Talk:Miles Cooper letter bomb campaign
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
Vandalism? edit
This page is being redirected to a user page. Probably vandalism.
Relevance edit
What is the point of this artical? In the future how will it be used? What will it be linked to and from? This is a valid point, Wikipedia is in danger of becoming full of random odd articals of now use to anyone
- Wikipedia is not running short of space - it is impossible to tell teh future worth fo an article from a midpoint in the story, or until the full investigation has been carried out - Would you have said the Sep 11 attacks would have had the effect they have had a few days after? RHB Talk - Edits 13:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes I would. And I don't think you should be comparing the 9/11 attacks to a handfull of letter bombs, which as the police have said where designed to shock not kill/injure
- Even very minor events get articles now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.47.218.32 (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
As RHB said, Wikipedia is not running short of space. There is no such thing as totally useless information. Someone, sometime, may find this useful. Protesting the creation of articles simply because they don't seem important to you is not really in the spirit of wikipedia. L3p3r 11:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Terrorist incident? edit
Should this article really be added to Category:Terrorist incidents in 2007? It's not clear who is/are behind these letterbombs, and it's definitely not clear why they did it. If the intentions are unknown, it's not within our task to assume that this is related to terrorism, and to categorize the article according to those assumptions. AecisBrievenbus 11:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- What categories would you suggest? I've had a brief look, but I couldn't find anything more appropriate. I don't quite know what to call it, if not terrorism. J.P.Lon 13:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that we don't know what it is. Terrorism is often defined as a premeditated and organised act of violence, in order to instill fear among a group of people, usually to achieve political goals. We don't know if this is behind the letter bombs. It could just be common crime (e.g. extortion), it could be anything. I suggest adding this only to Category:2007 in the United Kingdom for now, and wait for further developments in the case. AecisBrievenbus 14:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I dont agree, according for what I watch in the news this morning it appears that there isn`t any clear pattern in the attacks. Terrorism is that, but in most of the cases there isn´t a clear target, just a bunch of people who where in a place in the wrong moment. The targets that i`m reading seems connected with burocracy, public contracts and that stuff (DVLA seems like the DMV in the u.s., a company called Capita that handles some contracts with public administration, a company that gives traffic camera to the police, etc.) But I do agree in not adding the template for the time and wait what the guys in yellow vest say. also, the article is too short for the importance and I would expand it, but I usually fall on plagiarism so yeah...--ometzit<col> 00:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- The suspect being detained under the Mental Health Act lessens the chance that it'll be a terrorist incident, although I suspect the police are just abusing their powers. 80.47.221.241 18:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- I dont agree, according for what I watch in the news this morning it appears that there isn`t any clear pattern in the attacks. Terrorism is that, but in most of the cases there isn´t a clear target, just a bunch of people who where in a place in the wrong moment. The targets that i`m reading seems connected with burocracy, public contracts and that stuff (DVLA seems like the DMV in the u.s., a company called Capita that handles some contracts with public administration, a company that gives traffic camera to the police, etc.) But I do agree in not adding the template for the time and wait what the guys in yellow vest say. also, the article is too short for the importance and I would expand it, but I usually fall on plagiarism so yeah...--ometzit<col> 00:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that we don't know what it is. Terrorism is often defined as a premeditated and organised act of violence, in order to instill fear among a group of people, usually to achieve political goals. We don't know if this is behind the letter bombs. It could just be common crime (e.g. extortion), it could be anything. I suggest adding this only to Category:2007 in the United Kingdom for now, and wait for further developments in the case. AecisBrievenbus 14:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Sent or received? edit
It usually takes at least one day for post to be delivered in the UK so the date the letters were sent and the dates they were recieved will be different. I think that it is only the date that the letter was recieved on that is important. --Aaronsharpe 22:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- I would say both if both are published 203.109.240.93 11:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Addressees edit
From what I've heard, the addressees have often been either just Manager or sometimes to people that don't exist and/or the wrong titles. This should be added if true IMHO 203.109.240.93 11:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Correct Formatting edit
I added the section on the arrest of the man from wokingham and on possible animal rights links. Did I put it in the right place and follow the best possible formatting? Any comments welcome to a n00b like myself. User:CaptinJohn
Name of security company edit
Has anyone found the name of the defunct company that Mike Wingfield worked for? I find it unusual that we have the company names of the other bombings, but not this. Also, I've seen from one source that it wasn't a security company, but an outsourcing firm for tax collection. Of course, from the other description I've heard, the company hired out guards and bouncers to clubs and the like.--YoungFreud 05:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
First three edit
Were there no injuries from the first three? If so, why not? Rmhermen 16:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Are such minor devices actually "Letter Bombs"? edit
Given that noone has received more than extremely minor injuries and that the devices do not seem to have been designed to be capable of causing major or fatal injuries, is the term "letter bomb" really appropriate?
It seems to me, despite the usual sensationalisation in media reports, something along the lines of "Letter Firecrackers" would be far more appropriate. Do people think the term "letter bomb" is appropriate for such minor devices? Canderra 17:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I can see where you are coming from but I think this is often the way woth letter/parcel bombs. They aren't usually very big or damaging. Perhaps its best to keep them labled as leter bombs but make it clearer that only very minor injuries have occured CaptinJohn 18:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Libertarian terrorist? edit
Does he count as a libertarian terrorist? I notice he said that the bombs were a protest at what he described as "overbearing" state control over the individual.[1] EVCM (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)