Talk:Austin serial bombings

Ongoing?

I have a question about this event. How will we know when it is over, if the perpetrator is not caught? After a month of no bombings? How would we determine if it it ongoing or not? I don't actually question the label of ongoing, considering the bombings have been a couple days apart so far, but I do question at what point it isn't. Alex of Canada (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a great question- I'm thinking it's good to go ahead and have the span be from March 3-13. Maybe we could add a caveat that a suspect has not been identified to the public? Therefore, it is clear that the investigation is ongoing.Avilan01 (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

There seems to have been another, as of the 19th. I'd recommend waiting until either the suspect has been captured, or a month has passed with no new bombs, before removing the ongoing label. Icarosaurvus (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Ongoing. –Vami_IV✠ 14:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Renaming?

Should the article be renamed? Perhaps something along the lines of "Austin Serial Bombings" or something to that extent? The most recent explosion on March 19th was not a doorstep package, but was instead a roadside tripwire bomb. RabbitHive (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Should the explosion in Schertz, Texas be included in this article? If so, the title will need Austin replaced with Texas. Jim Michael (talk) 11:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Correct. The current title has both "Austin" and "package". Both of which seem to be inaccurate. Or, at least, inadequate. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• "Serial" is best, "package" is no longer sufficient . The location can be handled by redirect until the situation becomes clearer. Speciate (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

(ec) The article was moved by Eugen Simion 14 citing this section, but I have moved it back for two reasons. One, this is confined to the Austin area, or at most Central Texas, and two, the latest incident in Schertz has not yet been confirmed to be related. Please wait for further discussion before renaming the article. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I would propose something 2018 Central Texas serial bombings or perhaps just explosions. Remov the year too?Lihaas (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Texas bombings should be sufficient. The Schertz bomb has been linked to this case and there don't appear to have been bombings in Texas before, so no need to disambiguate. Jim Michael (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Central Texas bombings? Or just explosions after Sundays?Lihaas (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Given that the bomb in Schertz was a package in transit addressed to Austin, I think removing Austin from the title would be premature. -- 65.118.155.74 (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Is it necessary to have serial in the title? Jim Michael (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• How about 2018 Austin explosions? It gives sufficient context that someone would know what they were clicking on. Natureium (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

There's no point in having the year in the title, as there are no other similar incidents in other years to disambiguate from. Austin explosions, Austin bombings or Texas explosions or Texas bombings would be better. Jim Michael (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I think "Austin serial bombings" would be better - serial should stay in the title for now, since Austin Police have publicly said they are looking for a "serial bomber".Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

From the news I have been seeing, I'd support Austin Serial Bombings. Seems the most in-line with the sources. Icarosaurvus (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll note "serial bombings" looks like "aerial bombings". Can't really complain about that, though. Just a bit odd. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Links to consider

]Interesting article[1]. Kee p an eye on the Austin-American Statesman, they should be most reliable at the moment.Lihaas (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)v

Goodwill incident

Current sources say the Goodwill incident that occurred the evening of 20 March is unrelated. Austin Police Department has tweeted:

#UPDATE: There was no package explosion in the 9800 block of Brodie Ln. Items inside package was not a bomb, rather an incendiary device. At this time, we have no reason to believe this incident is related to previous package bombs. #Breaking #packagebombmurders

Please keep it separate from the article since it is not related to this serial bomber. Do not add to the table of bombings or number injured. GodsPlaaaaan (talk) 01:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll check on this in a couple hours. I respect your commitment, but there's already a section for an unrelated threat on the article. –Vami_IV✠ 01:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Even if it is considered "unrelated" from an official view, the timing makes it related as far as an average person looking for information is concerned. As a reader, I believe it should remain since the article is about a series of bombings in Austin during this time period. 38.108.59.142 (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The article is suppose to be factual, accurate, and about the topic for which the article is titled for. An explosion may seem related, but the Police Department has confirmed that it is not. I'll change the SXSW section to incorporate this Goodwill event too. GodsPlaaaaan (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

On page eight of The Book of Facts Rulebook (Third Edition), it clearly states an absence of reason for belief in any thing at a particular time shall not be taken as absolute denial of the thing unbelieved, forever. Granted, no such edition was ever printed, but the rule is still true. Police are merely unsure right now, nothing's been "confirmed". InedibleHulk (talk) 06:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I also see no reason a man who stuffs an incendiary device in his package can't be The Package Bomber, but a man who stuffs his underwear can be The Underwear Bomber and the shoestuffer can be The Shoe Bomber. Probably just how things work in Texas. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but how likely is it actually for there to be another bombing, and it not being related? Alex of Canada (talk) 06:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Nobody really knows. The likelihood of anything happening fluctuates every time it happens. If it's a copycat, the risk of copycats goes up. If it's a routine accidental lithium battery eruption, some shares may tumble and insurance rise. It's nothing to be sorry about, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, it was a flare. So "incendiary device" wasn't a lie, but a strangely heavy way to say it. Maybe that's just how Texas rolls. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Off topic ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Save the joke for a moment. "Incendiary device" was the first term used to describe the "explosion" when that story was developing hours ago. –Vami_IV✠ 11:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC) Wasn't a joke, or a critique on editors for relaying what they were told. Just a strange word choice for a man who knows what a flare is, has a character limit and is trying to maintain public order. Firebombing is serious shit. If it's reckless for a civilian to declare a questionable lighter or vaporizer an incendiary device during a pat-down, it should work both ways. Unless double standards are normal in Texas. Beside the point of improving the article now, though, so I'll shut up. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It literally was not a flare, it was an Artillery Simulator as confirmed by several reports after it was first called a flare and an incendiary device. http://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/austin-explosions/explosion-at-goodwill-caused-by-artillery-simulator-not-believed-related-to-bombings-apd/269-530453605 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.52.74.150 (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Is an "artillery simulator" or "military memento" not a thing with a flare in it? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

A reporter asked "Is this some sort of military flare?" The assistant police chief didn't say yes or no, just "It was an artillery simulator. Thank you." He'd immediately previously said it was "almost like a 40-millimeter type artillery simulator device" (my emphasis). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

As I recall basic training obstacle course, an artillery simulator is a device to mimic the noise, flash, and smoke of an artillery shell going off nearby but without serious explosive damage and without creating metallic shrapnel. Like a flash bang grenade, it is not intended to be used as a lethal weapon, but at contact range (as while opening a box containing one) they can cause serious injury or death. One I saw a few years ago looked similar to the kind of flares used with tripwires for securing a perimeter against intruders. Any suspicious relics in a military veteran's personalty should be vetted by the bomb squad, before being donated to Goodwill. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Timetable

The Timetable should list events in civilian time, not in military time. Thoughts? Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It may seem like "military time" if you are in the US, but most people outside it are familiar with the 24-hour clock, as it is usually called. I don't see a need to change it.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't mind either way, but that's not a good reason. The article is about events that happened entirely in the US. Natureium (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Pawnkingthree: A "24-hour clock" and a "military clock" are essentially the same thing. As stated above, these events occurred in the USA. And, in the USA, the standard way to refer to time is via the 12-hour clock ("civilian time"). Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

It may not be "standard", but there is nothing wrong with using a 24 clock. It is clear and unambiguous. You didn't actually give a reason why you wanted it changed in your first post, so I just pointed out that it is unlikely to be a problem for readers of a global encyclopedia.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I have a problem with subtracting twelve to get the time. It's not terribly difficult. But it's that much easier to just read it as it appears on a regular Canadian clock. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Pawnkingthree: In my opinion, it should be written in "civilian time" (12-hour clock), because that is the "standard" method of reporting time for the USA. And, these events occurred in the USA. As you say, there is "nothing wrong" with using a 24-clock. Equally, then, I would say that there is "nothing wrong" with using a 12-clock. Which is also clear and unambiguous. You state that a 24-hour clock is "unlikely to be a problem for readers of a global encyclopedia". Equally, I would posit that a 12-hour clock is "unlikely to be a problem for readers of a global encyclopedia". Therefore, all things being equal, the 12-hour standard clock is more appropriate for a USA article. Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Survivalist activities

Reports originating in Buzzfeed and reprinted by New Republic and The Independent contain an interview with childhood acquaintance Cassia Schultz about their time in Righteous Invasion of Truth. Looking for indications to see if the community thinks the sourcing is solid enough to make it into the article and if so, what tone it should take. 24.9.80.234 (talk) 12:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

It is relevant so I added to the article that the suspect was part of RIOT. --Frmorrison (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The chemical stuff appears to be overstated in the current text. The group seems to have been about the Bible and survivalism and guns (and roleplaying), but not bomb-making. Its name apparently comes from a Carman song [2] - and probably accompanying book that uses militant language (metaphorically, with "weapons" like a pocket Bible) to describe conversion efforts, and encouraging youth to form their own local "R.I.O.T. Squad" [3] [4] [5] [6].--Pharos (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Rather than interpret the article rhetorically, I suggest a direct quote so as not to misinterpret or add any perception of editor bias.

Former RIOT member Cassia Schultz stated, "A lot of us were very into science; we would discuss chemicals and how to mix them and which ones were dangerous. We were into weapons and stuff. A lot of us did role-playing, and RPG [role-playing games]; we’d have foam weapons and act out a battle.” (add Buzzfeed citation and additional media who cite Buzzfeed on this particular quote)

Does that suffice to not color the information without failing to include it? 24.9.80.234 (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)