Talk:12 'fire bombs' found inside Buffalo, New York apartment house

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search

OR[edit]

I herd the dispatch and the main information on disposal and who was dispatched from police scanners. I am awaiting on calls and e-mails for statements from the various departments. Please do not publish just yet. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I e-mailed Erie County Emergency Services and Hazmat and the Fire Department. I also called them and left messages with them. It is after 5pm (eastern time) now and I am betting I will not hear from them until tomorrow...if at all. If not I have the scanner report and the witness report which would be good enough, but I want more of an exclusive :) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The witness wants to remain anonymous unfortunately, manly because the fore department and such tried to do a good job at keeping this incident on the hush hush. I will try for a photo of the address tomorrow. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Richard White[edit]

I see the ownership records for 15 Allen St, but how did you establish that Richard White lives at 17 Allen St? --SVTCobra 01:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

On the right column on the actual statement source (NOT the history source). A few spaces down. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 07:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
OK thanks. --SVTCobra 11:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Exclusive[edit]

Is it really an exclusive? It seems WIVB published largely the same story last night, before this was published. Sure, your original research has added details that they don't have, but still. --SVTCobra 22:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It would have been published, but I waited for statements. I decided to try to get more than what someone saw. I don't think these were bombs as in terrorist bombs, and they were swiftly removed, so I saw no reason to rush on something that is odd and weird news or whatever. But if you want to count when I made the first edit, it was long before they put theirs up. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Typo?[edit]

"It is known where they were taken." Is that supposed to be unknown, or do we know and just want to keep it quiet? 146.7.195.46 23:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Done it was a typo...thanks :) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy dispute:[edit]

User:Jlwbflo had this to say, which I have moved from the article to here:

Cquote1.svg NOTE: MUCH OF THE INFORMATION IN THE TEXT OF THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE BELOW IS FALSE. THERE WERE NO FIREBOMBS FOUND INSIDE THE BUILDING IN QUESTION. POLICE FOUND GASOLINE STORED IN PLASTIC BOTTLES. THERE IS NO INFERENCE WHATSOEVER THAT THE GASOLINE WAS MEANT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN FOR FUEL AND ZERO EVIDENCE OF ANY INTENT TO CREATE ANY EXPLOSIVE DEVICE OF ANY KIND.

THE DOGS IN THE BUILDING WERE NOT KILLED, AS NOTED BELOW. THE DOGS WERE SEDATED FOR TRANSPORT AND TAKEN TO THE CITY OF BUFFALO ANIMAL SHELTER WHERE THEY REMAIN ALIVE.

IT IS TRUE THAT A SMALL DOG WAS TRAGICALLY KILLED WHEN THE SMALL DOG PUT ITS HEAD UNDER THE DOOR OF THE BUILDING TO SNIFF THE DOGS INSIDE.

THE BUILDING OWNER IS WELL AWARE OF THE DOGS AND IT IS UNTRUE THAT THE DOGS' OWNER IS UNKNOWN. THE DOGS IN THE BUILDING HAVE LONG BEEN KNOWN TO ADJACENT RESIDENTS DUE TO THEIR BARKING.

PLEASE BE CAREFUL TO CHECK FACTS ON YOUR OWN AND DO NOT ACCEPT EVERYTHING POSTED ON WIKI AS TRUTH.

Cquote2.svg

I have unpublished this story until we resolve this dispute. --SVTCobra 18:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

For one, I was listening to the scanners when the dispatcher said FIRE BOMBS. Where is a source that it was not meant for explosives? The dogs were put to sleep...also VIA police scanner. Again...POLICE Scanner said fence/gate. No one has at all claimed ANY ownership of the dogs. Again...please prove any of what you say. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
IMO our policys state that or is fine and the info here has not been disproved with any proof. also i put a hell of a lot more trust in Jason as an accredited user who has written many pieces of OR before than an editors who's first edit was to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markie (talkcontribs) 20:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Markie slaps himself with a large cod for the above failure ;-). Cheers adam!! --MarkTalk to me 21:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that you need to attribute some of the things in the article. Use phrases like "According to police dispatcher, the dogs were put to sleep" and whatever information you got from the witness should also be attributed to the witness. BTW (and not really relevant per se), but have you tried to contact Richard White? --SVTCobra 21:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I too am pretty sure we can trust DragonFire on this one. This looks like trolling to me. That said, I also agree better attribution would help improve the perceived reliability. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Besides the all-caps, this does not look like trolling. However, if, as Jlwbflo claims, it turns out the dogs were not put to death, do we issue a correction? Just a hypothetical.--SVTCobra 21:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The attribution is there and its as much as I am going to get...I called the appropriate agencies and e-mailed them, with no responses on either end. I cannot say who the dispatcher was/is because they don't use names on the radios. There is no known telephone number, and assuming all the internet resources are up to date, then its even possible he may not own the place anymore, let alone live there. I have done all I can and contacted everyone I could. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, I am not asking for names and it is not attributed. Right now it says "Both dogs were immediately put to sleep, because they were fighting over the body of the dead dog." All I am saying, it would be best to add "According to the police dispatcher" to that sentence. --SVTCobra 22:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
As for the witness, I have the obligation as a journalist to keep their personal info such as name, anonymous. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not saying to name anybody. So what information did you get from the witness? That Heidi Garner called 9-1-1 and that she was walking her dog? Because that is all you attribute to the witness. --SVTCobra 22:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)If we do make a mistake, then I believe we should issue a correction. The reason I am overly suspicious is this: if it was genuinely only petrol in there, why a)would the police confiscate it b) would he know (I don't see any media reporting that, although I'll have a crack on Google News for it)? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I know for a fact that all of the "fire bombs" were taken from the premises by the Hazmat team and bomb disposal units. Not to mention that it is all considered evidence as well. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I told User:Jlwbflo the following:

Cquote1.svg The consensus is that the reporter acted in good faith relying on what should be considered reliable sources at the time. If, however, they turn out to not be entirely factually accurate, that is unfortunate, but it often happens in reporting the news by both amateur and professional journalists. --SVTCobra 21:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Cquote2.svg

--SVTCobra 22:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That seems a reasonable and fair way of ending it to me. No results from Google News. I guess we just leave it now unless any evidence emerges? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed[edit]

To the Editor: I posted an edit earlier that was rejected, so I have posted as a comment. I stand by my assertions and still request edits be made. Simple verification by calling Buffalo Police B District will confirm that much of the article is completely untrue.

I would also like to note the the copywrited photo used in the article is used without permission. Although the author attributes the photo correctly to Michael Mulley, I have spoken with the photographer and he categorically states that he did not grant permission to use his work. The photo in question was copied (as noted in the photo source information) from the Allentown Association Web site at www.allentown.org. The Allentown Association commissioned the photo for it's Web site, paid the artist for the work and has exclusive right to use of the photo. I would also request that this photo, which is used without permission be removed from the article. If you need to verify this you may e-mail the association from www.allentown.org or call the Association office at 71/881-1024. Thank you.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jlwbflo (talkcontribs) 22:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the copyright of the image, special permission was obtained and is on file with Commons:OTRS. --SVTCobra 23:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
someone needs to check the OTRS ticket for it - looks good to me but i cant read the ticket --MarkTalk to me 23:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I do not have an OTRS account. --SVTCobra 23:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Try logging on to #wikimedia-otrs, and PM one of the users there. Thunderhead - (talk - email - contributions) 23:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I think I got brianmc on IRC to do it. --SVTCobra 23:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Brianmc says the OTRS ticket is valid. --SVTCobra 23:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Funny that I have the e-mails from the Allentown Association saying that I do have permission. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

From comment page[edit]

I have sent a note to the editor of this page requesting corrections to this article and have also sent an e-mail directly to the writer asking for corrections to be made. My request to the editor was rejected.

Simply pulling information from a police scanner at the time that a 911 call is made provides grossly incomplete information. Such limited information gathering does not present all of the facts that will be discovered later.

  • Fact: The two labs in question are alive. You can see them in person in the quarantine area of the Buffalo animal shelter.
The dogs are dead. And I doubt that the dispatchers would lie, especially to the officials. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Fact: containers of gasoline were removed because were improperly stored in non-approved plastic containers (gallon jugs). There is no report that these were meant for anything other than storage as fuel. There is no indication they were to be used as firebombs. You may check the police reports at B district police station or call the district Captain to verify this. Your assertion is simply untrue.
I have, and as I stated e-mailed ALL appropriate agencies with no response. And I am not going to sit back and believe that someone NOT affiliated or accredited from a press organization is going to get more information from the police than I. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Fact: WIVB television news carried a factual report on this incident on the evening news on Wednesday, November 7. WIVB interviewed the dog owner, other witesses and police and fire officials. NO POLICE OR FIRE OFFICIAL MADE ANY STATEMENTS WITH REGARD TO FIREBOMBS.
Actually they only interviewed the dog owner. The dispatcher said fire bombs, and until I talk to a fire official otherwise, then that is the quote I am using. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Fact: One of the wiki reviewers that rejected my edits to the article noted that a Google search on this topic comes up with no results and therefore decided to reject my request for edits. This reviewer might also have noted that the incident was not reported in the Buffalo News. Any reasonable person might rationally assume that if twelve "firebombs" were removed from a building in a residential neighborhood, then there would be far greater media coverage.
Wrong...they were in and out of the address in less than an hour. The purpose was NOT to get the press involved. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The headline "12 'fire bombs' found inside Buffalo, New York apartment house" and the details in the wiki report here are sensationalistic and incendiary in their own right. This report aggravates the tragedy for the owner of the dog that was killed. Further, the misleading and outright incorrect assertions that "firebombs" were removed from the property do damage to the Allentown neighborhood and to the City of Buffalo by creating a false impression that the neighborhood is unsafe. .—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jlwbflo (talkcontribs) 22:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Prove it. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)