Talk:Failed bomb aboard Delta flight

First article, not exactly sure on if it should be published now, or wait until more information is available. Noian (talk) 22:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Ideally want three paragraphs, more written for an international audience, don't cite Detroit as a location like that unless you're somewhere in the city – such as the airport.

I've tidies the sources, added categories, and it's a pretty good first attempt. I'll change the title too, and if it can be added to to expand it to three paragraphs it should be ready for review and publication.

The MSNBC source puts this rather oddly as "trying to light a powdery substance", were the earlier reports of firecrackers misleading? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, news reports just updated as being a bomb activation device (10 minutes ago). Noian (talk) 23:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, are we allowed to upload AP images? Noian (talk) 23:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• No. No AP photos. They're technically a "competing news agency". They're not allowed on Commons, and not covered by Wikinews' fair use policy. Possibly best looking on commons for a file photo of the same type of aircraft; ideally in the correct livery. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Don't add sources you don't use. I've not checked if you pulled anything out of the Fox one. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't add any sources I didn't use. I'm a experienced wikipedian. I got the DHS quote from the Fox one. Noian (talk) 23:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

What about http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wayne_County_Michigan_Incorporated_and_Unincorporated_areas_Detroit_highlighted.svg? Noian (talk) 23:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• That map would have been less-useful for an international audience. You don't need to go quite as far as where is the United States but, ideally we'd have an image with Michigan highlighted in continental North America and the map you suggested's detail piece with the airport location highlighted. In any case, it was on the right track. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 01:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Review of revision 927628 [Passed]

Revision 927628 of this article has been reviewed by Thunderhead (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Everything looks okay - don't see any majour problems with it. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 927628 of this article has been reviewed by Thunderhead (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Everything looks okay - don't see any majour problems with it. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Review of revision 927636 [Passed]

Revision 927636 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: repeat review using EZPeerReview gadget to publish and get in Google News. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 927636 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: repeat review using EZPeerReview gadget to publish and get in Google News. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Do we need to mention AP?

Because the msnbc citation has been updated to reflect that the fireworks was a misconception as well. Noian (talk) 00:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• We don't know the details here, so if anything is wrong then we should say who said the wrong thing, and who collected particular pieces of the story. I'm not sure who first reported it as fireworks, and who first got told by an "unnamed source" that it was a bomb attempt. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 00:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The "unnamed source" is two HMS officials according to msnbc. As for the title of this page, should it be renamed to "Northwest" flight, as it was technically a northwest flight (although the two companies are essentially one) Noian (talk) 00:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• The problem there is that many international carriers like Delta have multiple codes for their flights. It could have been Delta liveried, left Amsterdam on a Delta flight number, and within US airspace been identified as the more local Northwest, using their assigned flight number. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 01:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Name

A name has been released, [1]. Waiting for verification from other sources. Noian (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Review of revision 927634 [Passed]

Revision 927634 of this article has been reviewed by Thunderhead (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Everything looks okay - plenty of categories and a nice roundup of information. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 927634 of this article has been reviewed by Thunderhead (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Everything looks okay - plenty of categories and a nice roundup of information. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Wikipedia article has more information.

I have to go to bed right now, but if anyone has the time, there's plenty of information on the en B class article on this subject to add here. Noian (talk) 07:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup, lots of sources to take from there. Can't use any dated after this article's publication date; that would be for a followup article as more detailed information becomes available. If you look at my userpage on enWP you'll see I'd like some current Wikipedia templates updated so more people from there try doing this sort of article.

Please critique Wikinews policy and guides that might have helped you more quickly contribute to this. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Name and University College London link

Various sites are claiming the name, which was "on a federal database", is the name of an engineering student at UCL.

There is nobody at UCL with the name Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab, but there was one, who graduated from mechanical engineering two years ago called Umar Abdulmutallab. The only current Abdulmutallab is a paediatric clinician. The only 23-year old engineer with a remotely similar name is definitely not Nigerian. Be very careful with names, as few news sources agree.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.160.59 (talk) 12:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Relative Date Error

The first sentence of the second paragraph says that the "plane landed safely around noon yesterday." I know it was because it was written on Dec. 26, but it is already Jan. 2010, so that aspect should be changed.

Not done That isn't how news is written. Maybe you should read some. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 02:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional info vs spin

I've noticed that the major media is spinning this as "HOLY CRAP, SOME TERRORIST GOT HIGH EXPLOSIVES ON A PLANE!"

The bare facts are he got a hard-to-detonate PETN bomb on the plane in his pants, without a proper detonator. Conjecture states that he would have been unable to move a proper, reliable detonator through airport security; a more neutral view point would be that "for reasons unknown, [possibly due to the difficulty in moving such a device through airport security,] the man did not board the plane with a proper, reliable detonator." It is, of course, possible to research the type of detonator needed to blow PETN effectively, and determine if it would be a large, bulky, electronic metal object with a fuse charge in it, or some other obvious non-passable device.

My point is that articles as such are hard to write neutral, and that the major media has no interest in neutralizing this. On one side everyone is screaming "OMG TERRORIST BOMB PLANE WTF," and on the other people are figuring out... what I just said above.

The Wikinews article is decently written, although it basically says the man got an explosive on a plane and we don't know how. Strategically leaving out information about the type of explosive and the details of detonation (i.e. this would never have worked, effectively) leaves most typical readers to naturally assume a panic situation (spin); whereas inserting such information would basically be a deliberate attempt to shape the reader's view of the situation and alleviate panic (opposite spin).

Is there actually a guideline for how to deal with things like this? The facts can be lain out to read neutral and still produce strategic, planned reactions; or more likely, inadvertently produce predictable reactions and fuel existing reactions deliberately provoked by other media outlets. To complicate the matters, these topics are highly political, meaning the articles not only take a natural (possibly inaccurate) shape for the reader; but are also easily shaped.

Just an interesting consideration. --199.173.225.25 (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)