Talk:1983 United States Senate bombing

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bafriend. Peer reviewers: Refutatory.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Clean-up Needed
Suffice it to say, a great deal of this page, especially the external links and other matters of import, require serious cleanup. What should remain, and what should be taken out? I want to discuss this before taking unilateral action, but, for one example, I believe that the external links section is being improperly used, and the links already there could instead be used to improve the article as references. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javert2113 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Original Research
Hi! I combed through this article and found some issues. The biggest issue appears to be original research. I took action and believe assistance is needed from someone with more historical knowledge. I've tagged the article as having original research and needing an expert in either terrorism or US history.

Issues: 1. Original research: I flagged the overall article for original research. A number of the statement in the article are not supported by the provided sources. It appears in some cases the author cited a source but did their own independent analysis of the historical situation. Honestly, the original research appears to be woven in with the supported content pretty tightly. You almost have to go line by line and comb out all of the stuff that is not cited.

As I read further and compare the text of the version I am reading to the sources, I see more and more content directly lifted from the sources. If sources, I'll paraphrase. Otherwise, I'll remove content. Curdigirl (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

2. Incomplete citations - fixed (for now.) I updated all citations to have author and publication info. 3. Content directly copied from sources, not rewritten or paraphrased, and not attributed as a quote.

"The force of the device, hidden under a bench at the eastern end of the corridor outside the Chamber, blew off the door to the office of Democratic Leader Robert C. Byrd."

This sentence is the lead sentence in a paragraph of the article. The end of the paragraph cites a United States Senate communication which contains the exact same sentence. Citing the source doesn't complete the attribution process when a direct quote is used. I'll paraphrase this sentence, because at least it comes from an actual reliable source.

4. Content cited, but not actually sourced: (Example) "The effect of this bombing led to heightened focus on anti terrorism operations in the United States, and eventually led to the group's takedown four years later in 1988."

This sentence was cited as coming from a 1984 article in the New York Times. How can an article predict the analysis of a future scenario resulting from one it is reporting on in the present day? This is original research. I'm removing sentences like this when I can find them. I really think it does more harm to leave in original research than to remove it. While no doubt someone did their homework to write the article, if the author couldn't be bothered to provide the sources of their information, then why should anyone believe what they say? --Curdigirl (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Part of the article is linking this bombing to another one in 1971. There is no source or outside analysis provided to support this connection. I'm not at all saying the analysis is incorrect - - I'm simply saying this is original research.

This text is problematic and being removed: This bombing seemed to replicate an earlier attack on the capitol which occurred in 1971. Committed by the Weather Underground, a left wing terror group related to the Resistance Conspiracy, this attack caused damages in excess of $300,000. The reason for this attack, as provided by the group, was for American aggression and "Nixon involvement in Laos." In this earlier attack, the superseding terror group placed a dynamite explosive in a south wing ballroom. This attack was condemned by Congressmen of both parties.

This text is cited to a 1971 article in the Harvard Crimson.

Problems: 1. The 1971 article in itself is unable to support the claim that the later attack "resembled" the 1971 incident. No additional reliable source was provided to show that an independent person other than the Wikipedia editor themselves has made this connection. While it may be astute, it constitutes original research. 2. There is no mention whatsoever in the 1971 source of damage in excess of $300,000. Where does this data come from? Why isn't the source provided? 3. The reason for the attack is noted in the source as coming from a caller who warns about the explosion. The quote given from a telephone call indicates the reason is "in protest of the Nixon involvement in Laos." There is no mention at all of "American aggression." Again, while this may be true, where does the information come from? If there was a source, it should be noted. Since it's not, and much of this paragraph is problematic, I'm removing the paragraph (be bold) because it really just looks like original research. Curdigirl (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)