Talk:2010 Austin suicide attack/Archive 1

Archive 1

Terrorism? Really?

I hardly doubt that it was a case of terrorism, unless you count a lone person wanting to send a message after he takes himself out. Here is his Manifesto: [1] --Hourick (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

According to Dictionary.com... "Terrorism: noun. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes." This is exactly what Joe Stack was doing. 96.231.116.22 (talk) 06:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You 'hardly' doubt it? That would mean you believe it was terrorism. Also, this isn't a forum about the attack, it's to discuss changes to the article itself.

Well, it may not be terrorism, but I think we should see how many attempts to link it TO terrorism there are. I would figure that if terrorism is discussed significantly in this issue, it would have some relation to it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it was Al Qaeda, but it could still be classified as an "act of terror". WTF? (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If is not terrorism then what was it? He set his home on fire and then flew to the building and CNN is saying that he left a suicide note. If that's not terrorism then i dont know what terrorism means. Isn't the Oklahoma bombing like local terrorism? --Vrysxy! (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The motives of the person determines whether it would be terrorism. I don't have any opinion either way, and believe that no matter what it should be considered a part of the terrorism WikiProject, but he could just be troubled and out of his mind. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It was undeniably terrorism since the intention was to "add to the body count" by "waking up Zombie Americans" with the desire to motivate others to do as he did -- politically motivated, ergo terrorism. This was a terrorist act under the dictates of the definition of what constitutes terrorism as described by the FBI.Fredric Rice (talk) 06:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

He wanted to scare people and send a message - that certainly sounds like terrorism to me. But it would probably be best to only use that word if it's well sourced. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, is not terrorist attack because it was an American? if he was a musulman then it would be considered as a terrorist attack?--Vrysxy! (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

IMO this is similar to a school rampage. "Lone gunman"--TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC) of course it was terroridm terrorism dos not mean muslim it means scaring people. damn liberals get your heads otuof your asswes.

Wiktionary's definition of terrorism is:

1. The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a political or social agenda.
2. Violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives.
3. A psychological strategy of war for gaining political or religious ends by deliberately creating a climate of fear among the population of a state.

Was this attack intended to create an emotional response? Maybe. It's obvious from his manifesto that it was an act of revenge. I think it's a stretch to call it terrorism. SteveBaker (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Initially when I posted that, there was a terrorism tag attached to the page and didn't think it was warranted.--Hourick (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The manifesto is mostly anti-IRS, a branch of the government. This draws parallels to the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995, when McVeigh outlined his dissatisfaction with the American justice system in making arrests. This seems like a classic example of "lone-wolf" terrorism. Of course, he probably borrowed a page out of the 9/11 playbook. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 20:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I added the article to WikiProject Terrorism (although no use if the terrorism term in the article itself - I haven't noticed if others might have done that though) very early but someone removed[2] the {{WikiProject Terrorism}} banner. I still say it belongs, but I agree it's not the most clearcut decision the way the term has been redefined the last 8 1/2 years. It's certainly easier to have a WikiProject banner on the talk page than adding a terrorism-related category to the article itself. __meco (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I personally dont consider this an act of terrorism, it is simply a dangerous (to others), vengeful suicide. I think if anything, he's the one being terrorized. Also, we all know that "acts of terrorism" are committed by brown people whose country the US wants to exploit ;-). I am not at all condoning what he did, but the IRS is a faction that practices extortion, and if they don't, why do people pay income tax? Such a law would be unconstitutional, and anyone asking to see the law on paper has been denied. This is an evil organization in other words. And for the record, I love America, I hate these greedy bigwigs bleeding us all dry FractalStruxture (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

First and foremost, Wikipedia isn't really the place to discuss your own personal opinion on the IRS. It would be best to keep such opinions private, so as not to further inflame the debate (which this is starting to become).

While I think this qualifies as terrorism, I don't think we should mark this as terrorism until we get agreement from the law enforcement community. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 01:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Right now, the authorities have explicitly labeled it a criminal act, not a terrorist one.[[3][4] Plus, we should avoid using terrorist in any case per WP:TERRORIST; describing what he did is much more effective in getting the point across. NW (Talk) 06:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Regardless of if it could be construed as terrorism, terrorism is such a buzz word, that using it for something so grey would be improper. To call it terrorism leads into one direction, while simply NOT calling it that is neutral and still allows it to be a possibility. We shouldn't wait for agreement; it's not our place to decide what to call something. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

everybody knows white folks can't be labeled terrorists, its like in the constitution —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.196.48 (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. It's a little-known fact that the terrorist Tim McVeigh was the world's palest Arab. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like authorities are debating on the "Definition" of "Terrorism", so I see no harm in leaving it up until THEY reach a consensus on what it might be. [5] --Hourick (talk) 08:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

FISA as a provision for lone wolf (terrorism) that requires the individual to be a foreign national. I expect that the definition might be revised after this event, but we should stick to what the FBI says and not commentators. - Stillwaterising (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The article explains how policy makers (Bureaucrats?) are debating a redefinition of "terrorism", which on a personal level is stupid. I agree with you on the FBI's definition, though. --Hourick (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Folks, the government will never call or define this sort of events as terrorism. While I agree this is a clear act of terrorism, the authorities will prevent this from being called terrorism. For a considerably long time, the word terrorism has identified the current meaning of terrorism the public associates with guys in turbans, Al Qaeda, IRA, ASALA, ETA, Hamas, PKK, etc. Can you imagine what would happen if every nut feels like flying a plane or driving a truck into a building killing innocent people and authorities call them terrorists? This will immediately align foreign and domestic terrorism identification. Right after that, every teenager or a faculty member that go on shooting rampages will be a reason for debate whether they should be called terrorists or not. Eventually, people will wonder what America does in Afghanistan or Iraq when it needs to fight its own terrorism at home. Anyway, we should wait for the term from authorities. Only then should the article be labelled as a terrorist act. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that this is a politically sensitive issue in the US, and the "terrorist" label often has political purpose, we should not depend only on "the authorities" who are also subject to political priorities. Instead, are there reliable sources, both inside and outside the US that have commented on this as a terrorist act? The answer is yes. This is an instance where the line between terrorist and lone whacko protester is blurry, but there are overlaps. Mattnad (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The answer is NO. Some individual deciding to call a lone act "terrorism" don't make it so. Just as with the Fort Hood situation. Or Columbine, for that matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That's cute since you're some individual saying "No" so I guess we can ignore you if that's a test. But I was not suggesting we consider "some individual" as a test. I was suggesting we look at reliable sources and there are many that suggesting that he was a terrorist.Mattnad (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's a recent article by Psychology Today (a RS) that explains that "the term (terrorism) now has virtually nothing to do with the act itself and everything to do with the identity of the actor, especially his or her religious identity. It has really come to mean: "a Muslim who fights against or even expresses hostility towards the United States, Israel and their allies."" - Stillwaterising (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

And the term 'terrorist' is effectively now defined as 'someone brown'. HalfShadow 22:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Stack's residence?

Where did Joseph Andrew Stack reside. The WHOIS record of embeddedart.com has his address in San Marcos, Texas, which is why I cited that record. But another editor revised this to state, "Scofield Ridge, a neighborhood in North Austin"; also uncited, so I have no idea where this came from? If you add this back in, it needs a citation. WTF? (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

He burned his house down before setting out in the plane - the house was in Austin - just a mile or two from the crash site - I drive past it every morning on the way to work. But that doesn't mean he was born there. His manifesto clearly indicates that he spent much of his life in California. I don't know where the idea that he came from San Marcos came from. If the WHOIS record is all we're going on then it's likely meaningless. I'm deleting the San Marcos information until/unless we get a solid reference for that. SteveBaker (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the reference I can find of him residing in San Marcos. WHERE is the reference for his residence in an Austin neighborhood or Scofield Ridge. Provide it, or be reverted. WTF? (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The WHOIS record tells you nothing about where he lived - only where he registered his web site. Check ANY of the news sites and you'll see that before flying the plane into the building he set fire to his home which was on Scofield Ridge - about a mile north of the crash site. I'll find you a reference - but don't revert the change for 10 minutes until I get you something solid - OK? SteveBaker (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

[6] - Scofield Farms can be located on Google Maps - you'll see that it is in NorthEast Austin - I drive past this place every day. San Marcos is 20 miles further south. SteveBaker (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The citation provided now backs this up, though I removed the specific address and simply put "1800 block". The specific house number is not important. WTF? (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That's like saying the address of the Echelon building is unimportant or the tail number of the plane is unimportant. It's important to researchers and people who live or own property nearby and perhaps for other reasons that can't been foreseen. Please restore it. - Stillwaterising (talk) 04:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Crash versus attack

Clearly, there's some dispute over the title, so we need to come to a consensus and not get in a wheel war.

I believe it should be called an attack, because we can verify that the crash was intentional, and crashing a plane into a building very strongly constitutes attacking it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

We have time to deal with this - in the meantime, WP:AGF - crash is a perfectly descriptive word, even if it was (as it appears) an attack. SteveBaker (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe it should be "attack" also, as he clearly targeted the IRS. From his manifesto: "Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well." It's not like he was flying around and lost control. He deliberately attacked the building. --Cdman882 (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No - you DON'T know that. Maybe he intended to "buzz" the building. Maybe he intended to drop leaflets into the parking lot...you don't "KNOW" that it was an intentional act until we get formal references for that from reliable sources. This is an encyclopedia - not a speculative news source. SteveBaker (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I think "crash" is the best word to use here. While it may have technically been an "attack" against the IRS, it's a single event -- he crashed his plane into the building and killed himself. He doesn't appear to be part of a terrorist or anti-government group that's launching multiple attacks against government entities. It's a singular event, as far as we know right now. WTF? (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. There is no urgency to pick the most perfect title...particularly because events are changing quickly. We should err on the side of neutrality and that means "crash" - not "attack". Even if it was an attack, it was also a crash - so "crash" is a verifiable, definite answer. "attack" is still (at this early stage) speculation. SteveBaker (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"Attack type: Suicide attack" --Cdman882 (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that the "manifesto" is 'signed' thus "Joe Stack (1956-2010)". I know what is 'suggests' to me, but as SteveBaker says, we can't speculate. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Better image?

Would it be possible to get a better image that is directly related to the subject instead of showing an image of a similar plane? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a photo of the building on my way to work tomorrow. SteveBaker (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Website down

This is what it now says at embeddedart.com:

"This website has been taken offline due to the sensitive nature of the events that transpired in Texas this morning and in compliance with a request from the FBI."

--220.101.28.25 (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I made a copy of the contents if we need it. IMHO, the short quote I put into the lead section is enough. SteveBaker (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. (Interesting that webcitation.org copy is still available) --220.101.28.25 (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Smoking gun has a copy of the manifesto, that should be suitable enough be cited as a source. [7]--Hourick (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The webcitation.org archive is sufficient. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

In addition, Wikinews has a full local copy of the text. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Quote from IRS agent in the building

IRS Agent William Winnie said he was on the third floor of the building when he saw the plane coming towards him.

He said: "It looked like it was coming right in my window. I didn't lose my footing, but it was enough to knock people who were sitting to the floor "

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2859730/Plane-suicide-attack-on-tax-office.html

--Cdman882 (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Name order

Right now, CNN and CBS News name him Joseph Andrew Stack. ABC News, msnbc, and FOX News name him Andrew Joseph Stack. Just a heads up to AGF on changes. --Elliskev 20:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

A question was raised on the talk page for Wikinews here. After reconsideration I've changed his legal name to Joseph Andrew Stack III. The misunderstanding comes from the property tax record which apparently had his name wrong. Current news articles and almost all websearch results are leaning toward having Joseph being his first name not middle. - Stillwaterising (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Good move! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"Officials with the Travis County medical examiner’s office said today that they have positively identified Andrew Joseph Stack III as the pilot of a single-engine plane that authorities said was intentionally flown into a North Austin office building that houses IRS offices." Austin American-Statesman, February 22, 2010 A person who shares a name with an ancestor, as Stack obviously did, frequently goes by a middle name to distinguish himself from that ancestor. Peoplefinders lists an "A. Joseph Stack" in Austin and Georgetown. There is an Austin telephone listing for "Andrew J. Stack" at 1827 Dapplegray Lane, the address where the house burned down. I will change the name in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.244.79.158 (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Link to the above-mentioned Statesman article — Huntster (t @ c) 03:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the documentation. I felt bad that I/we "got it wrong" but perhaps we were one of the few that "got it right." Unless the FBI or APD comes out with against this it seems to have a proper source and should be known listed as Andrew Joseph Stack III. - Stillwaterising (talk) 07:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Not much you can do with contradictory 'reliable' sources, though I did note come sources appeared to 'play safe' by using the manifesto signature "Joe Stack". 220.101.28.25 (talk) 10:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

House Fire

The cited source would make it appear that the wife and step daughter were not killed in the fire but the wiki page is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.193.192 (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah - they were rescued by a neighbour - I fixed the article. SteveBaker (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Joe Stack was a member of the Austin Tea Party

The pilot Joseph Stack was a memeber of the Austin TX Tea Party, a group affiliated with the national tea party movement. I think that is worthy of inclusion since his blog posting/suicide note and target indicated he was displeased with the government and taxes.--75.179.134.119 (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

A reliable citation is definitely needed before tying him to the Tea Party movement, though I think this is plausible. WTF? (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Do you have a source for his participation in the tea party movement? His manifesto expresses some views that diverge considerably from those of prominent tea partiers. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Highly doubt it after reading his suicide note. We may have a troll situation here. MookieG (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the anonymous editor may be referring to this editorial. WTF? (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems like the anon was alot more detailed than "echoes of the frustrations that mark Tea Party expressions." If there was anything to the editors' claims, it would be all over the blogosphere, at least. MookieG (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to add fuel to the fire but it is all over Twitter (yes i know that isnt a reliable source) but that is in the same vein as a blog. anyway, these twitter people must be getting their information from somewhere. Im not in front of the news so i dont know. maybe the OP saw a news article or is from austin. Just my two lincolns.--Billwsu (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I think, at this point, a lot of people on Twitter (and elsewhere) are drawing their own conclusions and forming opinions. Presently, there's really nothing that we can state definitively that he was a Tea Partier or not, so it's just WP:OR. I'm sure more information will come out at some point. They may find that he was, in fact, part of the movement, based on talking to other people he knew. Or, the incident could have an effect on the movement. WTF? (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, the following quotes from his suicide note sure make him sound like a Tea Partier, don't they?

"The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.”

"Now when the wealthy fuck up, the poor get to die for the mistakes . . . isn't that a clever, tidy solution."

And then my personal favorite:

“Yet at the same time, the joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple, and this country’s leaders don’t see this as important as bailing out a few of their vile, rich cronies.”

Sounds like this guy came straight from the womb of Nanci Pelosi if you ask me!76.4.69.162 (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

This guy wasn't mad at the IRS because he was anti-government in general, he was mad at the IRS because he thought they favored corporations over the little guy. Did anyone read the note he wrote? Tea Partier? Not likely.--64.190.173.18 (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

See also section being anonymously deleted

I added a 'see also' link to the Oklahoma City bombing article, which I believe is a very similar event and certainly relevant to this, since the motives appear to be similar. Another user added a link to September 11 attacks here, although that could be a little bit of a stretch, but the type of attack in both cases is similar. However, it appears that two relatively new and barely anonymous users DELETED this section without regard for Wikipedia standards and policy. I think we need to build consensus here among the more established users whether this should be included, as I think it's most certainly reliable, notable, and should be included. WTF? (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It's synthesis for a terrorism meme. We should wait until the authorities decide to classify it as such. MookieG (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Aw, crap! You mean like WP:SYNTHESIS? WTF? (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with the users who removed the links. While Mr. Stack appears at this point to have had similar motives to those of Timothy McVeigh, it reeks of unnecessary hyperbole to compare this incident in which only the perpetrator (so far as is known) died with one in which 168 were killed. And the September 11 comparison is simply ridiculous. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Now that I know you understand me. Let's look up the policy on biting the head off of newcomers. MookieG (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you're a newcomer, but I don't really care that much. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Bet the article will be completely re-written by this time tomorrow. MookieG (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Plane ownership

Was Stack the owner of the plane, or did it belong to someone else?   — C M B J   22:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Initial reports said that it was stolen - but were later revised to say that it was his own plane. That struck me as odd because planes are expensive - and someone who claimed to be in such financial poop and who lived in such a relatively modest house would not ordinarily be expected to own such a thing. SteveBaker (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Note this is only a field office. The regional IRS is a huge complex across town off IH-35 at

3651 S IH-35 Austin, TX 78741-7855 (512) 499-5875

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&q=irs%20austin&oq=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl F8g8808 (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 08:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

---

2010 Austin plane crash → 2010 Austin, Texas plane crash — Brits. probably don't know where Austin is . —username 1 (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Why not "2010 Austin, Texas USA plane crash"? Seriously, I don't think we need to put Texas in the title for the benefit of the geographically-challenged. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• The crash is but a couple hours old. I'd say hold off on any requested moves right now.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• The very first sentence tells them where it is. I don't think a move is necessary here. Robofish (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed. Let's wait a bit before we start doing things like this. If anyone has a better title, let's do redirects and sort it out a bit later.--Hourick (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• We should really aim for the most neutral possible title until the authorities have a definitive statement. I don't particularly like the present title because there will doubtless be more than one light aircraft crash in the Austin area this year...but there is little point in stressing out over that right now. I suspect we'll end up with a title based around either Joseph Stack's name - or the name of the IRS office...but there is no hurry. SteveBaker (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Wait until a common name is developed or a more official title is given by authorities. - Stillwaterising (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Move protect page Moving the page back and forth destroys links, creates editing conflicts, and most importantly needs to be discussed and done with consensus. Calm down, get some sleep. The page may/may not be here in the morning. -Stillwaterising (talk) 05:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • It has been move-protected now. In fact, admins were so eager to act that two (including me) moved the page at the same time and three move-protected it at the same time. Ucucha 05:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment shouldn't this be named Joseph Stack suicide attack on the IRS? 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment, er excuse me, we do know where it is. – ukexpat (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I don't feel this move is a good idea. The location of Austin is already given in the lead, for those unfamiliar with its location. It would be a bit like calling the Munich air disaster the "Munich, Bavaria air disaster". 84.92.117.93 (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Many people in Britain have not heard of Austin as a place in Texas, but only as a make of car (Austin Motor Company), and may treat it as "crash of an airplane made by or tradenamed Austin" :: OK, Austin did not make airplanes, but many people do not know well who makes airplanes and who not. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Current title doesn't work. Many of the events that are relevant happened decades ago. Maybe "Joseph Stack suicide attack" for the attack itself and "Joseph Stack" (bio) for events before that morning. - Stillwaterising (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I started a stub for Joseph Stack at User:Stillwaterising/Joseph Stack. Feel free to contribute. - Stillwaterising (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't. Stack is the absolute epitome of what what WP:BLP1E is designed to prevent. The man himself is only notable because of the events described in this article; apart from that, zilch. Tarc (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

For reference note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Stack--Cube lurker (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Stack is a notable tax protester and has been doing so for the last 30 years. As more information comes forth much of it will depict events way outside the February 2010 time frame. "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." This condition isn't met because of his activities in court and his supposed letter writing campaign. "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate." This exception is met. Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing are separate. Richard Reid (shoe bomber) and 2001 shoe bomb plot are separate as are many others for good reason, the person and event are most logically presented in two separate articles. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Unless there's some coverage of this person pre-suicide as a tax protester, this position doesn't have a leg to stand on, and most certainly does not meet the oneevent exception. A 2nd Joe Stack article will meet a quick demise at AfD. Tarc (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You position doesn't a leg to stand on, either in policy or practice. All the people noted above as well as John Hinckley, Jr., Sara Jane Moore, Lee Harvey Oswald, Charles J. Bishop, Ramzi Yousef etc. all did not meet GNG prior to their "one-event" but are indeed notable as a result of it. - Stillwaterising (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

What are you doing, just rattling off random BLPs? None of those has the slightest correlation to this case. At all. But hey, go ahead and make it; it's your time to waste. Tarc (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

My main motive is to make information more accessible and better organized. I expect more information about his early life to come out and the section now call Perpetrator to grow. I would be interested in getting more opinions on this besides to ones presented. - Stillwaterising (talk) 00:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(reset) I applaud the efforts of Stillwaterising, however I agree that talk of a separate biographical article is premature. If Stack's life ever gets the media coverage or some sort of academic study (FWIW) that Oswald or Hinckley get, then maybe... Until then, a redirect and expansion of this article seems more appropriate. I guess, it would even be worth revisiting if the section about him in this article gets to the point where forking would make sense. But, for now... I don't think he warrants a stub. --Elliskev 02:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Censorship

Yahoo appears to have pulled www.embeddedart.com from its search results.   — C M B J   23:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Really difficult to say that it's censorship. They might've simply responded to the fact that the site was pulled offline so they removed it from the search results because it's useless. I wouldn't accuse Yahoo of censorship quite so soon. WTF? (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The site is neither offline nor useless.   — C M B J   02:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter, Wikipedia is not a news site. Wait until an actually publisher of news stories and commentary cares enough to call this censorship. It's not Wikipedia's place to break stories. --74.138.229.88 (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You can go a the Wikinews site and report it there. - Stillwaterising (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

according to the hosting site the FBI had them remove it.98.200.136.176 (talk) 02:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Facebook is also censoring related material.   — C M B J   06:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Family at home?

The page continues to suggest that Stack's family were home at the time he set it on fire. However, the cited article does little to give readers that impression and other articles such as this one, "http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_plane_crash_texas", lead me to believe that they were not home at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.193.192 (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There were news reports on the local Austin TV stations this morning that said that the woman and child were rescued by a neighbour. That report came out before the connection was made between the house fire and the plane crash. SteveBaker (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Billy Eli band

First photos, he evidently played guitar: http://billyeli.com/photo.htmGeo8rge (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Is his name Joseph Andrew Stack III or Joseph Andrew Stack?

I have seem it both ways.Geo8rge (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

His legal name according the county tax assessor is Joseph Andrew Stack III. I have to assume this has been verified. - Stillwaterising (talk) 04:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the link to the Travis County Central Appraisal District says "Stack Andrew Joseph III", which I would interpret to be "last name, first name, middle name," or "Andrew Joseph Stack III." Famspear (talk) 14:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

In his HS year book he is listed as Jr, so I think III is correct and was used by him all his life. An aside The Hershey School was originally for orphans so I wonder what his status was? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.33.2 (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Right now, we're using the appraisal record for the name, but hopefully in time all this will be straightened out and all the sources will come to a consensus on what his actual name is. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

note For most recent discussion on this matter see "Talk:2010_Austin_plane_crash#Name_order name order" above. - Stillwaterising (talk) 07:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Which building?

This article says Echelon I. However, I have seen Echelon I through IV in the news articles. I know for sure (from seeing the burned building) that it is the middle one of three similar buildings along the west side of US 183. There is a fourth, smaller building just west of the one that burned, which seems also to be part of the complex. I have searched with no success for some map of that complex that would label the buildings. Has anyone found such an authoritative map? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.244.79.158 (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I've driven around there - we bought our house from a realtor who worked in Echelon IV - so I know the IRS weren't there. I'm pretty sure the news reports are correct. SteveBaker (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Which news reports? As I said, I've seen the building that burned called by all four numbers. I also have the impression that the IRS wasn't the only tenant of this rather large building. So it would be nice if we could find some authoritative pre-crash source that gives the building numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.244.79.158 (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There was a brief shot of the burned-out "Echelon I" sign on the side of the building on Austin channel 8 last night. It's definitely Echelon I. SteveBaker (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Lone Wolf?

Not sure if this is notable or not, but just in the midst of the little "showdown" between Biden & Cheney, Biden was on the CBS Early Show yesterday saying that he was more concerned about the threat of a "lone wolf" event like this, as opposed to another 9/11. Biden - 1, Cheney - 0. WTF? (talk) 03:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You give Biden credit when a "lone wolf" terrorist attack actually succeeds? ok... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.204.90 (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

How do you define "succeed"--209.181.16.93 (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Main Page?

Shouldn't this article be mentioned in the in the news section on the main page?  Burningview  ✉ 04:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There has already been a discussion - it was an almost unanimous "Oppose" so it's not going to happen. SteveBaker (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The cabal has spoken, apparently,... WTF? (talk) 04:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI

You can see some background of what kind of work he had done, and what companies he had worked for, in the Internet Archive ([8]). --Steve Stair (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

page move

Could an administrator please move this page back to 2010 Austin plane crash. I don't think that "domestic terror attack" is exactly the right word for the article. Let's keep the title as simple as possible. Thanks! WTF? (talk) 04:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes this title describes the event accurately, and has not proven to be terrorism.  Burningview  ✉ 04:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Not neutral, looks like someones pushing POV here  Burningview  ✉ 04:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if you dont like it, enough Reliable sources are saying its domestic terror attack i thought it was warranted, I would have labeled it plain terror but felt it would be better to clarify it as domesticWeaponbb7 (talk) 04:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You need to build consensus for page moves prior to moving them. This was done without consensus, and is not appropriate, since it has not been established by authorities as terrorism. You have reported to WP:ANI. WTF? (talk) 05:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, the connection to terrorism has been discussed in the very first section of this talk page. So you really should have read that before moving it. WTF? (talk) 05:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, There is enough RS to establish it as a terror attack Weaponbb7 (talk) 05:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the current title is POV-pushing and not helpful to readers. Racepacket (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

whoah every one, i was not aware that calling something "domestic terror attack" was "pushing a POV," accsuing me of "pushing POV" becasue you disagree is not productive. I am not opposed to returning to the former title but "plane crash," implies an ancidental feautre to it, and it is fact it was no accdient Weaponbb7 (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems surprising to some that a hard-working, average small business American citizen wound up a lone wolf terrorist, but it appears to be what happened. Ouch. 192.12.88.7 (talk) 05:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a criminal act, not a terrorist one (though it could easily be argued that terrorism is just another crime...going off topic now). Still, this is a high traffic page right now, and I think it would be best to try to gain consensus to change the name on the talk page first. NW (Talk) 05:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

How do we know it's not a terrorist attack? The guy wrote a politically motivated message and then flew his plane into a building. That's political violence with intent to commit death and destruction. I'd call it a terrorist attack. 192.12.88.7 (talk) 05:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I think "2010 Austin plane crash" is an ok title, as it's shorter than the other version. 192.12.88.7 (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Officials are explicitly labeling this a criminal, and not a terrorist act.[9][10] NW (Talk) 05:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The article has been move protected. If consensus is reached to move it to a different title then an admin will move it. This title is good, it is concise and neutral. Mjroots (talk) 06:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think even it is really a "domestic terror attack", these three words should not be in the article name. It looks a little stupid.--1j1z2 (talk) 07:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I feel that we should just wait until we have all of the facts and it stops being news before we support anything besides "plane crash". I still think that it being an attack, however, is not clarified in the title, and should be, but in keeping with my proposal we should just wait. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Tax protester

A link to the terrorist's history of harboring Republican "tax protester" ideologies should also be added including a link to the Wikipedia entry for "tax protester."

I also see that the Wayback Machine was ordered to remove the archived copies of the terrorist's web site. It would be useful to find out what governmental agency ordered that removal, if any, and make mention of it here. Fredric Rice (talk) 06:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a link to Tim Geithner's article and his Tax Scandal where he also "protested" taxes by not paying them when he was supposed to? Will that suffice? --67.184.204.90 (talk) 07:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Game. Set. Match. But thanks for providing another example of wikipedia's liberal bias. 75.150.245.244 (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia articles on tax protesters and tax protester arguments relate only to those people who make wacky, nonsensical, legally frivolous arguments about taxes, not to people in general who merely "protest" about taxes or who merely oppose taxes. (The U.S. federal courts use the term "tax protester" in the more narrow sense described in the Wikipedia articles.) People who don't pay their taxes (e.g., Tim Geithner, Willie Nelson, etc., at least for a while) would not necessarily be considered "tax protesters" in the narrow, technical sense. Is there any specific, reliable information about Stack making legally frivolous arguments about U.S. federal income taxes? Famspear (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Famspear - have you looked through his note? There's some language and references that lead one to believe he was involved in the movement. Also, a couple of stories have discussed him within that context: [11], [12] ("Stack's writings suggest he was part of a loosely organized movement...."), and [13] ("In his wake he left a rambling and lengthy online manifesto in which he...revealed his decades-long involvement in the anti-tax movement....") for starters. The ADL and SPLC have discussed it in that way too, but people love to criticize them as sources, so take that as you will. Bartleby (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Freedom of Speech is Freedom of Speech, regardless of what Wikipedia thinks. 75.150.245.244 (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no law against "protesting" taxation. But you still have to pay the taxes or you'll bear the consequences. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear from his postings that he was involved in tax protest to some level - he described joining a group to study the tax code, etc. I'm including a link to tax protest in see also. Tax protesters are a fairly extreme right-wing group, I don't think it's accurate to call them "Republicans" regardless of GOP distaste for some taxes or the political affiliation of some tax protesters. 68.2.244.69 (talk) 03:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Republicans in general are law-abiding citizens and do not advocate defiance of the tax laws. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

SketchUp model (RFC)

This application/plugin for Google Earth allows the user to fly a plane into a 3D model of the building with satellite terrain using built in flight simulator. Download model of building here. Worth checking out. - Stillwaterising (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• 3D Model of Echelon Complex from 3D Warehouse viewable with Adobe Flash, Google Earth, or SketchUp

User:Huntster, three times you have removed this link and three times I've restored it with comment in Edit Summary and finally your Talk page asking you to discuss it here first. - Stillwaterising (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, rather than discussing first, you kept readding it. This link adds zero value to the article, and is just a pretty mashup construction. This does not add any greater understanding to the situation...it adds no understanding at all. It's just a pretty picture. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not a picture, it's a 3D model, probably the only one that is available to the public. If I had this on my website for sale I would have dozens of offers from 3d animators who would use it for news reenactments and the like. Yes, if for sale this would be worth many thousands of dollars, much more than a simple picture (which it isn't). It gives a complete 360 view of the target building in a customizable environment. Why don't you install Google Earth and see what I mean? - Stillwaterising (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I well familiar with the Sketchup system and with the 3D models in Google Earth. All of that is completely irrelevant...it doesn't make the model any more useful for inclusion here. For our purposes here, it *is* a picture, just a 3D one. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I 3D model is nice, but it's not important unless it relays some information that would be difficult to gain without it. Is there something to this case that makes this an important aid? __meco (talk) 11:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

A low-resolution rotatable 3D image of the building adds nothing to the reader's understanding of this article. Installing Google Earth to view it in context doesn't add anything either, but also falls under "sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content" of WP:LINKSTOAVOID. --McGeddon (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I live in Austin and have seem the building many times, from the highway. Hundreds of pictures of the building are available from the same view. Because of restrictions the view of the back of the buildings and the rest of the complex are limited. I argue that this is an invalable resource with enormous educational value that can not be found elsewhere. The ability to see the complex and surrounding area (including the airfield) can not be supplanted by simply providing coordinates. The fligh sim option makes it even nicier, allowing users to relive the moment for themselves. - Stillwaterising (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain why that would be invaluable other than the fact that it provides a viewer's perspective which is usually restricted? Are there any contentious points in the official explanation for instance that would be elucidated by providing this? You write about giving the reader the ability to "relive the moment". I'm sure that's not an added value we would be going after unless that could explain some pivotal key moment which otherwise would go unnoticed or be misapprehended. __meco (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

That's hilarious! I'm sorry - I have to comment. I design computer games for a living, I work with lots and lots of professional "3D animators" (strictly, we're talking about 3D artists - not animators) and I (or any of them) could throw that model together in Maya or Max (or even the god-awful sketchup tool) in 10 minutes flat! And my model would have proper 3D plantlife, translucent windows, at least some generic internal structure to help it catch the light properly, a decent shader, modeling the reflectivity of the glass, an actual entrance lobby. Yours is a pathetic extrusion with a generic texture and a couple of cuboids stuck on the roof. "Worth many thousands of dollars" !!! Who do you think you're kidding? You might get $1 for it on TurboSquid but that's about it. For something to be worth thousands of dollars, it would have to save that professional animator several weeks of work - and that's just not possible. Since we know for sure that you were able to put it together in under a day - even you might possibly imagine that a professional artist could do the same. Why on earth would such a person pay such exorbitant amounts for you to do it? Get real - please. SteveBaker (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not mine and I'm not a 3D artist. Huntster said it had no intrinsic value, so I made claims not based on actual market research, my bad. If you, SteveBaker, or anybody else wants to design a better model please do, however this is the only one on the web right now. My value is derived based on it's immediate availability and assumed accuracy.Here's another Texas building of similar quality on TurboSquid on sale for $99. Two other better looking models of the same building are selling for $450. Yes may be a extrusion with generic textures but it is representational.

Current download for Google Earth (5.1 for Windows) does NOT require activation, registration, or $$$. This model can be viewed with Flash instead (which almost everybody already has) if they don't wish to use Google Earth. Google Earth has many 3D buildings buildings in it already, but not this one. And no, I don't work for Google, related company, own stock etc, or know anybody who does.

If there were a template to add this link in a small box like the commons template would that be more acceptable? - Stillwaterising (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter who owns it, or where it's placed in the article, or what it is wrapped in, it still holds no intrinsic value for this article. And I would suggest that the author of the TurboSquid building you linked to would be very lucky indeed (and the buyer crazy) to make a sale on that, unless it is far more intricate than the image lets on. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Important life lesson: "On sale for $X" does not mean "Purchased for $X" and certainly doesn't mean "Worth $X". Turbosquid allow artists to name their price - there are people there trying to sell lame photos of their cat for $1000 - and there are people giving away really gorgeous, detailed car models for $1 or even $0. SteveBaker (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Quoted from WP:EL:

   There are several things that should be considered when adding an external link.
   * Is the site content accessible to the reader?
   * Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?
   * Is the link functional and likely to remain functional?}}

Can somebody who hasn't already made a comment please explain how a 3D model of the crash site isn't related to an article about a plane crash? - Stillwaterising (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

How can I put this tactfully? Um...well, I can't. This model is a piece of crap. It's inaccurate, about as low fidelity as it's possible to be and still claim to be a 3D model. It is completely and utterly useless - it tells you that the building is a glass-skinned irregular hexagonal prism. It conveys zero additional information. We don't need to link to it. By the second criterion: It's not useful, it's not informative and it's strongly counter-factual. Let me quote some key points from WP:EL that you seem to have missed:

• "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum."
• "What Should Be Linked"
  1. Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. See Official links below.
  2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work, if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria applies.
  3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.

(The first two of those clearly don't apply. The third one requires that the material is "accurate" (not even close) and "relevant to an encyclopedic understanding" (not really).)

• "Links normally to be avoided":
  • Links mainly intended to promote a website. See external link spamming. -- You've already said how much money you think you're going to make out of this model.
  • Direct links to documents that require external applications or plugins (such as Flash or Java) to view the content, unless the article is about such file formats. See rich media for more details. -- You require us to download Google Earth.
  • Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject -- Yep.
  • Wikipedia:Map sources can be linked by using geographical coordinates. -- It's sufficient to do that - we don't need to link to the model, they can see the actual building MUCH better in Google Maps street-view (for example).

Enough? SteveBaker (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Started an entry for this on the new EL notice board (WP:ELN). Removing RFC . - Stillwaterising (talk) 09:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Manifesto

Seems too long for complete inclusion? Rich Farmbrough, 07:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

Yes. Some of the highlights would be adequate. Went ahead and did a Rollback of someone that decided to put the whole thing in there. Now, if there was an article with NOTABLE manifestos (unibomber), maybe. --Hourick (talk) 07:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Even then, while I might agree with inclusion, WP tends to shuffle such stiff off to Wikisource. Rich Farmbrough, 08:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

How about WikiSource? 70.29.210.242 (talk) 08:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a version on Wikinews already. - Stillwaterising (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with removal of text. Too long, & already in external links. It's all over Net currently so anyone who wants to read it can. Makes me wonder why the FBI (reportedly) tries to 'suppress' it? Tends to make it more 'interesting'. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 08:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I would imagine th FBI would preserve as much information as confidential as possible as a matter of course. There would usually be an advantage - and certainly it's no good making the judgement that something should d be kept out of the public domain too late. Rich Farmbrough, 08:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

Agree. Just seems a losing battle, but I suppose they at least have to try. 220.101.28.25 (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Technically, inserting all of it would be a copyvio. Short snippets are justifiable under fair use. Also, we can link to the full source in any of a bazillion places. Let's keep the article short & concise. SteveBaker (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Minor leap of faith

"Stack was killed in the incident, but his body has yet to be recovered." Rich Farmbrough, 08:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

Presumed killed would be the better wording, unless there's some evidence that he ejected prior to the crash. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be a clever trick in a plane without ejector seats. SteveBaker (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, Steve. Next thing you know, someone will comment that it was actually a missile launched by another branch of the IRS who had a beef with the manager there. --Hourick (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Picture, close view of damaged building

This is on flicker and a version is on WikiNews 'facebook' article. http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmtimages/4368371245/
--220.101.28.25 (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It's non-free, and there's no particular reason to use it when someone can easily drive by and snap a freely-licensed pic. — Huntster (t @ c) 11:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Facebook deleting Joseph Andrew Stack groups

Currently this Facebook group exists, but at least one other, bigger, group that was established shortly after the incident yesterday have been deleted. When I Google his name + "Facebook" several groups show up[14][15][16], however, following the link brings up Facebook's login screen (or the user's own profile if logged in). Is this an angle to this story that should be included in this article? I'll look for media coverage of this though. __meco (talk) 09:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiNews has a story Facebook_takes_down_groups_supporting_Austin_crash_pilot and several sources FYI--220.101.28.25 (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Could we call this event "uprising" or "rebellion"

I've read this man's manifesto. If this guy was to against the government, could we call this event "uprising" or "rebellion", even it failed.--1j1z2 (talk) 10:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No, that would be speculation. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No, because those terms imply a movement of people to take united action. What might be appropriate though would be to term some of the reactions following his suicide death and manifesto a grassroots uprising, however, even that would seem premature. We would have to see how the public response develops, and also what measures are being taken by authorities and establishment supporters to curb such development. __meco (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

An "uprising" or "rebellion" would imply that more than one person is involved, and that does not appear to be the case. WTF? (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Manifesto section

I was thinking it might be a good idea to go into more detail regarding the Manifesto. I find the current short description misses out on some of the specific complaints he had and makes it seems as if he is just an anti-government guy. He seems to have a lot of anger towards engineers not being able to easily qualify as independant contractors and calls out SEC. 1706 of the IRS Code as a major problem and one he spent a good portion of time and money fighting. What do others think? Remember (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Is the manifesto free use or fair use or no use? If free use, a sub-article with the contents transcribed? I dunno. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• I think Manifesto needs its own subpage already. It's large enough and only getting larger and easily passes notibility. I don't think the whole text needs to be on here though, however a transwiki link to the copy on Wikinews would help. - Stillwaterising (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• The Manifesto is copyright the owner, Andrew Stack, under United States copyright laws. So, we could only use it under fair use, and reproducing the entire manifesto here would likely fail that by our standards (we have comparatively tight standards of fair-use on en.wiki), not to mention that sub-paging in the article space (the only place fair-use is allowed) is strongly discouraged. Since Wikinews is reproducing it in its entirety there, as they have somewhat looser standards for fair-use (as do most news outlets), that's all the reproducing we need to do. By the way, we *do* link to an archived copy of the original in the External links section, so that's another reason why there's no need to copy it here. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Suicide letters are typically regarded as public domain. After all, the web page showed no intent at copy protection and implicitally adressed to the general public. I have proposed than Joseph Stack Manifesto be split (created). See below Talk:2010_Austin_plane_crash#Proposed_Split_of_Joseph_Stack_and_Joseph_Stack_Manifesto - Stillwaterising (talk) 03:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, they are not, and Wikipedia could not unilaterally treat them as such without a pre-existing legal ruling or an explicit exception in the copyright code. Even in this situation, as I understand it (it's obviously ridiculously complex), U.S. copyright law requires the author to explicitly release the work into the public domain, otherwise it is considered to fall under standard copyrights (which, in this case, means copyright will expire in 70 years from the date of death). — Huntster (t @ c) 05:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Protection

I notice that there is a lot of activity on this article still. If any editor feels that the page would benifit from semi-protection then please post a request at WP:RFPP where another admin will look at the request and decide whether or not to semi-protect the article. Mjroots (talk) 08:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Too soon in my opinion. - Stillwaterising (talk) 08:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Title change

Many of the titles of the references mention Joe Stack in the title. Some refer to tax office, Texas building. None of them refer to the incident as "2010 Austin plane crash" though some mention plane.

Consider trying to figure out what the most common usage is and change the title. Also why select plane instead of airplane?

2010 airplane crash into IRS office? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC) As i have stated "crash implies a Accident" this was no accident. It is a clear premediated crminal/terrorist act. Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the title needs to be changed. "Plane crash" simply does not accurately describe the event at hand - a man writes a scathing 3,000+ word "manifesto/suicide note," posts it online, sets his home on fire, targets and hits a building which houses nearly 200 Federal employees, attempting to take out as many as possible with fuel tanks full. "Plane crash" has simple connotations of mechanical failure or pilot error, not a calculated suicide attack. --Cdman882 (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Others should suggest a new name Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't invent our own colorful names for things, we go by reliable sources. What are the sources calling it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

In that case, the current title MUST be changed. CNN has called it "Austin plane incident". BBC has called it "Texas pilot air attack on US tax office" Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

So far in Houston, they're referring it to the "Austin plane crash". When I initially typed in the title, it brought me to this article, so I think adding a date to the title will do. The redirect should also stay until another "Austin Plane crash" comes along in the future. A few other choice redirects might be in order, but some of them need to die. Additionally, I think we should merge THIS section, with the "page move" section above. It's starting to get a bit insane. --Hourick (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This article has already had a few names, one of which was "2010 Austin INTENTIONAL plane crash" or similar. Also "2010 Austin plane attack". About 4 different names. Also move protected at one stage ≈14 hours ago. Ended up basically where it started ≈25hours ago. See the edit history if interested. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

See also page move and Requested move. It's been discussed and the concensus seems to be keep the status quo. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The current title, "2010 Austin plane crash", is as NPOV as it's possible to be at this point. The more judgmental titles could redirect to this one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The REQUESTED MOVE is still open. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Implosion vs. Explosion

I think history will show that most of the non-fire non-impact damage was caused by an implosion rather than an explosion. Fact, windows and blinds on building were seen to be blown OUT not IN, as were windows and sunroof of passing vehicles. Fact, witnesses heard a "loud whooomp" (partial vacuum following rapid combustion of vaporized fuel/air mixture) then a second explosion (gasses collapsing back into the vacuum then re-expanding rapidly). For principles involved see thermobaric weapon.

Can somebody find an expert that analizes the impact and add it to the article? - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Let loose the conspiracy theorists! SteveBaker (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Right! Let's not point out discrepancies and paradoxes lest we be labeled conspiracy theory proponents/adherents/supporters. Let's instead ridicule, deride and marginalize anyone who points to alternative theories and makes independent observations. Let no lucid and observant mind go unpunished!

No, he was not proposing to introduce original research into the article, merely that we should look out for authoritative sources that could elucidate his observation. __meco (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

@SteveBaker: A little AGF, please. As for the original question, windows blown out indicates an explosion. —DoRD (?) (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It would indicate an "explosion" if the source of the "explosion" was INSIDE the building, which it may have been, but if it was then how did it suck the sun roof off a passing car? This is just a theoretical discussion, real conspiracy theories forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=160295.440 here]. - Stillwaterising (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I heard a news report on AM590 Austin that authorites are investigating into how a small plane could cause so much damage. It's too early to rule out the possibility that the plane was rigged with explosives or extra fuel. - Stillwaterising (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

TV News reports in Australia ≈ 8 hours ago mentioned that the possibility there were accelerants on the plane, was being investigated. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no doubt that the plane was carrying accelerants. In the fuel tanks! :O The fuel capacity of a PA-28 is 949 lb, so at 6.02 lb/gal, that's almost 160 gallons of avgas. —DoRD (?) (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

"accelerants on the plane", in addition to the fuel. Natch! ;-) 220.101.28.25 (talk) 03:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and whether the source of the explosion was inside the building: The plane flew into the building, taking its fuel tanks with it, so I think it's safe to say that the source was inside the building. —DoRD (?) (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Witnesses say the fireball started at the base of the building and flew upward along the outside of the building. It's not safe to say anything until TXDOT releases that traffic camera footage of the scene. - Stillwaterising (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

From pic here it appears the plane hit the lowest level of the building. 220.101.28.25 (talk) 09:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It does seem that he took a fuel drum with him. I was going to add on the 18th that I thought the plane hit the retaining wall primarily with parts of the plane continuing into the building. The location of the plane wreckage, damage to the wall, and lack of massive causalities indicate that this may be correct. - Stillwaterising (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Unidentified Person

http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/local/williamson/cp-man-missing-after-plane-crash --Cdman882 (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

He's Vernon Hunter, and has been confirmed to be the only fatality in the attack. Refs in the article. Gene Omission (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

side banter

The only other fatality, pending what happens to the more seriously injured victims. The pilot was a fatality, as he literally blew his Stack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

omg The Hero of This Nation (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's the same guy. And he's wrong. Roger Ramjet is The Hero of Our Nation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

How long before someone starts calling him Joe the Programmer? Gene Omission (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he suffered a "fatal error - stack overflow" :-? Stillwaterising (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

When making a comment like that, please take into consideration SOME people are drinking while reading this. You know how difficult it is after coke has dried on a laptop keyboard?--Hourick (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

1. This talk page is for discussions surrounding the writing of this article.
2. Can we please keep this to a professional, academic level of discussion? Do you guys have any conception of how inappropriate this is?

<sheesh> SteveBaker (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I totally realize how inappropriate it is. Personally, I don't care. As tragic as the situation is, some levity might bring in some insight as to why it was done as well as it may influence, in some minor way, on how the tone of the article might be end up being. To halt any future "Banter" would be like would make a article plane boring and Stack the article one way or another. We wouldn't want such an article to be biased, do we? --Hourick (talk) 10:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Local news interview with Milton Hershey classmate

Possible use as a source: VIDEO: Former Classmate Of Crashed Pilot Speaks To News 8Geo8rge (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

A former classmate of a 54 year old guy is not likely to have much to say about the man. They were classmates...what...35 years ago? That's really scraping the bottom of the barrel. SteveBaker (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The HAZMAT girl?

There's a girl that people (conspiracy theorists, Alex Jones followers) keep bringing up named Megan Riley, who claims to have seen firetrucks with HAZMAT teams prior to the plane flying into the building. I can't seem to find anyone who knows anything about this that isn't a conspiracy theorist. Anyone got any ideas? --Anthonysenn (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried in vain to find reliable sources?  Burningview  ✉ 20:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering when this was going to happen. The news of this event has been extensive to the point of annoyance and it hasn't been brought up by any of the news organizations I have come across. If such a woman existed, the media would have been all over it (and in turn, Wikipedia). --Hourick (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Just being cautious perhaps. Better safe than sorry. - Stillwaterising (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I just tried a quick search on google: hazmat+austin+plane+crash, and the top results are all off of Jones' news aggregate websites. Here is a video showing the girl on YT: Video  Burningview  ✉ 20:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Alex Jones isn't what I'd call a reliable source. —DoRD (?) (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

After suffering through all 8:31 minutes of that video, I deserve a star for that alone, She doensn't mention the Fire Engines/HAZMAT until 3:02 into the interview. For all we know, they were coming back from a fire or going on a doughnut run. the AFD's dispatch records can easily confirm why they were there. The comments ARE rather humorous, but also a bit disturbing. --Hourick (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

A story that just ran on News8 Austin (4:04 PM local) explained the presence and actions of the Hazmat crew. Said they "happened to be doing drills just across the highway" and were "in the right place at the right time". They arrived at the scene before AFD and began doing rescue work using only "personal protective equipment". If anybody finds a source stating where or why they did the drills or find photographs of the crew please post them. As can be expected, AFD claims that they had a longer response time due to the house fire in north Austin (Stack's) - Stillwaterising (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Motive section?

The motive of the incident seems to be pretty important. There is quite a bit of talk about 'why' he did it. Shouldn't the article be reformatted with a section entitled 'motives'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.87.131 (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

His manifesto is the only thing available and it is posted. As to talk of why, I guess a section on the media coverage might be possible. Geo8rge (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Split of Joseph Stack and Joseph Stack Manifesto

I would to proposed the split of Joseph Stack and Joseph Stack/Manifesto (or Joseph Stack/Manifesto) from main article. This will happen eventually anyway and since sources and notability are both established it's better to act now and not wait until these sections are overgrown. Joseph Stack Manifesto will be about the manifesto and not a reprint. - Stillwaterising (talk) 03:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is still fairly short as it is. I'm just not sure that the man is independently notable (yet) from the incident. To me at least, this hasn't yet been established. Same for the manifesto; what critical commentary has really been written about it yet? Sure, it's been mentioned a lot, but have there been in-depth analyses made of it yet? (actually asking, as I've not been looking for them myself.) — Huntster (t @ c) 03:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I am with Huntster here. Bring the reliable sources to this page for now. Maybe you're right and we'll eventually need to split out. We shall see. --John (talk) 04:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

IF if an article is made out of the manifesto, then you might as well put the dissection from several people, which should be mildly interesting to those of us that would try to interpret his diatribe. --Hourick (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The mainstream media are universally quoting the dramatic first and last paragraphs and glossing over the diatribe in the middle. We're not going to see any learned dissertations that would constitute reliable sources because the document really isn't that interesting. So we have essentially no material beyond the manifesto itself - which we're not allowed to comment on. Since Wikipedia is not a repository for source material, we're not going to include the entire manifesto into the article (that would be a copyvio anyway) - so what could this article possibly say that wouldn't fit into a couple of paragraphs in this article? The manifesto itself would be entirely non-notable were it not for the events it warns of - and that's well covered in this article. There is no way this article could survive an AfD - and if someone does create it, the AfD or merge request will come within minutes of it being created. It's not gonna happen. SteveBaker (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

An article about the man, Joseph Stack, would fail to meet WP:BLP1E, since he's only known for one incident. I really don't think we have enough information, even as it has grown, for a separate article on his manifesto, either. It's not like he wrote a book like Mein Kampf or anything, either. He wrote a rant, which is essentially not much more than a blog post, and put it on his website. Several months from now, I'd be willing to bet that the collective memory of the masses will forget about it. It seems that even the tea partiers want to distance themselves as far away as possible from this nutjob. WTF? (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Reverting of external links

Some editor said that these links had nothing to do with the story: http://ricksanchez.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/18/the-austin-texas-suicide-pilot-what-set-him-off/

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local&id=7286291

Well I beg to differ as they cover the story and possible motivation. Can someone please cite these links as sources as ABC and CNN seem to be notable enough and reliable enough to be used in this article. I have no idea why they keep being deleted as doing so seem to avoid common sense, logic, reason, and anything else that makes sense and seems to be as senseless as the act of crashing a plane into an IRS building. Someone who knows how to edit better than me please include these links in the article somewhere as I am new here and apparently have no clue where they go. This Crawford guy seems to know what set this Stack guy off, and I am sure it is notable enough to include in a possible motive section if one gets created. I refuse to get into edit wars and revert wars because someone is quick on the trigger with the revert button and lacks the brains to figure out that these links are indeed valid to the story and full of factual and neutral point of view information. Apollo Hammer (talk) 05:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

As my edit summary said, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the links, but news articles should not be included in the External links section. Instead, find a way to integrate them into the article itself, and then cite them appropriately. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not exactly what WP:EL says but that's the preferred way to include sources in a comprehensive and growing article like this. I don't see the harm in adding a newly found source to External Links for a few days so another editor can pick it up an incorporate it however there's other editors who prefer that Wp look professional at all times and would prefer that newly found sources be posted in the talk section instead. - Stillwaterising (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I know what it said which is why I am confused. I am new here and don't understand all of this, and as I said none of this reverting and editing seems to follow any logic, reason, or common sense or anything I can understand. If some more experienced Wikipedia editor or admin wants to use those two links, please go right ahead. As I don't know how to cite stuff yet. I am too new but if someone wants to tutor or train or mentor me, go right ahead and help me add these links as a source and cite them. As I have no idea how to do that yet. Apollo Hammer (talk) 11:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"Experts call Austin plane crash a 'cathartic outburst,' not terrorism"

link Grundle2600 (talk) 06:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Meaning what, that he felt better afterward? :) This whole thing would be a dark comedy but for the harm he caused to others in the process. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I was just responding to this earlier discussion, but I started this new section, because that older one is at the very top of the page and could easily be missed, or could end up being archived. Grundle2600 (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep. The problem with the term "terrorism" is that it's not well-defined. Or maybe it's more accurate to say that people's definitions of it vary a great deal. If one guy, by himself, commits a suicide bombing, no doubt it causes some "terror". But terrorism implies some kind of conspiracy or movement. Far as we know, this was just one lone nutcase, kind of like that guy in that movie who was "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore". But this guy's complaints were all over the map politically. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

We would all agree that Timothy McVeigh and Theodore Kaczynski were terrorists. We would all agree that even if a homicide bomber in Israel acts alone, that person is a terrorist. What possible reason could there be for not labeling this person a terrorist? --B (talk) 13:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Terrorism - Stack used a plane as a bomb to destroy a goverment facility. It was an indiscriminate act of violence intended to further his political agenda which is one of the accepted definitions of terrorism. The "authorities" have everything to lose by calling this terrorism including trust, respect, clout, and funding. The Feds are also concerned about international image and worsning of consumer confidence and trust in the "system" (which includes the tax system). Wp needs to be bold and call this what it really is. - Stillwaterising (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

We need RS. However, we also have to use our brain. Unmistakable terrorism is to make people scared for political purposes. It doesn't count extortion and thunderstorms, which also make people scared. This might be a feud. If the feud is big enough, we sometimes call it terrorism, like in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. I think this is one of the biggest events to happen and still not be terrorism. It is more like going postal.

If the news media wants to brainwash us and call it terrorism, Wikipedia blindly follows because this is the verifiability policy. So far, there is no brainwashing as many are calling it not terrorism.Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

@Bugs: you mean Taxi Driver? @ others; we will go with the reliable sources on whether to call this "terrorism".

Sorry, not 'Taxi Driver', Peter Finch in Network 220.101.28.25 (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's up to the sources to label it terrorism or not. Even if they do, wikipedia is not required to rename the article, but only to report that experts concluded it was terrorism.

Yes, as the character named Howard Beale. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The whole point of the term "terrorism" is that you wonder what the terrorists will do next. Since this was apparently a lone nut diving into a building, he's done. There won't be any more attacks coming from him, unless he mailed some letter bombs. Vaguely similar to when a serial killer is caught and his "reign of terror" has ended. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

One more time guys: This is NOT our call to make - our opinions don't matter - so debating the merits of calling it one thing or the other is utterly pointless. Because this is undoubtedly a controversial, borderline use of a term, we have to rely on reliable sources. The most we can say is something like "such and such reliable source termed this a 'terrorist attack', such and such other reliable source called this a "criminal act"".

If it was absolutely necessary for us to choose how to label it (which it clearly isn't) - then we'd want to refer to a reliable dictionary definition of the word - all of this nonsense about it not being terrorism if you don't wonder what they'll do next - or that it is terrorism because a plane is a bomb - that's got nothing to do with the actual meaning of the word - so almost everything said above is irrelevent. Once again, Wiktionary's definition of the word "terrorism" is:

1. The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a political or social agenda.
2. Violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives.
3. A psychological strategy of war for gaining political or religious ends by deliberately creating a climate of fear among the population of a state.

Certainly (3) doesn't apply here - judging by Stack's manifesto, I don't think he was a politician - his views (as expressed by the manifesto) are all over the map - and largely personal. There wasn't a clear political motive here - it appears to be an act of revenge, perhaps with some weak political overtones. At best it's a borderline case of (1).

But we aren't allowed to make that call in our article. We're really not allowed to do that. It's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH (and probably WP:some-other-thing-I-haven't-thought-of-yet). So if we do not feel that our readers are capable of making up their own minds, then we can only do some sort of "Media & Political response" section and explain that there are different opinions from different (but "reliable") sources. Personally, I don't think we need to do even that. We should list the facts of what happened without assigning motives for which we have no reliable backing. Perhaps when enough time has passed (WP:TIND), we can look back on the response of the media and add that "Media & Political response" section. But right now, the media and the politicians (and law enforcers, homeland security, etc) are still making up their own minds what to call it...so it's clearly too soon to say what the test of time will label this person's actions as.

This is not a newspaper - it's an encyclopedia.

SteveBaker (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Plane attack prompts debate over terrorism label Grundle2600 (talk) 08:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

In the earlier discussion I said, "He wanted to scare people and send a message - that certainly sounds like terrorism to me. But it would probably be best to only use that word if it's well sourced." It looks like we now have sources both for using and not using the term. Grundle2600 (talk) 08:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

By default, if there's no real consensus amongst the media and gov't groups whether he was acting in terrorism, then we should default to not calling him a terrorist. That doesn't mean we can't discuss somewhere that "this group of folks have called him a terrorist, but this other group says they don't consider his actions terror-motivated." Or something like that. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with calling it "terrorism" is that in all the definitions above, there is someone to use the technique. But when one single person prefers not to go alone into that good night, there is no "terrorist organization" left behind; no group in whose good graces the next target is coerced to remain. There is no particular reason to believe that any future attack will be targeted by the same way. We are left only with the unmodified truth that people at the verge of suicide may strike out at others. For this reason the attack is no different from any other murder-suicide. Wnt (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not it was "terrorism" is opinion; editors shouldn't be injecting their opinions into articles. If there's a consensus in reliable sources, then the article should reflect that; if not, not. If there's a notable disagreement, with sources, then the article should reflect that disagreement. Wikipedia doesn't have a definition of "terrorism" or "controversial" or "popular"; we incorporate such subjective material in articles via reference to reliable sources. The neutral point of view policy is foundational to Wikipedia; a "serious" regular editor who doesn't understand it is going to have continual conflict with the other editors in the project. Studerby (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Just because we follow sources and keep a neutral point of view doesn't mean you shouldn't try to discuss what the truth is on your own. Too many people on Wikipedia will rush to cite policies to use against people who just want to sit down and talk about and understand an issue and explain it to others. I know that my explanation above can't go in the article or it wouldn't be on the talk page; but if that and the other statements of opinion here persuade editors of any stripe to see more than one interpretation when editing, then it is not for nothing. Wnt (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This is sort of a side note but looking at that (first) article it's a reminder for me at least to make sure to read the source and not write based on the headline. The headline does include the words from the story. But without the context of the rest of this professors explaination It gives a much different impression.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Flash game

A flash game has now been created about this incident. WTF? (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a crudely done short flash game, worth a play or two if you like that sort of thing. - Stillwaterising (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Missing - coverage of popular support

The link to the wikinews article is still the only reference to popular support for Stack and the commentary on this grassroots reaction. This angle needs to be documented also. __meco (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

After four days none of the other editors have deemed it important to add this perspective to the story, so I added a couple of sentences supplying three external references from the related Wikinews article. I'm still more than a little puzzled that with all the interest in this story noone has found the time or inclination to follow up on this angle. __meco (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Daily Kos

The daily kos reaction is derived not from dk.com, but from an unsubstantiated reference in a christian science monitor article. The CSM article doesn't say if it was from apost by Kos or one of the main contributors, or a random diary which can be posted by anyone, or a comment which can equally posted by anyone. If I go to some conservative site and say that this tragedy represents a failure of liberal ideals that doesn't mean that the site I posted on takes that position. I'm deleting the DK reference and in my opinion it shouldn't be re-added unless you can substantiate it with a link to the DK site itself. Jherico (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Then the text should be rewritten, NOT DELETED as you just did. I reverted you as possible vandalism. This is unacceptable. WTF? (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Please realize that vandalism implies the intent to destroy. Be extremely cautious before applying that term to an established editor. Even adding the qualifier "possible" does not take away this burden. __meco (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps it wasn't vandalism, though I commonly put deletionists in the same boat as vandals. I've rephrased the statement and added a better citation for the information. WTF? (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

And if you continue to place good-faith contributors in the same category as vandals, you may find yourself in hot water. Calling someone a vandal is a serious charge. Jherico made a good-faith edit and explained his actions. Perfectly acceptable. Discuss, don't accuse. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Photo selection

I know there have been numerous photos taken of the site, and the current one I feel is quite adequate, but I was wondering if some other photos should be scattered on the page. Additionally, should a photo of his home be included as well? A photo of the building before the fire would be be helpful as well, but it might have to wait until reconstruction since I doubt any may exist. --Hourick (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Manifestos times from HTML source code

The source is here and the source code in the screen shot can also be viewed in the webcite copy of the manifesto by right clicking in the text and going to This Frame then View Frame Source (in Firefox). The times he got from the code are good assuming Stack's computer clock was accurate.

Problem is he reported them as being local time, then made a comment later that they were in Zulu time (UTC). Austin Texas is in Central Time Zone without Daylight Saving in February so it should be UTC-6:00. The time he got is wrong and the correct one is easy enough to come up with without being considered WP:OR. Bloggers at prisonplanet.com found this error and came up with correct time as well. - Stillwaterising (talk) 08:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Correct, simply converting zulu to CST is not original research, just like converting meters to feet isn't. No problems there. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Basic Military Training Standards

I think their common heritage, victim and pepetrator are important. Why am I not being allowed to edit? There is nothing controversial in my opionion? Confused.

Both Vernon Hunter[17] and Joseph Stack[18] were former United States Army patriot heroes and Viet Nam War veterans trained to similar military standards[19], a trait similar to many of the United States governments Presidential leaders prior to civilian President William Jefferson Clinton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.122.4 (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

IMHO that they were both veterans may be a reasonable insertion. This paragraph though has some issues. "United States Army patriot heroes" is way overkill on the adjectives. How they were trained is a bit of speculation. Saying they served in Vietnam is enough. And no need to drag Clinton into this. He's not relevant here unless it's to coatrack opinions about his own lack of service.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That they were both vets is coincidence, and had no bearing or relation on the events of the day. Its not like he slammed into the building with the intent to kill a specific person. The Clinton stuff is just plain garbage, but this IP insists on re-adding it again and again. More eyes needed here. Tarc (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The way it might be acceptable is standalone. We say where Stack went to college. A simple non-commentary statement like "Stack joined the US army and served in Vietnam in 19XX." might not be a bad idea. Same for Hunter although it doesn't look like he has a section. Not connecting the two people, but in the thumbnail description adding his vetran status might be reasonable. The linking statements I agree have to go.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with a mention in the personal life section, sure. Tarc (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

what ever people, I give up this is a waste of time, although I am interested in the article... To much weirdness here for me... Have a nice day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.122.4 (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It would appear that you were more interested in a particular point of view, rather than the subject. This is a collaborative editing environment, and when multiple editors object to something you add, it may be time to reconsider. Tarc (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

How dare you imply you know my point of view TARC. ARE you a mind reader now or a psychic? I was actually going to rewrite this to improve what it reads below but there is too much drama going on here... for my likings right.

Both Vernon Hunter and Joseph Stack were former United States Army patriots and Viet Nam War veterans trained to similar military standards, a trait similar to many of the United States presidential leaders prior to the administrations of Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.137.103 (talk) 05:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Michael Arth analysis?

I have no idea who Michael E. Arth is, or why somehow the article dedicates an entire section to his "analysis" of the situation. The citation iself appears to be more of a blog post or a personal editorial as well. Including this in its own section seems to be a violation of WP:NPOV? WTF? (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Michael E. Arth is an American artist, home/landscape/urban designer, public policy analyst, advocate for the homeless, futurist, and author. Smartassery aside, it does at minimum to be way too much weight to one persons opinion.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The section was added by User:Lynndunn who is the primary author of the Michael E. Arth article. I support removing it as "arthcruft". The Hero of This Nation (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Motives

I started a section on motives but it got removed in a revision. I found a newer article that talks about this more here. - Stillwaterising (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

A separate section on motives isn't really necessary, especially when most of what we know is based on his manifesto, which already has a section. So information on motives is best covered in the manifesto section. WTF? (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the manifesto section says enough. In fact, media normally provides diversified analysis on this kind of events right away; therefore you'll have a whole variety of motives coming up along with conspiracy theories in the next few weeks. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I plan on rewriting several sections using info in above source, I suggest interested editors read it as well. - Stillwaterising (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't know what the guys motives were - all you have is the bare words he wrote. Our readers can read that and make up their own minds. Wikipedia is not in the business of gleaning motives from suicide notes. The MOST you're allowed to do here is to report what reputable people's published analysis says. Please! This is an encyclopedia. We absolutely cannot go around playing amateur sleuth or amateur psychoanalist. What you write is gonna get reverted 100% for sure! SteveBaker (talk) 04:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Manifesto fact-checking?

There are some issues in the manifesto that would be interesting to see from other perspectives.

• "...zeroed in on a section relating to the wonderful “exemptions” that make institutions like the vulgar, corrupt Catholic Church so incredibly wealthy. We carefully studied the law (with the help of some of the “best”, high-paid, experienced tax lawyers in the business), and then began to do exactly what the “big boys” were doing... this is where I learned that there are two “interpretations” for every law; one for the very rich, and one for the rest of us" [and ended up fined $40,000]

This sounds like there should be court transcripts somewhere that can be found and referenced; perhaps even some third-party discussion of the issues.

• "...My neighbor was an elderly retired woman (80+ seemed ancient to me at that age) who was the widowed wife of a retired steel worker. Her husband had worked all his life in the steel mills of central Pennsylvania with promises from big business and the union that, for his 30 years of service, he would have a pension and medical care to look forward to in his retirement. Instead he was one of the thousands who got nothing because the incompetent mill management and corrupt union (not to mention the government) raided their pension funds and stole their retirement."

We need the name of the mill. Is this truth or hyperbole? And are the people who "raided" these pension funds still living the high life?

• This "IRS section 1706" should be detailed. How much money are we talking about?

• "Our leaders decided that they didn’t need the all of those extra Air Force bases they had in Southern California, so they were closed; just like that. The result was economic devastation in the region that rivaled the widely publicized Texas S&L fiasco."

We could use an impartial perspective on this 'economic devastation'. I remember hearing about problems for aeronautical engineers, but I don't even understand why closing air force bases would leave a software programmer without options. I keep thinking 1990s, Silicon Valley ... why didn't he have good options?

• [after 9/11/1:] "long after that, ‘special’ facilities like San Francisco were on security alert for months. This made access to my customers prohibitively expensive."

Why?

• "The rates are 1/3 of what I was earning before the crash, because pay rates here are fixed by the three or four large companies in the area who are in collusion to drive down prices and wages"

What are these companies, and is there outside confirmation?

• Last but not least, what was his income level? His dispute involves $40000+ in penalties + $5000 political campaigning + $10000 + whatever the penalties would be on $12,700. That's a lot of cash, but he says he was working 100+ hours weekly as a software engineer before the crash. I would have thought he'd have been so rich this would be pocket change to him.

I see that there is some discussion of a separate article for the manifesto - the key issue is, if facts come out on such issues as these, is there space welcome for them here? It does seem to stray from the narrow issue of the crash. Wnt (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we're into a Industrial Society and Its Future level of notability quite yet. Also, wikipedia editors themselves wouldn't be able to delve into and investigate such matters, we're just here to reflect what other sources have to say on a subject. Tarc (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be a bit of an excercise in futility. Any manifesto written by someone who did what he did is going to be about the world as he saw it. If he and it were fully rational, then the rest of us would read it and decide it was a good idea to do the same as he did. IMHO it's the wrong direction to treat it like a political debate. I think the better analysis is going to come from psychologist types and not the political analysts. Probably a bit of wishful thinking as too which will get more coverage in sources.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be a violation of WP:OR for us to go into an in depth analysis of his manifesto. We can only state what other researchers observe about it, and that needs to be cited under WP:RS guidelines. WTF? (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

More WP:SYNTH than WP:OR - but either way, it's not our business to do this. SteveBaker (talk) 03:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Even so, just this is done at the end of the small excerpt in the current revision: "The definition of insanity Stack refers to is attributable to Rita Mae Brown, the communist creed is attributable to Karl Marx and the capitalist creed is attributable to Henry Fairlie." - but this is all very useful background that I would not like to see deleted. WP:OR policies should be used to keep unverifiable claims out of the encyclopedia, not to ban people from explaining what a quote means. Wnt (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Guys, can we cool it a bit?

Looks like another minor edit war has broken out. Can we please cool it and discuss the issues here? Mjroots (talk) 11:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Just one editor inserting POV wording, with at least two articles positively stating he was the one who flew the plane into the building. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure the first link meets WP:RS as it's a blog. Mjroots (talk) 12:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering about that myself, but while it may be using blog software for posting, there's no evidence its written in some unofficial capacity apart from the newspaper itself. Appears to simply be their police, emergency services and traffic report section. Definitely written by a variety of Statesman staff members, like any other news article. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I cited CNN, the link you indicated above. It's clear the other editor (a single-purpose account, by the way) had not bothered to look into the matter himself. My guess is he's a conspiracist. Every news report from the get-go has said this guy was flying the plane or has said "authorities say" he was. Only conspiracy sources are likely to say "alleged". I don't know if he's responded, but I'm half-expecting him to claim that CNN is an unreliable source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Well they don't call it the Communist News Network for nothing, AMIRITE? But anyways, identity confirmed, so I think the new user's opinion of the matter is safely put to rest. Tarc (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I noticed he disappeared after I pointed out the CNN link. He would then be forced to defend his use of "alleged" which is either fringe view or original research. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Source of Quotations

I removed the reference of definition of insanity to a 1984 1983 book. The article said that it was only "probably so" attributed to this source and used Wikipedia Wikiquote to prove it.

The "pound of flesh" reference is interesting because it's mentioned in a play by William Shakespeare called The Merchant of Venice where Shylock (a Jew) proposes a loan to proponent Antonio (a Christian) with the collateral being a pound of his flesh if he's unable to repay. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I wrote the above then found a source here. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note A source reliable source that says this is the origins of the term without speculative antisemitism would be preferable. - Stillwaterising (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Although the "unofficial definition of insanity" has become a tradition in Alcoholics Anonymous and other 12 step groups and is the most likely source for Stack's quotation, the founder Bill Wilson did not seem to be the originator - here - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed all three "attributions" pending a decent source for two of them. --John (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The other two sources that were provided were, themselves, fairly well sourced. What would you propose? Copy / paste the source, violating the authors copyright in the process, and paste it here? Or maybe it should just be rewritten to avoid qualifying as a copyright violation? Honestly, if the guy did the leg work he ought to be attributed. That it's a blog seems irrelevant given that it is well sourced. What's next? If I say the Georgetown Municipal Airport is a "reliever airport" will I have to provide a citation for that claim even though the article on the Georgetown Municipal Airport already provides a citation for that claim? How is a well sourced wikipedia article any different than a well sourced blog entry?

Now, I will concede that it may be more accurate to say "The definition of insanity Stack invoked is used in Alcoholics Anonymous and was seen in literature as early as 1980 (in James Jensen's Hazeldon Classic Step Pamphlets)", but, in that case, the proper course of action would be to revise the sentence - not remove it. TerraFrost (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

See WP:V. We should also consider how vital it is to the article. Would the event have played out differently if it turned out the phrase had originated with Rita Mae Brown, or Kurt Vonnegut, or Mark Twain? But all material which has been or may be challenged needs to be backed up with a reliable source, else it may be removed. Which is why I removed it. --John (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you're completely off base with the applicability of WP:V and WP:RS. Though the cited sources may, itself, have been a blog is irrelevant given that blog, itself, provided verifiable and reliable citations. And as I said, if you don't want to cite the blog, you can, technically, copy the contents of the blog entry and at that point, have an indisputably verifiable and reliable citation. I mean, the blog entry gives you the book title, the date of publication and even the page numbers. If that would qualify as a reliable citation when mentioned on wikipedia.org but not when mentioned on some random guy's blog, that's absurd. A reliable source is a reliable source regardless of who cites it.

Now, maybe there's a question of relevancy or maybe even notability, but to question the verifiability is absurd. That's like saying that cnn.com's only a verifiable source if you didn't find the cnn.com link by doing a Google search. And personally, I think that attributing the paraphrased statements Stack made is relevant. At least as much so as the last few sentences of his manifesto are.TerraFrost (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that background on the quotes used helps reader's understanding of the material. Source for communist creed. Source for capitalist creed. AA related book can be searched to find the phrase about insanity (predating the 1983 book). - Stillwaterising (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The newsweek.com link is a nice find! There's a wikipedia article, already, on the communist creed, so I, personally, think a citation for that is unnecessary. But then again, to quote WP:SPS, "anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field", so I guess none of the citations in the article on the communist creed count. Certainly not if I'm to take John's comments to heart. TerraFrost (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The attribution of the communist creed is the least contentious of the bunch but still needs a reliable source. The source of the insanity one seems go back to AA groups but it still needs a definitive source. Pound of flesh is Shakespeare. From Shylock: "The character's name has become a synonym for loan shark, and as a verb to shylock means to lend money at exorbitant rates. In addition, the phrase "pound of flesh" has also entered the lexicon as slang for a particularly onerous or unpleasant obligation." - Stillwaterising (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The blog, well sourced as though it may have been, did not provide a source for it's Alcoholics Anonymous statement. Of course, simply demonstrating that Alcoholics Anonymous has used it is not sufficient to demonstrate that that statement is most well known for its association with Alcoholics Anonymous. Personally, I think the most that can be said with the sources that we have thus far is this: "Stack's definition of insanity has been mentioned in literature as early as 1980". If the definition has been invoked before even 1980 what I wrote would still hold true, hence my thinking that it's the most we can say with what we have

As for the communist creed... the article on the communist creed is replete with sources. Why does this article need a reliable source for that one when the article this one would invariably be linking to has plenty? I'm familiar with WP:RS and WP:V but I've not seen anything in either of those that stipulate that each article requires its own reliable sources independent of the reliable sources other articles might have.TerraFrost (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I think the insanity source should be left out unless a better source is found. Best flesh quote is here - Stillwaterising (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Better source found. - Stillwaterising (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Gotta love Google Books! Now, can somebody post a draft of proprosed text below so it can be edited mercilessly? - Stillwaterising (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I like www.examiner.com/x-21439-Omaha-Faith--Social-Issues-Examiner~y2009m9d7-What-happened-to-AA better, actually. The publisher of that latest citation is Xulon Press - a "self-publisher", which means that WP:SPS still applies. The Examiner, in contrast, is not a self published source. Of course, then again, the examiner.com domain is blocked on wikipedia.org, so go figure.

What would actually be rather neat is to get a 1939 copy of The Big Book (Alcoholics Anonymous) and see if it's in there, but I think the examiner.com source is good enough to establish a connection. Besides, even if you did get a 1939 copy of The Big Book and found it, you might still, ridiculously enough, be in violation WP:NOR without another source to back your claim up. TerraFrost (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

the phrase seems to come from the ideas in the text but not from the text. Searchable 2nd ed. here - Stillwaterising (talk) 03:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I found a 1966 book that uses the phrase "Insanity has been defined as doing things the same way and expecting different results" . That kind of changes things. - Stillwaterising (talk) 05:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's a 1925 article in the New Yorker that attributes it to Einstein. I think we can go with this. - Stillwaterising (talk) 05:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

How about "A 1925 issue of The New Yorker attributed Stack's definition of insanity to Albert Einstein"? TerraFrost (talk) 06:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I keep searching over and over again and expect to find a different result. What does that say? - Stillwaterising (talk) 06:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I searched the digital archive at the New Yorker and the quote not there. This citation is mislabeled or misattributed and the text isn't from 1925, mentions Kate Bush for starters, and Nixon (if searched). - Stillwaterising (talk) 07:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I started a thread about the insanity quote on Wikiquote talk page for Insanity here. Basically, the 1980 book can't be used, yet. The 1966 Transactions don't seem to be right either. The 1983 book seems to be correct. - Stillwaterising (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

What about this?: TerraFrost (talk) 06:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

“ The communist creed was penned by Karl Marx and the capitalist creed by Henry Fairlie . Stack's definition of insanity has been used in literature since at least 1983 and the phrase "pound of flesh" dates back to at least as early 1600, when William Shakespeare published The Merchant of Venice (Shylock proposes a loan to proponent Antonio with the collateral being a pound of his flesh if he's unable to repay). ”

Seems accurate but too verbose. Here's my version with proper citations:

“ The communist creed was penned by Karl Marx and the capitalist creed by Henry Fairlie . Stack's definition of insanity is a modern saying first used in literature in 1983. The phrase "pound of flesh" dates back William Shakespeare's play The Merchant of Venice. ”

If people want to know more they can follow the references. - Stillwaterising (talk) 06:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added it! TerraFrost (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I found an earlier source of the Capitalist Creed from a book that Stack probably read:

"To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability to pay" could be called the capitalist creed of the income tax system. ...

from The income tax is obsolete by Joseph S. Duarte, ISBN 0870002864, pp26, 1974 - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That seems to have more similarly to the communist creed than it does to the capitalist creed? The capitalist creed features greed and gullibility, the communist creed, "his needs" and "his ability". TerraFrost (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

When did United States Military Service Become Trivia

When did United States Military Service Become Trivia?

Was just reedited when I mentioned that both perpetrator and victim had similar heritages of being War Veterans of the Army —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.137.103 (talk • contribs)

You mentioned it in an inappropriate section. The proper place to mention his military service would be in the Perpetrator section. ie. after the sentence ending with "[he] studied engineering at Harrisburg Area Community College from 1975 to 1977 but did not graduate," say "Stack served in the United States Army from 19xx to 19xx, achieving the rank of ..." or something. Or maybe add it before that sentence if chronologically appropriate. And provide a citation. TerraFrost (talk) 05:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Basic Military Training Standards

Both Vernon Hunter[14] and Joseph Stack[15] were former United States Army patriot heroes and Viet Nam War veterans trained to similar military standards[16], a trait similar to many of the United States governments Presidential leaders prior to civilian President William Jefferson Clinton

edited to this

Both Vernon Hunter and Joseph Stack were former United States Army patriots and Viet Nam War veterans trained to similar military standards, a trait similar to many of the United States presidential leaders prior to the administrations of Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter

I had it there at one time.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.137.103 (talk • contribs)

If you provide a good citation, I'll add a note of his military service to the article, myself. Do be aware that if such a citation is provided, I will not be discussing their training (everyone in the military is trained in some capacity and to mention it in the article is pointlessly redundant). And if [20] is your citation then where, exactly, does it say that Stack, himself, is a veteran? Maybe I skimmed over the text too quickly, but near as I can tell, the only person that that article calls a Vietnam veteran is Vernon Hunter. TerraFrost (talk) 06:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any information that Stack was Army or otherwise, and I think it would have come out by now. It's easy to misread an article and see something that refers to something else or was a mistake entirely. - Stillwaterising (talk) 06:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

ABC news got it wrong, AGAIN. [21] This link updates the news story others too relied upon ABC news for accurate information

Correction: Joseph Stack was not a Vietnam veteran as reported earlier. However, the man he killed, Vernon Hunter, was. The text has been corrected here.

Don't squeeze a panorama photo inside an infobox

It becomes useless unless clicked on to enlarge. __meco (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Except that's the whole point of having thumbnails...so they can be clicked to bring up the full size image. If you can locate a freely licensed image that would work better, then please leave a link here so we can discuss it. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

And why cannot that photo be displayed somewhere in the article proper? __meco (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a great photo and I think it should stay where it is. Most people know that a small picture can be clicked to enlarge. - Stillwaterising (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

And further, if it was moved elsewhere in the article, under default photo sizing, it would probably be even smaller; in infobox its 250px, outside it would be whatever the user set as default...between 120px and 300px (default to 180px I believe). So yes, it's fine where it is. Infobox pic is usually reserved for the image most representative of the situation, and this fill the slot nicely. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Stack's entry in Tax protester history

I added an entry for Stack at Tax protester history here. It's very minimal at this point and does not mention his church tax shelters or alleged activism. - Stillwaterising (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

First American suicide bomber?

Was he the first guy to do this in the West or the US? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.17.143.67 (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Almost certainly not: [22] says that an average of two or three pilots a year commit suicide in planes in the USA. It also says "The pilots rarely hurt anyone other than themselves. While they will occasionally fly into a building out of anger or a desire for revenge..." - since "occasionally" is not "never", we can safely assume that this is not the first time it happened. SteveBaker (talk) 06:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Examples of failed American attempts to crash a plane: Samuel Byck (1974); FedEx Flight 705 (1994); Frank Eugene Corder (1994, missed target). Also see Peter Garrison's article in Flying magazine, which is reproduced on the same NPR webpage: "Some end their lives with a kamikaze attack on their own home or an estranged wife or girlfriend's." --Closeapple (talk) 09:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Also worth noting, on the subject of "bombings": the 1933 United Airlines Chesterton Crash, the first case of aircraft sabotage in history, was over Indiana, and remains unsolved — it was never determined who did it or whether they were among the 7 people on the flight. In the 1960 National Airlines Flight 2511 bombing, one of the passengers was suspected of being the perpetrator. --Closeapple (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)