Jump to content

Talk:2016 New York and New Jersey bombings

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

Change name to something like "17 September 2016 United States bombings"

[edit]

To include both incidents into one article. Beejsterb (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not until a clear link has been established between the two incidents even if everything seems to hint towards that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.162.232.240 (talk) 02:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there isn't enough evidence to link the two yet. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Really? So when two explosions (both currently unconfirmed to be bombings) occur on the same day, it's natural to just group them in the same article and call them bombings? Even if both incidents were confirmed to be bombings, the chances of them being connected are much slimmer. Parsley Man (talk) 05:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, confound it all! Parsley Man (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there currently an article for the bomb in Seaside Park? I couldn't find it. Edge3 (talk) 13:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now there is 2016 New Jersey bombing. And merging these articles is not the best idea, as they are most likely unrelated. 15:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Even if they were related and proven to be attacks I dont see bombing in two cities as enough of a reason to use United States bombing as a title.--64.229.164.105 (talk) 04:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If there is an etablished connection between the two then they should be merged, but not under the "United States" name. I would suggest something more specific like, "East Coast", something with "Northeast", or if the bombing in New Jersey is in the New York metro, something with "New York area" or New York metropolitan area, though they might still be to far away from each other for that. William Casey (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Bombing"

[edit]
The chief of the NYPD in a press conference referred to the attack as a "bombing". This being said I am now more open for discussion regarding the article's title. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Can we change the article's title to "2016 Chelsea explosion" for the time being? I don't want to jump the gun here as I am hearing investigators don't know what the cause was. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I went with WP:BOLD here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If they've confirmed there was an improvised explosive device, which this article says they did, then I think this title is fine. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They haven't confirmed it, these are early reporting. The NYFD said that it was "likely" an IED but not confirmed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This shouldn't be called a bombing. So far, it's an explosion. 208.44.84.138 (talk) 02:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen anything "confirmed" in the sources: [1][2]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2 videos on VOA

[edit]

Both appear to be produced by VOA which would be Public Domain: http://www.voanews.com/a/loud-explosion-reported-manhattan-chelsea-neighborhood/3513981.html Victor Grigas (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename 2016 Manhattan bombing

[edit]

Reason is: it turns out to have been a bomb. Not an "explosion.".E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "Chelsea bombing" works as a title for all the reasons why Chelsea leads to a disambig page, and, in particular, because Chelsea, London.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Chelsea bombing could also refer to Chelsea Clinton after a visit to the restroom following a chili cookout contest. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha. Or Chelsea F.C. epically losing to Liverpool F.C. two days ago. No offense against Chelsea fans, I think I'ma run now. epicgenius (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Knowledgekid87 and ProfessorTofty: Is it now so obvious that title should be "bombing" that we just move it, or shall we open a discussion?E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that at this point it should be named a "bombing" per the sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. epicgenius (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On an unrelated note, someone needs to fix Rossbawse's mess after they cut and pasted the entire article to 2016 Manhattan bombing. epicgenius (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that an editor moved section on "New Jersey bombing" to "New Jersey explosion" without discussion or justification. I reverted it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We still don't know much of the circumstances behind the explosion. Parsley Man (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We know that it was a bombing. And we know that you were instructed at ANI, explicitely, after a discussion that you started and that boomeranged on you, NOT to follow me to articles that I start and/or edit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You LOVE to keep bringing that up, don't you? I DIDN'T KNOW YOU WERE EDITING ON THE NEW JERSEY ARTICLE! And even if I did, this really isn't the same thing as editing on every single article you've ever edited on, just for minor edits and such. Parsley Man (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whichever title is correct, the history still needs to be fixed, so let's not argue about that. If either of you want an RM, then you can create one on this page. epicgenius (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but what's an RM? Parsley Man (talk) 02:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Requested moves. epicgenius (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Gotcha. Parsley Man (talk) 03:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jesse Viviano: Please discuss here about renaming the article before you actually do it. There are still some in opposition to it. Parsley Man (talk) 03:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I only see you opposing the move though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius opposes it too. He was the one who undid the previous move. Parsley Man (talk) 03:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As do I. Request the move, discuss it, then act on consensus. Lets not force a move protection action on the page, ok? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I opposed it at the time because there wasn't yet evidence that there was a bombing. However, if there is evidence that this is actually a bombing, I wouldn't object to moving it, though I wouldn't move the page myself (and nor should anyone else, yet). I think a requested move would be the best way to gauge editor opinions in regards to this proposed move. epicgenius (talk) 03:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all in for your suggestion, then. Parsley Man (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 September 2016

[edit]

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

2016 Manhattan explosion → 2016 Manhattan bombing – As per E.M.Gregory, it turns out to have been a bomb. Not an "explosion." Note: I have previously expressed an opposing opinion. epicgenius (talk) 03:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ahmad Khan Rahami

[edit]

I am requesting immediate expansion of this article Ahmad Khan Rahami, he is the main suspect and is currently at large. Information regarding him needs to be immediately accessible until he is no longer the main suspect. Valoem talk contrib 13:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We know next to nothing about him. Make a new article only when the relevant information added to this page is so great, that it needs a new page. And right now, we don't even know if he's the real perpetrator. He could be innocent for all we know. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He is the main suspect numerous sources are documenting him. Valoem talk contrib 14:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Neutrality:, I've added numerous sources showing notability, the best way to begin the expansion is to split, we can open a discussion, but with the article split, this way expansion is immediate and more effective, in fact listing it for AfD would help. The person is of noteworthy interest and is an international name right now. He made multiple attacks in New York metro area, not a minor attack. Valoem talk contrib 14:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are only three sources... Parsley Man (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see User:Valoem's point, journalists are digging up details of suspect's background faster than we can type (I have added some to the page; including the alleged recent backyard bonfire of computers) I think we want to have details on this suspect, just, this is best as a single page - unless he turns out to have done previous notable things.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should Ahmad Khan Rahami redirect to this page?

[edit]

A separate page was created for Ahmad Khan Rahami, who is currently wanted for questioning. I believe that that page should redirect to this page 2016 Manhattan bombing, since Rahami's notability is entirely linked to a discrete incident or set of incidents. Additionally, splitting the page unnecessarily splits content, which impedes navigation and forces readers to go to two different pages unnecessarily.

Shall the Ahmad Khan Rahami redirect to 2016 Manhattan bombing? --Neutralitytalk 14:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am tagging @Harizotoh9:, @Another Believer:, @Epic Genius:, as they have recently commented or edited on this point. Neutralitytalk 14:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Already two major events in the NY Metro area and Manhattan, unless he is not longer a suspect, this is getting split. Valoem talk contrib 14:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean 3 major events. Actually, 3 major single events. epicgenius (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Knowledgekid87: please give this discussion the allotted seven days, per WP:RECENT more information is emerging as we speak. Please allow this article due time for expansion, also some editor who had participated in the expansion have yet to input their opinion. Valoem talk contrib 16:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Valoem: May I remind you that a redirect isn't deletion, if the suspect is deemed anything more or when more info comes forward the article can always be un-redirected. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that it should redirect; for instance, I came to read up on Ahmad Khan Rahami, not about the associated events. So I am a bit annoyed that there is not a separate page, just like there is for most other people on wikipedia in general. 2A02:8388:1600:C80:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Captured

[edit]

There are reports in social media that the dude has been captured.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed, and also there was a police shootout. epicgenius (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It should be in the article as CNN is WPRS. Also there are conflicting reports that one or two officers have been shot.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another report of the capture and that two officers were shot but nothing serious. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The news is already in the article, though. epicgenius (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

[edit]
Merged, moved, and moved again. epicgenius (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Someone wants to merge 2016 New Jersey bombings into here epicgenius (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That does seem to make sense to me at this point, as the events are believed to be linked, and there is a search for a common perpetrator. Brianga (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest 2016 New York metropolitan area bombings. Brianga (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine, but thus far only one bomb actually exploded, so should in be 2016 New York metropolitan area bombing and bombing attempts? Neutralitytalk 14:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Seaside bomb did explode. Brianga (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's right. Never mind then. Neutralitytalk 14:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The bomb in Elizabeth rail station also exploded, albeit it was somehow triggered by the bomb disabling robot the police were using. It's a blessing no one was injured (also because: good police work).E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
merge/redirect I started the page New Jersey bombings on the assumption that teh indcidents were separate. They apparently wer enot. This should be an uncontroversial merge content/redirect title.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of terrorist incidents in September 2016

[edit]

Is List of terrorist incidents in September 2016 appropriate for a See also section? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're at the phase where we know it's going to be Islamic terrorism, but it hasn't been officially confirmed. So just wait until then. Might take a day or two. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or it could just be a mentally unstable person. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We go through this same song and dance for every single attack. Muslim carries out an attack. Wikipedians downplay or ignore any Islamic angle. Often delete or remove sources. There is some edit warring, until a consensus is formed and there are so many reliable sources where the Islamic motivation has to be included.
That being said, Wikipedian rules are to not rush, and to rely on sources. We should stick to the sources for now. When they conduct their investigation, they will find evidence of Islamic terrorism and then it can be included. Until that time such information should not be included or referred to. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is downplay at fault, the question that should be asked is "What is Islamic terrorism"? Many Muslims around the world have denounced the terrorists as "un-Islamic" so unless sources come out and say "Yeah this was x" we cant go by what people want it to be. In short I fully agree with you about waiting but it is a gray area with the wording. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that we should pre-emotively add something because you think it's going to be confirmed in the future anyway? That's like saying that either Clinton or Trump is going to be elected president. Who knows, maybe it could be a third party candidate. Same goes here – you can never know for sure that it's terrorism until it's confirmed (or denied), and the same goes for Islamic terrorism. epicgenius (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
USA Today says experts call this terrorism: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/09/18/experts-say-nyc-attack-terrorism/90618090/. It should be categorised as such and the see also link should be included. Fences&Windows 19:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's terrorism. But we don't know if it is Islamic-inspired. epicgenius (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But are those experts directly involved with the investigation? I personally feel we can only get really verifiable info from someone at the head of said investigation. Parsley Man (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These experts have to be named. Unnamed sources are useless for wikipedia. 2A02:8388:1600:C80:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, should we probably categorize it under "Terrorist incidents in the United States in 2016" and such but leave out anything ISIL-related, since ISIL didn't even make a statement about these bombings? The New York and New Jersey governors have mentioned these incidents as terrorism and federal prosecutors are planning on charging the perpetrator with terrorism-related offense, so I'm starting to be put on the fence about this. Or does the perp being alive make a difference and pose a WP:BLPCRIME issue? Parsley Man (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Guess it's no longer a debatable issue. Parsley Man (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should await the trial before deciding? Just because the FBI, the governor, or anyone else outside the courtroom, says something makes no difference. Executive folks blab all the time. I can't forget what they said about, and did to, Aaron Swartz and sooo many others. StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 09:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More videos here

[edit]

http://www.voanews.com/a/investigators-search-for-suspects-in-new-york-bombing/3514942.html

In case anyone wants to migrate them

Victor Grigas (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions

[edit]

Can someone look over the edits by this editor? He keeps on deleting NYTimes supported material, and other material. More than once. Footnoted. With zero explanation. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_New_York_and_New_Jersey_bombings&diff=740229631&oldid=740229550 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:E016:A700:4484:D7B0:8756:2C26 (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wasn't removing anything. What a lie. You were removing it. No one will find what I so-called "deleted," as I restored the status quo. I didn't delete anything. epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, these edits were not improvements. That's why I reverted. This is a non-issue. epicgenius (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reflecting suspect info

[edit]

We can't say he committed the crime. We don't. We reflect what the press says. That is appropriate. He is covered for what we reflect in the intenational press. As long as we stay within what the NYT and others report, we are within wp rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:E016:A700:43E:7686:B696:B5C9 (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing {{infobox person}} to {{infobox criminal}} implies that the person named in the infobox is known to have committed a crime. We may believe that is true, but until he is at least charged with a crime, we will not label him as such, as explained at WP:BLPCRIME. At the present time, the additional fields in {{infobox criminal}} are not needed. We can revisit the discussion when and if they are. General Ization Talk 22:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly right. We can simply use the person infobox until such time that he is convicted by a jury.- MrX 22:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See also Template:Infobox criminal, which stresses that it is to be used only for those convicted of crimes or who die during the commission so are presumed guilty but never prosecuted (Nolle prosequi). General Ization Talk 22:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what it says. "Only?" No. That's untrue. "Generally" is true. And this is just the sort of case - wide international coverage in the media - that fits into the exception to the general category. His name is already reflected in papers around the world. But please - don't exaggerate with an untruth in seeking to sway editors. And note - he has now in fact been charged with attempted murder, addressing the point of one of the above editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B810:6B62:E51A:B0A8:F23A:795A (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between a conviction and being charged. Parsley Man (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly are you trying to accomplish with this? Is this about your ego? As I explained, there is no need for the additional fields in {{infobox criminal}} at this time. We will continue to follow policy, the present case requiring no exception to it. If you do not, prepare to be blocked, repeatedly if necessary. General Ization Talk 00:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still not convicted. Can be called the suspect, perp, person of interest, ODB, etcHeyyouoverthere (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
General - what I'm trying to accomplish is to point out that you mis-stated what the rule says. You said the rule says "it is to be used only for those convicted of crimes or who die during the commission." It doesn't. It may be best to quote the rule, to avoid mischaracterizing it. Reflecting, for example that the rule says "Infobox criminal is rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal." That opens up the possibility that we can discuss what the rule actually says. That the infobox is in fact used, though rarely, where the person is not a convicted criminal. And here -where there is widespread discussion of him in this regard, across many papers, across the globe -our concern that wp will say something that would not be known otherwise disappears. And it falls I would say into that exception. If you say incorrectly as you did that the rule does not allow exceptions, you mislead people and we do not have this discussion.2604:2000:E016:A700:4484:D7B0:8756:2C26 (talk) 03:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
General -You also said2604:2000:E016:A700:4484:D7B0:8756:2C26 (talk) 03:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC) "until he is at least charged with a crime, we will not label him as such." Well -- now he as (at least) been charged with a crime. So ...[reply]
I think what General meant was convicted. Parsley Man (talk) 03:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In re: "Infobox criminal is rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal," the subject of this conversation has no claim of notability other than the fact that he is suspected (but not yet convicted) of having committed a crime (several, now). The quoted paragraph is referring to a case where the subject has some claim of notability other than the crimes of which they have been convicted, such as being an entertainer (e.g., Rolf Harris) or a football player and occasional actor (O. J. Simpson). The quoted sentence is completely irrelevant here. As for the fact that the policy at Template:Infobox criminal says "generally" rather than "only", you are correct, but there should always be a compelling reason to do something other than what is generally done per policy. There is none here, other than the fact you are in the mood for an argument. I, for one, won't indulge you further. General Ization Talk 04:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, I was taking a look at Template:Infobox_person, under "criminal_charge" it says "For convicted criminals only." Thoughts? Drewmutt (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article says

[edit]

"Manhattan investigators discovered surveillance video"? Manhattan is not a city. There is no Manhattan Police Department. Did they mean NYPD? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably meant NYPD investigators assigned to the borough of Manhattan. What does the cited source say? General Ization Talk 22:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "NYPD investigators in Manhattan" (to distinguish them from the investigators in New Jersey). General Ization Talk 22:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
there are/were numerous agencies investigating in Manhattan, the NYPD being one of many. I don't see a problem with this wording. Brianga (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I worded it that way to clarify we were talking about the investigation into the Manhattan bombing, but I guess I just confused you guys in the process. :( Parsley Man (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article also says

[edit]

WP: "Rahami was licensed to carry firearms.[47]" following to the cited source, NBCnews, it says: "By 2014, just seven years later, Rahami was married to a Pakistani woman and had a "nasty" disposition and a license to carry a firearm." Rahami was resident of Elizabeth and Perth Amboy, New Jersey. NBCnews also says in Aug 2014 he was arrested and charged with aggravated assault and unlawful possession of a weapon in Union County NJ. New Jersey carry licenses are difficult to get and keep. If he had one, the Aug 2014 incident would normally result in pulling the license. Any reliable source state that he had a license to carry firearms in Sep 2016 as the article implies? -- Naaman Brown (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The case was eventually thrown out of court. Firearm license can't be revoked simply because the person was, at some point, criminally prosecuted. A finding of guilt is essential. StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary questioning

[edit]

What is the FEDERAL definition of this? (Or it's such a triviality that everyone knows except me?) StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 09:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I wonder if "he underwent secondary questioning" simply means "he underwent an extra round of questioning"? If so, should we get rid of that vernacular? StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 13:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary inspection in the context of immigration or customs means that a passenger entering or returning to the US has been identified as needing extra screening or questioning, perhaps due to the places to which the passenger has travelled. General Ization Talk 13:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've added it in.StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How many police officers were injured in Linden?

[edit]

The article says 2, but, according to this source (cited in the article), it should probably be 3 since Mark Kahana needed medical treatment, too. I think, it's fair to say that he was injured even though he didn't have an open wound. StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 10:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

31 vs 29 injured

[edit]

FYI, the initial reporting was that 29 people were injured in the Chelsea bombing, but the reporting today has said that it was actually 31. See here (AP); NBC.

This should be integrated into the article somehow; I would do it myself but I'm occupied with some real-world stuff at the moment. Neutralitytalk 02:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume 24 went to the hospital, as before. Someone please advise if that number also changed. StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think 2 people were left off the initial injury count. 24 people still went to the hospital. epicgenius (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Split off Ahmad Khan Rahami article?

[edit]

It is getting near to the time where a decision should be made regarding Ahmad, do we split or not split him into his own article? Right now to take into consideration his info makes up a good portion of the article, while this isn't bad the main focus should be about the bombing as a whole. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He is still only a suspect, albeit one who has been charged. A redirect is in place. I'd say no to a split at this time. General Ization Talk 13:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That may be, but he has received widespread coverage and is no longer a low profile person. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Debatable. "A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event." His only notability is in connection with this one event, and he did not actively seek connection with it (in fact, evaded it). The redirect is appropriate but not a separate article at this time. General Ization Talk 14:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The bombings were two separate events though which each received coverage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need a split, at least not at this point. He is the central figure in this event, and splitting presents substantial risk of inconsistency of articles, impeding reader navigation, and so forth. I would hold off. Neutralitytalk 13:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will agree and say hold off for now then. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We can wait until, say, the trial where we will probably learn more. Parsley Man (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The two men with the luggage

[edit]

More people here (images can be migrated) https://twitter.com/NewYorkFBI/status/778634686021107712 Victor Grigas (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Grigas This is in relation to the 27th Street bomb, which these two men took out of a suitcase. The FBI merely wants to question them ("The FBI is interested in speaking to these individuals and recovering the luggage."). They aren't suspects according to this article, but it's weird that they are "most wanted." epicgenius (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More info here. epicgenius (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rahami's wife's nationality is unclear (Update: she is Pakistani)

[edit]

Sources differ on his wife's nationality. The Washington Post quotes (search for "it is not clear whether his wife") an intelligence guy saying that her nationality (Afghan or Pakistani) is unclear. Our Wikipedia article used to say things like "She went to her native Pakistan", so I decided to put this info out there... StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 22:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CNN calls her "a Pakistani woman". Click here . Namarly (talk) 19:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This source says "Rahami’s extended family, originally from Afghanistan, ...". Go figure. StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on what is exactly meant there by "extended family". Because even that source also says about the wife herself "a Pakistani woman". Namarly (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, she does appear to be a Pakistani citizen. Search for "and whose Pakistani passport had expired". — Preceding unsigned comment added by StrokeOfMidnight (talk • contribs) 20:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That was in the CNN link too...so I don't have to search for "Pakistani passport expired" in that dailybeast site, because I saw that already in the CNN link that I gave you above. That's stated there also. But I checked out your dailybeast link, and it's mentioned there too. The CNN page also says it though. Namarly (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three source URLs point to the same article

[edit]

<ref name="FBI">, <ref name="WaPoCharges">, and <ref name="washingtonpost.com"> seem to point to the same article by The Washington Post. I didn't want to just merge the three into one mechanically since the newest source might not support the same facts it supported previously. I will look into this later today, but meanwhile if someone else does the fact checking, all the better. StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That does seem to happen during articles on recent events, where everyone is scrambling to update the article as the story progresses and barely anyone is able to keep track of what sources have already been posted on said articles. Parsley Man (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I took care of it. To be absolutely safe, if someone could scrutinize these edits, please do.

The Washington Post did everything in their power to be confusing. For the same article, they changed its URL at least twice. They also changed the title. StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That sort of confusion happens during articles on recent events too. Parsley Man (talk) 04:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Documenting Rahami's native language and native name spelling

[edit]

Didn't want to let this slip - can these two be reliably documented, possibly by a non-English source? The infobox has a hidden entry: native_name_lang = Dari. But according to this source, his father's native tongue was Pashto. StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 01:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rahimi or Rahami?

[edit]

Since two highly reliable sources say that his real last name is Rahimi, I'd like to go ahead and change it in the article. No objections to that?

(Of course, I will have to point out somewhere that his last name was mistakenly reported as Rahami, initially). StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I did it. If someone gets a chance, please scrutinize. StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 03:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE (Nov 10): This one still makes me nervous. The media keep inconsistently using both names. Which one should we use? My suggestion, at this point, is to go back to RahAmi because this is how federal court records identify him, i.e. 'United States of America vs AHMAD KHAN RAHAMI, a/k/a "Ahmad Rahimi"' Thoughts? StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE (Nov. 18): As of two days ago, the feds started calling him Rahimi, so let's put this issue to rest, for the time being. StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 21:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does the lead have too much detail?

[edit]

I think that the current lead is not concise which goes against WP:LEAD. For example, does the timeline of the explosions and the fact that a pipe bomb exploded in a trash can at 9:30 belong to the lead? There used to be a separate section called "Bombing events summary" for all this. There is probably no reason to force the reader into all these details from the start. If after reading the lead, the readers feels they need more detail, then they can always keep reading.

I argue that this version of the article is better than the current one. Thoughts? StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lead is not that detailed in either version, but is especially lacking in detail in your version. In the old version, the lead merely says The events occurred in Seaside Park, New Jersey; Manhattan, New York; and Elizabeth, New Jersey. Over 30 people were injured, but no fatalities were reported. On September 19, the sole suspect — Ahmad Khan Rahimi, of Elizabeth — was captured, following a shootout with police in the neighboring Linden, New Jersey. Rahimi's actions were allegedly influenced by the extremist Islamic ideology espoused by al-Qaeda.
But the new version mentions a little more detail to each of the bombs and bombings, giving one sentence to each bombing/bombing attempt. It also clarifies that two bombings happened on September 17 at different times of day, which entails adding the approximate timeframes that the different bombings happened. The new lead also gives a paragraph about Rahimi—one sentence each—to Rahimi's apprehension, charges, and motivation. It is still not too long, but the old version is way too short to be of any use to a passing reader who wants to look at the article for 45 seconds. epicgenius (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that your version is too long. It's that, in my view, it gives too many details covered elsewhere in the article. StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I am fine with that. Which details should be removed? I also don't want the lead to be too short either. As I said before, it should be able to be gleaned within 45 seconds. epicgenius (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
EG, thank you. I am working on it. But in the mean time, where did these 45 seconds come from? StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: I just changed the lead. Please take a look. I removed some redundancies, e.g. there is probably no need to say he was identified. Just saying he was captured is enough. StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@StrokeOfMidnight: Thanks for rewriting the lead. It looks much better and more concise, so thank you for discussing it out. Also, the 45 seconds is more than five times the average attention span of a person. I don't know why I just made up the 45 sec figure, but if you don't have the reader hooked to the lead in 8 seconds, there's trouble and they probably won't read the article. 45 seconds is how much time I'd give to people who are just browsing the web while working, or in my case, doing homework. epicgenius (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2016 New York and New Jersey bombings. 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) 09:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_New_York_and_New_Jersey_bombings&oldid=1252357272"