Talk:Pressure cooker bomb

Proposed merger

I think this page should be merged with IED.

It seems unnecessary to have a separate page for this. What's next? Are we going to have a page for every other type of improvised or home made bomb?

All that is happened is that this page has been generated in relation to the Boston bombing. 182.239.185.166 (talk) 11:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the subject is notable and important enough for a separate article. The article has presently enough material to stand on its own (and will probably be expanded further in the near future) and I don't think it will nicely fit into the IED article anymore. I don't know which types of IEDs should get their own articles, but there is already a separate article for pipe bomb. Nanobear (talk) 11:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a closer match to pipe bomb to me. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It is a stupid idea to have this kind of information on Wikipedia. Think Boston bombing... Hafspajen (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with Nanobear. Notable and important enough for a separate article, as reflected in RS coverage. There are many RS articles that focus on it specifically, not lumping it in with IEDs or pipe bombs. The article is much more than a stub. No need to merge.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Do Mot Merge. Keep separate. It's noteworthy on its own. Balicalital (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Instead merge with Pipe bomb, as a pressure cooker bomb is a type of pressure containment bomb as decribed at that article. Warren Dew (talk) 06:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Finally, someone is seeing sense. If terrorists decide to contain a low explosive using, say, a gas bottle, does that means that need a new article for gas bottle bomb? No, the basic bomb making principle remains exactly the same. So merge with pipe bomb. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• This is not Encyclopedic content. It falls under What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, how to book. All bombs should be on 1 page and we dont need to tell how each is made. 1life saved by following the right rules here is enough for me. Theworm777 (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Naser Jason Abdo "linked to 2010 Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan"

I've removed the "linked to" wording in the article. Because Abdo is a living person, WP:BLP applies; we need to be absolutely accurate.

It's true that a cited Time magazine article (http://swampland.time.com/2013/04/16/a-short-history-of-pressure-cooker-bombs/ ) says "One was an Army private linked to the 2009 Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan, who had reportedly been taking bombmaking tips from al-Qaeda’s short-lived (literally) online magazine Inspire and had various weapons and explosives along with his cooking pot." The Wikipedia article wording is the same as that source.

However, the Naser Jason Abdo article says this:

• "At the time of the Fort Hood shootings later that year, he [Abdo] condemned the actions of Nidal Malik Hasan, who was arrested and charged in the case."

• " While leaving the courtroom, Abdo shouted: 'Nidal Hasan — Ft. Hood 2009' [8] in reference to the Army major Hasan charged with the Fort Hood shooting.[8] Abdo also invoked the name of Abeer Qassim al-Janabi, a 14-year-old girl raped and murdered by United States Army soldiers in Iraq. (Five current or former soldiers were charged and convicted in the case.)[7]"

So it's not at all clear what "linked to", in the Time article means. It seems quite possible that Hasan and Abdo never even talked to each other, making "linked" even more problematical.

Having said all that, it seems to me that the main point here is that the article is about a type of bomb, and about bombing incidents using this type of bomb. Readers who want more information about a particular bomb-maker, or an incident, can follow the wikilink to go the separate article about that bomb-maker or incident. Similarly, the lead section mentions Al-Qaeda, but does not explain what Al-Quaeda is (for example, "a global militant Islamist organization founded by Osama bin Laden"). Rather, if a reader does not know, and does care, he/she can follow the wikilink. So, in this case, someone interested in Abdo can follow the link to that article, for more information. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• There are other RS refs to continue that point to his act as an act of solidarity with Hasan.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm willing to concede that there are sources stating that (although, this being a WP:BLP issue, such references need to be in the article itself). But I continue to believe the larger point that it is appropriate to offer readers that information via a wikilink (to an article where more details are quite appropriate) rather than inserting it into this article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 04:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Disclose self censorship

Mention within the article if details are deliberately left out (or not) of this Wikipedia article. Jidanni (talk) 01:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• I don't even begin to understand this. Editorial judgment is applied by all editors to all articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

I think this page should be put up for deletion. This is not Encyclopedic content. It falls under What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, how to book. WP:DEL-REASON #14 Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia. Theworm777 (talk) 07:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Most of this is anything but that.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• What I do agree with is that it is sufficient and more appropriate for us (and in keeping with community standards developed over time) for us to, while mentioning the existences of instructions, not to link to them. Plus, http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/Legal_Policies points out that editors are legally responsible for the consequences of any content they may add, and will not help them in the event of a lawsuit or criminal proceedings, so anyone who adds content that is not appropriate from a legal standpoint may of course attract a level of personal risk. But the main point -- cost benefit analysis is appropriate, as with all wp edits, and IMHO that does not encompass the inclusion of direct links to how-to bomb-making sites.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Not the type of pressure cooker bomb commonly used as IED

The description is not that of a typical pressure cooker bomb. As far as I know, the Boston and Time Square attacks are the only ones where pressure cookers filled with low explosive (propellant) were used. All the other attacks mentioned used high explosives, as can be judged by the death toll. As the "ROLL CALL RELEASE" source writes:

Rudimentary improvised explosive devices (IEDs) using pressure cookers to contain the initiator, switch, and explosive charge (typically ammonium nitrate or RDX) frequently have been used in Afghanistan, India, Nepal, and Pakistan. Pressure cookers are common in these countries, and their presence probably would not seem out of place or suspicious to passersby or authorities. Because they are less common in the United States, the presence of a pressure cooker in an unusual location such as a building lobby or busy street corner should be treated as suspicious.

The CNN broadcast with David Mattingly "An Outfront investigation into the deadly weapons force" ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD_Ufn1ROw0 ), supposedly replicating the Boston bombs, showed such a typical IED instead. The high-speed camera images clearly show the detonation cord used to trigger the device (at 1:58) Ssscienccce (talk) 08:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC) What a joke. Why didn't they just use flash powder?

do not read this article!

... or you might be an terrorist!

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/08/government-knocking-doors-because-google-searches/67864/ (ok, bad joke, but i am wondering if we should mention it in the article) 87.152.169.224 (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pressure cooker bomb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130523191156/http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/Forensic-Investigators-Gather-Clues-to-the-Boston-4440090.php to http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/Forensic-Investigators-Gather-Clues-to-the-Boston-4440090.php#page-2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)