elsewhere.
It may help to review how past scholars of panic have named prior panics. Charles Mackay, author of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, gives the name "Tulip Mania" to a period of frantic speculation and profiteering in Tulip prices. Perhaps he could have been abstract and called it an "Investment Disaster" to emphasize speculators commendable desires to provide for themselves and their loved ones, but he prefers to emphasize their regrettable collective delusions. J. P. Chaplin's Rumor, Fear, and the Madness of Crowds titles chapter six "The Martians Invade New Jersey", which does emphasize the fantastic. Jeffrey S. Victor's Satanic Panic: The Creation of a Contemporary Legend is not a title that flatters the superstitious people it's about.
Or perhaps Wikipedia should tread more gently than those scholars, which might make for an interesting argument. --AC 08:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
"Scare" doesn't have a particular slant, it does not imply that the scare was legitimate or unreasonable, merely that it occured. Security is not vague, "scare" may apply to many dangers, including flood, financial, or getting blown up, and while flood victims might be concerned about breathing "security," a flood scare and a security scare are generally meant to mean different things.

Mike wiki 17:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

See wikipedia policy related to the naming of the "Tulip Mania" event mentioned Mike wiki 17:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

First I don't think it is appropriate to place the article under "recent bomb scare". This was not a bomb scare but an inappropriate reaction by city and law inforcement personel. I am not familier with these cartoon characters but I know a bit about bombs and to say these things "looked" like a bomb is just bogus. This is about overreaction, fear and politics and I think it has historic significance in that light.

Delete or Keep

I would definitely say we should keep this page. Sure it is a very current event and current news but it is also something that will be a lasting historical event. This is on the same lines (although not as important) as another recent event in Boston, the Big Dig ceiling collapse. Fsamuels 22:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep Newsworthy current event. Semi-protection may be needed. FerventDove 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep! It's become its own story separate from the TV show. D4S 23:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The mayour caused needless panic........I suggest this important tid bit and protest be entered in as historical fact. Many bloggers and now media are questioning his wisdom. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ewok1233 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 3 February 2007.

I'd definitely say an obvious keep. The subject is notable and of interest to people who don't care at all about the particular television show. As a recent scare in Boston, an event that helps to illustrates the current American climate, and the particular legal issues of guerrilla marketing, it merits inclusion as a separate article. That's without making guesses on if it'll have an impact on the next Mayoral election in Boston or if it'll be forgotten in a month. Bitnine 21:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Definitely noteworthy on its own, this has also been reported on in many German language publications (Süddeutsche Zeitung, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Handelsblatt, Basler Zeitung, Reuters Deutschland, Financial Times Deutschland, FOCUS ...) and probably around the globe. Regards, High on a tree 02:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting. Perhaps someone should look to putting a couple of international reactions in if possible, then. Bitnine 04:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The use of cultural images in attacks

File:Gits-laughing-man.jpeg
Actual knowledge of Adult Swim might have increased police fears
Pipe bomber Lucas Helder was building a smiley face pattern in his attacks.

The fact that this involved ATHF does not trivialize the event, the use of pop cultural icons in actual bombing in America has already happened with the mailbox bomber Lucas Helder who was making a Smiley face on the map with his pattern of pipe bomb attacks see http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/05/09/mailbox.pipebombs/index.html Actual knowledge of Adult Swim might even increase police suspicions, as a cultural terrorist in another of their shows (Ghost in the Shell) used a cartoon figure as a signature to his attacks (the Laughing Man). So someone knowledgable about Adult Swim might actually be more suspicious of strange devices with cartoon figures flicking off the man specificlly placed in areas where there is a large amount of foot traffic. The notablitiy of this article is more dependent on the post 9/11 mindset then it is on ATHF.

--Wowaconia 06:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
except that no authority remotely put forward any such theory by way of explaining their reaction to what they at one point called "sophisticated electronic devices" hours after they knew they were not bombs. 68.60.68.203 16:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that this was their reasoning I'm saying even with full knowledge of ATHF and Adult Swim it would not be an overreaction to be wary of these devices in a post 9/11 world.--Wowaconia 17:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

A Post 9/11 World? Is that the characterization of the world we live in where we are so controlled by idiotic fear that we would believe that lightbrights were bombs? I don't begrudge those who made the call, but I would expect that a bomb squad would be able to distinguish the difference between a toy and a bomb. How knows maybe it was an honest mistake, but the way they handled the incident (which there never should have been one to begin with) was outrageous. But then again you might think I have a slight bias being a fan on ATHF and of Adult Swim. I'm not signed in so ~ N1NJ4hippie.

Never Forget

File:1170345132250.jpg

This photo was found on 4chan's /b/, where the "Never Forget" has become a meme, so I think the connection is almost sure. Also, a photo saying "LOLS ARE NOT ILLEGAL" was shown, and both were claimed to be the responsibilty of "/b/tards," users of the imageboards. If anyone has sources for this, or a license for the image, please include it. I will I update the article accordingly.

That picture (the one being held up) is originally from a Fark thread (see the 2007-01-31 06:54:31 PM post).—Wasabe3543 01:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Contesting the Speedy Deletion

This article doesn't meet any of the general criteria for a Speedy Deletion. In fact, the reason given -- "Wikipedia is not a news site" meets one of the non-criteria listed for a Speedy Deletion, "Reasons derived from WP:NOT."

To address the reason, though, as discussion both on this talk page and the talk page of the ATHF article has shown, the incident has become a notable event that it exceeds the scope of the ATHF article. The arrests of two of the artists involved, the hysteria and city-wide logjam that resulted, and actions by city officials demanding compensation from Turner show that this is probably more than a passing news event. Further reasons and debate can be found above on this talk page and here. Purifiedwater 22:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed the speedy deletion. Gdo01 22:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Potential cause

Should there be something about how, in movies, bombs often have electronic displays? [4] 1.618033989 23:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If not a bit about typical bomb portrayals, then at least something about the public's general confusion about not only what a bomb would look like, but also what it takes to produce one. Snusinow 07:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge: the other way around

Now that we have consensus that this article should exist, shouldn't we shorten the text about this incident that is currently on the Aqua Teen Hunger Force page. After all, this is the main article about the incident and there should only be a short summary with a link provided for more information (this is already done). Gdo01 23:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Jeff Silvers 05:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed but there should be more info that relates the event to the show on the Aqua Teen Hunger Force, i.e. it's for the movie, the characters depicted, etc. Mike wiki 18:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Alleged over-reaction section

I think the article could do with an "Alleged over-reaction" section to structure the criticism being levelled at the Boston cops for freaking out & losing it. But I have to do some real world work right now. As it is I;ve added a a sentence referenced to Boing Boing, which I hope will stay in. It argues the case that big media outlets (we have many citations from them) are misrepresenting the hell out of this story. I think it is legitimate to add this sort of criticism. YMMV. And a pointer to the Boston Glove's take on it ... these are currently at the foot of the Arrest section. --Tagishsimon (talk)

I dont think that evaluations of the Boston Cops or anyone elses behavior belong in the article. 63.3.5.129 05:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
However, if a media outlet evaluates the cops or if they publish someone else's evaluation, we can include those. For example, one of the Fox News guys said this afternoon that "some fans feel Boston officials are over reacting." Since a news guy said it (and it can be referenced via transcripts), you can put it in the article. So I leave it to you to dig up articles critical of the Boston cops. Xuanwu 06:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it highly pertinent to cover the very real debate as to whether we're looking at a hoax terrorist incident, or an incompetent response to a negligible threat. That Boston is the only city to have gone off half-cocked suggests, at the least, that there's something at issue here. I've already cited the Boston Globe article - which is so-called legitimate media. I think it is, too, appropriate to cover questions about the nature of the media response in light of criticism of their taking a slaving "terrorist hoax" line when other valid avenues of consideration exist. Finally I don't buy the difference between commercial media and bloggers. We're near or at or past the tipping point at which community journalism equals and in cases surpasses that of the commercial media (who are, en passant, also attention seekers). I'd see boing boing or groklaw, to take a couple of example, as sufficiently established and professional to be referenced. I;d sooner reference them than Fox. --Tagishsimon (talk)

How's this: rather than "alleged over-reaction" (which is a bit POV), I've made a section for "Public Reaction." This is where you can put news reports that criticze the actions of the Boston police and reports that bash Adult Swim. Right now it only has reports from one side; I trust others will balance it out with criticism of the marketing ploy. Note that since it's called "public reaction," you should not mention reactions from the media (such as CNN's opinion), but what the news media says people are saying. Xuanwu 06:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Good; thanks. But where should reactions from the media be placed, then? Why is is not legitimate to report concerns (of any sort) being raised in the media? --Tagishsimon (talk)
I think opinions of the media can go into the incident summary itself as part of the consequences. What the media thinks is generally less important than what people think, so it's not worth as much space. Later on, as the story develops more, a separate "Fallout" section would probably be worthwhile, where it could go. For now, the story is too new for a fallout section to stand on its own. Xuanwu 06:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
concurHow about a "Media Coverage" section (instead of "Fallout") that summarizes the press coverage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mike wiki (talk • contribs) 18:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

I've changed a sentence "Not all press was about the overreaction by Boston officials and media" to "Not all press alleged an overreaction..."; I think that's still a bit clunky, but the first version, implying overreaction as a fact that some media chose not to cover, needed to go for a slightly more balanced view: not everyone thinks Boston officials overreacted.--Frippo 03:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The "Overreaction Section" AKA "The civilized world knows this is a bunch of BS" section. I like it.

necessary fixes

I can't make these changes because someone has protected the article. I'm leaving them here in the hopes that someone else might make or at least consider the changes.

The G4 network stuff does not deserve to be as early in the article as it is.
The article now claims that an MBTA employee spotted the first device. Thats not consistant with the source given and I've not been able to find a source so far to validate the claim.
The phrase "like most anything electronic" amounts to a added POV. The statement as previous was "the devices had some characteristics in common with bombs" and was meant to be a good-faith neutral statement giving the boston police the benefit of the doubt. Batteries was also changed to "power source" for unclear reasons. The POV phrase amounts to taking sides and should be removed.
The junk self-promotion for blogs should be removed: "Prominent blog sites such as Boing Boing continued this theme, alleging that the "big media outlets" [were] botching the hell out of the Boston LED terror story" [19]. The Boston Globe newspaper opined that the "marketing gambit exposes a wide generation gap", quoting one 29-year old blogger as writing "Repeat after me, authorities. L-E-D. Not I-E-D. Get it?"[20]" The facts of the story should not polluted with all sorts of material covering the coverage of the story. If people want that stuff, there should be a section created on the coverage of the event.
See Alleged over-reaction section, above. And it's not junk self promotion, but thanks for the patronage. --Tagishsimon (talk)
There should be mention of the two men detained in Chicago who were taking down the ads. It was added with citations but for reasons unknown removed.
There is an article [5]. The article says that some of the devices found yesterday in boston were not related to the magnetic lights. "The two devices found in an office at Tufts-New England Medical Center and attached to the Longfellow Bridge yesterday morning were not the marketing devices that sparked a daylong panic in Boston, but simulated pipe bombs, police officials said last night." It would be nice if someone summarized the information and included it in the article.
The article also still needs alot of work in terms of giving a full timeline of events. 63.3.5.129 05:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Note that there is no such place as "the State of Massachusetts." Or if there is, it is in the abstract, possibly somewhere south of the state of perfect bliss and apparently, from this event, close by the state of confusion. The proper name is "The Commonwealth of Massachusetts" with the capitals as displayed,i.e., capitalize the "T" in "The." I have no authority for capitalizing the "T," beyond having it drilled into my head by teachers then later by law firm partners and court clerks. Blame it on the Pilgrims. 216.163.246.4 20:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

the very 'style' of the devices and their placement is so similar to the way Graffiti Research Lab's[6] does it, that one could assume that the ad's were inspired by GRL. One of the videos posted of the devices being placed, in fact, mentions GRL in the end. The devices are inspired by something called an "led throwie", originally created by, you guessed it, GRL. [7] It only makes sense to include the link to the Graffiti Research Lab as related to this incident. (Mad Gouki 07:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC))

Devices on eBay

Are the devices still being sold on eBay? I followed a link this morning to one of the sales that had reached about $5000. I decided to check it again tonight, to make a change to the article, but it "has been removed or is no longer available."

Are they still on eBay? And if so, shouldn't there be a citation? Prometheus-X303- 07:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

i think your looking for something like this. [8]
just do an ebay search for them. "Aqua Teen Hunger Force LED" (Mad Gouki 07:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC))
Ok. So they haven't been removed. I had tried a search, but only turned up one that was a replica. Thanks. Prometheus-X303- 07:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ebay (or someone) is definitely pulling them. I've been tracking an auction for the past hour (up to $1999) and now it's shut down. Searches will lead to a page of hits, most of which lead to error messages. Right now there's one up [9] at $300, but I bet it's gone by the time you read this. --Aranae 19:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Not gone, but concluded by the seller. Probably wanted to sell before it was pulled. Prometheus-X303- 14:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone please remove the G4 "aquagate" nonsense

Nobody except for G4 has called this "aquagate". The placement of that comment right at the front of the article looks a whole lot like promotion. If it has to be kept, it should be pushed down to the reaction section or somewhere else. 12.96.162.45 15:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have moved it down to "Public reaction" as per anon. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Its back at very top again. Jjaazz 13:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed again. Seems the one that was moved dow to Public reaction isn't there any more either. Jjaazz 02:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed it is now a redirection from Aquagate.

Title change

I disagree with the current title, which has been changed to "Boston Aqua Teen ad campaign security scare" as of this writing. My suggestion is Boston lightboard security scare or revert back to the name we were using yesterday. The complete name of the show they were advertising for is Aqua Teen Hunger Force, why is it being truncated to just Aqua Teen? I cannot find this discussion anywhere. (jarbarf) 16:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I find the current title very unwieldy. "Ad campaign" is redundant; "ad" alone would be sufficient. Either the full "Aqua Teen Hunger Force" name should be used or its acronym, ATHF. Personally, I prefer using the word "Mooninite" since that's what the ads depicted. Xuanwu 16:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the current title is not good, since it shortens the name of the show. I don't have a suggestion, but consensus was not reached before this change was made. Leebo86 16:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Why not just call it the "Boston Mooninite ad security scare" or simply the "Boston marketing security scare"? — Rickyrab | Talk 16:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
At the very least we need to stop changing the title every few hours (it seems like that anyway). I'd suggest going back to be Boston Security Scare (or something like it) and then have a discussion to try and reach consensus on what the title should be. I'd also rather see "adult swim" rather than "aqua teen" anything. The character involved was from the show, but the decision-makers in all the events were not. 12.96.162.45 16:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I have downsized the title. Now let's work on a consensus. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it would have been better to reach consensus before moving it once again, Rickyrab, because every time it gets moved we end up with redirects pointing to redirects and so on. We shouldn't move again until a consensus is reached. Leebo86 16:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I edited the redirects involved. Yes, it was a headache, but it was done. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's start the convo, then: the current title is clearly too short and ambiguous. The title must succintly summarize the nature of the incident and be clear enough so that it won't be confused with other events from the past. Let's break down the relevant components needed in the title: the location, the objects of attention, and the reaction to the objects. The location is easy: Boston. The reaction also seems simple: scare. The main point of contention seems to be how to describe the objects. The following are appropriate object descriptions:

  • "Aqua Teen Hunger Force ad" / "ATHF ad"
  • "Mooninite ad"
  • "Adult Swim ad"

Each of the three above is specific enough to be useful. I think we can leave out the type of ad it was, since that's in the article. I also leave out "security" since the type of scare is described in the article; it's enough to know there was a scare. So my proposed titles are:

  • "Boston Aqua Teen Hunger Force ad scare" / "Boston ATHF ad scare"
  • "Boston Mooninite ad scare"
  • "Boston Adult Swim ad scare"

Adding "2007" to the beginning of the above may also be appropriate. Thoughts? Xuanwu 17:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Mooninite attack on Boston? — Omegatron 17:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, it sure as heck beats Boston Aqua Teen Party! — Rickyrab | Talk 17:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I like "Boston Mooninite ad scare" and "Boston Adult Swim ad scare" best, but it was also a bomb scare or a security scare in that ads were mistaken for explosive devices. Moreover, I noticed that folks seem to think a lot of this incident as "the nonsense that shut down Boston", or something along those lines. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Well it's been changed again, this time by User:Psoreilly. I disagree with the move to 2007 Boston Mooninite Scare, because the panic was not caused because people were worried about mooninites, it was caused because they felt there was a security issue. Leebo86 17:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
concur and with parent RE "bomb" or "security" Mike wiki 18:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Google "mooninite scare", there is some traction for the name. I think we can drop the "2007 Boston" part though, since I am pretty sure there will not be another one. Psoreilly 17:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

How about "Boston Advertising Security Scare" with a redirect from "31 January Boston Security Scare". Here I'm trying to suggest the uniqueness of this incident as being related to Advertising and taking place in Boston, while allowing for its basic nature as a Boston Security Scare (that can be identified as taking place on January 31st). Mike wiki 18:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I commented below that I like "Boston advertising security scare" (note the lower case words, which is the standard since it's not a proper noun). Leebo86 18:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, I thought it might be considered a name, but I guess it isn't any more so than the Russian constitutional crisis of 1993. With that consideration, I suggest shuffling the words to Advertising security scare in Boston so that we can get two capped words in there.Mike wiki 18:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Umpteenth move

Can we discuss this before we move the title of this page for the umpteenth time?  :-) To begin, lets make a list of suggested permutations and what we've used in the past. (jarbarf) 18:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Titles used so far
  1. 2007 Boston magnetic light scare (original)
  2. ATHF Marketing Scandal (fork)
  3. 2007 Boston Security Scare
  4. 2007 Boston security scare
  5. 31 January 2007 Boston bomb scare
  6. Boston Aqua Teen ad campaign security scare
  7. Boston advertising security scare
  8. 2007 Boston Mooninite Scare (current)
Suggested titles
  1. Boston Adult Swim ad scare
  2. Boston Aqua Teen Hunger Force ad scare
  3. Boston lightboard security scare
  4. Boston Mooninite ad scare
  5. Boston Mooninite scare
  6. Mooninite scare
  7. Mooninite bomb scare


Applicable guidelines that I've found so far include WP:TITLE, but there might be others. The current title is problematic because "Scare" should not be capitalized. Also I'm not sure if it is standard to preclude with "2007" or not, since the likelihood of there being another scare of this sort is low. (jarbarf) 18:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I like Boston advertising security scare. It doesn't need the 2007, unless there are other scares involving advertisements. It uses just the word advertising, because that avoids the overly-specific/too long version such as "Adult Swim advertising" or "Aqua Teen Hunger Force advertising". The abbreviations "ATHF" and "ad" should not be used. Leebo86 18:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
How about just Boston advertising scare, given that there arent many advertising scares and any others probably didn't / won't occur in Boston Mike wiki 17:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Might be a better term for "security scare"? What does the city of Boston call it when the bomb squad is mobilized? There must be some agreed term for suspected explosive response and removal. Mike wiki 18:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that 'Boston Mooninite scare' might be best. The nature of the scare (whether more advertising or security related) is up for interpretation/debate, but the fact that there was a scare, it was in Boston, and it involved characters known as Mooninites is pretty well set. Not only does this communicate the specific incident without characterizing it, it also does so fairly narrowly. There may be other things that are classified as advertising or security scares all about, including in Boston, but notsomuch Mooninite-related scares. And if there is some sort of second Mooninite scare in Boston, it probably would go into this article with sections for each incident. Bitnine 18:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

concurPsoreilly 18:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem I've seen with calling it a "Mooninite scare" is that people were not scared of Mooninites. They were scared that the unidentified devices (which were later revealed as advertisements) presented a security threat. Leebo86 18:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Hm, when I see the phrase "[WORD] scare" I don't think that the preceding word is necessarily implied as the source of the scare. For example, when I read all of the news sources calling this the "Boston scare" I didn't think that they were trying to assert that people were afraid of Boston, only that it was a scare and Boston merely provided the context to determine which scare they were talking about (as opposed to the type). Bitnine 18:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. It was a security scare in Boston and advertising was the cause. I feel "Mooninite" is too specific, and it doesn't convey anything to someone reading name of the article for the first time. Leebo86 18:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
concur The people and government that responded did so because of the devices' being potential bombs, not because of depicting Mooninites. I think that title might be appropriate for the [Aqua Teen Hunger Force] page where that has particular significance, but it is somewhat irrelevant to the event itself.Mike wiki 18:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

But they did turn out to be mooninites, and they caused the scare in the first place. And the other names are too long or too generic.Psoreilly 18:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

While the actual items are important, I think "advertisement" or something is not too generic, since it describes one of the two things that are unique about this event, namely that an incorrect bomb scare significantly impacted Boston on Jan 31 2007, and that the actual items turned out to be advertisements.
If there had been a large bomb scare, and it turned out that the items thought to be bombs were a bunch of paper bags containing nothing of significance, it could be titled "31 Jan Boston bomb scare," had the advertisements been billboards that said "The End Is Nigh!!!" then they might have cause a 31 Jan Boston Advertising Scare.
But using the term Mooninites adds specific details about what the subject of the advertisement was, without being relevant to the original event, so it should not be in the title. Mike wiki 18:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I disagree. I had never heard the term Mooninite before 2 days ago, but I have heard the name countless times now in reference to this event. "Mooninite scare" has been in the media and press with some degree of repetition, which you can verify with some internet searches. Yes the term hoax has been used repeatedly also, but this was objectively speaking not a "hoax", since it is not believable that a person was intending to make other people believe that these were bombs. The title does not need to explain the situation, rather simply identify without misleading. There was certainly a farcical nature to this event and if the signs had been of mickey mouse, then I would suggest it be called the "mickey mouse bomb scare" or "mickey mouse scare" for short. Psoreilly 19:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there a general or common title that the media is using for this scare? (jarbarf) 18:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The word "hoax" is bandied about a lot, although that implies intent... which is what the advertisers are being charged with. Without a conviction I don't think it should even be considered for use just yet. Settler 19:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In local press, I've tended to see "guerrilla marketing campaign" scare or "cartoon hoax" scare. Hoax tends to be a popular word choice. How about "Boston Bomb Scare Hoax", with whatever capitalization seems appropriate Jjaazz 18:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think "hoax" is too loaded, because it implies the intent to deceive, which was absent from this event. And again, I still feel it should be [something short] security scare. Leebo86 19:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to get rid of the term Mooninites and Aqua Teen from the titles. The product that the advertisement was for has nothing to do with the actual event. My preferance would be to name the event after the advertising company who are responsible. I'd suggest "2007 Interference Advertising Bomb Scare". Adult Swim, Turner Broadcasting and ATHF are all secondary or incidental to what happened. I don't think the word "hoax" should be used either. 12.96.162.45 19:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Hoax does seem a bit too loaded at this time, and I'd like to avoid assigning any kind of responsibility for this scare, since it still disputed whether or not the advertising agency intended to receive this sort of publicity. The more generic the better, in my opinion, which is why I suggested "Boston lightboard security scare" as an option. (jarbarf) 19:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I diagree with simply calling it "Boston advertising security scare." What happens the next time an advertising campaign goes awry and causes trouble? Remember the ad campaign where electronic voice boxes in newspaper vending machines created panic in a city. Security scares caused by advertising are not uncommon, so the title is too general. The title should specify the source of the advertising to avoid future ambiguity. That's why I prefer "Boston Adult Swim ad scare" or "Boston Interference ad scare." (As much as I love mentioning the Mooninites in the article, their name is not mainstream enough to be used in a such a manner.) Xuanwu 22:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There is already some precedent for the naming convention, check out [[10]]. That guideline suggests <<year>> <<place>> <<event>>, the year and place are fairly obvious. We have to come to a consensus as to what to call the event. Using "hoax" in the title is not really neutral as it is an allegation. "Mooninite" is accurate, but really obscure. "Aqua Teen Hunger Force" is perhaps too wordy, and "Adult Swim" or "Cartoon Network" do not accurately reference the involved companies (Williams Street contracted Intereference Inc. - Williams Street, Adult Swim, and Cartoon Network are all owned by Turner Broadcasting anyway). Both "security scare" and "bomb scare" work, I think, because they are widely used terms in the coverage of the incident (Reuters prefers "security scare," many blogs prefer "bomb scare"). Finally, "advertising security scare", without punctuation, is just plain confusing. Was there an issue with the security of the advertising industry? And so on. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC) (PS: [11])

I agree that <<year>> <<place>> <<event>> is a good format, but it starts to get unwieldy when you make it 2007 Boston Adult Swim advertising scare. Do you have a suggestion for handling the "advertising part" if you think it's confusing? I think leaving out the "security" after Adult Swim advertising makes it just as confusing. Leebo86 00:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
2007 Boston advertising scare, " " security scare, " " bomb scare; all of these would work. Generally I agree with any title in that specific format. G4 had a good idea with "Aqua-Gate" (simple and elegant enough). Of course we could always just title it the "2007 Boston police SNAFU" :) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Boston Cartoon Advertising Terror False Alarm or Boston Cartoon Advertising Mass Bombing False Alarm I believe cartoon covers it - non fans will not know what a moonite is. False Alarm is a specific term of use which applies to this situation 68.60.68.203 01:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
"False Alarm," like "Hoax," is too POV, I think. "Scare" is more neutral because people were scared, even though they had no real reason to be. "Aqua-gate," like "Mooninite," is too obscure. Also, I don't think "2007 Boston Adult Swim ad scare" is unwieldy. Just remember we can shorten "advertising" to "ad." Xuanwu 00:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Redirects to clear up

When you've finished moving the page, would you fancy clearing up the stacked redirects you've left in your path. They're getting 2 & 3 levels deep :( --Tagishsimon (talk)

I think I got them all.--Isotope23 20:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Mooninite?

Since the article makes no mention of what a mooninite is, the casual reader will be completely confused as to what you're talking about. Corvus cornix 19:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

yeah, what he said. Funkyj 19:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
This is true. A certain number of people want the word Mooninite in the title, but they haven't added "Mooninite" to the body of the article. If that wording is ultimately the consensus, Ignignokt and Err should at least be referred to as "Mooninite characters from the show Aqua Teen Hunger Force".Leebo86 19:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense, put in "The suspicious devices turned out to be battery-powered LED placards with an image of a cartoon character called a "mooninite"Psoreilly
Getting back to my original point..."2007 Boston Mooninite Scare" is clearly the wrong title. I live in Boston, and have not heard this event referenced in such manner. I think we were on the right track earlier with the "security scare" aspect. I believe that "Mooninite scare" is just poking fun at the event itself by suggesting people were scared of Mooninites, which was never the case at any point. Hiberniantears 20:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
In any case, this redirect fad has made its way to Wikipedia:Everything you always wanted to know about Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense (But were afraid to ask)... 204.52.215.107 20:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC) well done! Bravo!
Even all the "security scare" titles were neologisms... I don't think at this point there is one clear term for this. In any event I cleaned up the massive mess of double and triple redirects all these moves made so if for some reason there is a consensus to move this article again will whoever moves it please fix the redirects.
On a side note, you know all those Bostonians pheered Ignignokt and the threat of a Moon Invasion completely owning them. Heh.--Isotope23 20:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Who wouldn't fear a Mooninite invasion?... :-) Some points:

1) People were scared of a security response to what was believed to be something explosive in nature, but which turned out to be a luminescent magnetic Mooninite. 2) People were not scared of Mooninite signs, since this was not reported. Even though the object causing the scare was the aforementioned Mooninite sign. 3) The marketing firm asked at least one of the men who was arrested to lay low when they became aware of the security response. 4) Mooninite is a surprisingly difficult word to spell.

In any event, I see your point on the POV of "security scare" as well. That said, I still think the security response of this element, which generated the media response, and the ensuing public nervousness is what the article title should center upon. Hiberniantears 20:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"Mooninite scare" specifically gets 112 hits on google some from boston.com, and without the quotes it gets 39,000 relevant hits. I just don't see how you can take "mooninite" out of the title without giving this a meaningless or inaccurate title. The word "scare" itself means that the threat was fear and confusion itself not a specific real danger, which seems accurate. People were not afraid of "security" so calling it a "security scare" would be a misnomer. Rather they were afraid of bombs that turned out to be signs whose most notable feature was a lite up mooninite cartoon character on them. It was a bomb scare and these "Mooninite" signs certainly were the cause of the scare since someone thought them to possibly be bombs. But someone should get rid of the 2007 and change it to a lower case "scare", I think there is consensus on those two points, at least the 2007 is not necessary and not concise and the date is mentioned in the article.Psoreilly 20:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we're actually in much greater agreement than we think. What about "Boston Mooninite Bomb Scare"? And no, I don't care that people are laughing at us for debating this. Hiberniantears 20:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe "security scare" in this sense refers to a situation in which people believe that the security of the city was compromised, not that they were afraid of security. It makes sense in this context, whereas Mooninite refers to the physical object causing the fear. Leebo86 20:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, in the name of Google equity... "Boston bomb scare" gets 585,000 hits. Hiberniantears 20:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Personally I don't have any really strong feelings on what it is called (my mass redirects here were housekeeping to avoid double redirects). I will note that most of the stories I've seen refer to the "Boston Bomb Scare" or "Boston Bomb Hoax". Whatever the decision though, if a consensus is reached I'd be happy to unmove protect this and fix all the redirects to whatever the final destination is. I just don't want to see that happen until there is an agreement here.--Isotope23 21:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
"I just don't see how you can take "mooninite" out of the title without giving this a meaningless or inaccurate title"I put forward "Cartoon" instead of "mooninite" it is both meaningful, accurate and more to the point a word that english speaking people already know. Also this incident is most accurately described as a False Alarm rather that just "scare" Boston Cartoon Advertising Terror False Alarm - it is pretty hard to come up with a title that isn't as absurd as the event itself68.60.68.203 02:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
"Even all the "security scare" titles were neologisms... I don't think at this point there is one clear term for this." False Alarm yes they have happened before and there is a word for it68.60.68.203 02:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Calling this "Boston Cartoon Advertising Terror False Alarm" still suffers from the same problem as "security scare" (and incidentally the current title); it is a neologism arbitrarily assigned to the occurance by one or more editors here. Ideally this would be named something that is a name attributed to this occurance by external sources.--Isotope23 03:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Dismissing "security scare" as a neologism is inaccurate and unproductive. This is the favored term of ABC News[12] and Reuters[13], a respected worldwide wire service. "Bomb scare" is, of course, a more established term, and it is used by a number of news outlets as well, most notably by CNN (which is coincidentally owned by Turner Broadcasting). I would also like to reiterate that there is already a name convention for such events as defined by Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management. That guideline calls for <<year>> <<name>> <<event>> - the first two fields are obvious. Labeling the event is a tricky process, and I agree that it is ultimately not up to individual Wikipedians to classify and term it. That is why I sugges that we appropriate the relevant terminology from news media outlets, where the two most frequently used terms are "bomb scare" and "security scare" (with "bomb hoax" running a distant third"). ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Boston Cartoon Bomb Scare - bomb hoax effectively implies a legal intent to deliberately create a public panic .Boston Alleged Cartoon Bomb Hoax is accurate in that the city filed those charges. 68.60.68.203 10:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Cartoon seems too abstract, it could mean a newspaper's editorial section political cartoon, a magazine panel cartoon, or an animated cartoon, all of which have millions of possible referents. Mooninite is specific, and however unfamiliar to some, easy enough to define or describe. --AC 09:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree entirly with the name "mooninite" in the title, most people will not know what that is and will therefor be unable to search for it. What is the city of Boston calling the incident? That should be the name for this page. Rudy Breteler 23:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Page Blank

I just accidentally blanked the page. Fixing it now... sorry about that folks... Hiberniantears 19:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that was just one of the pages that redirects here. Someone reverted it. Not a big deal. Leebo86 19:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Leebo.Hiberniantears 20:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Leebo didn't do it. I did. But thanks for noticing anyhow. 204.52.215.107 20:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I did it. 24.224.154.12 23:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Temporary move protect

FYI: Until a neutral title is agreed upon, I've move-protected the page. --tomf688 (talk - email) 20:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I disagree pretty strongly with merging this into the Aqua Teen Hunger Force article. There is no sense in giving the subject undue weight there, the most it should have is one or two sentences and a pointer to this article, wherever it may be that day.  ;-) (jarbarf) 21:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I also disagree strongly with putting it on the Aqua Teen article. If you want to put it in an article, putting it on the adult swim article would be better (but not perfect). The people involved with ATHF appear at this point to have had almost nothing directly to do with the incident. It was to promote the show, but that promotion was organized by other people. 65.117.65.169 05:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Boston

Is anyone here a member? D4S 20:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Webcomics

Although I don't think the mention of webcomic coverage adds very much to the article, just checked Dinosaur comics and there doesn't appear to be a comic related to the mooninites scare as the articles says Melander 22:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Something Positive did put up a comic related to the issue. Since the author of that comic is a Boston resident, it qualifies as "Public Reaction." Remove the Dinosaur Comics mention, though - he only puts it in his blog, not the comic itself. Comics are suitable as references, as they're works of art. Blogs, in general, are not. Xuanwu 22:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


internal police reaction, including timeline

http://www.bpdnews.com/2007/02/message_from_the_police_commis_2.html is a message from the police commissioner regarding the events. it's intended for internal police department consumption rather than as a public statement, but it's still an interesting read to put it into context. not sure where in the main article it should appear, so i figured i'd put it on the talk page for someone to integrate if appropriate. 

66.92.68.224 23:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Nice find ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Chicago reaction

The account of events in Chicago is missing some detail. [14] Two people working for interference were detained briefly by police for taking the signs down. The police account says that they declined to say who they were working for (interference). They were not arrested. 65.117.65.184 23:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Putting it together

Alright, trying to avoid OR here, but after putting everything together it appears that intial reaction has to do with a train station in Washington, D.C. closing due to a suspious package and the reason for the "sinster looking device...it has batteries and wires," came from a fake pipe bomb (according to news sources I've read and Ed Davis' public police report). Any ideas? Yanksox 13:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The BPD's initial reaction to the call from an MBTA employee may have had nothing to do with DHS activities in DC. I've not yet come accross a source that said that the DHS posted some sort of nationwide notice to police departments to be on the lookout for bomb-like devices - though that very well may have been the case. The question is, would the BPD have reacted differently to news of a suspicious device if a similar event had not occured earlier that morning in DC? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 14:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
This is too much speculation on our part, the Boston Globe or Herald will probably have something that will allow us to source information. Yanksox 16:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention that I, for one, don't know what the "normal" level of DHS notifications to police and local authorities are. It could be that the above actually comprise an extremely slow day or this could be a once-a-year occurrence. Definitely be on the lookout for follow-up on those items, though. Bitnine 18:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
There was an article in the Boston Hearld talking about fake pipe bombs being found on the same day in Boston. [15]. Has anyone else seen anything denying or disproving this report? If there were other devices found the same day unrelated to the advertising in Boston, it seems important. 65.117.65.184 23:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The Police Comissioner's message above indeed mentions that a call was made at 1:02 p.m. New England Medical Center Security saying that a pipe bomb had been found in a desk drawer in their building. This call was after the morning I-93 closing and much of the initial reaction, but immediately before the 'devices' were discovered at the bottom of bridges. Bitnine 23:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Old vs. Young Angle

One of the more fascinating things about this whole incident for me has been the complete disconnect between older and younger people, not just limited to reaction. It goes deeper into issues of pop culture, tech savvy, and arguably most prominently, the relative little it took the older generations to develop mass panic. A section detailing these issues could be useful. Snusinow 07:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Only if it could be sourced... though anecdotally I noticed this too. I heard an interview with someone from Boston who was in their 30's where they expressed dismay at the city being a laughingstock because they were the only city to respond this way to the campaign. This was contrasted with an interview from someone in their 50's who castigated the people behind the campaign for being so irresponsible in a post-9/11 world. I imagine at least a decent amount of air/web space has been focused on this discussion if someone wanted to look for sources.--Isotope23 13:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
It was sourced, but some genius has deleted it. --Tagishsimon (talk)
I see it is back in... as it should be. It is sourced and honestly the real long-term interesting part of this whole incident is the sociological divide between the 30-and-under crowd and those older generations in regards to how this whole thing was perceived. Of course speculating about that in the article should not be done; but sourced additions pertaining to this should stay.--Isotope23 16:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I would be very careful about drawing these kinds of conclusions from the coverage. The old vs. young is playing itself out in terms of those who are passionate about the event. Reporters like comments from passionate people. You can always find somebody young who wants to defend adult swim or gureilla advertising or whatever through defending the incident. And you can always find some old crank who thinks the future of the country is at stake. But the impresion I get is that few people outside boston care much about the whole thing. The total regular viewership for adult swim (outside of family guy and futurama) is in the hundred thousands. Nobody cares.
The Boston police didn't overreact. They did their job. Certain politicians in Boston overreacted after the event and they were wrong. The people at Adult Swim/Turner/etc acted in a responsible way and did all the right things. The people I can't defend is those at interference. Looking at the facts and the timeline after the event, I'm convinced that they went out of their way to let the situation get worse early on. And after they made it worse by having those two stoners....excuse me, "artists"....act like idiots in court and in front of the press. None of what happened did Adult Swim or anyone in Atlanta any good. The way that the turner organization works, it will be six months before anyone knows if people are going to lose their jobs over this. Even if nobody loses their job, they are going to have a lot less autonomy than they used to. 65.117.65.184 16:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Honestly? We have no use for, nor interest in, discussion about the issue, and our opinions are explicitly irrelevant. Talk pages are meant for discussing and improving the article. Wikis don't make good forums anyway. --Kizor 19:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I dont know who "we" is but this entire section has no place here. Rather than jumping all over me, it would have been more helpful to point out that the "old vs. young angle" is an exercise in original research and should not be here in the first place. I would also remind you about being civil in discussions and not using words like "we" to represent your opinion. 65.117.65.184 22:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I say here's how we handle this: some sources have mentioned the "generational gap." We can add them to the response section (in fact, there's one now). If it ever reaches a critical mass where there's enough material to warrant breaking out into its own (sub)section, we do that. Guidelines followed, no OR, and also not overlooking any 'angle'. If anyone wants to look around for solid sources that have been exploring this aspect, by all means, go ahead. Bitnine 22:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Unbalanced Reaction Section

Looks like an editor added an unbalanced template that includes the phrase "Please see the discussion on the talk page," without discussion on the talk page, so I figured I'd create a section for such.

That being said, I agree. The reaction seems slanted towards those who criticize the actions of the Boston authorities. Plenty of articles are out there condemning the actions of the advertisers and Turner broadcasting, as well as praising the official response. Some of these need to be included. In fact, before I added the additional mention of the Herald's condemnation, it was apologetic in tone, with every other reaction critical of the response.

Well... that certainly doesn't paint a full picture of the public reaction. So we should probably get on to fixing that up. Bitnine 22:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to rework section a little to be less biased. Please feel free to clean up anything I did if you feel it comes across any worse. Jjaazz 13:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think the public reaction section is going to be very problematic going forward. While I personally feel that there was an overreaction on the part of Boston officials, most of the articles I've read about the incident are supportive of the authorities' reaction and/or condemn the creators of the ad campaign. That being said, the public reaction I've seen on blogs and in other places (such as in comments on Flickr photos about the incident) shows the totally opposite stance. There seems to be a disconnect between what the public is saying and what the media is saying, but maybe I'm just living in my own little "bubble"... —Mulad (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, by and large you wouldn't know that to look at the current reaction section. There exist mixed reactions, but what we see here and across many blogs and online comments are heavily colored by a systemic bias. So in a sense, yes, there is a bubble effect. Interacting with online communities and likely technosavvy friends is an isolated (if not insubstantial) demographic. We need to give full weight to other segments of public reaction to keep a NPOV. That being said, I'm about to restore the bit on the protest; that the reaction was strong enough to illicit protesters with signs (then picked up by Fox) seems notable.
Probably later I'll read through some articles as I know I've previously read statements of outrage at Turner's actions and strong support of the authority's response. Bitnine 16:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The 'protestor' signs were a big joke. I agree it should stay, but they weren't a protest. They were just making fun of Menino. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jjaazz (talk • contribs) 18:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC).
Yeah, 'lampoon' is probably a better phrase that 'protest'. Bitnine 18:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note: the public reactions that were noted there were properly sourced and should NOT be removed. To balance, you should instead add reactions from the opposite side. Removing properly sourced material is not the way. I'm restoring the deleted bits that had correct citations. Xuanwu 06:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone explain why this subject is so controversial? it seems so simple to report the facts of what actually happened, but it seems that many are having issue with each and every word, I don't get it.

TV Ratings?

Is it worth mentioning that this incident boosted the TV ratings of Aqua Teen Hunger Force? (Source) --Amanojyaku 04:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hm, that article labels Err as Ignignokt. Bitnine 05:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I've alreadly seen (from a quick glance) a typo (in the caption) and a grammatical error. Yanksox 12:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Since you have a source, go ahead and add it in. I'd also recommend adding that to the ATHF Wiki page. Xuanwu 06:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Today's Boston Globe had an article that said initially ratings went DOWN 100K (day of incident) before returning to normal the next day. They mentioned Neilsen #s. Jjaazz 14:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Reading the quoted article, it was up 4% because the prior nite was down. I don't feel it is worthy of adding. Jjaazz 14:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Found source (Source) "Though the Cartoon Network received considerable attention after the scare, there appears to have been no short-term payoff. Viewership for the first "Aqua Teen" episode to air after the incident was down 100,000 viewers, compared to the night before, then only rebounded to its average rating the following night, according to Nielsen Media Research, which monitors television viewership." Jjaazz 14:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Super Mario Question Block Hysteria

I put some references to the widespread phenomenon of this super mario question block last year, in the context of the generation gap and reaction. It is so eriely similar I was struck by it. Although the whole point of that exercise was anti-commercial as well as anti-paranoia I wonder if the Ad Company knew of it (they love to co-opt everything). It has interesting implications for the charges filed.68.60.68.203 15:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Police knew but werent telling

added some early reports from the scene which indicate that the police refused to describe the suspicious "packages" being destroyed claiming ongoing investigation, and continued to keep the public in the dark about what they were finding until after several further incidents-seems bizarre to me68.60.68.203 16:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

New material about Berdovasky

There are some new stories not yet covered by the article. The most important is that its been admitted now that Berdovsky videotaped the police during the incident but didn't tell the police that the device was not a bomb. They caught him at the scene on surveillance cameras.

Berdovsky being at the scene and later sending out emails to people (supposedly on behalf of interference) telling them not to say anything about the devices need to be fit into the timeline.

There is an account of it (from his lawyers) at [16]

In brief:

- He claims to have rushed with a video camera to the bomb scene early in the morning as part of his normal activities as a freelance video artist.

- After taping the incident, he admits to realizing what was going on. He did not contact the police but rather returned to his apartment. He then called his employer who he says told him "they would take care of it".

- He then according to other previous accounts sent out email to other members of his community who knew about the devices telling them to say nothing about them. His friends think that he represented himself as doing what interference told him to do.

12.96.162.45 23:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a story in today's Herald about Berdovsky being caught on tape doing his own videotaping. At one scene, he had to be pushed back physically for being too close. Jjaazz 23:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


Interference, Inc.

Do they deserve their own page? There has been enuf said about them during this incident... Jjaazz 02:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

  • What else has been written about them, other than their involvement with this incident? If they aren't notable for anything else, why make an article that will just say what's already written here? Maybe a redirect for now? STFmaryville 06:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. There is little information about them available and they have no other notability. 12.96.162.45 21:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I thought I had read something about founder of company and how he had done this guerrilla marketing thing for a while.... Just an idea... Jjaazz 00:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
If you can find enough material unrelated to the boston incident, it would be ok. As a start I would suggest using [17] and[18]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.96.162.45 (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
Seems someone added text to main article, though it seems out of place. Jjaazz 17:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The Incident: Hoax reports

From paragraph 3 of "The Incident":

The first media reports that the event was a hoax occurred around 1 p.m.

Event is vague, and was should be qualified: '...reports claiming or speculating that the LED signs were part of a hoax...' --AC 10:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The word "hoax" should not appear in this article, apart from when quoting a media source that used that word. It's simply too POV a way to describe what happened, since it whether it was a hoax has yet to be legally determined. Xuanwu 20:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I think there's real potential for a countersuit against various outlets for libel. I'm amazed to watch news clips where they show the video of placing the signs and then say "this videos shows the individuals allegedly placing the hoax devices." I think the "allegedly placing" part is just funny since there's a video to prove it, but the "hoax" part is where all the legal problems arise and there are no qualifiers there. "Hoax" is not only POV, but also a legal concern and we should definitely avoid the word as a description of what happened. --Aranae 20:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed speculation

I've removed the following text, which can be nothing but speculation: --Tagishsimon (talk)

Other incidents of the day that may have influenced the reaction include terrorist suspects arrested in England, a Washington DC metro stop being shut down due to a suspected package, and fumes emanating from a package at a post office in New York City, resulting in four people being treated there.
That came from the Herald article it was next to. It wasn't a direct quote but definitely was sourced there. I think it should go back. It helps explain the police's reaction. Jjaazz 13:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm calling bullshit on the very idea that a fuming package in NYC would affect the decisions taken in Boston. Why not replace it with "other things that may have influenced the reaction include the crepuscular ineptitude of the senile authorities." Just as likely. If you want to reword it to "The Boston Herald advanced a supposition that..." then it might fly. --Tagishsimon (talk)
Word up on that. Thanks for doing it. --Kizor 14:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe so, but I'm not convinced its BS that the BPD pay attention to, or at least have access to such information, and that it could influence their action. The passions are just too lopsided for this article to be balanced. Hiberniantears 15:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
After re-reading the source article, I'm adding slightly reworded text back, properly attributing it to Boston police Commissioner Ed Davis. It wasn't supposition from the Herald. Jjaazz 00:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed title fix

  • I endorse the title "2007 Boston magnetic light scare" for the following reasons:
  1. It was magnetic lights that people were scared by, not Mooninites.
  2. The fact that the images were of "mooninites" is of little relevance to the subject of the article, whereas the fact that the objecs were magnetic lights is of extreme relevance.
  3. Most media reports I have read about the topic mention Cartoon Network, Adult Swim, and/or ATHF, but not "mooninite".
  4. I had no idea how to spell "mooninite" until about 5 minutes ago, and I'm guessing most people don't either.
  5. The title "magnetic light" accurately identifies what the objects that scared people were (they were not scared by posters or chalk drawings or graffiti of mooninites.) - Chardish 00:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
How can "magnetic light" possible be accurate? The lights were LEDs - there was nothing magnetic about the lights themselves. The devices were magnetic but this was independant of their lighting mechanism. When I do a google search for "magnetic light" the only thing on the first page of results that's related to the boston security bomb mooninite LED scare is THIS ARTICLE. Plymouths 00:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
LED stands for "light emitting diode." So, "light" is simply a more colloquial term. "Magnetic LEDs" might be confused with throwies. Remember, the objects that scared people depicted Mooninites, but are not Mooninites, nor is the fact that they depict Mooninites relevant to why people were scared by them. - Chardish 05:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I would not even bother discussing this. The title is a joke making fun of the people and public servants of Greater Boston. We all look stupid for it. A sub-culture familiar with Mooninites just thinks its funny that an American city existing in an age concerned with security could somehow have a cautious response to a bomb scare... and thus this article has become something of an embarassement to Wikipedia as a handful of well meaning editors attempt to interact with a handful of editors somewhat bent on using this as a soapbox. Hiberniantears 22:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Well that's an incredibly bleak view to take. As both a longtime fan of ATHF and a student at a Boston-area university, I think we (the universal "we") look stupid, but I also think we have done much, much stupider things. As far as the name of the article is concerned, I in no way support the current title, mostly due to the reasoning Chardish provides above (that it wasn't the Mooninites that caused the scare, but light displays made in their images), but I also don't support Chardish's title per Plymouths. In fact, now that I just came up with the phrase "light display", how about 2007 Boston light display scare? Okay, that's not great, but it could be considerably worse. -- Kicking222 22:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm assuming good faith: I don't think that the current title is making fun of the people and the public servants of Boston. I merely think that ATHF fans are merely enjoying the wake of unexpected publicity one of their favorite shows is getting as a result of this, and some ATHF fans support a title that emphasizes the Mooninite nature of the displays. I do understand that "magnetic light" sounds awkward per Plymouths and Kicking222, though - how do people feel about 2007 Boston electric sign scare? I think this is more accurate than "magnetic light", as the fact that the objects lit up and were connected to batteries were what contributed to the scare, less so the magnets. - Chardish 00:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I feel the current title (2007 Boston Mooninite Scare) is quite appropriate. Imagine, for example, that the Boston Police Department had mistaken a parade of My Little Ponies, placed surreptitiously at the gates of Boston, as a fleet of Trojan Horses and responded in a similar matter. Few, if anyone, would want to call it the 2007 Boston Miniature Plastic Pastel Horse Parade Scare. Why go to all the trouble to describe the construction of the devices, arguing whether light is more or less accurate than LED and whether it's important that they were mounted magnetically as opposed to paste, as the source of the scare? They were images of Mooninites. It would be slightly more accurate to call it the 2007 Boston Mooninte Display Scare, but I think the we can call the objects Mooninites, as much as they exist here. Divinus
Your argument fails, as My Little Ponies are plastic pastel horses. The electric signs that were displayed, by contrast, are not Mooninites, but merely depict them. - Chardish 08:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
See sixth sentence above. Divinus 10:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Why do we need the 2007 in the title? In how many other years were there Boston Mooninite Scares? ShadowHalo 08:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I see your point about not needing the 2007, however... - Chardish 08:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we all need to look at the naming conventions outlined at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events): These state If there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications. I do not feel that "Mooninite" is a descriptive term of the objects that scared authorities. "Electric sign" is. Per ShadowHalo, and ditching the unnecessary 2007, does anyone object to Boston electric sign scare? It's even one character shorter than the current title! - Chardish 08:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

As above, sans the year, I feel that the most accurate description would be Boston Mooninite Display Scare because it doesn't involve the tedium of finding the right combination of mechanical parts to describe the signs. It's also quite accurate because "Mooninite" modifies "Display", and it is the display itself, which includes all the parts electric, magnetic, light, LEDs, symbol, etc, that actually triggered the scare as well. I invite reasons as to why Boston Mooninite Display Scare is less accurate or informative than Boston Electric Sign Scare. Divinus 10:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Another thought from me: I expect there would be people who would understand what "Boston electric sign scare" was referring to, but not be immediately sure what "Boston Mooninite scare" was referring to. In other words, I expect there are many who understand the nature of the scare without knowing the proper name of the character the objects depicted. I would conjecture that there are very, very few people who would understand what "Boston Mooninite scare" was referring to but not be sure what "Boston electric sign scare" was referring to. - Chardish 08:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we could use something slightly less aimed at the object and more towards the event. I was thinking along the lines of Boston Advertising Bomb Scare or Boston Guerilla Advertising Scare. Maybe the description of the object is good, but if that was the decision, I wouldn't support "Mooninite" being in it, because I'm from Boston and when I saw one a few days before the scare I had no idea what is represented. --Eigenvalue 23:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Boston Guerilla Advertising Scare might be okay if you don't mind a new debate on guerilla/guerrilla and advertising/advertizing. Yes, fewer people knew what a Mooninite was before the 2007 Boston Mooninite Scare. Just as few people knew what the Bay of Pigs was before the Bay of Pigs Invasion, or Chernobyl before the Chernobyl disaster, or the Electoral college before Primary education. Public ignornace, no matter how widespread, should not be used as an excuse to use a more vague or ambiguous title on the grounds that the public might be using vague or ambiguous terms to search for it. That's what redirects are for. I still submit that the official title should be Boston Mooninite Display Scare. Divinus 00:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
By your logic, if a particular event does not have a commonly accepted name, Wikipedia is free to invent a name for it. This is completely false. Wikipedia's policy on naming conventions says that we should choose a "descriptive name". Many media outlets are running stories about this event that do not even contain the word "Mooninite" in any form. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [(unreliable source - do not use) www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_21261891.shtml] [27] [28] [29] [30] Google News has 3,028 examples of stories from reputable news sources that do not contain "Mooninite.", compared to a scant 738 additional that do. By simple math, 81% of news reporting about this story does not contain the word "Mooninite." A Google News search for "Mooninite" by itself yields an unimpressive 180 results. On this basis, I do not think that the Wikipedia article on this event should be emphasizing the name "Mooninite," which roughly 81% of the English-speaking news media has deemed irrelevant to the story. - Chardish 00:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry for discussing my personal views, but I object to the existence of the page and also the title 2007 Boston Moonite Scare. I know this isn't an AFD discussion, but I vote to:
  • Delete because Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advertising. Terrorism disguised as advertising is STILL advertising. If the page remains, I vote to:
  • Rename page title to Aqua Teen Hunger Force Movie Publicity Stunt or Aqua Teen Hunger Force Movie Marketing Campaign.
I think the entire article (and the incident) is an advertisement by a company using terrorism AS ADVERTISING. I think the devices were MEANT to be mistaken for bombs in order to garner free publicity (on the news, online, even here on Wikipedia) for a cartoon movie. If the article is kept, I think the marketspeak needs to be trimmed so it reads less like a plug. Who knows if employees of Interference Inc have been editing it.
To me it looks like a case of adverterrorism but since I've found little outside references to those terms, they can be left out of the article since it would be OR. Thank you. --Generic52 19:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
It's about time we got some levity around here.Divinus 22:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone floated "733t h4xx0r Lite-Brite pwns Boston, teh m00n r0xx0r OMGWTFBBQ (on wheels)" as a title yet?--Isotope23 00:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I love you. Plymouths 07:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
In defense of "Mooninite Scare" and "2007" I have to admit that the phrase made me laugh, which to some of you, suggests it might not be NPOV. But to the point! When I was looking for this article, I typed Mooninite into wikipedia. If we change the title we need to maximize accessibility. Here's my criterion:
Any title that can get 10 relevant hits on google news after taking out the word "Boston"

A term that can carry you to relevant news stories without using the word "Scare" is even better. I think that's a sign of the terms strength in connection to the story. And while terms in the title that can get you to the relevant news story using the word "scare" are both acceptable and plentiful, most of the terms strongly connected with the story enough to do without are: Mooninite, Lite Brite, and well, things that are pretty funny. The media never refers to this as a magnetic light scare (when not citing this article by its previous name) By trying to be NPOV we are just confusing people. "Bomb scare" is better than "light display scare" because "Bomb scare" is at least a term used by a published source. 128.101.70.101 17:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

These arguments are repeating themselves, where new users are logging on without reading the old threads and bringing up points that they apparently believe haven't been discussed, otherwise one would think they'd refer to the old threads, in this instance "# 4 Article Title", "# 16 Title change", and now we have "# 36 Proposed title fix". This is a common newsgroup and message list signal-to-noise problem. I'm all for further discussion, but not needless repeats. --AC 23:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Furthermore, I think we need a structured discussion with a deadline, much like AfD. - Chardish 20:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. We should set up a vote with all title candidates.Divinus 19:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I have an idea! How about "January 31 2007 Boston Turner Broadcasting Cartoon Network Adult Swim Aqua Teen Hunger Force Mooninite-giving-the-finger LED light display advertising campaign security bomb scare false alarm"? ;) --Candy-Panda 05:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this title change really is unrealistically optimistic. After World War I, people rather short-sightedly thought that it could be referred to as The Great War or the war to end all wars. I think it'd be better to refer to it as something along the lines of "The first Boston 2007 mass false alarm", just to be safe in case the authorities in boston overreact. You never know what's going to come out of M.I.T.

Did this honestly just get a World War reference? That has to be one step away from "you automatically lose the argument if you compare your opponent in a debate to Hitler" rule. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.128.2.28 (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

Graffiti Research Lab and their Night Writer

See [31]

Someone removed this information without comment so I'm leaving it here so that its preserved if removed again. The devices created/used in the incident look like knock offs of devices promoted earlier by the Graffic Research Lab. GRL provides instructions at their site as to how to construct the device which looks similar to the one used by interference. I can't find anyone promoting this type of sign other than GRL before interference subverted it for advertising purposes. 12.96.162.45 19:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Berdovksy's political refugee status

Looking around google, I can't find an absolute confirmation that he entered the US as a political refugee. I also looked around his own web pages and didn't find anything. Can someone offer up a reference to where his refugee status is confirmed. His being from Belerus and the nature of the government of that country on their own are not confirmation.12.96.162.45 19:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

He was born as Pukalo-Berdovskiy Piotr Leonidovich, in Belarus on Dec. 22, 1979. Berdovsky came to the United States as an exchange student in 1996. In 2000, he was granted political asylum and began attending the Studio for Interrelated Media program at the Massachusetts College of Art. [32] Jjaazz 02:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Los Angeles light picture

I've been assisting Bmtpromo in uploading this photo, and he's having trouble adding it.

Could someone who is more active in updating the article add it? I haven't contributed to the article recently, so I figured I'd share it here before inserting it. It needs an appropriate caption too. Leebo86 19:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Kinda tiny, isn't it? D4S 05:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Head of Cartoon Network is gone because of the incident

Jim Samples resigned today which is too bad because he himself did nothing wrong. Mike Lazzo and Keith Crofford are likely soon to be gone too. 12.96.162.45 20:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

  • "Boston Guerilla Marketing Campaign" - New article name possibility![33]
The 2007 Adult Swim Massacre might be a better name in a couple weeks. 12.96.162.45 20:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe that would be a poor name. The marketing campaign wasn't a newsworthy event. It was a contributing cause to a newsworthy event. The newsworthy event was the scare. Capedia 17:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The article indicates the head of Cartoon Network has stepped down over the controversy. Hiberniantears 20:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"suspicious devices"?

The devices were pretty much flat. There was nowhere to hide any explosives, except possibly in the batteries but (1) the fact that the lights were operating pretty much proved that the batteries were, in fact, batteries, and (2) even if the batteries had been pure C4, it would not have been enough to cause significant damage to anything. Any bomb squad member who was actually qualified for the job should have taken no more than 30 seconds to completely dismiss any possibility that these were IEDs.

I'm not going to add this to the article without a solid citation, but if somebody can find one, I believe it is vital to an understanding of what happened and why. The advertizers are really guilty only of failing to realize that public officials can be incompetent to the degree manifested in this incident. Chicago tried to warn them, but they didn't believe it. Oops. Capedia 17:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is extremely one-sided. The main reason for the hysteria was the placement of the signs. In other cities, the signs were put in visible public places. In Boston, they were put under bridges and hidden away for the most part. This is was caused the reaction that occured. That and also the bomb scare at Tufts, which at the time Boston Police though was related.

It's official

The west coast is the only civilized place left on earth. See the reactions of the various cities? Only Washington, Oregon, and California used any sense whatsoever. The others were doing ridiculous things like asking for reimbursement (when their funds come from our taxes!)

So.... What exactly does this have to do with trying to make an encyclopedia article on this event? Bitnine 01:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Smug alert. Get your hazard suit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.33.169.132 (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC).
Let's complain about opinions with opinions. Mileslivingston

Moving

{{editprotected}} Since there isn't really a consensus yet as to what this page should be named, I think in the meantime it should be moved to 2007 Boston Mooninite scare, as scare is not a proper noun and should not be capitalized as per WP:CAPS. :: ZJH (T C E) 15:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

(clearing EPP requests) That's reasonable, at least. I've moved it to fix the capitalisation. This doesn't make the new location the final location, I have no desire to get involved in that. Proto ► 20:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't expecting you to get involved in that. I don't even want to be involved in it! ;) :: ZJH (T C E) 20:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

In this case as it references as specific event and not a general idea, the word "Scare" would be capitalized. pookster11 05:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

That would assume that "Boston Mooninite Scare" is the specific name of the event, but it doesn't have any sort of official name, so it shouldn't be capitalized. :: ZJH (T C E) 19:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The specific name of this event should be "That time a bunch of pot smoking trust fund hippies disrupted the city, and were caught on tape laughing at it". On behalf of those who are forced to work for a living, thanks trust fund anarchists, for thinking it is either artistic, or funny, to ruin the lives of the working poor for your own munchie-driven agenda.

Move to anything without "Mooninite"

There seems to be a pretty strong consensus that this article's title should omit the ultra-fanboyish "Mooninite", which just makes us all look ridiculous. I will therefore support any title without "Mooninite". My personal preference would just be 2007 Boston bomb scare; we don't need to include the cause of the scare in the title.--Pharos 22:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've read every word of this Talk page, yet find no such consensus. It's plain that many of those sympathetic to the views of Boston's Menino administration feel the term "Mooninite" lacks sufficient gravity to reflect the civic seriousness of terrorist attacks. The underlying assumption might be that significant events in American History deserve indubitably serious names to match. Examples to the contrary: "Boston Tea Party", "Teapot Dome Scandal", "Bay of Pigs"... (see also '36 Proposed title fix').
As per '4 Article Title' (qv), "2007 Boston bomb scare" is vague because a "bomb scare" usually refers to either a real bomb that didn't go off or a bomb hoax.
There also seems to be a prejudice that a satirical animated cartoon could possibly be anything other than historically irrelevant, so that using a proper noun from that cartoon is an automatic offense against sobriety. If so, this prejudice "poisons the well", as there's little an advocate for cartooning can say without being condemned by default. --AC 11:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
While I don't see the strong consensus that's being referred to, if the current name really is so irksome, I'd (arbitrarily) say go ahead and nominate something like 2007 Boston guerrilla marketing scare. But do keep in mind that some editors simply wanted something that was not vague and would narrowly identify the specific incident, and were not, in fact, attempting to suggest that there existed an actual fear of Mooninites anywhere. Anyways, that title seems specific, descriptive, and neutral in tone. Would running with it let us be done with this? Bitnine 15:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem is, that "Mooninites" is just an idiosycratic fan in-reference. I would have no problem using "Cartoon Network" or "Adult Swim", for example. 2007 Boston guerrilla marketing scare is also fine by me; I would definitely support it. Anyone else?--Pharos 03:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
There were no bombs, but there were Mooninites. The title's pretty good as it is. --Yath 04:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course there were no bombs; there was a "bomb scare", a phrase which actually makes clear that there were no bombs. But, per above, I'm not wedded to the "bomb scare" phrase.--Pharos 03:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Traffic Counter Scare

Another scare in Boston, this time involving traffic counter devices. This is sure to make its rounds through the transportation engineering circuit, but I felt I'd pass it on here in case anyone felt it was notable enough for this article: http://www.myfoxboston.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=2527658&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1

  • “The consultant didn’t have permission to set the counters”
  • “It looks like a private firm may be to blame.”
  • “The rubber bands [tubes] stretched across the street were set with some kind of pistol [ramset].”
  • “Anything that’s not there every day is suspicious.”
  • “No word from the police yet if the consultant will face any fines.”

Enjoy! --Thisisbossi 04:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday afternoon, I put in a blurb about that. :) Karrmann 11:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, so you did. Thanks! --Thisisbossi 12:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Reason for protection against moves listed on the 'list of protected articles' page?

Actually, it's not. MGlosenger 02:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

"Current"?

It's been more than a month; I think we can safely remove the {{current}} tag now.... -Mysekurity 18:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

In a a world gone mad...

lite-brites are bombs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.201.174.176 (talk) 04:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

The talk page is not a place to dicuss article-irrelevent topics. I would suggest the Adult Swim forums if you wish to discuss your feelings on the subject. The Bone III 03:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Excessive number of oppinions.

It seems like everyone and their mothers were cited in this article, especially the public reaction section. The quotes from the 20 different bloggers, G4 and NY Times really don't need to be there. Infact from what I read, it appears to me that G4 applied their own little marketing scheme to this article. Please trim this up. If anything, it should be the publics reaction to the devices, not the police's reaction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.212.199.222 (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Moves

Please discuss moves here before doing it. Move protection is now turned off. You may want to read prior discussions regarding previous titles and suggestions here, here, here, here, and here. :: ZJH (T C E) 20:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Clicking on those links doesn't (at present) lead to archives -- rather all of those lead to blank 'edit' pages. Links to Talk:2007 Boston Mooninite Scare lead to Talk:2007 Boston bomb scare. --AC (talk) 10:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
What's more worrisome is that the missing Talk pages aren't on Google or Wayback. Presumably it's all in an archive somewhere, but where? Is this a software bug? Editor error? Administrative preference? (If the latter, that should be made explicit.) --AC (talk) 04:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Beg pardon, it seems that today Talk:2007 Boston Mooninite scare/Archive 1 works fine. "Never Mind..." -- E. Litella --AC (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I've moved the archive to comply with the new title. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Why does the ad campaign scare have to be mentioned in the majority of the Aqua Teen articles? ja ja ja 05:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems Chardish moved the title on 12/14 with the rationale:

Quick search of Google news archive reveals that the media is calling this a "bomb scare" and that the word "mooninite" isn't even showing up in some articles.

Due to bias, overreaction and sensationalism I don't see how "the media" cited are particularly decisive for our titling. Our goal should be to accurately describe things, not to misleadingly describe something in compliance to another media's errors. The Talk archive shows no consensus, and already contains the argument Chardish used to justify his move, (qv. anetode 3/2/07), which wasn't compelling.
It might help to summarize what's been said so far regarding titles -- time doesn't permit today, but I'll try to get around to it soon. --AC (talk) 04:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Lets not try to open a useless old debate, "bomb scare" works just fine. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I dissent. Please do not try to squelch a debate after archiving it by abusing the efforts and opinions of people you disagreed with using dismisive labels like "useless" while highly praising your own work as "fine". We haven't reached consensus, and underhanded rhetoric doesn't help us do so. There wasn't a bomb, nor any attempt to make anyone think there was a bomb -- i.e. there was no "scarer" and no "bomb", etc. The title "Boston bomb scare" breezily mislabels Beantown panic.
How about 2007 Boston Mooninite "bomb" panic? Question -- why is "2007" in there? It makes it sounds like a regular event. The War of the Worlds (radio) has no year in the title. --AC (talk) 07:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't archive debate and I am not attempting to abuse or praise anything. My comment was one of weariness over the hopelessly pedantic debate. I no longer care about the title, so long as it identifies the event. Call it the "Great Aqua Teen Boston FUBAR", just don't force this into WP:LAME territory. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm among those who believe pedantry is appropriate when editing an encyclopedia. "For want of a nail..." --AC (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Reasons for the move: There can be a bomb scare without an actual bomb. People feared that there was a bomb. "Mooninite scare" implies that there were fears of mooninites, which there were not. It has already been demonstrated that much of the coverage of the event in the media did not include the word "mooninite," thus making the term confusing. Also, the media has been calling this a "bomb scare" - thus it is a generally accepted term and should be used as the title for this article. Google News Archive returns 0 hits for "Boston Mooninite scare" and 28 for "Boston bomb scare". It seems counterproductive to assign a term to this event that no one is using. - Chardish (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. A question to clarify your position on the importance of mass news media usage: if Google News Archive returned more hits for "Boston Mooninite scare" than it did for "Boston bomb scare" would you then prefer the former title? --AC (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
More than likely, though not certainly. I think it's generally prudent to call historical events what they're commonly called by historical scholars and current events what they're commonly called by the news media. (Examples of when this would not be prudent would be when the media commonly uses a controversial term with heavy POV implications.) Google News Archive is a good barometer of the media, though it is by no means comprehensive or authoritative. I think the most important thing, though, is for articles to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis; one rule of thumb cannot apply to all circumstances. - Chardish (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
That was a helpful clarification. I'd argue that the current media-derived title falls into the category of "controversial term with heavy POV implications", for the reasons already given. However "Mooninites" really bugs some editors, so I'm now undecided on a best title, although "Mooninites" has less POV than "bomb scare" and seems the lesser of two evils. There's no rush, (I'd prefer to think about things more), just so that it's understood disagreement remains. --AC (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

were the signs ever actually identified by any authority as bombs?

So the sense I've gotten from reading news articles about the scare is that the signs were generally described by authorities in more ambiguous terms -- unknown device, potential bomb, etc.; now, out of an abundance of caution, bomb squads generally treat such things as if they were bombs, but I don't think the current article lead (stating unambiguously that the devices were seen as bombs) is accurate. --192.18.128.13 21:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)+

I think the article is correct. They thought they were bombs but were mistaken. But, I am not sure. It had a battery pack, wires sticking out, a guy waving the finger and were placed in odd locations (under bridges, on Fenway Park, etc.)

LOL, do you think a bomb would have a glowing alien giving you the finger? If I'm going to make a bomb, I would cover it with concrete-texture paper and don't let anything sticking out of it. Deathkenli 11:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I dunno...I think if someone was going to put a bomb somewhere now, making it look like an ad for an upcoming movie would make it less likely to get reported. Just because you would do it one way doesn't mean everyone would. --PatrickD (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
What you are saying is exactly what I mean, you want to make bombs look like normal objects, not quirky LED finger-blocks.--154.5.61.233 (talk) 07:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I personally try and make all my bombs look like scale modle replicas of dubya, in the hope he visits boston soon. --82.35.192.193 (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)..

what would the payload on a device that size be? they were paper thin and placed high on the walls of brick buildings.

I wonder if you put peaches on structural areas of bridges and on signs around Boston to advertise your fruit stand, if people would be like "oh my god, there's an unknown biological device! WMDs!" and force the police to have them jettisoned into space. I would understand if it just created a bomb scare; but when they located them, to spend millions of dollars blowing them up, then shutting down every major city in the country? It makes me sick that everyone in the media, even the smallest fish in the pond, all defend the Boston PD's actions. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Scare quotes in opening

i.e., those around "Mooninite," seem unnecessary. The fact that it is referred to as a character and it links to the page on Mooninites seems to perform the quotes' function just fine, making them unnecessary. They also seem to me to violate NPOV. Removing barring disagreement. - Waidawut (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Police Analyst Recognized Device??

From the reporting at the time it seemed like the first identification of these as related to ATHF was from a local shopkeeper who had one on her store and phoned the police at the time. The police seemed totally clueless to the fact that these were not IEDs until well into the evening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.221.152 (talk) 04:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If you blew up a DVD player, the parts would look like a bomb. I think the analyst said some parts (internal battery, timer etc) were indicative of an IED, but so are a lot of things. This is because of the "improvised" part in IED. Overall, the entire incident is so stupid. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 10:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 10:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Budding edit war in Aftermath section

Earlier this evening IP 67.82.165.119, without any explanation in edit summaries or on the talk page, made a series of six edits that restored most of the changes that I made yesterday in two edits that:

  • remove editorializing and another statement not included in the cited source, stick to the cited source, copyedit)
  • tone this down a bit. stick to the sources. the cited source does not use the word "calamity". nor does it use the terms "panic, fear, strife, unrest, disorder, rioting, wrath, and struggling".

There have been a number of other changes by 67.82.165.119 and reverts by several other editors going back to August 2nd.

I will revert 67.82.165.119's changes again in a few minutes. It is my hope that there will be some discussion here before these changes are restored again.

Here are the two versions with differences shown in bold italics:

67.82.165.119's version my version

On February 5, 2007 state and local agencies came to an agreement with both Turner Broadcasting and Interference, Inc. to pay for costs incurred in this calamity. As part of the settlement, which resolves every civil and criminal claim towards the panic, fear, strife, unrest, disorder, wrath, rioting, and anarchy, Turner and Interference agreed to pay $2 million — $1 million to go towards the Boston Police Department and $1 million towards the Department of Homeland Security. The two organizations did this because local authorities deemed their initial apologies not enough as announced by Dan Conley, who is the District Attorney for Suffolk County, Massachusetts, in a speech on NWCN saying the people who are responsible for this "reckless stunt", are liable for the havoc it caused to both the city and the region.<ref name="$2million"/> Also, as an unfortunate result, on February 9, 2007, the week after the commotion occurred, Cartoon Network's original manager, Jim Samples, resigned from being in charge of Cartoon Network in order to avoid criminal liability, to make up for this disaster, and to let everybody who use to work for him move on. And shortly after his resignation, one of his employees, Stuart Snyder, took over his position as the manager, and has been controlling Cartoon Network since that time.[1] 		On February 5, 2007 state and local agencies came to an agreement with both Turner Broadcasting and Interference, Inc. to pay for costs incurred in the incident. As part of the settlement, which resolves any potential civil or criminal claims against the companies, Turner and Interference agreed to pay $2 million — $1 million to go towards the Boston Police Department and $1 million towards the Department of Homeland Security. This is in addition to the companies' apologies which local authorities deemed too little as announced by Dan Conley, District Attorney for Suffolk County, Massachusetts, in a speech on NWCN saying the people who are responsible for this "reckless stunt", are liable for the havoc it caused to both the city and the region.<ref name="$2million"/> Also, on February 9, 2007, the week after the commotion occurred, Cartoon Network's original manager, Jim Samples, resigned "in recognition of the gravity of the situation that occurred under my watch" and with the "hope that my decision allows us to put this chapter behind us and get back to our mission of delivering unrivaled original animated entertainment for consumers of all ages".[2]
--Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Weber, Harry R. (February 10, 2007). "Cartoon Network Head Resigns After Scare". ABC News. Archived from the original on April 3, 2007. Retrieved August 24, 2011. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Weber, Harry R. (February 10, 2007). "Cartoon Network Head Resigns After Scare". ABC News. Archived from the original on April 3, 2007. Retrieved August 24, 2011. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

NPOV VIOLATION? UNDUE WEIGHT?

Does this title- bomb SCARE- violate NPOV? The article seems to open up directly on a negative tone. However, at the same time, if that is how the event is normally referred to outside of Wikipedia, I guess it would be considered neutral . . .

Also, there seems to be undue weight with regard to the excessive comments made by random, anonymous unimportant people supporting the seemingly comical "joke" of planting these look-alike bombs - which also creates this unequal balance and skews NPOV towards a more biased ending in favour of what these Berdovsky and Stevens accomplished. The article seems to be retain a slight bias in the favour of Berdovsky and Stevens and seems to - again, slightly, inadvertently mock the Boston Police and those seriously disturbed by the incident. Are the comments by anonymous individuals even reliable/verifiable?

Serenabergs1990 (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I'd change the title to "2007 Boston 'bomb' scare". "hoax" nothing. No one made any threats or even any suggestions of threats. Just because people panicked when they saw something they didn't recognize is no reason for the cops to get clueless. - Denimadept (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Added side-by-side of Lite-Brite

Lite-Brite and a Mooninite display
Lite-Brite (without black paper) spelling "hello"
A Lite-Brite (without black paper) spelling "hello"
Close-up of one of the LED displays while being lit
Close-up of one of the LED displays resembling Ignignokt while being lit
Lite-Brite children's toy (left) and Mooninite display (right)

Added side-by-side of Lite-Brite to the article.

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

2007 Boston Mooninite panic

Page name moved to 2007 Boston Mooninite panic.

Page move to 2007 Boston Mooninite panic rationale explained
  1. Previously was "2007 Boston bomb scare".
  2. However I looked for a definition of the phrase "bomb scare".
  3. There is no article on "bomb scare" on Wikipedia.
  4. But "bomb scare" redirects to bomb threat.
  5. The first sentence of the article bomb threat says: "A bomb threat is generally defined as a threat, usually verbal or written, to detonate an explosive or incendiary device to cause property damage, death, or injuries, whether or not such a device actually exists."
  6. There was no bomb.
  7. There was no threat.
  8. Therefore it is inappropriate to have "bomb scare", or "bomb", or "threat" in the title of this article.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2007 Boston Mooninite panic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2007_Boston_Mooninite_panic/Archive_1&oldid=1142749199"