Talk:Beebe, Arkansas

Untitled
Wondering how to edit this U.S. City Entry? The WikiProject U.S. Cities standards might help.a — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rambot (talk • contribs) 01:51, 29 July 2003 (UTC)

Safe to assume...
Don't you thinks its safe to assume the blackbird blunt force trauma was caused by the terminal impact with the ground and not lightening or hail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.192.20.204 (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Bird deaths
A few points about this: Firstly, I'm not convinced that this material belongs here. Secondly, bird deaths that did not occur in Beebe or even in North America definitely don't belong in this article. Thirdly, conspiracy-mongering does not belong anywhere on Wikipedia. If "the government" wanted to test a chemical weapon in secret, they know how to conduct a controlled LD50 test in a confined area. The idea that this incident might have been the result of a chemical weapons test is nonsense. It is also not reliably sourced, which is reason enough not to have it here. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

First/second: where do you think it belongs? Why not make a new page for it? That way, non-Beebe incidents can be recorded Third: This is not "conspiracy-mongering"; the E.U Times makes a case and cites sources. If you feel it is invalid, then do not pay attention to it, however it should be kept around in order to let other people come to their own conclusions. If the source is not reliable, as you assert, then others will reach the same conclusion as you, so there is no need to worry. If the source is reliable, then making it available is a good idea. --Jehan60188 (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't put too much credence in the E.U Times - in the article where they supposedly cite a source stating "Wheeler’s military career included writing one of the most important manuals on the effectiveness of biological and chemical weapons"; the linked NBC news video makes no comment about any manual, or anything to do with weapons of any sort. A quick search of other articles includes stories about how three giant spaceships are going to attack Earth in 2012, or how the US has been waging a war with UFOs in Antarctica. Links not supplied as they are (unsurprisingly) blocked by Wikipedia's spam filter. --Leigh (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There's a much better source for the cause of death in the article now. I'm still not convinced this belongs here, but at least we can avoid adding wacky theories at this point. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Instead of insulting websites, why don't you try to offer some opinion as to where news events should be placed? New page? Something about fireworks? The page about the bird (since lacking night-vision contributed to this event)? Something about New Year's Eve? --Jehan60188 (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If it were newsworthy, I would support a separate article on the incident. I don't think it's newsworthy, so I don't think it really belongs anywhere. If this material is going to be anywhere, though, this article is better than elsewhere. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Jehan60188, I agree with Gavia immer, the E.U Times article isn't newsworthy - I'm not meaning to insult the website - it's just that the article makes a number of hyperbolic statements, citing sources that don't back up what is being said - e.g.:
 * the manuals link mentioned above,
 * the statement "...Phosgene that is described as one of the most feared chemical weapons ever used due to its ability to literally cause the lungs and respiratory system to explode".
 * the statement "...since this past September, has caused over 500 minor earthquakes" links to a page that makes no reference to Phosgene.
 * However, if it's going to be placed anywhere (and in my humble opinion, it should not), then this article would seem the most appropriate.
 * On the subject of the event at Falkoeping, here is an article from the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12118839. --Leigh (talk) 04:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Speculation, even when by a reputable source, isn't encyclopedic. No reason to include pontification that isn't directly relative to Beebe in this article.  D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C)  19:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Beebe, Arkansas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150811174948/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110102/ap_on_fe_st/us_odd_dead_birds_arkansas to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110102/ap_on_fe_st/us_odd_dead_birds_arkansas

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Beebe, Arkansas. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/6YSasqtfX?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fprod%2Fwww%2Fdecennial.html to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)