Talk:October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Second article

Resolved

There appears to be a second article about these events. I think a merger is necessary. Charles Essie (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I was trying to do this but someone moved this page into the project space? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I moved the project page back into main space and redirected the second created article. I'm a bit confused now, so hopefully this was done correctly. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

There's another article that could be merged or turned into a redirect. Autarch (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I've redirected to this article. Not sure whether or not 2018 explosive device incidents is the best title, but at least we won't have editors working in multiple spaces. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Could we reinstate the geographic disambiguation? These incidents are uncommon in the United States but common elsewhere. No Swan So Fine (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@No Swan So Fine: You might consider proposing specific titles in the section below, thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Motive?

According to this article, [1], the FBI is investigating the bombing attempts as domestic terrorism. Would it be premature to list that as a motive in the info box? David O. Johnson (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Wait for wider reporting. When CNN can quote the FBI director calling it an act of terrorism, then I think it's time. I don't think CNN is faking it, but they're the only outlet I can see right now making the claim. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

It's never been time and never will be. Motives aren't things people do, like domestic terrorism is, but why they do them. As for the act itself, the right time is verdict time. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Were they real bombs that all failed to explode, or props intended to look like real bombs?

Jake Tapper Twitter @jaketapper

Packages to Soros, Obamas, Clintons, Brennan c/o CNN, Holder -- these devices, per law enforcement sources, were rudimentary but functional.
Meaning the intent here was mass murder.

24 October 2018

Adam Housley Twitter @adamhousley

From fed source: “complete hoaxes” multiple wires when they only needed one. Reports of cell phones being involved was false. So no intention of harm. Now the questions. Dry run, or a false flag from the right or left trying to mess over the other side?

24 October 2018

The NYT article is unclear, it appears at least one was "detonated" by LEO with a charge but that may have been a precaution in case it was real, FBI release calls them "potentially destructive" which isn't really helping much2601:246:4D7F:A742:F1F7:290B:A5EB:790B (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The devices contained live explosive and the required real components for a bomb. It is not stated if the devices were viable. nytimes. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 00:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Feds supposedly now telling news they were completely fake https://twitter.com/adamhousley/status/1055242481409777664. Bah, why can't FBI be more clear in their release? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Housley 2601:246:4D7F:A742:F1F7:290B:A5EB:790B (talk) 01:15, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

As of the time I'm posting this, there's a line regarding this in the NYTimes article: "None of the devices harmed anyone, and it was not immediately clear whether any of them could have. One law enforcement official said investigators were examining the possibility that they were hoax devices that were constructed to look like bombs but would not have exploded." It's probably best to exercise restraint with editing this in since there's little information suggesting it. Tkbrett (✉) 03:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Consider the tweet from Jake Tapper. Tkbrett (✉) 03:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Tapper cites "law enforcement" which probably means locals who may have done a field test, Housley cites the Feds who have the things in their lab. Field tests and first reports are often unreliable, but more often they are accurate. Wish FBI would hurry up and clear this up with another release, kind of a big difference between hoax bombs and real bombs. https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel 2601:246:4D7F:A742:F1F7:290B:A5EB:790B (talk) 13:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Was going to add an NRO piece that appears to confirm the CNN bomb was harmless, but looks like they might just be misinterpreting the AP article -- doesn't seem to be anything new there. Anons did apparently find the clock and note that it doesn't even have an alarm function, and an EOD expert said they appear fake, but other EOD experts have been quoted as saying the opposite. Probably best to be very, very careful not to promote the claim they are fake unless the FBI goes on the record, as even fakes could be an attempt to lull potential victims into complacency for a real bomb attack.2601:246:4D7F:A742:F1F7:290B:A5EB:790B (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree that caution is the word here. I've included the Housley tweet as well on the side here to show the contrast. This is obviously a very partisan topic and it's awful to say, but at present it seems that it depends upon the partisan slant of the organization in how much credence they lend to the hoax theory. As a neutral third party, we should exercise restraint and wait until we hear from the FBI or until reporting clears up these discrepancies. Tkbrett (✉) 15:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

From the latest NYTimes article, "None of the devices have harmed anyone so far, and it was not immediately clear whether they could have actually exploded." And, from the original NYTimes article:

“ "The devices contained some of the components that would be required to build an operable bomb, but law enforcement officials would not say late on Wednesday whether they were viable.
[...]
On Wednesday afternoon, New York City’s police commissioner, James P. O'Neill, said that the CNN bomb was “a live explosive device” and that it would be rendered harmless and sent to the F.B.I. to be analyzed. The package that contained the device also included white powder that the police were testing to determine if it was toxic, he said.
Some bomb technicians who studied photos of the device that circulated on social media suggested that the bomb sent to CNN had hallmarks of fake explosives — the kind more typically depicted on television and in movies, rather than devices capable of detonating. ”

So to be clear, we still don't really know. Tkbrett (✉) 16:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's sensible that conspiracies from one side occupy about twice the size of what only the mayor said presumably from the other side. Surely, this site should not exacerbate the lies?

At some point, the authorities need to state whether or not explosives were in the packages. That alone would have made them very dangerous, whether or not the detonation devices were mistakenly made, or some sort of 'hoax' - I think the law would be on the prosecution side to treat the incidents as real attempted murder if true explosives were part of the 'bombs.' This should be easily found in Reliable Sources when that information is confirmed or not.50.111.19.178 (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The devices contained pyrotechnic powder. Pyrotechnic powder is an explosive.They also contained a digital timer. "Multiple senior bomb technicians briefed on the case said that the aspiring bomber had all the components necessary to set off a successful explosion." [2] --MelanieN (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The latest update of the NYTimes article states the following: "But Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York said on Thursday that the devices were functional explosives. "They are bombs capable of detonation. That has been established," Mr. Cuomo told CNN. "Was that purposeful or incidental? Was it a poorly constructed bomb?" So the statement that the bombs were functional is now being reported beyond CNN. Tkbrett (✉) 04:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Response section appears to be out of balance

We need to take a look at our weight of coverage in the Response section. Why do we dismiss the comments of the targets by simply saying that they "responded", and give one sentence to Bill deBlasio, but we give whole paragraphs including extensive quotes to people like Sanders and Limbaugh? Why do we spell out the "false flag" allegations in detail while giving only two passing mentions to the idea that the attacks might be connected to Trump's attacks on the media? And do we point out anywhere, or quote anyone pointing out, that most of the targets were people whom Trump has been attacking on a daily basis? There are plenty of sources saying so. [3][4] [5] --MelanieN (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree completely; right now, it gives more weight to some half-baked conspiracy theory than the rather much more likely idea that someone decided to attempt to kill politicians critical of a governing body. Icarosaurvus (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

We also focus very heavily on Trump's response, but not criticisms of it. (I mean, really, would anyone be surprised that Sarah Huckabee Sanders is backing Trump's narrative?) As it is now, it sounds like we're supporting either the "they brought it on themselves" or "It was a hoax" narratives, and that's wholly unacceptable. Icarosaurvus (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Juxtaposing his carefully prepared rally remarks with his "mainstream media" twit is valuable, and you can't post a wall of commentary from everyone with an opinion. Right wing conspiracy theories, when clearly labeled as such, are fine. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I have expanded the reactions from targets of the bombings. Surely they have a right to be heard here if anyone does. --MelanieN (talk) 02:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Aye, the political section now looks much better, thanks! The media section still needs some rebalancing, but that can likely wait a bit. Icarosaurvus (talk) 06:02, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Greg Gianforte

Currently, the timeline section mentions Greg Gianforte. Is this appropriate for this article? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Update: The claim was removed with this edit. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It's relevant in the sense the encouraged violence on journalists enabled the one sent at CNN.

That's your assumption. David O. Johnson (talk) 07:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

White House targeted?

On Wed, Oct 24, at approximately 10:30 am, both CNN and MSNBC (and possible others) were reporting that the White House had received a suspicious package at its mail facility. I had to go away and by 2 pm nothing more was said about it. Since this is (so far as I know) the only incident that involved Republicans, I'd like to know what happened? Was it just a heat-of-the-moment report that was rescinded 15 minutes later? Enquiring minds (me) want to know. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I would suspect that the White House regularly receives such packages (along with other weird (hate)mail). Just because a package arrives does not mean it is related to the incidents in this article. Although a copycat could show up with a different agenda. -- 65.94.42.18 (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Bedford vs. Katonah

There's some back and forth re: Bedford vs. Katonah. Can we decide on one and be consistent throughout? @Wik67: Bringing to your attention, just in case. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Original coverage said Bedford, probably because the police department and the post office are named Bedford. More recent coverage (including from the NYT [6] which ought to know if anyone does) says "Katonah, New York". We should probably use Katonah. --MelanieN (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2018

Need to add Kamalia Harris to the summary table and the October 26 section.

An IED was intercepted at the Colonial post office in Sacramento.

Sources:

https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article220670830.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/26/politics/sayoc-complaint/index.html (see page 9 of the complaint) Erufailon86 (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC) Another source: https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/california/Suspicious-Package-Sent-to-Kamala-Harris-in-Sacramento-498684491.html

Suggestion: Add a table

A table would be the most effective way of listing the various mail bombs sent (when, where, to who). --209.249.148.143 (talk) 15:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever added it! --209.249.148.143 (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Maybe the table currently in the "List of Incidents" subsection could float right at the top of the "Incidents" section? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Seems someone already remove the float right. Perhaps we could make the template and font size a bit smaller, and merge some of the date cells? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

You can't make table font size smaller, it violates one of the accessibility rules in the MOS. The only way to change the size would be to reduce the number of words in there. It already is limited, that may not be possible. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Vanifesto photographs copyrighted

It looks like all of the so-called "Vanifesto" photographs of the bomber's van are all copyrighted, and some of the photos that were taken by Twitter posters before the arrest have denied Fox "News" to use the photos. Is there any effort being made to contact Twitter people who own photographs of the van they took over the past 2 years to see if one might be used for this article? Or is that "self research." SoftwareThing (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• If you can get someone to license and upload a photo that would be great. It is not self research and very much to be encouraged. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Nominated for In The News (ITN)

Hey y'all, I nominated this article for ITN. I'm surprised it hasn't been nominated already. Just letting you guys know... Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Bill Clinton And Debbie Wausserman Schultz were Potential Targets Too

I think this should be included in the article. The bomb was sent to both Bill and Hillary's New York home and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the former DNC chair who happens to be a resident, was likely a target as well. Sayoc, who misspelled her name, also sent a device to her Aventura office as well. 68.47.65.239 (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it was addressed to Bill Clinton, he would only be included if we were listing the other spouses. I think the package to Debbie Wausserman Schultz was just "return to sender" for the false address given by the bomber.--Pharos (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Parody ISIS flag?

A lot of people on twitter are showing that the flag on the bomb is likely a parody/fake ISIS flag, but I cannot find an article from a reputable source on this. Any thoughts?

Image comparing the two: https://imgur.com/a/QIB8eIw

Found a source, and changed article to reflect. Baba Rum Raisin (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Get Er Done flag [7] should it get an article, since it's been around, and in the news before -- 65.94.42.18 (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

The ISIL flag itself doesn't have an article, it's just the sub-section of a section of another article - there's no way we're giving one for the Get Er Done flag.--Pharos (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

There's no reason not to have the ISIL flag as an article. It clearly meets WP:N and is clearly significant in use outside of ISIL itself. So the situation with the ISIL flag isn't relevant to having one for this topic or not. Though it would be easier if the ISIL flag had an article, since we could just add a subection there if we wanted to start various criticisms and take-offs of the black flag. -- 65.94.42.18 (talk) 04:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Article title?

Thoughts on the best article title? 2018 American explosive device incidents and October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts were both redirected here, so there are some different options to consider in terms of which key words appear in the title. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• I swapped it to October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts. This is at present the most descriptive title. There's a magabomber hashtag trending but no indication yet that will become a widely used label in reliable sources. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • For the record, 2018 MAGAbomber explosive device incidents was also redirected to this page. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
• United States mail bombing attempts or United States explosive device incidents would be better in my view. The date in the title is an unnecessary disambiguation since there are no other Wikipedia articles about USA mail bombing incidents, so it is best to exclude it. For example, see 2017 Manchester Arena bombing → Manchester Arena bombing (Talk#Requested move) & 2018 YouTube headquarters shooting → YouTube headquarters shooting (Talk#Date in title). For counter example, see 2018 inter-Korean summit → April 2018 inter-Korean summit (Talk#2 summits: Split into 2 articles?). —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 that the year should probably be dropped, but I also think we should see if there is a clear designation that arises for this incident. The alternative titles are worded a little awkwardly but we don't have much better to work with. Tkbrett (✉) 04:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

There have been previous similar incidents, for example the 1919 United States anarchist bombings. For the time being specifying the date is likely to be useful. Once this event has settled down we can think about a permanent title. It is still a current event and we don't know if a common name will emerge. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 08:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't know about there are similar incidents! We should make a category about mail bombing incidents. Never mind, there is a category called "Category:Terrorist incidents involving postal systems". —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

We should definitely use "bombing" rather than "exposive device".--Jack Upland (talk) 08:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

End Date

Why has an end date been added? It's too soon to say more packages won't be found and that the suspect is the right guy.

Yep, that's wrong.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Fringe opinions

I tried to remove the paragraph about fringe conspiracy theories from fake news websites like the InfoWars but was reverted. They don't belong per WP:ONEWAY, and we shouldn't give them more credibility than to the rest of the "Media" section. Furthermore, these opinions are absolutely irrelevant, as they aren't in any sort of power to influence these events, and weren't targeted. wumbolo ^^^ 16:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• Your rationale makes no sense so I don't agree with you. The subsection on conspiracy theories is fine. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
• "Fringe views, products, or the organizations who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way." This is definitely met by the secondary sourcing covering those conspiracy theorists. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

  They don't connect them in a serious way. wumbolo ^^^ 19:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• Certainly they do, Right-Wing Commentators Have Already Decided the Explosive Packages Are a False Flag. Both the right-wing commentators—who are the conspiracy theorists—and the explosive packages are in the headline and in the article. This is clearly connected. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

  No they don't. They were ALREADY DEBUNKED. I think we need a WP:NOTBULLSHIT policy, because people like you don't understand WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, and WP:COMMONSENSE. wumbolo ^^^ 08:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:Current

From my point of view it would still make sense to include this template at the top of the article. The rules for the usage of the template actually say it's (only) for one day but the topic still is and will be for quite some time in the (breaking) news e. g. on all major networks – especially as details on the perpetrator come to light and the debate(s) about president Donald Trumps responsibility for the attack on the news outlet (CNN) and on the democratic opposition (two former presidents, among his election rival, not unlikely democratic candidates for 2020 and senators, Brooker and Harris, besides one top official of the intelligence agency and his personal critic, ...) continues.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Geheimnisenthüller (talk • contribs) 10:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The Suspected Mail Bomber Proudly Documented Love for President Trump

Here is an interesting video about him - [8]. 46.70.98.128 (talk) 23:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC) Recommendation to include aspect of LGTB-Incel aspects of the suspect?126.3.49.107 (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Devices

MSNBC is now reporting that devices were also sent to:

• Eric Holder
• Andrew Cuomo
• Congressional mail sorting facility

---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR saying Cuomo's office investigated the package and said it had computer files on the Proud Boy movement? Bkissin (talk) 21:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

These were PVC bombs. It's an important detail left out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.26.143.195 (talk) 11:54, 27 October 2018‎ (UTC)

If this is true, "These were PVC bombs.", it would indicate that the devices were designed to cause injury, but not designed to cause death; so the suspect cannot be charged with attempted murder on top of the fearmongering (terror) charges.

In the 1985 California Jewish Nazi bombing of anti-discrimination activist offices the device was designed to kill.126.3.32.199 (talk) 12:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Birth date

Cesar Sayoc's birth date is 03-17-1962: [9]. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

We will need a Reliable Source before we can add this. --MelanieN (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Arrest made

I don't have time right now to add this to the article, but someone should: Arrest made in connection to suspicious packages --CNN. --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I've redirected Cesar Sayoc, Cesar Sayoc Jr., and Cesar Sayoc, Jr. to this article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

+ Cesar Altieri Sayoc, Cesar Altieri Sayoc Jr., and Cesar Altieri Sayoc, Jr. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Apologies if I'm editing wrong: can someone MAKE a page for Sayoc instead of having those stub pages redirect here? There's a lot of mystery and misinformation on the interwebs about him, it would be helpful to have a collection of reliable (cited) info in an article about him on Wikipedia.

2600:1010:B02A:C5B8:E0CC:87B:B316:5136 (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

One will be created when there's enough content to justify a standalone article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

For now I would keep those as redirects. It is possible he might later qualify for a separate article, but for now WP:CRIME suggests all information about him should be put here. --MelanieN (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Another Believer, what would you think about adding redirects from "MAGA bomber" and "Maga bomber"? Those nicknames have become pretty widespread. [10] --MelanieN (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Yes, I think those terms should be redirected to this article in case people are using them as search terms. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Please, somebody, add more information about him in our "suspect" section! I don't have time to do it today. Right now it is only a sentence or two, but there is a lot more known about him: his education, his arrest record, his van which has become famous in its own right, etc. Just be sure it is sourced to reliable sources, not rumors. --MelanieN (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure someone will draft a new article soon (then, we'll have a community-wide merge discussion), then the article will eventually be kept. Just a prediction :) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

MAGAbomber and MAGA Bomber have been redirected. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

For the record, Cesar Sayoc and all name variants currently redirect to the section Suspect. If the article title or section heading changes, the redirects should be adjusted accordingly. Categories specific and relevant only to Sayoc have been placed under Cesar Sayoc, per Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects. The other name variants should remain uncategorized. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

I think that a link could be made to "Italian Americans in New York City" within the sentence "His father is a Filipino immigrant and his mother was born in the Bronx, having Italian heritage." in the "Suspect" section.

Yep, I Could do that if it's okay with you. Sheldybett (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC) Italian and what? She could be of mixed heritage herself. Perhaps "Italian Heritage" does not need a link to another article unless it`s certain she is Italian on both sides.

Where was Soros when his estate manager found the pipebomb?

The article just says he wasn`t home. Was he not at the FII (Saudi Crown Prince hosted investment summit), or in the Cayman Islands, and can a wikipedian with enhanced search engine find that relevent info? cheers126.3.49.111 (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but that seems rather irrelevant for this article. We don't know where any of the other targets were at the time, either. And unless Reliable Sources have published and made a point of where Soros was, it would be original research (which is forbidden by Wikipedia) for us to say anything about it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit request II/addition to `See also`

Would someone please add a point (another mailbox pipebomb)), perhaps under the Synagogue shooting (dunno how that got there)?

• Alex Odeh - mailbox pipebombing of anti-discrimination activist by Jewish terrorists in California

Thank You126.3.9.151 (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I think some restraint should be exercised here. There are around fifty incidents that could be listed there and we only need three or four of them. I got rid of the shootings and the random link to letter bomb and urge editors not to go adding too many links to the see also section. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 23:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Someone has since removed the Synagogue shooting, but no-one has upped the PIPEBOMB in the MAILBOX case mentioned above; the arrest of Cesar Sayoc was due to PIPEBOMBS being sent in the MAIL. See the relevence?

There have been many incidents of pipe bombs being sent in the mail. We certainly aren't going to list them all here, and the Odeh case does not seem especially similar. --MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Graphic?

1200km
820miles

3

2

1

  

Locations in United States

Is someone able to create a graphic illustrating locations where packages were sent? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

There is a helpful graphic available in the NYTimes article. As of my posting this (EDIT: now 10-26 17:00 UTC), the locations they list include:

• Chappaqua, N.Y. (Hillary Clinton)
• Katonah, N.Y. (George Soros)
• New York (John O. Brennan, Robert De Niro and James Clapper)
• Delaware (Joe Biden)
• Washington, D.C. (Maxine Waters and Barack Obama)
• Sunrise, Florida (Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Eric Holder)
• Los Angeles (Maxine Waters)
• Florida (Cory Booker)

Tkbrett (✉) 03:15, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tkbrett: I got help with the maplink template (see right). It needs all the locations as coordinates to work, some approximate locations I already added. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 13:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

My attempt at the map, grabbed from Austin serial bombings -- displayed on the right:

Can be improved or usage can be modified. – The Grid (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I've updated my list to include the two other new targets (Joe Biden in Delaware and Robert De Niro in NYC). Tkbrett (✉) 15:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I've again updated my list with the other new targets (Cory Booker in Florida and James Clapper in NYC). Tkbrett (✉) 16:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

But are we showing the locations of targets or where the devices were intercepted? If the latter, we should add Opa-locka, Florida to the map, right? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Map

I see the map has been removed. I thought this was helpful. Perhaps there's a way to combine the summary table and map? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

It was too plain so I thought it was kind of useless. Plus it created a bunch of white space. The cities and recipients should have been shown too, just like the ones on the news. Doesn't seem like it'd be too hard to make one a better one though. TomCat4680 (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2018: Cesar Sayoc, Jr. "Trump 2020" Rally

ADD to 'Suspect :

External media
Images
Michael Moore on Instagram: “My crew first encountered Cesar Sayoc”…
Video
Fahrenheit 11/9 outtake of "Trump 2020" Rally of Cesar Sayoc, Jr., February 2017.

code:

{{external media | float = right | width = 300px | video1 = [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opM6YIx3gA8 ''Fahrenheit 11/9'' outtake of <br>"Trump 2020" Rally] <br>of [[October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts#Suspect|Cesar Sayoc, Jr.]], February 2017.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181029193702/https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2018/10/29/michael-moore-releases-footage-mail-bomber-suspect-cesar-sayoc-trump-rally/|title=Cesar Sayoc: Mail bomber suspect was at Trump rally, video from Michael Moore shows|author=Alex Horton|date=29 October 2018|website=The Washington Post|via=archive.org|accessdate=29 October 2018}}</ref> | image1 = [https://www.instagram.com/p/BpfUtwcn1YS/ Michael Moore on Instagram: “My crew first encountered Cesar Sayoc”…] }}

References

69.181.23.220 (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

It's already mentioned he attended a Trump rally and posted selfies while there in the suspect section. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia is not a collection of links to primary content on Instagram and Youtube without context. GMG^talk 22:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Pipe bomb images

An xray of one of the bombs, and a photo of one of the bombs would be good to add to the article -- 65.94.42.18 (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree but they'd have to pass WP:COPYVIO.TomCat4680 (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

They are clearly strongly associated with understanding the event, so WP:NFUR should be possible under WP:NFCC for any copyrighted images, since they necessarily originate from police services, which are not profit-making entities. And images produced by the FBI should be {{PD-USGOV}} -- 65.94.42.18 (talk) 05:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Lead Re-write (sort of)

I have just re-arranged the lead section. I think it flows better but what do I know. I didn't change the lead in place but have listed my new copy here in the talk section. You can use it or not as you see fit.

Major change are:

• Only included the most prominent names in the first paragraph.
• Included the suspect's name in the first paragraph. (Thought it belonged there too.)
• Gave less importance to President Trump.

Here is my version:

In late October 2018, fourteen packages containing pipe bombs were mailed via the U.S. Postal Service to twelve prominent Democrats including, among others, former President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, previous Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and former intelligence chiefs under Obama John O. Brennan and James Clapper. 56-year-old Cesar Sayoc was arrested in Florida four days after the original reporting and charged with five federal crimes in connection with the mailing of the explosives.

The attacks prompted an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. All 14 bombs sent were actual improvised explosive devices, but none of the devices exploded outside of a controlled setting. No one was injured in the attempted attacks.

The intended targets of the mailing were Democratic politicians Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris, Eric Holder, Barack Obama and Maxine Waters; actor Robert De Niro; billionaire investors George Soros and Tom Steyer and former CIA Director John O. Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. (The package sent to Holder had the wrong address and was instead delivered to the Florida office of U.S. Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, whose name and address were on the return labels of all of the packages.) All the intended targets were prominent critics of U.S. President Donald Trump.

The first pipe bomb was placed in the mailbox at Soros's home in Bedford, New York. Later the same day, the United States Secret Service intercepted bombs addressed to Obama and Clinton. CNN received one addressed to Brennan at its New York City studios in Time Warner Center, which was evacuated.

U.S. Representative Waters was targeted with two packages intercepted by authorities, one in Washington, D.C. by the United States Capitol Police, and another in Los Angeles by the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The New York City Police Department removed a package found in Tribeca at an office used by De Niro. The FBI removed two packages found at postal facilities in Delaware, addressed to former Vice President Biden. The next day authorities found bombs addressed to Senators Booker and Harris, plus Clapper and Steyer.

A suspect, Cesar Altieri Sayoc Jr., also referred to by some in the media as the "MAGA bomber", was arrested in Plantation, Florida, on October 26, 2018, in connection with mailing the explosive devices. The FBI is treating the investigation as domestic terrorism. If convicted, Sayoc could face up to 58 years in prison.

References

--RoyGoldsmith (talk) 07:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the proposal, RoyGoldsmith, and for bringing it here for discussion. I think that looks fine, except that personally I would completely omit the fourth and fifth paragraphs. We don't need a blow-by-blow description in the lede of how each bomb was delivered. That kind of thing was added per Breaking News while the story was developing, but now that the story is mature let's save it for the text. IMO it is enough in the lede to list the targets. If we do remove those two paragraphs, it will have to be done carefully so as not to orphan any references that are defined there and cited again later in the article. What do others think about Roy's proposal and mine? --MelanieN (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Another Believer, Frayae, and Joseph A. Spadaro: Pinging for additional input. --MelanieN (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to some rewording, but oppose the proposed rewrite of the first paragraph to the extent it describes Brennan and Clapper as "prominent Democrats" which is inaccurate; they are Trump critics, but I believe Clapper is an independent, and I'm not sure about Brennan. I also don't think that the fact that all the intended targets were prominent Trump critics should be shunted to the end of the third paragraph; that's the one fact that ties all the victims together. I'd be fine with mentioning this in the last sentence of the first paragraph. Neutrality^talk 22:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it's a little too repetitive. It definitely needs to be trimmed to the bare essentials without orphaning any references. TomCat4680 (talk) 02:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

There, I fixed it.TomCat4680 (talk) 10:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Neutrality: Clapper is listed under Category:Indiana Democrats; Brennan works for MSNBC. How about I just leave Clapper and Brennan out of the first paragraph, leaving just Obama, Biden and Hillary?

@TomCat4680 and everybody: I still think the first paragraph is too long. And I'm not sure about the second to last sentence in the third paragraph of my version: "(The package sent to Holder...". Do we really need it in the lead? Once we get the 15th package resolved (hopefully by this afternoon), I will substitute the first three paragraphs of my version (properly modified) for the entire lead. What say you? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Your version is still too repetitive. I just split what was there into three paragraphs. I got rid of the part about Eric Holder's package going to Debbie Wasserman Schultz from the lede earlier but it's still in the Incidents section. It was meant for him but it never went anywhere near him, that needs to be included somewhere in prose at least once since she's a Democratic politician just like several other intended recipients. TomCat4680 (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@TomCat4680: That's fine. I removed the stuff about the MAGA bomber; we have enough about this topic in the Suspect section.

incorrect add here, sorry ~ 174.150.185.156 (talk) 06:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

By the way, for everyone, the introduction section (or the lead) of a Wikipedia article should not be spelled "lede"; see MOS:LEAD. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Kamala Harris

Update: MSNBC is reporting a package sent to Kamala Harris was intercepted in Sacramento. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, hi. Newb here. On October 24, amid the chaos of the second round of bombs being reported, "a building containing offices for U.S. Senator Kamala Harris and the San Diego Union-Tribune was evacuated due to a suspicious stack of postal boxes. Roads in downtown San Diego were closed for several hours Wednesday morning , but the contents were determined to be only random items.[11][12]" I posted this on the page on October 26, but now, three days later, I see that it's been removed and there are so many edits that I have no idea how to find the stated reason why. I realize that it's a secondary issue because it turned out to be a false alarm, but it's directly related to the bombing and it was notable enough to shut down a major city's downtown area for several hours on a weekday morning. I would like to at least see the stated reason for the removal. Thanks. Kire1975 (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I took it down. It was non-news. This article is about bombs not boxes. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

There are articles about it in thehill, latimes.com, NYdailynews, independent.co.uk, Houston Chronicle, New Haven Register and dozens of other notable sources.[13]. They all mention that the alarm was notable because it came at a time when the country was at a high alert. The disruption was caused as much by the bombs as it was by the boxes. But hey, you're the guy with 12 years of daily editing experience, 10 awards and you seem determined to be right about this so I'll have to surrender if you want me to. Thanks for responding. Kire1975 (talk) 06:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

please don't unnecessarily rewrite references, it counterpolicy and erodes the value of our history mechanism

Please don't unnecessarily rewrite references, it counterpolicy and erodes the value of our history mechanism.

Yesterday I added half a dozen references to the article, and I placed the body of those references within the {{Reflist}} template.

Today I did a diff of the article, to see how many amendments had been made in the last 24 hours or so. I found that diff obfuscated because someone have moved the references I added from within the body of {{Reflist}} template into the body of the article.

Every time I have asked someone why they did this they pointed to the MOS, and misinterpreted advice there. The MOS, and maybe other wikidocuments, advise contributors to not change the "style" of references. Those who remove perfectly valid references from within the ==References== section have completely misunderstood the MOS.

Here in 2018 almost all articles use references enclosed between a pair of <ref></ref> tags. Generally those tags enclose a {{cite}} template.

But that style of reference was unknown a dozen years ago. In 2005/2006 earlier, and harder to use styles were in use, like Harvard style references. You can still see echoes of them in the wikimarkup menu, below. {{#tag:ref||group="nb"|name=""}} is an instance of the metadata used by this style.

Articles CAN'T MIX the usual footnote style references with Harvard style references. When they are mixed the references of both kinds start at 1. It is hopelessly confusing.

What the guidelines are telling people is that, when an older article is written using something other than the usual footnote style references, a new contributors should not start adding footnote style references.

Hardly any articles still use the older styles, because footnote style is generally superior, except when an article has many references to a single book, or many refernces to a bunch of books. Harvard style references allow multiple references to a book, each one giving a different set of page numbers.

What I did, putting footnote style references, inside the {{reflist}} template in the ==References== section is completely compliant with how footnote style references are supposed to be used.

Why is rewriting them for some kind of aesthetic reason disruptive? It is disruptive because it means that diffs light up as if all kinds of changes have been made, when all that is being altered is the article's metadata.

The article's content is what our readers want to see. The article's actual content is what is important. The internal aesthetic appeal of an article, to contributors, is of a distant secondary importance.

Further, any time you unnecessarily alter metadata, for purely aesthetic reasons, you risk making a typo, and busting stuff.

So, don't do it. Geo Swan (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

List defined references is a different citation style than what the article uses currently; the article should not be changed to use that per WP:CITEVAR Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: The WP:CITEVAR policy specifically says not to put references in the {{reflist}} as list defined references where the article already uses citations in the prose. Subject to the policy you may convert them as explained in Help:List-defined_references#Converting. You put the wrong citation style in and someone fixed it, this is to be expected. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Frayae, are you sure the guideline say what you think they say?

  There is a very important principle in engineering, and related disciplines. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

  You wrote "You put the wrong citation style" I wrote above that the Harvard style of referencing, described at WP:Parenthetical referencing#Origin of author-date (Harvard style), is what the guidelines mean by a citation style. Contributors are not supposed to mix citation styles, like the now rarely used Harvard style and the footnote style. Footnote references, in the body of the article, and list-defined footnote references are what the relevant guidelines refers to as "methods"? Doesn't Help:Footnotes#List-defined references explicitly start with "Some or all of the footnotes can also be defined within the reference section/list, and invoked in the page content"?

  I believe this made my original choice of placing references I orginally drafted for use elsewhere within the {{Reflist}} template compliant with policy and guidelines.

• I am going to repeat the brief WP:Citing sources#To be avoided section in full:

When an article is already consistent, avoid:

switching between major citation styles, e.g. parenthetical and <ref> tags, or replacing the preferred style of one academic discipline with another's; adding citation templates to an article that already uses a consistent system without templates, or removing citation templates from an article that uses them consistently; changing where the references are defined, e.g. moving reference definitions in the reflist to the prose, or moving reference definitions from the prose into the reflist.

Let me repeat, both list defined references and references in the body of the article are kinds of what the document calls <ref> tags

WP:Citing sources#Variation in citation methods says: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." And it does say anyone who wants to make that change is supposed to seek consensus. But you and Galobtter misread that passage, and made or justified unnecessary edits, based on confusing citation styles with citation methods.

1. So the advice to not "switch between citation styles" means don't switch between the footnote style and the earlier and rarely used Harvard style. It does not apply to list defined references, at all.
2. not applicable
3. Help:Footnotes#List-defined_references starts off with "Some or all of the footnotes can also be defined within the reference section/list, and invoked in the page content." "Some of ALL". So, I think my initial placement of new references within the {{Reflist}} template was completely consistent with policy and guideline, and that it was whoever then unnecessarily moved the references I wrote, and changed them from one field per line, to all fields on a single line, who was not complying with the guidelines.

How is the unnecessary rewriting of references a problem? It has been a terrible problem, for me. I first started working on the wikipedia in October 2004. I have contributed to well over ten thousand articles. Sometimes one of my google news alerts offers me a new reference that should be added to update an article I last worked on months, years, or over a decade ago.

Ideally, the first thing I should do, when I haven't worked on an article for a long time, is do a diff showing all the changes since the last edit I made, or the last time I took a good look at the article. After a long period away from an article I generally find a dozen, or dozens of other contributors have made edits to that article. That big diff seems to show practically everything about the article has been changed. But a closer examination of the big diff will seem to show that much of the changes have been largely or purely aesthetic changes to the article's metadata.

If I want to see how the article's actual content has been changed I am forced to step through each individual edit one at a time, and look at each individual diff. This can take a long time, sometimes well over half an hour.

What I generally find is that almost all, or in many cases ALL of those edits have been alterations to the article's metadata, and that few, or none of those edits has altered the actual content of the article, at all.

You can imagine how frustrated I am with people who like to rewrite metadata, solely for aesthetic reasons, when it caused me to waste a huge amount of time, stepping through each individual revision, to see if anyone made an actual update to an article's content. Sorry, I continue to think that when Galobtter, reverted my edits with the edit summary "not sure what erosion is occuring, don't change references styles (to WP:LDR) without consensus on talk" they were the one who was lapsing from the guideline, specifically the third unnumbered point in WP:Citing sources#To be avoided, that proscribes moving where existing footnote style references are defined. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No doubt their reversion of my edit was well-intentioned. But it was also disruptive.

FWIW, other kinds of edits that modify an article's metadata, or appearance in the editor, should be avoided, because they fool the diff engine. FWIW, taking a paragraph that has more than one linefeed in it, and turning it into a paragraph that has just a single linefeed, at the end, tricks the diff engine. So it should also be avoided.

I repeat, there is a very important principle in engineering, and related disciplines. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Geo Swan (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The way I see it, the article was consistent and used in-prose references. Then you came along and added some references to the reflist in an unusual manner. Then the references were put back in the way every other article on this subject uses, including this one before you decided that your preferred method would work better. None of the other editors on this article use list defined references. Most editors don't use them, and most articles don't use them. It takes longer to find the references when editing as a result and interferences with verifying the content. I am going to put them back because there is no consensus to use this citation method/style. (Also I have left a note on your talk page about using a better diff engine, not important to this debate.) — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Geo Swan, you are a long-established editor here, so I'm surprised at you taking this position. You are objecting to “unnecessarily rewriting references”, but you were the one making unnecessary changes, by using a different reference style from what had already been established in the article. The article's style is to cite the full reference within the text, using “ref name” if it is cited more than once. (You did all of your original edits without any edit summaries, so it’s not possible to tell what your intention was.) Then when someone moved the citations to text you changed them back to your original style, which you should not have done; per the Discretionary Sanctions, if someone challenges your edit you are not supposed to restore it. With regard to references, Wikipedia practice is to respect existing style, and the established style here is to use in-text citations. If you are writing an article from scratch you can use any reference style you like, but please respect the existing style at an established article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• MelanieN, yes, I am a long-established editor here. I'll return to that later.
• I am sure that David O. Johnson, Galobtter and Frayae, genuinely thought they had guideline-based justifications for rewriting those references. I thought I had explained how they were misinterpreting those guidelines.
• I'll repeat a key passage from Help:Footnotes#List-defined references, about how and where list-defined references can be used. It explicitly states list-defined references can be used in any article, including being added to articles that had previously only used in-prose defined references.

  Yeah but didn't you, Frayae, and Galobtter all refer to passages from the guidelines that warn against mixing citation styles?

  Yes, you did. But what you wrote, what Frayae wrote, what Galobtter wrote, all strongly suggest to me you simply didn't know what you are talking about.

  Excuse me for being blunt, but I explained this tactfully, and you tuned me out.

• MelanieN, you made a dozen or so edits in 2006, one in 2007, but you didn't really get started until 2008. So, all your editing experience has been since the footnote reference style had almost totally supplanted earlier, harder to use reference styles.
• I am a long-established editor. And my contributions started in 2004, when articles didn't have reference sections. Instead general references were supplied in the external links section, supplemented by bare-urls in the body of the article.
• In 2005 I started to see other contributors using the WP:Footnote3 references style, which was superior to the no-references style, but inferior to the footnote references style. I made thousands of edits, using this earlier style.

  I know what is required to change all the references in an article from that old deprecated style, to the newer, superior style, because after I converted to using the new style I converted many of the articles I started using the earlier style to the newer, superior style. Because the two styles were totally incompatible a total conversion was required.

• Here is an example of a conversion from the older style to the footnote style. Note: {{ref}} templates were used in the body of the article. {{note}} templates were used in the reference section. It may be I never fully learned to use this style properly, but the way I used it, if you moved a paragraph's location, in the body of the article, you would have to check to see if you then had to move the location of some {{note}} tags, in the reference section. Like I said, it was a generally inferior system.
• As above, I have concluded I have to be more blunt, since my earlier comments have been discounted.

  The rewriting of references, by David O. Johnson, Galobtter, Frayae, was not compliant with WP:Citing sources#To be avoided, which explicitly tells contributors to avoid " changing where the references are defined, e.g. moving reference definitions in the reflist to the prose, or moving reference definitions from the prose into the reflist."

• My addition of brand new list-defined references, on the other hand, is not a lapse from WP:CITEVAR's warning against changing an article's "established citation style", since both in-prose and list-defined references are compatible variations in the footnote reference style, and the guideline explicitly allows that mixing list-defined references into an article that has used in-prose defined references.
• WP:Parenthetical referencing#Examples says thousands of articles use that alternate citation style. It is to those thousands of articles which CITEVAR warns about converting from one "citation style" to another. Geo Swan (talk) 09:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

  Geo Swan, I don't see that "It explicitly states list-defined references can be used in any article, including being added to articles that had previously only used in-prose defined references"; however, I do see that at Help:List-defined references: "List-defined references and references defined in the body of the article may be mixed on a page—this is not a technical limitation of the template. However, this may be confusing to ongoing editors, and should be normalized to a single style, per WP:CITEVAR." You are the one who is "changing where the references are defined" - just because you're the one who introduced the references too doesn't mean you aren't changing some of the references to be defined at {{reflist}} Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

48 or 58 years?

On a quick Google News search, half the sources I've found say he could get 48 years ([14], [15], [16]) and the other half say 58 ([17] [18], [19]). I'm guessing the confusing part to the media is whether or not they're count the package sent to Hillary Clinton as a "Threat against a former president" due to her being the wife of Bill Clinton. This needs to be cleared up with something official (i.e. an actual court document) but I have no idea where to get one. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, according to this ref [20], 48 years is correct, but the Justice Department did originally say he faced 58 years. There's a document here outlining the charges: [21], but I don't know if the sentence is included. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I actually think the "possible" sentence should be excluded for now per WP:CRYSTAL. He hasn't even been arraigned yet! TomCat4680 (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree, any talk about possible sentences is premature. --MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

But, the reliable sources are all certainly mentioning it. So, I think it's valid for inclusion. Just like in the case of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting. The fed's are saying: "he faces the death penalty". Same idea. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The penalties for each charge will be mentioned at Sayoc's arraignment in a little while but until then it's unofficial. Courts set sentences not the FBI or any other law enforcement agencies. It's still too early to list them here though.TomCat4680 (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps what you say is true. Nonetheless, reliable sources are stating this. That's "good enough". So, what's the issue? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

It is not good enough because we, unlike they, are not really supposed to make predictions. There's no end date. We can wait to add information after the arraignment. Icarosaurvus (talk) 06:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

It is indeed "good enough". We are not making any predictions. We are simply reporting what reliable sources are saying. (Perhaps, they are making predictions.) It's all semantics. Info like this is pretty typical in these high-profile cases. I remember seeing the same type of info ("he faces xxx years in prison") for Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein and many other high-profile cases. Furthermore, it's not a prediction to say that "he faces xxx years". It's actually a fact. To say "he will be sentenced to xxx years" is a prediction. But, no one is saying that. And those are two very different statements altogether. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes he'll face a sentence eventually if he is found guilty of any and/or all counts (there's five of them, each with their own penalty). If the media can't agree whether the maximum sentence will be 48 or 58 years (it's not their job to determine it anyway) we should just leave it out.TomCat4680 (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Why does the title use the word "attempts"?

Why does the title use the word "attempts"? That makes it sound as if the perpetrator was trying to bomb someone or something and he failed in his attempts (i.e., he wanted the bombs to go off, but they failed to do so). We don't know that to be the case. I read that there was speculation that the "bombs" (crude and simplistic, probably not even feasible) were sent to scare the recipients, not to explode near them (i.e., that they were never intended to explode). In any event, we don't yet know. I think "attempts" is inappropriate in the title. Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Given that the authorities are treating it as an attempted bombing, we should, as well. Icarosaurvus (talk) 05:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. But, I am not so sure that that's the case. I think they are working on multiple theories, as any open-minded investigation necessarily would. One theory is "attempted bombs that failed to explode". Another theory is "bombs not designed to actually explode, but merely to frighten and alarm". I do not think that "attempts" is appropriate in the title. Other thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Also ... for what it's worth: the phrase "mail bombing attempts" makes it sound as if they attempted to mail these things. That they "attempted" to send these things in the mail. That's what the phrase sounds like to me. More so than "they attempted for the bomb to actually explode upon receipt". My two cents. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Also ... think about it: I believe that there were 12 bombs or so. If they really wanted these bombs to explode, what are the odds that not a single one of the twelve did so? Highly unlikely. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

This isn't a forum. We're not here to make a synthesis of published material. – The Grid (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@The Grid: What are you saying? Are you saying that my above posts are not legitimate for this article's Talk Page? Please let me know. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Joseph A. Spadaro, you are not supposed to speculate on what the attempted bombers motives were without supplying a source to back it up, because without a source there's no way discussion of the idea is going to help the article which is what this page is for. It does make sense if you think about it. Regarding the title, because the newspapers are calling this an attempted mail bombing we must also. If the official line changes then we can use the updated title. Not before, and even then it must be a majority of newspapers and the common name for us to updaten the title to match. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Frayae: Thanks. But, you missed my point. I am not speculating. I am referring to the investigators themselves speculating. I said above: "I think they are working on multiple theories, as any open-minded investigation necessarily would. One theory is "attempted bombs that failed to explode". Another theory is "bombs not designed to actually explode, but merely to frighten and alarm". I do not think that "attempts" is appropriate in the title.". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

There are a myriad of sources.

• [22] ... Experts say the person or persons behind the multiple explosives sent in the mail to CNN and high-ranking Democrats likely never intended them to go off.

• [23] ... 2 possible reasons the pipe bombs didn’t explode

• [24] ... Some Suspected Mail Bombs Were Not Capable of Exploding, Others Yet to Be Analyzed, Officials Say

• [25] ... Some mailed pipe bombs could have been duds, investigators say

• [26] ... Some Of The Mail Bombs Were Not Capable Of Exploding

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes I think I am missing a point here somewhere. I am not sure what kind of title would be possible without using the word "attempts" in it. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, OK. But, that's a different question altogether. What the title should be is open for discussion. My point is that the word "attempts" does not belong. If anything, that itself is speculative! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be better to say "mail bomb incidents". We don't know what was being attempted exactly.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Update: Law enforcement officials told the Associated Press the devices contained batteries and timers but were not rigged to explode when they opened. Source: As national bomb probe continues, authorities turn focus to Florida. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

That does not imply that the devices were fake; it simply implies that they were time bombs, rather than having some manner of trigger rigged to the packaging. Given that they were shipped in padded envelopes, this is hardly surprising, as I rather strongly suspect that soft packaging and contact triggers are not things that mix well. Icarosaurvus (talk) 04:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Spadoro. The sources cited in the current article note that the packages contained no triggering device (of any kind). They apparently contained a number of components of bombs, but none contained all necessary components configured in a way that would make them explode. I've certainly never seen any source that said they were designed to explode, or were capable of exploding. Rather, they use weasel words to make them sound more dangerous. I think "mail bombing scare" would be a much more accurate title.John2510 (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

There are still no charges of attempted assault, attempted murder, reckless endangerment or anything else that might suggest local police suspect he intended these to explode or believed they might. That's telling, I think. Though state prosecutors might just be waiting to see how the federal case plays out first. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Have you actually read the charges? Here's a quote.

"1. In or about October 2018, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, CESAR ALTIERI SAYOC, the defendant, transported and received, and attempted to transport and receive, in interstate and foreign commerce, an explosive with the knowledge and intent that it would be used to kill, injure, and intimidate individuals, and unlawfully to damage and destroy buildings, vehicles, and other real and personal property, to wit, SAYOC mailed approximately 13 packages containing improvised explosive devices (“IEDs”) to certain current and former U.S. Government officials, politicians, and others, including mailings across state lines."

How about another?

"7. The FBI’s Special Agent Bomb Technicians, along with the Westchester Hazardous Device Unit, rendered safe the contents of the Soros Package. An initial examination of the contents of the Soros Package revealed what appeared to be PVC pipe, a cap, clock, battery, wires, and energetic material. Included in the Soros Package was a photograph of George Soros marked with a red “X.”"

Note, now, that those are the necessary makings of a bomb. The energetic material in question is a powder that can be, according to another quote... "material that gives off heat and energy through a rapid exothermic reaction when initiated by heat, shock, or friction." A detonator cap certainly fits that description of an object that could initiate heat, shock, or friction in order to cause a reaction in the energetic material in question. Also, do note that the charges routinely refer to the objects as IEDs. Improvised explosive device. These were not hoax devices. These were bombs that the suspect did not rig correctly. Source: https://abcnews.go.com/US/read-charges-package-bomb-suspect-cesar-sayoc/story?id=58777000 Icarosaurvus (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I certainly could have looked closer. The phrase "appeared to be" in a suspicious package context always kind of makes me wonder, but the first allegation seems solid. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

No problem, sorry if I was a bit short with you; I need to remember that not everyone has the time and willingness to go through dry legal documents. Icarosaurvus (talk) 03:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

All good. After the last three or four disagreements I've had, this one seemed entirely pleasant and helpful. Looking back, I kind of see some sass on "How about another?", but even that's refreshingly mild. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Other non-political targeted persons (George Soros, Jack Abramoff)

All the coverage thus far is focussed on the politicians, What about these rumours of some offshore-capitalists having been targeted? Both Soros and Abramoff are US CITIZENS, but their RESIDENCE is offshore, unlike the politicians; Should they have a seperate section on non-Continental USA residents?126.3.32.199 (talk) 12:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't say Soros is a non political target. His funding of political causes is well known and our article calls him a political activist, amongst other things, in the first sentence. True a fair amount of his work is outside the US, but there's enough in it I would say even in the US he couldn't really be called non political. I mean of course his influence is not even close to the wacky conspiracy theories about him, but still it would be weird to say he's not a political target. You could say something similar about the Political activities of the Koch brothers, although I believed at least one of them did try to enter politics personally at one time. As for Abramoff, I don't think he has been a target. Are you thinking of Tom Steyer or Robert De Niro or something? Nil Einne (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

In the first place, Soros is not a politician, but he is highly political anyhow because of his large funding of political causes. In the second place, he is not an offshore resident; the bomb was sent to his residence in New York. The other "non-politicians" targeted were a wealthy businessman who urges and funds the idea of impeaching Trump, and an actor who has highly visibly insulted Trump. There is no break in the pattern here. --MelanieN (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

George Soros is an international businessman and travels for work, this nonsense or spindoctoring "A device was found in the mailbox at the home of George Soros in Katonah, New York, on October 22. Soros, a common target of conspiracy theorists, was absent.", without mentioning he doesnt actually live there (for tax reasons) and travels offshore a lot with his billions. They don`t say where he was.why?126.3.49.111 (talk) 07:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps Soros was the guest of honour at Davos in the Desert, hosted by the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia?126.3.49.111 (talk) 07:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

It is not remotely within the scope of the article to speculate on the whereabouts of Soros. Icarosaurvus (talk) 08:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Both Soros and Abramoff are clearly "political".Tym Whittier (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Information from interviews with people who have known him

I think we need to be very cautious about including information from interviews with people who know him or have known him in the past - former employers, former attorneys, cousins, that kind of thing - and I have removed two paragraphs of such material. Such sources are generally not solid enough for an encyclopedia, and lot of what they say is gossip or hearsay or their opinions. The media are frantic to get information about him, so they will interview anyone who is willing, and print everything they say. But these people are not Reliable Sources in Wikipedia’s sense, and some of the information that is coming out from this kind of source is contradictory. In any case we should not include such people’s amateur evaluation of his mental state or (unless we get it from more than one source) his opinions.

I would like to see us piece together some kind of employment history, but that may be difficult; it appears he has drifted from one job to another without establishing any kind of career. We should include only verified jobs - most recently doorman and DJ at a strip joint [27] - not jobs that people think he had (long-haul trucker, really?). And we cannot believe anything he says about himself. I won’t have time to work on this today but I encourage someone to pull together an employment history. For now I have removed all of the material that was cited to a former employer and his former attorney; let’s discuss if some of it is worth restoring. For now, I have challenged the material, so per DS we need to reach consensus before restoring it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

It turned out that most of what he has claimed about his employment history was false. We now mention a little of it, along with the disclaimers, and we have information about a few of his most recent jobs. We need to continue to treat anything he says about himself as possibly or probably false. --MelanieN (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I thought it was Wikipedia's policy to disregard anything anyone says about themselves as being "not reliable", which means the truth or falsehoods of his statements irrelevant to the Article, however the fact that he may by lying about it could be included.Tym Whittier (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)