Talk:2007 Boston bomb scare

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee 2007 Boston bomb scare was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
November 15, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed
WikiProject United States / Boston (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts - Boston (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Cartoon Network / Adult Swim / Aqua Teen Hunger Force (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cartoon Network, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Cartoon Network on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Adult Swim task force (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Aqua Teen Hunger Force task force (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copyedited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
 

Moves[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Police Analyst Recognized Device??[edit]

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

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

Scare quotes in opening[edit]

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

Dead link[edit]

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

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

Dead link 2[edit]

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

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

Dead link 3[edit]

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

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

Dead link 4[edit]

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

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

Dead link 5[edit]

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

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

Dead link 6[edit]

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

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

Dead link 7[edit]

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

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

Dead link 8[edit]

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

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

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:2007 Boston bomb scare/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Astrocog (talk · contribs) 14:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This article has been in the GAN backlog for a while. I'll be doing a GA review of this article today. Please be patient. AstroCog (talk) 14:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Things to fix[edit]

  • Ref #13 is a dead link.
  • There shouldn't be wikilinks inside of quotes. (for example, "L-E-D, not I-E-D").
  • Gonna need to copy edit this thing. I'll do what I can, but it's a long article, so nominator/major contributors should pitch in or recruit a copy editor.
There's a lot of careless language in this article. For example, in the lead, it say the scare was met with criticism from different sources. What part of the scare was met with criticism? The response from authorities? The advertising campaign itself?
  • All images need appropriate alt text. See [altviewer] for info about this page. Alt text should briefly describe the purpose of the image for blind readers or for readers using a text browser.
  • One of the images has the caption which starts with "Err advertisement..." I don't know what "Err" means. Is that in the article?
  • Last image could be cropped and enlarged to better see the device itself.

Criteria checks[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Needs copy edit for careless language (see section above).
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    No problems here.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Seems fine.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    No apparent problems.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    No problem here.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Alt text needs to be improved. See issues above.
  7. Overall: GAN fails due to lack of editor interest in making improvements.
    Pass/Fail:
    Make improvements suggested above. Main thing this article needs is a copy edit.

Move to Law[edit]

While a review has started, would this get more attention in the "Law" section? "Law" has a shorter list and its more likely to get someone who's interested in crimes (which "Law" encompasses). This article really has nothing to do with warfare. Can the move be made? --S. Rich (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I think which GAN category it is in is irrelevant at this point. I agree that it doesn't seem to be a "war and military" topic, but I don't think it's a "law" topic either. It doesn't make sense to change categories once the GA review finishes. When editors of this article are ready to renominate, they can find a more appropriate category for it. I'm beginning to think that this was a drive-by nomination by an editor not heavily involved with the article. I meant to fail the GAN yesterday for lack of any responses. I'll give it until the end of the day. AstroCog (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I put out a call on a couple WikiProjects. We'll see if there are any takers today. AstroCog (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act of 2007[edit]

Senator Leahy says here: The School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act....The bill also clarifies and strengthens two existing statutes – the Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act and the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act – which are designed to improve public safety. Which sounds like it was passed.

Threatening terrorism against the United States says 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(c)(1)(g) "was amended by the Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act of 2007.[2]" and uses this link as evidence it was. If anyone else is an expert in figuring this out and thereby correcting this article as necessary, as well as spelling out details and sentencing guidelines, go for it. CarolMooreDC 20:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Budding edit war in Aftermath section[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

67.82.165.119's version my version

On February 5, 2007 state and local agencies came to an agreement with both Turner Broadcasting and Interference, Inc. to pay for costs incurred in this calamity. As part of the settlement, which resolves every civil and criminal claim towards the panic, fear, strife, unrest, disorder, wrath, rioting, and anarchy, Turner and Interference agreed to pay $2 million — $1 million to go towards the Boston Police Department and $1 million towards the Department of Homeland Security. The two organizations did this because local authorities deemed their initial apologies not enough as announced by Dan Conley, who is the District Attorney for Suffolk County, Massachusetts, in a speech on NWCN saying the people who are responsible for this "reckless stunt", are liable for the havoc it caused to both the city and the region.[1] Also, as an unfortunate result, on February 9, 2007, the week after the commotion occurred, Cartoon Network's original manager, Jim Samples, resigned from being in charge of Cartoon Network in order to avoid criminal liability, to make up for this disaster, and to let everybody who use to work for him move on. And shortly after his resignation, one of his employees, Stuart Snyder, took over his position as the manager, and has been controlling Cartoon Network since that time.[2]
On February 5, 2007 state and local agencies came to an agreement with both Turner Broadcasting and Interference, Inc. to pay for costs incurred in the incident. As part of the settlement, which resolves any potential civil or criminal claims against the companies, Turner and Interference agreed to pay $2 million — $1 million to go towards the Boston Police Department and $1 million towards the Department of Homeland Security. This is in addition to the companies' apologies which local authorities deemed too little as announced by Dan Conley, District Attorney for Suffolk County, Massachusetts, in a speech on NWCN saying the people who are responsible for this "reckless stunt", are liable for the havoc it caused to both the city and the region.[1] Also, on February 9, 2007, the week after the commotion occurred, Cartoon Network's original manager, Jim Samples, resigned "in recognition of the gravity of the situation that occurred under my watch" and with the "hope that my decision allows us to put this chapter behind us and get back to our mission of delivering unrivaled original animated entertainment for consumers of all ages".[3]
--Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

NPOV VIOLATION? UNDUE WEIGHT?[edit]

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

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

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

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference .242million was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Weber, Harry R. (February 10, 2007). "Cartoon Network Head Resigns After Scare". ABC News. Archived from the original on April 3, 2007. Retrieved August 24, 2011. 
  3. ^ Weber, Harry R. (February 10, 2007). "Cartoon Network Head Resigns After Scare". ABC News. Archived from the original on April 3, 2007. Retrieved August 24, 2011.