Talk:Glitter bombing

Legal Status
I recently made an edit specifying the legal status of glitter-bombing as battery. I'm confused as to why this edit was removed, and will be putting it back until I receive an explanation. (I am also a bit confused as to why it was listed as a form of civil-disobedience, since civil disobedience tends to be directed at a specific law by violating it, but glitter-bombers are not interested in taking away battery laws by violating them. Nevertheless I think that the civil disobedience specification should be left until a better name for this form of protest is stipulated.)198.151.130.143 (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC) DDiaz


 * As you've pointed out, it doesn't really fit in with the definition of "civil disobedience," so I changed it to "protest." I also changed the last sentence of the lede to indicate that (technically) it may constitute an assault, or a battery, or both (all three scenarios are possible). AzureCitizen (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Two issues. Firstly, I don't see in what way it might be appropriate to say it "may" be a form of assault. This seems to be a classic confusion of the term assault with battery (it seems impossible for any surprise attack or throw to be assault). If we do indeed wish to say it may be assault I think a citation should be required because it is not obvious and hence counts as original legal research. Secondly, I do not think that directly stating that it is a form of battery is legal original research, namely because of how trivially it follows from the definition. Though perhaps it is best to exert caution and keep the "may" until we do have a direct legal source. 198.151.130.135 (talk) 11:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)DDiaz


 * The reason for phrasing it as "may constitute" is because different circumstances could result in different outcomes. To help make that more clear in the lede, I added the words "depending on the circumstances" to the end of the sentence.  For example, consider these four outcomes in which a glitter bomber intends and attempts to "bomb" a targeted individual:
 * 1. The target sees the attack coming, the bomber throws, and the target is hit with the load of glitter.
 * 2. The target sees the attack coming, the bomber throws, and the target is missed by the load of glitter.
 * 3. The target does not see the attack coming, the bomber throws, and the target is hit with the load of glitter.
 * 4. The target does not see the attack coming, the bomber throws, and the target is missed by the load of glitter.
 * In these differing circumstances, we may have an assault, or a battery, or both, or neither. Since there are many outcomes, it would therefore be more inclusive to say "may constitute". AzureCitizen (talk) 14:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Given the consideration that these four are all serious possibilities, this indeed seems like the best wording. Mentioning "attempted battery" or "attempted assault" as rigidly apparent here would open a can of worms and assuredly be OR, so I think that any future editors should leave this as it is. Thanks for the contribution. 198.151.130.143 (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC) DDiaz


 * Since there has yet to be a successful prosecution of Glitter bombing (as far as we know, anyway), dubbing it assault OR battery might be a self-fulfilling prophecy if we say so before it happens.Veled (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, assault requires there be a threat of violence, but no ACTUAL violence, and battery requires there be damages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.6.129 (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Revert deleted online references
I reverted a change made by Delicious carbuncle as s/he gave no reason for removing all references to online glitter bombing. There are several well-supported instances of online glitter bombing that rightfully belong on this page. Estreya (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This article is about the act of protest involving throwing glitter (which I believe is unrelated to the glitterbombing on twitter). Perhaps a mention of the twitter phenomenon could be made at the disambiguation page Glitterbomb. I think it should be noted that while twitter glitterbombing would be better addressed on another page, using twitter as a reference is not strictly forbidden (see WP:SELFSOURCE). Gobonobo  T C 21:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Table
Why that table? Are we gonna keep records of every glitterbombing? I think that should be removed or simplified. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 04:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yea I agree, it sounds like someone counting the notches in their bedpost. I think it would be more appropriate to say people gliitterbombed include ... not the table and even the dates. I bet an editor here is a glitterbomber, but come on this isn't your personal website. 50.80.146.188 (talk) 03:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I also agree, and think that simplification is preferable to removal.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glitter bombing. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20120210110119/http://blogs.citypages.com:80/blotter/2012/02/ron_paul_glitterbombed_at_minneapolis_convention_center_video.php to http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2012/02/ron_paul_glitterbombed_at_minneapolis_convention_center_video.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)