Talk:Boston Marathon bombing/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Duplicate

Just a heads-up, someone else created another, much shorter article at 2013 Boston bombings. ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Already been redirected. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Deletion

This page shouldn't be deleted. Why was it even nominated? If it does get deleted who's to say another one will go up? This is something big, it might be huge now, but it's just as big as other pages similar to this one that have been up since whatever the subject may be happened. --Matt723star (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see any deletion attempt, but rest assured, deletion isn't going to happen. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that, when I wrote that there was a "nomination for deletion" notice on top of the article and I couldn't oppose it so wrote it here. --Matt723star (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

"Devices had a low flash point"

Should that be included in the article at this point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.111.114.96 (talk • contribs)

• No. The reference contains nothing on this point. 2001:4898:70:2:EDD3:1C92:6328:6062 (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Move protect

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.

---

Can a sysop please move protect for a while. This is out of control. Go Phightins! 21:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Bongwarrior and I appear to have hit it at the same time, he got there first with an indef, I got there afterwards with 1 week. Any admin is free to modify as they see fit, I just figured one week of semi and move protection was enough for now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Good. At this point, we just need an army of experienced editors to keep the crap tabloid stuff out until we can get the facts straight. Go Phightins! 21:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

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

NPOV

Considering an NPOV flag. Is two deaths really a "current disaster?" I think not. It's important to retain some perspective when tagging Wikipedia articles. If Wikipedia is to retain its reputation as a reliable source of neutral information, they we can't engage in hyperbole and exaggeration. With only two deaths, this is not a disaster. 166.147.121.155 (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• As of right now, it's now using the "current event" template. Grandmartin11 (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• There are 134 wounded. Many lost limbs in the blast. Is there a quantitative definition of "disaster" that doesn't include that kind of mass trauma? Acciavatti (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources for news

The Boston Globe is the newspaper to have the story, but as of 3:37pm April 15 2013 their web site is unreachable. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The site for WBZ, a Boston CBS news radio station, is also intermittently unreachable. http://boston.cbslocal.com/tag/wbz-news/ Edward Vielmetti (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Reuters is good [1] —Theopolisme (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Sean Hannity is regularly interrupting his regular radio show with live updates from Fox News. It's much faster than Web postings. A photographer caught the fireball emanating from one of the buildings near the finish line at the exact instant of one of the explosions, which I can see at http://www.foxnews.com. Any live talk radio show whose host is plugged into the news feeds is a good source as the story unfolds. 71.92.247.84 (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, http://mobile.boston.com/ is up. — tbc (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

News sources

• Boston Globe http://live.boston.com/Event/Live_blog_Explosion_in_Copley_Square
• Boston Globe twitter feed https://twitter.com/GlobeMetro
• Reuters http://live.reuters.com/Event/Boston_Marathon_Explosion
• CNN: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/15/us/boston-marathon-explosions
• BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-22160978

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

MSNBC

If you need any information MSNBC is reporting this live and they've shown a video of the initial explosion, and they've given pictures. --Matt723star (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

25 seconds

Is there a source for the two explosions being 25 seconds apart? I don't see it in the cited articles. -- Sethant (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

On ABC tv channel they have video of the two explosions that are 15 seconds apart. Dan653 (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bombings were 14 seconds apart. avion365 (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The Boston Globe has one of the best videos of the event. In that video you can clearly see the first explosion and distinctly hear the second. Going off of the timestamp on the video or simply timing the explosions yourself, the time between the two is exactly 13 seconds. 0:06 and 0:19 on the video (Same reference as above edit, but it is 13 seconds, not 14.) 99.18.46.29 (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Bombing?

So far, we know with certainty that there have been explosions, but do we know that they were bombs? Maybe transformers, gas leak, or something else? -- ke4roh (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

No, we don't, hence why we're going with "explosions". Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed the civilian attack infobox for now, because we have to source for it being a deliberate attack. Jeancey (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The Fox News "undetonated bomb" citation is pretty weak - I'd prefer to pull that until the report can be sourced better. Fox didn't cite its sources. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Not from Fox http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/explosions-boston-marathon-finish-line-18960342 . Maybe we could change the name? --Article editor (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

there's no source that mentions a "third undetonated bomb"! --77.7.29.172 (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

There's a report of 3 "suspicious" devices http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/04/live-updates-boston-marathon-explosion/ . --Article editor (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

2013 Boston Marathon redirects here

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.

---

Resolved

 – article has been created --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you think the race itself deserves details too? The race is a very notable event regardless. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The race will have its own article 2013 Boston Marathon. Rklawton (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not the point... Vaxine19 (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It's going to be hard add any of that info right now, with so many people editing. Jeancey (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

When the right amount of information comes out there should be a mention of the race, then proceed into the details of the explosions. --Matt723star (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I normally do the race articles but I'll hold off on this one for a while. It might make sense to incorporate this into 2013 Boston Marathon at a later date. However, there is no point moving this article around within the next couple of weeks I suppose. SFB 20:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

2013 Boston Marathon should have its own article if someone wants to create it. Ryan Vesey 20:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with SFB above. Wait a day or two and see how things go, then split the articles apart. This is all anyone will be thinking about for the moment. Ignatzmice•talk 20:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Every Boston Marathon is notable and has an article. There is no doubt that 2013 Boston Marathon is notable aside from the explosions and should have its own article. Ryan Vesey 20:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The marathon should have its own article of course, and there's no need to wait arbitrarily. I'm surprised the article didn't exist before. Shadowjams (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't think that each individual race was notable in if itself. Other than the winners, there is nothing inherently different from one year to the next. That said, it does appear that there is precedent for this race to have its own article, since there appears to have been articles for other years already existing. JOJ ^Hutton 21:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a World Marathon Major. It should not redirect.oknazevad (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

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

• As this has been resolved, I'm going to temporarily hat this for the convenience of tablet/mobile users. Feel free to revert/undo later if the discussion needs to continue. Replaced with proper archive templates. Stalwart111 02:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Please be careful about repeating breaking and dubiously sourced news here

Here's why it matters: User:Joe Decker/Breaking News Sources --j⚛e decker^talk 20:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not a race; try to get verification from multiple sources if possible and if it seems at all doubtful, just wait a bit for more information to show up. ProfessorTofty (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yup. specifically that NYpost article was early and doesn't match anything else. Protonk (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, this topic will be published in news sources for the next few days if not weeks, so we got plenty of time.

most people are only sayin 2 dead not 12 dead Pieniazek666 (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I note that the New York Post was cited with the report of 12 fatalities--I went to their cite to verify and that is what they were reporting. They certainly appear to be a dubious source. Thank you for editing it back to two fatalities. Of course there are many seriously injured and the number may rise. homebuilding

Needs info about who did it...

The article needs information about who is responsible for the attacks. Could someone add that, please? 203.118.187.238 (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It isn't known. In fact that is was a bomb is not yet confirmed. Rmhermen (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Certainly not. We have no idea, and even when we have an idea there will likely be a months-long investigation. Ignatzmice•talk 20:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Semi confirmed [[2]] Dan653 (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean, semi confirmed? This is clearly a deliberate attack, but despite the hallmarks of Al-Qaeda (near-simultaneous explosions), it's a little on the weak side, could just as easily be a disgruntled American with a bomb manual. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

We misidentified the Sandy Hook perpetrator. Let's not do that again. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 21:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Article formatting

I suggest we follow the same formatting as the 7 July 2005 London bombings. Rklawton (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

JFK library

If it's true the JFK library was bombed too, we'll need to move the article again. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

See this. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

We don't have confirmation that the JFK library was related, but sources aren't all confirming that JFK was unrelated. Ryan Vesey 20:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Dotnews is saying it was just a fire. can't link as it seems to be slow, no doubt the whole world trying to read a local paper is too much for it. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Fox News is reporting that the JFK is related, via the official city spokesman, but we need a published source for this before including. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Described as related and a incendiary device. Twobells (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

There might be a related "device" at the Mandarin Hotel. http://www.inquisitr.com/620142/boston-marathon-explosions-bombs-found-at-jfk-library-and-mandarin-hotel-breaking/ and http://www.latintimes.com/articles/2796/20130415/boston-marathon-explosions-more-incendiary-devices-discovered.htm Carmelator (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Fox is now reporting that the JFK incident may have been an unrelated fire. Rklawton (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I misheard because I was devoting my attention here as well, but I heard that the confirmation was that it was a fire, but there was no statement as to whether or not the fire was unrelated yet. Ryan Vesey 21:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

There's a JFK employee called Paul Yazbek that says it was 'definitely an explosion', according to the Boston Irish Reporter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.121.227.234 (talk) 02:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed as bombing - should be moved to "Boston Marathon bombing"

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.

---

...but I can't move it because the target page is protected. Per http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/04/live-updates-boston-marathon-explosion/: "A Federal law enforcement authority confirms to ABC News this was an intentional bombing, using small portable explosive devices." – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 20:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Various news sources are confirming intentional bombs, not mere explosions. I think a move to Boston Marathon bombing would be appropriate. An admin will need to do that because there's a redirect at that target. Shadowjams (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's just relax a little on the name, it's been moved a few times, we have a reasonably stable baseline article, we can argue the toss over the name in the forthcoming days. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I've read a few articles that say there is still an active bomb in the building. Support for move after the article stabilizes.--Dom497 (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Concur with above. Dan653 (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with Dom. Let the article stabilize first. Ryan Vesey 20:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It's already been done. Shadowjams (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

As predicted, more chaos. CALM DOWN EVERYONE. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It's the appropriate name, someone else already changed it. Everybody's perfectly calm. Shadowjams (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm calm, this event may be all interesting and that, but it's not a big deal really, although I imagine people in the USA aren't used to this kind of thing. It's all the article moving that just makes it more difficult to manage, particularly when the move is made badly. Which is why the article has now been protected from further moves. Because it's creating chaos. Obviously. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The name is not likely to change again, it's hardly "creating chaos" and the protection level is autoconfirmed only moves, so it's not move protected. The US comment is inappropriate. Anyway, we're beating a dead horse in this thread. Shadowjams (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I will assume that was just poor wording, as it is a big deal to more than just us Yanks. The Boston Marathon is an international event, for starters. "Big deal" being defined broader than just the death toll, as the psychological damage is typically more important than the head count in events like this. That is why it is so important we move cautiously, slowly, and only publish solidly sourced facts. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure it's shocking, but you "Yanks" don't seem bothered about bombs going off in Afghanistan or Iraq on a daily basis, at least that doesn't hit ITN. Such an outcry when a massive road traffic accident killed 52 people a few weeks ago, but not in the USA, so it wasn't that big a deal. If it's true that bombs were dropped into litter bins, then shame on the US security forces for not doing something about that. I've been used to no trashcans or no access to that sort of thing in big events for 20 years. What were they thinking? All that notwithstanding, I completely agree, we should go with caution here and not get too hyperbolic. Repeatedly moving the article is pointless, we need to focus on referenced content. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

That is not just offensive, but wholly unnecessary and not relevant to this talk page. You should know as well as anyone that this isn't a forum. Shadowjams (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Please don't go there TRM. I'm not here to give my opinions on events or editorialize about Americans, I'm here to help new users understand policy and to help people trying to edit the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This is bound to create hypersensitivity amongst certain groups. I read that half a million runners were there today, so this is something of a miracle that it was so easy to cause such mayhem but with such limited extents. It seems that the USA should be thankful this wasn't way worse. Anyway, I'm glad now we've got to a point where we can stop trying to score points by continually moving the article. Ditto, we should refrain from the desperate urge to place a culprit in the dock (see below) until we have the facts. This is Propagandapedia. Patience. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

From my experience at the Sandy Hook article, I just recommend that some of us experienced editors and admin put all emotion and opinions to the side and simply serve the flood of new editors that will be soon showing up, by patiently explaining policy, listening and helping. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

"The name is not likely to change again"..... Here we go again... this is now 2013 Boston Marathon bombings. Marvellous. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• I just move protected. This is why I don't edit the article, keeps me free to do what I need to do to direct traffic. I really don't care what it gets called eventually, but realistically, the media gets to decide and once they have an "official" name, then we can change it. For now, it just needs to stay in one place. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• There have not, to the best of my knowledge, been notable bombing incidents at previous years' Boston Marathons, so the "2013" should not be in the title. Just the plain Boston Marathon bombings seems to be he appropriate title. Edison (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

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

• Was moved early on, so I think this particular question was resoved. I'm going to temporarily hat this for the convenience of tablet/mobile users. Feel free to revert/undo later if the discussion needs to continue. Replaced with proper archive templates. Stalwart111 02:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Citation formatting

I attempted four times, twice being blocked by edit conflicts, to fix citation formats. Can someone else fix those in the lead section? Bearian (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Patience

Patience. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. There's going to be much bogus early information. Expect reports of suspicious devices that turn out to be harmless. Expect multiple sources of the same item that appear to be reports of different items. Cite only WP:RS reliable sources. Don't edit the article except for major events. --John Nagle (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Bust most of all, if you're an ip editor, stay away. 86.23.69.66 (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Exactly John. Anyone that wants to hear and see the latest rumours should consult CNN, Fox News or their favorite blog. We are not here to be timely and publish the latest buzz, only correct and neutral facts that have been confirmed by reliable sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed. This has become a real excuse for a hysteria festival. Everyone needs to calm down. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
    • This always happens, when something like this happens. We can't stop people. --Stryn (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
      • We sure can. We can prevent page moves easily. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Not a problem, several of us just went through managing the chaos recently at Sandy Hook. It just requires a few admin (added: and experienced users) to hang around and not edit the actual article, and just answer policy questions, etc. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• Sure, but let's all remember that's basically the most prescriptive of guidelines out there. Protonk (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I mess this up, I have spent maybe 10,000 hours on here but never edited once. Just wanted to thank you guys for being, once again, a place I can rely on to get current news that holds some standard of reliability and non-bias. Of course it can never be perfect, but no one can say you fine people don't try your best. Respect. Oh yes, I need to sign. I read people don't like those who don't. Uhm. 70.192.131.173 (talk) 02:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC) Me? Or David?

Suspect is Saudi national?

NY Post is reporting that the suspect is a Saudi national [3]. Is this sufficient RS for us to include it in the article? If so, somebody be bold and do so. Qworty (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

We need multiple independent sources. I'm still not sold on the JFK bombing—another site (down from traffic apparently) says otherwise. Ignatzmice•talk 21:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I doubt it. That same source is still quoting 12 dead whereas everywhere else is saying 2. I suggest we just wait. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The New York Post is a tabloid. Ryan Vesey 21:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. For short term news like this, we raise the bar a bit and need multiple sources. We don't need to be publishing information that will end up being retracted an hour later. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• The NY post barely rates as a source here. They've gotten pretty much everything they've printed wrong. Protonk (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• I added a note under the lead not to use that article as a sole source for anything. Maybe it'll slow things down, at least? ShaleZero (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• CBS also reporting Saudi National in custody: [4] Marcus Licinius Crassus (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

See below under Suspect. As of 7:31 PM Eastern time, National Public Radio is consistently reporting what other media have already reported: there is no suspect of ANY nationality in custody. — Yksin (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

(The exceptions of course being those lazy media types who are simply reporting the bunk the New York Post sent out several hours ago. I see that something called Hollywood Life is now repeating it too.) — Yksin (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

CNN is saying "Person of interest" who "is not under arrest" and that they are "completing a background investigation on the individual" citing there sources as the FBI. 108.172.115.8 (talk) 00:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The "Saudi national" story is being reported as untrue by the Boston Police, according to this story: [5]. I can't vouch for The Inquisitr as a source, though. 209.129.165.18 (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

BPD commissioner just repeated 3 times at the press conference "there is no suspect". Suspect info should prob be removed for now. FBI, Justice, ATF, and state and local PD were in attendance so I'd say that pretty definitive. 108.172.115.8 (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• CBS now reports Saudi in custody in relation to bombing. --Epeefleche (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

As noted before, Boston Police are saying that there is no suspect.  TheArguer  _{SAY HI!} 01:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed a statement that a citizen had seen a Saudi Arabian acting suspicious, had pursued and tackled him after the bomb went off and the Saudi was injured, and that police were questioning the Saudi at a hospital. The news source just said the police were questioning him, and that he was being cooperative. I feel it violates WP:BLP to single out this one person, out of likely hundreds being questioned, as a possible culprit. I recall innocent persons thus singled out after the Oklahoma City Bombing and a couple of other notable bombings on grounds of their ethnicity . There are nutjob websites which still claim that it was not the "white Christian McVeigh" who did the Oklahoma City bombing, but rather Arabs: [6]. Shouldn't we wait until someone is arrested, or at least labelled a "suspect," before pointing the finger at him in such a prominent forum as this? Edison (talk) 01:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Ryan Vesey 01:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The New York Post is a tabloid paper, and despite what its proponents would have you believe, no more reliable than the Star or Weekly World News. Rintdusts (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand the impulse to form up a posse of villagers with torches, pitchforks and bloodhounds to seek out and punish evildoers, but that is not the proper function of an encyclopedia.We should follow, not lead, the mainstream media. Edison (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Who was that directed towards or was it just a general comment? Ryan Vesey 02:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

General comment, rather than being a reply to any one contributor. Edison (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Costa Mesa, CA pipe bombs

Not sure if this is relevant, Early this morning in Costa Mesa, CA man blew himself up. The man was reported to made numerous pipe bombs, and was apparently linked to an Anti-Government online essay.[7]--Subman758 (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I would wait until a reliable source reports on a connection between the events. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Impact on Subway, Bus statations, airports

Police i think would be suspcious in Hotels, Trains stations & airports etc anywhere crowds congregate Lingust (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC) plz create a section Lingust (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Images

Are there any open source images available from the finish line itself (where the explosions occurred)? -- Rgrasmus (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Anyone is welcome to go take them. [and, you know, disregard all police advice in the midst] —Theopolisme (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

there is a photo on the page - that probably isnt a free image !!!! Victor Grigas (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick reminder -- just because it's on Twitter doesn't mean it's free for use. We need to verify that it's actually free for use.. X-Kal (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Toolserver is down - but there are some free images here on flickr, CAN SOMEONE TRANSFER THEM PLEASE!!!:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hahatango/8652974465/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/hahatango/8654021280/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/hahatango/8654066988/ http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=boston+marathon+bombing&l=commderiv&ss=0&ct=0&mt=all&w=all&adv=1 Victor Grigas (talk) 03:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

please upload this one too:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hahatango/8652831303/ Victor Grigas (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I have uploaded that one, and another one. The one you suggested is poignant as it shows people being helped from the scene, and one of the women apparently wearing a hijab. Martin451 (talk) 04:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

What is a photo bridge?

The lead says: "two bombs detonated during the 2013 Boston Marathon around 2:50 p.m. EDT in Copley Square, just before the photo bridge that marks the finish line." The last clause of the sentence is taken word for word from the AP story.[8] So my question is: What the heck is a 'photo bridge'? I've scoured the internet to try to answer this question to no avail. Kaldari (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe that it is the temporary arch typically made of metal piping that is placed over the road by the finish line that takes photos of runners as they cross the finish line. Rgrasmus (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

A fair question, suggest the article lead is reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep - allows a vantage-point for photographers/cameramen above the finish line. Usually a temporary, covered scaffolding bridge. Also carries sponsor advertising, timing equipment and includes space for race officials. Agree with TRM. Stalwart111 21:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it should say "just past the finish line" instead as everyone will understand that.

You mean just before the finish line? Can be seen from this video http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/video-of-the-boston-marathon-explosion/275002/ -- Rgrasmus (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

New York Post / reported suspect

I've posted the following:

The New York Post has reported that a suspect, described as a 20 year old Saudi national, is in custody.

and it was removed with the comment "Keep the New York Post out of this article". Was this on the basis that the NY Post is not a WP:RS? If so, can someone explain why? -- Chronulator (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

See the "suspect is a Saudi national?" section. In general the Post is not especially reliable, especially when it's giving details that conflict with other sources. ShaleZero (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah. I've just seen the discussion above. Noted. -- Chronulator (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• The New York Post is an unreliable source. It is a tabloid. Ryan Vesey 21:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Wait until another news outlet reports it. Go Phightins! 21:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the truth will come out sooner or later, no need to use a poor source now. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• It is an RS. This has been discussed at RSN. If there is doubt, attribution is the answer, as above.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Glad to see the New York Post claim deleted. Best I can tell so far, all claims that a Saudi national was arrests as a person of interest trace back to that one New York Post article. Need confirmation from a reliable news source... not a tabloid. Congratulations to Wikipedia editors for your wise restraint. — Yksin (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Take it to RSN again. That wasn't consensus, that was the opinion of one editor. Ryan Vesey 21:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• And one of the important things to remember is that RS is context specific. If they've already made one wildly incorrect claim about the marathon, why trust them with another? Protonk (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind, this is a fairly international event. "Tabloid" is a paper format generally, and is not a euphemism for a low quality, gossip-type newspaper in all English speaking countries. 8.20.184.6 (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. And following the above, I went back and checked, and Yakin's right, every other report appears to be sourced from the NYP story. -- Chronulator (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think WaPo spelled it out pretty well for us — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• According to this, Boston PD has denied that anyone has been taken into custody in connection with the bombing. L.livnev (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Officials now saying JFK explosion related to fire that happened at the JFK Library earlier today, before the bombs on Boylston.

Still conflicting reports, though.MAINEiac4434 (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Link to tweet from official Boston PD twitter.MAINEiac4434 (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

"Appears to be fire related" i.e. not bomb-related? Ignatzmice•talk 21:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

That's what I took that to mean.MAINEiac4434 (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• CNN now reporting that under "What we know"[9] --John Nagle (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be fire [10] Dan653 (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Responses

There is no encyclopedic reason to include "responses". Everyone is appalled, the guilty parties will be brought to justice, our sympathies are with the victims and their families--our article does not need to list such well-intended but boilerplate responses. Drmies (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. We can get to any notable ones afterwards, but for now, we don't need the stream of conscience from international dignitaries. Go Phightins! 21:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• I concur. These "responses" sections are not encyclopedic in the least. Ryan Vesey 21:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Me, too. I'm not editing, as to keep free to act as needed, but we don't need a page of obvious platitudes that serves no encyclopedic value. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• Haven't we included them on other occasions? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 21:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, yes. Drmies (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia has gotten increasingly poor at treating our disaster related articles as encyclopedia articles rather than news sources, so yes. Ryan Vesey 21:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Duplicated references

Can someone please fix the duplicated references [using the ref name tag]. I tried to do it myself, but there were too many edit conflicts. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• We can get to this once the article is more stable. Not a huge priority now, but thanks for pointing it out. Go Phightins! 21:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• Don't worry about that now. Wait for US traffic to die down; this won't be a good or decent article for a while. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Three explosions

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.

---

The commissioner confirmed in the press conference that there were three explosions today. The article (so far) does not seem to reflect that fact clearly. Shouldn't it soon? Gabby Merger (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The commissioner said three explosions, but more recent statements from the city say it was "fire-related." Parsing this stuff is not an exact science and we're erring on the side of complete confirmation.ShaleZero (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

In addition, the police exploded a third bomb. That could be what he meant. Ignatzmice•talk 21:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Being an encyclopedia, our job isn't to be timely, it is to be reliable. We don't publish rumors, only facts that are sourced in multiple, reliable sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Live overage from CBS News (view online here on Ustream) indicates the JFK incident was not a bombing, despite earlier reports. --auburnpilot talk 21:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Currently JFK is not considered as related, until otherwise proven, leave as is. [11] Aneah|talk _to ^me 22:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I see now. This is the situation (confirmed clearly now). It was not "three explosions", but rather "three bombs" found. Two went off. A third was found, by Boston police, and taken care of. I'll be putting that in (or at least making it clearer), per confirmed sources now. Gabby Merger (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

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

• I think this has been clarified now, so I'm going to temporarily hat this for the convenience of tablet/mobile users. Feel free to revert/undo later if the discussion needs to continue. Replaced with proper archive templates. Stalwart111 02:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Suspect

i heard each bombs were all different from four different terrorists: A Korean, Al-Qaeda member, Lone wolf, and a syrian nationalist the Al-Qaeda and Syrian nationalist's bomb were the ones that went off while the "lone wolf" and Korean bombs failed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.95.1.134 (talk) 05:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

We base articles on published reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

"Authorities ID suspect as Saudi national in marathon bombings, under guard at Boston hospital". New York Post. 2013-04-15. Retrieved 2013-04-15.

Description given in source as Saudi Arabian male around 20 years old. --auburnpilot talk 21:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

That article includes a number of details, most notably the 12 fatalities, that are in direct conflict with literally every other report. It'll take a second, independent source to be considered reliable. See the "suspect" and "New York Post" sections above. ShaleZero (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussed above. Needs confirmation from another source. Not mentioned on Boston.com or CNN. John Nagle (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I agree, which is why I didn't insert it into our article. Just noting here for future reference. I did not see the above discussion. --auburnpilot talk 21:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

What should we do with the NBC tweet? The use of "possible suspect" makes things a bit muddier, since the official statement is that nobody is "in custody" - and a "possible suspect" would not in fact be under arrest yet.ShaleZero (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

From the BBC Live blog, "2301: Police Commissioner Ed Davis says the area around the finish line will be closed for 24 hours while police investigate. He adds that reports police have a suspect in custody are inaccurate." --Article editor (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

But reports that they're hanging around outside one particular patient's door may not be. The situation NBC describes - police officers guarding the door while they decide whether to pursue the person behind it - is not "custody," so both statements can be true. ShaleZero (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Someone previously linked to a good WaPo blog piece by Erik Wemple of how off-track the New York Post is today. Here it is again: Boston explosions: New York Post better have good sources. Now there's a tweet from an NBC reporter that claims Officials say that Boston PD are "guarding" a wounded man at a Boston hospital as a "possible suspect" - @JimMiklaszewski — but Talking Points Memo has been following up on both claims -- Boston Police: No Arrests Have Been Made In Marathon Bombing (UPDATE). Based on this report, both the New York Post & the NBC tweet are off. — Yksin (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Good find - specific denial of a suspect being "under guard." I'm satisfied! ShaleZero (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

What gives this even more credibility is that TPM is citing information with the actual name of a police official, Boston police commissioner Edward Davis: "'Those reports are not true, there is no suspect in custody,' Davis said at a press conference." — Boston Police Commissioner: ‘There Is No Suspect In Custody’. — Yksin (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

CBS reporting on suspect: [12]. Qworty (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

That looks like someone at CBS listening to the New York Post. Again again again, Boston PD in the person of its police commissioner denies that any suspect of any nationality is in the police's eyes. I'm listening to NPR's "All Things Considered" right now, & the continual theme of coverage re: "who did it" is "we don't know, there is no suspect" -- followed up by speculation of U.S. & Boston authorities that it "might" be a domestic terrorist, possibly a lone wolf working alone, no indications of foreign (or, specifically, Al Qaeda) involvement. But even that's speculation, albeit informed speculation. Repeat, there is no definitive info about who did it, nor are there any identifiable suspects. — Yksin (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The linked source for the suspect differs from the information given in the article. The source makes no mention of age or ethnicity, it just says rumours were someone who was injured in the explosion was being held there. There is a follow up in the article where it is stated that this is untrue and there is no person (suspect or otherwise) being held at the hospital. Given the information in the article vs the source this needs to be changed as it appears blatantly Islamophobic, racist and incorrect.

Keep calm and carry on

Things returning to normal (per Boston.com) [13]

• All MTA subway lines reopened.
• Boston airport (Logan) ground stop ended.
• Guests being allowed back into Copley Square hotels
• Somebody with a white van arrested at Boston Common, but no sign of major excitement about it.

--John Nagle (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Despite Fox News, report of "Person of interest in custody" appears to be bogus. Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis: "There is no suspect in custody yet. We're questioning many people, but there is no suspect in custody at this time." by Emily Wright, Boston.com... 3:00 PM"[14] --John Nagle (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Take your bias somewhere else, Fox News has reported nothing of the sort. Spman (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm watching Fox News, have for a while, I didn't see them ever claim there was a suspect. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Fox News has reported it on their website - see here. However, they have since updated to include the Commissioner's statement.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 22:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Fox News said it was quoting the Post. Rklawton (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• CBS is reporting that a Saudi national is being questioned, but unlike others, he is not "free to go" and must stay in police custody. That said, he is not a suspect. Go Phightins! 01:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Move?

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.

---

Should the page be moved to just "Boston Marathon bombing"? Whether to use the plural of bombing is one issue, but my real issue is with the use of the year---this hasn't happened before and likely won't happen again, so why use the year? Paris1127 (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've moved protected the page so no moves will be happening soon. Once we know what the media will be calling the event, then we will know what we will be calling it: the same thing. As it is a new event, we need to just leave it here and debate the name later. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• Presumably to distinguish this from the 2007 Boston bomb scare — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

See 7 July 2005 London bombings—if anything we aren't specific enough (but I am NOT advocating another move right now!) Ignatzmice•talk 22:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• There is no need to keep moving the page right now. We can worry about that later. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 22:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The year/date of the event is pretty standard practice, whether or not the event is likely to repeat itself:

2004 Madrid train bombings

7 July 2005 London bombings

2005 Kuşadası minibus bombing

-- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Usually just the year unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise (certainly not here, as there are not multiple Boston Marathons in one year) --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

  • The London one had to be more precise because of 21 July 2005 London bombings. Black Kite (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Because much information will be streaming into this article, a move would be rediculous until everything settles down. I see no problem with the name anyway. United States Man (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

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

• I don't think this article is going to be moved any time soon (ie. today) so I'm going to temporarily hat this for the convenience of tablet/mobile users. Feel free to revert/undo later if the discussion needs to continue. Replaced with proper archive templates. Stalwart111 01:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I think they're wrong for both this article and Copley Square. This is close: [15] Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Your coordinates are well past the finish line. The coordinates in the article are east of the second explosion and maybe slightly west of the first explosion. Location (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This looks like the site of the first blast: [16] Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

According to the liveleak video below, this looks like the approx site of the second [17] Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The Boston Globe have issued a map of the first explosion (671 Boylston St) near the finishing line, the second explosion (further up Boylston, i.e. further away from the finishing line), and the unexploded device found at 600 Boylston St. The map also denotes the finishing line and the medical tent. The article is here, the map itself is here. That should be sufficient for you to put together an open source map. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Bombs went off within 11 seconds of each other

This video http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=012_1366060912 shows the events as it happens and the bombs go off within 11 seconds of each other. 74.111.18.178 (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Probably not a reliable source. Need a news organization saying "11 seconds" to add without it being original research. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• Above video link is from LiveLeak, which copied this Boston Globe video [18] from Youtube and slapped their logo on it. --John Nagle (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Its an actual video of it happening. How is it not reliable? Its the actual event happening. 74.111.18.178 (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Videos can be edited. There's a video from the Globe that has them ~20 sec apart. In any case, we're not the FBI so I don't see as it makes that much difference to us. Ignatzmice•talk 22:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Reliability isn't about the video, it is about the website hosting it versus our policy on reliable sources, WP:RS. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Issue is not reliability, but that an editor looking at it is doing original research.165.121.80.150 (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Fox News just reported that it was between 12-14 seconds. 74.111.18.178 (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The Boston Globe is definitively a reliable source by wikipedia's standards. It is their video that clearly shows the blasts were 13 seconds apart. 99.18.46.29 (talk) Another quote from the Globe: "The moment of the second explosion, just 13 seconds after the first blast." —John Tlumacki/Globe Staff 03:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Injury count

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.

---

Most media outlets and the Boston Police are saying 23, yet it keeps getting put as 100+. Until major media outlets and/or BPD say 100+, we should stick with 23. See [19] and [20] Oddbodz (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Currently at 51. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/15/us-athletics-marathon-boston-blast-idUSBRE93E0ZF20130415 Aneah|talk _to ^me 22:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be higher than 51 inside of Boston. I will see if there is something more creditable than Twitter, though. Boston Globe editor and Boston.Com writer --Super Goku V (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This is the first time I've ever heard anyone complain that CNN was not a reliable source. http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/15/explosions-near-finish-of-boston-marathon/ --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This wasn't what was cited on the article and they're only saying 90 - I've found no sources saying 100+. Oddbodz (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's the EXACT same link that was sourced in the article (I know because I pasted it here from the reflink). Don't make up stories because you didn't take the time to read all the updates provided at the source before you repeatedly insisted on 23.. SEVERAL places in the CNN link say 100+. It may have been revised to 90 afterwards, but the history of CNN updates is all there (or it was 5 minutes ago).. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I just checked - it says AREA HOSPITALS confirmed 90 and STILL says the Boston Globe reports over 100.. As you may not be aware, not necessarily ALL injuries require hospitalization, so there's still no discrepency whatsoever - just you trying to justify your insistence on the 23 number after repeatedly refusing to read the sources. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The link that was in the article is this one [21] Oddbodz (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

No.. The CNN link was provided after the first time I reverted you.. You just decided to begin edit warring instead of reading it. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

"more than 100 injured" BBC (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 01:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

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

• This will continue to change constantly until it stabilises and a number of reliable sources together agree on a total number. That's unlikely to happen immediately so I'm going to temporarily hat this for the convenience of tablet/mobile users. Feel free to revert/undo later if the discussion needs to continue. Replaced with proper archive templates. Stalwart111 01:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Several hours?

• "several hours after the attack" in reference to Obama speaking to the nation. How many is several? This occurred at 2:50 pm Eastern Time (per the article). It should be 6:30 PM there now. Three and a half is "several"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.96.25.220 (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I would agree, and that "several" should be changed to "about three" or "a few" or something that has a smaller sound to it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I think "several hours" is acceptable when talking about 3h20m, but since there's disagreement, clearly the best thing to do is to just be more specific. —Rutebega (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Not everyone that speaks English necessarily sees "several" as exactly the same. In this context, "several" sounds like he delayed unnecessarily or for an unusually long time, which isn't the case. Clarifying it with better wording would be appreciated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
        • I am the one who introduced that wording, with the intent to replace the news-ish exact time that was there previously. I considered that "several" could be taken as POV but that wasn't the intent. Someone who is more awesome than me at English can re-formulate it. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
          • • Oh, I'm confident it wasn't your intent, and to many people it wouldn't be as well, but picking something more universal is better. I'm not editing the article myself (so I'm not "involved" if a problem develops), so hopefully someone else will get creative. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Archive

I've setup an archive, see header. Might need to move some stuff there that is completely resolved to keep the page from getting so large that tablet and phone users can't read. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Enabled MiszaBot archiving as well—currently set for 24 hrs, but we can (and should, probably) make it shorter for initial period. —Theopolisme (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• • I'm manually doing some, where someone asked a question, got an answer, and replied back, so obviously the thread is over. Thanks for setting that up, btw. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I think 24 hours is short enough, that's how it was with the Aurora shooting. Archiving the treads too quick keeps them from being discussed. United States Man (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Then 24 it shall be (with the 'manual archiving' caveat, we'll be in good hands). —Theopolisme (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to be careful to not archive things that are likely to be asked again as well. I would assume that the 24 hours would change to a week, then longer as time moves on, but that sounds about right for now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest a FAQ similar to the one on the Sandy Hook Elementary School talk page. Aneah|talk _to ^me 01:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Title

Anyone else think that the title should be 2013 Boston Marathon bombings at Boylston Street? It only seems proper due to the fact that the bombings obviously transcend the marathon. IMHO. Fred newman (talk) 07:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Nah, this information is inside the article.  TheArguer  _{SAY HI!} 07:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense. Cheers. Fred newman (talk) 07:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

8 year old boy

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.

---

Can we please remove that from the lead? I understand it's tragic, but singling out children as somehow being "more" tragic and worthy of special mention is not right. --IP98 (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Done Oddbodz (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Somebody reverted it and it's there again. --Railroadwiki (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it.  TheArguer  _{SAY HI!} 23:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

That's an odd request. I find it normal for people to find it more important, as a tendency to protect the needy. --fs 23:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

But we aren't here to protect the needy, we are just here to document facts in a neutral and detached fashion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You're here to write an encyclopedia; get over yourself. People want to read if there were kids among the dead and removing that information is quite nonsense. --fs 23:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Once there is some clarity as to who was injured, I'm sure there will be a bit more detail in the body of the article, but the vast majority of it is speculation at this point. Regardless, listing the ages doesn't belong in the lede, as that would imply a greater value to one human based on age. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

That's off topic. If it's confirmed, I find it non sense to remove it "for neutrality" even if it's in the intro. People are perfectly liable to want an encyclopedia saying 'including children' and it's nothing too "biased" about that. --fs 23:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Friend, you are just going to have to trust me that we don't generally do that in the lead and leave that for the body, if at all. To be consistent and in an encyclopedic style (neutral summarization of fact), this is how it is done. We let the news stations and newspapers tug at the heartstrings, that isn't what we do here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem including this in the article once all the statistics are clear. I agree adding it to the lede is a little much, but numerous news sources are reporting the number of children killed/injured (known so far), so it could be included within the body of the article at some point down the line once we know all the numbers. The media also routinely do this with the number of injured Police "officials" in events like this, as if they are somehow more notable or "important". I'm not sure why they do this, but it's something that can be added once we have all of the demographics. Right now the injury count isn't even finalized yet, so we can wait another day or two until we know. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 00:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Removed it. It didnt seem germane to the discussion anyway. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 02:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Where?

We've got the coordinates (though GeoHack isn't working), but nothing in the article itself actually says where the end of the Boston Marathon was. I can look at Google Maps using those coordinates, but I have a hard time saying with maximal accuracy, specificity and usefulness where that is.--[[User:Prosfilaes/small>]] 21:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Currently JFK is not considered as related, until otherwise proven, leave as is. [22] Aneah|Prosfilaes]] (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• This is already being discussed a few headers above you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

"A few headers above me"? In a large and evolving talk page, that is completely useless.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Just look for the word "coordinates", for goodness sakes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Why would I look for the word coordinates when I want the page to state in plain text where the location is? That's not something addressed or resolved by the section you were talking about.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Westboro Baptist Chuch
(a consolidation of two former sections)

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.

---

NOTE: This now-renamed section is a consolidation of two sections started at roughly the same time, here. The person who started the second one, and who also caused the first one to be started (and so, then, the instigator of all this, user "DesElms"), has now consolidated the two sections into this one in order to make the whole Westboro subject easier to follow on this page. In the process, he has re-thought it all, and has relented. See the "DesElms's relent" sub-section, below.

The original first section
(formerly named "WBC")

Similar to a-Q above—is mention of WBC a coatrack (or could it be construed as such)? Seem to me it's a given those loonies will picket every tragic event in the US, no need to mention it here. Add something on their entry if you do desire. Ignatzmice•talk 19:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a little less of a coatrack than the al-Qaeda material...but I also don't think it belongs in the article. WBC had no notable involvement with the incident, past doing their usual "protest every single thing we can for publicity." It doesn't seem relevant, and I don't think it belongs. Not unless it receives wider coverage than just the standard "WBC protested something again, and some people reacted as usual." – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 19:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)Best to add it on the WBC article, if at all. It's a bit soon for funerals yet.--Auric talk 19:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

So once again Westboro rears it's ugly head with the same message: Protest the funerals and ect? The question should be is do we need this in the article and does it help anything? I see it as WP:SOAP - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:24

It's news! Like it or not! None of us like WBC! See my section about it, below! Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you please calm down a bit? Yes it is news but just because it is there doesn't mean Wikipedia should include it per policy and guidelines. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe whomever's deleting it as fast as I put it back should calm down! It won't hurt the article to leave it in 'til we settle this, will it? (a rhetorical question) And to what policy and guidelines are you referring? Or should we be removing all references to WBC's protests and threats thereof throughout all of Wikipedia? What policies and guidelines? Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

(ADDENDUM) And by the way, it's not similar to a-Q references! All of that is just speculation. That WBC made the threat is actual; and news. We don't get to not include it because we don't like it. Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In it's current form, it also seems very WP:UNDUE (though it still wouldn't belong even if pared down.) If the WBC actually protests the funerals (it's just a threat at this point) and if that somehow becomes notable, then maybe it'd be notable for the article. A threat of protest by a group that routinely threatens to protest practically every major event like this does not seem notable. Certainly, it's notable for the WBC's own page and can be included there. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 19:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

In addition to being WP:UNDUE I also agree with Lady that it has Notability issues. Are we going to include WBC in every event they send empty threats to do something for? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Two comments in this section have merit. While I ponder them, I'll see if I can consolidate the two sections so this "Talk" page isn't so nutty regarding Westboro. Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Consolidated. Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay! I give-up, for now. See the "DesElms's relent" sub-section, below. Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The original second section
(started without knowing about the above)

I added a "Protests" sub-section to the "Reactions" main section; and then added this well-documented and hard news, neutral paragraph:

On the day of the attack the Westboro Baptist Church -- an American independent Baptist church known for its extreme ideologies, especially against the LGBT community -- posted a press release to its Twitter account in which it thanked God for that day's bombings, and announced its plan to “picket the funeral of those killed.” Pointing-out that the federal government is classifying the bombings as a terrorist attack, yet is being unclear about whether it's “domestic or foreign nature,” the release went on to claim to answer the question with: “Here’s a hint — GOD SENT THE BOMBS! How many more terrifying ways will you have the LORD injure and kill your fellow countrymen because you insist on nation-dooming filthy fag marriage?!” By early the next morning, some nearly 4,000 people had signed a “We the People” petition on the White House website asking for that banning of such demonstrations by the church at victims' funerals. Additionally, a posting that same day on a Twitter account affiliated with the hacker group Anonymous warned that Church leaders would be targeted if they made good on their threat to picket the funerals.

References

It keeps getting deleted, and the second deletion cited "WP:SOAP" (Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion). No one is getting on any soapboxes, for godsake! It's hard news; and just because said hard news contains Westboro's craziness doesn't mean that it's written to promote them! I'm AGAINST Westboro, for godsake; I'm not promoting it. Bother to actually read the paragraph, and not assume that I have an agenda. Like it or not, Westboro is now part of this story, just as it became part of the Roger Ebert story after it threatened to picket his funeral, too!

Please stop deleting it! No one should have that kind of power, here! Discuss it, here, fortheloveofgod, rather than just unilaterially deleting!

Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest editing the Westboro content down to a single sentence and keeping the link to the Westboro Baptist Church Wikipedia page that provides more information on the church's history of picketing events like this. --Crunch (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Crunch has got the solution. It should be in both sections. Kennvido (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see the "WBC" section directly above this one. ShaleZero (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a section already on this above, the addition doesn't help the article. You also broke WP:3RR discuss it here first editors above (me included) are against including it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It's news! It's now part of the story, and all of anyone's wishing won't change that! We don't get to keep things out of articles just because we don't like them! And the WBC section, above, was obviously made while I was making this one. It's all happening fast; don't make it sound like I'm not bothering to read this page. Geez! The arrogance of this place! Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see my comment above and calm down a bit, a wikibreak might help. Im sorry you feel the way you do but I see a consensus against including it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'm considering that one other comment, above, has merit. I also think that user "Crunch" may have hit on a good idea by suggesting that we just pare it down. While I ponder those things, I'll see if I can consolidate them so this "Talk" page isn't so nutty regarding Westboro. Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Consolidated. Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Whacko church celebrates something the rest of us deplore, blah, blah, blah. Big deal, no surprise, it's what they do. Leave it out of the article. LadyofShalott 19:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Again, our -- yours and my, both -- not liking it or them doesn't not make it both news and relevant! It is what it is. If we start deciding what's relevant and what's not based either mostly or solely on our distaste for it, then we cross a dangerous threshold, indeed. Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
    • No, the fact that this is what they ALWAYS do is what makes it trivial. It's not a unique response. LadyofShalott 19:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• They claim they're going to picket all the time, they don't actually picket a lot of the time. Their claim means nothing; if they actually picket, we can include one sentence per WP:UNDUE Ryan Vesey 19:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense. Wait until a protest actually happens and then consider inclusion. --Crunch (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, otherwise you are just providing them with undue promotion. Imagine if the name and opinions of <company name here> were applied to every article about <topic>. CoconaB (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay! I give-up, for now. See the "DesElms's relent" sub-section, below. Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

DesElms's relent

Having started this whole thing, and having now used the time that I spent consolidating these two sections, I concede that at least a couple of different arguments here against me are worthy of merit; and I like most, in the end, what user:Crunch wrote, to wit: That we should at least wait until a protest actually happens. How 'bout that, everyone?
Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Map image

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.

---

Map showing site of first blast (right), and second (left)

The first blast site (right) is correct. The second is very close or possibly exact. There is a blank version of the map at commons. Please feel free to adjust the second site. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Anna, hi! Sterling work on the map, and fast too. If the Boston Globe map above is accurate, the site of the second explosion is by the intersection of Boylston Street and "Ring Road", i.e it should be half-a-block to the right on your map. Can you fix this? I'd do it myself but my notebook is rubbish. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you have an url for the map? Is it right on the corner? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Here: http://bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/04/15/explosions-rock-boston-marathon-finish-line-dozens-injured/yLhfDT1XC3HXSa8wPiVijL/igraphic.html --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

see also here, and here. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

That map markup exaggerates the scale of the event. The windows of the stores adjacent to the bomb location weren't broken. The map markup is half a block wide. --John Nagle (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I moved the second blast marker to the right. Is that okay? (You might need to purge.) It's now the just between the BG map and this. Please feel free to adjust it further or, as the John Nagles says, make the rings smaller. There is a blank version at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2013_Boston_Marathon_bombings_map.png for that purpose. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Odder: Site 1 is too far left. Check google maps, see the address, and compare to published video and images. Site 2 is in the middle of the road, but video shows it coming from the north side. I like the 1 and 2 thing though. 124.66.10.78 (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC) (That was me logged out. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC))

Try this angle. Hope it helps clear things up: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/04/15/us/site-of-the-boston-marathon-explosion.html?_r=0 Twinbros22 (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Twinbros22, it did indeed help! The location of the blasts should be more precise now (you might need to purge your cache to see the change, though). odder (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

see also here, and here. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Infobox

The infobox currently lists the attack type as "bombing", which redirects to bombardment—not the same at all. "Bombing" is the correct term, but it should link elsewhere. Is improvised explosive device too specific? Bomb seems to be, again, focussed on the aerial version. Ignatzmice•talk 23:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Bomb seems the most accurate since we don't have reliable sources calling it an IED or similar yet. We'd need confirmation that it's some sort of homemade device to link to that. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I redirected bombing to bomb as it is a better fit. United States Man (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Updated Injury Counts

A producer at WGBH (the local PBS station) has tweeted the following as of 6:58 local time:

1. #bostonmarathon Hospital update: Tufts - 9 patients hurt from attack, none critical, 8 more patients w/ marathon-related injuries
2. #bostonmarathon Hospital update: Boston Medical Center - 20 patients total, 2 children, most have lower leg injuries
3. #bostonmarathon Hospital update: Mass. Gen. - 22 patients total, 6 critical, 5 serious
4. #bostonmarathon Hospital update: Brigham & Women - 26 patients total, 2 critical, 8-10 serious
5. #bostonmarathon Hospital update: Bethg Israel - 21 patients total, 18 major, 3 minor, 7 life-threatening

Source: https://twitter.com/thejamesedwards I don't know whether this can be used. Maybe WGBH will put it on their website shortly. There are some other hospitals in the area but these are probably the main ones. GabrielF (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• We really can't use a tweet as a source here. If that is the case, then someone will publish on a vetted news site, then we can publish it here, but not before. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Mass General has confirmed their injury numbers here: http://www.massgeneral.org/emergency/ GabrielF (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of Third Bomb in Lead

I removed this because it's a single source reporting the event; I wasn't aware it was being editwarred over until checking the history... The article linked to is many hours old, when there was more confusion. If you read the article, it notes "UPDATE: Boston officials confirmed there was a third explosion at the library." The confirmation link goes to the NY Post (which has already given us a bunch of screwy information, per previous talk page discussions), but even that link says: "Boston fire officials previously said that the third explosion was linked to the ones that occurred at the Marathon but later updated their information to say that the explosion was not related."

It's an unrelated incident, and covered as such down in the body where it belongs: "A fire at 3 p.m. inside the mechanical room of the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, briefly thought to be related to the marathon explosions, was not caused by a device and is apparently not related to them.[49]" There's still some reporting that it may be related, but it's all conflicting report and speculation. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

No, you got it (at least partly) wrong, I believe. It's not referring to the "fire". But just another BOMB, that was discovered by Boston PD, and taken care of. You're saying there's no confirmation or source for that? Again, don't get it confused. It's about another un-detonated third bomb being discovered and handled by police. Not another "explosion". Gabby Merger (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there was a third device that BPD detonated, in the vicinity of the initial bombs, as well as at least one more device past that apparently. There may or may not have been a bomb at the JFK library; that appears to be under investigation, and the only clear information is that it was apparently SOME sort of explosion, not necessarily a bomb.

You may be confusing that with the one that BPD did detonate near the initial scene. It doesn't make sense to put that in the lead without also including information about the other explosives reportedly discovered...and since this is such a mess of reporting, it's probably best to keep it out. (And particularly not use a reference titled "BREAKING: EXPLOSION AT JFK LIBRARY" when we have other sources[23] noting things like "A Boston Police spokesperson told Talking Points Memo on Monday that an explosive device had gone off at the library. This information was later clarified on Twitter by BPD Public Information Bureau Chief Cheryl Fiandaca, who described the incident as "fire related."".) Edit: I realize you may not be referring to the library, but the source used really makes it seem that way, intentional or not. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

That's right, it was a third bomb discovered near the finish line, not the library. So I guess my point is why not modify the edit, since at least that seems to be fairly solidly sourced and confirmed, removing the JFK Library part only, and putting a better ref, instead of removing it altogether? Isn't WP recommendation and policy to modify, rather than to totally remove? Especially when this is solid sourced confirm for a third bomb at least discovered? I'm sorry, the fact that a whole third bomb was found in the area seems pertinent and important. Gabby Merger (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

When I first saw the sentence, it specifically mentioned the JFK library (checking the history, apparently it was edited to remove that by the time I hit edit myself, but still with the unclear reference which made it seem like it was still referring to that.) I wouldn't have removed it if the source made sense...chalk it up to confusion with the rapid-fire changes to the article and attempt to avoid edit conflicts. However, if it's readded, I think it needs to clearly describe that multiple other devices were apparently found, not just the one that was safely detonated. (Also not sure it's lead-worthy due to the information on additional explosive devices still being unclear; it's perhaps better discussed in the body for now where the current reporting uncertainty can be covered better.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 April 2013

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.

---

I think there were 12 people killed in the bombing. http://niagara-gazette.com/local/x1097424123/Bombing-suspect-reportedly-in-custody-12-reportedly-dead 76.69.129.41 (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Source cites Post, which has been crap for reliability on this story. See threads above. Ignatzmice•talk 23:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the Post is .... diverging with the breadth of other sources so far. --j⚛e decker^talk 23:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Saudi National mentions

There was a Saudi National that was, for a while, reported as being held as a suspect, but this was proved to be false. He aperently was just there for the marathon and was questioned by the FBI and was released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avion365 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The Globe is reporting that the apartment in Revere was the home of the Saudi national[24]. He is 20 years old and studying English in the US. I think it might be worth mentioning that the residence that was searched was home to one of the individuals who was questioned. GabrielF (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

That should be Edited in the "Investigation" Section, second paragraph. They said they have no persons in custody yet they did detain people and questioned them, from the way the article was written and various things it seems they held unto him for awhile and searched his house, or a house next to his. They may or may not be connected. Or you could edit in the second paragraph that it was misreported (because of this guy?) and that he was in fact just question and in the third paragraph his house was in fact searched ( if it was) and that his roommate made comments. Avion365 (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

And now we have the Daily Mail picking this up. Hoo-friggin'-ray. ShaleZero (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

References

man on roof

there are some pictures of a man on a roof near by the bombings

http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7k7b9G1REVUAOslXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1ZDVnZDBuBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1ZJUDIzMF8yNTI-/SIG=13mog2cdg/EXP=1366189403/**http%3a//www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/mystery-man-on-roof-boston-bombings-photo-_n_3091189.html

http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7k7b9G1REVUANMlXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB2dDBzNW80BHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1ZJUDIzMF8yNTI-/SIG=13v18cd20/EXP=1366189403/**http%3a//www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2013/0416/Mystery-man-on-roof-during-Boston-Marathon-bombings-video

External links

These external links probably do not pass WP:EL and should be reviewed and likely removed: www.elephrame.com and both youtube.com This was discussed above, but still in there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Removed the Youtube ones. I actually did that prior to seeing this :) Go Phightins! 00:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about the other link, but I don't think it passes WP:EL either. As I'm not editing the article directly and just clerking here, I would appreciate someone looking at it closer. Actually, watching the external links could be a full time job here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Removed the elephrame one as well a while ago...didn't look good to me per WP:EL Go Phightins! 01:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

XKCD

Not the time nor place to speculate wildly

Someone on Something Awful pointed out this - not sure when it was released, but it looks like it couldn't have been more than a couple weeks ago. We'll see if any news agencies pick up on it. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 21:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC) They're released every Tuesday, I believe, and that's the second-to-last (i.e. it was the most recent before today). I kinda doubt someone could toss together two working bombs in a week—but what do I know. Certainly, it's nothing for the article yet. Ignatzmice•talk 21:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC) How is this at all relevant? ... ???? Rgambord (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC) It isn't.  TheArguer  SAY HI! 22:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC) (ec) Really? Someone has linked to a blog posting about heating a pressure cooker to 700 degrees centigrade, and thinks this could be the inspiration for how the Boston Marathon bombings were done? Really? [And yes, reading WP:NOR should make it clear that this isn't remotely eligible to be in the article.] -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC) I was just saying it might be something to add to our Google News searches (GNS?) --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe add the severely injured

There're some gruesome pictures circulating on troll channels. Those people deserve the respect to be mentioned as more severely injured than others. --fs 23:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Right now, they haven't released any information with specifics on injuries, so there aren't sources. Any information must be cited in multiple reliable sources to be included. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 April 2013

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.

---

I think there were 12 people killed in the bombing. http://niagara-gazette.com/local/x1097424123/Bombing-suspect-reportedly-in-custody-12-reportedly-dead 76.69.129.41 (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Source cites Post, which has been crap for reliability on this story. See threads above. Ignatzmice•talk 23:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the Post is .... diverging with the breadth of other sources so far. --j⚛e decker^talk 23:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Infobox image

Why are we using a copyrighted and low-resolution image with a digital on-screen graphic in the infobox? Was there anything wrong with previous, higher resolution image that we actually have permission to use?  TheArguer  _{SAY HI!} 23:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• I tried to look, but if you have diffs comparing them, that would be easier for us to look at. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • e.g. here Ignatzmice•talk 23:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Because it shows the actual explosion? My feeling is that we should keep it. Feel free to cite policy at me; that's just my personal opinion. Ignatzmice•talk 23:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

FUR requires "the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts" --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not sure, though the image rational should look closer to File:1987_Punch-up_in_Piestany_01.JPG if it is kept. (Personally, I am alright with it since it does give an idea to what has happened.) --Super Goku V (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

There does seem to be a valid reason to use it under Fair Use, as obviously we can't expect to find a free version and it does show an element of the event that can't be duplicated. As to preference, I will leave that to everyone else. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I missed this when I wrote that, but the image is a .png, while it should be a .jpeg per WP:IUP#FORMAT from Category:Screenshots of television. It looks like it will need to be updated to keep it. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Note that the reason why the criteria mentioned above requires 'the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts' is because an image being non-replaceable with a free image is only one requirement under our NFCC criteria. We also generally require the image doesn't compete with intended commercial use of the copyrighted work. A problem we tend to have with media images is even if they are unique, we are competing. This can apply to videos as well. For various reasons we allow this with iconic photos or cases when the image itself is the subject of commentary, a well known example of this is File:TrangBang.jpg (we did receive some limited permission, but it doesn't affect our stance) but this doesn't seem to apply here (perhaps a depiction of the 78 year old runner could be an exception). This isn't unique to this bombing, there are other cases, e.g. airplane crashes, explosions etc where the only images depicting the event are media images which we generally don't use. If there are amateur videos or images of the bombings which aren't being made freely available (even if not under a free licence), we lose the 'competing' concerns but this may also raise questions about the 'irreplaceable' claim. While I'm not concluding we can't use any such images, the only image I've seen so far does look problematic to me. Nil Einne (talk) 05:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Pending changes

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.

---

Are people ok if I switch to pending changes? The studies after the trial seemed to suggest that anons could add a lot of good information for current events like this and I think this might be a very good option for it. James of UR (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• I would prefer not. There are so many edits happening so fast, adding more then waiting for changes to be accepted, using a system most people aren't familiar with, that is likely to cause more problems than it fixes. Several people are actively working the talk pages, and any IP can ask here and get a reply in a matter of seconds. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Concur. I have very little experience with pending changes, but from what I know of it I suspect using it on a page like this would play merry hell with the edit conflicts. It's bad enough as it is. Ignatzmice•talk 00:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
    • And agree here too. Pending changes works poorly on rapidly changing articles, there was a pretty strong consensus on this point after the original trial. The interface plus lots of pending edits equals mess. I'd rather see it unprotected if it came to that. --j⚛e decker^talk 00:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Certainly happy to wait if people would rather not, perhaps it will be more beneficial later as things develop and it isn't as fast moving. James of UR (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Based on the most recent event, Sandy Hook, and the long discussion and consensus at WP:AN, about a week of semi should be adequate, which is what I protected for. Maybe then when the pace slows down. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Rename: 2013 Boston Marathon terrorist attack

As even in this article we can read that: "The Federal Bureau of Investigation is treating the bombings as a terrorist attack." Furthermore it is a much better description of the event than the simple name bombings. 91.83.194.227 (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• The article is move protected. We can discuss moving later, once the media finally decides what they will call it, but we won't be moving it quickly. See all the other discussions above, and the archives. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

So far no terrorists group has claimed responsibility for the little bomb that killed two people, so you shouldn't add terrorists attack just because it's americans first reaction to blame it on Muslims, it's probably a case of domestic violence. EthanKP (talk · contribs) 15 April

Just so you know, Americans don't define "terrorism" as being foreign caused. Most of our terrorism has been home grown. It is defined as using violence for political goals, and the nationality of the perpetrator isn't relevant to calling it terrorism. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

From the Boston Globe: "Boston Police Commissioner Edward F. Davis said, 'We’re not being definitive on this right now, but you can reach your own conclusions based on what happened.'" I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia's current events policies, but do think it's much too premature to change the article name. X-Kal (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So far as I can remember, this is the first mentioning between a religious group and the event itself. I believe that terrorist attack was suggested not for what you are suggesting is the reason, but for what has been said in the news. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

In any case, a rename seems premature. Let this settle a few minutes, really. Eventually this will almost certainly be retitled in view of WP:COMMONNAME, but events like this often shift in common name over the first few days. Moving it back and forth in the interim from an existing neutral title is at best a waste of effort. --j⚛e decker^talk 00:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Even if it was, we wouldn't rename it "terrorist attack" given what's known so far. The Oklahoma City bombing, 7 July 2005 London bombings are good examples. Shadowjams (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree no need for "terrorist" in article title, now or ever (the current title "2013 Boston Marathon bombings" is more than fine). Casual/infrequent editors can learn more at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)#Conventions and WP:NCE#Examples.--→gab 24dot grab← 02:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Just now (on MSNBC etc) it was noted that the President, in his press conference, PURPOSELY did not use the word "terrorism". Being very careful to not be hasty with that word, as "terrorism" has a technical definition. It's not known 100% for sure yet (apparently) if this was a (technical) act of "terrorism" (in the sense of political motivation, etc...) So naming the article (I guess, according to these things said) with the word "terrorist" in the article name, apparently would be at this point a bit premature. Gabby Merger (talk) 07:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request April 15, 2013

The picture for the article is great, but is there a more HD version that could be used? The one up is to grainy. I know there's more important things to add to it, but I think a clearer picture would be a good thing. --Matt723star (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• The current photo is a screen capture, and it is copyrighted, so we couldn't use a high def version of it if we wanted to. There is no free high def photo that shows the explosion that I'm aware of. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It's also just fine for a thumbnail (no graininess I can see). Ignatzmice•talk 00:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No need for this page to be semi-protected

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.

---

This page was protected within the first hour "to be on the safe side". That's a knee-jerk reaction that we get every time an article like this is created. It shouldn't happen. It smacks of elitism. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, as the admin who last protected the page, I'm not willing to unprotect it. You can go to WP:RFPP if you want to formally request it be unprotected. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

We editors here at Wikipedia do not want to semi protect articles as it is great and wonderful when everyone edits, however just like in real life there are those who make it bad for everyone else. There have been those who were being disruptive, posting wrong info, and who were posting things on this page to get a rise out of others. (vandalism). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Dennis.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It wasn't that knee-jerk, either; there were already at least two instances of vandalism to the page from IP editors before it was protected. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• There was no need for pre-emptive protection. There was no persistent vandalism. Any vandalism to this page would last about a nanosecond before being reverted; this very message has received 4 replies in the space of about 2 minutes. Elitist and patronising. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• • • My main point is that RFPP is the venue to discuss, not here. The WP:AN discussion on Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (which extended protection to 30 days[25]) established a consensus that it is acceptable to have a somewhat lower threshold for protection when addressing an ongoing tragedy, for one week in that instance. This is why I semi and move protected for one week, based on that precedent. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• I wasn't party to that discussion. But if you're saying that you now routinely protect articles of this nature even though there is no evidence of persistent vandalism, then I think you are doing the encyclopaedia and its readers a disservice. That is a wrong-headed approach which runs counter to everything that WP is about. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been familiar with breaking news articles like this and unfortunately semiprotection is a necessity this early in the cycle. The edit conflicts alone would make editing almost impossible. Semi protect isn't just for vandalism but sometimes just for having a workable editing pattern. Shadowjams (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. It needs to be semi-protected for at least a while. Already, this morning, nutty conspiracy theorist stories abound; and just as sure as I'm here writing about it, some conspiracy theorist nutjob behind one or more of them will try to post about it here, anonymously. Dennis was right to do it, and I applaud him for it.
  Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• I very much doubt that if the article were semiprotected now there would immediately be a torrent of edit conflicts. I don't believe that the article was flooded with ECs when it was protected. Protections should not be pre-emptive. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hoo boy. Take a look at the edit history. Most emphatically yes, there are edit conflicts, and it'd get worse if it was unprotected. Sometimes I almost think it should be full-protected (and I'm not an admin). Ignatzmice•talk 19:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the IP doth protest too much. He was posting on a block arbitration page too. He may have been banned under a different screen name or IP number. He be trolling. Vilano XIV (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Photography

Hey,

I've come across some Flickr photos here which may be useful for the article as they're CC-BY, thus free to use, but my concern is that they may be wire photos, and therefore not actually CC-BY. Preliminary research shows that the account holder is a senior employee at KRON-TV, which the photos are labeled as part of news coverage, but I would like someone with more access to American resources to check. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm seeing titles there that suggest it's KRON coverage, I certainly understand your concern. Try dropping a note to the flickr user? --j⚛e decker^talk 00:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Since they are admitting they are KRON property, I don't think contacting them will help since technically, the flickr user is infringing copyright, likely a wire service. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

My precursory search has revealed two things. First, the KRON 4 News site doesn't seem to be posting any other Flickr pictures at all -- suggesting that the news organization does not use Flickr. Second, the Flickr user does not have a real name attached to the user profile. It is my belief that any reputable journalist would have a full name and some way of linking back to the news site for verifiability. X-Kal (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Since a reputable journalist would not be posting valuable photos that would be considered part of his work for his employer, the person is probably a nonjournalist employee who was there and took personal photos which he may post as he chooses. Ask.165.121.80.150 (talk) 03:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Bombing or bombings

Someone brought up an interesting point. So far as we know, this event was a single bombing with two bombs. As a result, it appears we should change the article title from plural to singular. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Academic. Plural or singular, it doesn't make much difference as the meaning is the same. Let's not splinter the attention into too many directions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably, yes, but I'd think we're all pagemoved out at the moment. Give it some time. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Singular. It is a bit academic, but there were two bombs that were part of a single bombing event. There seem to be about 2x as many Google hits for "bombing" vs "bombings" at the moment as well, so the singular seems to be what's being used more commonly. (But close enough that that's not a great indicator.) Not a huge deal in any case, but may as well see if there's some consensus with the move protection having expired. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 16:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to taking a page-move break for among other reasons, crystal ball. However, I think we should revisit this in a few days or a week. Rklawton (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• This was the idea behind why I move protected it for a week, after a series of disruptive page moves. Realistically, we should follow the lead of the sources in naming it and we won't know for a week, so it is better to keep it nailed down until then. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

April 15th - The Lincoln Connection

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.

---

Nobody pointed this out yet but April 15th is also the day Lincoln died. It is known that some in the "patriot movement" despise Lincoln as a tyrant, such as Tim McVeigh who was arrested wearing a shirt bearing the words of John Wilkes Booth as he shot Lincoln, "sic semper tyrannis" (as always with tyrants).

More wild speculation. Wait until the perpetrator is found/is arrested/makes a confession/publishes his/her screed, then get back to us. Ignatzmice•talk 06:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Edit request on 16 April 2013

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.

---

Please change "The Federal Bureau of Investigation is treating the bombings as a terrorist attack." to "The Federal Bureau of Investigation is treating the bombings as a terrorist attack, though no perpetrator has officially been identified." I feel that a careless reader could misinterpret the original and assume it is a confirmed terrorist attack. Machdelu (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Done Ryan Vesey 01:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Updated headline

The headline "Officials: Boston Marathon bombs kill 2, hurt 49 - Update 5:15 p.m. ET" has been changed on the news agency's website. Do we change the citation headline in the references section, or leave it as is? X-Kal (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, probably. TBrandley 01:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 April 2013

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.

---

I'd like to change the statement that the JFK library was "in fact" not related to bombing on boylston st. it's too early to tell this definitively and the citation from the dorchester paper is inconclusive and is not a reputable source. Bluemtmedia (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• On air TV news media is saying that was an unrelated mechanical fire. Check online for additional sources that refute what you said. Go Phightins! 02:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

According to Boston Police, this is still being investigated.[26]  TheArguer  _{SAY HI!} 02:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a few hours old now (I've not been watching the news) but I think newscasters on NBC noted that some official mentioned that the fire was caused by some incendiary device. Can anyone speak to the accuracy/plausibility of that? —Rutebega (talk) 02:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I have been hearing that the fire was originally thought to be connected, but now is being investigated as a separate event, as a mechanical fire in the newer part of the JFK library. Go Phightins! 02:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Fox News is reporting that police are still investigating, but the events are unlikely to be related.  TheArguer  _{SAY HI!} 02:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Let's just wait until this settles. Too many conflicting reports, but most sources seem to be saying it was unrelated. It'll probably take a few days for the cause of the fire to be completely confirmed. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Year in title

Isn't it just a tiny bit redundant? How many other "Boston marathon bombings" have there been? FunkMonk (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

There haven't been any, but there has only been one 2013 Boston Marathon.  TheArguer  _{SAY HI!} 02:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's event naming convention says to provide at least two of these three: where? what? when?, so it might not be wrong to remove the year (though that is arguable). However, it seems unlikely that a consensus will soon resolve that the year must be removed. Consider "2003 Bam earthquake"; as the guideline WP:NCE#Conventions states, "There is no other "Bam earthquake" in Wikipedia, but earthquakes happen many times in history in the same place, so the year is a useful identifier." Frankly, I'm unsure that the Boston Marathon has never before been "bombed" (though certainly not as notably as on 2013-04-15), and (sadly) I'm even less sure that it will never again be bombed. I'd guess experienced editors will agree that the year should remain.--→gab 24dot grab← 02:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Exactly right. We had something similar with the 2012 Sivakasi factory explosion, which I think was renamed 2-3 times before that title was settled on. Stalwart111 03:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Though I suppose it should be acknowledged that there have been other fireworks factory explosions there and nearby in the past and so the distinction by year is critical, rather than simply useful. Stalwart111 03:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with FunkMonk and 24, I have heard no one in the media call this be the name "2013 Boston Marathon bombings". There is no justification to prefix with "2013" and there is even an argument that is doesn't need to be plural either. No media is using a plural. And look at the definition of "bombing": "2. bombing - the use of bombs for sabotage; a tactic frequently used by terrorists". It already implied to be plural. Just rename to "Boston Marathon bombing" and trust me noone will be confused. --MarsRover (talk) 03:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what part of the current title is confusing? Weren't these bombs detonated during the 2013 Boston Marathon? The page has move protection. We can decide on the name later, as we did as a community with the shootings in Connecticut.  TheArguer  _{SAY HI!} 04:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, "the media" don't dictate our naming conventions. It can be argued that the bombings should be in the singular, but there's bigger fish to fry right now than the title. Stranger things have happened. Moving this article around from title to title is no help at all; give it time. Remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a news blog. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The event is trademarked as the 2013 Boston Marathon, so there should be no problem whatsoever with the title starting with 2013 Boston Marathon. The use of bombings vs bombing I could be convinced either way. Abductive (reasoning) 04:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say the title was confusing I said it was needlessly redundant as was pointed out by several people. And as implied by all the media. But Yes, we can leave it the way it is. --MarsRover (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The year in the title is actually useful, because what if some copycat bomber decides to disrupt a future Boston Marathon? Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 05:34, April 16, 2013 (UTC)

Huh? "Redundant" means that information is repeated (eg "bombing explosions"). The discreet title "2013 Boston Marathon bombings" certainly isn't redundant. In fact, let me be clear: I prefer the current title "2013 Boston Marathon bombings"; I consider the suggestion "Boston Marathon bombing" to be inferior to the current title. While the year may not be strictly necessary, it is useful; note that World Trade Center bombing redirects to 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and United States Senate bombing should redirect to 1983 United States Senate bombing. Regarding "bombings" or "bombing", it must be noted that the event discussed in this article involved multiple detonations (compare 7 July 2005 London bombings and 21 July 2005 London bombings, each of which involved multiple detonations). Articles which use the singular word "bombing" typically involve a single detonation (eg Centennial Olympic Park bombing, March 6, 2008 Times Square bombing, 16th Street Baptist Church bombing, Casa Grande bombing, Harvey's Resort Hotel bombing, Los Angeles Times bombing, Poe Elementary School bombing, and Wall Street bombing). It seems obvious that the plural term "bombings" should be used to title an article about an event involving multiple detonations, such as this event described in this article. --→gab 24dot grab← 05:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood you. Your examples sort of prove the point you don't need to have the year so I didn't think you were arguing for the year. But just to clarify the definition of "redundant": "No longer needed or useful; superfluous. (of words or data) Able to be omitted without loss of meaning or function.". When there have only been one bombing/attack of that kind on a Boston Marathon, the year is "redundant" in the title. Like I said before leave it the way it is. Don't really want to argue. --MarsRover (talk) 06:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

This is getting tedious. Again, there was NOT "one bombing" as you now claim, but at least two bomb detonations. Further, did you even look at your own dictionary link? While it does include your cherrypicked definition of "redundant", your own link also includes this:

• "redundant - repetition of same sense in different words".

Ever heard of Redundancy (engineering) or Redundancy (user interfaces) or Data redundancy or Gene redundancy or RAID? The term "redundant" plainly connotes repetition; why pretend otherwise? Here are the "redundant" entries from three more dictionaries:

• "characterized by verbosity or unnecessary repetition"
• "characterized by similarity or repetition"
• "(Of speech, writing, and reading) Repetitive or needlessly wordy."

--→gab 24dot grab← 09:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• This is kind of moot and has already been discussed several times, and why I move protected the page. I don't care what it gets named eventually, but experience tells me that we need to wait a week to debate the name so we can use the guidance provided by the actual reliable sources. There is no need to even debate the name at this early stage, it isn't going to get renamed this week and the current name is sufficient for now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Updated Numbers/Police Information

141 injured at the least. 2 dead, minimum 17 in critical condition. More are likely to die. Police is going to have press conference. There is a very vague suspect who may not be anything, but he is according to John King of CNN a dark-skinned male with a black backpack and black hoodie sweatshirt possibly with an accent that may suggest he is a foreign national. According to King this information was released by the Boston Police Department. Bomb likely included ball bearings due to shrapnel removed from those treated in hospitals.Samuel Marcus 1999 (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Samuel Marcus

CNN ref mentions the ball bearings --j⚛e decker^talk 00:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Three confirmed dead. Let's not jump to conclusions on the suspect. Go Phightins! 01:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

There is big leap from a BOLO (be on the lookout for) to a suspect. --Crunch (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Include ricin envelope?

CNN is reporting that a envelope sent to the Senate tested positive for ricin, do we want to add this to the article or are we treating this as an unrelated event?  TheArguer  _{SAY HI!} 22:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

There are 300 million people in this country. Some of them are crazy. I'd say it's unrelated until proven otherwise. Ignatzmice•talk 22:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed.  TheArguer  _{SAY HI!} 22:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

But, um, shite. LD₅₀ of TWO MILLIGRAMS? Yikes. Ignatzmice•talk 22:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Either way, FNC is reporting it now, too. rdfox 76 (talk) 22:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• It's unrelated. Let's keep it out of the article. Qworty (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed in addition it is also unverified if the substance is indeed Ricin, right now it is being tested in a lab. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Agreed. --j⚛e decker^talk 23:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 April 2013

Terrorist Drill With Bombsquad and Dogs

The Boston Globe tweeted "Officials: There will be a controlled explosion opposite the library within one minute as part of bomb squad activities." at 12:53 P.M. on the day of the attack.

UM Coach Ali Stevenson and others report to have heard announcements over the event loudspeaker of a drill taking place with a bombsquad and dogs. Attendees were told not to worry.

https://twitter.com/BostonGlobe/status/323886879453892609 Williamottman (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Two of those sources won't pass WP:RS. I will leave the editorial decision to add or not to those actively working on the article itself, although I think the sourcing is a bit too weak. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

•  Not done, for now. I'm inclined to agree with Dennis. I think the full timeline will become clear in good time and will be supported by good reliable sources. Relying on tweets to build part-timeline is probably not a great idea at the moment. But more than happy to discuss it. Stalwart111 01:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Ice hockey?

WTF is ice ice hockey. In usa its called hockey change it 174.91.154.65 (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Ice hockey not the same as hockey.--Auric talk 13:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Just saying 'hockey' can either refer to ball hockey or ice hockey. Saying 'ice hockey' is being specific towards which type of hockey. Canadaguy1982 (talk) 19:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• There's no person in the US who would ever be confused by the term "ice hockey". In the United States, "hockey" is synonymous with "ice hockey"; however, most foreign readers would be confused. Ryan Vesey 20:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Preparedness

May be worth noting that local police were equipped to stop an attack, although the system failed somehow. Shii (tock) 09:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• The sources do not refer to the training or event as a "failure", so that would be original research to make that claim. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hoax on site

This page has a hoax. The culprit has not been found yet.

Anonymous173.74.57.205 (talk) 01:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• The article says someone is in custody for questioning, not that he is a culprit. Thanks though! Go Phightins! 01:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • BTW, it's called "typo". Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 20:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Controlled Explosions

Controlled explosions were being carried out at the same time as the actual explosions that went off.

• Just read that article; total BS. The explosions were after the bombing. Go Phightins! 01:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, the article appears to be, shall we say, somewhat outside the mainstream... "False flag operations"? Really? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• Really don't think Naturalnews.com can be considered a Reliable Source. It's essential a Self-Published Source, an anonymous personal blog. Slamorte (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• No. Protonk (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

If the statement about controlled explosions is to remain, a better more reliable source needs to be cited. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hockey and Basketball Game Cancellation

Is this worthy of inclusion? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 22:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd say no.--Dom497 (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd say yes - its a major league game and a direct result of the bombing Oddbodz (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd wouldn't think so. Ground stop yes, hockey game no. Open to suggestions. Ignatzmice•talk 22:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

(EC x 632763537456 AAAAAAAAAAGGGHHHHH) a couple of other events have been cancelled too, so we can lump them in one sentence really. For instance the BSO has cancelled this evening's performance.[27] Sophie means wisdom (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Trivial information, such as the cancellation of a sports event, should be kept out of the article. Qworty (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Really? In what way does a one-sentence mention damage anything? It makes the article more complete. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 22:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Bundling is a reasonable compromise, although I wouldn't use more than a well sourced sentence if it must be included. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I would agree to including a sentence summarizing major event cancellations. These are relevant to the scope of the incident. bd2412 T 22:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• It looks like the Celtics have cancelled their Tuesday game at TD Garden as well. I agree with the above that a short section somewhere in the article would be appropriate. Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 00:34, April 16, 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with including a sentence or two regarding cancelled sports events (and I hate sports).. No, it's not of the utmost importance to the article, but it's relevant enough that 2 or 3 sentences could be included regarding sports and/or other events that were cancelled as a result. I don't have a source for it onhand, but I know the police chief (or or some police spokesman) held a press conference a couple of hours ago asking everyone in Boston to go home and stay there, so I think this could all be bundled together into a reasonable little section of its own. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• It looks like there's a slight consensus to have this info in the article, so I'm going to go ahead and put it in. Hot Stop (Talk) 03:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't let it turned into a list. I once found, in an article about a British snowstorm, a list of over twenty postponed football games. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 09:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Flags at Half-Mast

"Flags at half-mast" also seems non-notable, and shouldn't be in the "Emergency response" section even if it is. Ignatzmice•talk 22:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Flags at half-mast are included in articles like the 2011 Tucson shooting and Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.  TheArguer  _{SAY HI!} 22:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

From what I remember, the order for flags to be flown at half-mast can only be an executive order from the President, or an order from a state governor affecting only the flags in the given state. Thus, it seems out of place to be including the unofficial order given by Boehner. -- Rgrasmus (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This has come up in various settings before. Various officials have control over their respective buildings, so it's not unusual for Boehner to give the order for the Capitol and legislative buildings. Similarly, the President for those under his control. It's not "unofficial". Shadowjams (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about official or not official, but flying the flag at half mast when there is a disaster or death is pretty run of the mill and not particularly noteworthy by itself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you mean "Flags at Half-Staff". Masts are part of ships, so a ship is the only place you can fly a flag at half-mast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.247.134 (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, per our article Half-mast, that distinction doesn't apply everywhere outside the US. While this article should use US English, people speaking on the talk page do not have to. Nil Einne (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Newtown School Shooting

The marathon was dedicated to the newtown shooting, with families of the victims attending the VIP section. Someone should mention it in the article. Sopher99 (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Newtown victims of the bombing are unconfirmed at this point. Qworty (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • May still be notable, but I'd lean against unless we get a confirmed link. Ignatzmice•talk 23:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
    • With a valid reliable, independent source, I'm all for it. TBrandley 23:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Consider these:
• Newtown massacre victims caught up in Boston Marathon bombing
• Boston Marathon Hosted Newtown Families In VIP Seats Near Blasts
• Mile 26 Of Boston Marathon, Site Of Explosions, Was Dedicated To Newtown Families
• Final stretch of Boston Marathon had been dedicted to Newtown victims
• Family members of Newtown massacre victims 'were in VIP seats close to explosions' at Boston Marathon
• 'It was like the end of the world'
• Nation reacts to Boston Marathon bombingFrankRadioSpecial (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Information regarding Newtown attendees has been added to Boston Marathon 2013. I'm not sure if it needs to be regurgitated here. Aneah|talk _to ^me 00:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I do see the mention of the '26 seconds of silence to honor the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting', but no mention of Newtown families in the VIP section close to the explosions.FrankRadioSpecial (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Patriots' Day

I don't see a mention in the article that today is Patriots' Day, the day the marathon is run. I'm restricting my edits to the talk page today, and will just leave it to the judgement of those of you working with the content to decide if it is worth adding a few words or not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It has certainly been discussed, in detail, in media coverage, even here in Australia. Stalwart111 23:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Much speculation online as to whether that's important. We don't really know yet. As I said above, I'd lean against until we have more info on attacker and motive. Ignatzmice•talk 23:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I meant just a link. The Boston Marathon is always run on Patriots Day. I wouldn't assign it as a motive, just noting that is what the day is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The holiday is mentioned on the main page. I'm not sure it needs to be mentioned in the lead, but I think it would be a good addition.  TheArguer  _{SAY HI!} 23:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is pertinent. April 15 is also the anniversary of the Belfast Blitz and many other things, but there is no clear connection between this event and any of that other stuff, including Patriots' Day. One could argue that maybe there's a stronger connection to be made to Patriots' Day, but that's speculation and possibly original research. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a story here suggesting that there might be a link (MSNBC). I'll let others decide what to do with it. Bouchecl (talk) 00:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

That isn't a fair comparison. The Belfast Blitz isn't relevant to Boston, Patriots Day is. Ryan Vesey 05:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You obviously never saw the movie "Patriot Games".Eregli bob (talk) 07:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I read the book, but I don't understand your comment. Ryan Vesey 12:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Today is tax day. hmm....

I can see including the mention of it being Patriot's day, however, I have an issue with the article tying those events all together. I don't think that the Columbine Massacre had anything to do with political motivation. [28] Aneah|talk _to ^me 01:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

There is actually a direct thread running from Waco to Oklahoma City to Columbine; McVeigh was angered by the ATF actions at Waco and deliberately chose the anniversary of the fire to set off his bomb. Columbine is sketchier as ascribing any motive requires a degree of speculation, but there's certainly evidence that they intended to create a connection between their actions and McVeigh's (although perhaps less for political reasons than for simple notoriety). cmadler (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there's a thread from Waco to OKC to Columbine, but I don't think the "claims" in that article are going to hold up. Patriots' day is a state holiday in MA, but is not significant elsewhere. The association with tax day confuses it -- it's only by chance that tax day and patriots' day coincide this year. Even then, while anti-government groups might sympathize a bit with Waco, and maybe even with McVeigh, no with any coherent political views would see Columbine as anything to emulate. I think that this is pure speculation without even a coherent story from someone who happens to be a journalist. I know this isn't a popular point of view here that a reputable source can be overruled by rational thought, but there's only a connection with the date, not with Patriots' Day or tax day which happen to fall on it. Kevinpet (talk) 05:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I added a bit about this with a citation to the NYT story, which explicitly calls it out. Steven Walling • talk 03:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Aaand it was removed. If anyone wants to reuse it:

Sources such as The New York Times noted that while no perpetrators or suspects had been identified, the April 15th tax deadline and Patriots' Day were both associated with violent acts in the past by "radical American anti-government groups".

There ya go. Steven Walling • talk 03:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

External links

Any objection to me adding a link to the google finder page for the attack?

• Yes objection. We don't use a google search as an external link. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Not a "Google search" like you're thinking. It's a service by Google.org to locate missing persons. Ignatzmice•talk 23:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Trying to clarify that, but I'm in edit conflict hell, but I still think that isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia article. More for a news website. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it. Completely unencyclopedic.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Thanks I thought It was borderline thats why I asked Also I never added it. --Cameron11598 (Converse)

The activation of Google's Person Finder service was mentioned in the article. There is a separate page for that. No need to list it as a separate external link. Aneah|talk _to ^me 00:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

This event is only the second active Google People Finder event. I checked some common names and it is being well used. Legacypac (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Muslims, etc

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.

---

Reiterating: until/unless there is consensus otherwise (which I haven't seen), we do NOT need knee-jerk stories about how "Teh Muzlimzz are gleeful!11!!!!!1!", am I correct? Ignatzmice•talk 18:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Precisely. Unless we have >2-3 sources confirming this, I don't want even an allusion to it in the article. We should not speculate, we must rely on facts. Go Phightins! 18:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You sir, are very much correct. We need to keep our heads about us and wait for facts, not speculation. Plus, we need to decide if the inclusion of reactions by any groups is something that may be considered encyclopedic. Aneah|talk _to ^me 18:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Sources aren't the sticking point. Of course, radicalized Muslims who hate us are going to be giddy. That doesn't mean it is relevant to this event. If anything bad happens to Americans for any reason, you can expect they will be gleeful, which demonstrates that their "glee" isn't notable. It is expected, which is why it offers no encyclopedic value by itself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - besides, we don't even know if Muslims are responsible. Rklawton (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

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

"first terroristic attack"

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.

---

There's a new addition to the lede saying that this is the "first terroristic attack" on US soil since 9/11. Is this appropriate? I'm not sure what "terroristic" means and I think many people would dispute that this is the first "terroristic" attack on the US in 10 years. GabrielF (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed that. Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting proves them false, and that's just one of the recent ones. Ryan Vesey 19:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR, and false at that. I agree. Ignatzmice•talk 19:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It is nowhere near the first terrorist/terroristic attack in the US in 10 years. See [[29]] --Crunch (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

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

North Korean involvement

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.

---

There could be North Korean involvement. Put it in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.219.160.230 (talk) 08:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research. No source has reported such a thing. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 12:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

See also WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL --Crunch (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Regarding Boston Red Sox in the local section

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.

---

This was added to the 2013 Boston Red Sox season (April section) and may possibly be incorporated into the local section of this article (edit accordingly):

The Red Sox won their fourth straight againt the Cleveland Indians on April 16, one day after the deadly Boston Marathon bombings. The Red Sox and Indians wore black armbands to honor the victims of the bombings at the marathon's finish line. A giant American flag flew at half-mast before the series opener with a moment of silence before the first pitch. Before the game, in a clubhouse devoid of its usual pregame sound and bustle, several players spoke of how a memorable Patriot's Day win over Tampa Bay Rays turned horrific on April 15. A young Indians fan presented the Red Sox with a sign he wrote in red ink and ordained with hearts. The note, which was hung in Boston's dugout, read: "From our city to your city: Our hearts and prayers go out to you, Boston. Love, Cleveland." During the entire game, No. 617 with "Boston" above the numerals and "Strong" below them on a jersey reminded the players of home [-- where they were needed, where they wanted to be]. (Additionally, to commemorate Jackie Robinson Day, both teams wore No. 42 jerseys.)[30] [31] 99.129.112.89 (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Your help is appreciated, but we've decided to keep this kind of non-essential trivia to a minimum, at least for now.  TheArguer  _{SAY HI!} 05:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for being polite, it's refreshing. (smile) Just wanted to put it out there. Take care... 99.129.112.89 (talk) 05:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Another edit request (typo/grammar)

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.

---

Under "Reactions", Obama is quoted as saying "Anytime bombs are used to target innocent civilians, it is an act of terror." "Anyitme" should be changed to "Any time".

Yes. Absolutely right. It's fixed. Thanks for the notification. HiLo48 (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

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

photo source

Here is a set of 147 images, freely licensed on Flickr, from a nearby office building. I've posted a request on Commons to have the whole set uploaded, but in the meantime editors may want to select and upload any individual photos that are relevant for the article.--ragesoss (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I looked through all 147 images and think that these are some of the best photos in the set. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  TheArguer  _{SAY HI!} 03:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd concur that those are some of the better ones.— -dainomite   03:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I uploaded one to replace the fair use image in the infobox. Steven Walling • talk 04:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Shame, though--the one you took out had "iconic" written all over it. Drmies (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I know, it was ultimately a much better photo. If you want, we can put the fair use one back, and move the other to the body. There's still a fair use argument to be made I think, since one is of the explosion itself, and the other is after. Steven Walling • talk 04:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't want to tell you what to do; you know this stuff as well as or better than me. That image, though, will remain with me for a while, for all its distance and objectivity--and it has time standing still. I appreciate your response and concern, though. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I sent Aaron Tang a line via Flickr feedback thanking him for sharing these incredible pictures under CC BY. --DarTar (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems that Aaron's account is flagged on the commons, although these seem legitimate, the commons think he as flickrwashed photos in the past. Commons:File:2013_Boston_Marathon_explosions_aftermath_emergency_services.jpgMartin451 (talk) 05:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

My $.02: The pic of the explosion is overall a "better" photo, for several reasons:

it is brighter (not as smoky), making it easier to see details (especially in a thumbnail)

it is therefore more eye-catching, which I believe is an important consideration; if an image isn't visually arresting, why have it in the infobox?

while the current image is very poignant (obviously I don't know, but I would bet that woman on the ground next to the ash is dead), in its thumbnail version it just looks like people milling about

the free-use image captured the explosion as it happened, which is not very common in cases like this

Therefore I think it should be restored. Barring further input, I may convince myself to do that; in that case, consider this my rationale. Ignatzmice•talk 05:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Bombings and the like are rarely bright and clear, they are normally filled with confusion, people milling about. non-free images should only be used when free images are not available.Martin451 (talk) 05:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Works for me, Ignatzmice. Steven Walling • talk 05:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I like the image, but I do not think that it will survive the issues already brought up earlier in the talk without changes. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Bombings and the like are rarely bright and clear, they are normally filled with confusion My point exactly—why should we put in a picture that looks more like a "stock photo" when we have one of the explosion itself? In addition, it is now very small; I don't think it's much bigger than it appears in the infobox. I can't comment as to the more general issues raised by Nil Einne above. Ignatzmice•talk 05:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I won't put it back (that'd be getting close to the spirit, if not the letter, of 3RR, and I've got to head out anyway), but I think there ought to be more discussion—we should get some consensus, please! At the moment, the pic in the infobox is very similar to the one in "Victims" below. If we aren't going to use the one of the explosion, we should at least use the brighter/clearer one. Ignatzmice•talk 14:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

On a related note, the author says that he witnessed the event from his office window, located half a block from the finish line of the marathon and he uploaded to his flickr stream a high-resolution image of the crowd at what he suggests to be the location of the first explosion, allegedly shot an hour before it happened (I am reporting FYI only – as this obviously counts as WP:OR – from his reply to my thank you message). --DarTar (talk) 05:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)