Talk:2010 Times Square car bombing attempt/Archive 1

Archive 1

Original author

Although he ended up merging his content into this article and arranged for deletion of his own, I think it is only fair to acknowledge that Shadowjams (talk) posted the first article on this incident at 2010 New York pipe bomb scare, beating the creation of this one by about seven minutes. Being a gracious Wikipedia editor and contributor, he even declined to arrange a merge of the two at my suggestion in order to maintain credit for the article's creation. Someone please give Shadowjams another award of some kind, for being an asset to the Wikipedia community. Fjbfour (talk) 11:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you all give each other barnstars? :-) --Chaser (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Chain of evidence

I am concerned that we are not hearing the fundamental details of who owns the car. The current wikipedia article says that the plates are invalid and do not match the registration, and that the owner of the plates appears to be uninvolved. What about the registrant of the vehicle? On the radio I heard that one VIN had been scratched off, but that another VIN location was intact. Who is the owner of the vehicle with that VIN, and does that match the registrant? What is that person's name? Tom Hubbard (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I put that in the article because the Times reported it. As for the names in question, the police have probably been withholding them for what are probably good reasons. Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Daniel. I am curious as to who is the registrant of the car (VIN), who is the registrant of the license plate; and who is the registered driver of the car. It would be great to have names and addresses of these folks so that we could all ask questions. Tom Hubbard (talk) 04:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

According to the New York Times, the previous owner of the car's name has not been released. Shadowjams (talk) 07:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe I've seen it now (but didn't deem it notable enough to reflect).--Epeefleche (talk) 04:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible reaction to South Park episode

a news site reported that it was a possibloe reaction to the episode showing mauhamad in a bear costume, and the bomb was about ten feet from the headquarters for the company thats distributes south park. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

And that site would be.... Grsz¹¹ 18:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's the link from Daily News (New York): Cops: Possible suspects in Times Square car bomb include group behind 'South Park' threat Dawnseeker2000 18:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS. Unfortunately, the Daily News's speculation does not meet our requirements for a citation. --Yamla (talk) 01:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately, reliable sources aren't far away

The Age

The Telegraph

Australian Matt (talk) 06:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Then by all means put those sources in the investigation section/responsibility section (can create one). Or maybe a subsection of reaction labeled "media reactions" Lihaas (talk) 06:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Allen, Nick (May 2, 2010). "Times Square car bomb: police investigate South Park link - Police in New York are investigating whether a car bomb in Times Square was targeted at the makers of South Park over a controversial depiction of the Prophet Mohammed". The Daily Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group Limited. Retrieved 2010-05-03. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Source, for use in this article. -- Cirt (talk) 05:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added this pro tem in the Responsibility section. Ericoides (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProjects

As this article is in WP NYC, does it need to be in WP NY as well? Jim Michael (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, why not. it can doLihaas (talk) 06:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone get the suspect video for Wikimedia Commons?

This "video of the suspect" is highly annoying. It seems like it took most of a day for it to get from the stage of being vaguely described to being on the Web - and then it's only available in various proprietary formats, so that each company that owns the copyright on what the possible terrorist looks like can inflict preloading ads on anyone minded to find him. The YouTube video linked from the article is perhaps the best of them, but even that pastes their fancy station logo over his face, and sooner or later somebody here is going to lambaste us for the terrible crime of linking to a YouTube Copyright Violation. (there's even a policy for it, but I don't feel like sparing their time) I couldn't find the thing by a search at the NYPD web site.

The text doesn't even suitably describe what he looks like - there's obviously something on top of his head, I think a bald spot, might be a yarmulke? - anyone with a Jewish background care to assess with a trained eye?

For the love of God, isn't there anybody in this country who would put capturing a bloody terrorist ahead of getting another 0.3 cents' worth of ad impressions?

P.S. Actually, his actions don't look suspicious to me; I think he's just a traveller with a laptop who wants to make a presentation and is afraid he's going to sweat out under his jacket. But that's not the point. Wnt (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

If you're referring the the AP video, linking to it isn't a problem. Funnily enough, our policy against linking to copyright violations (which is necessary for many reasons) only applies to things that are actually likely to be copyright violations, and an AP video posted on AP's Youtube account isn't something we would expect to be a copyright violation Nil Einne (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It was presumably obtained by the AP from the NYPD or other New York City authorities, so it could well be copyrighted (New York is supposedly very strict regarding its copyright, in contrast to the federal government), so we can link to it but not upload it to the Commons (though if it is PD, we can just download it from YouTube with KeepVid, but as a NYC govt video it probably isn't PD). --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 19:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Useless arrest info

I don't really know, but I think there is a few things in the arrest section that seem useless, and have no reason to be there. Could someone else read it and let me know, or change it if you think it is not that great. Unknowntbeast (talk) 07:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Such as?--Epeefleche (talk) 07:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Wife in Conn, wife in Pakistan?

I found the bit of the article about the suspect rather confusing, namely how it says he brought his wife over in May 2009, but then says he went to Pakistan for 5 months, where he had a wife. Is his wife in Pakistan or Connecticut, or does he have two wives? I'm not trying to dredge his personal life, but the seeming inconsistency bugged me. Mokele (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Me as well. It's sorted out now, though. One wife. And she is in Saudi Arabia.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Non-notable? "expert"

I'm unfamiliar w/this fellow who Fox refers to as a security expert -- he is not one of those whom I tend to see the RSs rely on. So I'm hesitant myself to reflect the following. If someone else feels differently, or thinks it is enough that Fox reported his view and called him an expert, they can consider putting it in the article themselves.

"Speaking with Good Day NY on Tuesday, security expert Michael McCann said there must have been someone ready to assist the alleged bomb plotter in Dubai." --Epeefleche (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Photo

I happened to be there shortly after, and uploaded a cellphone photo to Commons, at image:times_sq_2010_05_01_18.55.jpg. Description is "A snapshot taken at 6:55, 2010-05-01, of the suspected car bomb in Times Square, Manhattan. Taken right in front of the Marriott, looking south. Press says the attempted attack took place at 6:38. My family visiting from out of town strolled in ~6:45, fire and police began blocking off area ~ 6:50, with no explanation. The suspect suv is blue/black, on the right, with hazards on." I'll let active editors decide if they want to use it for this article. T L Miles (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for that, nice pic. I've uploaded it into the infobox having cropped it to remove the extraneous detail (person, barrier and pavement foreground). Hope you don't mind... Ericoides (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure the barrier is truly extraneous - it shows how close the public was actually allowed to stand to the car bomb, and also how quickly the police were able to put up metal barriers.

The detail that nags me a little is the figure legend that mentions that the vehicle's rear hazard lights were activated. It's true, but it's visible in the photo, and it's not actually out of place - I don't know how it is elsewhere in the world, but in the U.S. it is actually customary for people to turn on the four-way flashers when parking in some truly idiotic space, like double parked, parked in the fire lane, parked in the middle of the road etc. Wnt (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. For me, it helped me be certain I had located the proper subject of focus, as the picture necessarily can't have the vehicle centered. So I found the legend helpful. As to the barrier, I might agree, but for the fact that it would cause us to be even further from the car, which is even samll enough as it is. Sort of like photos at a sporting event, other than the odd "pretty" one, they don't tend to take them from back in the crowd showing peoples' heads to show how close or far they are -- they go for the best shot. But that's just imho, and I recognize reasonable people can differ on this. Kudos to Ericoides-- excellent job.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I see both sides of this one, but ultimately I think that the tighter crop is better as it brings us closer to the vehicle. Otherwise, as Epeefleche says, it would be pretty hard to see. But three concerns remain. 1. In the text the vehicle is given as dark blue, which is how I styled it in the caption. Someone has changed this to "dark-colored", so there is now an inconsistency between main text and caption. What do the sources say? It's hard to resolve a colour from our pic. 2. In the main text we have "emergency flashers on," while in the caption I wrote the "hazard lights are activated." I don't know if this makes a difference (are these lights called "hazard lights" in the US?, is "activated" idiomatic?), but it would be nice if the two were consistently phrased. 3. As for the custom of switching them on, would the vehicle have been more or less visible with them on? If they were off, would that be, like Holmes's dog, the curious incident? Finally, all the kudos for this must go to T L Miles for the original pic. Ericoides (talk) 06:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we can draw any conclusions about the hazard lights, but it is fine to mention that they were switched on. This is just something the bomber did; we don't know what was going through his mind. If he was trying to avoid such a "curious incident" it apparently backfired. Or maybe he just turned them on out of habit. Fletcher (talk) 11:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, of course -- Miles, that picture will be forever famous. Many thanks. My vote would be for consistency in language (and a double checking of our language). I'll let someone else opine on hazards vs emergency lights ... they may be interchangeable in NYC. It would be less likely to be moved, I think, if the lights are on ... and especially if, as I believe was the case (we need to update this) the car was left running.

As to that quote, which I've not read in decades, for all others it goes like this:

"Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"

"To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."

"The dog did nothing in the night-time."

"That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes.

(It's from the short story "Silver Blaze".) --Epeefleche (talk) 07:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

As for terminology, "hazard lights" is most certainly the norm in the U.S., and "on" would probably be better than "activated", although activated isn't that weird. But the flashing amber lights that might also function as turn signals... 99% called hazard lights in the U.S. Shadowjams (talk) 10:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

New York Marriott Marquis Hotel photo placement

Query. I know one of our rules is to put the photo near the text. Another is as a general matter to seek to not sandwich text between pix. The more I look at it, the more i think it might be better to obey the first rule, and violate the second rule in this case. By moving the New York Marriott Marquis Hotel pic up to the left hand side, opposite the theater pic. Any thoughts?--Epeefleche (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That will look funny.Fletcher (talk) 11:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

False flag?

Is there any reason to believe that this might be a US DHS operation in order to justify further DHS authority? 72.173.160.50 (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I suppose anything is possible, but that would take amazing balls of steel to pull off in your own country. Max.inglis (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 19:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason to believe it wasn't Elvis, seeking to distract people from the fact that he was there? I think it's time to delete the above and below fringe comments, under "notaforum".--Epeefleche (talk) 04:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reason why the article completely forgets to mention...

The fact that there are videos and Eyewitness statements that clearly point to this being a False Flag attack?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCJ-l0KByaI&feature=player_embedded —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.240.73 (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed the "collapsible box" from these two sections. Talk pages aren't a forum, but the fact that the conversation elicited an editor to point us at such an outstanding primary source showing the evacuation is prima facie evidence that it is productive discussion to advance the article. And I say this even though I think the idea is ridiculous and I don't think that video is evidence of it. Wnt (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Youtube isn't an RS. But I agree that it shouldn't be collapsed. It should be deleted, under "notaforum".--Epeefleche (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Youtube usually isn't a RS, but we should use common sense. There's just no way that someone could have photoshopped up the evacuation of large numbers of people around Times Square like that, especially not in a few days, and no reason for them to have altered it since nothing very unexpected is shown. The video gives a good sense of the arrangement of the crowd and the size and much of the shape of the evacuated area within Times Square. Wnt (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Include

Would be interested in input as to including the following in the article, to provide background as to what the militant-occupied tribal regions of Pakistan is:

The Center for Strategic and International Studies describes the FATA as: ground zero in the U.S. Jihadist war, and home to many al-Qaeda operatives, especially the numerous foreigners from the Arab world, Central Asia Muslim areas of the Far East, and even Europe who flock to this war zone for training [and] indoctrination."[1]

I tend to think it would be helpful, but before including would appreciate input.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it best to wait until they firm up that information, that way we do not throw fuel on the proverbial fire. Incidentally, that's also the reason why the military history project has not yet tagged the article as being within their scope: we are taking a wait and see approach. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The information that he was in that area training at a terrorist camp in the area for a number of months? Seems to be pretty firm, as reflected by the complaint and massive top-level RS coverage thereof.[2]--Epeefleche (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Many of the sources I've seen reference Waziristan specifically, which is just a part of FATA. I have no problem providing a description of the region, though it seems like something we could paraphrase and reference rather than block quote. The quote also has an idiosyncratic usage of the term "ground zero", in my opinion. Fletcher (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with it not being a block. I'll take a look at the other sources, and see if there is a hybrid usage, but my readings often mention FATA because that is where the law is different. I think ground zero is non-idiosyncratic usage for epicenter, and of course has a specially pertinent alternate connotation here."--Epeefleche (talk) 03:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Shahzad Faisal page

Hi, I have created a new page for Shahzad Faisal who as of now is prime suspect. but that page has been removed and redirected here.. I am not a frequent contributor so not sure if this was done by some editor or simply act of vandalism.. can someone pelase guide me.. thanks in advance..[[User:imdabs|Amit Амит अमित ਅਮਿਤ]] ([[User talk:imdabs|talk]]) (talk) 08:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing the editor may think that the person is not notable enough (based on what we know so far) to have his own page. This happens every time. At some point, someone creates the page as you did, someone else tries to redirect it, and someone says -- you can't re-direct it, instead if you want to get rid of it you have to prod it.

It gets prod-ed, and then someone comes along and de-prods it. That takes a nanosecond.

The prodder (or someone else) then brings it to AfD (suggesting article deletion, and leading to a community discussion). And then everyone wastes time arguing over it at AfD, that they could better spend on the article. But someone must enjoy it. And then -- even as events unfold and it becomes uber clear that the person is notable, some editors like to show how stubborn they can be and argue (endlessly, and pointlessly) even as they see that the consensus is against them. You can take a look at the 110 kilobyte Nidal Malik Hasan Afd for a recent example. The same arguments, no doubt, would be trotted out here, largely by the same people.

Until you have significant information, though, a redirect might be ok ... personally, I would give it some more time. I've blue-linked some terms, so you can click through and read up on the underlying policies. Always feel free to drop by my page and ask a question. Tx for trying to be the first to get a page up on Faisal.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. If this turns into an Abdulmutallab case, there's perfect grounds for a separate article. It all depends on the coverage and sources over the next weeks/months/years. Joshdboz (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I accept that the arguing that goes along with the creation of these pages is pointless and wasteful, but really, why create the page based on speculation, before any real evidence is available? Yes, it may turn out this man is a Abdulmutallab or Nidal Malik Hasan, but what if the reverse is true? Its better that editors act more prudently and wait. Information included in this article about the suspect can easily be spun off into a new article later IF necessary. 85.178.216.104 (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Update. The page has been re-created. (and, as of yet, not taken to AfD).--Epeefleche (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe someone will nominate it, but I think it will be an easy keep at this point. Shadowjams (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Now that he has his own page (about time!), do you think we can pair down his section a bit more? It's starting to get a little out of control. a two or three paragraphs should be enough for it here, and simply move/merge additional information onto his page. --Hourick (talk) 14:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Have pared it down to what is relevant to this page ... even though I note his bio pg needs some work/clean-up/ce.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Act of terrorism?

No where in the article does it say anywhere that anyone has said anything about believing this to be an act of terrorism (as opposed to criminality) so I've removed it pending a citation. SGGH ^ping! 16:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Janet Napolitano made a statement that it has been regarded as "a potential terrorist attack". So I've attributed it, rather than have it as Wiki-speculation. SGGH ^ping! 16:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is really enough to say it's a terrorist attack. Not only are the perpetrators unknown but their motives as well. It could have been motivated by anything. 71.102.4.13 (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It's best to just quote the official statements for now, until a more clear consensus emerges as to the nature of the incident. Shadowjams (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Then I think the article should be edited to remove things such as "Terrorist attacks in 2010" when it's just barely regarded as /possibly/ terrorist. Which seems to be the label for anything these days. 71.102.4.13 (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

while we normally are expected to and are discouraged to speculate, perhaps you could find an excuse or logic behind placing a stolen SUV, with fake tags containing explosive materials, parked in one of the most well known areas in the world? While it is already being bandied about that this is terrorism, then I would believe the article and the name should have those references intact. Unless you believe it was some sort of boyscout outting gone wrong. Just sayin.

Explosives could be used for any number of things, pretty much all illegal [I know you want to believe anything illegal is terrorism]. However, just jumping up and labeling it terrorism without knowing or saying /why/ it could possibly be called such without knowing motivations is an easy way to manipulate the masses in New York. So far there is no proof or knowledge of who the hell did this, so why would you label it such? Oh by the way, look up the definition of terrorism, just sayin. 71.102.4.13 (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

NYPD commissioner also added that it could be lone wolf terrorism if not perpetrated by a renowned group. (added it to the article with source)

Just the same as the incident in Austin, TX some weeks ago.Lihaas (talk) 06:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I will point out that those who are not aware (anon above) that a car with explosives does not equal terrorism on its own. Terrorism is the use of force in order to achieve political clout or influence a political or social outcome in the target community through use or manipulation of fear through violence or threat of violence. If it doesn't have these aims, and is just outright destruction, it is not terrorism. I don't mind including the term "terrorism" in articles where reliable sources/peoples involved (NYPD, US govt etc.) have called it terrorism, but to call it that in the article because it is a car bomb is not correct. SGGH ^ping! 08:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

If someone's going to blow up a car full of explosives, that's a terrorist attack. They don't have to be Middle-Eastern to count as terrorists.(Huey45 (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC))

No, the actions aren't what define a terrorist attack, the motives do, if it was an attack by a gang to distract the police, while they (the gang) preformed another crime the bombing wouldn't be a terrorist attack. 86.143.205.179 (talk) 11:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

There are many different def'ns of terrorism; even many different U.S. and non-U.S. definitions, for different purposes. I believe we have enough official statements to classify it.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I see there is enough now, honestly when I scrolled down and say it tagged as "Islamic Terrorism", I was upset, but then I noticed there were actually references this time! Congratulations Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.4.13 (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I see in the article "sugar nitrate"- which is a new concept. If it is urea (which is a fertilizer but not an explosive) the man is real stupid (he got a F, right?) and if it is urea nitrate (this is an explosive but not a fertilizer; not a common fertilizer that I know of). Where you got the "sugar nitrate" - any references? Even if you have some refs, it must be a mistake and it is best to delete it. Keeping the propane cylinders closed is another stupid idea (one of the cylinders would be enough to fill the car with propane vapor and mixed with the air inside would give a nice bang).219.64.182.117 (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

See this.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The description in the "official" report that I saw was most consistent with urea/sugar... Not explosive at all. As for the propane, it is surprisingly diffcult to get a propane tank do anything exciting. Even if you were to tape a stick of dynamite to the side of a propane tank and set off the dynamite, the propane would contribute very little to the result other than to make it look impressive if it were done in a dark place. This guy could have done much more damage by pouring gasoline over himself, igniting himself, and running into a crowded business. And while I'm here, "sugar/nitrate" usually refers to a mixture of Potassium Nitrate and Sucrose used in toy model rocket engines. It's not a neologism.

It must be silly mistake of foxnews: some others have also copied that: please try google ("sugar nitrate fertilizer" or "sugar nitrate"). - anyway, mistakes need not be propagated, it becomes genetic (inherited; someone will certainly quote wikipedia in future!). chami 15:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ck.mitra (talk • contribs)

Rewriting article

As we know more, we should add to the timeline.

The investigation section should not have the timeline or timeline details. It should be about the investigation. This article needs cleanup. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

For example, the following information is better in the "incident" section than investigation:

Commissioner Kelly said the bomb components were all "locally available materials."[26][32] At least three people other than Shahzad were involved in buying the bomb materials, sources said.[33]

Sets of keys left in the Pathfinder included a key to Shahzad's house in Connecticut, and one of his other cars, a black 1998 Isuzu Rodeo.[28][39] Intending to use his Isuzu as a getaway car, he had dropped it off eight blocks from the bomb site before the attack, but he then left the keys to his getaway car in the car bomb, and had to take the train home. He returned for his Isuzu the following day, with a second set of keys.[40]

The Pathfinder's license plates did not match its registration, and had apparently been taken from a Ford F-150 pickup truck awaiting repair at a Stratford, Connecticut, garage. The registered owner of the plates was contacted, and did not appear to be involved in the incident.[3]

View of Times Square after the vehicle fire was extinguishedE-ZPass and other camera records at toll plazas were reviewed to identify where the vehicle entered Manhattan.[41]

After Shahzad's arrest, a surveillance video revealed images of him wearing a white baseball cap, walking in Shubert Alley (which runs between 44th and 45th Streets, just west of Broadway) moments after witnesses noticed the smoking SUV.[42]

By May 4, however, he was no longer of interest to the police.[44] (guy taking off his shirt)

According to The Wall Street Journal, Shahzad received bomb-making training from the Taliban in Pakistan.[50] On May 6, The New York Times, quoting various American officials, said that evidence was mounting that Shahzad's alleged attempt was tied to the Taliban.[51] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suomi Finland 2009 (talk • contribs) 16:10, May 9, 2010

Congratulations

Wikipedia’s graphic

…to everyone who labors on this article. I note this article from the New York magazine: U.S. Drones Continue to Pound Faisal Shahzad’s Taliban Friends in Pakistan. Note the graphic in the article and the attribution to Wikipedia. Others are reading our stuff. Greg L (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Wow -- that's great!--Epeefleche (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. It appears Narayanese created this graphic and Epeefleche added it to this article. Collaborative writing at its best. Greg L (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

See also

i removed some links to individuals because they are already listed on this page, no point in having double links just to draw attention to other articles. Even the specific attacks can probably be dwindled down with a war on terror template or something of the sort. Perhaps a "'list of terror attack in the USA" template? Even my own addition yesterday (as per the statements made by Kelly) of domestic terrorism is probably inappopriate now. Would it still fit in? He's an american citizen true, but its affiliation is foreign (IF it turnsout to be true that he did it)Lihaas (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I restored them. The significant problem that I have with that is that the ELs that have descriptions have much more info for the reader than the template does, as to why the ELs are pertinent. That's a disadvantage with templates generally -- one can't customize them, as one can an EL. Both limiting the ELs to those that are most relevant. And providing the suggested sentence, describing why it is pertinent. I don't care about any ELs that don't have descriptions, but feel strongly that those with descriptions remain. There is no hard and fast requirement that if something is in a template it cannot be in a template. This is precisely the sort of circumstance where it makes sense to have the EL. As to your last question -- I don't have an offhand answer; will look at it when I get a chance. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:See also, links in related and included templates need not be listed, and links already in the body of the article (I believe some here are) should not either. The See also section is used to include links that should be in the article if it were fully developed, not just marginally relevant topics. Grsz¹¹ 13:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

What I don't like to see is See also becoming a catch-all for any vaguely similar event. The general guidance at WP:SEEALSO is not to use it as much for developed articles, though it is up to editorial discretion. If the items in See also are important, maybe they should be included in prose within the article? I would think any recent terrorist plots in New York City could be relevant to mention, giving the reader the broader context of this particular plot. I still question if Michael Finton and Ahmed Ressam are relevant - is every car bombing plot in the US relevant to this article? Bryant Neal Vinas and Najibullah Zazi may be worth mentioning due to their recent connection to NYC. How about some prose like this, "Since the September 11 attacks, there have been several bombing plots targeting New York City, including the March 6, 2008 Times Square bombing, and plots by Bryant Neal Vinas and Najibullah Zazi targeting subways or train stations in the city." That would allow you to trim some of the See Also. Fletcher (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, one thing that trouble me quite frankly is that I've had a dispute with Grsz -- who insisted at first that al-Awlaki was not relevant to the Nidal Malik Hasan page, and a dispute with Lihaas, who insisted on squeezing out the word Islamist to the maximum extent possible from a recent Islamist bombing. That said, let's take a look at the policy.

It says, in pertinent part: "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous.... A reasonable number of relevant links that would be in the body of a hypothetical perfect article are suitable to add to the "See also" appendix of a less developed one. Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section, and navigation boxes at the bottom of articles may substitute for many links .... However, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense.... Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question."

First--take note that it is not a requirement that if it is in a template, it must be deleted as an EL. The term "may" is used. It is permissive.

Second--the policy itself highlights part of what is helpful about the ELs, that the mentions in the template lacks. As the policy suggests, where (as is the case here) the EL's relevance is not immediately apparent, one should provide a brief annotation. That has been done with the ELs that are at issue. That annotation which "should" appear, does not appear in the template. Nor could it, as the EL annotation is/should be specific to the article in which the EL appears.

Third--this is as the policy indicates, a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. If we apply non-POV common sense, I think it's pretty clear that the best result for the reader is to give them the benefit of: a) the EL annotations; and b) a list of ELs that is far shorter and more specifically relevant that the long template list.

That aids them by allowing them, as the policy indicates we should, to find a see also that is useful for those readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, as it allows them to hone in on the articles that contain reference to that topic more readily.

I feel rather strongly about this.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I am going to replace the now questionable Domestic Terrorism link with the Terrorism in the United States list. If developments warrant Domestic Terrorism could be put back in. Although I won't delete them I do not think the Glasgow or London incidents belong here nor articles about suspects in other plots. Edkollin (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Since the suspect is a US citizen I thought it could be considered domestic terrorism. Unfortunately when I looked up the word we didn't seem to have a clear definition for it. Fletcher (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

There have been reported arrests in Pakistan so Domestic terrorism is looking more shaky. Edkollin (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry guys, Epeefleche seems to think s/he owns every terrorism-related page. Have fun with that, I'm out. Grsz¹¹ 14:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Since you feel strongly that these links are topical and relevant, why not integrate them into the prose of the article as I suggested above? Or, if they don't seem particularly relevant to the article, why, exactly, do we need to include them at all? (As a bit of hairsplitting, in wiki jargon external links (EL) refer to off-wiki links and have their own guidance (WP:EL). I don't know if there's a name for what we're talking about, maybe just See also links). Fletcher (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I would. But I'll tell you why. There are some editors who are of the view (I'm not one, but I recognize that they are sizeable in percentage) that there should not be prose about related but different events. They delete it wholecloth. Even if the RSs reporting on Event A mention Event B. I believe that approach wrong-headed. But it is out there. They, however, are less troubled by ELs -- perhaps because they appear at the end of the article, in disjointed fashion. I've been around for about 40,000 edits, so I think I have a fair read of what one can expect at this point.

If the prose were accepted by them, I would be happy to include it. And would feel no need to reflect more than is in the 1-liners at the ELs. If, on the other hand, the prose mentioned less than is in the 1-liners, leaving out other similarities for example, that would be a disservice to the reader. Sorry -- you split the hair quite well. Please accept my malapropisms, as EL is shorter to write, but your point is well taken. Maybe I should call them ILs. As to your use of the word need -- that's not the test. It's totally appropriate, for the reasons I mentioned above. It needn't be required. Finton was a truck bomb (and recent), and Ressam was arrested w/a car w/alarm clocks and explosives (though obviously he is of later vintage). There are a great number of course who I've not reflected, who are in the template.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at that. This just in. The Times Square Bomber trained in Pakistan. As, readers who have seen the see also all day already knew, did Zazi and Vinas (who also talked about setting off bombs in NYC). This may well at some point become something that can be stripped from the see also, and go into the text.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

A terrorist trained in Pakistan? No way. C'mon, we all know you need to get a little more related than that. Grsz¹¹ 23:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I know. You're right. Three separate cases of people in the NY metro area traveling to a terrorist training camp in Waziristan, engaging in explosives training, and seeking to bomb a major tourist/New Yorker destination in mid-town Manhattan. It happens all the time.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You can add a "background" section for context and merge the links into that. Terrorism articels across wikipedia often have a "background" context, i know because i've also integrated info into that.Lihaas (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

so any progress? We seem to be in agreement that it should be merged in.Lihaas (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No, we're not. That was facetious. I had thought obviously. This is the classic, appropriate use of a see also section.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Excessive information on Shahzad

This article is about the attempted bombing... so the extensive info on Shahzad's whole life is extremely tangential... in particular stuff like his school grades. I'm removing it from this article - the whole point of Shahzad's article is that there is more detail there. GrahameS (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, his school grades bear on his intellectual capability, which bear on his failure to construct a working detonator.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that anybody who gets good grades should be able to make a bomb? That's utterly ridiculous. Grsz¹¹ 01:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

That's your POV. I'm not sure why you disagree that intellectual capacity bears a relation to one's ability to understand and implement what one is taught in one's training. His intellectual capacity is of interest. Also, see this New York Times article quote: "This guy, both from his grades and his incompetent bomb-making skills, wasn’t the best and brightest of anything." Why, Grsz, would you seek to censor this info out of the article?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This results from a goofy but vigorously enforced Wikipedia policy called "WP:BLP1E". The idea is that if someone is only known from one event then you're not allowed to start a separate article on him. So all the biographical information on Shahzad goes here or not at all. I don't claim this makes sense. Wnt (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That link says, "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." So this person can still have his own article. Learn something - read a book today! (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't comfort the editor whose work gets deleted... and I'll bet that such an article would have at best a rough time of it. Shahzad may be a laughing-stock for the day, but he's never going to be a household word. Wnt (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I've trimmed it, leaving in all relevant material.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It is still much longer than the main article about the man, and that indicates a problem. Grsz¹¹ 00:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The "early life" portion is the part that is the equivalent of his bio, and as long as the focus is on his contacts, his finances, non-U.S. influences, his becoming a citizen, what is in the early life section is appropriate/relevant. And it is significantly shorter than the corresponding part of his bio.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not. The prior to attack section is the most relevant, but still too detailed. Early life and biographical details belong in the man's biography, it's as simple as that. Grsz¹¹ 02:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand. That is the part that is relevant for comparison to his bio. It's of course as you well know from other articles to have a shorter description on the event page, which is the case here.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this discussion even relevant anymore? the Faisal Shahzad article is developed now, and in no risk of being deleted. Are the concerns over its length still relevant? Shadowjams (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge

Since a link to Faisal Shahzad does exist a summary on here with the requisite "main" link should do fine. There no point repeating everything here and then linking on. Half the article is about him which really could be a subsection of "investigation" and then a link to his page. If this would be too short an article then he doesnt need a page for himself. Its not a loss of a face for the editor who added the info. Its not being censored or removed whatsoever, its just moved to a page that bears out the info with a link from here. Lihaas (talk) 10:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• No -- this is standard for how these matters are handled, in countless similar articles. What we have here is a summary of what is in the bio. That is precisely the correct way to handle this. No need to template bomb the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The summary, i agree. But this is half the page with multiple sections? Section in a summary?Lihaas (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Quantify the threat

The report on CNN, in particular the NYPD representative's description of the device that was recovered, struck me as an oddity. The described composition of the "bomb" in question consisted of gasoline, propane tanks, bagged "fertilizer" locked in a gun-safe, and a large number of conventional fireworks all arranged inside of a vehicle, with some form of a detonation structure. I won't profess to know much about bomb construction or explosives(as much as, say your typical history freak), so I would like to propose a question. What type of bomb was this intended to be? and to take it a step further, Should we even consider a "theoretical attack" such as this one, to be a high priority threat to our cites?

The NYPD representative was not clear as to the actual threat of the device.

After a short discussion with acquaintances, a conclusion was made that this was intended to be a type of "air-fuel explosive". This was assumed because the contents of the device consist of a pressurized fuel(propane), gasoline, and a TNT type explosive. This issue is that the true "Fuel/Air Explosive(FAE)" requires an "aerosolized" fuel, meaning that the fuel must already occupy a volume of space, mixed with air, before it is detonated. This might imply that the device's "creator" could very well be inept in his craft. (This makes me question the type of personality that would create such a device... possibly someone who is desperate, using very limited resources, or simply understands their "craft" very little). The Fuel/Air Explosive has long been in use by military forces, but it is my belief(and please correct me if I am misguided) that it is an effect caused by the ignition of an aerosol fuel cloud, that has been established over a large area. This produces a large (but short lived?) fireball and shock wave. Fuel air explosions are very devastating, and take place accidentally every year.

Before I would consider an addition to the article regarding the composition of the device and it's relevance, are there any more informed individuals who could quantify the destructive capacity of a device like this? Could it produce fuel/air type damage, or would it be compared to a more conventional explosion. I believe this to be of importance because, in my logic, a bomb threat must be measured by the size of the bomb.

I can cite information about FAEs, but only will if more relevant discussion takes place on this topic. Dnamrax (talk) 03:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)dnamrax§ ~~ Sunday, May 02, 2010

My understanding is that the "bomb" was a mixture of urea and sugar... I don't think that will burn, and I don't think it can be detonated, even with a detonator. I think the whole thing was an attention getting scheme. In that case, it was wildly successful! You can't have fue/air without air, by the way ;^) See: http://agriportal.info/Menu/Urea%20Safety.aspx

There's going to be a lot of speculation, especially on cable news, about the details of the event. The contents of the vehicle have been described from the beginning relatively consistently, adn this article hasn't changed much in that description. Calling it a "fuel air explosive" sounds like quite a stretch to me. I would suggest waiting to add anything like that into the article until there's something more definitive, preferably in print that is referenced (although the transcript is fine as a source). Shadowjams (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I too understand what you are saying, the same thought occurred to me as well. Unfortunately though this not a forum for discussion on the issue; until reliable sources develop with an angle toward this particular view I must insist that this discussion lapse. I note for the record that milhist coordinators are already monitoring the article, so if any military link develops we will be there to tag and update as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I like to think I know a fair amount of bombs; and truthfully this sounds like someone just grabbed everything they thought might explode in threw it in the back of a truck. I mean there was fireworks back there for goodness sake. The fertilizer was locked in a gun safe, that doesn't make it very conducive for making it go boom. And it doesn't even mention if there was even there was any sort of fuel mixed with the fertilizer to actually try to make an ANFO type explosive (which one assumes he might have been going for).

But more to your specific question. A fuel air bomb requires specific timing that someone who uses consumer grade fireworks in a bomb is unlikely to be able to pull off even if that's what he was going for. Reyals (talk) 08:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This article in today's New York Times notes that, despite the apparent ease of making car bombs as opposed to hijacking jetliners and piloting them into buildings, there have been no real successful car-bomb attacks (save that described in Bath school disaster, which was in the late 1920s) in the US because it is harder to build a successful car bomb than people think. I suspect that's the case with this one ... somebody just decided to put a lot of things that are widely known to be volatile, flammable and dangerous in the car with some fireworks on the theory that at least one of them would blow up as intended.

And there must have been more than one person involved, possibly three: bomb maker who probably thinks he learned everything he needed to know to do this from watching cable-TV documentaries, guy who stole the car and was just smart enough to take off the dashboard VIN but not smart enough to realize it's in over a dozen other locations inside the vehicle, including some that are meant to survive use as a bomb by most common methods, and really smart tird guy who realized that the best way to launder the bomb car's identity was to put plates stolen from a different vehicle on it, a vehicle in a situation where the plates wouldn't even be noticed as missing until after the bomb exploded. Daniel Case (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You should read the article more carefully (also, common knowledge): The Oklahoma City Bombing and the first attack on the WTC were both successful car bombs. On the main issue: the "bomb" would have resulted in a burning car; let's just be glad the guy did have no idea about what he was doing. The way he arranged it all tells me there was some prepatory thinking involved (I highly doubt he had all these 'ingredients' ready, so it was not a spontaneous idea), which leads me to the conclusion that this guy is not exactly bright. I suspect a quick google search, with the outcome "primer" + "fuel" + "fertilizer" = bomb. He could have ended up with firecrackers (I can't imagine a more stupid primer than that), manure and rapeseed oil (biodiesel), but he might have been a bit too smart for the manure part. The worst result I can see is a burning car and maybe some people with minor hearing injuries due to the firecrackers. --91.32.98.2 (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The three are not exclusive. All you need is a marginally-above-average car thief with a minimum of Internet or cable knowledge in the abstract, and probably without any real military experience. The thing as a whole seems rather amateurish. (Which is not to say that parts of it might not have caused injury or death.)

I doubt there's a way to work this up to article-worthy content, but apparently two other attacks (at least) have tried to use gasoline as a detonator: [3][4]. I think the theory must be something like the alarm clock detonates the firecracker, the firecracker sets off the propane?, the propane explodes the gasoline, and the gasoline is supposed to explode with such heat and force that it substitutes for a blasting cap in setting off what was supposed to be explosive fertilizer? But it's a ridiculous Rube Goldberg contraption at best and I doubt it could work at all. Wnt (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Tangentially related articles that one might create

...if there is sufficient material and you have time/interest/are extremely bored: M-88 firecracker and Shubert Alley ... and, if it meets notablity standards, the draft Terrorist Expatriation Act.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• I was bored, so I did the first one ... here: Shubert Alley.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

continuation, and car vs truck discussion

Or expand the Nissan Pathfinder article. By the way, I think it's a truck, not a car. Anyone disagree? It's built on a truck platform, it looks like a truck. It is not a crossover, which is a car made to look like a SUV. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Come to think of it, the title should be 2010 Times Square truck bomb attempt or truck bombing attempt. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No, a car bomb is a general term. And it was incredibly inappropriate to rename with no discussion. Grsz¹¹ 17:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. The Nissan Pathfinder is a truck, at least the 1993 model. See the Wikipedia article. It is built using truck parts and on a truck frame. It also looks like a truck. If the person used a Nissan Altima, it would have been a car bomb, no doubt. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it's a compact SUV built on a light truck frame. It is misleading to call it a "truck bomb" which encompasses much larger vehicles, like a box truck. SUVs like the Pathfinder are widely used as personal cars in the US and you will note our references overwhelmingly call it a car bomb. Fletcher (talk) 11:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

And even big trucks filled with explosive are often called "car bombs". "Truck bomb" on Wikipedia redirects to "Car bomb".This whole discussion is silly. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The US Government, years before this incident, classified the Nissan Pathfinder as a light truck. I agree that it is not as big as box trucks. Small truck bomb is more accurate but I do understand that the radical right wing is trying to get SUVs to be accepted despite their wasting fuel and want them to called cars. I am not too intersted in pursuing this issue. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, as the politics over SUVs have nothing to do with this article. Fletcher (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not a car or a truck. It's an SUV. I would say that as long as WP defines "car bomb" as "an improvised explosive device placed in a car or other vehicle" we should call this a car bomb. Also, if we don't stick to a general term, we'll end up with SUV bombs, crossover bombs, minivan bombs etc. Micro2 (talk) 06:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

WP should never be used as a reference for WP. Some news articles use the term truck bomb, others car bomb. Sometimes, governments try to use mind control and use different terminology. Wikipedia mirrors sources so it's a balance between truth and accuracy. Some people say "verify, not truth" but that doesn't mean "falsity as long as I can find a reference as an excuse".

A neutral assessment is that both terms are used, car bomb is used more than truck bomb, the Pathfinder is a truck, the Pathfinder is a small truck not a huge truck, some people use the Pathfinder as a personal car and not to carry cargo much. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

To me, the correct term here, somewhat generic, is a car bomb, not a truck bomb and certainly not a SUV bomb. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

(Transplanted from Pathfinder page)

Neither Suomi - its an SUV/Crossover. The problem is that you only see Car and Truck and do not see the third category SUV. The Nissan America pages list "Car" "SUV/Crossover" and "Truck" and the Pathfinder is in the SUV/Crossover category. In England we separate them into van and truck. A van is enclosed with the driver and carrying sections enclosed in the same bodywork and a truck or lorry has the cab separated from the carrying compartment. (I wont even mention about flatbeds etc lol)

Americans call a lorry a truck, and so the difference between truck and car in the bomb sense is the size of the bomb. A truck bomb is more likely to destroy a building & people and a carbomb is probably only going to take out windows & people. A truck bomb implies that there was enough explosives to fill a transit van or larger so probably 1000KG or more and a carbomb smaller.

I would point out however that the bali bombing was a very small van

The danger is we would need Carbomb, SUVbomb, vanbomb, truckbomb and lorrybomb

It seems to me that it is easier just to call it "a bomb" and perhaps include sizes/weights ?

As for the problem "is the Pathfinder a car or truck" you really need to include SUV and then it fixes itself

"Is the Pathfinder a car, SUV or truck ?" and you will find that it is an SUV - problem solved !!

Chaosdruid (talk) 06:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Timeline clarification

Under the Investigation section, subsection Domestic and International ties, the article states "Shahzad has been on the Department of Homeland Security travel lookout list since 1999..." I'm not 100% sure how this is entirely possible, since the Department of Homeland Security was formed at the end of 2002. Could someone clarify or correct the dates/agency? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.166.43.132 (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Our source indicates the watchlist was originally managed by the US Customs Service, which was later rolled into DHS. I made the statement more general to keep it simple, but not misleading. Fletcher (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

When was the suspect apprehended?

Our article says it was "He was arrested after [the airplane] had begun to taxi towards the runway". CNN writes that he was arrested "moments before Emirates Flight 202 to Dubai pushed back from the gate."

User:Epeefleche says "The plane had clearly left the gate", citing Fresnobee (a webpage that is at this moment not available to me). NPR's On the media has a whole article about this confusion, where they explain that the plane was indeed called back, but only after they got Shahzad:

What actually happened was customs officials were able to get him off the plane before the jetway was pushed away, and it did pull away, and they called it back to pull off two other individuals who were [...] suspicious.

--Austrian (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It clearly had left the gate. See, as well, the transcript here.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the transcript. It shows that the plane was called back to the gate, but not why. So there are some sources (A) that say it had left the gate before he was apprehended, there are other sources (B) that says he was apprehended before the flight left the gate, and one of those even explains why (A) got it wrong, because the plane DID turn around, but not for Shahzad. --Austrian (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The San Francisco Chronicle, the better RS, which provides the transcript, clearly says "Faisal Shahzad ... was pulled off the flight after it returned to the gate as instructed."--Epeefleche (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The SF Chronicle is certainly a reliable source, but this particular news item is really from Associated Press (also a reliable source). But not less reliable than CNN (mentioned above), and the New York Times, which has a 1400 word article that says at the end Before the plane pulled away from the gate, though, investigators had caught up with him. He was taken out of his seat and into custody. Also, as I pointed out above, Bob Henelly from WNYC (also a reliable source, is it not?) explained on "on the media" the reason for the different accounts.

(Personally, I don't really care either way. My main interest is to have the correct version on wikipedia.)

--Austrian (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• What is wrong about going with the most likely and confirmed scenario which on top is also more up to date? Any reason to doubt a more up to date RS and just go with a debunked old one???The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If we have contradicting RS's we usually go with the more recent ones, especially if the previous ones are already debunked by another more recent RS.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the article. I left out the two passengers that where cleared and where the reason the plane was called back as undue weight.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

False statement that keeps reappearing in the lead

I just corrected a plainly inaccurate statement about the plane taxing away before Shazid was arrested--again. All 3 cited sources say the plane had not left the gate when the arrest was made. diff

"Mr. Shahzad booked a ticket on his way to Kennedy Airport and bought it with cash when he got there, officials said. He had boarded the plane but was taken off before it taxied away." [5]

"The restriction helped Customs and Border Protection agents arrest him moments before Emirates Flight 202 to Dubai pushed back from the gate." [6]

"What actually happened was customs officials were able to get him off the plane before the jetway was pushed away"[7] KeptSouth (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. There was a NY Times article at the time that said it had left the gate and that same article linked to the air traffic control recording asking the plane to return to gate.

This one expressly says it pushed off and was called back [8] [9]. I would say it was ambiguous, but I'm inclined to believe the New York Times link because they quote from the air traffic control recording (which I've heard) and the air traffic controller says expressly go "back to the gate immediately."

By the way, the CNN link in the exact next paragraph says that the plane was called back. This has also been discussed above back in May quite a bit. The conclusion there was that the plane pulled back from the gate but that the suspect was pulled off before. Shadowjams (talk) 09:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Crime of terrorism

Kept South made the comment in this diff [10] that there is no such crime as terrorism. That quote was misquoting the article (unless it's changed) and it's fine that it was changed, but there is a federal crime of terrorism (a few actually): 18 U.S.C. § 2331. Shadowjams (talk) 09:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Dead link

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

• http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/04/AR2010050403556.html
  • In Faisal Shahzad on 2011-03-18 14:07:23, 404 Not Found
  • In 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt on 2011-06-18 15:42:04, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

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

• http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6989257.html
  • In Faisal Shahzad on 2011-03-18 14:07:24, 404 Not Found
  • In 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt on 2011-06-18 15:42:09, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3

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

• http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/04/AR2010050400930.html
  • In Faisal Shahzad on 2011-03-18 14:07:20, 404 Not Found
  • In 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt on 2011-06-18 15:42:14, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4

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

• http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/04/AR2010050400253.html
  • In Faisal Shahzad on 2011-03-18 14:07:24, 404 Not Found
  • In 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt on 2011-06-18 15:44:06, Socket Error: 'An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host'

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Update

Now that it is more than two years later, it's time to shorten the Lead, and generally update the article as a summary. I took some of the official reaction quotes out, as the Lead is supposed to be a summary. For this reason, I also think the multiplicity of cites for the same fact, for which sources do not disagree, should be reduced. There are not extra points for five cites that say the same thing.Parkwells (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It is a good idea to remove excess links, particularly dead links, although if you can keep the citation in there that'd be good. But if an available and notable citation supports similar points, you should definitely help trim them down to some reasonable degree. Shadowjams (talk) 11:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)