Talk:Bomb-making instructions on the Internet

Questions about article

I saw this at DYK and predict if it makes it to the main page it will get quite a few hits and questions. To preempt them and improve the quality of the article, I have some suggestions:

• Why is "alleged" in the first sentence? Is there a good reason for it? Otherwise, consider removing it per WP:AVOID
• Would make more sense to put the history section first, then Moral philosophy then legislation. The history section reads like a timeline. Do you plan to add to it, or might it be better formatted as a list?
• The Sherman Austin quote is blocked out, although the source material does not censor the quote. The link is forbidden when clicked on from the citation, but a Google search brings it out intact. Did you block it out on purpose? I must admit that I have some reservations about including the instructions in a Wikipedia article.

The quote accompanied by information in the article that it is illegal to disseminate info makes me more uneasy. I may ask for further input at WP:AN, just to be safe. --Moni3 (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Good questions.

It was just in my first two-sentence stub, removed it now.

I hope to see the history section improved, possibly even merged with the legislation since often it's in response.

I would say we shouldn't censor it, it was censored in the PDF file I grabbed it from. If we have the full quote, we should use it to show exactly what he was saying. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 16:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI, I started a thread at AN, just to get some eyes on the article, particularly in light of the information about instructions being illegal to disseminate. You can find it here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Bomb-making_instructions_on_the_internet. Since the servers for Wikipedia are in the U.S., I want to make sure we're not breaking laws by including a quote that is one ghit away from Austin's formula for a bomb. --Moni3 (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Issue resolved. --Moni3 (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The boys involved with the Columbine High School massacre got their bomb instructions from the internet. --Moni3 (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed the instructions for WP:NOTHOWTO Wikipedia is not a How-to guide / Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. For the same reasons that we don't advise on articles what doses you should be taking of each medication.

Now, if someone can find some RS explaining some encyclopedic stuff about those instructions, that would be a different thing.... --Enric Naval (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Bomb making instructions removed

I've just removed a quote which purported to be instructions to make a bomb. I really don't think that this is suitable material to be included in Wikipedia without a strong rationale, and none at all was provided - it was simply placed in the 'Moral philosophy' section and not linked to the content. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. While it may be good to imagine we are exercising free speech, in fact we are supposed to be building an encyclopedia. Political statements that attempt to widen the availability of bomb making instructions belong on some other website. Johnuniq (talk) 10:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I made a comment above on this same issue. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

FWIW I doubt that the aproach in question would be very effective.©Geni 23:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Note; NPOV and primary mention by the Council of Europe of "The Arab Stampede"

I do not think it meets the standards of NPOV to highlight one particular website in the lede, especially when it involves the name of an ethnicity which the article does not suggest has any prominent involvement in the posting of bomb-making instructions on the internet. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 07:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

That's odd, as it is the very first example given in the source that is first used in the lede. See here. Its also worth noting that it would appear that the authors of such study view such a site as a right-wing site.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If they consider, and it was, a right-wing site - that is their prerogative - but there is a concern that we cannot present information which "appears to be true, but gives the reader a different impression". We're talking about bombs, I'm very strongly against the idea of naming Arabs in the opening sentences, when a heavily-referenced article makes almost no mention of Arab bomb-making. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Weren't you the one who added that as the very first reference in the lead? It gives what I reflected as the very first example. It's completely appropriate therefore to reflect it in the lead, and misleading to have the language that you had which I am reverting, which gives a completely different impression that the RS that is used as a source.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You have not even tried to meet the arguments for how it is NPOV to list a single website at fault for displaying bomb-making instructions, when the article shows there are many - and the chosen footnote specifically says that a type of website is responsible, not a singular choice. I would be just as adament if you were adding "Jewish Kahane League" or "Christian Abortion Bombers Anonymous", we do not put one group at blame in the lede for something of this ilk. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 05:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that I have accepted your change of crediting the "commonly said to be..." to the CoE - since it indicates that there may be a European bias to the information. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 05:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think your edits are over-the-top POV. You supplied the reference. Then you delete repeatedly the first source used by the reference to reflect its point. Specifically, you keep on deleting language that says:

Typically, in Europe the instructions are written and hosted by far right hate groups, extreme left groups, and sites such as "The Arab Stampede", though the Council of Europe found in its 2004 study that the websites of right-wing radicals were a particularly good source for bomb-making instructions ....

Your edits you indicate are because you don't want to highlight the Arab aspect of what the ref points to. But you are happy to reference the right-wing aspect (though not clarify that Arab fundamentalism is included in what is meant by that). I'm disappointed; I had known you to be a less POV editor, but this is really over the top. I've deleted it entirely as a compromise. If that doesn't suit you, let's bring in third parties rather than edit war. If it goes back, it should reflect what I reflected -- btw, your continued deletions of the fact that the study is six years old, though not pov, were similarly ill-considered, as six years is a long time on the internet as you know.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue of "bomb making instructions on the internet" is not really a 2010 issue, it's a 1996-2001 kind of issue by and large...as you'll notice from the majority of events listed in the article - hence a study done in 2004 doesn't need to list its date in the lede of the article, just as one example taken from that study doesn't need to be highlighted in the lede of the article. We do not clarify whether Christian or Jewish fundamentalism are included in "right wing", nor whether "White or Black supremacy" are included in it...so why are we highlight "The Arabs"? One website, out of hundreds, had a name including the word "Arab" - and we list it in the opening paragraph about bomb-making instructions on the internet? That sounds like a serious POV conflict. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 07:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That's simply incorrect. As if the Madrid train bombing that killed nearly 200 people and wounded over 1,000 wasn't notable -- and that was over five years ago. A simple gnews search show that's wrong. Even the NYC subway would-be-bomber -- this month's news -- downloaded his bomb-making info from the internet. What was left out of the article reflects strong POV at work. The sort that drives major holes through AGF suppositions, and rebuts the presumption.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between DOWNLOADING instructions from the internet, and PUTTING the instructions on the internet. This article's focus is/was on the latter - and made only brief mention of "omg, x downloaded stuff from the internet" - since of the 1000s of explosions caused in the last 15 years, presumably most of them got their information from the internet. Thus the brunt has to be on the far smaller scope of people who publish the information. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 15:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

1) Yes, there is a difference. 2) The title of the article is not DOWNLOADING instructions from the internet. 3) Its all part of a process. If the material is not written, in whatever form, there is no bombing. If it is written and put on the internet, but not downloaded, there is no bombing. If it is written and put on the internet and downloaded, but nothing is done with it, there is no bombing. If it is written and put on the internet and downloaded and the instructions followed properly and it is detonated in the presence of people -- there is a problem. The article could address any one or more parts of the process. It could address the al Qaeda How To book being put up (I think it may have still left that out) on the internet, or it could discuss the Madrid bombers having downloaded the instructions from the internet and killed/wounded well over 1K people. By its title, it encompasses both.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bomb-making instructions on the internet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091015121015/http://www.caslon.com.au/bombsnote1.htm to http://www.caslon.com.au/bombsnote1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706020742/http://www.mttlr.org/volsix/Weissblum_art.html to http://www.mttlr.org/volsix/Weissblum_art.html#VA
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090610002732/http://archives.cnn.com:80/2001/TECH/internet/03/12/DVD.code.idg/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/internet/03/12/DVD.code.idg/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

How to make a bomb

How to make a bomb Widowdove (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Is this self-reference

Hi all. 'Critics of the prosecution of Sherman Austin, an American anarchist charged with publishing instructions on the Internet, have pointed out that the Wikipedia article on Molotov cocktails contains more detailed instructions on the construction of homemade explosives, than Austin's website did' Sounds a bit self-reference-y. What normally happens here? It is someone outside of Wikipedia referring to wikipedia, but should this be here? (I am a new editor, please tell me if I am being an idiot so I know what usually happens here)

JonsterMonster (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Possible Bias

I think it's pretty well agreed upon that academic information should be presented with as little bias as possible. Of course, it's impossible to remove all, but I do think there's an unnecessary amount here. Primarily in the belief that distributing instructions should be illegal; a point I agree with, but don't see as correct to try to prove in a Wikipedia article.

A couple examples to evaluate:

1. The first section starts with an appropriately objective paragraph, but in the next line inserts bombing statistics, as if to say "there's a reason it should be illegal." The statistics here aren't warranted and should rather be intentionally searched for by a reader if they so please, rather than presented here as if to try to sway the reader a certain way. I'd suggest removing this line.

2. Another would be the rather 'artistically' placed quote in the Legislation section. You could argue it's just showing a common view in governments, but it still doesn't warrant it being there, especially having its own space in the section to advertise itself. Its placement and use makes me think the article is trying to prove a point rather than teach me a history.

Could be a few more spots of bias, but these are a couple big ones I found. Catburger0 (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)