Talk:Boston Marathon bombing/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Role of Police

It might help for editors here to clearly understand the role of local police in this situation and in any crime. Police do not determine what happened. Police do not prosecute suspects. The role of the police is to catch the bad guys. In this case, it's been confusing because both the Boston Police Commissioner, Ed Davis, and the Watertown Police Chief are continuing to make a lot of statements to the media stating what happened. While this may sound definitive, it is nothing more than their opinion and speculation. It is not uncommon for police to make statements like this in high profile crimes because they have a vested interest in establishing that they acted correctly in the apprehension of suspects. For example, the Watertown police chief has been floating the idea that the surviving suspect may have tried to shoot himself. There is no evidence for this yet. The Chief may be trying to immunize himself against possible charges of excessive force by saying, essentially, "We didn't do it, he did it to himself." The main tenets of Wikipedia include verifiability and neutral point of view. The statements by police officials meet neither of these criteria. --Crunch (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

We report what is said by RS. If police statements are not verififiable or NPOV and can't be used here than 90% of the article needs to go. Maybe there was no bombing, shooting, manhunt or capture? All the major details come from police after all pushing their POV. Maybe it is a false flag or hoax? Also, Police absolutely determine what happened - it is called an investigation for a reason. They are not just chasing and catching bad guys, they collect evidence and put everything together so the DA can take care of the charges. Legacypac (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The information about the investigation is coming from the police, but they are not the only source of information. Relying too much on police statements is undue weight. USchick (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

If you could get WP:UNDUE changed to clearly state that Wikipedia editors should not rely "too much" on police statements (and please make sure that "too much" is clearly defined), that would be ideal. Otherwise you're opening yourself to accusations that you're making things up (with regard to Wikipedia rules) to match your personal viewpoint.-- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

What John said. You'd rather not rely on police statements because... there's some huge conspiracy to make up facts by the police? This is a good example of how keeping or delaying verifiable information from reliable sources is its own form of editorializing, perhaps more pernicious, and which is why verifiable is the standard we use. Shadowjams (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE does not say that police statements are any more credible than any other statements. Like Crunch said, Police do not determine what happened. The editors of this article are relying too much on US interpretation of international significance. Claiming that the brothers are Chechen even though they NEVER lived in Chechnya is NPOV, especially since the mother is Avar. USchick (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

"Relying too much on police statements is undue weight" -- You apparently have not read that policy (or, from your other comments, other relevant WP policies). Undue weight is in reference to overemphasizing minority views. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

When the President of the United States, the President of the Russian Federation, the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria and Dagestan comment on this event, then yes, the statements of a few police officers are undue weight. USchick (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Only if the police hold a minority opinion. Again, please read the policies; you keep getting them wrong. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Since you seem to have a need to have the last word on every discussion, I will yield to your narcissism. USchick (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Caucasus Emirate said some more than that, actually

What FP "forgot" to mention, despite quoting (and linking to) Jihadology is this part:

"If the US government is really interested in establishing the true organizers of Boston bombings, and not in complicity with the Russian show, it should focus on the involvement of Russian security services in the events."

Original sources: Russian, English (uh, oh, "Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist." - Wikipedia "is not censored", but it is). --Niemti (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

This is very interesting and also part of what has been taboo so far in this article: Motivation. There is a network of causality here which spans Chechnya, Russia, Syria, Turkey, Dagestan, Kyrgistan (spellcheck), and other Stans to remain unspellable. The Caucasus guys don't want to own up to it. Right or wrong? Blame it on the FSB? Didn't a few people blame 9/11 on Mossad? The only way out of the hall of mirrors here is to state all of the known and posited relationships -- not what we posit, but what fairly reliable news sources posit. It's not too soon or Original Research to lay out the threads that have been presented in the somewhat-acceptable-to-Wikipedia news media. The media consensus is gradually moving away from lone wolf/copycat theory to something more ultimately state-sponsored. (Armed groups considered to be terrorists by one state are frequently armed and funded by another state which has some opposing interests in a given region.) Erxnmedia (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Formal charges laid, affidavit made public

Dzhokhar has been formally charged with two federal crimes in connection with the attacks, and the affidavit/charging document is available here. polarscribe (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Reporting mistakes

Do we need this section? Boston_Marathon_bombings#Reporting_mistakes As editors we are responsible for leaving out mistakes. I don't remember many other articles with sections of failed narratives. Perhaps in the heat of the moment we need to explain this (preferably in the talk) to keep editors for repeatedly inserting the same mistake. However, it seems these narratives are no longer being circulated. Perhaps it's time to get rid of this section. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It would be more appropriate to move the information to sections where it belongs. For example, the initial reports about other people being arrested belongs in the section on "Initial description and identification." Getting rid of this section entirely is not a good idea especially since the suspect has not been charged with any crime. USchick (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The reporting mistakes are big news still as reporting mistakes. If anything, move stuff about the mistakes into this section from other areas. All the mistakes can be easily found in unchanged reports on the net too so debunking them here is useful to keep them from being inserted in the article by well meaning editors. Legacypac (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe once the hoopla dies down, we should revisit this question. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper or journal ... what is "big news" of the moment is not relevant to this article. Nor is this snopes.com; if you want to help well-meaning editors avoid inserting mistakes into the article, discuss those mistakes here on the discussion page. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 07:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Not quite Snopes, no. But serves a somewhat similar educational purpose. Readers may likely have read some bullshit in the news before checking out Wikipedia. Better to tell them straight up that Blue Tracksuit Guy wasn't involved and the Tsarnaevs didn't rob a store, instead of letting them assume we've just overlooked/disregarded/censored something like that. Once some time has gone by, the story is more clear and consistent and public interest drops, there wouldn't be such a need. I think, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it's much better for the article to consolidate erroneous media reports in one section. That way, they don't get in the way of the narrative of what actually happened. I think it's also important - in this article, specifically - to preserve information about how much the media bungled the story in the first few days. It's important not for philosophical reasons (educate the reader about the media), but rather because the errors were reported on, in and of themselves, at some length, and therefore deserve to be included in the article. (It's not everyday that the FBI issues a statement asking that media reports be more accurate.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

"But serves a somewhat similar educational purpose" -- No, it does not. "there wouldn't be such a need" -- Wikipedia does not serve needs of the moment. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

OK. What purpose does it serve? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The reporting blunders have in some cases themselves had multiple instances of significant coverage from independent and reliable sources, such as today's New York Times article about CNN's incorrect reporting of a suspect arrested. There is space within the article about the bombings to talk about the media circus and mistakes made by the 24/7 TV news "reporters" and others trying to scoop the opposition and to come up with something to put on the air besides repeating the same video clips and news stories for the 300th time.NPOV and considerations of due weight may call for including mention of reporting blunders. Edison (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

As of right now, it's a very significant part of the story. I would go the opposite way -- based on how it is now, it should be its own section, because the failure of the media with regard to this story has become its own very big story. However, I think that that will settle, and it would ultimately not warrant a new article -- just a section here dealing with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.74.57.100 (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Removing detail/video

I'm removing the details and video link of the innocent/unrelated person who was briefly detained by police during the manhunt. There is no encyclopedic reason for us to link to a video of the ordeal of an innocent person who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time so that people can watch again and again. Per BLP, the subject of the video is identifiable yet extraordinarily unknown. We should allow him to reclaim his privacy. The fact that it was aired on live television gives disproportionate weight to the incident in the short term, but in the context of the events, it is an incredibly minor footnote. Mentioning the incident in passing is enough. polarscribe (talk) 06:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. This is the kind of thing BLP is meant to avoid, not naming a relative who has willingly done TV interviews and identified herself. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree. --Crunch (talk) 11:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The suspect is not identified and cannot be identified in the video. The media found this to be notable. Being forced to strip naked in public as part of an arrest is NOT standard police procedure! Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I found another story that says the naked man was later released, so I noted this in the article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The media finds lots of things to be briefly notable. There is no evidence that it rises to the level of encyclopedic. Nor is your claim that this is a "civil liberties" issue backed up by any reliable sources. If you think that this represents a significant civil liberties issue, you need to provide reliable sources that discuss that brief detention in the context of an important civil liberties violation. Has that person filed a claim against the police? Has he retained a lawyer in order to sue? If so, then I would agree that it would be encyclopedic.

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why it is important to the encyclopedia that the video be included, given that its probative value for the investigation is nil. polarscribe (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Forcing suspects to strip naked on the street and arresting cab passengers at gunpoint are obviously outside the norm and are on their face civil liberties issues. If the media finds these events to be notable, they are notable. You finding them not notable is not sufficient reason to delete the information. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

We're summarizing the event not detailing every facet. All these small details may be well covered today but may likely have no permanence to the larger picture of the event over time. If it does become an issue of violated civil liberties in light of the manhunt that continues to be discussed, then maybe that can be included, but given little coverage since that point, going into these details is excessive and inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 13:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the video but restored the bare details of the arrests. There is one short sentence per arrest, which is not excessive detail. Without the details of the arrests, the arrests would not be nearly so notable. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

"on their face civil liberties issues" -- Then find some civil liberties article to add it to; it isn't relevant to *this* article. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

There's actually absolutely nothing notable or interesting about the arrest being made at gunpoint. It's pretty much standard police procedure when dealing with suspects for whom there is a reasonable suspicion that they may be armed. Happens all the time. Being stripped naked, you're right, that's not usual. But it helps to explain the context. Thanks for not reinserting the video. polarscribe (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

What did the taxi passengers do to create a "reasonable suspicion" that they were armed? What did the bystander who was forced to strip naked do to create "reasonable suspicion" that he was wearing a bomb? Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. Do you have a reliable source which states there was no reasonable suspicion in either case? polarscribe (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

See Also section

What should go in this section? Does Domestic terrorism in the United States apply in this situation, being as these individuals were not from the US? Do other acts carried out by Chechen terrorists such as the Beslan school hostage crisis belong in there? Should the 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt be there, being as similar tactics were used? How about Islamic extremism in the United States? This section has been edited and reverted and edited again by multiple people so I figured it best to discuss it here. --PiMaster3 ^talk 15:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Nothing, and for a good reason. Btw, Beslan it was hardly "Chechen terrorists", it was Caucasian terrorists (led by an Ingush and an Ukrainian-Ossetian on-site). --Niemti (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not think there is a need for a See Also section. The related issues are covered in the category links and in in-line links within the article. --Crunch (talk)

Definitely not for anything that has to do with the suspects' religion, nationality or ethnicity. This is called a terrorist attack, but nobody's been convicted or even tried for anything yet. Just accused. So we can't say something is related because a Chechen, or American or Muslim did it. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Presently included in the See also section is the link to our Domestic terrorism in the United States article. Is there reason that link should not be in the "See also" section? Bus stop (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It presumes guilt. Of some American, at least. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

How a Golden Gloves athlete can not be "from the U.S." is beyond me. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

One was born in Chechnya, the other was born in Kyrgyzstan. One was a resident alien, the other just became a citizen last year. I don't see how competing in some sports competition is relevant. --PiMaster3 ^talk 16:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Dagestan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic was never "Chechnya". --Niemti (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake. But my point about them not being from the US still holds. --PiMaster3 ^talk 17:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to jump on you. I think of them both as Americans and as a result, a "domestic" problem. I think their article says they lived here for ten years.-SusanLesch (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree and have removed the link. Calling this domestic terrorism is rushing to (poorly advised) judgment. There may be a foreign motive, there may be a transnational motive, etc. Domestic terrorism is a term reserved for terrorism arising out of primarily domestic political causes. Let's let the facts emerge before we start dumping tags, eh? This goes also for links to things like Islamic terrorism, or Chechen terrorism, or whatnot. Ray^Talk 21:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, gentlemen. How is a link to a murder any better than a link to domestic terrorism? I removed that whole section. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

"They are ethnic Chechens", "were ethnic Chechens" - not even fully true

No, they're only half-Chechens.

"Having an Avar for a mother makes the brothers only half Chechen, but the fact that Dzhokhar and Tamerlan are still being labeled as fully Chechen in the international media only highlights how difficult it can be to get through the ethnic complexity of the North Caucasus."

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/hunt-for-boston-clues-reveals-tangled-caucasus-web/478981.html

And yes, that they were not born in Chechnya, the family lives in Dagestan, etc., is even besides this point. --Niemti (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Obama is only half Black but calls.himself Black. Similarly, the bombers are Czech...ha ha BostonStrong2013 (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The article claims that the brothers are Chechen even though they never lived in Chechnya. This was obviously written by someone who doesn't understand the region, which is NPOV. The mother is Avar. It would be more accurate to say that the family is from the North Caucasus region and they were displaced by war. Once a person becomes an American citizen, they are American. USchick (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion is of no relevance here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Tamerlan was born in Kalmykia. Zubeidat (mother) is an ethnic Avar[1] Dzhokhar was born in Kyrgyzstan. Even if the parents are from Chechnya that doesn't make the two boys Chechen. "Boston Marathon Bombing Suspects' Twisted Family History" [2] USchick (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does. The place of birth has no bearing on ethnicity; one could be born in Chechnya or Kyrgyzstan or the United States or Mars and still be an ethnic Chechen (or an ethnic Russian or Frisian or whatever). Ethnicity ≠ nationality. If a reputable source states that their mother is Avar we must accurately report their mixed Chechen-Avar ethnicity. --50.46.231.88 (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Since you clearly fail to grasp the difference between ethnicity and nationality, your opinion would be irrelevant even if we took contributors opinions into account. Which we don't. THIS IS NOT A FORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Since you fail to grasp the complexity of the region, I provided links. USchick (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that the article didn't say "ethnic Chechens" in the background section; instead, it said "They are Chechen Muslims". I've made this edit in an effort to differentiate that we're talking about ethnicity, not nationality, in the background section. Does that resolve the problem? AzureCitizen (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for caring AzureCitizen! I would like to explain the situation, please bear with me. In the US there is no "nationality" listed on official documents only "race." People in the Caucasus go to war over "nationality" issues and that's why you can't just claim someone to be ethnic anything without giving it some serious thought. The US media reporters are not very sensitive to this issue, but Wikipedia should be more considerate than that. I'm not sure why their nationality is important to identify, but if it is, it needs to be verified by an official document, not just a news story. People come to the US for the purpose of erasing their "nationality" from their passport to stop persecution, which is exactly what this family did. The father confirms this fact in his interview. According to documents, the father is Chechen national and their mother is Avar national. [3] This does not automatically transfer to their children. On Dzokhar's You Tube page [4] his user name is "abubakringush" which shows that he identifies with the Ingush people. The family is multinational and to claim that the brothers are Chechen is extremely inaccurate and in some cases would be considered racist. Forbes is more sensitive to this issue when they report the brothers as "half-Chechen half-Avar" [5]. One of the brothers is a US citizen, so unless he has another passport listing his nationality, he is American. The only real fact is that both brothers are Muslim. The rest is open to interpretation. According to a Russian source [6] "The US media speculate that Tamerlan started to cling to radical Islamist ideas." This is an international event and claiming half-truths from US sources is not the right approach. I urge editors to be more culturally sensitive when editing international articles and to seek out international sources. Unless there are questions directed specifically to me, I will refrain from commenting further. Thanks for listening. USchick (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The phrase ethnic Chechens appears to be the most common in articles in the last 24 hours. For example, [7] [8] [9] Earlier articles are mixed in terminology. I also notice an increase usage of the phrase radical Islam. However, Muslim is used by all sources that refer to the suspects' religion. That's a safe demographic category. You edit is a good reflection of the sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Americans in general can't even locate the Caucasus on a map, let alone Chechnya. Sadly this ignorance is reflected in their media. For the first two or so days of the manhunt, the brothers were frequently referred to as "Chechnyan" (a geographic definition, not an ethnic group, and an incorrect one since they never even lived in Chechnya). I don't think American media should be the arbiter here, in light of their ignorance.

On the other hand, I don't think having Avar ancestry meant too much. Dzhokhar at least seemed to clearly view himself as solely Chechen and claims to speak Chechen (but not Avar), although it seems that in reality Russian was more frequently used. It's also important to keep in mind that ethnicity membership works differently in the Caucasus, where ethnicity is usually passed solely on the male side.

That being said, their ethnicity shouldn't really get any more coverage than it already has.--Yalens (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Zooey Deschanel error

Since there is a well-developed "reporting errors" section in this article, and the closed-captioning error that accidentally attributed the name Zooey Deschanel to one of the suspects has been covered by major media, including UPI, I think it's worth mentioning here. According to the UPI story, the actress has herself acknowledged and referenced the error via Twitter, so WP:BLP shouldn't be an issue. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Funny, but not newsworthy in the context of an international terrorist incident. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

There are different types of errors. Intentionally reporting something that turns out to be wrong, expecially if that particular fact in question is important could be notable for the article. An automated text-recognition error in closed captioning is an entirely different beast. Thats more like a typo. Nobody was intending to report that Ms Deschanel was an actual suspect. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

More significant to Deschanel than to this incident in general. It's technically a reporting error, but since nobody was likely actually misinformed by it, there's no educational value in "debunking" it here, just trivia. It was overlaid on Tsarnaev's picture, and described her as a 19 year-old man. If someone's dumb enough to misunderstand that, they're not likely to understand what we write here either. I've added it to her "References in popular culture" section, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

How did 'her' come in to it here? The name given was Zooey Deschanel but since as you said it described 'him' (he) as a 19 year old, it clearly wasn't referring to a woman or 'her' such as the famous actress who shares the name :-P The fact that the actress responded doesn't change the fact the caption taken as a whole even as a mistake was not referring to her but apparently someone else with the same name. Nil Einne (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

You're wrong. It's her name, and that's how "her" came into it. No one else has that name. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

You seem confused. The name Zooey Deschanel was given in the caption. However since the same caption said Zooey Deschanel was a 'he' and a 19 year old, and was below a photo of someone who no one would recognise as the actress, the only logical conclusion is that even if we accept the caption as correct, it was not referring to the actress who has the same name. Whether or not someone else by that name exists is beside the point. The simple fact is, it makes no sense to refer to the Zooey Deschanel referred to in the caption as a 'her' (as InedibleHulk did and was what I was referring to) when the caption itself refers to to him as a 'he'. The fact that the actress has the same name as that given in the caption and is a 'her' and that the automatic captioning software allegedly at fault must have been confused because of the actress doesn't change this. The nature of the error means that Zooey Deschanel the actress was not in any real level named as a suspect, rather if you want to get in to it, someone else who shares the same name but is 19 years old, looks different and is a 'he' was named as a suspect. Something I should add that neither the OP, Gaijin42 or InedibleHulk appear to disagree with. Nil Einne (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I should have put "her" in quotes, or said "described Zooey Deschanel as". Figured the context of the rest my comment would make it clear. But yes, you're technically right. This tiny error deserves a tiny apology. Sorry. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Those bottom-of-the-page crawls are frequently marred by typos or unrelated news items getting concatenated. Same for captions to photos; I have seen captions for previous stories carried over to the next story or a story being rushed in to be first. Un-intentional-ly. Unimportant. One of the flaws of 24/7 news. --Naaman Brown (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. Sarah Palin's article doesn't mention how FOX once used Tina Fey to portray her, exactly like NBC did. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Support walk in Canada

Their is a walk the the US embassy in Canada to show support for Boston. It may not be worth an entry and if so after it is complete? Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It would be great if you would add that to the International section. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not. How minor can you stoop? Abductive (reasoning) 18:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

In other current events with International Reaction sections, we've frequently had long lists of "The President of Andorra says he feels for the victims, and condemns the violence" to "The President of Zimbabwe says he feels for the the victims, and condemns the violence." Having a substantial reaction like this the support walk in Canada here would be a step up from the standard, not a stoop. I say it's worth mentioning. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ottawa-walk-commemorates-victims-of-boston-marathon-bombings-1.1248465 CTV is a very reliable source up here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm with the Hulk (as long as he isn't angry). We can probably assume that all of the US Embassies will mark the event somehow. Heads of state on the other hand are a crap shoot and probably worth noting (especially if they're any way controversial).TheSyndromeOfaDown (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I am completely distinct from The Incredible Hulk. Just a similar name. I prefer rationalizing to smashing. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Including the remarks of a head of state have been mostly rejected.... including a tribute by a country is even more minor. This is absolutely towards the bottom of the notability list. Shadowjams (talk) 07:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

A country (or a slice of the population, anyway) is more minor than its leader? That's a rather elitist viewpoint, isn't it? Not saying you can't hold it, but I absolutely disagree. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

That (your response) is comical given some of the other stances taken on this topic. Shadowjams (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Such as? I wouldn't mind laughing at myself, but I don't get the joke. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Actualy, I might have gotten it. Did you think I was referring to listing every head of state's standard message by "substantial reaction like this"? I wasn't, but re-reading Syndrome's response, I think I may have been vague. Fixed that. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Canada fast track again

Source. It seems the bombing is the cause of the fast-tracking. Should we wait until the government states this in the house before possible inclusion? We also may wish to keep it POV and mention that the opposition feels it is politically motivated to delay their plans for today in the house.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

That source doesn't say the bombings are the cause of the fasttracking, only suggests the coincidence might mean they are. It also mentions the Algerian attackers from London. Vic Toews (though I personally don't trust him further than I can throw him) explicitly denies a Boston connection in the article. We'll need clearer sources, but this is potentially something worth noting. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

He denies the fast-tracking because of fear, but does mention the bombing:

"In his comments Sunday, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews denied any suggestion the government is preying on fears stoked by the Boston bombings as leverage to pressure the opposition to pass the bill. "This is something that we've been needing to do for quite a while," he said on CTV’s Question Period on Sunday. "The incident in Boston simply demonstrates the need for this type of legislation."

I don't really care if it is included or not but it was brought up before and mention of including it was tabled until the government itself mentions the bombing.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Given recent events in Canada (specifically this), I think there is no realistic link between the Canadian government actions and the Boston event. Unless a minister publicly states that the resurrection of this bill was not because of Canadian events and was solely because of Boston events, there's nothing to directly connect this. Risker (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Clarifying who died in bombing 1 and bombing 2

It is very important to specify the damage in bombing 1 and then damage in bombing 2 around 13 seconds later. Particularly regarding human casualties. We have global figures, but no specifics. Who died and how many were injured in first explosion, and who died and how many injured in second explosion further down some seconds later. Also importantly according to police, which brother was responsible for explosion 1 and which for explosion two? werldwayd (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I doubt we're going to get exacting numbers with the explosions that close in time and that short a distance. Further, we're probably months from having official details of the events, so its no rush to be asking for this. --MASEM (t) 22:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I can understand regarding injured. But regarding those killed, there were only three fatalities. These fatalities happened initially or in explosion 2? It is crucial in sequence of events. werldwayd (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Calm down dude. Wikipedia is NOT the FBI or anything like that. If it's released in the press then it can be added, until then chill out. Socialhistorian2013 (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice to know, and not exactly hard for investigators to figure out (the dead, anyway), but until we hear the answer from a reliable source, not much we can do. Can't do our own investigation. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

According to this [10] source, Krystle Campbell was a victim of the first explosion (near the finishing line). The same goes for Lu Lingzi, according to this [11] report. Martin Richard is shown at the site of the second explosion in this [12] report. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

"Clear" religious motivation?

This recent edit states that the attacks were clearly religiously motivated, even though the source cited only says "preliminary evidence suggests..." Has anyone found any other sources that address the investigation's findings on motivation at this time?  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 01:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

That looks like a questionable use of the source to me. Note also that the source doesn't state that the 'two US officials' they cite actually took part in any interrogation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Mail goes into some considerable detail about the interrogation and results. Also it has a lot of detail about the two friends (re)arrested in New Bedford. However, it is a tabloid so it is pretty sensationalist. CNN has pretty clear reporting quoting a source with "first hand knowledge of the investigation" Key sentence: "Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, wounded and held in a Boston hospital, has said his brother -- who was killed early Friday -- wanted to defend Islam from attack, according to the source." Legacypac (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I tend to think of The Daily Mail in about the same light as Facebook reshares and unsigned talk page comments. It links to CNN (a more trusted name in news), where it says "The government source cautioned that the interviews were preliminary, and that Tsarnaev's account needs to be checked out and followed up on by investigators." So we can wait. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• ...and I heard on NPR this evening that there is no clear motive yet. I'd say (again) that we should wait until there's an official release from someone saying they're confident they know what the motive was. Ignatzmice•talk 05:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Nothing is "clear" at the moment, and we should wait until the investigation has had time to complete, and the trial has taken place to ascertain the facts in this case, before we report anything of this sort as an undisputed fact, as opposed to a sourced opinion. Also, single-sourcing anything to the Daily Mail is usually a poor idea. -- The Anome (talk) 11:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The CNN article also makes his frame of mind less clear to me, when it says he is "heavily sedated" and "alert, mentally competent and lucid". I've been heavily sedated more than a few times, and I've never noticed those last three effects. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing clear about the motivation at this point. The CNN article says this even while citing some unnamed source. --Crunch (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources are overwhelmingly citing religion as a motivation (even if not the only motivation). Article after article debates whether it is "homegrown" or has foreign connections. Statements made by the surviving brother talk about jihad and defending Islam. It's time to include this. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

If the surviving brother is talking about jihad and defending Islam, I think that's appropriate to include. But ascribing actual motive does not seem supported due to conflicting sources, and official statements really just being that they don't know yet. Include Tsarnaev's statements, but stay far away from reporting various conflicting media speculation on supposed motive. The reader can draw their own conclusions from the actual statements made. Things like the older brother's role, possible involvement of foreign groups, etc, are still very much unknown...past whatever the surviving brother is claiming. (Edit: Apparently some officials are indeed stating preliminary things like an apparent lack of links to other groups...preliminary being key and emphasized by said officials.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 14:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

There are degrees of explanation. Reliable sources note a religious dimension to the motivation without fully describing its nature. Further investigation may provide more details about the exact nature of that dimension. Above I mentioned the on-going debate only to stress that the religious dimension is generally accepted among a wide number of reliable sources even if the details of the nature of this factor is under investigation. Thus, I don't think that there is a religious dimension is unclear. I take exception to the inclusion of the tag in the main article. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't tag it just because a religious factor is unclear, but also because "officials offer" is also vague (which officials? was it preliminary speculation, as the existing refs state?), as well as what statements were cited. I'd say it's reasonable to remove entirely based on the "preliminary" bit, actually, but thought perhaps the sentence could be cleaned up. From the CNN ref: "The government source cautioned that the interviews were preliminary, and that Tsarnaev's account needs to be checked out and followed up on by investigators". This is why I suggested reporting what Tsarnaev actually stated, without including further speculative analysis at this point. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 15:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

References

Lone wolf theory

A reference in Backrounds section:

During the 2012 trip to Dagestan, Tamerlan was reportedly a frequent visitor at a mosque believed by the FSB to be linked with radical Islam.

is a possible refutation of this claim in Chechen Reaction section:

The Mujahideen of the Caucasus Emirate Province of Dagestan, the Caucasian Islamist insurgency active in both Chechnya and Dagestan, denied any link to the bombing or the Tsarnaev brothers and stated that it was at war with Russia, not the United States. It also said that it had sworn off violence against civilians since 2012.

Can we put in some reference to differentiate between the groups associated with the referenced mosque and the Muj of Caucasus guys?

The Lone Wolf theory is in front of news today, this goes to the validity of that theory. Lone Wolf theory is that the boys read Inspire magazine, went off and bought some cookware, watched a few crazy Youtube rants, and were good to go, and were not directed or funded by any external group. Erxnmedia (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no refutation there. The (apparent) fact that he frequented a mosque that may have been tied to "radical Islam" (which groups and which ideologies, we are not told) does not even suggest, much less prove, that the specific group named here had anything to do with the bombing. polarscribe (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

According to TIME magazine this mosque had the following associates:

• Insurgent leader Abu Dudzhan from the town of Kizilyurt in central Dagestan
• Nadirshakh Khachilaev
• Murad Lakhiyanov
• Murad Abdurazakov

So it is a question of who these associates are representative of, if not of the Mujahideen of the Caucasus Emirate Province of Dagestan, then who else, or do these individuals have nothing in common with each other. And if they constitute an association of people, did this association have an influence on the thinking, actions or financing of the brothers Tsarnaev. Erxnmedia (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It may be a question, but the answer is irrelevant here, unless and until it is discussed in reliable sources. Please stop using this talk page for speculation - that is not its purpose. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Those are very interesting questions that no doubt some investigators are pursuing. Wikipedia is not an investigatory body, and what you're suggesting would be original research, which is not permitted in Wikipedia articles. polarscribe (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Some articles in major media are asserting a connection with Muj of Caucusus. TIME is connecting the mosque with some Muj but not necessarily Muj of Caucasus. InfoWars (on the Wiki blacklist?) goes the other way and says that link to Muj is a govt conspiracy put-up job. Without leading the way or doing original research, it is simply sensible in a complete article to expand the web of links of related topics. For example in Wikipedia there are already articles which concern Murad Abdurazakov, so it is certainly not OR to link one Wikipedia article to another. I didn't originate any of these connections. These are connections that are being presented, and it is responsible to note the connections and expand the documentation of them wherever possible. Erxnmedia (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

InfoWars, as you have found out, is completely unacceptable as a source for anything on Wikipedia. polarscribe (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It'll be a dark, cold day in hell before swill like InfoWars is ever used as a source in this article. I cannot think of a worse place to turn to. Tarc (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I can. NaturalNews. Makes Infowars look like The History Channel in comparison. And makes The History Channel look downright legit. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Well you will have a hard time writing an article about Tamerlan without mentioned InfoWars, because it was one of his favorite reads.

Nothing wrong with mentioning Infowars in an article. Just with using it to source things we mention. This reference to it is a blog, which may be unreliable. I have no idea who this Weigel guy is, but if he's considered an expert or journalist, it might be acceptable. Says he's a "Slate reporter", but isn't mentioned in Slate's staff biographies in their "About Us". Of course, that updated on October 1, 2001. What is this site? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Judging from the fact that Weigel wrote seven other pieces that day, it seems this is one of those traffic-driven, pay-by-the-view deals. I'd say it probably is unreliable. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

On the controversy over the government shutting down the city

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

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

Lazy writing and cross-referencing, Wikipedia.

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

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

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

 Done—in the the great emergent socialsphere that is Wikikpedia, editors have found sources and updated the article with reliable sources who are delving into the controversy over the police reaction in doing harm in economic activity and the extraordinary loss of personal liberty by shuting down a significant part of a large and populous metropolitan area. It is covered here: Boston_Marathon_bombings#Critical_reactions_to_the_manhunt, and is well sourced. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Note on terrorism accusations that have been wrong

This is not directly relevant to this article, but I do want to point out one example of why many of us are interested in preventing a rush to judgment and encouraging a "go slow" attitude in regards to the perpetrators and motivations behind the attacks.

The person originally arrested for the 2013 ricin letters several days ago has just been released and all charges have been dropped - the FBI could find no evidence whatsoever linking him to the attacks, it appears he is entirely factually innocent and potentially the victim of a frame-up attempt. So his name has been dragged through the mud for the better part of a week for no reason at all.

First media reports and early investigatory speculation are not always correct, and there is good reason that we should not always leap to the first conclusion. polarscribe (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's not forget Richard Jewell, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I've edited articles on the 12th century Renaissance and 12th century philosophers, and historians are still changing their minds. Perhaps in a few thousand years ... Jason from nyc (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Who Killed Suspect #1

This April 21 3:30 PM CNN article says ""We are waiting for more information," said Terrel Harris, spokesman for the Boston Medical Examiner's Office. He wasn't sure when a cause of death would be released."

However, a little later on April 21, 7:12 PM New interview with Water Police Chief by Boston.com says: "Tamerlan Tsarnaev was alive and struggling with Watertown police early Friday morning, when his younger brother and alleged co-conspirator drove over him in a stolen SUV, dragging him on the pavement and apparently inflicting the fatal injuries that killed him, said Watertown Police Chief Ed Deveau in a Globe interview." "After several minutes, the elder brother, Tamerlan, walked toward the officers, firing his gun until he appeared to run out of bullets, Deveau said. Officers tackled him and were trying to get handcuffs on him, when the stolen SUV came roaring at them, the younger brother at the wheel. The officers scattered and the SUV plowed over Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who was dragged briefly under the car, he said."

Conclusion - the police chief briefed his officers and determined that the run over, not the gun shots, killed Suspect #1.

Legacypac (talk) 05:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

That's synthesis. It may have been a combination of both. Coroners will release an official cause of death which is what can be then included. All we can say now that after a prolonged gunfight, Tamerlan was driven over by his brother in the stolen SUV, and by the time they reached the hospital, he was dead. --MASEM (t) 05:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Yup. We aren't here to reach 'conclusions'. Find another forum if you want to speculate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting what the police chief said. He did not "determine" anything, because that's not his job. He said "apparently inflicting the fatal injuries that killed him" -- appearances to a medical layman are not determinant of medical cause. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 07:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not the job of the police to determine cause of death. Anything the police chief may have said is mere speculation. Cause of death is determined by the medical examiner. Any criminal activity that may have lead to this cause of death is decided by the courts. --Crunch (talk) 11:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Should we wait for the ME to determine it was a bomb that killed 3 people at the Marathon or gunshots that killed the MIT officer? Legacypac (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone read the *&^% sources before condemning what other editors type? http://boston.com/metrodesk/2013/04/21/new-details-wild-shootout-with-bomb-suspects-watertown-chief-believes-older-brother-was-killed-younger-brother-desperate-getaway/jaIyrXr8fSnf5Pu4xnRbvM/story.html Start with the headline: "New details on wild shootout with bomb suspects in Watertown; chief says older brother was killed by younger brother’s desperate getaway" We know the Chief was not at the firefight, and he speaks for his officers who were there. That is part of his job. Legacypac (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

So, we must wait to see what the official cause of death is as there are still three options that killed Suspect #1. Either Suspect #1 was killed when he was hit with the gunshots, when he was run over, or both caused his death. We could imply what happened, but that would be original research. --Super Goku V (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

"Does anyone read the *&^% sources before condemning what other editors type?" -- Yes. Do you bother to read what others write? No one has denied that the chief said something. "he speaks for his officers who were there" -- Totally irrelevant to determination of cause of death. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

We are free to state that the police chief believes that the older brother was killed by the brother's desperate getaway. I would recommend this action if it fits in with the prose already in the article. We deal with facts and the police chief's response is both factual and notable. CoolMike (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

References

Edit request on 22 April 2013

Regarding the section - Manhunt and capture

"They released the man after the ATM cash limit was reached" should be changed to "he escaped when he was left alone while the two men entered a convenience store" see - http://www.boston.com/2013/04/21/mass-police-bomb-suspects-didn-have-gun-permit/p7PKp9xmXPd7jWv9hcNlTJ/story.html

There also is an incorrect citation. [79] does not corroborate the preceding sentence.

Here is an article that supports the statement that they used the carjacked man's ATM to get $800.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2013/04/20/police-suspects-used-carjack-victim-atm-card/6zP1751OwoIegCQhKMqy7L/story.html

Gkashtan (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Gkashtan (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

ATM withdrawal at Bank of America in Watertown Square occurred at 11:18 p.m. after SUV owner escaped and an hour prior to shootout with police. This timeline doesn't add up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.234.133 (talk) 08:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I read they actually went to 3 ATMs with the carjacked guy. They MAY also have gone to others after he escaped. They also had two autos when they encountered police so they may not have been always in the same place. Hard to know their exact whereabouts between the carjack vic release and Laurel Ave in Watertown. 70.78.45.67 (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

One explanation consistent with the reported timing is: the suspects took the carjacking victim to the Watertown Square ATM, among others. The victim was in the car with the older suspect while the younger suspect was on camera withdrawing money at 11:18pm. They then returned to Cambridge, from which they could use various escape routes. (Escape from Watertown would have been just as easy, but they may not have known the neighborhood.) Running out of gas, they stopped at the Shell station before getting on the Mass Pike. The victim escaped (reportedly at 12:30am), the brothers panicked, and they took off back toward Watertown, where a firefight ensued around 12:45am. Note that the locations are about 10 minutes apart, without traffic.

Internet vigilantism

Are we ready to put the 4chan/reddit stuff in yet? Don't say it didn't happen and didn't have it's consequences, numerous people were identified as being the bombers and then presented as such by news media and then exonerated. Reddit actually posted an apology. It's news, it's history, it's part of what happened, let's not bury our heads in the sand. It is, in it's intensity, also unique and new to this event, and was noted as such in many news articles. Erxnmedia (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It's in there, under "Mistakes in reporting". It only needs a line in this article since it was a mistake and otherwise not pertinent to this situation. That said, Internet vigilantism could be expanded to talk in more detail what happened here (there's plenty of sources for this). --MASEM (t) 22:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The single sentence doesn't give a sense of the amount of pontificating in many mass media articles regarding reddit/4chan activity. Also, as a civilian at a distance, my personal experience was that it was actually one of the better ways to connect with events (other than editing this page, of course!). The FBI web site for example typically lagged a day to a day and a half at best behind events, which left a lot of room for 4chan/reddit to seem like a way to find out what was really happening. And typing "Chechnya" into the Search box at the CIA website gets you 2 lines from their stale World Factbook. Erxnmedia (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Given that reddit/4chan ended up wrong and in fact put at least one person under duress for implicating him, it shouldn't get more than a sentence here about the bombing and investigation. It was widely reported and I see no reason why a section at Internet vigilantism can't be added to cover the reddit/4chan events there, but they ultimately are just a footnote to the actual bombing incident , manhunt, and subsequent investigation. --MASEM (t) 20:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Also could be relevant in the 4chan and Reddit articles. Here, just enough as is. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's more relevant here than on Reddit's article, because this is about a single event and that is about a company over a period of many years. However, that said, it is clearly a notable enough phenomenon to deserve its own article with full detail. Wnt (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Trim the refs?

On another note, this article has nearly 240 references. Our articles on the London and Madrid train bombings don't have that many references combined. It would be time consuming, but I bet someone could go through our references and remove duplicate info. For instance, I bet this week's articles that mention the suspect's arraignment would also provide info on the bombing, manhunt, and capture. Hot Stop (Talk) 01:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

NO - there is a cycle going on here that is wasting everyone's time and contributing to an unstable article. Person A writes something and refs it well. Person B trims the ref. Person C comes along and deletes (or tags) the fact as unrefed. Person D restores or rewrites and refs again. Than the cycle repeats. I suggest we leave the refs alone until the edits die down and only than try to trim the refs. Legacypac (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree we should cut down on all potentially unreliable sources such as daily newspaper/tabloid types like Daily Mirror or New York Post. If necessary, they can be replaced with reliable sources, or entire paragraphs can be sourced with a single reliable, comprehensive article that presents an in-depth summary/overview/analysis rather than multiple, scattered pages on almost the same topic. Of course, we should probably do this after the editing drops down considerably, so that refs don't get deleted or lost in the numerous edits - maybe wait a full month (May 23) before trimming them. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It's problematical to source an entire paragraph with just one footnote, particularly because paragraphs typically come from a variety of sources. I support the idea of waiting a month (let's say until the end of May), since a lot of online sources go behind a paywall or otherwise vanish within 30 days, and trimming footnotes with dead links is a great place to start. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Ref 9 links only to LA Times - not to the article. Correct ref for article is http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-boston-bombing-suspects-20130419,0,1464797.story Irish Melkite (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Prior Knowledge?

Russia contacted FBI `multiple’ times on concerns about alleged Boston Marathon bomber http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/04/23/russia-contacted-fbi-multiple-times-concerns-about-alleged-boston-marathon-bomber/ND0bhUdq1Tp1mRuC8xlb8N/story.html

Chambliss: Law enforcement agency may have had info about Boston bombing in advance http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/chambliss-law-enforcement-agency-may-info-ab/nXT7x/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.120.89.153 (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracy fodder. The headline is deceptive in that it doesn't accurate reflect the text: "Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss told Channel 2 Action News late Tuesday afternoon that a law enforcement agency may have had information in advance of the Boston bombings that wasn't properly shared." This likely has to do with the older brother's movements in and out of the US. -Location (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Brothers planned to attack Times square next

How do I add this Boston Marathon suspects Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev 'talked about bombing Times Square' http://www.georgenegus.com Editing this place is extremely difficult. Couldn't even find a n editing button on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.169.255.243 (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracy page?

Let me start by saying I am in no way a conspiracy theorist, but from my research online I've discovered a number of oddities involving this tragedy, and I was wondering if anyone was working on a page about possible Boston Marathon Bombing conspiracies? --Matt723star (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Such an article would fail WP:GNG as the conspiracies have not received significant attention from non-conspiracy sites (as opposed to newtown, JFK, etc where discussion about the conspiracy theories was national news) Gaijin42 (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't support it yet, but probably once the trial is over. And yes, when we have reliable sources. This doesn't seem anywhere near as sketchy as some of the things Infowars and friends jump on, but there is some fishiness, it seems to me. For now, notwithstanding the lack of mainstream sources, it seems a Wiki article might hurt more than it helps. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I was probably the first one to introduce this kind of section, but was subsequently denied by the maintainers on a basis of 'here is no place for conspiracy theories' (see Talk history, Apr 22). We guys should think putting this section on, marking it as 'not proven', despite that we don't have reliable resources (honestly, what do you call reliable?). Mainstream sources might not have/publish such an information, especially when the situation is covered by the state. Please consider on opening 'Controversy' (not a 'conspiracy') page. Gumbert (talk) 00:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS for what Wikipedia defines as "reliable" sources. In general, Wikipedia rules forbid posting controversial material to articles without reliable sources. Period. If you believe that reliable sources will never publish the truth about X (whatever "X" is), then you should go somewhere else to post about that subject, because Wikipedia isn't the right place. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

@Gumbert : Reliable sources cover conspiracy theories all the time, but in the context of debunking them, or accusing the people propagating the conspiracy theories of being wack jobs. Also, the truly notable conspiracies (JFK, UFOs, NAZI occult, etc) have signficant "research" and dedicated books on them. Neither situation is true for this topic. Newtown as the obvious recent counterexample had major newspapers discussing the conspiracies and why they were going around. None of that is happening here thus far. 02:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. Allowing things with a "not proven" disclaimer in place of a reliable source would open the floodgates to all kinds of crap. I could blame Herbert Mullin for the bombings (the US hasn't had an earthquake since) or say Tamerlan's ghost haunts TD Garden (I swear I saw something move). Probably sounds as stupid to you as some of the stuff Alex Jones comes up with does to me. I hear your point about the "sheeple" sites sometimes reporting factual and important things that "they" legitimately don't want you to know. But the truth in them is generally surrounded by much more bullshit, so as a whole, they can't be considered reliable. Fortunately, their truth is often backed up by (at least based on) a legit source that has just been buried by mainstream news, which we can use. Not a terrible place to look for leads, but a poor place to trust, overall. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it is appropriate to link some crazy websites from this talk page and say "can anybody substantiate x, y, z that they say", but admittedly you might run into others who don't. But ya gotta have reliable sources to put it in the article, no doubt about that. Wnt (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Just in case a source is needed to justify a Conspiracy Theories section, an article by Ben Radford at www.livescience.com- LuckyLouie (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Confession & Acknowledgement of Brother's Role

From Washington Post (a good RS) lead in the linked article: "The 19-year-old suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings has told interrogators that the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan motivated him and his brother to carry out the attack, according to U.S. officials familiar with the interviews. From his hospital bed, where he is now listed in fair condition, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has acknowledged his role in planting the explosives near the marathon finish line on April 15, the officials said." [13]

I call the first bolded statement an accusation against his brother and a confession. The second bolded statement is an even clearer confession.

An Innocent person would say "I didn't do it!" not "yes I did it and here is why I did it"

Now can we drop the whole "alleged, suspect" stuff already for the bombings? Legacypac (talk) 04:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

All we can do is report what is verifiable in reliable sources. You'll notice that even the source you included goes on to say, "... at his hospital bed, where the suspect is recuperating from gunshot wounds ..." (emphasis mine). Everything is alleged until the allegations are upheld by a conviction. That's just the way it is for it is within his right to recant his statements, or even be deemed incompetent. It is certainly an interesting development however, and both relevant and encyclopedic; so I wouldn't hesitate to include the sourced information. My76Strat (talk) 04:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME: "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law". A statement from a third person that someone has confessed to committing a crime isn't a conviction. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a distinction between admitting to committing to an act (a bombing) and admitting to a specific criminal charge (WMD use). The cited policy completely misses that a person can confess and cooperate. Legacypac (talk) 04:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The cited policy is what we go by, rather than what we think someone 'can' do. If you wish to suggest that the policy be revised, this isn't the place to do it (and I suspect the Wikimedia Foundation legal experts might well take an interest if we were to revise it). AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

A confession can easily be retracted, and often is. By the time of the trial, a suspect could say that the police forced a confession out of him. Even with a confession, the outcome of a trial is far from certain. WP:BLPCRIME still applies whether there is a confession or not.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Andy -- I'm sure our treatment will satisfy wp:BLPCRIME. But have you read the applicable footnote in it? Which states: "BLPCRIME applies to low-profile individuals and not to well-known individuals, in whose cases WP:WELLKNOWN is the appropriate policy to follow."? If, as you say, we follow blpcrime ... doesn't blp crime indicate, therefore, that we don't follow it?--Epeefleche (talk) 08:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Legacy is, in this case, correct. There is a very important distinction between admitting to committing to an act (a bombing) and admitting to a specific criminal charge. Saying one committed an act is not an admission to a crime.

For example, one can kill another, without committing a crime. One can act in self defense. Perhaps that will be his defense, and perhaps he will be exonerated, so we should not say he is guilty of the crime he has been charged with. Or he may say he is doing it in a war, and he may be believed and exonerated of any crime, as we allow people who kill in war to do so at times without convicting them of a crime. Or he may say he did it, but he was insane.

But he has -- as reflected in reliable sources -- said he committed the act. So that is fine to reflect. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Nope. RS reports that they have been told that he has said this. We can report the same thing - that unnamed US officials have stated that he has said he was responsible. In any case, the issue here is whether we still refer to him as a 'suspect', or 'accused', and there is no doubt that WP:BLPCRIME policy obliges us to - we can't decide for ourselves that he is guilty. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

We always simply report what RSs report. I don't understand your "Nope." That is what is called RS-verified information.

As to whether he committed the act, wp:blpcrime is irrelevant. Completely.

As to whether he committed a crime -- which is distinct from simply having committed an act -- wp:blpcrime applies.

So we can reflect that he committed the act. Based on our RS support for him having admitted to it. At the same time, we do not say that he has committed a crime, or is guilty of a crime.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Total bollocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Another strong source - Boston Globe - saying "Dzhokhar Tsarnaev admitted to authorities Sunday that he and his brother were behind the Boston Marathon bombings, according to a senior law enforcement official. Tsarnaev made his admissions to FBI agents who interviewed him at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center..." and "not worried about the initial admission to authorities being thrown out, because they have a strong witness: the man who was abducted by the Tsarnaev brothers last Thursday night. (He) told police that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his older brother, Tamerlan, pointed guns at him and, in an apparent effort to intimidate the victim and dissuade him from trying anything foolish, Tamerlan Tsarnaev told him, “We just killed a cop. We blew up the marathon. And now we’re going to New York. Don’t [expletive] with us.” Legacypac (talk) 05:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The only change in Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's status is that he has graduated from being a "suspected perpetrator" to an "alleged perpetrator", for the charging document is itself a "formal accusation". My76Strat (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME policy is not up for negotiation. Tsarnaev must be referred to as a suspect until a court verdict says otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME is by no means a one size fits all stipulation. It does say "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing". Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is no longer "relatively unknown", and if after giving the utmost of "serious consideration", it is determined that stating the person "stands accused", it would not be a violation.My76Strat (talk) 06:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that if someone is well known the presumption of innocence doesn't apply. That is ridiculous. I suggest you reread the entire policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Or am I misunderstanding this? Are you simply suggesting that we refer to Tsarnaev as 'the accused' rather than 'suspect'? If so, there is clearly no problem. AndyTheGrump (talk)

I'm only saying that it is acceptable to state that he is accused of certain crimes, or alleged to have committed certain crimes. If he wasn't so well known, we would have to give serious consideration before stating anything about charges, accusations, or allegations. And we wouldn't give disproportionate coverage to the allegations even if we did decide they were proper to mention. I'm certainly not suggesting he is not entitled to the presumption of innocence and yes, I think it would be a ridiculous notion; on par with trying him as an enemy combatant which we all should know has been suggested. My76Strat (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: Given the possible repercussions of this, I have raised the issue at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Boston Marathon bombings (again). AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

What repercussions? Someone going to sue us for reflecting that RS said he both confessed and bragged about doing the bombing and killing and even said why he did it? CNN, Boston Globe etc have a lot better handle on the legal issues of reporting that the guy said he committed the act of bombing and killing and they reported his statements. Does anyone (other than some fringe nuts) doubt his claim to doing the bombing and killing?

As for the older brother, he is dead. I even saw a morgue photo of him. There will be no conviction so we need to report the police evidence + statements he made. Since he bragged he did the bombing and MIT killing and he died fighting the cops in Watertown (so obviously he did the carjacking and firefight) we can only accept that he committed these crimes and write that. It is captain obvious. Even his wife and uncle say he did it publicly. There is no other possible or plausible conclusion. Legacypac (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Now now, don´t underestimate the conspiracy-crowd ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Someone can confess to a crime, yet still be found "not guilty" in a court of law. There's no credible journalist who would ever make the leap from suspect/alleged suspect to guilty. Even the dead brother will eventually have a "formal" closure of the case as "guilty" but it's usually internally done (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Something I brought up elsewhere...we need to consider the effect of the confession on the dead brother. I initially thought we should include the confession (while also otherwise calling both brothers suspects), but doing so allows the living brother to implicate the dead brother without any further evidence. But WP:BDP applies to the dead brother. Since the dead brother obviously can't state what he did or didn't do, including an alleged co-conspirator's confession for both of them may be an unfair implication. Not really sure on this one though...perhaps including the confession is okay. But we may need to wait for the "formal closure" as noted above in order to even include that confession. Just something to think about. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 13:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a problem if we *only* report what our RS say, being careful not to state or imply, in Wikipedia's voice, that the sources are necessarily correct. The FBI says he admitted his and his brother's involvement. That's what sources say; that's what we can say. Whether the confession happened the way the FBI says, or is accurate as respects the older brother's involvement, we don't know. The investigation is evolving and criminal proceedings are only at their inception, so we should be cautious. We shouldn't presume something that might later be disputed. Yet, I don't think BLP/BDP requires blocking any mention of the dead suspect, when he has been widely reported on.Fletcher (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Obviously we should report what sources say: among many other things, that the FBI has reported he confessed. This is no way prevents us from continuing to refer to him as a suspect at this time, and that is our obligation until he is found guilty in a court of law. -Darouet (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

By the way, news sources get to drop the words "alleged" and "suspected" after a conviction in a court of law, but this is an encyclopedia, and we have a higher standard that we need to follow. There are of course, many cases that are years later overturned. There are also cases where guilt is certain, but the case is overturned, for example where improper police procedure was used. So it is important for us to stick to known facts, such as so and so was convicted of something, instead of so and so did this or that. Apteva (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

References

Distance

The 180 yard, 170 meter distance between the two bombs is approximate. Now that the street is open someone will likely measure the distance. My guess is they will find it is about 575 feet (175 m). Apteva (talk) 05:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Should one measure from the center of bomb 1 to center of bomb 2 pre-explosion or maybe from the edge of the blast area to the edge of the other blast area. This is going to be a fuzzy number forever. Legacypac (talk) 05:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

True, but I will suggest 528 feet (176 yd) (161 m).My76Strat (talk) 06:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

What is this suggestion based on? (Is it just rounding down to 0.1 miles?) If there are multiple sources giving slightly differing numbers, then it's reasonable to use WP:CALC to take a average or median value, and give an "about" number...or just use a range. But I'm not convinced we're reflecting our current sources very well at all; a search for "boston marathon bombs apart" shows many sources stating 100 yards apart, with few or none stating 180 yards. Does anyone know where the 180-yard number originally came from? Measuring between the two referenced addresses on a map, I get about 600 - 650 feet...which is a bit higher than the 180-yard number even, but much closer to that than to 100 yards. (Thus I don't feel comfortable just changing it to 100 yards, since that doesn't seem right. If it is only 100 yards, then one of our addresses and our map must be wrong.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 13:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Since you asked, I reviewed the charging document where Tsarnaev is formally accused, plugged that data into Google maps and asked for directions. The road is listed as closed right now so I had to choose walk, But that is what I based it on, and you are correct that it translates to a tenth of a mile, so be that. My76Strat (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable application of WP:CALC in any case, in the absence of sources giving reasonable data. I did the same as you, but actually measured it on my screen against the scale, since the 0.1 mile value from Google is rounded. Mapquest gives it to two decimal places as 0.12 miles, a little higher. Still curious if someone did have a source stating "180 yards" explicitly at some point, though...if nobody turns anything up, perhaps 630 feet based off the more-precise Mapquest value makes sense; no need for yards if we're calculating it ourselves. (But like Legacypac said, it will just be a fuzzy number. So it's not that important.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 15:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm changing it and citing MapQuest as well as the sources for the two addresses. It is kind of an odd cite, but I again think we can stretch WP:CALC to cover it. Google and Bing concur, but they both round to a single decimal place. I think it's a reasonable "distance calculation" given that we're not asking for complex routing or anything, simply a straight-line distance along a single road. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

All of the 100 yard sources are based on early, erroneous news reports. I do not feel comfortable using numbers that we create. Hopefully someone will provide more accurate information based on direct measurements. From the grammar, we are looking for center to center, not edge to edge. Apteva (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

We are not creating the numbers; we're asking for a straight-line distance from mapping tools that can be and are referenced. It's not great, but it seems like a reasonably accurate calculation. Perhaps we need additional input to decide whether or not such a reference is allowable...it is indeed pretty unclear if such can fit in as a reliable source/calculation. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 06:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

What's the source for this distance, "630 feet (190 m)"? Unless there is a reliable source, it needs to be removed. Apteva (talk) 04:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

For example, those walking directions show only 0.1 mile, so this is a distance that is only accurate to what, 0.05 miles, or about 250 feet? Apteva (talk) 04:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, there is no indication that those addresses are accurate locations for the bombs. An address is not an exact location. Apteva (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The next sentence says "about a block" which combined with addresses and a map seems accurate enough? Legacypac (talk) 05:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The MapQuest directions have two decimal places of accuracy, so +/- 25 feet or so. That seems reasonably accurate. Unfortunately, we do not seem to have any sources that provide distances that match the addresses...one source specifically noted discrepancies between reported distances and the locations. The "source" is, as noted above, a simple straight-line calculation from online mapping tools. We could go back to "500 feet" or "50 - 100 yards" or whatever various sources say (none agree much), but it seems better to simply calculate it based on referenced addresses (again, being along a single straight stretch of road.) It is a bit weak, but the current cites are to the addresses and to a MapQuest link noting the 0.12 mile distance. It seems straightforward enough, if not optimal. (And again, Google and Bing agree, but they only state "0.1 miles" due to rounding more than MapQuest does.) Do you think the referenced distance is incorrect, or an inappropriate calculation? (Again, consider that it's a straight shot down the given road, not anything more complicated.) The addresses for the bombs are referenced and cited as such both in the calculation and when they are referred to individually; they may not be exact, but that's what sources give us currently. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

(And, anyone else want to chime in on whether or not this type of odd reference/calculation-hybrid of a straight-line distance should be allowed? I wasn't sure myself, and Apteva has raised a legitimate concern here.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 06:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

We simply can not use our own measurements. Since the distance is relatively large, yards is more meaningful than feet. Apteva (talk) 06:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

These are not our own measurements; the question is whether or not we can use MapQuest as a reliable source for determining the distance in this case. (And whether we can use the referenced addresses as a valid input to MapQuest, even, which is what I guess you mean by "our own measurements".) I would definitely say no in a more complex situation involving multiple roads or a curved stretch, but again, given the short distance down a straight road, it seems reasonable to do so. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 06:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

No. MapQuest is not reliable for this sort of measurement. Rklawton (talk) 06:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Especially because it is not even from a location, but from an address. We would need a lat long more accurate than a tenth of a second to be useful in calculating the distance. A second resolves to only about 75 to 100 feet. Apteva (talk) 06:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

If consensus leans this way (and count me as undecided), then the distance between bombs should be removed from the article entirely. None of the citable distances make sense with the given locations; the one that came close (the one that mentioned Wikipedia) used an address which we previously used, but was changed on closer examination of sources. I guess a citable distance of ~500 - 550 feet, as one or two sources say, might make sense, but the vast majority of references are saying 50 - 100 yards...which really doesn't make any sense, so we'd be picking and choosing based on our own interpretation of the distance there as well. Of course, we'd do the same to exclude the information as well...but again, most references don't make sense. This ref isn't great, but addresses the inconsistency somewhat: [14]. (I have no idea where Wikipedia's 550 feet that that blog post mentions came from...) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 06:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It certainly does not need to be removed, we just need to stick to the distances that we have sources for, which is the 183 yard source, which we know to be inaccurate, and have therefor rounded to 180 yards. It could even be rounded to 200 yards without objection from me, but not to 100 yards, because we know that to be wrong. Apteva (talk) 06:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The 550 feet was added with this edit.[15] The earlier police reports said 50 to 100 yards apart. The photo in the then reference 6[16] shows the locations, but the article says 100 yards, which is clearly wrong. I do not know where the 550 feet came from, but it is certainly closer than 100 yards. I think that photo shows a more accurate location than the New York Times showed.[17] But without a much more accurate distance, we should not be using feet, and should be using yards, for the distance. Apteva (talk) 09:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Lede

Deleted 'and military personnel' from the third paragraph. There were no military personnel involved in the Watertown activity and stating that there were, absent any ref to back same, just plays into the FFF (fringe folks' frenzy). Irish Melkite (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You should also consider that any effort that can be construed as covering up a known reality can also feed the aspirations of these same types of conspiracy theorists. Military personnel were absolutely part of the multi-agency team.[18] (Heavily armored personnel, including FBI and military, have converged on a small section of the town and are keeping civilians and media at a distance.); [19] (a heavy military, tactical, and police presence remained on scene in Watertown.); [20] (Military helicopter flying over news crews in Watertown.) My76Strat (talk) 11:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Wicked Local - the Watertown Tab - isn't exactly the Boston Globe and breitbart is its own issue. The armored vehicles belonged to local PD and NEMLEC (North East Massachusetts Law Enforcement Council) SWAT Teams and the feds, not military. The helicopter was from the Mass State Police Air Wing. Irish Melkite (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC) 747th MP Company of the Mass Army Natl Guard did have a unit on hand - but that's state militia - it's only 'military' in the sense when it's called up by the POTUS Irish Melkite (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you're freakin-out, but I'd rather just call them law enforcement and be done, which is also sourced. My76Strat (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

To my understanding National Guard are military. Also I saw a reporter say MP pushed them back. Not something worth fighting over though. Clearly all levels of government brought in everyone they could find with a gun. 70.78.45.67 (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a matter of semantics as much as anything. To many outside the US, the National Guard are likely to be considered part of the military, even when under the control of the state goverments rather then federal government (in other words perhaps not part of the US military but part of the military of the US). However this definition may not be used in the US (although the related State defense force are called military) so is perhaps best avoided in favour of just calling them their name i.e. National Guard. Nil Einne (talk) 05:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Misha

Do we really need an article on Misha (Boston Marathon bombing) (which I moved from Misha Armenian, which is a superbly bad title)? I know I sound like a broken record, but we should avoid jumping to cover things until they're known to be important. Or at least until we know the guy's name. Sheesh. Ignatzmice•talk 01:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't believe that Wikipedia has an article about somebody who it's not clear ever exists, and the title refers to him by just his first name. I hope someone will nominate that article for speedy deletion soon. – Herzen (talk) 02:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I nominated it for deletion under G10 (though it's sourced, so I don't know if that applies.) In any case, it appears to be a WP:POVFORK, intentional or not. Seriously, we can do better than that. Do we really need to go through an AfD for such tangential speculation? – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Mail isn't a reliable source for contentious claims about people anyway. polarscribe (talk) 02:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I suspect you're right about the sourcing issue, but yeah, it'd be sad if we had to go AfD with it... (edit conflict) re: Daily Mail: True dat. Though there are other sources as well. Ignatzmice•talk 02:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Could be WP:BOLD and just redirect it here. Unlikely redirect, but that would avoid waiting on an AfD. polarscribe (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I WP:BOLDly redirected it as suggested. It's a horrid BLP violation/POVFORK/whatever. (I'm not even sure how to categorize it.) I hope the author does come and discuss the article here rather than recreating it; there may be some minor information that could be added to this article, if it's indeed properly sourced and not pure speculation. (I kinda stopped reading after the brain-stealing-Jew conspiracy stuff.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Sad that some editors jumped to conclusions without reading or analyzing the article or using the proper AfD process, but I recognize that there is a lot of emotion these days. It took over an hour to build the article but seconds were spent to kill it.

First I carefully reviewed (again) the BLP policies so I could carefully follow them. Than I used the Article Creation Template (or whatever its called) with it's step by step questions. The result of those questions was to create the article. I also check that there are no conflicting articles. The less than ideal article name is because there is a completely unrelated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misha (an Russian Olympic mascot, not a person). When a last name is known, obviously the article would be renamed.

Next I did not just paste in some news report. I stitched together various reports in a logical topical arrangement using unique language plus direct quotes from involved people.

I created it from a variety of sources (over 7 different ones anyway) and ref'd the heck out every statement per BPL which says "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.". Before saying this is a BLP violation please show which statements were not reliably sourced to published sources with inline citations.

I did ref the Daily Mail (admit not the very best source at times) sometimes because they were pulling info from various places and some of it was a little different than other sources so I wanted to reflect both versions where info seemed to conflict. However, the most comprehensive source I've found so far is an AP article. There are more than 1.1 million hits on Google for "Boston Marathon Misha" as I write so an argument that this person is not WELLKNOWN is debatable.

The article is not strictly negative. It states reported bio info (granted there is limited info to report). Mostly it summarizes a real debate through the media between various family members (mainly the Maryland uncle and a former husband of a sister) who cite Misha as the driving force behind Tam's radicalization and the mother who says he was just a nice guy. The various interviews are easy to find and widely quoted, though I believe the refs were mostly to the original media sources or multiple sources.

There is some wild speculation about this guy by the media out there. I specifically excluded any of that from the article. My goal was to write an over referenced, comprehensive, neutral, informative article that accurately pulls together the various media reports so far. Like many articles, there is room for improvement. The article was redirected (as a sub for a deletion nomination) before anyone even had a chance to properly review it and improve it.

BLPCRIME may not apply as no one, and certianly not the article, is accusing Misha of a crime.

The absence of a known complete name does not disqualify a person from having a Wikipedia article. Consider DB Copper and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placeholder_name

Anyway, considering how many people are searching this guy I expect he will be found and a page will get created or restored. Cheers, Legacypac (talk) 03:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Apart from BLP, the issue to me is that it's a weird speculative mishmash of items about someone who may or may not exist under a name that we're not sure about. He may have been an "exorcist," he may have "brainwashed" someone, he may be named "Misha"... I don't think all of the information is inherently wrong but neither do I think we have anything like enough information to write a full and fair Wikipedia article about the person, if he exists.

There is effectively no question that DB Cooper is a real person and there is basically no question that he hijacked a plane, took the ransom money and jumped out of the aircraft with it. (For one, some of the money has been found.) The things this "Misha" person is supposed to have done are far less tangible, far more nebulous and have far less evidence supporting their veracity. The article you wrote is not "gone" - it's merely in the history behind the redirect. There are probably parts of it that can be merged here or the Tsarnaev article. polarscribe (talk) 03:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. The mother claims he exists, but she also thinks that 9/11 was a false flag operation. It doesn't make any sense to create an article about this alleged person until reliable sources demonstrate that he exists by identifying him. Officials say they have never heard of him. It's true that officials have said things about this story that turned out to be wrong, but one needs to take officials at their word if reliable sources do, until they are proved wrong by reliable sources. – Herzen (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yeah, I really don't feel comfortable having an article on something so... loose. Remember, the point of an encyclopedia is not to be a new source—it's to document the relevant parts of things (events, people, activities, whatever) once there's enough solid information to do so. D.B. Cooper is so named because that's what he called himself (well, except for the B.), and in the absence of solid evidence that's what we have to call him too. But this Misha person will become less "ghosty", as polarscribe put it, if and when it's determined that he's really so important. At that point, if there's consensus for it, the article can be restored. (Note that it wasn't deleted, only replaced with a redirect. It's still there in the history. And it took more than "seconds" to not-really "kill" it.) But thank you for helping. (I've been too brusque with you, in general, I believe. So I'm sorry for that.) Ignatzmice•talk 03:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The separate article is covered under, at least, WP:BLP1E. It's speculative, and the suggestion that "a page will get created or restored" is WP:CRYSTALBALLing. Perhaps this person will become known; but for now, he is better covered in this article or the Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev article. It makes little sense to create a new article about an unknown suspect; as I said on that talk page, it'd be as if we made an article for "Saudi guy" when that was first reported. I don't think anyone jumped to conclusions or short-circuited the AfD process; really, I am quite certain it wouldn't survive an AfD, thus boldly redirecting it. We don't create articles on every random topic that comes to attention; we wait until the subject matter becomes encyclopedic to do so. Simply because you can source valid material does not mean an article should be created. In this case, the subject is completely vague and the article draws strange conclusions from the composite created by the material included. Again, add it to the relevant existing pages where appropriate, if it's relevant! – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Ignatzmice.

My comparison to DB Cooper was intended to be limited to the narrow point that we do not always need a complete or accurate name to have an article. Sorry if anyone thought I was making a wider point.

I'm not putting this in any article but IMO the mother is part of the problem here. She has some wacky ideas! The ex-brother-in-law in Kazakhstan (I think) sounds like he might be a level headed person and a reliable source of info. The Maryland Uncle is becoming pretty famous too with multiple interviews. All three of these people extensively talk about Mesha and since they have different ideas and are talking from 3 different countries it seems unlikely they made the guy up.

He is covered somewhat in a paragraph in Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev.

CNN, AP, and many other sources now have standalone articles about him, not just passing references.

I'm ok with the redirect for now, but when/if more info comes out I trust that the article's usefulness will be reconsidered carefully. Legacypac (talk) 04:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

To give due credit to the mother, the FBI denied that it had interviewed Tamerlan until she revealed that they did in a RT interview. So she may have wacky ideas, but she is right about some things. – Herzen (talk) 04:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

True but at the same time she said the Feds were controlling his every move... Love to see the proof of that. Legacypac (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Right. As for CNN, they pushed the story about the "Saudi bomber", so I wouldn't take them very seriously at this point. – Herzen (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Not a huge deal, but IMO the Misha page should redirect to the biography article of the brothers rather than the Boston Marathon bombing article. Not sure how to do that myself though. It looks like Misha influenced the brothers (or at least the older of them) in their ideology, not that he is a suspect in the bombing. Legacypac (talk) 05:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I changed the redirect as requested; you can see how to do it from the edit history :). – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

References

Undeleteable!

Well, we just passed the hallowed 5,000-edit mark! Champagne all around. It's articles like these that truly validate the wiki model. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 09:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• *Pop! Sploosh!* (Though it's rather early where I am...) Ignatzmice•talk 13:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Inside Job Controversy

Infowars.com had a video on how the Boston Globe tweeted that the police bombing drill occurred BEFORE the bombing but in fact the tweet just appeared to have been posted earlier then it actually was due to the tweet being read in a different timezone. There's several news sites that talk about this, but I see nothing on this in the article. Could someone add it, please? --168.18.176.2 (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Listing some links here to reliable news sites that make mention of this topic would be very helpful, if you know of any. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It has previously been discussed. Link to archive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boston_Marathon_bombings/Archive_1#Controlled_Explosions Aneah|talk _to ^me 22:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

More Investigation Details for Possible Inclusion

Storylines that might be worth adding to the Investigation section if they develop further:

• Emptied fireworks found in clothing donation bin. FBI took bins for finger printing.

• But timing suggests the bin was last emptied after the suspects were caught. May suggest others involved, or no connection to bombing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 22:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Police searching New Bedford landfill, going on for three days now.
• Shortage of guns found - only one semi-auto handgun so far. Suggestion they killed MIT officer in an attempt to better arm themselves.
• Cabbie encountered suspects day before the bombing. Lifted really heavy backpack from trunk. Older brother screamed at younger in another language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 21:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

References

Edit request on 26 April 2013

Please add an additional reference regarding the hijacking victim: http://abcnews.go.com/US/alleged-bombers-carjack-victim-barely-escaped-grab-bolted/story?id=19020863#.UXnGOMp3b6J It is an eyewitness account that describes the circumstances of his escape. 8.7.228.252 (talk) 00:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the source which has been added. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Crowdfunding: Asking for Help

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

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

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

Saw MA Attorney General on CNN with Wolf Blitzer this AM strongly suggesting supporting the Boston 1 Fund, and no others. Suggested that various domains registered that concerned the AG office. They already brought in the guy that distributed 9/11 aid to vics. 70.78.45.67 (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's a reference (NBC) on crowdfunding and the Boston Bombing. [21]

Yes, that source looks good and reliable. It might help if Eththegreat just makes an edit request here on the talk page. Use this template: {{edit semi-protected|answered=no}} -SusanLesch (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks folks. I read the NBC article. Nice one. I'll keep a lookout for more articles as the campaigns get closer to reaching the goal amounts, I'm sure there's likely to be more coverage on this. Thanks for informing me about the edit request template Susan and I will use it after writing/cutting/pasting/tweaking/stressing/citing/practicing etc in a word .doc first... I'm on it. Eththegreat (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I find this article quite thorough also ABC News

OK, here we go. Keeping it factual and terse although there have been critics and warnings on this subject, I haven't found any major negativity reported in the last week, no major rip offs/scams, so I've avoided going down that path and waffling on. As mentioned in my first comment, I think it could be a nice addition towards the end of the article, but whatever the experienced wikipedians think is best! Cheers, Ethan.

Crowdfunding:

Nearly a week after the Boston bombings, crowdfunding websites that raise money for medical tragedies received more than 23,000 pledges promising more than $2 million for the victims and families of the marathon attack. Efforts led by some victims' close friends and family members went viral, attracting thousands of donations from across the country and the world. Donors contributed to victims' medical and personal expenses through sites such as GoFundMe, GiveForward, FundRazr, YouCaring and Fundly. Although most of these charitable givers never met the victims, they claimed a stake in their recovery effort. Christine Hart, of Westford, MA, heard that her lifelong friend Roseann Sdoia had to have her right leg amputated as a result of the attack, she set up a GoFundMe account to collect donations. "It is wonderful to see the kindness in the world that comes from such tragedies," Hart told the Daily News. "I would hug each donor individually if I could." There was even a successful social media campaign to raise money to patch up the bullet-riddled Seahawk cruiser of Dave Henneberry, the man who found one of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects hiding in his vessel.

Eththegreat (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Added under "Aid for victims". -SusanLesch (talk) 02:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Nice. Good edits :) Eththegreat (talk) 04:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

References

Motivation

Hello. You can put all you want about motive farther down in the article but three sources (CNN, the Independent and one other) in the lead is excessive for something so vanishingly premature. Allow me to introduce two other sources who I usually find to be more reliable. They come out with a different conclusion:

• The first sentence from The New York Times is, he "told federal agents that he and his late brother were motivated by extremist Islamic beliefs". But then says As the legal process was playing out, investigators were still working feverishly to determine the motives for the attacks.
• The Washington Post under the headline "Boston bombing suspect cites U.S. wars as motivation, officials say" says in its first sentence, he "told interrogators that the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan motivated him and his brother to carry out the attack".

It seems to me that investigators and the media are both rabid trying to assign a motive to someone who has only spoken one word (that "No" he can't afford a lawyer). Restrain a bit if you can. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think this can go in the lead at present, since it requires a good bit of explanation and context to go along with the statement. (And we have the wars being cited as a possible cause too, so that would need to be included as well.) Noting that he initially said those things is fine, but including it in the lead is excessively speculative and based on incomplete information. Do it in the body where the proper explanations can be made, until there's more concrete reporting on a motive. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 18:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, 2001:db8. We unfortunately have some other editors here who think differently. I moved this down out of the lead into the Legal proceedings section. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree completely. It is widely reported and well sourced. Most news sources are reporting that radical Islam played a central role in his motivation. There is a debate as to whether it is home grown or has a foreign component. We can't use our point of view to remove well-sourced material. We're editors not censors. Jason from nyc (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

While we all (I think) agree that that motive is quite likely to be true, at this point it's best to avoid jumping the gun. We'll probably learn more soon. The discussion in the media on the topic is already well covered in the article and doesn't currently warrant extensive discussion in the lead. --Yalens (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I do a google for “Tamerlan” and in the “news for Tamerlan” I get the following [22] “Tamerlan Tsarnaev apparently organised the bombings because he wanted to ‘defend’ Islam” [23] “Lack of connections to terrorist groups means experts are increasingly seeing the elder Tsarnaev as a self-radicalised lone wolf – underlining the daunting task of piecing together a motive” [24] about wife [25] “mid questions about whether the F.B.I. missed an opportunity to discover that one of the suspects in the Boston Marathon bombings may have become an extremist, ... “ [26] “Authorities tell ABC News they now believe the two foreign-born brothers were inspired to violence by the Internet preaching's of al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki, the charismatic American-born radical jihadist, who has been dead now for more than a year ...”

His radical Islamic beliefs are central to the description of the attacks. It's all that's being talked about and it's not a question of "if" it is a fact but "how" it has come about. This should be in the lead. It's in the lead of most reliable sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Lots of news sources are repeating it, but the original "government source" is still anonymous. We have no idea who it is, or what his/her/their qualifications are. We also should keep in mind that the suspect was said to be questioned while sedated. A bit early to call. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There are too many elements of what we currently know, and nothing to properly tie it all together past speculation. Tsarnaev's statements are not definitive or even necessarily true, and thus cannot be adequately summarized for the lead (since it requires a good bit of extra text to explain the context and all of the relevant information, past just stating "Tsarnaev said...") I'm sure the FBI will tell us when they have corroborated some facts, etc. Also, when you say "it's in the lead of most reliable sources" to support putting it in our lead, you are referring to news media. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it is an encyclopedia. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 20:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

People, please, the government is considered a reliable source in Wikipedia but so are newspapers, magazines, and books. If reliable members of the press believe they can conclude that radical Islam is a central component of this case we have the duty to insert that into the article and if it is emphasized it should be in the lead. It’s not our job to argue with the press, researchers, scholars, etc. and prefer our POV. We may indeed personally remain skeptics forever on the grounds that one many never know what’s in a man’s heart. However, if the experts infer from circumstantial evidence, interviews, ground work, and statements issued by those involved, we must follow the sources even if we are not personally convinced. That "radical Islam" plays an important role is clearly widely accepted. Exactly "how" is not. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The press or "experts" (some truly are, some truly aren't) can come to their own editorial conclusions, and it would be reliable here, when it is a matter of opinion. Like an art review or analysis of a historical period. This is a matter of fact, and that fact is up to a court of law to decide. If we don't know the "how" of the Islam role, how can we assume it's important? Only by media interest? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hulk, None of the references that I provided are editorials (per WP:NEWSORG) and thus qualify for reliable sources of fact. 2001:db8 links to WP:NOTNEWS and none of the sources I provided violate those guidelines (“Not a newspaper” WP:NOTNEWS means (1) no first hand reports (2) enduring notability of story (3) which individuals are notable (4) what about an individual is notable. Nothing I suggest violates that policy.) “Not a newspaper” doesn’t mean we can’t use newspaper as sources. It doesn’t mean all reliable information comes from the government. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

From CNN: "The preliminary interviews with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev...apparently suggests the suspected bombers fall into the category of self-radicalised jihadists acting alone." Here, "apparently" is the editorializing.

The Guardian: "There is nothing inherent in Islam that encourages terror attacks, Nielsen said. But it does appear that a particular interpretation of Islamic doctrine was important to Tsarnaev and that "his perception of doctrine was part of his motivation". Neilsen has a fancy title, but I don't know what it means(seems expert enough). Either way, opinion.

ABC: "Authorities tell ABC News they now believe the two foreign-born brothers were inspired to violence by the Internet preaching's of al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki, the charismatic American-born radical jihadist." Anonymous opinion. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

They all agree that radical Islam is at play but it appears that they "acted alone," they "were inspired ... by .... al-Awalki", etc. As I said the debate was not that they were radicalized by how. We can go over all the articles and note that they are trying to learn the "how" but take as given that they subscribe to a radical Islamic outlook. Yes, a few are still inserting perfunctory qualifiers. But most take the "radicalization" as a given. At least we're not talking about the sources. That's what the "talk" is about here at wikipedia. Let's continue and arrive at a consensus they way it's supposed to work here at wikipedia. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It might help to read this guide to "newsworthiness" and compare it to our content guidelines. There are many differences. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think it without question belongs in the lead. Carefully written, to be sure. Appropriately sourced, obviously. To be extra careful, we can note the source in the text, and quote it. But should this be in the lead? Without question.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

This belongs in the lead when we know what to say. And it might help to wait until the defendant can speak. Today The New York Times ran a headline about the brothers' jihadist motivation and then said "investigators were still working feverishly to determine the motives for the attacks". -SusanLesch (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Also CNN updated their story. The headline says the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars were the motivation. CNN, The Independent and even the Associated Press that we are using as sources all failed to even note that Dzhokhar has acknowledged his role in the bombings. It might be important someday for a news reporter to take note of that. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

We've got three reliable sources now—The Washington Post, the LA Times, and CNN—saying that the brothers were motivated by the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. So maybe it's time to clean up the last paragraph in the "Legal proceedings" section, by eliminating explicit naming of sources in the main text. Also, I'm not sure whether it's still worth keeping the statement that "the bombings were motivated by his religious beliefs". A clearer picture is emerging: the older brother was self-radicalized by reading radical Islamist Web sites, and the younger brother just went along with him. I think the expression "religious beliefs" is unnecessarily vague. – Herzen (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The sources also say they were motivated by US actions in Iraq and Afghanistan to defend Islam. Most Americans who oppose US policy don’t do so on a religious basis. Leaving out their stated motivation is also vague. Both “radical Islam” and “US military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan” are required to convey the full picture conveyed in the sources and distinguish it from others. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Jason from nyc, sorry but it appears that you personally want this article to say something specific about Muslims. How else do you defend your edit which is out of sync with the timeline of reporting and the article's prose? -SusanLesch (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not what I want but what the sources say. The report of the perpetrators being upset about "Iraq and Afghanistan" came with "defending Islam." That's what the sources say. Why is it important? Truncating the report to "Iraq and Afghanistan" (as some media outlets do) makes it appear that they might have done nothing more than read critiques by Noam Chomsky or Ron Paul (as many of us have). Their outrage has another source if their stated reason is "defending Islam." The reader should be allowed the full report even if it only preliminary (as most reports are at this point.) Jason from nyc (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

As WP's goal is to summarize topics, we should not be as focused on preliminary conclusions of the investigation, since the final conclusions will be the ones that we actually will include. In other words, we want to definitely include information of permanence (the final conclusions as to the motive, etc.) and less on the information of more temporary nature (initial findings, or an hour-by-hour breakdown of events). This is not to say we can't include mention of the initial investigation but we have to consider going more than few sentences at this time to be UNDUE, as when the final report is out (which may be months, yes), we will likely be replacing that information with the final one. It's fine to say, at this point, that initial discussions with the surviving brother suggest their motive was by the US's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, or alternatively provide direct quotes, but we cannot say that that is the conclusive motive for their actions. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I respect the need to be cautious and seek well-founded information. However, I don’t understand the elevation of official reports over journalism and scholarship. Official reports are far from perfect as we’ve seen in cases that have been investigated, prosecuted, convicted, and decades later the suspect is exonerated. Of course, journalism and scholarship aren’t without controversy. In a free society, a free press is vital to accountable governance. History is written by private historians and not government officials. While we are relying on news articles at this point, soon we’ll have more in depth magazine articles and shortly after, books. We should and do preface our insertions with qualifiers “preliminary” “reported” “some sources” and similar warnings. I believe I and others have waited for several disparate sources before introducing new items. We’ve been careful but we also have to worry about errors of omission as well as commission. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

To start, Jason's version of the events is misquoting an excellent source, The Washington Post. Why do you think adding on "and..." (and then quoting and citing CNN and the Independent) is going to change the text of what the Post published? CNN was quick to reissue their story to match the Post, but you're citing CNN from the previous day (April 22) before they caught up. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why CNN dropped part of their earlier story. Did they post a retraction? I see that earlier today they used the phrase "radical jihadi" when they write [27] "preliminary interviews with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev suggest that the brothers were self-radicalized jihadists." I hesitate to insert jihadi since it isn't widely used yet. The "defend Islam" is widely quoted. Isikoff of NBC news says [28] "He said they plotted the bombing to defend Islam because of the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, federal law enforcement officials tell NBC News." Isikoff isn't getting this from CNN but straight from officials. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Jason. Thank you for your reply. Because you seem to have ignored my question about misquoting The Washington Post, I decided on two things. First, to repair the article. And second to continue this thread under "Motivation (cont.)" separately because this thread is getting very unwieldy. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Lockdown controversy

That section really made me laugh. Nice comic relief. Hot Stop (Talk) 21:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

They locked down the city because brother 2 was running around loose with guns and maybe bombs. In some ways it absolutely worked - he had no were to go and was forced to stay nearby. The door to door search missed him by somewhere between a block and 3 houses, depending on the source. We will see this strategy again. Legacypac (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The financial impact of the lockdown is a legitimate concern, though the current section does seem rather overblown and fatalistic, and somewhat POV. (And I unfortunately made it a bit longer in the process of trying to make it more neutral. Trim away...) Boston.com at least had the good sense to end their article on this [29] with a silly meme. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The thing is the 'lockdown' was voluntary (except in that area of Watertown) and many people still went to work in Boston that day; there just weren't as many people milling about around downtown Boston for no real reason. Plus, none of the authors cited in that section at the moment are in Boston (I believe) -- most people here were fine with it. And the examples given (Dorner and the Beltway snipers) aren't exactly equivilant because neither of those incidents involved weapons of mass destruction like this situation did. Hot Stop (Talk) 01:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

And saying it 'didn't work' because the capture happened after the order was lifted misses the point that order had other purposes, like protecting civilians and making it more difficult for the suspect to flee by cutting off transit options. Hot Stop (Talk) 01:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I know. Ideally, we'd simply have something actually estimating the financial impact somewhere in the article, if it is indeed calculated by a reliable source. (And someone actually calculating it would say a lot more than the people just analyzing the supposed failure from afar.) Like one of the people in the Globe article I linked said, the real impact wasn't much different than a big snowstorm might be. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 01:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

There is actually an article on Salon.com comparing the Boston response to a police state. I don't think there was an actual curfew; it was voluntary advise. I exchanged work related emails with someone at mit and the shootings and manhunt wasn't even mentioned. The police just didn't want anyone to get caught in the line of fire. In LA the police almost killed 2 women, who didn't even remotely fit the profile of Dorner. This case actually demonstrates the superior competence of the Boston police. The article from Heeratz concluding the "terrorist won" if laughable tortured logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:DA8:D800:107:7455:4763:E151:2980 (talk) 10:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the terms "lockdown" or "martial law" are accurate. The references provided here for "lockdown" are to a Wikipedia page that defines that state as mandatory not voluntary, and to an NBC news story that incidentally uses the word without any backing from an official source. Although National Guard resources were observed to be used, there is no report that any officials publicly declared martial law at any time, a necessary precondition for its going into effect. The condition in Watertown, Boston, and surrounding cities should instead be termed what the officials called it, "shelter in place," a voluntary condition where people are advised to stay inside with doors locked and not open except to an identified police officer, until notice that it would be safe to go out. Using "shelter in place" avoids the baggage and overtones and governmental policy discussion that is the meat of this paragraph such as the Salon article. If you don't want to use the correct phrase and link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelter_in_place (where there is already a reference to these events) instead of "lockdown", then delete the Controversy section please. 72.187.163.144 (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Any word about civil suits?

I didn't see anything in a news search about civil suits, yet as illustrated in the O.J. Simpson case this can be an option when a criminal trial is impossible - even when it finds for innocence! Has anyone spotted any word on this, or even if it possible in Massachusetts to sue Tamerlan's estate for wrongful death, etc.? Wnt (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems like it would be possible, but, to date, it also seems the brothers don't have much estate to speak of. If any such proceedings do occur we'll naturally add them to the article. Fletcher (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

There would be civil suits, except it sounds like the Brothers didn't have any significant wealth. So there wouldn't be anything to gain. Dzhokhar might have a future making 10 cents an hour in the laundry facility of a US prison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:DA8:D800:107:7455:4763:E151:2980 (talk) 11:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Numbering style

I keep getting reverted by people, when I try to keep the numbering style in the article formal and consistent, while still within the guidelines of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Numbers (i.e, one, two, three, four/ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, etc.). The manner in which I changed the format of various numbers, keeps it consistent with other editors' methods of writing such numbers. I would write out a number like thirty-seven these days, but I would personally avoid going that far on a major article like this. PinkAmpersand, et al., however, reason that even numbers below ten should be written numerically; Pinkampersand, because of the "exception" listed in the guidelines that states, "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs," and since there's a triple-digit number in addition to single and double-digit, they should all be numerical, whereas I feel that is a misinterpretation of the larger rule, which states that "single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine, if they are expressed in one or two words, may be rendered in numerals or in words... [and] those requiring more than two words are given in numerals," which thereby conflicts with the numbering style of other areas of the same paragraph. As such, I am proposing we settle on a single, consistent style of numbering in the article, and then adhere to it, so that there isn't a clash of values and styles. Can we try and reach a consensus on this manner, since it would greatly benefit the editing process? KirkCliff2 (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Let the numbers issue lie for a week or two, until heads cool and possible feelings of WP:OWN subside. Not worth an edit war. I'm in favor of the main thrust of MOS about numbers (exceptions aside), and that's pretty much the way it should be in the article, to reach Good Article or Featured Article status. --Lexein (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

In the case of this type of edit [30] (I'm guessing that's what you're referring to), PinkAmpersand is completely correct. We are comparing the number of dead people to the number of injured people, just like the "cats and dogs" example. I do not see how this is a "misinterpretation of the larger rule"; the point is that exceptions take precedence when they occur, thus the larger rule is overridden. Over the span of a single sentence, that seems clear at least; with things not in the same sentence, it's less clear, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. (Remember, the MOS does not necessarily follow other general style guidelines; I'd prefer "three and 264" myself for non-Wikipedia usage.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 21:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with Pink, which if you read the applicable guideline follows it precisely. Reverts of correct edits in this regard are not appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)