Talk:2023 Rainbow Bridge explosion

The word 'bombing'

The sources used for this article do not use the word 'bombing' but instead 'vehicle explosion' and until more information is gained it should be changed to vehicle explosion. 2601:281:D880:DED0:582B:DDF8:178B:865E (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Number of fatalities

As I understand it, the most recent update we have (from 21:26 UTC) on this reports that the number of fatalities is unknown. Can we stop changing the infobox to say 2, until we get updated confirmation on the number of fatalities from reliable sources please? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I have been reverted by @ARandomName123: again (compared to all reverts) on this. I get that CBC NYT and CNN are saying this, but it's a very evolving situation, and I was asking till we had further government statement as there are rumblings that there was only one and this has been only 3ish hours out. I know Sideswipe knows which sources are disputing it, I've already closed them. -- Amanda (she/her) 22:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The New York Times just updated (22:55 UTC) saying that there was an unknown number of fatalities. While it was initially believed that there were two, investigators are now unsure, and that all found body parts may have belonged to the driver. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The reason I had reverted again was because the New York governor had said that there were 2 fatalities, and another update from CNN after that report had stated that there was 2 fatalities. I checked the NYT link @Sideswipe9th posted, and the new update confirmed the unknown fatalities, so I'm fine with it being reverted again. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

@ARandomName123 would you consider self-reverting? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Amanda has reverted following my reply. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The NYT update has apparently been removed. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Can't confirm, but that's because I can't get the NYTimes live page to load right now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

There has been another revert. As i've said in other places, I think we should give the authorities time to clarify given sources have contradicted each other so far. If we don't hear by tomorrow or anything whenever the next official update is by an agency in jurisdiction, then, we can just proceed as 2. -- Amanda (she/her) 03:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I would get rid of the link to CNN in the infobox as misleading information then as it says 2. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks like you have already done so, and understandably. I just checked the source and CNN has now put it back to 2. We are still just too fresh to accept this back and forth. -- Amanda (she/her) 03:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand, and my apologies for not checking the talk page. If 2 is too soon to accept then I suggest linking a footnote to "unknown" rather than a source. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Can't we put something like "2 (per Governor of New York )" or "2 (per preliminary investigation)"?

All news sites currently say 2 deaths, and more details emerging seem to support this: ex. Investigators believe a man was traveling with his wife (source) Additionally, CNN has since updated to show a death toll of two, and the NYT update mentioned earlier seems to have been removed. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I can see that CNN posted an update to their live page about 5 minutes ago with the text Investigators believe a man was traveling with his wife in a 2022 Bentley at a high rate of speed when the vehicle hit a curb. If another source corroborates that overnight, that would be persuasive enough to change it from unknown to 2. I'd rather us report that it's unknown for now, and give time for reports from officials to stabilise, than try and jump the gun on potentially shaky sourcing.

About to go to sleep now though, will check back when I wake up tomorrow. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Second Sideswipe on this. -- Amanda (she/her) 03:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time finding an updated source that doesn't mention 2 dead. Are we sure this isn't information given out by law enforcement? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

"updated" is the question. As far as I'm aware, there may be one - I can't remember who - but there were several previously saying 1, and then jumped to 2 without any real confirmation from officials. We aren't claiming that 2 is wrong or that all the sources don't say that. We are saying there is too much volatility leading to potential errors where getting it right is more important than publishing whatever things are changed to. We haven't even hit the 12 hour mark. Lets give it till a conference tomorrow and lets this rest overnight please (unless the above new info sideswipe mentioned gets corroborated). -- Amanda (she/her) 04:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I've not had time yet to check all sources, but came across the BBC's updated article just now. It says there were two passengers, a husband and wife, according to US law enforcement officials. That, plus the CNN source from last night is convincing enough to me that we could change this to 2 now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Someone already reverted it yet again it to 2 last night, and I just didn't revert it given it was likely headed this way. -- Amanda (she/her) 15:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Merge this into main Rainbow Bridge article

If it turns out this was not an act of terrorism and simply reckless driving, then this should be merged. If anything, it was notable at first because of people freaking out that it was a car full of bombs or somebody trying to inflict much more harm. conman33 (. . .talk) 02:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Notability, in particular persistence of coverage, is something we should definitely be keeping an eye on over the next few days. Notability right now is pretty borderline. Lets see how the sourcing develops, but merging or deletion are definitely options we should keep in mind. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

It is looking more and more like a case of reckless driving or loss of control resulting in a fiery crash, though I suppose the word 'explosion' is still appropriate. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that explosion seems to over capture the situation, but there is no secondary/countered word in the sources. That said this is not merge ready, and might be WP:UNDUE to put this in that article. Whether if it would survive AfD or not, if the situation does become that, I would not dare to predict, especially this early on. -- Amanda (she/her) 02:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to take a step back and let things settle a bit, though I predict in days it will become clear this was yet another case of reckless driving or a medical emergency resulting in a fiery, high-speed crash which we see hundreds if not thousands of times a year across the U.S. and Canada, exceptional only because it happened at a border checkpoint. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Concur with above. If, within the next few days, it does pan out to just be a freak accident, it can probably be merged into Rainbow Bridge (Niagara Falls) and probably some list somewhere as ROTM. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 03:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

It is looking more and more like a case of reckless driving – It is looking more and more like a case of reckless news coverage – fixed that for you.

Ever hear those stories about drivers who frantically try to stop their cars by pushing on their damn brakes as hard as they can, to the point where that "brake" gets stuck to the floorboard?

That's what came to my mind after watching that security video. But, maybe I assume too much good faith? Not sure.

We should wait for news sources to fix their sloppy reporting before deciding this. No particular hurry to merge. – wbm1058 (talk) 09:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Sudden unintended acceleration, we even have an article on the topic, though Bentley isn't mentioned there (yet). Should be an avenue of investigation. Driver seems to have deliberately steered off the roadway in an attempt to avoid a "terrorist" collision with what was ahead on the roadway. I doubt they intended or expected to be propelled so high into the air. If only they could have found a "runaway truck ramp". – wbm1058 (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, my. 2018-2021 Bentley Continental GT and Flying Spur recalled with risk of stuck accelerator – wbm1058 (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

"2023 Rainbow Bridge bombing" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 2023 Rainbow Bridge bombing has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 23 § 2023 Rainbow Bridge bombing until a consensus is reached. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

FYI, it has been speedily deleted. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Alas, Fuzheado, it's back by popular demand. For a while, anyway. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Year in title

It looks like this is the only explosion on the Rainbow Bridge; why are we using the year in the title? ✶Mitch199811✶ 15:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

That's not really the only problem with the title. There was no "explosion on the Rainbow Bridge"; the Bridge itself did not explode. It's spreading disinformation intended to terrify readers to imply that it did. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I mean, do you have any better (preferable not unwieldy) name? It becomes especially hard when trying to pass WP:NCWWW. ✶Mitch199811✶ 19:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

"Explosion" was the term that reliable sources were using in their reporting yesterday. Some have now changed to "blast", but many are still using "explosion". We could do a move to "2023 Rainbow Bridge blast", but I think the notability issue is something that would make this moot in the short to medium term anyway. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

"2023 Rainbow Bridge loss-of-control Bentley crash resulting in fiery explosion" /s Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Short version, WP:NCWWW. Long version, the primary naming convention for events like this use a When, Where, What format. So 2023 Rainbow Bridge explosion. The WP:NOYEAR exception is for when events like this have a common name in sourcing, which you won't have in the hours and days immediately after it takes place. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• Reply - I just started a move request. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 23 November 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moot. Article was merged into Rainbow Bridge (Niagara Falls) per AfD consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

---

2023 Rainbow Bridge explosion → 2023 Rainbow Bridge border crossing explosion – No "explosion on the Rainbow Bridge". Jax 0677 (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BegbertBiggs (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, While I see both terms used, the first one is much more concise. ✶Mitch199811✶ 22:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support. It's too concise, to the point of not being sufficiently WP:PRECISE. Titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article. The title fails to do that because it ambiguously implies that there literally was an explosion on the bridge. "Border crossing" expands the scope to the land areas immediately beyond each end of the bridge – where the explosion actually happened. WP:NCWWW says to clearly make the title state Where the incident happened. Again, it did not happen on the bridge. It happened at the border crossing. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. So it didn't happen right on the bridge. So what? It did happen at the bridge. The title "2023 Rainbow Bridge explosion" will thus do just fine. Kelisi (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

It didn't happen at the bridge. It happened at the crossing. I'm fine with the more concise 2023 Rainbow Bridge crossing explosion, which is how this more recent CNN report describes it (a car explosion at US–Canadian border). Also, 2023 Rainbow Bridge incident (omitting "explosion") is fine with me. Or 2023 US–Canadian border explosion. A bridge explosion would have damaged the bridge. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

While I prefer it over the current proposal for brevity, refering to it as a crossing is a bit too vague, especially since it is a bridge. ✶Mitch199811✶ 21:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

{{distinguish}} 2022 Crimean Bridge explosion and July 2023 Crimean Bridge explosion were actual bridge-damaging explosions. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Honestly explosion isn't even the right word any more. It is a bad car crash where the car ended up exploding. 2023 Rainbow Bridge Car Crash is honestly a better title at this point. Jjazz76 (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good point. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Mostly support I think the most concise title at this point would be 2023 Rainbow Bridge crossing accident. However, I also think there is merit in keeping "explosion" in the title because that is why this accident gained international attention. If it were just a car crashing violently at the crossing it may have made a blip on US/Canadian news but the fact that the car exploded and sparked fears of a terrorist attack is why this article even exists. Raskuly (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The sensational title/nature of the incident is why it is famous, but doesn't actual capture what actually happened once the facts were all sorted out. Jjazz76 (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - proposed target is a bit inconcise, but Raskuly's suggestion is worth considering instead; merge suggested above might also be appropriate. - Indefensible (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  Oppose: I agree with Indefensible. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support, since it did not happen on the bridge the title is encyclopedically inaccurate. Raskuly's wording seems to fit the subject well. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
• Suggestion, why not “2023 Rainbow Bridge car (or vehicle) explosion”? WikiRedactor (talk) 05:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
• Suggestion, I agree with WikiRedactor, "explosion" is a bit to vague. I would add car before explosion. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 09:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
• Suggestion, Crash, not accident. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 09:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, I’d agree with 2023 Rainbow Bridge crossing car crash Aaron Liu (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I propose voting for the best option. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposed names

2023 Rainbow Bridge blast

2023 Rainbow Bridge border crossing explosion

1. Y --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

2023 Rainbow Bridge Car Crash

1. Procedural Oppose: Violates capitalization of titles Aaron Liu (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

2023 Rainbow Bridge car crash

1. Support: describes the incident correctly Aaron Liu (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

   Agreed. This is the correct title. Explosion sensationalizes a nothing-burger story from two weeks ago. Jjazz76 (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

2. Support While I did oppose the Border Crossing suggestion as being too vague, I don't believe it is necessary to mention that it was in proximity to the bridge. If anything, without context of Rainbow Bridge adding the crossing seems kind of pointless. Also, no matter what we, do we are going to have to simplify the title slightly and I don't believe it is the article's title's place to explain the event (that is what the Short Description and article are for). ✶Mitch199811✶ 03:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Support as option 1. This is what happened. Preserve "explosion" as a redirect. --Enos733 (talk) 06:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

2023 Rainbow Bridge car explosion

2023 Rainbow Bridge crossing accident

2023 Rainbow Bridge crossing car crash

1. Stronger support: more clear that it wasn't on the bridge, oppose everything I didn't support as either too vague as to what incident happened or too long Aaron Liu (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
2. Support: For reasons mentioned above. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
3. Support: I just want the article name to be changed and I think that this is the most acceptable popular alternative. Raskuly (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
4. Second choice This title is a little lengthier and "crossing" is not too helpful as a descriptor. --Enos733 (talk) 06:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

2023 Rainbow Bridge crossing explosion

2023 Rainbow Bridge incident

2023 Rainbow Bridge loss-of-control Bentley crash resulting in fiery explosion

2023 Rainbow Bridge vehicle explosion

2023 US–Canadian border explosion

Oppose Of all of the serious suggestions, this is by far the worst. It's too vague for how notable it is and brings many of the other issues with the current title with. The only thing it "fixes" is that is no longer claims to be on the bridge itself. ✶Mitch199811✶ 03:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I believe with the AfD being closed as merge this discussion is likely moot, but I'm not sure and I don't want to close it if it's not. TartarTorte 03:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  Reply - I debate whether or not there was consensus to merge. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  If you think so, you should file a WP:DRV. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  I think we should just move this page to the title that wins and then merge it, Aaron Liu (talk) 14:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent edits by @CWLaurier1141

I was about to condense the most recent edits by @CWLaurier1141 on the article to "while initially considered a potential act of terror, officials later confirmed no terrorism was suspected." I get the impression that by going in to such detail on the back and forth, there is a motivation to give the impression of some kind of conspiracy regarding the crash and explosion. Curious to hear the thoughts of others first. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 22:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, those sections feel to me like they're dipping a bit close to original research; the emphasis on timestamps seems disproportionate. I would be inclined to think of WP:VNOT, that just because this information has been collated doesn't mean it's improving the article. Princess Lirin (talk) 07:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

"2023 Rainbow Bridge loss-of-control Bentley crash resulting in fiery explosion" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 2023 Rainbow Bridge loss-of-control Bentley crash resulting in fiery explosion has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 8 § 2023 Rainbow Bridge loss-of-control Bentley crash resulting in fiery explosion until a consensus is reached. ^user:A smart kitten_meow 10:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)