Talk:Speedway bombings

First post

(added header to 1st post)--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

why isn't there a Brett Kimberlin page? 182.173.208.86 (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Because it isn't allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.94.117 (talk) 06:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The impression I get is that publishing known facts about Kimberlin is considered harassment, which is especially amusing given his repeated harassment of people who publish such facts. See http://patterico.com/2012/05/27/brett-kimberlin-gets-his-wikipedia-entry-removed for some details Caldodge (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

There use to be a Brett Kimberlin page but it was deleted. It seems that Wikipedia caved in to a terrorist that doesn't like record of his nasty past or present on the net. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.207.68 (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Can we bring it back? Apparently the excuse was that it was written by a guy who posted false information about other people. If we were to write a good, well-sourced article about Kimberlin, could we get the facts about him back up? Lolinder (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

If you could manage to write an article consistent with our Biographies of living persons policy. Should probably be noted that articles about people significant for only one event are generally frowned upon.

"...articles about people significant for only one event are generally frowned upon" Then answer one question: Why is there an article about Lee Boyd Malvo (DC Sniper)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujorge (talk • contribs) 16:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Brett Kimberlin is known for more then just one event. Besides the speedway bombings he is also known for claiming to have sold marijuana to Dan Quayle. He has been involved in the Velvet Revolution and the Justice Through Music Project. Lets not forget he seems to be a professional litigant.

I draw your attention to the word generally.©Geni 22:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This is downright laughable. Wikipedia would be roughly half its current size if there were no articles about people famous for only one event.74.61.32.25 (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Not remotely. If you actually bother to read through wikipedia's articles people famous for only one event fall significantly bellow American settlements with a population of a few hundred in terms of articles.©Geni 22:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Since we are seeing a behavior that could be come to be known as "lawfare", I would say Kimberlin would be noted for 2 events and not just one. The bombings he took part in and the harassment, including multiple lawsuits and false evidence, that he has adopted towards anyone who points out his past.Zaggs (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Not clear if that is notable though.©Geni 22:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The alternative strategy that has been adopted is one I'm quite happy with, actually. It's what is usually done with people notable for only one thing, so it matches the rest of Wikipedia. Far superior to having no article at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolinder (talk • contribs) 23:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

" Should probably be noted that articles about people significant for only one event are generally frowned upon." 1) speedway bomber 2) claimed to sell pot to dan quayle. Your concern is not valid in this case. 182.173.208.86 (talk) 04:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Be careful

Anyone contributing to this article in any material way should read this. The link is absolutely not intended to persuade you not to contribute, on the contrary, I urge you to do so, but to be careful, and seriously consider informing your local police.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too concerned. First, there's no evidence, at all, that Kimberlin was involved in this "swatting". Second, Patrick Frey's dramatic story doesn't make much sense. If you listen to the recording, the caller originally said "A man shot a woman" and then when pressed said, "I shot her and it was my wife", wouldn't give a name and then hung up. End of story. So the cops took this at face value and, according to Frey, dispatched a hazmat truck, helipcopter, a fire truck, an army of police and an ambulance? This is a police force experiencing severe budget cuts to a degree they are having trouble solving homicides, yet they have the resources to awaken that kind of response to a rather dull hoax call? When the police arrived they find the wife alive and then force her against a wall and frisk her? She was supposed to be the victim, so that didn't tip them that this was a prank? The police didn't arrive and search the house, but instead dragged the wife out and then asked her where her kids are, and only then return to the house to look? The caller said nothing about kids, so why did the "SWAT team" ask where the children are? None of this sounds like Standard Operating Procedure. Emergency services receive prank phone calls all the time; if his story is true then the LASD needs to answer some real questions for an insane overreaction to a prank call. An insane circus-like overreaction at the home of an L.A. Deputy District Attorney that apparently wasn't covered, at all, in the local papers? Compare Frey's account to how officers in Palm Beach responded to another swatting prank. --David Shankbone 21:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. Both posts are out of bounds for a talk page about the Speedway bombings. Save it for your blogs. -- AyaK (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I was responding to Sphilbrick because I wanted to nip in the bud any suggestion that we include the swatting incidents in this article. --David Shankbone 04:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Mr Shankbone, like me, I am sure you have responded to dozens if not hundreds of emergency dispatch calls in your long career as an LEO, but let me remind you that any call to EMS where the caller says they have shot a family member and might kill some more are taken very seriously by the responders. Your belief that they overreacted MUST be based on your years of experience as a first responder. Likewise, your critique of the LASD’s “Standard Operating Procedure” must be based on a comprehensive firsthand knowledge of what those procedures are, how they are interpreted in the field and they differ from other department. The whole reason “swatting” works is because the perpetrator spoofs the caller ID and dispatch has no way to know it’s a “prank”. They only figure that out after they respond to the call. When dispatch responds to a call like the one in the link, everyone who is close enough to lend support, regardless of department will respond. I have responded to a similar call, real not a hoax, where uniformed and plain clothes officers from seven municipalities, two sheriff’s departments, the state police and a local FBI substation were on the scene within 5 minutes.

So unless you have some firsthand knowledge of this particular situation and the departments involved, keep you uniformed speculations to yourself. 1002PM (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Litigation

Isn't the litigation a separate matter that would be better handled on a personal page for Kimberlin? TMLutas (talk) 04:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes - but we need to make sure that the article on Kimberlin is written neutrally, which it hasn't been in the past. The Cavalry (Message me) 11:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

the cavalry, can you please show us the text of the former article, so we know what kind of things to avoid? 182.173.208.86 (talk) 11:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

According to "Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry" (quite possibly the stupidest Username I have seen), including well-established facts about Kimberlin is not neutral. How else to explain the edit removing the information detailing Carl DeLong's "injuries", as if he just suffered a concussion(or something similarly minor), rather than having HIS LEG BLOWN OFF BY KIMBERLIN'S BOMB. The assertion that such information is being removed because the entry was not neutral in the past is laughable on its face. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.75 (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe a separate article on Brett Kimberlin is well-justified. I understand Chase Me's concern. However, any fairly written article about this subject is likely to be mostly negative given the source material we have to work with. There just isn't a lot of balancing information out there, which shouldn't be too surprising for a convicted serial bomber. Please note that the article can be recreated at anytime. The only requirement is that it must follow the policies set down in WP:BLP. Ronnotel (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Without the text of the original article, we have no way of knowing what Chase Me wants us to avoid. For all we know, the lack of NPOV that Chase Me objected to was simply the negativity that is always going to show up in an article about a bomber. If there's any way to get the article back, that would give us a great place to start for creating a new one that everyone approves of. Lolinder (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we could mention this 'Justice Through Music' thing to even it out? There's a few half decent sources about it, such as this one and this one. I'd genuinely love to share problems with the previous article with you, but the privacy policy says I can't, even if I want to. That said, the problem wasn't specifically any one paragraph - it's that one version was created by a long-term banned vandal, and one version was created by a user who threatened fellow contributors. People like that can't write neutral articles, because they can't participate in the project in good faith. We all agreed that people should be able to recreate the article neutrally. The Cavalry (Message me) 18:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You can handle the balancing. The most well-sourced things Kimberlin's done are negative (lawsuits and bombings), and very few people would be willing to dredge through that trying to find positive things about him. Can someone set up his page? I'm not entirely familiar with the format of new articles, most of my contributions have been adding material and fixing grammar/factual mistakes. Lolinder (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is this article continuously sanitized for the benefit of a convicted domestic terrorist?

A recent edit of this entry removed a description of the human damage caused by KIMBERLIN's bombings. Why? Is there some legitimate reason for removing the facts concerning the horrific nature of the injuries inflicted upon Carl DeLong? And before you answer, being a partisan left-winger who feels the needs to defend Brett Kimberlin is not a legitimate reason. Instead of detailing how DeLong had a leg and part of his hand blown off BY KIMBERLIN'S BOMBS, we are now told that he merely suffered "injuries". The reason given for the edit is beyond pathetic. We are told that well-established facts were removed because someone is supposedly harassing Brett Kimberlin. What and the world does that have to do with removing facts about his crimes from an entry that is supposed to be encyclopedic? The attempts to minimize Kimberlin's crimes is yet another perfect example of why Wikipedia cannot claim the title of encyclopedia. It is a left-wing political site that also happens to have entries on science and movie stars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.75 (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Cui bono? Who benefits from this? Think about it a bit, and contemplate the pattern. You may soon reach some ugly conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.40.24 (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It's hard when doing "crowdsourcing" to presume good faith, but I'm afraid that presuming bad faith ensures that your viewpoint will be treated as trolling. Kimberlin has as much right to object to his characterization as anyone else does, and every action by an editor (including possibly responding to a complaint about an unsourced comment, if that's what took place) isn't an indication of a left-wing viewpoint, as is alleged here. There is also no evidence that Kimberlin is behind the "SWATting" harrassment of people who have posted about him (such as Patterico), and that isn't relevant to a "Speedway bombing" discussion anyway. That said, between the Speedway bombing, the Dan Quayle story, the book by Mark Singer, the Justice Through Music nonprofit, and the verifiable "lawfare" actions, there is more than enough verifiable material for a passable Wiki biography of Kimberlin. But I like living trouble-free too much to write it. -- AyaK (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, the assumption is unproductive. But I disagree with your assertion that Kimberlin has a right to object to descriptions of the injuries he caused being included in an article about the incident. While it may make him look bad, Wikipedia's job is to report the facts, and those include the extent of the injuries that the bombings caused. Lolinder (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The injuries are now fully sourced, including court records, and are included in the article. -- AyaK (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion

Could a redirect page be created like Donald Turnupseed?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Redirecting from where to where? The Cavalry (Message me) 18:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Oops it seems there is already a re-direct page to this article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Really, there should be a Brett Kimberlin page to which speedway bombings redirects. But the cavalry seems intent on not allowing that to happen, for reasons he won't explain.182.173.208.86 (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTSOAPBOX If you had spent any time reading this talk page instead of posturing, you'd see that the reasons for the deletion of the prior Brett Kimberlin pages were well-explained by the editor who did the deletions. And there is a new Brett Kimberlin page up. -- AyaK (talk) 04:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED Ayak, go ahead and read that. When I made my post above the new page was not up yet. Please stop assuming that I (or anyone else) is acting in bad faith.182.173.208.86 (talk) 06:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

But see the explanation for the deletions, which was posted well before your comment that the editor wouldn't explain the deletions. -- AyaK (talk) 07:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Opposed to the redirect here

"By any reasonable definition, Kimberlin is a public figure. After he claimed to have sold marijuana to Dan Quayle, New Yorker writer Mark Singer investigated him and made him the subject of a book. When Kimberlin resurfaced in the world of "black box voting" activism, conservative bloggers started to ask questions about him. Skip to May 2012. Blogger Patterico says he was the victim of a hoax that brought armed police officers to his home. The blogger "Aaron Worthing," identity exposed by a frivolous lawsuit, is counter-suing." -- http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/05/25/opening_act_blog_about_brett_kimberlin_day.html

That whole article and this one is worth a read. 71.212.251.217 (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The reason for the redirect is that no one wants to be hassled by writing a neutral article about Kimberlin. I don't want to do it either. But I'm going to take it on just so all of the ideological griping stops -- and so this article doesn't get overwhelmed by facts about Kimberlin that aren't relevant to the Speedway bombings. -- AyaK (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brett Kimberlin looks great to me, except for the use of two Google News URLs which will expire, and a bunch of single sentence paragraphs. 71.212.251.217 (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The separate Kimberlin article is now up. I deleted the items in this article that related to Kimberlin's biography. -- AyaK (talk) 07:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

That looks a very good job to me (but I'd never heard of Kimberlin). The situation is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 May 28. Thincat (talk) 09:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

use of legal documents as sources

The citations to legal documents should be removed per WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:PRIMARY. — goethean ॐ 21:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)