Talk:2020 Nashville bombing

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

AT&T building[edit]

Sources call it "an" AT&T building, not "the" AT&T Building, and images appear to back it up - it appears to be an exchange building, not the tall office building. Please be careful with that kind of specificity. Acroterion (talk) 15:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is ambiguity now, because the RV was parked "in front of" AN AT&T building, but later we say AN AT&T building NEAR the explosion site was damaged. Same building? Mcfnord (talk) 04:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the main network switching center for Nashville, which is why communications are disrupted in the area. It's the windowless red building where the vehicle was parked. There's a lot of good sourcing about that to be had now that wasn't available earlier. We just shouldn't confuse it with the entirely separate (and elsewhere) AT&T Building (Nashville), which is an office building, not a technical center. Some editors jumped to a conclusion and linked the office building. Acroterion (talk) 04:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions about the article - WikiProject of Current Events Discussion[edit]

This is not an official discussion, so outcomes are not actually final discussions.

There is a current discussion about the article found here. The notability after the "Current Event Notability" is in question. Please note that the articles notability is protected for about 48 hours. After more "Final" details come out, like injuries/deaths/damage, ect... If you want to participate in the discussion, please think about the articles notability (Compared to Wikipedia guidelines) in about 48 hours and not the fact that a bombing happened hours ago. (Lead Coordinator of WikiProject of Current Events) Elijahandskip (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that discussion was closed. Result was Keep and Notability Confirmed. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AT&T outages[edit]

People locally around the attack are reporting AT&T communications outages. Going based off of what some people are saying on twitter, but if anyone can find a source that would be greatly appreciated Bruhmoney77 (talk) 19:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is from the local ABC News affiliate, WKRN-TV: https://www.wkrn.com/news/local-news/att-outages-across-tennessee-kentucky-affecting-multiple-911-services/ Paris1127 (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Under the Current Event WikiProject "protection", the local sources are considered notable unless otherwise proven. So if you can find I would say 2 sources that confirm all that, then it is perfectly fine to add. The national sources (High end "RS") do a decent amount of research before publishing an article. Local sources won't do as much, so they will almost always have articles out before a national news outlet will. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another source stating that AT&T have confirmed that there are there are outages related to the bombing. In addition it lists alternate phone numbers to affected law enforcement agencies: https://www.newschannel5.com/news/at-t-outage-reported-across-tennessee-kentucky-some-ems-phones-down. —Johan G (KJG2007 | talk) 22:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RV Image[edit]

An image of the RV is posted here: https://twitter.com/MNPDNashville/status/1342565893486899201/photo/1 Charles Juvon (talk) 21:10, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You could go ahead and add it somewhere. Dellwood546 (talk) 21:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/2020_Nashville_bombing_RV.png Charles Juvon (talk) 21:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This image is copyrighted and does not satisfy the non-free criteria to be included. (CC) Tbhotch™ 21:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I saw "Metro Nashville PD @MNPDNashville", and assumed it was government property. Charles Juvon (talk) 21:47, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It varies per state and the image would have to come from a government-owned CCTV. (CC) Tbhotch™ 21:56, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"File:RV Used In Nashville Bombing.jpg" is already in the article, but it is not the image I uploaded.Charles Juvon (talk) 22:01, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note - the Nashville Police Department's image pages are copyrighted, and the image that was used was scraped from the (copyrighted) local television media. I've removed it. ~Government public domain applies only to works released by the federal government, and even then caution is advised. Acroterion (talk)
Further note - don't upload images found on the Internet without unambiguous evidence of CC or PD release. I've deleted two now that violate non-free content policy, and were claimed as PD anyway. Acroterion (talk) 22:56, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Can we at least post this link? https://twitter.com/MNPDNashville/status/1342565893486899201/photo/1 Charles Juvon (talk) 23:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The link should be OK, but I would caution everybody about treating the encyclopedia article as a breaking news story.. Acroterion (talk) 23:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. After this cools off, I will contact the FBI (and local jurisdictions) and let them know they should attach this license to their press press releases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_license#/media/File:Cc-by_new.svg Charles Juvon (talk) 23:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the image appears to have come from a city-owned traffic camera mounted on a lamppost at 2nd and Commerce, as alluded to by the image header. But regardless of the source of the image itself, the FBI "seeking information" poster, which contains a cropped copy of the RV image from the traffic cam, certainly qualifies as a work of the United States government, prepared by an officer or employee of the federal government, as part of that person's official duties, and so the entire poster would absolutely qualify as public domain.Lack Thereof (talk) 06:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lack Thereof, unfortunately that is not true. While the FBI may have released that image, the copyright is still owned by whomever owns that camera. Unless the underlying work is owned by the Federal Government, it is not public domain. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Love of Corey: After all this talk, why did you undo the RV image as an External link?Charles Juvon (talk) 23:51, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the encyclopedic value of it. Love of Corey (talk) 03:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was literally what exploded, that isn’t encyclopedic? Dellwood546 (talk) 03:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
People can go to the official police Twitter account to find a photo of it. Love of Corey (talk) 04:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the move...[edit]

...because it is too early to characterize this horrific event as a bombing or an explosion. While it more than likely is a terror attack, we should not be swift to jump to conclusions. The I-35W collapse and the Beirut explosions were also investigated as terror attacks as well, but sources later concluded that they occurred because of human error or negligence, not terror. With that same logic, it would be best to wait for more reliable sources before we say what it is. Feel free to open a WP:RM if you disagree. Aasim (talk) 00:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This could turn out to be a Suicide_attack if we follow Wikipedia lingo. Charles Juvon (talk) 00:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bombing. I can't say whether it was a terror attack! But it was an intentional bombing. (Personally I suspect a really crazy story about a crazy person. We can't quite call every dangerous, crazy thing a terrorist attack. But bombing? Absolutely.) This is the 2020 Nashville bombing. Certainly. It was a deliberate act. That's a bombing. Mcfnord (talk) 03:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources describe it as a bomb: [1]. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The mayor's latest press conference also calls it a "deliberate bomb." [2]. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And we wouldn't need to say it was "deemed deliberate" if it was called a bombing! Mcfnord (talk) 04:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No need to say "2020", either, as no sources at all do. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About the "Investigation" and "Response" sections[edit]

I believe that "Investigation" falls under "Response", and shouldn't stand alone as a separate section. If anything, the sections should me merged (ie. "Response and investigation") like "Explosion and impacts". I'd like to hear what you guys have to say about this. GyozaDumpling (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the sections together into an "Aftermath" section, given the sections are getting shorter and shorter. Love of Corey (talk) 01:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Social media video[edit]

I'm not going to click on any of the purported YouTube videos of the event and its aftermath, much less attempt to investigate their veracity. Either they become evidence and/or scientific data, or they do not. The five external links for the Chelyabinsk meteor might be helpful here. kencf0618 (talk) 00:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why has the picture of the aftermath been replaced with a map?[edit]

This should be reversed, or the two should be put together; hopefully more pictures (of the RV, aftermath, etc.) could be added instead of having to rely on links as well 8889stanzaexcel (talk) 00:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The red dot doesn't even appear at the site of the bombing when the map is expanded. Charles Juvon (talk) 00:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the images as copyright violations. Images posted by the police are not public domain. Please do not upload or add images found on the Internet. Acroterion (talk) 02:43, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you tell me why images posted by the police are not public domain? Mcfnord (talk) 03:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, only pictures taken by federal employees during their official duties are PD. There may be some soon from FBI or ATF. For instance the poster here, though you may have to blur the CCTV image of the vehicle. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Works by state and local employees, or works for hire by contractors to federal agencies, are the property of their parent agencies, there is no inherent copyright release into public domain by anyone other than a federal employee in the performance of their duties (assuming there is no other privilege asserted, such as classification or legal privilege). If a given state or local agency explicitly releases a a work under a Wikipedia-compatible CC (not all are compatible) or PD, then well and good, but it has to be explicit and verifiable. Remember that mere release of an image for use by the media is usually not compatible with Wikipedia's far more stringent free-use requirements. Acroterion (talk) 04:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Person of interest[edit]

https://twitter.com/jeffpeguescbs/status/1342879885195403271?s=20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realtimclemans (talk • contribs) 18:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Up for 2 minutes? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_Nashville_bombing&type=revision&diff=996469735&oldid=996469332 Charles Juvon (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DAILYMAIL. Find a better third-party source mentioning his name. Love of Corey (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. CBS journalist on Twitter. Reminds me of Centennial_Olympic_Park_bombing. Charles Juvon (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now live on MSNBC. Charles Juvon (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Really, we shouldn't be naming persons of interest at all. I favour a strict interpretation and enforcement of WP:BLPCRIME. TompaDompa (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What about mentioning the search warrant? https://twitter.com/realbennyschlez/status/1342922490591531008?s=21 Realtimclemans (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not from Twitter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#User-generated_content Charles Juvon (talk) 21:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
https://apnews.com/article/us-news-nashville-coronavirus-pandemic-tennessee-dc6eb653053967a4187f0ca8276d20a8?utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_medium=AP Realtimclemans (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naming individual named in Nashville PD official statement and press reporting[edit]

After an official statement from the Nashville Police Department, the name of the person of interest is now being widely reported in high-quality sources (e.g., The New York Times, NPR, Reuters, The Washington Post). That certainly strengthens the case for inclusion. Dyrnych (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"...editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of the policy. To "seriously consider not including" the material is not a prohibition on its inclusion. Hence I brought it up here. Dyrnych (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given the reporting, naming the individual seems OK—but perhaps the better approach is to wait a day or two more for the individual's status (dead vs. alive) to be confirmed and for the FBI/Nashville PD to make any further statements? I think we shall know more as this develops. Neutralitytalk 21:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should wait for positive ID on what appears to be a suicide attack - even to the point of a death certificate.Charles Juvon (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I assume there is an accompanying statement out there somewhere, but this tweet attributes a quote to the US Attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee stating that the person of interest is the bomber and that he died in the bombing. So that moots any BLP issues, whenever we get a citable source. Dyrnych (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting for a death certificate is relying on original research. We don't have to prove that he's dead if reliable sources are reporting it. Dyrnych (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would wait for some sort of judicial document, and the simplest thing that comes to mind is a death certificate that cites suicide. I respect law enforcement, but perhaps this guy was dead before the explosion. That's far fetched, but we have to be careful. Charles Juvon (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If reliable sources are reporting his death, the article should reflect that regardless of whether there is a far-fetched alternative explanation. Dyrnych (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. The article already names him, and I have no plans to undo it. Charles Juvon (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the early BLP concerns above, but the latest round of reporting (Washington Post, Tennessean) no longer uses "person of interest" and positively identifies Warner as the bomber: “He was present when the bomb went off and he perished in the bombing.” I think this is sufficient to support the "perpetrator" label and section that have been added. –dlthewave ☎ 02:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone here is worried about that anymore. Love of Corey (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Neutralitytalk 16:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Female sounding voice[edit]

Should it be mentioned that the voice coming from the speaker, announcing the countdown sounded female? At least one witness did describe it as a female sounding mechanical voice interspersed with music, according to the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/26/us/nashville-bomb-explosion.html )--137.25.132.66 (talk) 02:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's already mentioned in the Explosion subsection: "Later in the morning, residents were awakened by what seemed to be the sound of rapid gunfire in at least three bursts, followed by a recorded message from the RV, spoken by a female computerized voice: "This area must be evacuated now." David O. Johnson (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I changed "female" to "feminine", on account of computers lacking chromosomes. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
InedibleHulk, i had reverted your change from "female" to "feminine" because, in the original phrase used in the wikipedia article ("computerized female voice"), i believe the past participle "computerized" and adjective "female" both modify the noun "voice".[a] under this interpretation, the phrase does not appear to reference a female computer, as the word "female" never modifies anything that includes the word "computerized" (or "computer").
admittedly, the phrase can be parsed differently, with one interpretation having the adjective "female" modifying the noun "voice" and the past participle "computerized" modifying the noun phrase "female voice",[b] and another having the past participle "computerized" modifying the noun "female" and the compound modifier "computerized female" modifying the noun "voice".[c] again, in both cases, the word "female" never modifies anything that includes the word "computerized" (or "computer"). notably, in the latter case, the compound modifier "computerized female" does have the word "computerized" adjacent to the word "female", but it is the word "computerized" modifying the word "female", and not the other way around, so if the word "computerized" was interpreted in any way to describe a process that actually changed a female into a computer, the phrase "computerized female" does not necessarily imply that the computerized female, now a computer, is still a female.[d]
in addition, cnn uses the same phrase, "computerized female voice", so the usage of the word "female" to describe the voice is not unwarranted.
a related phrase, "female computerized voice", has also appeared in various sources. admittedly, if one parses this phrase via the second method,[e] it is possible to interpret "computerized voice" as a voice that has been turned into a computer, in which case, the phrase "female computerized voice" can be intepreted as describing a female computer.[f] also, parsing the phrase via the third method,[g] one can interpret the modifying phrase "female computerized" as a phrase referencing a process involving a female computer.[i] however, as this is not the phrase that was used in the wikipedia article, even if "female computerized voice" could be interpreted as having referenced a female computer, that does not appear to be sufficient reason to alter the phrase that was actually used in this article.
i am not sure, but i believe you may have interpreted the phrase "computerized female voice" as having a meaning equivalent to that of the phrase "female computer's voice", where the adjective "female" is interpreted as modifying the noun "computer",[j] which would much more clearly imply that a computer was female, and that it was the voice of this female computer that was being broadcast.
in any case, even when ignoring the synthetic nature of the voice, the phrases "female voice" and "feminine voice" have different connotations, and one is not necessarily the other. for example, the phrases "masculine female voice" and "feminine male voice" are not nonsensical.[k]
by the way, it has been speculated that the bomber had used microsoft anna, a text-to-speech voice. if that is the case, then the voice can likely be accurately described as a "female voice". however, i would hesitate to describe it as a feminine voice, especially since it is the default english-speaking voice used in windows vista and windows 7, and i would be surprised if microsoft had actively decided to use a voice that people would more readily describe as feminine rather than female (or masculine rather than male) as a default voice for a major operating system.
also, apologies for not bringing this up here previously, as i had not realized you had addressed this on the talk page. dying (talk) 04:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having now heard you loudly and clearly, I'm inclined to see things your way, thanks for explaining how your reversion made sense, feel free to undo me again, cheers! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
thanks. if it's all the same to you, i would prefer if you undid the reversion yourself, in order to avoid all semblance of an edit war. also, if i were to revert you again, i would be in danger of violating 3rr, interpreted strictly, since 3rr covers all reverts "whether involving the same or different material", and i have already reverted a different good faith contribution for being unsourced in the last 24 hours. dying (talk) 05:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Everything's the same to me lately, it is undone, Happy New Year! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
great, thank you. happy new year to you too! dying (talk) 06:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ parenthesized as "(computerized) (female) (voice)"
  2. ^ (computerized) (female voice)
  3. ^ (computerized female) (voice)
  4. ^ to make this more clear, when describing frozen water, the phrase "solidified liquid" does not mean that the solidified liquid, now a solid, is still a liquid.
  5. ^ (female) (computerized voice)
  6. ^ however, this would clash with the context of the phrase, as linguistic pragmatics would naturally lead one to conclude that the phrase was used to describe a voice being broadcast, and not to describe a computer broadcasting a voice otherwise undescribed.
  7. ^ (female computerized) (voice)
  8. ^ (female) (computerized) (voice)
  9. ^ in the first method,[h] where "female" and "computerized" modify "voice", "female" never modifies anything that includes the word "computerized" (or "computer").
  10. ^ if parsed with "female" modifying "computer's voice", it would still not describe the computer as a female.
  11. ^ greg pritchard does a decent feminine male voice.

Is this top photo public domain?[edit]

This photo may be public domain, I don’t see a watermark? https://www.voanews.com/usa/intentional-blast-wounds-3-nashville-christmas-day Victor Grigas (talk) 03:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, all images are copyrighted unless explicitly released under a compatible CC or PD license. Absence of a watermark or other information is not evidence of suitability for use on Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 03:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From the VOA terms of use: "However, voanews.com content may also contain text, video, audio, images, graphics, and other copyrighted material that is licensed for use in VOA programming only. This material is not in the public domain and may not be copied, redistributed, sold, or published without the express permission of the copyright owner." Acroterion (talk) 03:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Victorgrigas and Acroterion: VOA media is public domain unless they mark it otherwise. If you look around the site, all the media that they do not own has the same attribution mark (signifying whomever, often AP, it belongs to). If there isn't one, it's PD, as an outlet of the US government. Kingsif (talk) 10:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That should not be relied upon, and the disclaimer that I quote above is meant as a shield - it is similar to other US government disclaimers that I've encountered, and those agencies have made it clear that they dion't warrat that a given image is PD unless it is specifically attributed to the photographer as such. The image would have had to have been taken by VOA personnel, which while possible, is not likely. Acroterion (talk) 13:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further: Al Jazeera is running the same image and crediting it to The Tennessean, the local newspaper. It's not usable. Don't assume that an absence of attribution is permission. Acroterion (talk) 13:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually say that if an image appears on VOA without external attribution, then it is only logical to assume that it is their own work; legally they would face more severe repercussions for not doing so. This is with the exception - stated in the more important disclaimer they (and commons) have - that new/breaking articles may not have correct/complete attribution. Kingsif (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the way Commons views it, and logic is never safe where images are concerned. I've been working with images from US government sources for more than a decade, and it's rarely clear-cut. In any case, always do your research - the first people on the scene of an event like this are always local media. That was the case here. We cannot be party to copyright laundering, which is what would happen if the VOA content was taken without due diligence. I've had my own images used with and without proper attribution by print and web media, and misattribution or no attribution are quite common. Anything taken from the Internet needs to be checked carefully. Acroterion (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Acroterion: I wasn't suggesting we don't do due diligence, especially with new images, I was just pointing out that VOA says 1. all their own images are free, and 2. almost all of the time they have correctly tagged images that are not their own, and so we can only logically accept those facts and assume the not-tagged images are free until shown otherwise (hence due diligence), while you seem to be advocating for assuming that no images are free ever despite the VOA statements. Kingsif (talk) 11:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where would it be appropriate to open a discussion and formulate a policy on copyright violations in the case of a major catastrophe such as an EMP strike, tactical nuclear war, earthquake in a major city, etc. ? Charles Juvon (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Juvon, you could potentially start a discussion at Commons:Commons:Village pump, but what Acroterion says is correct. You can never assume an image is public domain, there must be clear evidence that a government employee actually created it themselves, or that there is other extenuating circumstances that place it into the public domain. An event, no matter how catastrophic or news-worthy, will not trump copyright law. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are circumstances where non-free media can be used on Wikipedia, which could not be hosted on Commons - the Commons policy is absolute. See WP:FAIRUSE. The circumstances for fair use on enwiki are quite narrow. Acroterion (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Victorgrigas: This New York Post article credits the image to Reuters, and I found it on multiple sites. The VOA News' attribution method is an outlier, as even other U.S. government sites clearly credit all sources. The evidence leans toward this being a locally taken news photo released to the wire services. As noted above, fair use of a non-free image is allowed, if and only if a freely licensed alternative cannot be obtained eventually. The prudent option taken with similar Wikipedia articles is to do without until a free image is found. • Gene93k (talk) 05:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • additional: VOA News does watermark VOA-taken photos on its site.[3] Lack of a watermark only shows that VOA didn't get it from one if its frequent sources. • Gene93k (talk) 05:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reference formatting[edit]

How exactly is this supposed to be "superior"? Love of Corey (talk) 01:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for following WP:BRD and posting your concerns to the talk page when you revert another editor. You should get in the habit of doing that so other editors can understand your rationale and support your concerns. It allows other folks to support your challenges to the disputed content, since none of us are mind readers. Thanks. :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I had a feeling my edit would quickly be reverted anyway, so I thought I'd go at it while I was ahead. Love of Corey (talk) 02:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 December 2020[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus for any proposed move. There is somewhat more support for a page move than for leaving the title as is, but not a clear consensus to move, nor a consensus as to a potential move target. With a number of editors supporting a move but opposing the proposed target in favor of more precise alternatives. As this discussion was initiated within a few days of the incident, it may be best to wait a few months and revisit the question in light of terminology used by sources over that longer period. BD2412 T 07:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Nashville bombing → Nashville bombing – There haven't been any other bombings in Nashville; the year shouldn't be in the title Jim Michael (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Vpab15 (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about the 1957 bombing ? What about the 1960 bombing? Wes sideman (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for the reasons stated above. Dyrnych (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Until an unfortunate bombing in Nashville occurs once more, we should have the article simply titled "Nashville Bombing" MountainJew6150 (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Many newspapers/news publishers are calling the bombing the Nashville Christmas Day Bombing.[1][2][3][4] --AppalachianCentrist (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Nashville Police Identify Man in Christmas Day Bombing Case". Bloomberg.
  2. ^ "FBI searches home in connection with Nashville Christmas bombing". TODAY.com.
  3. ^ "After naming Nashville's Christmas Day bombing suspect, investigators turn to motive". KTLA-TV.
  4. ^ "Suspect in Nashville Christmas Day bombing believed to have died in blast". Boston Herald.
  • Support 100% IAW WP:CONCISE; I was surprised to be redirected! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is not the only bombing to have happened in Nashville:
In 1960, the house of lawyer and politician Z. Alexander Looby was bombed and destroyed by segregationists. [4]
In 1958, the Jewish Community Center was bombed (listed in List of attacks on Jewish institutions in the United States). [5][6]
In 1957, Hattie Cotton Elementary School was bombed.[7][8] There is a section in the article about it.
This information may change minds on the merits of the move, or justify a hatnote or disambiguation page/list. Fences&Windows 19:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of any of those until now. The recent bombing is clearly the most notable one & none of the others have their own articles. Does that mean that the year should be in title or not? Jim Michael (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Multiple Nashville bombings exist and this move is predicated on the most RECENT also being the most significant. Discuss in 6 months when we know whether this even is truly momentous or just a footnote in history Slywriter (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, WP:PRECISE. To say this one is more notable is recentism; the fact that others don't have their own articles is WP:OTHERSTUFF. Ribbet32 (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per fences&windows' comment Metric Supporter 89 (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nashville Christmas bombing Just precise enough, actually commonly used by sources, other Nashville bombings aren't Wikipedia articles (this is the reason disambiguation isn't needed, not about OTHERSTUFF). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support disambig note, too Non-notable older bombings are still potentially interesting facts. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Though other bombings have occurred in Nashville, this seems to be the most notable one; the other Wikipedia articles that mention Nashville bombings are not actually about the events themselves, but rather, the bombings are one puzzle piece to the broader topic. Love of Corey (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Though I do support a rename, I do also oppose a name change to Nashville Christmas bombing, per Levivich. Love of Corey (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lose the "day" part and win my vote, per the Rule of Three. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nashville Christmas bombing. Barring a very strange confluence of events in the future, that will never be in doubt. BD2412 T 04:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nashville Christmas bombing, (Oppose Nashville bombing). Part of the reason that this bombing is significant is that is happened on Christmas day, a day when busy shopping districts are usually not-so-busy, the perpetrator chose that particular day for a reason - to make a statement and to destroy property but he made a serious attempt not to destroy/maim/kill people. Shearonink (talk) 05:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Maybe in 6 months, if this is really clearly the most notable bombing in Nashville history. Right now it's in the news. Wes sideman (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nashville Christmas bombing per above. I hope it is unlikely the day will not have a similar event in the future.   Aloha27  talk  15:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nashville Christmas bombing and changing my vote to reflect. FN17 (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nashville Christmas bombing per others here. "Nashville bombing" is too generic. And please don't bombard me with "policy." United States Man (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Nashville Christmas bombing since '2020 Nashville bombing' conveys the same meaning. Also Oppose "Nashville bombing" since there have been several bombings in Nashville, as mentioned by others above. JoePhin (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Christmas is near-universally considered a good day, 2020 a bad year, no meaningful similarity conveyed. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support or be named as Nashville Christmas Bombing. I don't know but Firejore (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removing disambiguation from the title but - Oppose changing it to Nashville bombing or Nashville Christmas bombing. It happening on Christmas had nothing to do with the bombing, and there have been other smaller bombings in Nashville. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - as this isn't the only bombing that has ever occurred in Nashville, even though it is possibly the only one that is notable. Comparing this to other events, such as the Oklahoma City bombing, I feel may be a straw man, as there is no evidence that this bombing supersedes in significance to other bombings that have happened in Nashville, even though it may in the future. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This one caused much reaction in the global news industry, potentially reaching billions of computer users in an immediately influential way, moving colour pictures and everything. Granted, that wasn't possible then. But it still makes this one demonstrably much more impactful, in breadth and duration of coverage. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This all sounds like Wikipedia:Recentism, which, as other people have mentioned, is why we should wait 6 months before moving this page. Wes sideman (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per Fences and windows and others. In a city that used to be segregated and had three already listed bombings against those who resisted Jim Crow Laws, there should be no surprise that other bombings took place in Nashville. Just because Birmingham, Alabama was given the infamous nickname "Bombingham" during that period, doesn't mean it was the only city bombed. -------User:DanTD (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move (and also oppose Nashville Christmas bombing). The year should be sufficiently disambiguating, and the "Christmas bombing" doesn't seem to have caught on to a sufficient extent. I think we should keep titles simply. Neutralitytalk 16:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Nashville bombing", oppose "Nashville Christmas bombing", the word "Christmas" is not necessary. Per WP:AT: "Nashville bombing" is recognizable, natural, concise, precise (there are no others to disambiguate), and consistent with other articles (e.g. Oklahoma City bombing, which wasn't the only bombing in Oklahoma City, yet no one is confused, because it's the only notable bombing in Oklahoma City, just like the Nashville bombing). There's really no other option that meets all WP:AT criteria so well. Levivich harass/hound 16:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, keep 2020 Nashville bombing. To many bombings in Nashville to simply be "Nashville bombing". "Nashville Christmas bombing" is better, but under precedent we usually put the year. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, As others have stated numerous times, there have been other incidents of bombings. The recentism argument also has significance, this should probably be deferred to a later date. Something that also needs to be considered is the naming conventions and policies administered when terroristic attacks or events occur, from what I have seen they almost always carry a year prior to the location. I.e. take for example the 2020 Aden attacks or the 2020 Beirut explosion that just happened. Where are the discussions to change those to the Aden attacks or Beirut explosion. Even if another bombing never happens in Nashville, the year provides context and SEO benefits. Lastly, we need to consider a domestic bias for U.S. based editors here that may want to increase the naming significance by dissolving the year prefix. OfficerManatee (talk) 10:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "2020 Nashville bombing" provides the most important, immediate information about the event: when, where, what. Additionally, as others have mentioned, there have been other bombings. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:NOYEAR as written: 1958 Nashville bombing per books "The Nashville bombing was one of a series of dynamite attacks on Jewish institutions that occurred in late 1957 and early 1958." In ictu oculi (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
........well that is weird :( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1958_Nashville_bombing&redirect=no clearly far right attacks on Jewish centres and synagogues in the US is a major notable subject, well documented in WP:RS news and books, and I have seen the subject on en.wp before, but now I cannot find any trace of the article. Am I searching using the wrong terms or has it been deleted? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
........Okay, well I've found something List of attacks on Jewish institutions in the United States. Is this it? No context, no analysis, just a shopping list as if we might expect this (well I suppose we might). Where's the encyclopaedic content? I'm going to leave this redirect hanging as a redlink in the hope that a better informed editor will quickly see it and know to where it should go. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Time of Bombing[edit]

In the lede, it says the explosion was at 6:29 AM CST, while in the Bombing section, it says it was at 6:30 AM CST. So which is it? Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Initial statements[edit]

Why no mention or inclusion of initial statements from nearly all investigators concerning "international implications" that were all over, and reported by, the media?

Granted, that changed; but it's still part of the story and how it and the investigation evolved.

I think it should be included.

Thoughts ? 2600:8800:785:9400:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I frequently remove initial speculations that don't pan out, as they're usually beyond the scope of the page. Is there a reason why a timeline of speculative statements (by investigators or anyone) merits coverage? You might have a fine point about the cycles of speculation in this or any similar event, but ultimately these are speculative, and probably eventually have no place in the encyclopedia. Did people make decisions based on those speculations? Mcfnord (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perp during blast[edit]

Do sources say the perp was killed by the blast? Seems speculative. Perp could have already been deceased. Mcfnord (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perp could have already been deceased is the speculative part ;) Kingsif (talk) 13:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's speculative to claim the perp died in the explosion. I'm surprised at many NPOV-secondary sources that claim the perp died in the blast. Nobody knows that. Only the WaPo got it right, saying the bomber's remains were found at the scene. Mcfnord (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Five G[edit]

"The blast knocked out 5G so maybe the perp was scared of 5G so we should include a whole section endorsing conspiracy theories" is perhaps the most ridiculous edit suggestion I've ever seen, and it's Wikipedia. Kingsif (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2020 (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.

Do you think 5g caused the bomber to believe in 5g conspiracy theories? Can we have Section on five G causing people to believe crazy ideas or something 2600:100E:B146:E5DE:709C:BB23:A22F:6F5D (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I think isn't important. I've only heard speculation about a connection to 5G, and so I removed explicit mention of this alleged motive. Perhaps in time more will be revealed. Mcfnord (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, any idea about anything is mainly caused by that thing's existence. So no, a section about what the motivation behind the motive was will never need to exist, same as it never has in similar articles. A section on the motive itself can certainly Wikilink the central thing, though, if anyone's unfamiliar with that thing's overall who, why, what, where and when (sometimes even how, but don't count on it). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/ Charles Juvon (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What about it? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2020 (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.

Explosive[edit]

I don't see anything in the media, but a good search term might be "Pyrodex". Charles Juvon (talk) 03:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in the media - well then no. WP:RS and WP:OR are the most non-negotiable rules, especially with controversial current articles. Kingsif (talk) 13:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is some speculation in the media: https://sofrep.com/news/was-an-improvised-propane-bomb-used-in-the-nashville-bombing/. Charles Juvon (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FRINGE is mentioned in the above two policies, but let me link it for you to peruse anyway. No. Kingsif (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Media parroting fowls up Google searches, therefore I am suggesting keywords more specific than "explosive" while not publishing a list of explosives. Please assume good faith. The other possibility is a FOIA request, but ongoing criminal investigations are likely an exception. Charles Juvon (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Warner was "building bombs in the RV trailer at his residence". https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/30/us/nashville-christmas-bombing-wednesday/index.html Charles Juvon (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warner infobox photo[edit]

Probably fair use, but can't be PD-USGOV. It was released by the FBI, but unless I'm missing something it couldn't have been taken by the FBI. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 07:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - since the person is deceased, there is a path to fair use, but the FBI didn't take the picture. Acroterion (talk) 13:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency on the title of the building owned by AT&T[edit]

The article currently refers to the building the RV was parked in front of as "AT&T network hub," "AT&T transmission building," and "a nearby AT&T service facility." These all convey different meanings and should be condensed into a cohesive and accurate title to avoid confusion.

For the sake of this discussion, it's worth repeating again that this is an AT&T building, not the AT&T Building. IJF99 (talk) 12:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IJF99, that is a good point.
cnn has referred to it as a "network hub", and at&t has repeatedly referenced it as a "facility". i propose that we refer to it as a "network hub facility" the first time it is referenced in the lead, the first time it is referenced in the bombing section, and the first time it is mentioned in the damage section, and as a "facility" everywhere else. using the term "facility" also has the added bonus of not having the reference be easily mistaken for one referring to the batman building, as those that are familiar with the tallest building in nashville are not likely going to describe it as a "facility".
does this sound like an agreeable idea? dying (talk) 07:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

use of conan daily as source[edit]

Love of Corey, i replaced the conan daily source with the local news source and the state record source because i believe the latter two sources are generally considered more reliable sources than the former.[a]

although i have admittedly not had significant experience with conan daily, it appears to be an aggregate news source based on a wordpress blog platform that presents many statements as fact without citing its sources, which may lead one to question how it obtained such information, and whether or not the information provided was actually true. for example, it is the only source (reliable or not) that i am currently aware of that makes the claim that warner was 5 ft 5 in (165 cm) tall.[b] if conan daily was able to obtain this fact from a reliable source, such as a government database, it appears to have not made readers aware of this fact.

note that i do not claim that all of its statements are questionable, but i merely raise the point that, in the case where sources that appear to be more reliable are readily available, i believe wikipedia should cite the more reliable sources.

is there a reason you prefer to use the conan daily as a source? dying (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ regarding the state record source, although i am aware that primary sources are sometimes considered less reliable than secondary sources, in this case, i believe official state records regarding birth dates and criminal records are pretty much incontrovertible.
  2. ^ technically, wikipedia was too, until i placed "About" before this claim in the infobox, and other sources that mirror wikipedia may have also repeated this claim.

warner's height[edit]

Cullen328, i think you may have meant to delete warner's height from the infobox rather than revert my correction to his height. i actually agree with your edit summary, that "His height is not encyclopedic." as it was not relevant to his notability, and i personally would not have added the information if it had not been present in the infobox. (similarly, his weight was in the same source i cited, but i did not feel it warranted inclusion for the same reason.) however, seeing that his height was already mentioned, and that it was not accurate, i felt that it was better to correct the information than leave it as is.

i had thought it inappropriate for me to delete the information unilaterally, as i did not wish to appear as if i owned the article, but if you wish to delete it yourself, you have my blessing.

if indeed you had meant to revert my correction instead of deleting the information altogether, please let me know your reasoning, so that i can be more aware of it in my own edits in the future. thanks in advance. dying (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Dying, I apologize for not taking a closer look. I have removed the height and the parameter. His height is not relevant. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
great, thanks, Cullen328. dying (talk) 07:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If he'd scaled the AT&T Building and taken out a few planes over some love triangle gone south, I could see his relative lack of stature as interesting, from a historical perspective, given that sort of monster's established norms. But not here. Everyone's the same height when they simply explode, and it offers no advantage or disadvantage beforehand. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You just reminded me of the fact that I imagined the man had a crush on actress Milana Vayntrub, and wanted to pull an old John Hinckley on the company. But I was wrong. It turns out he was a follower of people like David Icke, and thought 5G was the cause of the COVID-19 pandemic. Supposedly, he believed in a lot of other conspiracies about the U.S. Military, but I haven't read anything about that yet. -------User:DanTD (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You Will. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reported to police a year before[edit]

His girlfriend told the police about his bombs one year before the bombing: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/29/us/nashville-bomber-anthony-warner.html --89.12.15.76 (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote about other Nashville bombings[edit]

Linked to the requested move above, I added a hatnote about three other Nashville bombings that are mentioned in other articles (all from 1957-60 and connected to segregationism), because "Nashville bombing" redirects here. User:Yodabyte removed two with the statement that "trim excessive hatnotes - one is a bomb that never went off, the other was a targeted bombing of a private home". I reverted because the Jewish Community Center was indeed bombed, but they removed it twice more (User:Neutrality reverted their second removal and asked them to take it here, but they did not). Can we come to an agreement on how to best inform readers about these previous bombings in Nashville? Hatnote, list, category? Fences&Windows 19:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove the remaining hatnotes, no list, no category — I believe this is WP:SYNTH. The basic question is: are readers confusing this bombing with these previous bombings from 60+ years ago? Do readers link this bombing with those bombings? Do RSes link this bombing with those bombings? My impression from reading RS is that the answer is no, RSes do not link those bombings with this one, which suggests to me that the answer is no, readers are not linking it, either, and no one is confused. The prior bombings have nothing to do with this bombing. It's not like we're going to have information in the encyclopedia about every bombing that ever happened in Nashville. We are not a directory of bombings. The fact that there are some other bombings mentioned in some parts of some articles elsewhere, isn't reason to put a hatnote up (or to disambiguate the title by year for that matter). If those bombings were independently notable, then we'd have cause for dab'bing or a hatnote. For the same reason, we should not have a "list of bombings in Nashville" (it won't meet stand-alone list criteria), or a category (not a defining intersection). We have to follow the RS. Wikipedia shouldn't link this bombing to previous bombings unless RS do so. That some editors can make the connection is not a good reason for the article to make the connection. Linking this article to the previous bombings is SYNTH unless RS make that connection. Levivich harass/hound 19:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hatnote to Nashville bombing (disambiguation), and list the others there, the way Las Vegas shooting is handled (with a hatnote to Las Vegas shooting (disambiguation)). This provides the navigation aid for readers without any SYNTH concerns. Levivich harass/hound 21:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems sensible to have the disambiguating hatnote if “Nashville bombing” redirects to this page. Neutralitytalk 20:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support disambiguation hatnote - Seems like a fair way to go. Love of Corey (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Levivich and Love of Corey. Disambiguation hatnote is more appropriate instead of listing three obscure bombings from 60+ years ago. Also none of the three bombings have their own article pages.Yodabyte (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
.............. I just came across this issue in the RM above ..... take a look at the 1958 Nashville bombing redirect and suggestions please about where that should go. Have to say that the bombings from 1960s are very well represented in sources and have long term significance. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Photo?[edit]

Does anyone have a photo for the lead section showing the aftermath? I have found a bunch of (non-free) photos that could potentially be used. We could also check Flickr and reach out to small businesses affected by the blast who have photos to see if they want to release their content under CC BY-SA. If no free photo can be found, we will have to make do with a non-free photo, although that is pretty bad. Aasim (talk) 11:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Identity of Warner's Motorhome[edit]

The motor home driven by Anthony Quinn Warner was a Ford E-Series cutaway chassis with the body of a Thor Motor Coach Chateau mounted behind the cab. That's considered a Class C motorhome. If it doesn't matter that this was a Ford, why should it matter if it was a Thor? And why are so many people bothered by the fact that I brought up the fact that it was a Ford? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because RS like the New York Times mention "Thor Motor Coach Chateau" but not "Ford E-Series cutaway chassis", our article should mention the former and not the latter. Levivich harass/hound 19:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So are you suggesting any identification of the cab the motor home is built on is unreliable? Because it isn't, and it's not just because I say so. Excuse me for trying to be a little more precise here. -------User:DanTD (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IRA[edit]

Someone could re-work that paragraph that mentions the IRA to only mention it once, even if two different talking heads mentioned it. Mcfnord (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified that one of these "talking heads" is a notable doctor and the other is two non-notable folks. We could remove the latter completely. Just some guys on the Internet. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Abrahms and Moroszczyk are gone, just Erroll Southers' head talking now. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If someone else considers restoring the op-ed, ask yourself if singling out the IRA even makes sense, given the authors' additional and equal shoutouts to Irgun, the ETA, the ANC, the ALF and the ELF. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Love of Corey, did you consider not singling out the IRA (the only one already mentioned) from the other five examples of less-lethal radical groups? Maybe arbitrarily placing "quotes" around a word that isn't "unprecedented", for a change? Is there a reason two non-notable, uninvolved non-experts belong in this terrorism "debate"? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The op-ed's inclusion was meant to clarify why exactly the terrorism classification was very tricky in this case, something I hadn't seen anywhere else. But I've removed the IRA reference. Love of Corey (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't checked who removed the authors of the editorial/holders of the opinion, but that's certainly counterproductive to knowledge. Unwikilink, sure, red is infuriating. But consider the sources of information, they're not confidential, quite the opposite. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was you all along, Love of Corey, care to provide a belated edit summary? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unless we're going to be creating articles on these people very soon, I don't see why we need those red-links now. They stick out like a sore thumb. Love of Corey (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat, "Unwikilink, sure". But you remove their entire names. Only unwikilinked everybody except them. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my bad. I'm being dumb. I removed those people because I thought it was redundant for them to be there, as their names were already present in the provided citation. Love of Corey (talk) 06:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you still think that, or do you now appreciate that their relevance comes from providing the content you've decided is worthy of encyclopedic discussion? Do you see how the staff at USA Today itself can't be held responsible? It's a platform or webhost, like Wikipedia, opinions must be attributed. No dumb in honest mistakes. We live, we learn! But that piece would be the same if Forbes, Vox or whatever had bought it. Delete the outlet, if anything's redundant to the citation. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not going to delete the op-ed. Like I said before, it helps clarify the difficulty of the terrorism classification in this case. There's definitely a debate going on when it comes to this and it's good to get as much facts in as possible. Love of Corey (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I said outlet, not op-ed. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'm not understanding what you're saying, sorry. Love of Corey (talk) 06:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saying the fact that USA Today hosted these opinions is less important than who directly proffered them. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Well, I certainly didn't mean it like that. Love of Corey (talk) 06:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. But I still do. Just don't remove attribution to anybody you read an opinion from in any Wikipedia article, OK? Trust me. It's a policy, I linked it, six posts back. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Love of Corey (talk) 08:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

lizard people[edit]

ABC News reporting Quinn followed the 'lizard people' conspiracy theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.31.57 (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They prefer to called "reptilians", and NewsChannel 5 already has us covered; see "Search for motives" sssection. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible references to use[edit]

Conspiracy theories about the bombing[edit]

There were two conspiracy theories floated after the bombing which got some press coverage

The "fake RV" narrative never got traction but RS did cover the missile strike nonsense up to y'all if you wanna include it cheers --LaserLegs (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral to adding the missile strike conspiracy since it has reliable sources about it. However, If we do choose to add it I think it should be less than a sentence or two in the aftermath section. A separate subsection I think would be undue weight. As for the "fake RV" conspiracy theory I oppose it's addition since it's not covered in reliable sources and lacks coverage. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

time of death[edit]

"On December 25, 2020, Anthony Quinn Warner detonated a recreational vehicle (RV) bomb in downtown Nashville, Tennessee, United States, killing himself, injuring eight people and damaging dozens of buildings in the surrounding area."

The source says the bomber's remains were found on the scene. But there is no evidence that shows the detonation killed the man. There's only confirmation that his body was in the explosion. He might have been deceased prior to the explosion. Mcfnord (talk) 08:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear description in "Subsequent suspicious vehicles"[edit]

Regarding the truck playing messages in Tennessee, while I realize the description is nearly word for word what was used in multiple News sources, and came from the Sheriff's office, but it is not likely easy to understand for most. The main issue of clarity IMO is the charges. Unless one is a law officer or lawyer, I assume it is not normal to understand that playing false (possibly prank?) evacuation messages is something that gets charged with "filing a false report" or "tampering with evidence". That's all we have to go by after simply hearing similar sounding messages were heard, so it seems like quite a jump in logic. The second reference on this case explains that the tampering charge was because he "damaged the speaker system wiring unintentionally". Am I crazy, or does this indicate the charge is somehow about him damaging his own (presumably) speakers while committing a crime. Still not exactly sure what the crime is. I searched what the criminal charges may be for a case of inciting panic with false alarms (fire in theater scenario), and it may be something like criminal endangerment. But the way it is presented now seems unrelated and without explanation. You almost wonder if it is talking about the same case. Searched for better sources, no luck. I'd humbly suggest removing this, or the part about the charges, until more evidence can clarify it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.250.233 (talk) 09:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Nashville_bombing&oldid=1218816990"