Talk:Boston Marathon bombing

Please use section editing when adding to avoid edit conflicts.

Semi-protection edit request

Uncle's reaction

I would like to include the uncle's reaction to the article, especially in regards to knowing that his nephews are the suspects. The sentiment of his reaction is different from that of the uncle's and I think adding his reaction to the article will give a more complete family perspective of the tragedy. Here is a link http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/boston-mit-shooting-explosion-suspect-watertown-064355149.html Apandey09 (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC) add their aunt's comments.

Consider adding the content to Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev as this article is becoming too full of commentary and extraneous information. My76Strat (talk) 04:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Article re-title

Since the article covers the shooting at MIT, wouldn't it be sufficient to re-title the article as something like "2013 Boston attacks"? 3193th (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so, because the shooting is a direct consequence of the bombing. CodeCat (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• On another note: I think the time may be right to change the title to the singular: Boston Marathon bombing. A day of listening to the radio and reading the paper has led me to conclude that the singular is the proper way to title it right now. Drmies (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree that the article should be titled in the singular, because, for example, the September 11 attacks have always been referred to in the plural, because there was more than 1 perpetrator, and the perpetrators were all part of one collective organization (al-Qaeda). Since the brothers in the Boston bombings are arguably part of an independent terrorist organization, it would make more sense to have the article titled "bombings" rather than "bombing". Also, obviously, there was more than one bomb, and the two bombs were detonated at separate times. 3193th (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

While the context is a bit different, I imagine that there was more than one bomb dropped during the Bombing of Dresden in World War II. Location (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• The 9/11 attacks took place in different cities. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with CodeCat, and also agree that the title should remain in the plural, since there were two bombs. - Camyoung54 talk 22:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The current name is fine, although I see most news sources using the singular "bombing" as opposed to "bombings".Bless sins (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The word "bombing" is a verb which can included multiple bombs. I think the important aspect is that this was one specific incident (bombing) which included two bombs, not two separate events which would indicate bombings. Arzel (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The FBI most wanted poster related to it uses the phrase "Boston Marathon Bombings". I see nothing wrong with the plural, particularly given the substituentsubsequent (spell check) bloodshed. Shadowjams (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

So if there was no bloodshed than "bombing" would be appropriate? Sorry, but that doesn't make much sense; you don't change the meaning of a word because of a consequence. Also, I think you mean subsequent, substituent refers to atoms. Arzel (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Does nobody read anything? The FBI refers to it with a specific phrase. That's instructive. The subsequent violence is part of that event, so referring to it as a singular is grammatically correct. If they were discrete then plural would make sense. While we're having fun with spelling and typos, you meant "then" not "than. Shadowjams (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not "Chechen language", it's just Cyrillic alphabet (and Russified surnames)

Nevermind, I can edit. --Niemti (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Birth place

Wikipedia states "Born in Chechnya and from the North Caucasus, the two immigrated to the United States in 2000 or 2001.[66][67][68]" but those news reports cited say that they were both born in Kyrgystan. Other news reports also say Kyrgystan.[1]. Can someone please correct that. Thanks.--39.41.212.239 (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

There are conflicting reports on who was born where. Might need to wait for the sources to align. See some discussion on the Suspect's Bio Talk Page too.Legacypac (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

7-11 store

Hello. PBS says the suspects did not rob the 7-11 store in Cambridge. I'll remove it for now. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Here is a copy of the Associated Press on that subject that PBS cites. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll also note that this isn't the news organizations arguing against the police. The police initially confirmed the link, now they are "double-checking" [2]. I agree that it should remain removed until they reconfirm, if they do. Ryan Vesey 20:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

From WBUR "State Police say they have established that the bombing suspects were not the ones who robbed a convenience store in Cambridge, as had earlier been reported. A statement from State Police spokesperson Dave Procopio says "the bombers did purchase gas at a gas station in Cambridge later in the chain of events and we recovered images of them there."" Legacypac (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

BBC World Service shortwave also reported the 7-11 misinformation. ——Pawyilee (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Photos of second explosion site

This freely licensed set on Flickr has some photos of the site of the second explosion. I don't have time to upload them now.--ragesoss (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Aunt's reaction

I know somebody already mentioned including the aunt's reaction but no link was provided. Here is the link to an article http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/suspect-aunt-says-she-suspicious-investigation-190616201.html;_ylt=AnRXa4NJh10B_KWvnpw6HlqZCMZ_;_ylu=X3oDMTJsMHR2aGgxBG1pdANIQ01PTCBvbiBhcnRpY2xlIHJpZ2h0IHJhaWwEcGtnA2lkLTMxOTU2MzMEcG9zAzIEc2VjA01lZGlhQkNhcm91c2VsTWl4ZWRIQ00EdmVyAzc-;_ylg=X3oDMTMzcGdpZGdiBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDZDZiYjgyM2EtMzM1NS0zZWM4LWI5NjgtNjRiNjQzNDJjY2Y2BHBzdGNhdANibG9nc3x0aGVsb29rb3V0BHB0A3N0b3J5cGFnZQ--;_ylv=3 Apandey09 (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

"Playoff implicating game?"

Does this phrase mean something to hockey fans? The sentence is "The National Hockey League postponed the playoff implicating game between the Boston Bruins and Pittsburgh Penguins[99] after the club with local authorities canceled the "morning skate" practices.[100]" I do not see it in the reference, and it is not a term I have read before. Is there a better phrase to say how the postponed game was related to a playoff? Edison (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Come on Edison, you didn't fall off the turnip truck...a game with play-off implications. Drmies (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Not all readers are conversant in sports jargon. Neither "imply" nor "implicating" appear in Hockey or Playoff and "playoff implicating" appears nowhere else in Wikipedia. I thought maybe it was a typo. If it means something to some readers, then fine. For the team that would have won the game there would have been an "implication" they would get in the playoffs, maybe because one or both were highly ranked, or because of the point in the season, or its on national TV, or something. I'll file it with other sports jargon mysteries. Note that other sports terms which might not be understood by some of our world-wide readers are defined somewhere, like Sticky wicket and infield fly rule . Perhaps the special importance of the postponed game could be briefly explained, if it is worth mentioning its cancellation at all, via a Wikilink to some section of some article which distinguishes between those hockey games which are "playoff implicating" and those which are not. Edison (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It's in contrast to the Boston Celtics/Indiana Pacers game - which not only could not have possibly changed whether either team got into the playoffs, it also could not have changed either team's seed. Therefore in sports one would say that it had no playoff implications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.125.144.133 (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

[The preceding comment was me] Also I would add that while I don't blame anyone for being unfamiliar with the term "playoff implications", I do feel it is a more general / less jargon-y term than "infield fly" or "sticky wicket". 165.125.144.133 (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This article isn't written for Hockey fans - it needs rewording. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Even as a sports fan, 'playoff implicating' is awful phrasing. At least game with 'playoff implications' Hot Stop (Talk) 23:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Mentioning anything beyond the bare fact of the game cancellation is entirely unjustified in this context, anyway - I've edited the rest out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

More gunshots

The latest from CNN and WCVB is that a body was found in a boat in a backyard and more gunshots were heard. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Boston Globe is claiming they have the second suspect pinned down. I'd hold off on any major updates here. --MASEM (t) 23:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

He's alive, the scanners are reporting this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, something is going on though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Newest boston globe article [3] Shadowjams (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's wait until the situation is clear, and the identity is confirmed (It certainly sound like its the guy, but...) --MASEM (t) 23:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The 2nd suspect was arrested. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

People misidentified as suspects

I wonder if it would be worth adding a section to this article mentioning how, before the names of the suspects were publicly announced, various people were falsely identified as suspects in the media and the Internet. They include a 17-year-old called Salah Barhoun, falsely identified as a suspect on the front cover of the New York Post[4] and Sunil Tripathi, a missing person falsely identified as a suspect by reddit and other websites[5]. I'm aware there are BLP issues here, but I think it would be worth including this simply to clear these people's names and make clear they weren't involved. Does anyone else agree? Robofish (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

We aren't here to "clear people's names" - and while there may be grounds at some point for including a general section on media misreporting based on published sources describing such misreporting, we can't engage in original research to 'correct' the media. This article needs to stay on topic, and not go off on multiple tangents. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The story has been covered in the Guardian. I've drafted a section to cover it. Please comment or edit to see if it should be included in the article.--Nowa (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

== Misreporting of bombing details and suspects ==

• On Monday, April 15, the New York Post reported that 12 persons had been killed in the explosions and that authorities were seeking a “Saudi man”. The Saudi man, however, turned out to be a wounded student.
• On Thursday, April 18, the New York Post posted pictures of two persons on their front page implying that they were suspects. They were not. The New York Post has defended their reporting saying that they merely said the police were seeking more information about the people that were pictured.

I think it would be a good idea. It shows the role social media and the internet played in this story and how this negatively affected people.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

There was news video of two dark-skinned males who were handcuffed and sitting on the curb after being arrested while riding in a taxi, and a guy who was forced to strip naked and was then taken away, still naked, in a police car. Were these people implicated, or were they mistakenly arrested and then released? Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The guy who was forced to strip is mention in the 5:33, 5:41 and 6:06 p.m. updates and the taxi riders are mentioned in the 10:24 p.m. update: http://www.3news.co.nz/LIVE-UPDATES-Police-hunt-for-Boston-bombing-suspect/tabid/417/articleID/294897/Default.aspx Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I've added two new subsections in the suspects section, one for other arrests and one for people falsely identified as suspects. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks good.--Nowa (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Deaths section

Someone (not sure who) removed the MIT police officer from the Deaths section. He remains (correctly) in the infobox. Yesterday the decision was made to combine the MIT article and the Maraton Bombing articles. Since we are correctly treating this as one big event should we not list all victim deaths in the same section? Yes, the deaths were on different days, but compare to victim lists of serial killers that often span years or decades.Legacypac (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

There's been no discussion to my knowledge as to whether or not combine the two death counts. I believe they should be listed separately. They're both significant, but listing them together is confusing. If that requires tweaking the infobox template that can be done. Shadowjams (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I prefer to list the three bombing deaths in one paragraph, then a separate sentence for officer killed. That was the way it was at one point. I did not write it. Legacypac (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't write it there originally, but I prefer this gentleman be listed as a death. I restored it just now. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much. He died protecting the public, murdered in cold blood.Legacypac (talk) 04:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Article request: please write article for MIT Police Department

thumb|right|alt=Grainy MIT PD GIF file that needs to be retraced

Resolved

--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

An article needs to be written for MIT Police Department. Please help by writing this article. The author can model the article on:

• University of California Police Department
• Rutgers University Police Department

Cheers. Thanks. --Rangeblock victim (talk) 23:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Take it up at WP:AFC. Cheers! Ignatzmice•talk 00:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Article is created. Not a ton of info in it yet, but the basics [6]Legacypac (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Legacypac. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, matey! Cheers. --Rangeblock victim (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Please retrace the logo image

I did not make the uploaded logo click here appear on the article because it is grainy and ugly. Can someone with Photoshop/Illustrator skills retrace? Thanks. Cheeeers. --Rangeblock victim (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

FBI interview

ap reports the deceased suspect was interviewed by fbi in 2011 because another country asked them to do so because they thought he had links to extermisim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.240.21 (talk) 00:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the AP source?--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10878692

Also here: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57580534/fbi-interviewed-dead-boston-bombing-suspect-years-ago/

And somewhat related here:http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2013/04/boston-bomber-could-have-been-deported-after-2009-conviction/

NPR is also carrying this, but it would be nice to find the original original source: http://www.npr.org/2013/04/20/178084378/suspects-chechen-roots-draws-eyes-in-russia

Suspect arrested

They got him (heard over the scanner), so watch out for edit wars over this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

What exact time did you hear that? Emw (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

8:45PM local time it happened. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

"Suspect in custody. Officers sweeping the area. Stand by for further info." @Boston_Police on Twitter, 5:45 PM - 19 Apr 13, https://twitter.com/Boston_Police/status/325409894830329856 Emw (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

BBC confirms 'suspect in custody' [7] AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi! They're taking him to a hospital in an ambulance right now (heard from CBS) as well.... But YES! This needs to be included, for sure! http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/20/us/boston-marathon-bombings.html?pagewanted=all (more proof he has in fact been arrested...) 173.79.68.101 (talk) 01:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC) IP....

• Violation of NOTFORUM here, but heck-freaking-yeah. Ryan Vesey 00:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• my sentiments exactly. What a historical record the talk pages over the past week will make for the future historian.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Indeed I predict the Wikipedia editors of the future will look back and say "Jeez what a mess the talkpage of The Boston Marathon bombings was" =p - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Exact time of arrest?

Kevin, what exact time did you hear that on the scanner? The scanner announcement likely preceded the 8:45 PM ET Twitter announcement from BPD, but it's not clear how long that latency was. By the way, great catch! Emw (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably a couple of minutes before, I heard mention that they had a suspect in custody. I know I turned on the news around that time and realized that no one was covering, so that is when I decided to notify everyone here. I didn't note the time because I thought it was something that occurred a bit earlier, but I guess I should have, looking back. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I heard on NBC they were watching a local affiliate and one of the anchors said 8:42 was the time that they confirmed the suspect was in custody EDIT Doubled checked my twitter (I was listening to the scanner also) I posted at 7:42 (CDT) saying he was in custody. JayJay^{What did I do?}

That makes sense. At UMass, we have our own cable lineup, but the school refuses to bring us anything from the Boston area (even though the surrounding town gets these same stations), so I have been relying on scanners for my news. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Amherst is closer to Springfield, Massachusetts than to Boston, so UMass is in the Springfield, Mass. DMA. Great50 (talk) 04:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

True, but we still get Boston stations out my way. Oh well, it's water under the bridge, and it allows for me to see a less-sensationalized covering of life. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Invalid link

This page needs to be unlocked as there are several errors. For example, the "death of an MIT police officer" link to the "MIT shooting and Watertown incidents" section is incorrect. It links to the non-existing section "MIT shooting and Watertown incident", when the correct link should link to "MIT shooting and Watertown incidents". It does not work and the page needs to be unlocked so that errors can be fixed.Iosue3 (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Fixed. Viriditas (talk) 01:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Any other errors you (or anyone else) see can be listed here, and someone will correct them. LadyofShalott 03:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

the link to the suspects bio redirects back to here. please remove the redirection or make a valid article about them! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.95.1.134 (talk) 06:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Split suggestion

This article should really be about the bombings and not the other actions of the people who did it. I'm proposing that an article named Tamerlan and Dzokhar Tsarnaev is created, with a manhunt and shootouts, as well as the large amount of media publicity, I'm sure there's enough notability to split this and leave this article to just be about the bombing with only a small amount of information about the perpetrators. 149.254.56.59 (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Agree but wait - Now that the suspect has been taken alive an article should be made but lets wait for the legal system to start here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Strong oppose. We have plenty of days and weeks to decide on a split. Whenever we have breaking news items involving an ongoing incident that involves victims and perps, we by default include all of that information in one article, preferring to followWP:ONEEVENT. Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Either that or change the title to properly reflect what happened. This article is about the bombing and the shooting, not just one of those two incidents. --ABC Order (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a problem with that, in addition to the bombing and the death of an MIT officer the suspects have worldwide notability, WP:ONEVENT does not apply here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

ONEEVENT definitely applies here. Until we know more about the two, they're only notable for being the culprits here. --MASEM (t) 01:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The bombing and subsequent killing and capture of 'suspects' are all part of the same story as it is unfolding. If someone wants to create a separate biography on the suspects, let them, but there is no reason to leave a gaping void in this article by leaving out important facts surrounding the suspects and their possible involvement with the bombings. If they somehow discover they were not responsible (and it doesn't look that way) then we can edit the article accordingly. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion wasn't intending to completely remove all information about the suspects. The intention was to keep the biography here, and have a more in-depth biography on the article about them. The later events would be mentioned in the biography article also more in-depth, while this article only has a paragraph or two about them. 149.254.49.59 (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose — The editor wrote "This article should really be about the bombings and not the other actions of the people who did it." The implication here is that the other actions of the people who did it are not related to the bombings, which of course isn't true. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Not yet I have no doubt that these individuals will both be covered sufficiently for us to have separate articles on both, especially if Dzhokhar survives his injuries. However, we should wait until there is enough confirmed information to really justify separate articles.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose They cannot be separated, at least not based on what little information we have today. TFD (talk) 04:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

No WP:BIO1E. The individuals may become notable as we learn more about them. At this point, we do not know enough for there to be any justification to split off a separate article. As BIo1E says: "as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified". That point has not occurred yet (and what it really should say is "as the individual's DOCUMENTED role grows larger.") – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Miranda rights

Despite being an American Citizen the news report said Dzhokhar isn't being read his Miranda Rights. I think that's worthy of mention. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It should be, although the citizenship of the defendant is irrelevant to whether s/he gets read their Miranda rights.

The last report I heard said that they were invoking the public safety exception. Daniel Case (talk) 01:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I Don't have editing rights since this page is semi-protected so can someone who does add it? Mrmoustache14 (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that you do have editing rights, given your Wikipedia record. Great50 (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

We may wish to wait. I won't say why here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Despite what you all think you know, police officers are not required to read an arrested citizen their Miranda Rights. They cannot use any information provided by a suspect against them in a court of law if they do not read the Miranda rights, however, they are not required to read the rights during an arrest. 01:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.242.75 (talk)

We should leave it out of the article for the same reasons they are not reading him his rights. I am sorry that I can't explain on this talk page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

As the US Federal attorney stated, when public safety is at risk, such as this case, Miranda rights are not required. In addition, if you are a terrorist - you are a declared enemy of the United States of America and have neither rights under the Geneva Convention, and may be detained without charges, (but as stated since the suspect is a citizen, even a charge as traitor would still require due process in which they would be read their rights later - most likely at a time and place when they aren't killing cops and children). Of course the police used the former versus the latter in this case.Patriot1010 (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we can include it if the reasons above are mentioned. To include it without justification wouldn't be the right thing to do.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning#Confusion_regarding_use Miranda is not required indy_muaddib (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

That section does not at all say "Miranda is not required." Failure to Mirandize might prevent statements from being used in the prosecution's direct case and might prevent evidence derived from such questioning from being presented as evidence. News sources have mentioned the "public safety exception" to Miranda. The Public safety exception from the Supreme Court ruling in the New York v. Quarles case allows non-coercive questions about issues related to the public safety. If done properly, such such questioning sometimes results in statements of=r evidence which can be use in ght prosecution's direct case. (like "Are there any more guns/bombs?") this is from the an FBI article about the Public safety exception: http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/february2011/legal_digest]. Edison (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The public safety exception derives from New York v. Quarles, a case in which the Supreme Court considered the admissibility of a statement elicited by a police officer who apprehended a rape suspect who was thought to be carrying a firearm. The arrest took place in a crowded grocery store. When the officer arrested the suspect, he found an empty shoulder holster, handcuffed the suspect, and asked him where the gun was. The suspect nodded in the direction of the gun (which was near some empty cartons) and said, "The gun is over there". The Supreme Court found that such an unadvised statement was admissible in evidence because it was focussed and limited, involving a situation "in which police officers ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety." That exception was allowable, the court said, because of the immediate threat that the gun posed. More: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/04/dzhokhar_tsarnaev_and_miranda_rights_the_public_safety_exception_and_terrorism.html

Intrepid (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Do we have any sources about whether the Massiah Doctrine applies, particularly after Dzhokhar has been charged? If Massiah attaches, the public safety exception doesn't apply; see Moulton v. Maine. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 07:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Removed line from Suspects section

I removed this line: "A YouTube account in Tamerlan's name featured two radical Islamist videos, and Tamerlan's aunt said that in recent years, he had become increasingly observant and began praying five times a day." The source does not support the first part - it states "A YouTube account under Tamerlan's name featured two videos about terrorism." We cannot assume that those videos are "radical Islamist."

Nor is it relevant that Tamerlan prayed five times a day - literally a billion or more Muslims pray five times per day, because that is a tenet of their religious beliefs. It is in no way indicative of Islamism or extremism that someone prays a certain number of times. polarscribe (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

it says in several boston and usia articles firstly there is no confirmation it is even his channel, secondly it features a radically islamist video (or apparently two, didn't read that) so none of what you choose for editing sth. out is viable, btw. the controlled explosion at their home did actually not take place, even if it was many hours after its announcement that was so decided, on a sidenote, (really not to prominently) i am impressed with the speed with what things have recently been updated on this page. 89.99.243.65 (talk) 02:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Still Awaiting Why, Reason or Intent

Still awaiting for this section to be introduced. I would suspect by now, the Police would know this.

Might want to document within the Wikipedia time line that us messily civilians still have no idea why, else the reason is already embedded somewhere within the current article. --roger (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

You expect the police to have uncovered the entirety of the suspect's reasoning behind the bombings within minutes of his arrest? As he is still likely hospitalized and not in an interrogation room? When reliable sources begin documenting the reason/intent behind the actions, it can be added here. AuburnPilot (talk) 02:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Roger - We have no deadline. Keep waiting, patiently. HiLo48 (talk) 02:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

If you have sources for the "why", then please provide them. Nobody knows why at this point, thus there is no such section. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

We might want to be careful about adding every tidbit leaked by some anonymous person "close to the investigation" to some reporter. Edison (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The police are still trying to figure out the motives of the Sandy Hook shooter. We're likely not going to know here for weeks. As others have say, we've got no DEADLINE. --MASEM (t) 04:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Not to pile on (well, maybe to pile on)—remember, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. There is no reason for us to know the motive(s), and less to put any motive(s) the media might be spouting into the article. Like Masem said, they're still working on Sandy Hook (though one of the attackers survived here, so it might be solved quicker). The media will, no doubt, devote hundreds of hours' worth of airtime in useless speculation; as an encyclopedia, people should not come here for the latest hot air, and we shouldn't give it to them. We need to wait—weeks, months—until it is clear why, exactly, they did it. Ignatzmice•talk 04:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Granted, but likely going to be a frequently asked question and should likely not be embedded within the context of the article. (ie. FAQ) Right now, I don't trust myself adding a new section titled, "Intentions" with subtext "Currently unknown" as my typing would likely translate to something somebody might consider slanderous. (ie. "A mess of lone losers thinking they could change the entire world." might get tossed in. ;-) --roger (talk) 06:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Celebration

People in Boston applauded and got together and celebrated when the terrorist was captured. I can't source this right as of yet, but there are videos of it on YouTube. I think it should be added somewhere.--Matt723star (talk) 03:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It was on the news, but it doesn't seem relevant without further explanation. (All I saw were a few people waiting and applauding passing police cars at Mt. Auburn, which wasn't even the hospital the suspect apparently ended up at.) It seems more that they were applauding the excellent work of the police officers. But again, we need a ref; as you said, it can't be sourced yet. It cannot be added if it cannot be sourced. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSJ78TZNSts --Matt723star (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

One has to be careful with this stuff. The media loves it. Good vision for them to televise. But they have abused situations like this in the past by showing imagery of totally unrelated celebrations, and by doctoring imagery. We have to be sure that the "celebration" as seen was really one about the recent events. HiLo48 (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

And there is no reason to include any of it. Even if this is sourced out the wazoo, it's still not relevant. Of course people are going to be relieved. Just as they were tense while it was going on. And unaware of anything before it happened. Drmies (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The people in Boston rejoiced because their week of terror ended, a week of terror they've never felt or experienced before, it's absolutely relevant if you think of the fact that years from now, this will be something discussed, and it should be reminded that the people of Boston came together and thanked the police and united in strength. --Matt723star (talk) 07:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

http://news.yahoo.com/lightbox/suspects-identified-in-boston-bombing-slideshow/

New York Times update?

Can we take down the warning about the New York Times? I see that was from April 15 and considering the recent events and the consensus on what happened, I don't think we still need it. Do you agree? MidnightRequestLine (talk) 03:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no warning about the New York Times, but an appropriate warning about the New York Post is on the article. Can we be sure the Post will not have more articles about the incident and the suspects like the earlier ones which led to inaccurate information being added to the article? Edison (talk) 04:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Oops yes I meant the Post. Considering just about every news outlet in the world has now reported that the brothers are Chechen and have been killed or caught, including the NY Post itself, I think we're safe. I unfortunately do not know how to edit the editing page so if someone else could do it or enlighten me that would be spectacular. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit help requested

I tried to add two additional locations to the text box but only the second one shows! ~Can't revert die to edit conficts. Can someone with more skills fix this? ThanksLegacypac (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Just be a little patient. Take your time. Slow down. Wait for the others to finish their work. We have no deadline. HiLo48 (talk) 03:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The info box continues to confound me. Someone helpfully fixed my first error. Now I made all the locations disappear by adding an s to location :( Assume article BTW - lots of really good editing displayed here. Legacypac (talk) 03:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

all ok now - thanks guysLegacypac (talk) 04:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

International reactions to attacks

Notable remarks: The new leader for the Liberal Party of Canada, Justin Trudeau, controversially claimed in an interview with CBC the day after the bombings that the motivation behind this attack was somebody "feeling excluded [by Society]". This caused a minor controversy in Canada. [editorials and quotes can be found in major Canadian newspapers > Globe and Mail & National Post, CBCNews website] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.162.173.94 (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

the aurora shooting, sandy hook, and every other attack has a section with flags indicating the reactions of world leaders, the norway attacks also has this section so why not this one? its important — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.251.154.175 (talk) 03:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

No it's not. It's mostly extremely predictable guff produced by politicians saying what they think is expected of them. There's already an International section which even now contains a lot of statements of the bleeding obvious. HiLo48 (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

other similar pages hope it though, so why not this one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.251.154.175 (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Because that doesn't mean they've got it right. It's a bit like justifying doing something by saying "We've always done it that way." What do you think such an addition would add to the article that wouldn't already be obvious and expected? HiLo48 (talk) 04:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Like HiLo said, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. It's not important and not notable, and it shouldn't be in the other article either. Ignatzmice•talk 04:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

it should be its an important part of an article especially a terrorism article

ok i got an idea, how about creating a seperate article title something like "reactions to the boston marathon bombings"

Here is a real reaction with actual impacts to Boston: Canada is fast tracking an anti-terrorism bill Stuff like - go to jail for leaving to a terrorism training camp. Legacypac (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Two of you have now declared it to be important. Neither has answered my question - "What do you think such an addition would add to the article that wouldn't already be obvious and expected?" HiLo48 (talk) 05:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

i just think it should be a common part of an article of this type, if anything to see the different reactions various cultures have to something like this (if they vary) and just because it's interesting to read. just because something is expected it doesnt mean it shouldnt be part of the article or at the very least have its own article and like i said ALL the other similar articles have this, its just something that should be a common part of something like this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.251.154.175 (talk) 05:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that it's interesting to see the world uniting in times of fear but that's not what Wikipedia is here for; Wikipedia is not a PR machine for governments. Domestic political responses that are directly attributed to the bombings may be notable(ie. Cananda fast tracking their terrorism bill) but news of one minute peace, condemnation and such is not. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 05:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Articles like this are always at risk of ending up too big, containing far too much detail, much of it redundant. We have to take care on that front. If some international person said something surprising or controversial, it would matter, but right now this information is not an important part of the story of the bombings. HiLo48 (talk) 05:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Unless the article contains information relevant to International Relations, then international reactions are irrelevant and will only serve to popularize the event within media or politics. But seeing it's already in, shrugs. In other words, how does this event effect a Country on the other side of the world? I think quick one line reactions might be more useful for research purposes, in case future events are spawned because of this incident. (ie. International reactions prior to conflicts and wars.) People will naturally be more biased at the local level. From what I'm seeing from the news though, it looks like a few crazy individuals having their insane fun, trying to acquire International attention. --roger (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Possible additional links, Boston University links

Boston University has these links:

• "Letter from the Family of LU Lingzi." (Archive) April 17, 2013.
• Seligson, Susan. "BU Scholarship to Honor LU Lingzi." (Archive) April 18, 2013.
• Friday, Leslie. "BU Padua Study Abroad Students Mourn." (Archive) April 19, 2013.

Which ones are appropriate to use or list? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The Next Chapter

Not ready to include this in the article but according to "Police in New Bedford, Massachusetts, 60 miles south of Boston said three other people had been taken into custody for questioning about Monday's bombings. No other details were provided.""

However Reuters just reported "Three people in New Bedford, Massachusetts were questioned and released on Friday in connection with the Boston Marathon bombings, law enforcement officials said." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 04:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course everyone wants to know why and who else might be involved. This story will have wings for a while yet. Legacypac (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The surviving suspect attended UMass Dartmouth, geographically close to New Bedford, and a classmate stated that he and she had visited Russian friends of his in New Bedford on a few occasions - that's undoubtedly the who and why. Irish Melkite (talk) 03:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 April 2013

typo: "thew" should be "threw" in discussion of pressure cooker bomb thrown in Watertown. 99.184.206.48 (talk) 04:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Czech ambassador's statement

The Czech ambassador to the United States issued a statement on Friday stating his shock at the bombing, re-iterating the Czech Republic's stance against terrorism, and -- remarkably -- clarifying, for the benefit of confused social media users, that Chechnya and the Czech Republic are two different places.

This has been reported in several places. I'm currently unsure if it deserves a place in the article -- on the one hand, it's a notable official statement, on the other hand, to add it might seem inappropriate in tone -- but it's a quite remarkable statement for an ambassador to have to make. -- The Anome (talk) 06:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Are there seriously Americans out there who would confuse the two entities? Is the average American's knowledge of the world really that poor? Oh, wait...--ЗAНИA ^{talk WB talk}] 11:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, that they are already dissimilar. It's quite commonly stated when Chechnya is mentioned, Chechnya is publicized as being within the Ukraine region. Likely furthering anybody from confusing the two. They are already extremely dissimilar in spelling and pronunciation, adding any reference to their similarities would only provoke confusion that doesn't already exist. The only possible confusion, is if you had relatives within the 1700's and 1800's migrate to and fro from the Ukraine region, and into Poland or other territories. If you need somebody sensitive to this, my relatives were from Bohemia and the Czech region. ;-) --roger (talk) 12:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm well aware that we don't write only for people who are perfectly familiar with the geography of the world, but this is simply too much ... It takes one click to find out what is Chechnya (linked in the article) and what is the Czech Republic (not mentioned in the article). This is an article about bombings in a US city, not a 1st grade geography lesson. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I went to University in Washington DC where many of my American classmates could not place Washington State or British Columbia on a map. Someone actually asked me, in all seriousness, if British Columbia was where cocaine came from. So, good on the Czech ambassador. Legacypac (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Please no more terrible stories, Legacypac. My heart stops beating when I realize that Chechnya borders Georgia! --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Chechnya borders Georgia? Like Alabama? Okay, domestic terrorism, then. — O'Dea (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

First paragraph

The last sentence is "The FBI led the investigation into what it identified as a terrorist attack." It recently had the words "into what it identified as a terrorist attack" added, and I would recommend they be removed. It was a bombing and that is all we need to say. We do not need to try to glorify everything as a "terrorist" act. Apteva (talk) 06:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

There was a big debate on day 1 over "terrorist" but after the FBI, Local Police, White House, and darn near every news outlet in the world called it terrorism Wiki editors accepted reality and included the term. Blowing up bombs in a crowd, shooting up residential streets, throwing explosives at cops in a car chase, huge city locked down for a day and hiding in basements afraid... if that is not terrorism what exactly is terrorism?Legacypac (talk) 06:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

See Terrorism. I'd say this is more 'mass murder' by crackpots... or other socially disadvantaged people. YMMV. Ariconte (talk) 07:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Per that "Terrorism is the systematic use of terror", the word clearly does not apply. Apteva (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

No original research on Wikipedia. That means we report what the reliable sources say. They call it terrorism. Other Wikipedia articles don't qualify as sources. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 07:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Please go and update Terrorism, and good luck with that. HiLo48 (talk) 08:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Why? As I said, Wikipedia articles can not be used as sources to other Wikipedia articles (WP:WPNOTRS). In other words, what is said in that article should have no bearing on this article. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 08:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Why? Because you clearly believe it's wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 08:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't edit it; it's been semi-protected. But where did I say that the definition is wrong? --89.27.36.41 (talk) 08:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, am I supposed to provide a lesson in logic now? Sad. HiLo48 (talk) 08:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't want any lessons from you, since your logic is subpar. All I have said in this discussion is that Wikipedia does not approve of original research and that reliable sources should be used instead. And please keep this discussion related to the article, not my person. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 09:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth. —Designate (talk) 10:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah well, I know that wiser heads will understand my point here. This article will be better after some time when things settle down and excited editors forget about it. HiLo48 (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

By the way, it is fine to explain what the FBI calls it down in the article, but it does not belong in the lead section. Apteva (talk) 07:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with Designate. We reflect the RSs. They report, that in turn the FBI is handling the matter as a terrorism investigation. Unless there is a change to that, we don't satisfy an editor's POV by deleting the fact, due to his OR. It is both relevant and highly significant, and belongs in the lede, where it was for days.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • No. The lede needs to represent the significant facts of the article. It is not significant that the FBI erroneously calls it terrorism. Apteva (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
    • It's not significant that some Wikipedia editors feel the FBI, President Obama, et al don't know what constitutes terrorism and what doesn't. Hot Stop (Talk) 18:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
      • The President called it terrorism, the FBI is investigating it as terrorism, every major news outlet calls it terrorism, it meets the statutory definition of terrorism (18 usc 2331) and yet a few editors have decided in their own minds this is "'mass murder' by crackpots... or other socialy [sic] disadvantaged people." Sorry, but that's not good enough. Verify. Shadowjams (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Those interested in this discussion may find this "comment" (opinion piece?) interesting: McGeough, Paul (2013-04-21). "Obama proves he can walk the walk". The Sydney Morning Herald. p. 38. Retrieved 2013-04-21. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

First sentence (old section head before combining under this section)

The bombing was not a terrorist attack, and we have no reason to start out the article saying it was ("The Boston Marathon bombings was a terrorist attack"). This is really absurd. It is fine to say in the article that the FBI is treating it as an act of terrorism, but nothing of the sort belongs in the lead section. Apteva (talk) 07:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely, but we'll have a fight on our hands. HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion does not matter anymore than mine does - it's the published material that matters. I can find you a dozen sources that call the bombings an act of terrorism (which they were); the question is, can you find any' reputable sources that support your bizarre point of view? --50.46.231.88 (talk) 08:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

User Apteva just took out well sourced facts that FBI called it a terrorist attack. I also suggest advocates of the "It's not terrorism' POV provide at least one reputable source supporting that the FBI (esp since that's who is cited) the White House, or anyone above a dog catcher does not consider this terrorism. Until than, I'm repairing the article. Legacypac (talk) 09:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

You [Apteva] already made this argument in a section above. We use reliable sources; it's uniformly referred to as a terrorist attack. Your personal definition of "terrorism" isn't enough to overcome that. Shadowjams (talk) 09:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an excellent article on Terrorism. A lot of people have put a lot of effort over several years into developing the wording of that article. The definition there simply doesn't match with what happened in Boston. While I know that what's in one article here doesn't have to directly influence another, it's nonsense to think that something that happened in the past week is going to throw all that effort on Terrorism out the window when it comes to how Wikipedia uses that word. What's going to happen is that the mass excitement over this bombing will recede, reporting will become more rational, and the media (and thus the public) will stop calling it terrorism, or at least use that word a lot less than now when describing this week's events. We will begin to use more considered sources for the more considered version of this article, and the word terrorism will disappear from the lead. It's a shame we can't speed up that process. HiLo48 (talk) 10:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Call me dumb, but I can't see which part of the definition of terrorism this attack does not meet?--В и к и T 10:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Start with the word systematic. HiLo48 (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure your personal interpretation of a definition given in a Wikipedia article isn't a reliable source. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you've completely misunderstood what I wrote. HiLo48 (talk) 11:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

You have been twice asked to provide reliable sources that support your view, and have failed to do so. Stop wasting our time; either cough up some sources or go re-read our policies until they sink in. I doubt you'll be able to find WP:MAYBEINAFEWMONTHSSOURCEWILLSTOPCALLINGITTERRORISMSOUNTILTHENWESHOULDNTCALLITTERRORISMEITHER, but please let me know if I turn out to be wrong about that. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we certainly do need to wait for some of the excitement to recede, don't we? HiLo48 (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll answer your question after you've answered our request for sources that contradict the "terrorism" designation. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” [8] My76Strat (talk) 11:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

And nobody knows if that was the case here yet. Remember, the crime has not been solved. Nobody has been convicted of anything. So to say that this crime fits that definition involves several assumptions. HiLo48 (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

We report what the FBI and mainstream media say, not what user HiLo48 of Wikipedia fame says. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

From the very beginning of the article Terrorism: "In the international community, however, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition." and "Studies have found over 100 definitions of “terrorism”." --89.27.36.41 (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems unlikely the terrorism tag will go away since the Feds will be charging him with terrorism offences which is sort of rare compared to say murder charges. Legacypac (talk) 12:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

If when the indictment comes down in the next few days, if it includes a charge entitled "terrorism" would that be sufficient to call the crime "terrorism"? Somehow I imagine another excuse or caveat will come up. Shadowjams (talk) 12:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

No. This is an encyclopedia and it is important for us to accurately report events, and not glorify them, as the FBI is trying to do, by pretending that it was terrorism. Apteva (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

You are basically demanding that we practice original research. That is not allowed in Wikipedia. We report what the reliable sources say. And the FBI certainly is amongst the most reliable sources in this case, especially as all mainstream media agree in their reporting. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

We use reliable sources to report facts. We have to sift through the sources available to find those facts. The facts we know is that there were two bombs. We do not know who placed them or why they were placed, and may never know. The word terrorism is not an accurate word to use in this article. We can say that the FBI calls it terrorism, but not in the lead, as that is not an essential fact of the article, and we can not call it something that it is not. Apteva (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources to indicate that the Tsarnaev brothers should not be called suspects, which is what FBI and all other officials are calling them? When the the FBI, mainstream media, the president etc. call it terrorism we should report it as such. BTW, why did you remove[9] two comments from this thread? --89.27.36.41 (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Here are two articles that bring into question the word terrorism.[10][11] Apteva (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

A blog and an unre liable state-controlled media outlet. You might want to do better than that if you're looking to change the article. If what that Russia Today story says is true, that would be highly relevant, but we need a better source. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Per the Wall Street Journal,[12] we can not call it terrorism unless it is certified as a terrorist act by the Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of State. Basically the bombs were too small to qualify, because they would have to have done over $5 million damage, which they clearly did not do. There might be a case in certifying the Mayor of Boston as a terrorist by doing $333 million in damage by shutting down the city, but not the bombers. Apteva (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

That is only in relation to insurance coverage. According to that source what you cite is needed only "In order to trigger the post-9/11 federal reinsurance program". We're not talking about insurance in the article. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The point is that it is not really terrorism. There is no indication that there is anyone behind the attacks other than two people, and two people do not constitute an organization or government. There is no indication that this is a part of an organized group of attacks. There is no indication that there was any attempt to influence anyone in any manner. And finally there was not enough damage done to qualify as a terrorist attack. It is not a correctly applied term. This is an encyclopedia, not yellow journalism. Apteva (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

First of all, from the article Terrorism: "Studies have found over 100 definitions of “terrorism”." The term terrorism does not have a single generally accepted tight definition. Second, as stated above, your financial damages argument is related only to federal incurance claims as is said in the same source. That's a pretty small aspect of the story. Third, this is an encyclopedia based on reliable outside sources, not original research. If the FBI, practically all of mainstream media and the president of the country say it's terrorism, then it's terrorism. Claiming otherwise based on a minority view would be contrary to WP:FRINGE which says: "A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it is". The view of the majority of reliable sources should be presented as just that, a majority, which also means mentioning it in the lead. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Suspects

Do you have reliable sources to indicate that the Tsarnaev brothers should not be called suspects, which is what FBI and all other officials are calling them? When the the FBI, mainstream media, the president etc. call it terrorism we should report it as such. BTW, why did you remove[13] two comments from this thread? --89.27.36.41 (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that should be "do we have", not "do you have". I believe there may be technical definitions of "person of interest" and "suspect". Basically everyone is a suspect, though some more of a suspect than others... Apteva (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Correct the list of MA towns on lockdown during the siege.

Allston-Brighton was also on lockdown. I live there.

http://msn.foxsports.com/other/story/boston-lockdown-impacts-sports-world-red-sox-bruins-boston-college-harvard-041913

Lazy writing and cross-referencing, Wikipedia.

Why don't you fix it, then? --2601:9:6C00:3A:799B:E499:33A3:5082 (talk) 09:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC),

Because Wikipedia does not allow original research. The fact that an editor says s/he lives there, and provides a first-person account on the Talk page, is not sufficient to add a statement to Wikipedia. When it is listed in a reliable source that Allston-Brighton was on lockdown, then it can go in the article.

Which, BTW, is the same reason that my personal opinion that the area police depts and (other officials?) may have overreacted in attempting to lock down a large metropolitan area does not go in the article at this time. When reliable sources report such controversy, if they do, then it will be time to add the controversy to Wikipedia. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The suburbs originally locked down were Watertown and the surrounding areas (anti-clockwise) of Waltham, Newton, Allston-Brighton, Cambridge, and Belmont (see Boston police department tweet). I saw on the day that the mayor of at least one other neighbourhood, possibly Somerville (I forget), volunteered to lock down as well, before the whole city of Boston was eventually shut down. — O'Dea (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Tamerlan Tsarnaev American or US Permanent Resident?

Our Deaths in 2013 page says he is "Russian-born American". However our report on this article actually says in the "Suspects" section "He was not a U.S. citizen, but was a permanent resident". Clearly this needs to be verified and the info here or in the "Recent Deaths" page be corrected. werldwayd (talk) 08:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the "Deaths in 2013" page. The cited source (CNN), in this article, clearly states that he is a "green card" holder, which is another way of saying permanent resident. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 10:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Tsarnaev was granted US citizenship on 11 September 2012. WWGB (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see corroboration of that, since the Daily Mail is being quoted. I read elsewhere this morning that it was Dzhokar who became a US citizen that day. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Yup, NBC says it was Dzhokhar who naturalised last September. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 00:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Was the FBI Monitoring Boston Bombing Suspects for Years?

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/04/was-fbi-monitoring-boston-bombing-suspects-years — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.120.170.161 (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you find a better source?--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, the article merrily reiterates the FBI interviewed one of the individuals at the request of the Russian government and turned up nothing. At some point, the mother was also called concerning the interview, according to statements made by the mother. Further hearsay by the kids or mother stating they were under constant investigation. No official statements or sources are cited concerning being under an ongoing investigation. Shrugs. People likely pop-up on their radar all the time. Doesn't mean they're constantly being monitored. --roger (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Using PC instead of semi ?

I'm wondering if it might be an idea to change the semi protection into Pending Changes. I'm sort of interested in seeing what would happen and if we are going to see a substantially different editing pattern. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

You could bring that up the requests for page protection.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

PC is generally for only rarely edited articles, which this one would not qualify for at this time. I think semi is correct at this time. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

FBI investigated Tamerlan in 2011 because of radical islam

CNN[14] is reporting that the FBI interviewed Tamerlan, the older brother, in 2011 at the request of a foreign government that suspected him of links to extreme groups, stating specifically that he was a "follower of radical islam". In addition to interviewing him the FBI did some other investigation as well, including looking at his travel history and internet activity. The FBI did not pursue the investigation further at that time. This should be added to the article. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. ( Your penultimate sentence tells us why.) HiLo48 (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

If CNN is reporting it, it should be added. All investigations of the suspects are notable. Your personal opinions do not matter. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

What if it's bullshit? We don't simply add it just because CNN reports it! We have to be a little more careful than that. HiLo48 (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

So I guess by your logic we ought to just blank the whole article and write it in six months when everything is known? That's not how Wikipedia functions. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 08:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not my logic at all. It always amazes me how many people think they can win an argument by misrepresenting what their opponents say. It ain't ever going to work. HiLo48 (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly what you did in the prior discussion related to use of the term terrorism. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 11:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and the the media's reporting on this is based directly on this FBI press release. So if you're saying that the report is "bullshit", then you're also saying that the FBI's own records are "bullshit". --89.27.36.41 (talk) 11:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The BBC say "The FBI said its agents had interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev in 2001 at the request of a foreign government, but found no cause for concern." [15] --Racklever (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

2001 must be a typo; Tamerlan was 14 at that time. CNN reports 2011 and mentions also why. Other mainstream news sources also report the story with 2011 ("two years ago") as the time.[16][17] --89.27.36.41 (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, it must be a typo. This is why we need multiple sources.--Racklever (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

2011 is given in this BBC piece [18] Jebus989^✰ 13:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Another source: Boston marathon bombs: Tamerlan Tsarnaev 'interviewed by FBI in 2011' Trichinosis (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

If the article is ever split then it could go there. This article is about the bombing, not the suspects.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Currently the articles on the suspects are getting deleted. This article has a section titled 'Suspects' which currently includes information on, for example, their hobbies (boxing, wrestling). If hobbies are notable for suspected terrorists, then surely prior investigations on terror related issues must be notable as well. Notability is backed by mainstream media reporting. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

We should either trim the suspect section here or split it then. Otherwise it is coatracking.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The article isn't too long yet. If trimming has to be done, I suggest replacing the hobby related stuff with the sourced information of the prior FBI investigation, which is made even more notable by its international dimension. I seriously do not fathom, how anyone can consider this information unnotable, considering that we're dealing with a man whom the FBI later did deem a terror suspect. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I have now added it to the article.--Racklever (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

(NOT including this legitimate piece of information is just wiki bending over backwards to be politically correct. The motivation, although not confirmed, is looking to be a belief in radical Islam. esp. for the older brother. Other evidence such as the older brother's youtube playlist points to radical Islam. Sources are available for this) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.162.173.94 (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The playlist doesn't mean much. I'm a New York Jew of Eastern European descent and I've watched videos about the war in Syria on youtube. The sourced FBI stuff should be included as long as it's kept in context (IE if anything came of it or if it was dropped). If it went nowhere than state that the FBI didn't find any evidence of him being radicalized. TheSyndromeOfaDown (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Is the fact that the elder Brother Tsarnaev boxed and wrestled really relevant? He didn't use an almighty forearm shiver to kill his victims. To include all of their hobby data seems uncalled for. TheSyndromeOfaDown (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Obviously we should have articles on these suspects, but this investigation is clearly relevant to the bombing, i.e. whether the bombing could have been prevented somehow. Hint: when multiple sources mention something in coverage of an event, it is likely to be relevant to the event. Wnt (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• • No, we should not OBVIOUSLY have articles on these suspects. They are at this stage only suspects, not guilty parties. If they are found guilty, then yes, we will write article. if not, no. HiLo48 (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Too late. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Dzhokar Tsarnaev--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess you are also opposed to Wikipedia having an article on John Wilkes Booth or Lee Harvey Oswald, who never went to trial and thus were never found guilty. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 14:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support inclusion it's been widely discussed in reliable sources. Hot Stop (Talk) 04:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• If there are widespread reliable sources that report it, then of course, report it. The hypothetical the New York Times 'could be wrong at some point in the future' is not a justifiable reason to leave out information, particularly when it can be added in a neutral descriptive way. We use verifiability, remember. Shadowjams (talk) 09:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Trim or split

The suspect section is a Wikipedia:Coatrack. We should either trim it or split it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I think a split off to Tamerlan and Dzokhar Tsarnaev will happen in time, there is too much info that would be ignored that passes WP:GNG out there about the suspects to not have an article about the two suspects. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Wright brothers would be a good format. Do we want to call it Tamerlan and Dzokhar Tsarnaev or Tsarnaev brothers?--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Most articles that cover the same subjects have an area of overlap. Whose decision was it and where is the consensus to gut the 'Suspects' section entirely?? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The decision to split the article was a WP:BOLD decision, but the consensus supporting that decision is being formed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Dzhokar Tsarnaev, if you want to comment there. —Swpb^{talk•contribs} 16:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It might be worth it if the younger of the Brothers Tsarnaev survives to stand trial. If he dies of his injuries we might not have enough sourced material to really justify splitting (much of what's being added now could probably be cut down the road). TheSyndromeOfaDown (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Parents' reaction

http://rt.com/usa/tsarnaev-brothers-parents-innocent-124/

This may be worthy of an add.

"In a telephone interview with Russia Today the mother of the two suspects claims they are innocent. She believes they were "set up" by the FBI. If she could talk to her son Dzhokhar, she would tell him "Save your life and tell the truth, that you haven’t done anything, that this is a set up!" (ref from above)

Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It would probably work if taken in the context of what happened in the Chechen Wars (IE a lot of questions are out there about whether or not the Russian govt. used a false flag attack to kick off the second war). It would explain why a lot of the family thinks its a set up. TheSyndromeOfaDown (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like original research to go that far. Not sure the mother saying her boys are innocent is notable by itself, most moms would do the same. You see that with any crime. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Not any crime. Luka Magnotta's mom refused to comment to the media. Adam Lanza's mom probably thought he did it. This guy's mom turned him in. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:39, April 21, 2013 (UTC)

Rename Boston Marathon bombings to 2013 Boston-Cambridge attacks

The new title makes the most sense because there were attacks carried out by the perpetrators both in Boston and Cambridge. The shooting at MIT should be included in the title because that attack led to the deaths of two people (1 police officer, 1 suspect); as well as the fact that the third attack helped initiate one of the BIGGEST MANHUNTS IN US HISTORY, and essentially the LOCKDOWN of the entire city of Boston. Due to these facts; the new title would be most logical. I'm open to any input on this subject, and the initiation of the new title. (Undescribed (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC))

• It seems like a logical title for the event; however, it is not a title used in reliable sources. Unless reliable sources stop calling it the Boston Marathon bombings, we should retain this current title. Ryan Vesey 16:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter what reliable sources are calling it; the most likely reason why media doesn't use the new title is because the events occurred several days apart. However; it IS the most logical title. (Undescribed (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC))
    • Au contraire, it does matter what reliable sources are calling it. We're not here to fabricate our own article titles, we depend on reliable sources and common names. And please stop shouting. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

[19], and no to the rename proposal.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

They didn't purposely "attack" innocents in the Cambridge area - it was a result of the manhunt once they were ID'd as the bombing suspects. Yes, the MIT officer died. All the effects are from the marathon finish line bombing. --MASEM (t) 16:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I for one would Oppose the move per WP:COMMONNAME - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The manhunt was caused because of the Boston bombings, if there was no bombings the manhunt/shooting wouldn't have happened. JayJay^{What did I do?} 16:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• The Rambling Man: I'm not shouting, caps locks is for emphasis; if the new title isn't suitable; I suggest a new "broader" article title which encompasses the cambridge incident. (Undescribed (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC))
  • It's shouting. Don't do it. You can create any article you like, this is a wiki. Whether or not it's suitable is an entirely different discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• I'm staying out of this discussion due to the obviousness of the outcome, but I did remove the <BIG> tags without changing the wording, as a clerking thing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose The Cambridge shooting was a result of the manhunt and as said above, that is not the term the media is using.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 17:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. It's up to whoever suggests a title change to show that the proposed title is commonly used in the media - in fact, more used than the current Wikipedia title. Instead, this is being proposed because one editor thinks it "makes the most sense". That's not the Wikipedia standard for article naming. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral Strong Oppose - How about rename to Boston Terror Attacks by Disgruntled Chechen-Americans? Cheers? --Rangeblock victim (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The bombings occurred at and during the Boston Marathon, not some random time and location, one of the bombs going off at the finish line no less. Everything else is secondary and a result of this event. Without the bombings there would have been no lockdown in Boston, no full scale manhunt, no shooting, no national outrage, etc, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - We call it what the majority of the sources call it, which for now is the Boston Marathon bombings. Shadowjams (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Please retrace the MIT Police Department logo image

Grainy MIT PD GIF file that needs to be retraced

I did not make the uploaded logo click here appear on the article because it is grainy and ugly. Can someone with Photoshop/Illustrator skills retrace? Thanks. Cheeeers. --Rangeblock victim (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

What's the PD claim here? There's certainly no statement of being in the PD from their website. Retracing it will create a derivative non-free work from a non-free work, and it would not be appropriate to include here. --MASEM (t) 17:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

You could email them and see if they will release one under a free licence for us.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Name of spouse

Another editor undid my edit: [20]

I wanted to add reference to Katherine Russell because the information will help to understand the life of the elder bomber and maybe what caused him to become unhinged: Wife (photos) of Tamerlan Tsarnev Boston Bomber Converted to Islam; 'Our Hearts Are Sickened', Says Her Family

Since he said he had no American friends, information about his wife if notable, because presumably she is an exception to this claim. --Rangeblock victim (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I highly doubt enstarz.com is a reliable source that can be used for this article. Hot Stop (Talk) 18:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it seems to be 'former spouse'. Please read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, with particular regard to WP:BLP1E, WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME. And yes, we'd need a better source for that for her name if we were to include it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I found a better source with same info and photos:

• dailymail.co.uk

Cheers. --Rangeblock victim (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is generally considered to be a questionable source for items of any significance. In any case, as I have already pointed out, WP:BLP policy would seem to preclude naming the spouse. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Tamerlan's YouTube account

Should the detail that Tamerlan had been watching radical Islamist material on YouTube be included in the article? Trichinosis (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: It is not being proposed that this should be cited as an "explanation of motivation". The proposal is that this detail is cited when describing the suspect's profile.Trichinosis (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Support - This detail is reliably sourced to the Telegraph - among many other sources - and is informative about the bomber's possible motivations and habits. Trichinosis (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: One of the suspects is in custody. That means there is a large chance we'll end up knowing the motive. Speculation—whether reliably sourced or not—is not needed. Ignatzmice•talk 19:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support as long as its reliably sourced. JOJ ^Hutton 20:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose He likely watched a variety of YouTubes. Many of us have watched YouTubes showing extremist views for one reason or another. This is too much of a leap at this point to add to the article as an "explanation of his motivation." Edison (talk) 23:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support this has been discussed in reliable sources, so we should add it. Hot Stop (Talk) 04:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• This is a clear coatrack attempt to speculatively and prematurely introduce an alleged motivation for the attacks when we have absolutely no reliable information about their motivation. Lots of people have watched YouTube videos related to terrorism. I personally have watched a number of videos of Syrian resistance fighters in action, some of whom are Islamist. Does this mean that I, a gay atheist Californian, am an Islamist terrorist? The bare fact that someone watched YouTube videos cannot, at this time, be said to have anything to do with the attacks. The motivation for the attacks may well be Islamist. Or it may be Chechen nationalist. Or it may be insane revenge fantasies. We do not know and there are no reliable sources reporting that law enforcement officials have determined any motive. Wikipedia does not need to be first, it needs to be right. Connecting these horrible attacks with any ideology at this point is premature. polarscribe (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is asserting that this proves the motivation of the bombers. That, I agree would be premature. However, this fact can be presented, along with Tamerlan's other habits, without any suggestion that this was the bomber's motivation. [ip address redacted], edit was by Trichinosis (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

What is your source for the claim that this was a "habit"?

Wikipedia is not a random collection of facts, and there is no evidence to suggest that the "fact" that his YouTube channel (not even proven to be his, though it's likely) has a page for videos on "Terrorism" has anything to do with the case.

Whereas it is more than evident that the intent of those who wish to include this fact are attempting to connect the suspect with Islamism through the flimsiest of speculative "evidence." polarscribe (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

So you consider his boxing hobby more informative than his watching of radical Islamist preachers? Trichinosis (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

You're right, it's probably irrelevant. So if you wish to take the boxing hobby section out, I won't stop you. polarscribe (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

You state that we have no reliable sourcing "reporting that law enforcement officials have determined any motive.". This is a straw man. We do have sources that report this fact without alleging categorical proof of the bomber's motivations. What context do you think the cited source presents it in, and why isn't this context appropriate for the article? Trichinosis (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Your status as a gay atheist Californian is a pretty good defense against being accused of Islamic terrorism, and there is no history or ideology of gay atheist terrorism. There is a large history of Islamic terrorism so when a Muslim commits a terrorist act against western civilians, people connect the dots. I do favor not stating motive here until sources become more clear, but I oppose removing sourced material on the suspects religion and ideology.Legacypac (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Watching YouTube videos does not establish agreement with the ideologies expressed in those YouTube videos, and any implication that it does is improper. "Connecting the dots" is original research, which we are prohibited from doing. Until it is clearly established in reliable, published sources that the ideologies expressed in those videos are related to the motivation behind the attacks, it does not belong in this article. polarscribe (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:53, April 21, 2013 (UTC)

Propose category Category:Terrorist incidents by Chechens

AndyGrump deleted my category, stating that "no conviction yet", but I would like to add this in the future. Since there are other terror incidents by Chechens, e.g. Moscow theater hostage crisis, we should add a category. One question I have is, is a conviction really needed? Once the investigation is done (which it isn't), isn't a dead suspect good enough? Cheers. --Rangeblock victim (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Are there similar categories for other nationalities? Do we have a Category:Terrorist incidents by Americans? Category:Terrorist incidents by Saudis? It doesn't appear that way - probably because categorizing terrorist attacks by the nationality of their perpetrator makes little sense. The Oklahoma City bombing and the Unabomber were both committed by Americans, but that really doesn't tell us anything about the two attacks - their perpetrators had literally nothing else in common.

Besides, the one suspect in custody is an American citizen - so this would have to go in that hypothetical "Americans" category as well. polarscribe (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

You need to explain the need for this category. I can see none. TFD (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

We do not assign categories based on what a contributor 'would like'. Do you have a source stating that a Chechen has been convicted of terrorism in regard to this act? Clearly not... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Linking this to the Moscow theater hostage crisis or the School Attack is premature. There is no proof or reliable sources that say this had anything to do with them being Chechen or that there is any link to the groups that carried out those attacks. We don't know what motivated them. TheSyndromeOfaDown (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Umm, no. Crimes according to ethnicity categories is a horrible idea. This may change of course if it becomes an issue of nationality (link to separatists) instead of merely ethnicity as it currently stands. --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

We don't need to categorize every terroristic event categorized by ethnicity. JayJay^{What did I do?} 21:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Second that, and in fact, it would be wrong to try to do so. Clearly there is still an ongoing controversy as to the accuracy or usefulness of ethnic categorization as a predictor of violence or "terrorism" (which itself is a problematic term). Unless there are reliable sources that ethnicity truly was a significant factor in why or how an event occurred (other than simply that an alleged perpetrator's ethnicity is reported), it seems to me that reflexively categorizing articles like this is OR, if not bigoted. Steveozone (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The Chechen ethnicity of the brothers seems to be coincidental, as it would appear to that they attacks are unrelated to Chechen nationalism. Also, the younger brother was a naturalized citizen of the United States, so he's an American. Asarelah (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Do they have citizenship in countries other than America? Wouldn't that count in terms of nationality-categorization? -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not really relevant. They are not convicted terrorists, so placing this article in such a category would be Original Research and also a BLP violation. CodeCat

(talk) 02:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It would only be OR if there were no sources with this info. I meant if there sources. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I Oppose the proposed category. I'll add in response to Erroneuz1 that if on or both were/are Russian (and this is very unclear) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_nationality_law applies. Legacypac (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. 1) Even if the category already existed, the suspects' terrorism is still alleged. They have not been convicted of any crime, so they would not fit the category. 2) The suspects are American, not Chechen, unless dual citizenship can be documented. --Crunch (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The dead suspect is Chechen (U.S. green card holder). The alive suspect is at least an American, and we don't know if he kept his Russian/Chechen passport (need a source). --Rangeblock victim (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Somebody deleted intermediate edits:

Can some please explain the deletion of history? Did somebody mess up the logs? Cheers! --Rangeblock victim (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• (cur | prev) 19:28, 20 April 2013‎ Polarscribe (talk | contribs)‎ . . (119,177 bytes) (+338)‎ . . (→‎Propose category Category:Terrorist incidents by Chechens)
• (cur | prev) 19:23, 20 April 2013‎ Polarscribe (talk | contribs)‎ . . (118,839 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎Propose category Category:Terrorist incidents by Chechens: Eh...)
• (cur | prev) 19:22, 20 April 2013‎ Polarscribe (talk | contribs)‎ . . (118,839 bytes) (+391)‎ . . (→‎Propose category Category:Terrorist incidents by Chechens: Eh...)
• (cur | prev) 19:20, 20 April 2013‎ Rangeblock victim (talk | contribs)‎ . . (118,448 bytes) (-9)‎ . . (→‎Propose category Creating Category:Terrorist incidents by Chechens: typo)
• (cur | prev) 19:19, 20 April 2013‎ Rangeblock victim (talk | contribs)‎ . . (118,457 bytes) (+566)‎ . . (→‎Propose category Creating Category:Terrorist incidents by Chechens: new section)
• (cur | prev) 19:07, 20 April 2013‎ Polarscribe (talk | contribs)‎ . . (117,891 bytes) (+209)‎ . . (→‎Threaded discussion: You're right, irrelevant, so take it out if you want.)
• (cur | prev) 19:07, 20 April 2013‎ Rangeblock victim (talk | contribs)‎ . . (117,682 bytes) (+29)‎ . . (→‎Rename Boston Marathon bombings to 2013 Boston-Cambridge attacks: Neutral Strong Oppose)
• (cur | prev) 19:05, 20 April 2013‎ Trichinosis (talk | contribs)‎ . . (117,653 bytes) (+655)‎ . . (→‎Threaded discussion)
• (cur | prev) 19:03, 20 April 2013‎ Polarscribe (talk | contribs)‎ . . (116,998 bytes) (+457)‎ . . (→‎Threaded discussion)
• (cur | prev) 19:00, 20 April 2013‎ Polarscribe (talk | contribs)‎ . . (116,541 bytes) (+155)‎ . . (→‎Threaded discussion)
• (cur | prev) 18:59, 20 April 2013‎ Shadowjams (talk | contribs)‎ . . (116,386 bytes) (+207)‎ . . (→‎Rename Boston Marathon bombings to 2013 Boston-Cambridge attacks: opp)
• (cur | prev) 18:59, 20 April 2013‎ (Username or IP removed)‎ . . (116,179 bytes) (+358)‎ . . (→‎Threaded discussion)

Looks like Trichinosis inadvertently edited while logged out and wanted the IP redacted. polarscribe (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing something like that happened, although a brief explanation would be nice. I don't remember if it's possible to distinguish between revdel and suppression by looking at the history page like that. Shadowjams (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Yup, that's what happened. Sorry for the inconvenience. Trichinosis (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

No big deal. Happens to everybody from time to time. Shadowjams (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Patience is a virtue.

KRON 4 have been nice enough to release some of their footage as stills, and upload them to flickr under a creative commons licence. There are 53 stills in the set here, and I have uploaded 4 of them to the commons. commons:category:Boston Marathon explosions (045 looks best).

Whomever replaces the current infobox picture (as I know some of you are itching to do) could you please put the current info box picture elsewhere in the article.Martin451 (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Pic 19 shows the first bomb exploding, pic 28 is unclear but probably the second from the reactions, and the other 4 show the second bomb.Martin451 (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

File:KRON 4 Coverage of the Boston Marathon Bombings045.jpg

Martin451 (talk) 09:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

I'm strapped on time at the moment but can someone add a tidbit to the post-arrest section that human rights groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union are criticising law enforcement regarding Dzhokhar and his miranda rights?source Thanks, — -dainomite   22:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Terrorist incidents in the United States

Considering all of the other U.S. terrorist incidents in the Terrorist incidents in the United States category, I'm really failing to see why this shouldn't be in it too. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It is already in the subcategory 'Terrorist incidents in the United States in 2013'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

That subcat is not in the 'Terrorist incidents in the United States' category. And again, numerous other terrorist incidents that occurred in the U.S. seem to make the cut for "Terrorist incidents in the United States." The 1993 World Trade Center bombing makes it. Centennial Olympic Park bombing makes it. Why not Boston? -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Category tree:
• Category:Terrorist incidents in the United States

• Category:Terrorist incidents in the United States by year

• Category:Terrorist incidents in the United States in 2013.

• Feel free to move other articles to their respective "by year" category. AuburnPilot (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

There's some flawed logic here. If I want to see one category that lists all these incidents at the same time, how do I do that? Are you really suggesting that someone browsing this website should participate in the truly inefficient process of clicking each and every year to find an attack they're looking for, instead of viewing them all on one page? Should we be using "Improvised explosive device bombings in Massachusetts" and not "Improvised explosive device bombings in the United States"? What about "2013 Murders in Massachusetts" instead of "2013 Murders in the United States" ?-- Erroneuz1 (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categorization explains how categories work. I'm sorry you don't find Wikipedia's category system to be efficient, but that's how it works. If you wish to suggest a change to this process, Wikipedia talk:Categorization would be the place to start such a discussion. Terrorism in the United States serves as a list of all such incidents. AuburnPilot (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Then why is the Terrorism in the United States category not applicable? And you didn't address my other 2 questions. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It's already in that category, as was explained above, by virtue of being in a subcategory. If you wish to see all terrorist attacks of the history of the world on one page, you would need a very large page, which is why they are subcategorized in certain ways, including by year. There is no category for 2013 murders in Massachusetts because, presumably, there aren't enough such murders in Wikipedia articles to populate such a category. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

This about the history of the U.S., not the world, but I fail to see why how large it would be in theory is in issue. There are many categories on this website that consist of hundreds and hundreds of articles. This article is in the "Terrorist incidents in Massachusetts" category, and is the only only article to populate it. It's also 1 of 2 articles in "Terrorist incidents in the United States in 2013." Therefore, this all appears to very subjective, and still not a good enough reason for this article not to be in "Terrorist incidents in the United States" along with 1993 World Trade Center bombing and Centennial Olympic Park bombing, and 9/11. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 02:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

not muslims

unless belief and practice are different things. younger brother definitely not muslim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.141.164 (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Disregard

Respond in section below.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

younger boy still not muslim

unless belief and practice are different things. younger brother definitely not muslim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.141.164 (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/04/who-is-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-boston/64382/

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/04/who-is-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-boston/64382/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.141.164 (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The article quotes another Muslim that states that the subject didn't follow Islam. Do you have a source that quotes the subject as not being Muslim?

File:BostonSuspect2.jpg & File:BostonSuspect1.jpg

File:BostonSuspect1.jpg and File:BostonSuspect2.jpg have been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

They haven't been nominated, but correctly tagged that they are questionably not PD and should be treated as non-free. --MASEM (t) 00:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Bombs

I propose the following edits (primarily based on the idea that WP:NOT a bomb making manual):

• Change "The bombs, at least one of which was a pressure cooker bomb, had been placed near" to "The bombs had been placed near"
• Delete all of "The bombs were improvised explosive devices (IEDs) ... the other device was housed in a metal container of unclear construction."
• Change 'At least one of the devices was reportedly ... chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said "most likely gun powder was used in the devices".' to:

Investigators found shrapnel that included bits of metal, nails, and ball bearings, and black nylon pieces from a backpack. The lid of a pressure cooker was found on a nearby rooftop. Investigators also found remains of an electronic circuit board and wiring; possibly used as a timer of the bomb. Rep. Mike McCaul said "most likely, gunpowder was used in the devices". All evidence was sent to the FBI Laboratory for analysis. The improvised explosive devices are reported to be Fagor pressure cooker bombs.

There's a third bomb, but I don't know much about it beyond [21]. I'm also pretty certain it doesn't need to be repeated that Mike McCaul is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, since his Wikipedia entry says exactly that in the second sentence, but feel free to ignore that change if there's some guideline for it. --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Disagree — Specifying what type of bomb the bomb was is not a manual any more than the M18 Claymore mine article is. This should take care of your first two points. As for the third, specifying what type of explosive was used is no more instructive than telling readers what octol is made from and how it's used. -- Veggies (talk) 01:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • No, I still specify the type of bomb, and the components, it's just changing the wording from "X was contained in Y was contained in Z" to "components X,Y,Z were found in the wreckage." There's no photographic evidence as to how the bomb was actually constructed, so until there's a reliable source beyond the Al-Queda bomb manual (I expect said reliable sources(s) to appear once the lab finishes its analysis), specifying such details seems like a waste of space. Mostly it's just consolidating information - the article is pretty long as it is, it doesn't need to be padded. If you go through the diff it's just moving stuff around. --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

    Mathnerd314159, is there a reason why you don't edit the article yourself? Indications are that you ought to be able. My76Strat (talk) 03:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

    I was just doing so, the refs have changed slightly so I'm updating them. --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• • Just a comment here, but I am an expert on this stuff, and what they were using was old fashion chinese gunpowder/propellant. It has been around for 1,500 years. Charcoal, Sulfur, and Potassium Nitrate. Black Powder. This was the most INeffective bomb you could make. You could mention that the huge white cloud afterwards was a dead giveaway of 'black powder'. You could also mention that if they used modern gunpowder, they could have done a 'great deal' more damage, almost as much as using RDX or PETN based explosives. Msjayhawk (talk) 03:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
    • We won't 'mention' anything of the sort without a published reliable source that says so. See WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Andy, just a post for the record. They used "black powder" at the marathon. No matter how much the FBI and such wish to use "Explosive" in the description, none have been found yet. Gunpowder or smokeless powder in a container can make an explosive device, but without true "high explosives". These are just burning propellants that create too much pressure for their container and blow up. Hence a pressure cooker as a simple pressure container for "Black Powder".. Msjayhawk (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
        • You may well be right. It is however irrelevant without a published reliable source. We don't base articles on contributor's own knowledge. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
        • P.S. If you are sure that gunpowder/black powder isn't an explosive, you should probably inform the ATF that they've got it wrong: [22]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Here are several reliable sources that mention the use of “a black powder” and/or “gunpowder”. --Nowa (talk) 12:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• [23]

• [24]

• [25]

Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune may be "reliable sources", but that does not change the fact those reports were either speculation by people who had not seen evidence in this case, or third-hand hear-say by someone claiming an investigator spoke to them, or speculation based on previous bombings. In other words what it could be, not what Boston bombing evidence (now at FBI Lab at Quantico) had shown. A reliable source repeating speculation does not change that it is speculation and not established fact. ---Naaman Brown (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Canadian fast-tracking

An anti-terrorism bill in Canada might be fast-tracked as a result of all this--the linked article says "presumably" (which wasn't reflected in the text in our article); in other words, it's all speculation. Besides, I don't see any relevance to this at all. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is speculation. The government has stated they wish to fast-track it and they need the speaker's permission. The opposition should try to block the fast-track as it messes up their agenda for those days. Whether it will be fast-tracked is speculation but the reigning power stating they wish to fast-track it is not. Does this make sense?--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It's funny--Legacypac has again put this stuff in the article, but he can't of course say what the connection with this subject is, because no connection is drawn in the article linked: all it says is "presumably". Canoe, read the article--all it has to offer is a "presumably" and a "seems". But seriously, this ought to be in the article on the bombings? A terrorist attack, people died, a car chase with bombs, another person died, part of a city was locked down, a suspect was caught--and Canada might fast-track a bit of legislation. That's just terrible editing, never mind the bare URL and the edit summary which makes a false suggestion of talk page consensus. And never mind that the text actually says nothing about why it should be in the article. Par for the course. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I thought "presumably" referred to the bill being fast-tracked. It probably is political crap to mess up the oppostion with a new Trudeau close to power. Normally Canada doesn't fast track bills unless they are needed NOW!. Do we have a large event coming up in Canada that we need this bill for or is it the government trying to slow-track the opposition plan for those days of sitting? --Canoe1967 (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

That's funny. We seem to have seen precisely this behaviour before. Can some of the excited editors here please slow down. We have no deadline!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Better that we create a great article rather than create a crappy one quickly.

And as for Canada, I can guarantee you all that the real reason for politicians anywhere to want to do this is to please paranoid voters, and they will do all in their power to make more of them paranoid. HiLo48 (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

HiLo, you're preaching to the choir. When the newness has worn off, we'll go back and comb this trivial stuff out of the article. Drmies (talk) 02:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I should stop looking at this for now. It's only annoying me. I'll come back in a couple of weeks. HiLo48 (talk) 07:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The Canadian government choosing the day of the largest manhunt in US history for a domestic terrorist suspect to say they are fast-tracking the anti-terrorist bill that has been sitting around in committee for a while? Even if there is a 2nd motive to frustrate the Liberals (agreed it is a nice side benefit for the government), the timing is clearly in response to Boston Bombing. S-7 restores portions of Canada's version of the PATRIOT Act plus creates new crimes for traveling to support or train with terror groups. Maybe someone next argue the PATRIOT Act was not a response to 9-11? Since we are here to work on articles and not attack other editors, I'll leave it at that. Legacypac (talk) 02:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

And there you go again. You saying "the timing is clearly in response to Boston Bombing" is pure OR. Your opinion counts for NOTHING here. SLOW DOWN!!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Careful - I'm not doing OR, just summing up sources. Very highly regarded Macleans (first video) The Globe and Mail (national newspaper) says the fast track is in response to Justin's comments about the Boston Bombing plus the CBC already referenced. Also the only obvious direct reaction to my mention of this development on the talk page was a positive comment in this section. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boston_Marathon_bombings#International_reactions_to_attacks though maybe some people were negative, that must be inferred. Hence my ref to talk. If you really want to remove it, and weaken the article, whatever. It's a Canadian thing and we all know Canada is just the gray area on the map above the USA :) Legacypac (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Even your reference to the talk page was OR. Canoe's comment may confirm that the Canadian government indeed blah blah, but they didn't say a thing about what your text said or the relevance to the article. Next time you "refer to talk", maybe that's where you should go to defend your edit. I did my part: I reverted and discussed. Or you can claim IAR again. Either way, of what lasting value is a change in the schedule of a foreign government? Answer: none. It's not new legislation, nothing changes but the time scheme--for whatever reason. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is a good read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility When I cite Wikipolicy I was told IAR by an admin. When I agree IAR is being followed, other policies are rolled out. I do good faith edits, and I'm personally attacked and ridiculed for them (like restoring the word Suspects to the article). And I never suggested IAR here. Gotta love Wikiality where there is a policy to justify every position including ignoring every policy, and bullies can ignore all common sense to exclude important info.Legacypac (talk) 03:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

May 24 is our first long weekend of the summer season of travelling. I can see a point that our suits may have concern about passing the bill and training forces before then. Since we are not on deadline then there is no rush until they actually state that the bombing is the reason to speedy the bill.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I've just removed the following quoted text and citation from the International Reaction section to reduce controversy but am saving it here for possible future use. On Monday and Tuesday I expect lots of sources will support a direct link to Boston events. On Friday Boston so dominated the news that little else was published. "On April 19 the Canadian Government rearranged the Parliamentary agenda to bring Bill S-7, the Combating Terrorism Act, forward for debate and a vote on April 22 and 23. The proposed Act introduces new powers for police and courts related to suspected terrorists and creates newly defined crimes including traveling outside Canada to join or be trained by terrorist organisations." Legacypac (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone find a source for vehicular manslaughter charge for killing his brother?

This would be ironic and interesting. I am going to keep an eye out for a source. Sources that state he killed his brother:

• [26]
• [27]

Cheers. --Rangeblock victim (talk) 02:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

"..police chief Edward Devau told CNN.." It seems reliable enough.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

That can't/won't happen unless the ME concludes that being run over was the proximate cause. More likely is a charge of felony homicide - any death occurring during the commission or furtherance of a felony allows the actor to be charged w/ same. Irish Melkite (talk) 04:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Post-Arrest

"Law enforcement were alerted by an interview that ABC News’s Anthony Johnson conducted with Tsarnaeva when it was broadcast at 8am EST that morning.[122]" - The intent of this sentence is to suggest that LE became aware of the sister as a result of the interview. That's not at all clear from the wording and the sequence of sentences. (The sentence prior to it discusses the seizure of computers, etc, from the sister's home.)

I'd suggest something along the lines of 'Anthony Johnson, ABC News, conducted an interview with Alina Tsarnaeva, a sister of the accused suspects, at 8am EST on (date) at her apartment in West New York, New Jersey. Alerted to her location by broadcast of the interview, the FBI, West New York (NJ) Police Department, and Hudson County Sheriff’s Department subsequently seized computer equipment from her apartment.' Irish Melkite (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Decided to be bold and do it. Irish Melkite (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Actual Chain of Events On Map

I'm seeing a lot of edits related to the chain of events. With all the reporting and updates, it is pretty confusing for editors to sort out. Also, for editors not intimately familiar with Metro Boston, the locations may be hard to understand. I found this map from Canada's National Post super helpful Not suggesting it go in the article, but helpful for editors to look at before changing the sequence of events in the article. Legacypac (talk) 04:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a good idea, let me try to recreate it with open tools. --MASEM (t) 04:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• That would be AWESOME. Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 07:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Masem, the National Post map shows that map rotated -90 degrees from its canonical orientation, such that north is on the left. If you create something similar, please use the orientation shown in Google Maps, OpenStreetMaps, etc. such that north is on top. I second that create a map showing the chain of events would be an awesome idea. Thanks, Emw (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm trying to get an OSM map to start from with the right (north to top) orientation, but OSM is apparently having server problems. I also want to get an inset piece to show the box relative to the larger state. But yea, I will be doing it w/ rotation. --MASEM (t) 16:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Lead Issues

So much piecemeal editing (and piecemeal news reports) had the events in the lead out of order and confusing. I just rewrote it. A little longer but hopefully now in chronological and logical order. Legacypac (talk) 06:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

And than NucularWarfare did an awesome job of tightening it up. Thanks Legacypac (talk) 07:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

a citizen in a trailered boat

Could someone with the ability to edit this article fix this sentence? 80.174.78.102 (talk) 08:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I fixed it up. Shorter and no spelling error now.Legacypac (talk) 09:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Proof?

1. In the section "Manhunt and capture", it says: "...the suspects inflicted multiple gunshot wounds on Sean Collier, 26, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology Police Department officer...". However, the linked source doesn't say that Collier was killed by one of the Dzhokhar Brothers, and I haven't yet found any source that provided proof for that.

2. This also raises the question of what proof there is against the Dzhokhar brothers regarding the bombing. All we have so far is a very blurry video, which basically proves nothing, and that "The FBI said that one of the suspects was seen placing a backpack at the bombing scene minutes before the second bomb exploded", which doesn't prove anything either. So, is there any REAL proof yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.33.34 (talk) 09:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE, WP:REDFLAG etc. The article is limited to summarizing what reliable sources say.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)}

Again, shouldn't Reaction be before Investigation?

I'd asked this before, but Miszabot buried it almost instantly. These reactions are to the bombing only, which occured before the investigation. Chronological order seems the way to go. If not, why not? InedibleHulk (talk) 11:17, April 21, 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so, and I don't think it's commonly accepted practice to organise our contents exclusively (or even primarily) chronologically. The investigation is more pertinent to the "facts" of the case than is the reaction. Twenty years now, what the public will most remember is what motivated these people to do what they did, and how they carried out the attack, not what hockey games were cancelled or what Vladimir Putin had to say. It is more important, and so should come first, in my opinion. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Reactions to these events are reactions that have no immediate consequences and about the event as a whole. Any "reaction" that would have critically influenced the timeline of events (say, calling the FBI's released of the surv photos as a "reaction") should be part of the event's timeline and not considered a reaction. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Also, in the Reporting mistakes section, please change "Col Allan reported" to "Col Allan stated" (or "said" or something). His statement is not a report. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:23, April 21, 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Cyrillic versions of names

Can we please not do this? They were/are U.S. residents/citizens, and their official names are those on their residency/citizenship papers, written in the Latin alphabet. Cyrillic transliteration is trivial in either direction, and does not add anything to the article while cluttering up an already complex article with further unnecessary complexity. -- The Anome (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Worldwide interest, reporters in Russia investigating, Russian citizen(s), birth certs, passports, school records, immigration records and more in Cyrillic. Why is English the only important language? Legacypac (talk) 12:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It isn't. We have links to articles in the Russian-language Wikipedia, not only in this article, but also in the article about the two brothers, which also, with considerably more justification, contains the Cyrillic versions of their names. -- The Anome (talk) 12:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Not that it matters to policy, but one of the reasons I visited the article last night was to check the Cyrillic spelling and ascertain the correct pronunciation of Dzhokhar. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I know that no detail is too small to argue about on Wikipedia, but why are you opposed to the Cyrillic version of their names? We regularly do this for people who have names in different scripts; look at every Chinese politician article. That includes immigrants that identify somewhat with that name. If you want to argue against this (again, why) then you need to do it on the basis of that... whether or not the Cyrillic version is fairly associated with them. You could probably spell my name in Cyrillic but I don't have any association with that script, so that wouldn't be appropriate. For someone from there though, it might be. That's the question. But this vague "they're residents so no" argument doesn't hold any water. Shadowjams (talk) 12:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Remember that we're a tertiary source, and respelling immigrants' names in their native script is not something secondary sources do. Just because ITSUSEFUL doesn't mean it belongs here. It could be seen as an example of original synthesis as well: although Russian-language sources use the given spellings (and they could be cited), we're making an original connection by assuming the Cyrillic spellings are somehow warranted just because they're Russian immigrants. —Designate (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I would expect the Russian article to be all in Cyrillic script with the English version of the names noted in English. How is this original synthesis when the names are just a fact not a conclusion? Based on how long they lived abroad vs US they used their Cyrillic names longer than the (obviously translated) English names. Also I believe from watching edits and talk page at the time that the names were sourced, not created by an editor and that there were efforts to get them right before inserting. Maybe the sourcing has been removed now but it was there and could be replaced. You can check the archived talk page and change logs if you don't trust my memory.Legacypac (talk) 13:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed them so many times myself. --Niemti (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Stupid claims of the "first domestic terrorist attack in 2001" or what not

Nope, for example Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting, or Casa Grande bombing that same year (last year). --Niemti (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, though it's probably not best to call the claims "stupid," since the sources reporting that are no doubt aware of those incidents. Postscript: there was also the 2010 Austin suicide attack, which everyone seems to have forgotten about for one reason or another. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The phrase in the section heading doesn't occur in the article right now, and I don't immediately see where/if it was removed. Could you maybe explain what exactly it is you're complaining about? (and 2001? do you mean 2010s?) Shadowjams (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed it with this edit. I assume xe meant "since 2001" rather than "in 2001." Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah ok, thanks. Yeah, I agree, leave it out. Seems like recentism. Shadowjams (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

"grievous" injuries in first sentence under "injured" heading

Not NPOV. Serious, critical, these are more neutral. "Grievous" just screams irrational emotion. I actually agree with the term, but it's about NPOV, not what I or someone else thinks of it. 74.69.121.132 (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• I agree. While "grievous" has been used in multiple media reports, I agree that it is neither an accurate term nor reflective of a neutral point of view. --Crunch (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Crowdfunding: Asking for Help

Perhaps something towards the end of the article about the friends of victims starting crowdfunding campaigns for medical bills (such as Jeff Bauman's on 460k in 4 days). This is unlike anything I've seen and people around the world are donating and helping via platforms like gofundme. It's like a global community has appeared on the web and it would be a positive addition to the article. Eththegreat (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that describes this, you are welcome (or someone will help you) to add this to the article. We can't use the primary sources of funding, we need someone to write a report about them. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks Susan. As these crowdfunding campaigns have just started I won't rush the idea. I'll let it form in my brain over the next few days, see how the campaigns progress, and keep a lookout for reports to cite. Should I post my writings/reliable reports sourced in here first as the page is semi-protected? Assistance is appreciated :) cheers. Eththegreat (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Legitimate Questions That Must be Answered!!!

The following discussion 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.

---

Photos: 1) http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/freedom-press-not-free/2013/apr/18/men-backpacks-boston-marathon-private-contractors/ 2) http://www.infowars.com/contractors-at-boston-marathon-stood-near-bomb-left-before-detonation/ 3) http://www.naturalnews.com/039977_The_Craft_Boston_marathon_private_military_contractors.html 4) https://secure.flickr.com/photos/hahatango/sets/72157633252445135/

Who are these men? Who hired them and what was their function? Why did it appear that the FBI was fully aware of their presence, and in fact working with them, specifically with what looks like a bomb squad unit? Were these men specialists in explosives, and if so, what is the significance that at least two of them were spotted just meters from where the blast occurred?

What was the role of the FBI leading up to this event considering their history and methods? 5) http://rt.com/usa/fbi-terror-report-plot-365-899/ 6) http://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-warned-about-boston-bombing-suspect-2013-4 7) http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/boston-bombing-suspects-aunt-this-was-staged/

Cui bono? 8) https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130418/19421722759/former-policy-secretary-dhs-uses-boston-bombing-to-point-out-how-eff-aclu-are-wrong-about-surveillance-cispa.shtml 9) http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/17/sen-lautenberg-wants-background-checks-t — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.120.173.99 (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the article, not for performing original research: please see WP:OR for Wikipedia's policy on this. Please find another forum, if you want to discuss this. -- The Anome (talk)

Military Men Witnessed At Boston Bombing Identified As National Guard CST Teams. http://www.infowars.com/military-men-witnessed-at-boston-bombing-identified-as-national-guard-cst-teams/ http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/04/the-black-and-tan-men-at-the-boston-marathon-were-national-guard-civil-support-teams.html

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.

Please be careful in choosing media sources

I know someone will jump down my throat for this, but given the fact that the media is still making fairly horrible mistakes I think it would be in Wikipedia's best interest to exercise additional caution.

For example, Fox had Zooey Deschanel labelled as a suspect. CNN had a former CIA agent state that the younger brother was named after the first president of the Czech Islamic Republic. Reliable Sources aren't acting like Reliable Sources. Please be careful. TheSyndromeOfaDown (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I want to see a cite on the first one just for lulz. Shadowjams (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

For what it is worth, we would all benefit if the article was stubbed to two paragraphs and locked, with no edits permitted for a year. Apteva (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

A simple search easily finds plenty of source discussing the first issue [28] [29] [30] [31]. It was evidently a mistake with (semi?) automatic captioning software and still described the suspect as a 19 year old and a he, so I wouldn't say it's a significant mistake even if humorous. Nil Einne (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

details of injured removed?

Some time in the last couple of days the names and details of some of the injured were removed. Specifically there were two brothers who each lost a leg, a mother and a daughter who were both seriously injured, a man who lost both legs (and was depicted in a widely-publicized photo) and the relatives of Martin Richards. I'm not sure what the rationale for the deletion was, but I think that these details should be restored. The fact that multiple families suffered serious injuries to two or more family members is an unusual and important aspect of this tragedy. GabrielF (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

With 100+ injured, it would be inappropriate to name all them them and what they suffered; focusing only on a few would be discriminatory. --MASEM (t) 16:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with GabrielF that those details should be restored, for the reasons he cites. If reliable sources consider these details relevant enough to include in their reporting, then I think they're relevant enough to include in this article. The more reliable sources mention a specific detail of the injured, the more relevant. Emw (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Technical note

Main article causes Chrome OS browser to send "aw snap", indicating something is wrong with the page. Likely a Flash video or unsupported video format embedded in the page[s]. Many users of Chrome OS reporting error on Google Groups, including this author. I have been able to duplicate the error each and every time. Please check video links and feeds.

Frank T.

Edit request on 21 April 2013

External links

• Boston Marathon Bombing Rumors at Snopes

Based on your repeated refusal to use the Guardian template, I doubt you will add this link. I just want a record of how abysmal the oversight on this protected article has been. Refusing to include the FBI photos was the low point. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC) 184.78.81.245 (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)