Talk:October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts

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)

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)

References

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)

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)

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 [1] 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)

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

Jake Tapper @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 @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)

Motive?

According to this article, [6], 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)

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)

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. [7] --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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [8] which ought to know if anyone does) says "Katonah, New York". We should probably use Katonah. --MelanieN (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

MAGABOMBER (or MAGAbomber)

A good nickname [9]. 46.70.98.128 (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)