Talk:2001 University of Washington firebombing incident

Title

If any article should be moved and renamed, it shouldn't be _this_ one -- one of the two people who actually pled guilty, or were convicted would be better. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I have renamed it as per the request if the article should have any chance of being notable to the extent of a consensus amongst most wikipedians. its in need to be about the incident itself and not about justin. this can ofcourse be discussed.--Judo112 (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

As a result of that title change, this article has changed from being a biography about Justin Solondz to being a criminal event article about the University of Washington firebombing incident. Consequently, I have removed the "listas=Solondz, Justin" from the WikiProject Biography banner. However, I have not removed the banner because there are short biographical outlines of multiple individuals involved in and primarily notable for this event, which means the article is still within the scope of the Biography WikiProject. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Briana Waters support page

wp:npov does not apply to the external content provided by EL. Since including this type of site is standard through out wikipedia, I would like to hear an explanation on its removal. Thank you. Maziotis (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV applies to all material added to an article. If adding a specific external link skews the neutrality of a BLP article, it should be removed. As a petition asserting that innocence of a person affiliated with the attack and convicted for their actions in it, it hardly seems appropriate. A petition calling for her to be locked up indefinitely would be equally inappropriate to add to the article. You could argue that the external link should be added to the Briana Waters article, however it should not be included on the page about the incident itself. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 15:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The website may be 100% filled with political lies, but it is still relevant to the subject of the article. I say that wp:npov does not apply to EL section as I have been dealing with this type of edits for a long time and this is what I have heard and used with several diffferent experienced editors, sometimes against my wishes. I can still be wrong and I certainly do not wish to use an "expert card" here. Perhaps you could be so kind to show me where in the policy it is explained that this website should be removed. Maybe I have got the semantics wrong and it is understandable that the premise as I have wrote it is false, but I am convinced that it reflects the policy on neutrality. If a website is relevant and prominent, it can be added to the EL section for other reasons than provividng true, unbias information. It's a basic question of verifiability.

I guess that this wouldn't be so awkward if there were other websites in the EL, and you are always free to add them. But this website has not been put there as the "official place to give support to the political prisoner", as you may be suggeting. The description of the website is very clear. Maziotis (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

My argument is that the link does not add to the understanding of the University of Washington firebombing incident, which is the actual subject of the article. Briana Waters is only mentioned in a single sentence within the article, yet the only external link presented in the article is a website endosing her innocence. Per WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided "On articles with multiple points of view, avoid providing links too great in number or weight to one point of view, or that give undue weight to minority views" as well as WP:EL#What should be linked "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject" (bolding mine). I think that we are dealing with different but good faith interpretations of WP:NPOV and WP:EL. Perhaps a third opinion would be helpful? Note I have no intention of removing the link again without concensus, but for future reference it would be helpful to seek additional opinions. Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 19:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think those rules in our policy are particularly helpful when we have an article that is about a dispute with multiple points of views. Obviously, if we have an article on "gun control in the united states", we shouldn't link exclusively or mostly to pro-control websites. In this case, I don't see how putting this website is taking side in a discussion. The article talks about crimminals in a "firebombing incident", there are official websites on the perpetrators, so let's take a look at who they are. Not to say that the EL shouldn't have other websites, namely those of government sources against the prisoners, and that's why I said in my last post that perhaps this doesn't look so good because it is the only article.

Really, I don't see this link in here as all that necessary. But there is a current process to end the article on Briana to merge into this article, and the argument to keep the link on its relevance is the same. I really don't agree with you that the link is appropriate for the Briana article and not this one, because that would meant to assume that its purpose is to show a certain point of view. This certainly can be present, but the link merits for the official link to the event.

Perhaps the link wouldn't look so bad with the current description and another link on EL from an article on a mainstream paper. Maziotis (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Big Overhaul - Questions

Hey, I just added a ton of stuff, largely from the three sources originally cited. I hit a few weird spots though, and this is my first time really doing much with Wikipedia, so I thought I'd point out my own problems before somebody else does

1. The 2006 Seattle Times articles seems to imply that poplar trees *were* being genetically modified at UW (as does the web page regarding a course taught by Bradshaw which I found on the UW website). Later articles all claim that the ELF was "mistaken" regarding the genetically modified tress, but don't cite any academics saying what was actually afoot or state that Bradshaw declined to comment. I've kept the statements from the 2006 article, but would love somebody to clarify (I think that there's just some bad communication between sources here - I'm not a conspiracy theorist). I get the impression that perhaps, Bradshaw was using poplar trees as models for how other trees could *potentially* be altered, but that this was all highly experimental and not about to be implemented in any significant way

2. Two articles claim that the ELF newsletter referred to the poplar trees as a threat to the diversity of native forests. Does anyone actually have a copy of this newsletter?

3. The Seattle Weekly article (which honestly seems kinda trashy) claims that it was Rodgers (not Solondz) that was Waters' boyfriend. I'm assuming this is just bad journalism. Anyone know anything different?

4. Just a note. I know that the Bombs & Shields blog post is crap verification-wise, and only cited it to back up the Hook's mention that Phillabaum and Kolar were getting flak. However, I am curious about the sentence "Kolar also pled guilty to an attempted arson charge for a failed 1998 firebombing that damaged a Wray, Colorado, gun club that organized a multistate turkey shoot." and wonder if anyone has anything on that. I've noticed that there are a lot of articles on this group that cite nebulous "other arsons/bombings/whatevers" in other states but don't really provide any details.

5. I am aware that I probably have a slight bias in favor of Waters, given that I know some people who have corresponded with her in prison and am pretty far out in left field myself (albeit an avowed pacifist). Was the paragraph regarding Kolar's seeming inconsistencies appropriate? Should it be balanced with something else?

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blu3vibe (talk • contribs) 03:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Found an incredibly helpful Salon article that helped to clarify #1. Working through a re-edit.