Jump to content

Talk:October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Improve "Incidents" Section by Adding the Days of the Week

I think it would not only look better, but "function" better if the days of the week were added, particularly how these days fall relative to Sunday (no mail delivery) and Monday (first day of the work week). Clearly timing was a component of the bomb hoax, so describing the sequence with an increased level of detail would improve the Article.Tym Whittier (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and added them. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The title

Wouldn't the title look better as "October 2018 United States attempted mail bombings?" The term "mail bombing attempts" just looks odd to me. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Or even just "October 2018 United States mail bombings." I mean, bombs did get mailed, it wasn't just an attempt. They just didn't go off. The media also seems to call this a "mail bombing" more often than they call it an "attempted mail bombing". Surachit (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. The word "attempts" is both awkward and inaccurate. See my posts above: Talk:October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts#Why does the title use the word "attempts"?. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Mail bombings are when bombings happen through mail. This was more like bomb mailing. Illegal, but not painful. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
No the title is not perfect. It is a descriptive placeholder until we can figure out what the common name for this incident is. It is likely to be several weeks before that is decided, and there would need to be an RM to decide it. It is also unlikely the eventual title will specify the month. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 22:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
A possible long-term name might be Anti-Democrat mail bombs, though probably too soon to propose anything.--Pharos (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Given that the devices lacked triggering mechanisms, as cited in the article, a more accurate title would reference a "mail bombing scare." John2510 (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Where is the evidence that anyone was actually "scared"? WWGB (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Buddy's charged with threatening, in the true threat sense, so I'd assume the feds have some kind of evidence of safety concerns, if not actual fear. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Has it been proven that these "bombs" actually went through the US mail? I've seen a photo purporting to show these bombs, and the absence of any post marks on them, and yet it's claimed they were all delivered, simultaneously, to top-tier US politicians, which implies "hand delivery" and not "US Mail".Tym Whittier (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Given that several were traced through a USPS facility, it's safe to say that, yes, indeed, these packages went through the mail. Icarosaurvus (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Headshots

So, there are 3 headshots for October 22–23, 4 for Oct. 24, 2 for Oct. 25, and 4 for Oct. 26. The different widths cause text to wrap at various locations and the media all creep into the section below. I like having the headshots of targeted people, but might there be a better way to display so many headshots without wreaking so much havoc on the prose? One possibility might be to move them into the summary of incidents. ---Another Believer (Talk)

I moved them to the table to save white space and fix the wraparound problem. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@TomCat4680: Thoughts on replacing the two separate images of Hillary and Bill Clinton with one depicting both together? ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Not necessary. It was only addressed to her.TomCat4680 (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
@TomCat4680: Ah, ok, swapped to image of just Hillary and removed mention of Bill. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

may I suggest this be renamed to say Other discussed theories as events unfolded.

  • conspiracy [kuhn-spir-uh-see] noun, plural con·spir·a·cies. 1. the act of conspiring. 2.an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot. 3.a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conspiracy

Where/what is the Conspiracy??

~ Bought the farm (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

The definition fits:

"conspiracy theory noun

1. a theory that explains an event as being the result of a plot by a covert group or organization; a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a group. 2. the idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public." https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conspiracy-theory David O. Johnson (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The sub-title is very mis-leading. The sub-title is making a judgment based on assumed facts. So if this wiki is up to discussion, let's all chime in. ~ Bought the farm (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Interesting POV... The term Conspiracy theories associated with Rush seems, to me, so much like a targeting of Rush and his listenership/subscribers, to cast him and others in a fringe negative light. ~ Bought the farm (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Go read WP:Fringe. Calling a conspiracy theory a conspiracy theory is not, in fact, against Wikipedia's policies. Icarosaurvus (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Rush promoted a theory that since these attacks could not have been done by a Republican, there must have been a Democratic conspiracy to send fake (or real) bombs and blame the Republicans. If it turns out that the current suspect, a registered Republican and rabid Trump fan, was indeed the culprit, Rush's conspiracy theory will be exploded as false, as conspiracy theories usually are. Since Rush promoted this idea, it is Rush himself (not his listeners, just him) who is responsible for casting him in a negative light. --MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Rush didn't imply a conspiracy from what I see. On the contrary, "a Democrat operative" as apposed to "Democrat operatives" implies the opposite. This does not fit 1. above since it implies one person as opposed to a group. It doesn't fit 2. above since it's in regard to a single event, not "many" events or trends. A theory about a single person is not a conspiracy theory by definition since one person cannot conspire with themself. It doesn't seem accurate to label some of the others in this section as spreading conspiracy theories, either.
Also MOS:SCAREQUOTES on "false flag" when not used previously in section
And if I'm reading them correctly, the sources quote Michael Flynn Jr., not Michael Flynn
75.168.4.214 (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I think there's an issue here with WP:LABEL. Formal definitions aside, the term 'conspiracy theory' carries pejorative undertones, and an association with discredited or unreliable fringe ideas. Given that we don't have all the information yet, and given that a number of prominent conservative commentators have espoused this view, it is biased to use that label. Xcalibur (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
It sure as hell carries a pejorative "undertone" and is "associated with discredited or unreliable fringe ideas". That's EXACTLY why we use it. Because that's what we're talking about here. Volunteer Marek 22:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm glad we agree on one point at least. But this is a developing story, and we don't know the truth yet. Until we have more information, we should not dismiss significant minority viewpoints with a WP:LABEL. Xcalibur (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
No, we should label viewpoints that are clearly fringe viewpoints as such. (EG, one would have to be quite skilled at denying objective reality to give the idea that this was a false flag attack any credence whatsoever at this juncture.) Please go read WP:Fringe. Icarosaurvus (talk) 09:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree per FRINGE, and also because that is the term the preponderance of RS are using. This is not a forum to argue semantics about what we feel about a word. If it's in line with policy, then what the RS use should be reflected.12.11.127.253 (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with above point - mention of "a Democrat operative" does not define a conspiracy. ~ Bought the farm (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, maybe the conspriacy theories being touted by the main stream media "news" outlets should be documented. Does anybody here on Wikipedia really believe Trump conspired with Yavok and possibly others for a mail bomb plot and a deadly weekend shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue.?

  • 'This is on you': Democrats, media blame Trump for pipe bombs. Democrats and the media swiftly blamed Mr. Trump while Trump calls for unity, peace and civility following the suspicious package deliveries. By Dave Boyer - The Washington Times - Wednesday, October 24, 2018

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/24/democrats-media-blame-donald-trump-pipe-bombs/ ~ Bought the farm (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

  • The Latest: Sanders: Media wrongly blaming Trump for attacks Sarah Huckabee Sanders is accusing the media of wrongly blaming President Donald Trump for a mail bomb plot

https://www.foxnews.com/us/the-latest-sanders-media-wrongly-blaming-trump-for-attacks ~ Bought the farm (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

He "called for unity" while attacking the media. It's in the article already. The democrats simply asserted that constant verbal attacks on the media leads people to, in fact, physically attack the media. The White House disagrees. It's in the Donald Trump section. Icarosaurvus (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
But this media coverage is promoting a "Conspiracy theory". Explanations aside, the point of this sub-section is to document facts related to the sub-title. Does anybody here on Wikipedia really believe Trump conspired with Yavok and possibly others for a mail bomb plot and a deadly weekend shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue? Trump immediately condemned the events, while the media immediately condemned him. Trump later "attacked" the Media after being made part of the un-civility. ~ 174.158.74.14 Bought the farm (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
No, and that's false equivalence. The mainstream media is reporting on the assertion by democrats that, as said above, attacking journalists verbally, and praising people for attacking them physically, leads to violence such as this. I have yet to see a mainstream source claim that Trump hired a random person from Florida with a MAGA van to try to off democrats. Meanwhile, right-wing media has been making rather ludicrous claims about the democrats staging a false flag attack. Either you are purposefully misunderstanding in order to prove a point, or you really rather need to review WP:Fringe and WP:NPOV. Icarosaurvus (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which two completely opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. ~ Bought the farm (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Bought the farm, you and Sarah are spinning conspiracy theories and straw men. Here they are:

  • You wrote: "Does anybody here on Wikipedia really believe Trump conspired with Yavok and possibly others for a mail bomb plot and a deadly weekend shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue?" Of course not, and no one is saying that. To make that accusation is the height of obtuseness. It's a straw man.
  • Sarah is cited: "Sarah Huckabee Sanders is accusing the media of wrongly blaming President Donald Trump for a mail bomb plot" That's an absurd straw man. She's running interference for Trump and proposing outlandish things.

It's Trump's rhetoric that is under attack, because "words mean something". They have effects. They can inspire horrible things, and Trump's anti-immigrant conspiracy theories have real effects:

The Pizzagate conspiracy theory led a man to go there and shoot his gun. Fortunately no one was killed.

Conspiracy theories are dangerous. Stop believing them and stop advocating and defending them here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'd just like to say, I believe "our President" has it all under control. maybe some don't know when they're being played.. these are politics - without a political affiliation... ~ Bought the farm 174.150.185.156 (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I would submit that "False Flag Theory" would be a far more accurate title. The theory that the mailings were done by a leftist didn't require a conspiracy. The facts proved that one single person could (and did) carry out the activity. The nature of a "conspiracy theory" is that it requires a number of unrelated people to conspire to make it work, and is implausible for that reason. Plausible theories are often labeled as "conspiracy theories" on WP and elsewhere for no purpose other than to disparage them. While this turned out not to be a false flag event, that theory of the motive and actor was not a conspiracy theory. John2510 (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Even were it not one initially (I maintain that it was, but let us assume, for the moment, that it was not), the fact that the idea is still being pushed by the conservative news media long after it was thoroughly disproven makes it one now. Icarosaurvus (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Unsourced advocacy of fringe conspiracy theories
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I just deconstruct the phrase conspiracy theory like this:
First, it's obviously a theory vs. a proven fact, and second, in order to maintain the narrative, the conspiracy requires the willing (and criminal) cooperation of a biased Media with an ideological agenda. Which debunks the assertion that the word "conspiracy is inaccurate since one person could have committed this crime". I always consider the Mass Media as a possible criminal accomplice in any situation like this, ergo any "alternative theory" that is censored or suppressed, and where those that assert it are demonized is accurately described as a "conspiracy theory", given that the mass media is always a possible criminal co-conspirator. This is the natural consequence of Mass Media's persistent use of events like this to further their ideological agenda. The most obvious example of this is the massive calls for gun control every time there is a mass shooting. They've sown the wind, and now they reap the whirlwind. My main question/point on/for the article is that it should put more effort into defining whether or not these devices can legitimately be considered "bombs", exactly who made that determination, and how, as I have heard conflicting reports and not technical descriptions of the devices. I wonder if it's possible that simply mailing (for example) a shotgun shell would have satisfied the FBI's classification of a "bomb", since they have an "explosive" component, and a "means of detonation". The FBI and other Federal "Deep State" entities also have a credibility problem, and an ideological/political agenda. Again, more natural consequences. If this is the case, that these "bomb devices" were nothing more than shotgun shells with wires made to look like bombs, something that the average American would clearly consider a "hoax", but still fall within the FBI's classification of an actual "bomb", we could expect it to take 2 years or more, or maybe never, before the American people found out the truth. Has a detailed and technical description of these bombs been made available? If so, I haven't seen it. I think "alternative theory" should only be applied when there are reliable sources that support it's validity.
The timing of the arrival of numerous packages (simultaneously) to numerous "high level" persons, the absence of postmarks, the pointless nature of the "attack" and the government's assertion that it was carried-out by a bar bouncer who lived in a van (down by the river) are just some of the primary reasons for my skepticism of the mandated narrative.
Tym Whittier (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Wow! --Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Wow indeed! Tym Whittier, unless your speculations are based on RS, and they aren't, then you are violating talk page rules and advocating fringe conspiracy theories, and that's not allowed here. Neither are such attacks on RS. We base our content on them. If you attack RS, then you don't belong here, at all. You're likely to get blocked if you keep this up. I have hatted your comments, although I could just as well have deleted them. Even deleted they would remain in the history as evidence that could be used against you, so please stop this line of thought and start using only reasoning based on RS, never based on Fox News or worse sources. If you do that you can stay out of trouble. Okay? I'd rather see you become a constructive editor. God knows we have enough fringe ones creating problems and getting topic banned or blocked. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Politifact x 2

These may be useful for something.

I added them to the conspiracy theories section. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Three hate crimes

@Thisisnotatest and MainlyTwelve: I've moved the sentence about three hate crimes occurring in the same week from the end of the lead to the Reaction by the Media section. I don't know if we're suppose to reference concurrent events but not in the lead. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. There's a discussion happening on the talk for the Pittsburgh shooting that I think will resolve the issue across the three articles.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Seems consensus is not to include the other incidents in lead.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Failure to use the MAGABomber name Consistently because editors are politically biased.

It's outrageous that this article uses the term MAGABomber just once!!, when the UNABomber article uses it dozens of times including in the first paragraph AND the side bar.

I was inclined to consider this fair consideration due to not knowing who the suspect was and if the name would stay before but now the man has been found and the name has stuck because of his van, footage and fanaticism it should be acknowledged in the initial article description, even the MSM uses MAGABomber to consistently name the attack ffs. Nobody knows this attack by a more famous name, 99% of all the traffic to this page is going to be because people google 'maga bomber wikipedia' imo its clear political bias to subvert the name the attack is known by. 82.14.79.197 (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

*eye roll* ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
FWIW - seems the ip editor may have a point - Comments Welcome from other editors - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Generally criminal cases of this kind acquire nicknames when the perpetrator is unknown for a long period. In this case the name was applied after the name of the perpetrator was known. While the meme associated with the incident ought to be mentioned, Sayoc's name should be primary, and is appropriately neutral. The IP's suggestion appears to be an attempt to introduce a POV. Acroterion (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
The Article is about the "October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts" and not the "MAGABomber", unless the OP wants to retitle the Article the "MAGABombing"? Important to differentiate between the bombing and the bomber. Also the door is still open to the possibility that the devices will eventually be reclassified (by the media) as "hoax devices", so this term might eventually evolved into the "MAGAHoaxer". Curious to know if the "media name" of the perpetrator of crimes like this in the past has ever evolved from one name to another as more details of the situation became known. I'm thinking "not news" here, and how it may apply.Tym Whittier (talk) 18:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Please stop pushing the idea that these devices were/are hoax devices. No serious journalistic source is treating them as such, and investigators certainly are not. Pyrotechnic powder in a sealed, rigid container equipped with a blasting cap is a bomb, however ineffective such a setup may be. Icarosaurvus (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I believe that MAGA Bomber and Maga Bomber already redirect here so that settles the search term issue. As for the nickname, I agree with Acroterion. It is just that, and one mention should be enough. MelanieN alt (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The big difference is that Unabomber came as a result from FBI's internal name UNABOM (University and Airline Bomber) as Kacsynski's history spans over two decades. The one reference that's a redirect is enough in this situation unless more info comes up. – The Grid (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Untitled

"October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts" is a shitty title - especially because one date is in November!! It should much rather be "MAGA bomber" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:C88:4000:A004:BDEC:2A16:9394:9F78 (talk) 09:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Article Title: "Bombing Attempts"

As this story was unfolding, it was unclear whether these were truly a "bombing attempts" or simply a terroristic scare. Some people continued to characterize the mailings as indeed being "bombs" and "explosive devices" (despite the fact that none exploded), without explanation. It was unclear from the information in the media, at that time, whether there was any actual attempt to create a functioning bomb.

Recently, I was curious whether anything more had developed on that question as the devices were analyzed. I found several articles, either quoting or paraphrasing the sentencing judge, as saying Sayoc, "was capable of concocting a pipe bomb that could explode and had consciously chosen not to." https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/05/nyregion/cesar-sayoc-sentencing-pipe-bombing.html

That being the case, I don't believe it is accurate to characterize these as "bombing attempts." While they may have been thought to be such at the time, that was apparently not the case. I think "bomb scare" or some other description would be accurate. John2510 (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Wired article on bomber and search efforts

Wired published a great article today with a lot of information on the bomber and how the FBI and local authorities identified and located him. I'm not sure how much of this is already covered in the Wikipedia article, but I thought I would mention it here in case editors had not seen it: https://www.wired.com/story/furious-hunt-maga-mail-bomber/ Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Sayoc's role as "Trump superfan"

The current article barely discusses Sayoc's role as a Trump superfan, which is detailed by the NYT in this article. Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Guardian writes about further details about Sayoc's obsession with Trump in the court case that is not covered here. Viriditas (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Occupational Titles of Individuals Mentioned

I noticed when reading this article that some figures are referred to by the occupational titles they held at the time (e.g. Former Vice President Joe Biden), and originally thought I should update this. However, after not finding any guidance on this in the Manual of Style, I thought I'd ask more experienced editors instead. Is it common practice to refer to figures in historical events by their occupational title at the time of the event, or the latest/highest title held? Any feedback would be appreciated, as it will help me contribute to Wikipedia in a constructive manner. BigBoiiLeem (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

BigBoiiLeem, occupation at the time seems to be the accurate method. Curbon7 (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Awesome, will keep as is then. Thanks for your advice BigBoiiLeem (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:October_2018_United_States_mail_bombing_attempts/Archive_2&oldid=1241732603"