Talk:Boston Marathon bombing/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Request

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

---

Can someone who's in favor of including the name please explain to me why WP:BDP, which brings in WP:AVOIDVICTIM, should be ignored?

• My interpretation of WP:BDP and WP:AVOIDVICTIM is that they address whether or not to write an entire article about someone who is notable only because they were the victim of a crime. It is not meant to dictate whether or not to include victims' names when writing an article about a notable crime. --Crunch (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

  Having said that, I have no objection to excluding all three of the victims' names, as long as it's done consistently. Either include all three or exclude all three. --Crunch (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There's no reason to keep withholding her name. Her name had originally not been released, pending permission from her family, but it is now released officially, which gives us the right to publish it.Jessica Archer (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Jessica Archer

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

Too explicit bomb instructions?

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

---

Is it possible to be less expicit on how to make such bomb? Or at least move technical details down in the article? Now the design is specificed in the three first words of the article. Mange01 (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED. There is all kinds of information about creating and doing all kinds of unpleasant stuff all over Wikipedia (and all over the Internet and every library.) Accuracy is more important except in extreme cases. The detail seems relevant enough; similar articles note the type of weapons used. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 12:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• As I read it now, it is pretty general information and not a "how to" guide. I agree that this level of detail is helpful to provide the reader of a general understanding of the device. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Yes. If this is unfortunate, it is because the world is a terrible place. We aren't censored and this is relevant and verified information. This article will never contain a real and useful manual for prospective bomb builders, and the amount of detail is limited (and will remain limited); this kind of general information is freely available even through Homeland Security. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Pressure cooker bomb would be a more likely place for detailed information to pop up, although it currently steers well clear of "how-to" information. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Mange01 Look down. Is there a string? Vilano XIV (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Exact location of second bomb

Per the article above about the before-and-after pics, no matter the timing of the first photo, the second clearly shows the explosion happened at 755 Bolyston. Is it synthesis or original research to see that and put it in the article? Why do we only have the address of the first blast? Ignatzmice•talk 13:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No question about it. It was at 755. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Done, then. Ignatzmice•talk 13:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

WHICH Site Had The Most Victims?

I haven't heard any breakdown of which of the two blast sites the most and the worst injuries or deaths occurred. Just wondering. Anyone know? Kennvido (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd guess it was all a big mess, and people were too busy dealing with it to take notes. That said, there are surely lots of pics of that time frame, and I bet the FBI is looking at that too. Haven't seen any news stories about it. Ignatzmice•talk 14:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Still would be interesting to know. It seems, by the picture released, many more were nearer, really right next to, the second bomb than the first. Those poor people. Prayers... Kennvido (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The locations were separated by some distance so it was not all one big mess. The exact details should come out eventually. --Crunch (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Eventually, I would imagine that this would be included in the article, but not until it is covered in a reliable fashion by the sources. Right now, they don't appear to have released reliable information about the individual bomb damage. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

That's what I said in my queston. No one has given that info. Nevermind. Kennvido (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Correct Number Of Victims

176 182 or another amount hike! Which one of you is going to come up with a concrete number of victims? It is no wonder many people come to this site and laugh as to the accuracy of information. Some will defend with info is constantly fluid. That still can't explain why a different victim totals are in the SAME article. You change one, change them all. Not trolling here, just want the same number throughout the article. That's not asking the impossible. Kennvido (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Which one of you is going to come up with a concrete number of victims?" is a bunch of hot air: that's the trolling part, and "It is no wonder many people come to this site and laugh as to the accuracy of information" is also trolling. If the media don't all report one and the same number, we can't report a "concrete" number--I assume by "concrete" you mean something like "one single" number. That there are different numbers in the article is easily explained by the fact that edits are done piecemeal, that there are tons of edit conflicts, and that the numbers are mentioned in different parts of the article. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Let me put it this way, IF one is going to update, update the WHOLE articles number. Not just one here and there willy nilly. It's called continuity. Continuity leads to being believable.

"International event"

In regard to this edit, which reinstated information about the Spanish consul being fired, well, here we go.

Spain's Foreign Affairs Ministry fired its Boston consul for closing the consulate at its normal office hours, despite the emergency and the presence of Spanish citizens running in the Marathon. [1]

It's very poorly written: was the consul fired despite the emergency, or did he close the consulate despite the emergency? Fortunately the linked article clarified. But what on earth is the point of including this in the article? It's not an "international event" of any relevance, as the edit summary claimed. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree, leave it out; if it's really that significant, say so on the consul/consulate's article. Ignatzmice•talk 15:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

And I hate to bring this up again, but the Canadian Consulate blurb really isn't necessary. It's not about security arrangements, as the other two paragraphs in the "International" section are, and as has been pointed out there were tons of buildings in the area that were affected. We don't need it. Ignatzmice•talk 16:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Boston Marathon is a highly international event with many international runners and visitors. People from Canada, Spain etc care about the effect on their countrymen. No one is trying to remove info about effects on specific US facilities, even far removed from the blast area. Eg. Boston Airport, transit system, US Capital flag, "other police departments on alert" etc. Specific hospitals and a specific hotel evacuation is mentioned. Is this just American bias at work? Legacypac (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The closure of the Canadian consulate isn't an 'international event'. It is an event in Boston. Incidentally, regarding the original removal of this material, it originally contained a copyright-violating link to YouTube - and as such the revert was not only legitimate, but required by policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

"The Scene"

There are a couple of pictures showing the aftermath of the bombings and they are described as "the scene". Maybe they should also specify which of the two bomb scenes they depict, for instance "the scene of the first bomb". Eddyproca (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

"The scene" is noted somewhere in the article as a 12-block area that they designated the day after the attack. If there's confusion, that should perhaps be made more prominent. It would be helpful to identify which bomb was which where possible, but that information isn't necessarily available and they were close enough that it's not a huge deal for things like pictures. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 18:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Arrest made

"Authorities have arrested a suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings based on security video that showed a man depositing a bag at the bomb scene before the blasts, according to multiple media reports citing U.S. and Boston law enforcement sources. An official announcement is expected later today. " [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.50.173 (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Why was this deleted? It had a reliable source and is notable. No press release but is that a necessity? >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 18:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There are currently sources saying an arrest, and others saying no arrests. Both things cannot be true, so we need to wait until it's more clear whether or not there has been an arrest. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 18:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There is too much from CBS and NBC saying there is no arrest. Senior law enforcement official tells ABC News “no arrest yet” in Boston bombings. We must wait. Kennvido (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Note the new title for that article "Conflicting reports in arrest of possible Boston Marathon bombing suspect". We don't need to publish conflicting "facts". We wait for confirmation in a few reliable sources, which won't take that long if an arrest was made. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Listening to NPR, and they are saying there is no confirmation of an arrest yet. --Yksin (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

NBC just repeated (a couple minutes ago) that they have confirmation from BPD that there was not an arrest. So that's opposing the information, not just a lack of information. We'll know more soon enough. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 18:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

CNN is now retracting their statement. Let's just slow down and not try to break the news. Wait until there's hard facts or an official announcement. polarscribe (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Dennis, please can you deal with Cjbailey19? I am willing to take the heat for 3RR as well, but he needs to stop. See page history. Ignatzmice•talk 18:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Per the official, verified Twitter account of the Boston Police Department, no arrest has been made as of 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time. polarscribe (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Boston Police and the US Attorney have issued statements that there is no arrest. GabrielF (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

HuffPo article about the conflicting reports: [3]. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 18:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

If I could get out of class, I'd happily go down to the Moakley courthouse and try to find out myself, but the US attorney is saying no arrest.[4]. GabrielF (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There's apparently an FBI press conference scheduled for 5PM. But the FBI also just confirmed NO arrests. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 18:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, CNN keep insisting repeatedly by this time on the air that they had a number of law enforcement sources inofficially as well as several independent local news outlets report to them that an arrest in relation to the bombings had taken place sometime between Wednesday morning and noon, that now "consternation" (which is the repeated phrase) rules among both those local news outlets as well as the mentioned law enforcement sources as to how what they all told CNN has been reported as/turned out false, and that obviously Boston government officials keep giving confused or conflicting accounts on the issue. --37.81.4.51 (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Contradictions are good! There is no better time to carefully document an issue than when it is contested. The AP says their source is standing by his story and everyone else is saying no. So say that and let the reader understand what is known, and what is not. Wnt (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Her family said it is okay to post her name

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

---

the chinese girl who died, her family said it was ok to say her name, at first they said they did not want to say her name, now it is ok, and it is in chinese news, so it is ok to include. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.93.254 (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, what's your source for that? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It's up on CNN's frontpage article right now. Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Washington Post: Boston University identifies third bombing victim as Lingzi Lu — Yksin (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Her name is Lu Lingzi and she was very pretty and nice and i am sad she die.

If you say she is nice then you may have known her. If this is the case, I'm sad that she died but I am also sad for you. The things that Americans do makes me ashamed to be one. Dave Bowman - Discovery Won (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Please see the discussion up higher on this page, and keep the discussion in one thread up there please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Time for new consensus

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

---

As indicated above, the ID's of the deceased have long been identified by numerous reliable sources and it is now time too bring the article up to speed and include all the identities, as WP is now lagging in the world of information.

Should we now include ID's. (Please make comments elsewhere to keep list clean and easy to read.)

• Yes. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• OK to include if it adds value to the page - not OK if just a list of names. 18:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Nothing has changed since the last discussion (like two hours ago), so no, I'm still for waiting for 24 hours. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Unless someone can show some clear statement that the family retracted their desire to keep her name private, then no we should not include it. It is disruptive to continuously push this issue when consensus developed against you. Ryan Vesey 19:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• u dont understand wikipedia. there is consensus to say her name please. also her family does not speak much english, so they wont mind if u put her name because they cant read it anyway.

• Where is this consensus? From the discussion above, it looks like the consensus there is to hold off for 24 hours. "they can't read it anyway" is the absolute worst reason to do anything ever. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not voting here, but the idea that "they won't mind because they cant read it" is patently offensive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• No - The "have long been identified" claim is false, the 3rd victim's name has not positively verified. Until that is cleared up, by an official announcement by law enforcement, the Chinese consulate, etc...then that should be left out. Note; I do not factor in the "wishes of the parents" into this, that is immaterial. Tarc (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose No harm in waiting, I think we should be slow and right rather than rushed and wrong. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources are now saying her name and as such I am changing to Yes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources were mentioning her name long before you started reverting honest edits. A little more effort on your part would have sufficed. -- Veggies (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Mostly it was from the source found below, BU after all is where she was attending. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

[5] Yeah, right. "2:21 PM" <-- nearly two hours ago. -- Veggies (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No need to attack the people who support your position, I have since reversed my opinion lets leave it at that. - 20:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The University had published the information at least 4 hours ago as you can see from the link in this diff [6]. Shadowjams (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes - There is no consensus on a 24-moratorium, to begin with. And why exactly are we holding off on citing multiple reliable and notable sources that have published her name. It certainly doesn't violate the 1st principle of BLP. And you'd be hard-pressed to argue that publishing a name is tantamount to victimization. Mind clearing things up? -- Veggies (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I had something written here earlier that's disappeared, but my point is that there's very little "consensus" to wait... it was a few editors within a 30 minute timeframe that came up with the 24 hour wait idea... which is kind of unheard of, especially in a story developing this quickly. The fact that there's a holdoff on publishing the name at all is strange when it's been reported so widespread by every major publication. And yes, many of the calls to hold off were well after it was published by major sources (NYT, Boston Globe, CNN, etc.). Shadowjams (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes - Boston University has now published the name of the third victim.[7]. Since they previously said that they witheld the name pending permission of the family, I can only assume that they have now received that permission. GabrielF (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes Wikipedia should not censoring information that is already widely disseminated by sources that are both reliable (news media sources) and official (the university itself released the name of the student). Also, no consensus on a 24-hour moratorium exists (a few people supporting against equally large opposition is not "consensus"). —Lowellian (reply) 20:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Yes per GabrielF. That seems to address any BLP/BDP concerns. Unless someone has a current reference that the parents do not want it published, it seems fine to add now; I was under the impression that current information was that it should be withheld. Many, many RSes publishing the name now as well, parents' wishes or not. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 20:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. First of all, the proper method of discussing this is WP:RFC. Furthermore, WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is not a replacement for CNN or BBC. It is only designed to document notable events. Sorry for being curt, on my mobile currently. --RAN1 (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, WP:BLP applies to all information regarding living people, not just articles based on them (sorry for fragmented posting). --RAN1 (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, assuming the situation is as Vesey stated below. --RAN1 (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Yes The link I mentioned earlier documenting the family's desire to keep the name private has now removed that information and given her name. [8] That is enough of a change for me. Ryan Vesey 20:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Yes The names have received widespread coverage in reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• STRONG YES. The names are public. I am sick and tired of WP arguing about the minutiae of their rules, then blatantly abandoning them wholesale when someone has a crooked admin friend. Dave Bowman - Discovery Won (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Procedural objection to a third (!) thread being started on this when a sizable number of editors have already commented in detail above and actual discussion was occurring. Allegations of misbehavior by administrators should either be supported by clear evidence, using diffs, or retracted. Rivertorch (talk) 21:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Ownership issue

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

---

Again, please don't start new threads, keep it all in one place where people can easily view ALL the information. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You do not own the page and have no right to make such deletions, even as an administrator. Let's move forward. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers is so mad he could SPIT! Vilano XIV (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Gwillhickers' assessment. Without a clear consensus, you arbitrarily forbade any mention of her name (forgetting the fact that her name is already mentioned in the talk page and the sources cited in the article) based on an incorrect reading of BLP. -- Veggies (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't forbade anything. I noted a consensus to simply wait a short period. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. The fact that there is so much disagreement that another thread was begun is an obvious sign that there is no consensus for any such thing. -- Veggies (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

who is in ccharge here

No one. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

To many alphas all over this article. It's seems to me people are less interested in posting confirmed data and more concerned that they post the information first. It's really ugly and completely goes against Wikipedia's openness. Gorba (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

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

I note that Dennis Brown acts like he owns this page and says under 3RR that there are no rules here. He also accused me of wearing panties in the 3RR section (his words!). I suggest we now ignore this rouge editor. 70.78.45.67 (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC), Legacypac (talk) 01:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC) (logged-in)

Rouge editor, hey? I always knew DB was a closet socialist! (I think you mean rogue.) Either way, best we all move on and do productive things, which was kind of the point of my closing it. Stalwart111 07:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Full protection requested

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

---

Since editors insist on editing against consensus, I have requested temporary full protection of this article. Ryan Vesey 19:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

That's silly. Go argue the point itself, don't try to shut it down this way. Shadowjams (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Full protection doesn't shut it down at all. It forces editors to quit restoring the content and engage in discussion. Ryan Vesey 19:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, right. There are plenty of open questions that no one has answered yet. If you're so interested in engaging in discussion, maybe you could save some time and reply to those. For example, why can't I use this to cite a verified piece of information? -- Veggies (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Verifiability isn't the issue, the issue is BLP concerns. The family requested that the name not be used and nobody has produced a statement saying otherwise. The name seriously isn't that important, so BLP issues should trump other concerns. Ryan Vesey 20:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not the only consideration. And where is the reference for the family doesn't want name disclosed? Does that consideration apply to the Boston Globe, New York Times, and Boston University too? Because they've all published it. Maybe we shouldn't, I don't know, but I don't think what you're arguing for is as clear cut as you think. Shadowjams (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

See my comment in the new consensus section above. Ryan Vesey 20:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Uh, and since when do the parent's requests overrule the inclusion of well-referenced material?

• BLP: "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed" - Not a factor, as her name has been widely published.
• BLP: "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons." - The victim of a public bombing is not a "loosely involved" person. -- Veggies (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you for the sake of arguing with you. Circumstances have changed and I have noted my support for inclusion of the name. Ryan Vesey 20:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Next time, try not to waste so much of our time. -- Veggies (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Screw off. Ryan Vesey 20:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

From the source: "her family had requested at first that her name not be released." The name has been released to the sources and it appears the family has since relented. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I was going to request full protection when I saw that someone already had. There are a lot of well-meaning Wikipedians here, some of them experienced editors and all of them well meaning, who seem to think we're on some sort of a deadline. We are not. It is of paramount importance that we write about the topic accurately; concerns about comprehensiveness are secondary, and concerns about timeliness shouldn't matter at all. Events are still in flux and may be for days to come. The article is in reasonable shape now (or it was the last time I looked), and no harm would come from locking it down and making only those changes that consensus—the kind that emerges from extended, reasoned discussion—allows. Rivertorch (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

If full protection is to keep some editors from deleting the sourced content, that's one thing, but to keep them from restoring it? I don't think so. Plus, any protection will make the article obsolete within hours. Lots of people want to work on it - you want to send them all away because they want to cover the available information neutrally and accurately? Forget it! We finally have the names of all three victims, and it looks like that was a battle royale. We need RID of people who think we should make up our very own fairy tale about events instead of summarizing the actual available data. Wnt (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we need to protect the article, just remove the editors who keep deleting any sourced info they find uninterestingLegacypac (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Victims section

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

---

I get that it's good to honor the 3 dead, one whom was chinese national, but it's unneeded cause only three people died if lests say ten+ were killed then it could to have a victims section deticated to honor them, but it's ignorant and pathetic to have one for only THREE people. Hundreds of people die in sucide bombings in other places and guess what that never is metioned in the media nor does it have it's own article.EthanKP (talk · contribs) 17 April 2013 6:34 (UTC)

It's an English language article - it's based on what is available to the majority of English speaking editors. Most English sources don't cover or name victims in bombings outside of their region. Xinhua probably only named the Chinese National - which will probably be reflected on the Chinese Wikipedia. The Arabic language wikipedia probably would be a better place to take that up. Vilano XIV (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Unless of course, it's the case that you just don't like Americans and couldn't care less about them dying.

(edit conflict)The article is still developing. It is also possible that some of the injured will die of their wounds and be added to the number. You could also create a List of victims of suicide bombings article if you think it proper. Be bold!--Auric talk 19:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a false assumption that a victims section is there to "honor" them. It's a pertinent part of the general information of any article like this, and well represented in the referenced sources. It would be hard to accept an argument that the victims SHOULDN't be mentioned, because there weren't "ten+". Number shouldn't matter to the general principle. It's a focal point of much of the coverage, it's in almost all of the major sources referenced here, and it's notable content. Calling something "ignorant" and "pathetic" is not a great way to get consensus on an issue. The fact that many people die in bombings is irrelevant to this article. The sole questions that are relevant to inclusion are 1) notability (as supported by referenced sources here), 2) verifiability (ditto), and 3) realtive size/level of detail comparable to the article itself. If the victim section balooned to a large size, then I think you have a valid argument it should be daughtered. But not that it shouldn't exist because of some esoteric notions about what is the proper number of people to be killed to warrant it.204.65.34.104 (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. While it's appalling that there isn't this much mention being given to the 30+ killed in a bombing in Iraq on the same day, that's what it is, and it's not Wikipedia's job to change that. Ignatzmice•talk 19:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The names of two of the dead have been included in the WP article, yet for some reason the article continues to single out Lingzi Lu, not even mentioning this women's name, as if she were a dog or a cat, and in spite of the fact that at least three editors have tried to include her name and have cited it with a variety of Reliable Sources -- all the while a couple of the same editors continue to make deletions, not only in the article, but on the talk page, deleting and moving text made by other fellow editors. This, btw, is completely disruptive. There is no clear consensus and it's about time we caught up to the rest of the information world and included the name of this woman. This nonsense about "victims" and that her name adds nothing to the article is simply that. (her name means "nothing"?? Thanks, I'm sure her family and friends appreciate that one.) Lingzi Lu's name is now known in China and the rest of the world and again, has been for some time now as this women's name appears almost everywhere. We have waited long enough. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Finally, this women has been given a name by the editors of Wikipedia. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I think this issue is resolved and it'd be best for everyone to let it go. Shadowjams (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I agree to just "let it go" but in some countries this stuff happens reguraly< everyday > with bigger losses than just 3!! I don't know the exact word for this but it's sort of dishonoring the other people who died in bombings that dont get metioned atoll just because they are muslim, like the other editor mentioned that same day a bomb in Iraq killed 35 people!!, Probably women and childern. Don't you think that's worth having a victims section for, oh wait I forgot they arn't American so lets forgot that happened!!EthanKP (talk · contribs) 17 April, 23:20

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

Images

We shouldn't be claiming news images under fair use. Copyright wise its highly questionable and the free images we have are adequate.Genisock2 (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely disagree. This is a major event and news images are the clearest example of fair use I can think of. CNN isn't going to sue wikimedia for including a photo of this bombing. Does anyone here have any common sense? Or is seeing how far you can push an imapplicable restrictive rule more important than informing people? Dave Bowman - Discovery Won (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Geni. The usage here is depriving them of their commercial value. If copyright wouldn't forbid this usage then it has no justifiable purpose in the context of news photography. The fact that we could potentially coerce copyright holders into not enforcing their rights against Wikipedia for fear of loss of good will has never been a justification here, and would do nothing for subsequent reusers of our articles. Not respecting the law weakens us everywhere, not respecting the copyright of commercial media outlets makes it harder to partner, not adopting freely licensed images which are available to us discourages their creation. There are places where there is a difficult trade-off, but this isn't one of them.--Gmaxwell (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree - I deleted the images from the article until:

1. The reason for fair use is made clear...
2. The NFCC criteria is completely filled out on the file description (currently it lists "n/a" for important criteria) -- Veggies (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Please check the history

I just reverted to last good version. I meant to revert a major rearrangement of the lede by a brand new editor, but someone else added something--a heavily-warned editor. So, I just reverted to last good version (21:41, 17 April 2013‎ by Leandrogfcdutra). Hope all is well. Please check. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

More excessive referencing

Please could someone tell me why "The first exploded outside a Lens Crafters store at 699 Boylston Street; the second, one block farther west at 755 Boylston Street.[2][4][7][8][9][10][11][12]" needs EIGHT separate references? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It should probably have at least 15 references. Adding more would be appreciated. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hilarious. It probably needs one reference. See WP:CITEKILL. Please fix this ludicrous overuse of eight sources to reference, at most, three facts. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, if there weren't eight different references, nobody on Wikipedia would believe there had even been a bombing in Boston. Qworty (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you all drunk? And I couldn't find anywhere in those eight references that referenced either 699 or 755 Boylston Street. Perhaps we should remove all the references and replace it with a {{cn}}? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Can people stop being facetious here? The Rambling Man is correct. We should have at most one reference for one piece of information and really no more than 3 or so for a sentence, if we need more than that we should create two sentences. I'll go ahead and reduce the number later today if I get time/unless someone else has time to go ahead now and figure out which source we should use to cite it. It's going to be difficult, but at some point we need to start figuring out where overlap lies in the references, then begin getting rid of the less reliable sources and cite the information to the more reliable sources. Ryan Vesey 22:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There are three or four other areas of the article which are clearly over-referenced, I'll start removing those too. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)On a more serious note, the addresses and references don't quite agree. [9] is referenced and says "one explosion had happened in front of the Marathon Sports store at 671-673 Boylston and the windows were blown out at a LensCrafters optician’s store". (Referring to the first blast affecting both.) The LensCrafters is at 699 Boylston, which the article states was the site of that explosion. But it looks like the explosion actually happened in front of Marathon Sports, and also blew out the nearby LensCrafters' windows. The 755 Boylston address for the second bomb looks correct. I'm going to change the location to what the boston.com ref says, since 699 Boylston doesn't make sense given the map location, and few other refs support it (I suspect those that do copied it from Wikipedia.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

On an equally serious note, I'm going to remove the sources which are here that simply duplicate other sources. This article should not become a library of sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 4) It's not like WP:CITEKILL is policy, but there's no reason to have that many references for that one sentence. Two seems like a good number for that statement, as it's pretty damn descriptive, but it should removed entirely if there's nothing that supports it. Wouldn't determining the addresses for the locations ourselves be original research? Qworty, I don't see how that's relevant at all. Let's be civil here.  TheArguer  _{SAY HI!} 22:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it's an essay, but why would a sentence that contains, what, three facts need eight citations? And Qworty obviously isn't aware that the Boston bombings are all over the press all over the world, almost to the point of tedium. No-one's saying this didn't happen. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Two reliable sources are sufficient if indeed they are reliable -- multiple sourcing is sometimes called for when the statement in question is controversial. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we're aware of that I think, but thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The references support the addresses fine; I didn't find major refs using the 699 Boylston address and it wasn't at the right place on a map (maybe someone looked up the address of the LensCrafters?), and the other addresses are now referenced properly and agree with the map. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

And the excessive refs on that particular sentence have been removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment this is a developing story, items with one or two sources have been rightly removed. While it's developing, a little WP:CITEKILL doesn't hurt anyone. This will be one of the things to get cleaned up later. --IP98 (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

One of the deleted references says in a comment that it is "only for the second picture". Do you know what the second picture is, or if we still have a reference for it? Wnt (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC) (This comment was removed right after posting, presumably by accident.

My "source" for the 755 Boylston address was a set of pictures supposedly taken just before and just after the second blast, clearly showing "755" on the building—but there had been doubts as to when the first shot was taken, so I was being careful to only ref the second one. Now it seems there's a textual ref for the address, so all is well. Thanks for checking! Ignatzmice•talk 23:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

If you don't referance something at least 5 times some overzealous "editor" will delete it within 10 secs.Legacypac (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Boston Globe Victim list

The Boston Globe has a list of victimes (fatalities and injuries) here: [10]. GabrielF (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It looks nice but it is not a reliable source as if you click on " If you have some information, please click here.", you can edit/add victim info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

All that does is let you contact the Globe, the list itself isn't directly editable. The BBC has a similar form on many articles. GabrielF (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we have add a list of victims to the article?  TheArguer  _{SAY HI!} 22:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

A full list of victims seems a bit much given how many there are, but I'm open to hearing the debate. Shadowjams (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

My preference would be to keep only the deaths in, if that. If people want to, they can start Victims of the Boston Marathon bombings or similar and put a {{main}} in the "Victims" section here. Ignatzmice•talk 22:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree that the victim list is infeasible simply due to the number. We can't list out the dozens of people who'll eventually show up in various references. I don't think we should cover specific injuries at all, unless they're notable in some particular way; we can simply note that many people lost limbs, etc. The deaths make sense to list out since there are only three of them, victims is undue weight to the sporadic few we have listed even now and will grow to be unmanageable. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm only suggesting that this is a source that might be of use - for each person on the list the Globe provides a source. GabrielF (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• A full list (including wounded) is too much. (I'm not suggesting that you're suggesting that, Gabriel.) We're always already straying in NOTMEMORIAL territory by listing victims in such articles. Drmies (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Why not do a table break-down based on nationality (IE France 0 Killed 1 Wounded)- they have them for the Bali Bombing etc. Vilano XIV (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I've seen things like that for air crashes (see e.g. Korean Air Lines Flight 007, table in the first section)—but those are mostly for fatalities. I guess we could well do one for injuries, if we get detailed enough sources. Ignatzmice•talk 23:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Those numbers were released by the ICAO. We have no sources. Why is this being discussed?  TheArguer  _{SAY HI!} 23:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

At some point such a list will be available, who knows how soon. Anyway, a list of injured should not be included. How Korean Air Lines Flight 007 got promoted to GA with that non-MOS compliant table full of flags is not clear to me; a table with at most three columns is overtabling it. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Bombings section

In the Bombings section, it states: "The blasts blew out windows on adjacent buildings, but did no other structural damage, an indication of the anti-personnel nature of the devices." What is that clause (in bold text) supposed to mean? Can someone clean up the wording a bit, so that it is more clear? Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

That the device was primarily intended to kill people rather than damage stuff. Agree that needs to be cleaned up, and make sure it's properly referenced. The current refs don't seem to support that, even though it does appear to be correct. (Should be a ref explaining the use of shrapnel, etc.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep, see anti-personnel weapon. Could even be linked to that article. Stalwart111 22:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The added link is helpful. I don't think most readers would be familiar with that terminology. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Just because there was no structural damage does not mean the bomb was not intended to cause structural damage. It only means that no structural damage occurred. The result is not an indication of the motive. To say otherwise is pure speculation. The enter phrase about the anti-personnel nature" should be deleted. --Crunch (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I would say it doesn't matter what the bombs were intended to do—they were anti-personnel, because they affected people more than buildings. But I guess the phrase as it is implies that they were intended to be anti-personnel (which, while certainly likely due to the shrapnel, isn't confirmed), so if you want to remove it I won't stop you. Ignatzmice•talk 01:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Ricin envelopes and JFK fire

I know there's been a consensus at least on the envelopes back in the archive, but I also know that consensus can change, not least of all due to new rationals and points raised. For instance, it could be said to be noteworthy that at least most major news outlets speculate upon a potential link between the envelopes, the JFK fire, and the bombing, because of all happening in such close succession. I'm mostly watching CNN here and I can't quite make out what's pure editorial speculation and what links they're saying are factually under investigation by government authorities, whether those links exist or not. --37.81.4.51 (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I would include information about the JFK fire because the possibility of a connection has been made repeatedly by reputable news sources. Also, the police are treating this as a possible arson case. See: Arson squad arrives at JFK Presidential Library; Building closed ‘indefinitely’ for investigation into fire after marathon bombings. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't—any link is pure speculation until the authorities say otherwise. Arson happens. Ignatzmice•talk 23:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

And, again, why do we have to report everything that's reported? What I see on the news is, when those things are mentioned together (not everyone does it), that the talking glue sticks on TV need to fill airtime, and do that by making connections even while saying there is no evidence of a connection. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

"Talking glue sticks" I love it! Ignatzmice•talk 01:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Chinese names of Chinese dead and injured

Is it within BLP to post, on this talk page, Chinese names of any Chinese victims injured or killed, in case they are mentioned in the article? If they are mentioned (especially if they make witness accounts to media figures) it would be good to mention their Chinese names so people can easily find Chinese sources about them. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, as long as the sources actually use these names (no impromptu translations by editors, please!) Wnt (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you'll find (in threads above) that some names have already been posted here on the talk page. I can't see any harm in posting Chinese translations of names already posted, especially if it helps to find reliable sources. But there may be an alternate view to mine. Stalwart111 23:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll check to see if the names of the persons were posted. I found a Xinhua article which gives the name of one student who was injured. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Be careful even with sourced Chinese names, though: I've seen instances in Wikipedia where Chinese-language news sources were basing their reports on translating English news reports, and made a guess at the Chinese characters for someone's name. You'll probably want to compare a few sources, and have a Chinese speaker (perhaps yourself!) read the articles to make sure that in context you're getting reliable information. --Amble (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok. For the deceased student, there was a bilingual New York Times source that uses the same characters (吕令子) and said that a state-run newspaper in Shenyang, a Chinese university official, and a classmate had identified her. I found the same characters or their traditional Chinese equivalents in sources in Hong Kong and Taiwan.

• Buckley, Chris (Chinese name of journalist: 储百亮 Chǔ Bǎiliàng) "China Mourns the Death of Student in Boston Blast/中国哀悼遇难女留学生. NYT. April 17, 2013. - While Buckley is not ethnic Chinese he was given a "Chinese name" that is used in Chinese language publications

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure those are good sources for the student's name in Chinese. --Amble (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Reference for Injury count doesn't support actual statement.

Someone may want to have a look at reference number 3. The reference is used to support the 183 death count in the infobox and in the lead of the article, yet nowhere it states this actual number (Statement: "more than 170 people".) I suppose it may be best to replace this one entirely with a better source and would have done so myself, if i wasn't about to log off for the day. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

People have been changing it back and forth all afternoon, I believe based on what CNN is saying on-air. Ignatzmice•talk 23:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like CNN and others are using this. Google News is full of hits for Boston 183. See [11] for example, which says 183 hospitalizations, which may or may not be precisely the same as injuries. Some sources like [12] come up for 184, but only a couple of tabloids stake out the higher numbers.

P.S. I just got reverted here again, the second time in half a dozen comments.[13] Some people here seem to be misunderstanding or misusing the "edit conflict" screen, which is no surprise, because it's a really crappy thing and always has been. It's easier to copy your whole text block, hit the Editing Talk: page in your browser history sidebar, paste in fresh. Wnt (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

(That wasn't intentional, sorry! I did paste my particular comment into the top box [I've been copying my comments before I hit save, as it's just simpler that way in case I need it]. I think the software sometimes overwrites, even when you don't mean it to. Ignatzmice•talk 23:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC))

Please add Shenyang to Chinese Victim's entry

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

---

Parallelism with including other victim's hometowns. It's in the referenced source article. 24.151.50.173 (talk) Today, 18:27 (UTC−5)

 Done Ignatzmice•talk 23:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Request for modification to article

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

---

I noticed the description under the photo in the 'Victims' section states that it is at the site of the first blast. This may not be correct.

According to pictures here http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/17/us/boston-blasts/index.html?hpt=hp_c2 it looks like the site of the second blast. CNN's reports on television show pictures of the same running man captured by Lord and Taylor's security camera and state that it occurred at the site of the second blast.

Until it can be verified whether the photo in this article is of the site of the first blast or the site of the second, perhaps the description of the photo could be modified to remove reference as to which blast site is shown. 69.126.219.24 (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)unregistered user

Nope, that's the first one. See File:1st Boston Marathon blast seen from 2nd floor and a half block away - about 10 secs after blast.jpg—you can see the finish line in the upper-right corner. The other picture has the same glass awnings, which aren't at the second site (pix here). Ignatzmice•talk 00:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Definitely it's the first one, further to the east. --Crunch (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Is the lede really inadequate?

With information still changing frequently, I think it makes more sense to keep the lede short and update specific sections as needed. I don't really think it's too short, and the "Oh noes the lede is too short!!1!" tag looks unprofessional on an article as highly-edited as this one. Can we get rid of it? Ignatzmice•talk 00:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

We can't get rid of it. The lead doesn't comply with WP:LEAD and the template should remain until someone fixes it. Ryan Vesey 00:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

We can get rid of it--I just did. Per BOLD. With an article like this, with so much in flux, it's not to be expected that the lead reflect the article content completely, and the tag is a bit distracting. Let's fix the lead a bit, a bit at a time. Drmies (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, the only things in the article and not in the lead are the "reactions" of various kinds, and the quickly-taken security measures. All things considering, then, the lead is surprisingly comprehensive, though probably too short per LEAD. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Chinese text warning

I added {{Contains Chinese text|section|image=}}, which is as small as I could get it, to the "Victims" section. Is it box-overload, though? How important is it that we have the Chinese text; if we have the text, how important is it that we have the box? Ignatzmice•talk 02:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely critical if you want readers to have access to sources in that language. Even top-notch publications such as National Geographic almost exclusively omit Chinese information, when there are towns of the same romanised (after removing tone marks) name in the same county; without them there is potential ambiguity in mapping, leaving the reader in the dark. GotR ^Talk 03:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

May I ask why we have the Chinese text in the first place? IIRC, including the text is only necessary when introducing the subject in a biographical article. If the only thing it does is cause needless problems, why include it?  TheArguer  _{SAY HI!} 05:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

On the English Wikipedia within the article body it's commonplace to include a person's name in the foreign script if the person doesn't have his/her own Wikipedia article. With the Chinese name one can search for Chinese articles about the person; without it one won't know how to search for things about her in Chinese. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. =)  TheArguer  _{SAY HI!} 06:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

No problemo :) WhisperToMe (talk) 06:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Kofi Kingston controversy

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

---

I added information about this but it was removed. I believe it is valuable to highlight that a WWE superstar who is Bostonian, and who celebrates people in distress (with his theme song S.O.S.) and who attacks people using explosion-oriented attacks (the "Boom Drop") only 3 days prior to the attack was in Boston and won the United States championship there, to the accolades of the crowd.

It is possible that the ones who bombed the marathon were enthusiastic members of the WWE Universe celebrating their local hero regaining his championship for the third time, so 3 days later they set off explosions (much like WWE sets off pyro, often recklessly, like when they burned the Undertaker) and harmed many people.

We should look to see if any members of the WWE Universe in Boston are fans of Kofi Kingston (especially those with a family who came from Ghana or Jamaica, which are Kofi's themes) and see if perhaps this whole thing was just an accident from merrymaking that got out of hand. Ranze (talk) 05:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You serious? OR if so. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

This article is based on published reliable sources, not batshit-crazy conspiracy theories cooked up by 'contributors'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL, but erm... yes.  TheArguer  _{SAY HI!} 05:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Edit request on 18 April 2013: Suspect not seen placing backpack on video

The Suspects section states that one of the men "was captured on video placing a backpack". However, from the provided sources, he was only reported to have been seen placing the backpack (not on any video). 68.43.151.176 (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done Since the reference doesn't say who saw them place it, just that the FBI said so, I noted that it's "according to the FBI" even though it's generally preferred not to state things as such. I assume it was from a witness statement, but that would be original research without a reference. It would be good to find out where that information actually originated from. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The info came from the Press Conf. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQr4AZgGiNc Look at the Q&A from 3:22 in the video. FBI says Suspect 2 was seen placing bomb "within minutes" of the blast. Did not specify eyewitness or video. Legacypac (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Lu Lingzi ref addition

• Parents of China Victim Get U.S. Visas April 18, 2013 WSJ

108.195.138.54 (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

One pressure cooker bomb or two?

The information here [14] reportedly came from an FBI update, that seems to be after the initial reports. Can anyone dig up a link to which FBI press conference it came from? This seems to be the most accurate (even when we initially described two pressure cookers, the sources conflicted), since CNN is explicitly attributing it to the FBI. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

There are some sources that said that both were, but I guess it's not considered 100% for sure yet on here. (Also, if you can give some input on my section right below, on which bomb did what, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Gabby Merger (talk) 04:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

RFC: Include FBI photos?

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

---

The discussion over whether or not to include the newly-released FBI photos is spread over multiple sections above. I would like to consolidate.

Should this article include the newly-released FBI photographs? GabrielF (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• No. A link to the FBI website with a photo of the suspect will suffice. Wikipedia's job is to gather and present information in an encyclopedic format. It is not the "media" or part of the commercial media establishment. If people seek 'late-breaking news' they can go to other resources. Gorba (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

  We have no policy to exclude reliable verifiable information because it is too new. Shadowjams (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes There is no doubt that the media has irresponsibly published photographs and descriptions of potential suspects and that we have been correct to limit our inclusion of those reports. However, I think there is a significant difference between the New York Post printing something based on who-knows-what and an FBI press conference. Remember that the FBI has had these photos for at least 24-hours. The decision to release them was made by the people who are in the best position to know the positive and negative effects. These are clearly photographs that are very important to understanding this story, and I think its very difficult for a reader to grasp what the photos do or do not signify without seeing them. GabrielF (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• YES We should use these pictures. They are suspects and have been released by the FBI. I think they are encyclopedic photos released by the FBI and should be used to show part of what the investigation has found. No matter if they did this or not the photos are part of the investigation are in reliable sources and can be used here. Theworm777 (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• No - These people (whoever they are) are still covered under WP:BLPCRIME and should be presumed innocent. Let the media circulate the images—Wikipedia is meant to circulate verifiable information, not to track down murder suspects. -- Veggies (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• No* From WP:BLPCRIME: "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, a crime unless a conviction is secured." If they, get id'ed and charged,and become well known, we can revisit this decision.24.151.50.173 (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't believe that BLPCRIME is relevant here. Photos of these individuals are on the home pages of half the news organizations in the world. They are not "relatively unknown". GabrielF (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

We are now giving " serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured" and I think this should be used these peoples names are not being gave out here just. Photos that are part of the investigation. Theworm777 (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• No. The name Richard Jewell rings a bell. Viriditas (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

  And yet our Centennial Olympic Park bombing article includes discussion of him being suspected by the FBI. That's all anyone's asking to do here. Shadowjams (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

  Talk about missing the point! No, we are not going to help you create another Richard Jewell. And I don't think you really understand how Wikipedia works. Viriditas (talk) 02:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Of course we should - We already include the text that the FBI has released the photos, there's 0 questions that the information meets our reliable sources and verifiability requirements. What policy basis is there for keeping out the photos. The only remotely plausible argument to exclude them is concerns over undue weight, but that's easily handled by only including a composite (or one), and by making sure the caption text is purely descriptive ("the FBI released these photos"). There is zero policy justification to exclude them outside of some philosophical objection to including news that is "too recent." (A trend i've seen in this article unlike any other current event article i've worked on). Shadowjams (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• No, what Viriditas said x 1000. When they're formally charged we can have this discussion again. Ignatzmice•talk 23:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• No Photos of blurry, unknown people vaguely described as suspects do not help illustrate anything. In a historical context, they would mean very little unless they become the only photos of these individuals (e.g. if the FBI doesn't make progress, and sources start saying that.) Wait until the individuals are hopefully found, and until they're actually charged with something if that happens. WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLP in general especially apply when we don't even know who these people are. The FBI will need much more evidence than just matching these people to their pictures to move forward, and so should we. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• No. Unencyclopaedic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• No. They are not charged or convicted, and this spells BLP violation in so many ways (the FBI's guidelines are different from ours). There is no way in which adding those (blurry) photos will "help the reader understand the article" or some such thing. And we're not the news, and we're not here to help the FBI in their investigation. For that, you could consider joining 4chan. Drmies (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

They are encyclopaedic and I dont see how you can say they arent. They are part of the investigation. we are not "suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing a crime" so WP:BLPCRIME does not apply here they are just suspects in the investigation. When there is reliable sources there is no "BLP violation".Theworm777 (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I could say it again? Or, I can say that the pictures would add nothing to the article besides color. Drmies (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't be glib. By that logic let's just remove all the pictures. Shadowjams (talk) 23:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. What you get from the photos is a sense of the scale of the investigation that is hard to convey with words. Seeing the quality of the images gives you a sense of what the investigators have to work with. Suspect #1's face is very obscured, for instance but there's a clearer shot of suspect #2. The sense that I get is that identifying these two people will be fairly difficult. You get a sense of the size of the crowd and the magnitude of the task involved in processing these images. You get a sense of what the FBI has to go on - the suspect's don't seem to be interacting and there's nothing odd about their behavior so you can see that the FBI has had to correlate what's in these images from what they've learned from other sources. I think its similar to the difference between reading about a famous building and seeing a photo of the building - its hard to grasp what you read without the image. If that's just "color" then I would suggest that color is essential to an encyclopedia. As John Hodgman likes to say, "specificity is the soul of narrative". GabrielF (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes They are encyclopedic and absolutely critical to understanding this story. FBI is asking to focus on these two suspects and no one else. Did Wikipedia wait for an arrest before writing about or posting pics of bin Ladan? How about images of other terrorists. If these suspects don't want their pics on WP they are free to come here and remove them Legacypac (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh. The FBI is interested in these two suspects, and you have just promoted them to "terrorists". Great: judge and jury. You know, Bin Laden was already notable by our standards before 9/11. That you'd draw such a comparison is a clear indication to which extent your interest is to improve the project. Drmies (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Wow - I thought we were supposed to assume other editors are acting in good faith. I used a FAMOUS example of someone who was accused and not caught or convicted. Everyone is calling the unsubs terrorists. Bombing a crowded street is terrorism period. Was there a debate about putting the famous Unibomber sketch on wikipedia before he was caught and convicted? Legacypac (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. BLPCRIME reads " 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, a crime unless a conviction is secured." (emphasis mine). These are not relatively unknown suspects-- these are the most famous suspects on the planet right now-- they are extremely known-- Wikipedia isn't not tarnishing their reputation by admitting that they're wanted by the FBI, we're just stating an encyclopedic fact. --HectorMoffet (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

These people are completely unknown. We do not know anything other than that these are pictures of unknown suspects, and I think it's important to remember the "unknown" part. You can't accuse a blurry picture of a crime; you need to identify the individuals first and link them to the incident. (Or charge them as John Does or something.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes they are here btw, video and poster. I was surprised to find these photos all over the news, but not here.. When those photos were made available, one wonders of course if they are in the neighborhood. Electron9 (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• No - Obvious copyright violation. FBI is not the copyright holder of the released images.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

  I'm fairly certain there's a strong fair use claim to those images... as would be the position of every major news organization in the U.S., and some beyond. Shadowjams (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes — (edit conflict) WP:BLPCRIME does not prohibit including the pictures. It asks editors to seriously consider the issue. The FBI did not immediately release the pictures because it was seriously considering the issue too. According to the media, the FBI's decision to release was partly based on a video it has, but hasn't released, of one of the individuals putting down his backpack where one of the explosions took place. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• No If this was a media website I would say sure, but Wikipedia will not look good if the suspects turn out to be innocent. Best to leave the pictures out... for now at least. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• No This is not encyclopedic content. Our job is to summarize what happened and document facts, not speculate or help catch criminals with fuzzy pictures. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  What has happened is that the FBI has released photos. It is wholely appropriate to document that fact and to present those photos alongside.WTucker (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  Actually, it is wholely a BLP nightmare since they haven't been arrested, nor indicted, just declared "a suspect". Our policy on WP:BLP trumps the "cool" factor of having the photos included at this stage. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  I am not asserting that we should say anything that is not in reliable sources. And I propose that the topic is the FBI's release of the photos, not the individuals shown in them. There is not a BLP problem if we reliably source our statements and use the photos to supplement the statement that the FBI released photos of two "persons of interest". It is not about the "cool factor" if such even exists here. The FBI's release of the photos can be reliably sourced and it is appropriate to include them when talking about the photos.WTucker (talk) 05:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Applying the No logic, I'm expecting that all the photos and names will be removed from this article shortly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI_Most_Wanted_Terrorists Legacypac (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Please, do us all a favor and get over yourself. Read the very first sentence of that article: The Federal Bureau of Investigation's Most Wanted Terrorists is a list of persons who have been indicted (formally accused) by sitting Federal grand juries in the United States district courts, for alleged crimes of terrorism. These suspects here have NOT been so indicted. Ignatzmice•talk 00:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Or put more gently, other stuff exists. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. Pictures of people identified by the FBI as suspects with the purpose of getting the public to look for them? Of course that's encyclopedic, it's a crucial part of the story. Like D. B. Cooper below. --GRuban (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Yes We should not cast guilt; but, it is wholely appropriate to document the fact that the FBI released photos and to show those photos alongside that statement of fact. No guilt aspersions, no incriminations, just statements of what happened. This is not a copyright violation, it is clearly fair use.WTucker (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment re copyright — Doesn't seem like the pictures can be copyrighted. According to Wikipedia:Public_domain#Non-creative_works

"In short: Bare facts are in the public domain. Works must show sufficient human creativity to be eligible to copyright at all."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• No - As stated before, "These people (whoever they are) are still covered under WP:BLPCRIME and should be presumed innocent." As the story is ongoing, the value of including the images is really under dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoffeeWithMarkets (talk • contribs) 00:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This was addressed before by myself and others. Please see previous comments. For example, WP:BLPCRIME does not prohibit the use of the pictures. Also, the pictures are being widely distributed and are now famous. Putting them in Wikipedia will have negligible effect on the reputation of the subjects. Your concern could only apply for the case of the pictures being little known outside Wikipedia.

Regarding the ongoing aspect of the story, Wikipedia is unique and valuable because it can manage rapidly changing information, especially for an article like this where there are so many editors contributing and vetting each other's work. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes per D.B. Cooper precedent. Suspects are integral to the story and the article. If they are cleared by the FBI, we can remove the image afterward. --Tocino 00:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• ABSOLUTELY. JEE-zis Christ, the FBI released these pix as suspects! That some people object: I can't think of a single better example of why wikipedia is so screwed up that neither I nor any other college instructor lets it be used in academic citations. And the suggestion that we can't use them because they're copyrighted? I left WP in disgust a few years ago because of this kind of B.S., and when I come back, by God, the retards are still running the place. 'Will you people please use a modicum of common sense when making edit decisions??' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave Bowman - Discovery Won (talk • contribs) 00:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Absolutely! Even if they're not the culprits, it's notable as of today that the FBI decided to hold a big press conference where they showed the photos. So we can upload these images to Wikimedia Commons and use them while the story develops. Once a culprit is found, we can remove the wrong ones from the article but keep them on Commons. As far as copyrights go, the images are public domain as they were taken from CCTV surveillance video. Brian Williams even said they're public domain. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• NO Major BLP issue until they are officially charged or convicted (and no, once we post that with the assuming they are the suspects with pictures, we can't take that back and it could be a legal issue for WP). A link to the FBI site is fine, but we cannot infer what those pictures mean in light of our very strict BLP policy. --MASEM (t) 01:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Dave Bowman has gone ahead and added them. It looks as if he may have consensus for that, based on this section. Still, it seems inconsiderate not to give warning here. Ignatzmice•talk 01:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I see no consensus here, I would wait for an uninvolved admin to close this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment There is no "BLP issue" when there are many reliable sources like this has. Theworm777 (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Well im not breaking WP:3RR if someone wants to revert based on no consensus here feel free. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Even if the consensus ends up being to include, because it is a BLP issue for their inclusion at this time (while the above goes on, they have to stay off by default. WP:3RRNO would say that going past 3RR to keep these off is reasonable (not a violation). --MASEM (t) 01:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Okay, well seeing that this is a heated debate here, will an uninvolved admin make a ruling and close the discussion after a bit? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
      • In less than 3 hours?! Please. Shadowjams (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
        • You beat me to saying this. And I would note that Masem is 100% correct above. I tire of arguing the point, but if there is a serious BLP consideration, then BLP says you don't add the material until it is settled. The problem is that most aren't arguing about policy, they are arguing what they want to happen. I wouldn't expect those !votes to get much weight if they aren't addressing how this doesn't violate BLP. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Many of us are arguing it is NOT BLP-which is a policy arguement. In the end these photos will be included. Legacypac (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes—IF these are pictures of the actual perpetrators they will be included. Until we know more, keep them out. Ignatzmice•talk 02:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Photos are of actual suspects. Very clear. Legacypac (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Actual suspects ≠ actual perpetrators. Very clear. Ignatzmice•talk 02:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• BLP was never intended to prevent use of an FBI suspect photo because the suspects might not like it. Obviously. This is exactly why WP has the reputation of being run by clueless bozos. I'm not getting 3RR banned over this, so for today, we'll leave out an FBI photo that was in every newspaper in the world. But I'm taking this to arbcomm now. Dave Bowman - Discovery Won (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • You are 'taking this to arbcom' because you don't like people disagreeing with you at a RFC that is still running? Jeez... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• If anyone believes the pictures are a violation of WP:BLP, please quote the relevant excerpt from that policy that you are using to reach that conclusion. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Yes There is no BLP issue here, in my opinion, because Wikipedia including the photo as an illustration to support the statement "The FBI released this photo..." does not, in fact, accuse, defame, or otherwise injure the parties in question. Nandesuka (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes they are. Until they are convicted, our inclusion means we're treating these individuals as the culprits. We're writing an encyclopedia, not a news wire service, and thus it is totally inappropriate of us to include them until they have been shown to be charged or convicted of the crime. --MASEM (t) 02:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Your understanding of BLP does not conform with Wikipedia policy. Put simply: you are mistaken. If you think your understanding is correct, then I encourage you to raise this issue at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard, where you will quickly learn why your description of the WP:BLP policy is inaccurate. We are not "describing these men as culprits". We are, rather, correctly writing that the FBI has identified them as "Suspect 1" and "Suspect 2". Nandesuka (talk) 03:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Given the mess that 4chan and reddit did with their "investigation" and false accusations against the wrong people, without any names to attach to these people we should stay far and clear away from invading privacy. And so what encyclopedic value does putting the images on the page provide? We're not a newspaper, so there's no point in risking legal problems until they are identified by name. --MASEM (t) 03:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
        • I'd assume the FBI has better investigators than 4chan and Reddit Hot Stop (Talk) 04:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• No These are suspects related to the bombing. However, they have not been proven to be associated with the action (other than being there) and they have not been arrested. I feel that it can be mentioned that law enforcement has been involved in the pursuit of two suspects, one of which wound up in a shootout in which he was killed and contributed to the death of a police officer. Regarding the use of photos, until it is proven we don't need to post pictures of the suspects. We are not here to provide the latest scoop. Aneah|talk _to ^me 16:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

section break image RFC

• Comment-- I think there's a legitimate debate over whether to include images. I'm for inclusion, but there's no deadline, nor a consensus. It's not going to hurt anything if we take a day or two to quell concerns over BLP. --HectorMoffet (talk) 03:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Note that at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Boston_Marathon_Bombing_Suspects, OTRS volunteer User:FreeRangeFrog has said: "If the FBI has named those two unknown people as suspects then that's what we call them, unknown people who are suspects. If they cease to be suspects then we stop calling them that. Those photos are all over the world now, we're not infringing on anyone's privacy by referencing them. No need to get creative with the BLP stuff until their identities are known" That should be enough to quell concerns , IMHO. Nandesuka (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    • "Referring to" and "plastering their pics on the article" are different things. I agree with HectorMoffet—if these people did it, that will become apparent soon enough; we'll put the pictures in and no harm done. If they didn't do it, putting their pictures in is a (further) violation of their privacy and assumed innocence. Ignatzmice•talk 03:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, but our responsibility is to write a decent article and given that this is a happening issue it behooves us to be reticent. We aren't the news media; what we write here is supposed to last until after the fish has been wrapped in today's NYT. BTW, FreeRangeFrog is not the God of BLP; that they gave their opinion does not "quell concerns". Drmies (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
        • So according to you,we can never use *any* FBI "wanted" poster, including Abbu Assaui, the Al-Queida leader. We can CALL these two Boston guys suspects, because we're just quoting the FBI. But if we print their FBI photo over a caption that says "FBI says these are suspects", that's somehow different.
        • You're so locked onto specific words (BLP) that you ignore their meaning and their intent. Life is not a computer program, Masem. It requires humans to have good judgement and common sense. Both are lacking in the present case. It's why WP has zero credibility in Academia. And Wales doesn't care as long as he gets five grand for college speeches and can f**k groupies.
        • I'm not going to arbcom. I'm completely disgusted. If anyone else wants to raise hell about this Masem character and his outrageous limitation on our presentation of manifestly public information, message me and I'll back you up. Other than that, the hell with it. I'm outta this article. The goofballs and the dorks and the bozos win again at Wikipedia--like always. Dave Bowman - Discovery Won (talk) 03:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
          • The key words from BLPCRIME is "relatively unknown". These are two strangers. These are not major names (as best we know) in a terrorist organization. They have a right of privacy and presumed innocence until they are convicted. --MASEM (t) 03:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Drmies is threatening to ban me from editing for 3RR! Yesterday I was citing 3RR on several people and Admin Dennis Brown said that 3RR does not apply on this page. So which is it? Go ahead and try to ban me for reversing inappropriate deletions. Legacypac (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

That's the policy. One of them can remove information ten thousand times as long as they can plausibly claim that they are protecting a suspected terrorist wanted by the FBI from unwanted invasion of their privacy, but you'll get banned for 3RR. Wnt (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Legacypac cain't read. I warned them for 3R. Besides--this is someone who claims such intimate knowledge of Wikipolicy, and when IAR applies, and all that jazz, but can't tell a block from a ban? Or a warning from a threat? And I seriously doubt that Dennis would have said "3RR does not apply here". 3RR may not apply to anyone removing the image, since they can invoke BLP. The side that wants to insert the picture cannot possibly claim to enforce any Wikipedia policy, and 3RR certainly applies there. If that seems unfair, well, our policies are intended to protect the LP in BLP, like that poor brother in the Sandy Hook case. And we err on the side of caution. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to 3RR him Drmies I think you should refer it to ANI and let someone else have a looksee, out of prudence if nothing else. Shadowjams (talk) 03:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Again with Drmies slandering me. I have only inserted info and reverted deletions of material other editors wrote. All good faith edits. I don't claim to be an wikipolicy expert, but I am also not a newbie here and I can certainly read. People will keep inserting these images regardless of what anyone thinks. It's the nature of Wikipedia, anyone can edit it.Legacypac (talk) 04:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The FBI released these pictures. Even supposing (as is not unlikely) that people find them, they come forward and are exonerated, the fact that they were publicized in this way makes them an important part of the investigative sequence, and we should still have them in the article even after we can safely put "exonerated" in the figure legend. Wnt (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• No, and I'm honestly a bit surprised at the vehemence in the include side. We're not an outlet for speculation, and we're not a news site. We wait until the dust settles and clearer picture emerges, both figuratively and literally. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  Let's be clear about what the RFC is about... about whether or not to include the photos the FBI released as part of the encyclopedia article. It should never say anymore than that simple fact (at this time), and I don't think anyone has argued otherwise. You're leaping to the assumption that reporting on the FBI's actions is tanamount to an accusation; it certainly is not (and I would not support any insinuation that made that). Shadowjams (talk) 04:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  We can report on the FBI's activities without the image. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  Let's write an article on the Mona Lisa without a picture then. Hot Stop (Talk) 04:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  That is a poor analogy. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 12:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment. I don't really care one way or the other but... Editors should consider our BLP policies, Fair use image policies, not news, no deadline, etc. Chances are they will be in custody before this RfC is closed anyway.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. The FBI has released a photo of these individuals and warned the public that they are should be considered armed and dangerous. How can this article be considered current or accurate if this information -- and the photo is not included? Maybe the FBI is making a Richard Jewel mistake, I don't think so, but that's the FBI's job and their area of expertise (way more than anyone here). Are Wikipedia editors better at deciding if these photos should be released than the FBI is? And if Wikipedia editors are going to question all facts under Rubicon of "could the provider of this info be making a mistake," this whole site would be empty. I see people concerns, but really, editors are going to question the FBI's judgment about evidence in a crime?!

The above was reverted? This is a request for comments on the *talk* page. Is it WP to erase comments on the talk page when solicited? 24.90.73.152 (talk) 03:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

With all the edits going on here, there are edit conflicts every other time you try. Sometimes the software works; sometimes it overwrites someone else's addition when you put yours in. Sorry it happened to you. (As an example, I just got an edit conflict right now.) Ignatzmice•talk 04:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I originally received a edit conflict trying to revert your revert as well. 24.90.73.152 (talk) 04:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes the fact that the FBI is saying they are suspects should be good enough for us. And per FreeRangeFrog's comment referenced above, it's not a BLP issueHot Stop (Talk) 04:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes Allow me to clarify my comment at WP:BLP/N. The FBI has stated that there are two suspects. They released images of them. Reliable sources have repeated the story, and have published the photographs, stating what the FBI has said so far about them. Wikipedia is a tertiary source - as long as we don't assert anything about the suspects (guilt or innocence) then we can publish the photos and say exactly what the media has said what the FBI said about them. Nothing more, nothing less. If the FBI decides tomorrow that these are not suspects, then the media is going to say the same thing, and we will reference that, without making assertions about what has happened. Surely then we can have a discussion about keeping the photographs, and I'll argue that they should be definitely taken down. That's it. There's nothing BLP-ish here, at least yet. As to whether or not we should be covering breaking news right down to the minute - if I had a dime for every time I've quoted WP:NOT#NEWS on an AFD that everyone wanted to keep because omgthisisreallyimportant I'd be a rich man indeed. We shouldn't, but we do anyway, so might as well do it right. What we cannot do is publish conjecture from unreliable sources (or synthesize material, or create original research) as to their identity, whereabouts, size, age, names, etc. Just as any other criminal or crime victim. It's not that hard, really. We document what other reliable sources say about a topic. That's what we do, and that's what we should be doing here. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• I was originally not planning to comment here but your comment has changed my mind. Some people like Wnt have asserted that even if the FBI changes their minds, it's likely we'll be keeping these pictures because they'll be so significant given that these people were named. While I'm not convinced this is correct, it's not something I can be bothered discussing. However your argument here is we should put these images up even if we may be taking them down tomorrow if the FBI changes their mind. This strikes me as a very bad thing to do, not complying either in spirit or letter with WP:BLP. The fact that these images have been widely disrupted elsewhere is not sufficient reason for us to ignore our BLP policy. And this wouldn't be the first time we've avoided repeating something or waited to repeat something which is widely covered in RS because of BLP issues. I'm now clearly leaning to oppose their inclusion, it's far more important we get this right, then do it right now, regardless of what WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, not that I think the sometimes excessively newsy approach in cases when there isn't significant BLP concerns is a good reason to adopt a newsy approach when there are BLP concerns. When things change, we can re-assess but even if we end up including these images later, that doesn't mean we made a mistake by not including them initially. Nil Einne (talk) 04:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• The thing to consider, besides what BLPCRIME says, is that we are NOT#NEWS. We have the ability to be current, but we should be looking towards the permanance of the information and not so much just to be up to date. Tracking the investigation in near-real time is good - this is all stuff of academic importance later (how long it took to find them, etc.) But the exacting at the moment details aren't always appropriate. It's reasonable that the FBI will ID these two people and likely provide photographs of them (or news media will find some), at which point these pictures will become worthless, showing that they have no permanence in this article. This, added to the BLP issue, is a clear reason why we shouldn't be including these images. --MASEM (t) 05:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• To me this is a clear case of WP:WELLKNOWN. And I appreciate that we are not a news outlet, but the reality is that we clearly are with these types of things. Otherwise we'd be more amenable to simply deleting these types of articles whenever they crop up, but then "In the news" wouldn't be credible... and so on. If we're doing it, let's do it right, or let's not do it at all. As for concerns over the suspects' privacy, the US Government and every media outlet in the planet already took care of trampling it. I see no harm in us documenting it. In any case, I'm seeing reports just now that one of those two suspects is dead. The issue might be moot here in a few hours. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• At the time this debate was there (before the fallout of the MIT shooting/Watertown incident), WELLKNOWN absolutely did not apply. We had no names - just "subject 1" and "subject 2". They're blurry faces with hats in a crowd, all we could tell is they were apparently male, young adult caucasians. That absolutely does not make them "well known". "Well known" would be predominate public figures like celebritieis and politicians who's names are in the paper on a near-daily basis; these are two random (and now appearing to be confirmed) random people.
• Now, the situation's changed - if all reports are true and the two men were the two involved in the MIT/Watertown situation, which is yet another crime, and one has died, then we're likely going to be getting a better photo of both, which will be of more encyclopedic (long-term) value to show who the men were. I've not read all the reports to know exactly how the FBI is treating it but they seem to have much more interest than just "persons of interest" and effectively want to charge the surviving one with the crime, so BLPCRIME would likely be satisfied. With names publicly announced and this level of searching, then their privacy rights no longer are a factor. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• WP:BLP is designed to protect people we cover directly or indirectly from malicious rumors, attacks, etc. Had all this been a theory espoused by a few blogs or non-reliable sources who also published the photographs, I would have been the first one to recommend they not be included. But not when the FBI officially names them suspects (not 'persons of interest') and the photos are plastered all over every website and newspaper in the planet. Sure, we could ideally not cover this minute to minute, and then the whole discussion is moot anyway because we have to wait for things to unfold in the first place. But that's neither here nor there. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes The FBI photos are as reliable and encyclopedic as photos get. /// Internet Esquire (talk) 07:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• YES, obviously. Use some common sense. Would you have waited to include photos of Osama Bin Laden until he had been tried in a court? And there is now no longer any question of their guilt. Carl Kenner (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, reverse backpack photos instantly, perhaps faces later. Newsreports have stated that fabric fragments match the backpacks in the photos (seen in images of suspects' backs), so those photos can be included immediately as fair-use, notable for being "the FBI photos". As for the faces, any current, blurred images could be used immediately, but perhaps discuss the detailed facial photos longer. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• No. This does fall under BLPCRIME. Just because the article doesn't contain the exact text "these people are guilty" and only calls them suspects doesn't mean it doesn't fall under BLPCRIME; BLPCRIME applies when the article suggests that people are guilty or reports accusations of guilt made by others. And while it is true that BLPCRIME is limited to people who are relatively unknown, common sense says that the pictures themselves don't count for deciding that they are well-known when deciding whether to include the pictures--that's circular. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Yes Pictures of Suspect 1 and Suspect 2. One of the suspects is dead, and identified by the City of Boston Police as "Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, as the dead Boston bombing suspect."Source We then let the reader decide if Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26 looks like one of the suspects (or not). Patriot1010 (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Yes. I'm late to the party, since the photo was already added by Rgrasmus, but for the record, I was the Wikipedian who first added Bin Laden's photo to September 11 attacks on that fateful day. I found it on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted page. To those who argue about the policy being followed, I laugh. There were no agreed-upon, formal Wikipedia edit policies on 2001-09-11. We were a tiny community under the gentle guidance of Larry Sanger, and we mostly got along. WP had been in existence less than a year. Sadly, the edits are lost. You can see a snapshot for posterity at nost:September_11,_2001_Terrorist_Attack, but no images remain. Not even nost:Osama bin Laden. — tbc (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Bin Laden is a relatively known person and would therefore not fall under BLPCRIME. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Post MIT/Watertown/FBI naming

Any issues I had with the images prior to last night and FBI's naming today pretty much clear up my BLP concerns with the images. We have [15] from the FBI which is a clear image of the wanted brother, and I would wait until we get a similar clearer image of the dead one to include, but my hestition to include these profile images as they have been named and, of the surviving one, more than just being of-interest, satisfies BLPCRIME. --MASEM (t) 14:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The events of the last twelve hours or so change everything, and I also withdraw my objection. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The inclusion of the photos was never dependent on if they ended up being guilty... it was newsworthy enough to report them because they were the focus of an enormous manhunt. Yet for whatever misguided reasons we still don't have a picture that most of North America has seen at this point... So I appreciate both of you changing your minds... but I think the delay in including it was a fault that didn't turn on the outcome of the investigation. Shadowjams (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, include the photos. I am saying this now that better photos of the suspects have been released, which should also be included. The original photos distributed by the FBI continue to be of immense importance, because we are having debates in every large city of the Western world about how much video surveillance is too much. I happen to oppose it, but I should grant that this will be a powerful point for those supporting more cameras. It is important to show exactly what the photo looked like, explain how that photo came to be identified as the one to distribute, explain who was able to recognize someone from it. Wnt (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Why do we show an image of DB Cooper?

never convicted, theoretically living

For people opposing inclusion of the suspect images, I wonder how you feel about our inclusion of images of the never-convicted D.B. Cooper? Why does BLP apply here but not there? In both cases, we have FBI-provided media of an unknown suspect that was released to apprehend a suspect currently at-large. --HectorMoffet (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Because WP:OTHERSTUFF, D.B Cooper has not convicted because he was never found. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Neither the suspects here nor the DB Cooper suspect have been found. This would seem to argue that we would apply BLP consistently to them. --HectorMoffet (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No, because many people (including the law enforcement officers or whoever it was that gave him the money) saw him an positively ID'd him. Then he happened to disappear. They know who he is, they just can't find him. This is very different: They know someone did it, they just don't know who. They suspect it could be these (unidentified) people, who are innocent until proven guilty. Ignatzmice•talk 00:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

From the article: "The question was rendered moot in November when a Portland grand jury returned an indictment against "John Doe, aka Dan Cooper" for air piracy and violation of the Hobbs Act. The indictment in effect formally initiated prosecution of the hijacker that can be continued, should he be apprehended, at any time in the future."

Just read the DB Copper article. Lead says his is an "unknown" subject and the article says he used an alias. Further down 9 different people are named and discussed as suspects who might be D.B. Copper. How does the BLP policy to that article exactly. Also similar sketch and named suspects in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zodiac_Killer Legacypac

• D.B. Cooper was indicted by a grand jury, these suspects have not. Apples and oranges. All you have to do is read the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• The D. B. Cooper image is public domain. The suspect photos are copyright. We can't host copyrighted images of living people without a 'free license' from the rights holders.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but copyright does not apply http://www.usa.gov/copyright.shtml Legacypac (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Use by the FBI doesn't remove copyright from the original photographers; only if the work was actually created by the government. That said, the NFC aspect is a red herring. DB Cooper is rather famous. These two people are relatively unknown and thus doesn't make sense to tempt BLP with them. --MASEM (t) 05:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for photos

Not related to whether or not the photos should be included. However, if we are to include themm, they are video screenshots of the suspects and we need a valid fair use rationale to include them. "Anyone who objects to FBI suspect pix on copyright basis is out of their mind" will not suffice. We do not suspend copyright policy because the FBI edited or redistributed someone else's work. The³5₉ (Talk) 02:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

From http://www.fbi.gov/boston/press-releases/2013/remarks-of-special-agent-in-charge-richard-deslauriers-at-press-conference-on-bombing-investigation-1, "The photos and videos are posted for the public and media to use, review and publicize." I guess one could argue there is a theoretical harm here, but that seems like a pretty strained argument. Nandesuka (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

We require the photos to be free in license, not free for use, to be considered free use. Otherwise, they would have to meet NFC policy to be included. --MASEM (t) 02:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Well Masem, it's in there now. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Masem and The359 that if these photos are included, they will need to meet the NFCC criteria. As I'm sure were others, I was thinking this even before the photos were released and now they have been released there's nothing to suggest there's anything different from what was expected. Nil Einne (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems that fair use was allowed for the photo of Adam Lanza in the page for the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Why is that not the case here Rgrasmus (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Article should be modified so as not to be a mouthpiece of President Obama

The current version says "He later described the bombing as terrorism".

This may be a compromise between opponents, who want to say that Obama is a socialist dictator, and supporters, who want nothing mentioned.

The neutral viewpoint is that there is commentary from multiple news sources, including CNN, that President Obama was criticized for not characterizing the incident as terrorism. This should be mentioned. It should not be mentioned in such as hidden way, such as "he later described the bombing as terrorism". "He later" is not encyclopedic. The fact that he did not do it initially is encyclopedic. Fuck, he was probably being cautious and didn't want to offend al-Qaeda.

Possible wording might be "President Obama was noted by multiple news analysts (add citation, such as CNN and BBC) as not characterizing the incident as "terrorism" but he later did the next day" BoizeeIdaho! (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, what you are saying would be original research, drawing your own conclusions and attempting to make this a coatrack against Obama. Obama isn't the subject of this article, the bombing is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with Mr. Brown. Qworty (talk) 03:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Regardless of party affiliation there is no mouthpiece when it is a direct quote from the President of the United States. Wikipedia is simply quoting what he said as it pertains to this particular event. Gorba (talk) 04:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I am a supporter of President Obama, who is the greatest President in recent memory.

It is possible to have a biased article by quoting a celebrity. The bias is the selection of quote. .

I disagree with some things written by user Boise. However, some things are correct. It is NOT original research. See

=

• http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/54520
• http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/16/obama-now-calls-boston-bombings-terrorism/
• http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/16/axelrod-on-boston-bombings-obama-may-have-avoided-terror-label-because-he-thought-attacks-were-related-to-tax-day/
• https://bangordailynews.com/2013/04/16/politics/did-obama-wait-too-long-to-label-boston-bombing-an-act-of-terrorism/

Bamler2 (talk) 13:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't say for sure, but I think The Bangor Daily News is the only one of those that meets WP:RS. TheSyndromeOfaDown (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bangor story is actually an editorial in the Washington Post, which is not rs. Normally we do not include opinions unless we can establish the weight they deserve. TFD (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed new section: Media misreporting

There have been a number of media false reports after the bombing - mistakes that themselves have been reported on in reliable sources, and mistakes that are part of this story:

• New York Post reports 12 dead
• That there were other bombs than the two that actually exploded
• That the fire in the JFK library was related to this incident
• That a Saudi national was under arrest
• That cell phone service had been shut down to prevent bomb detonation
• That suspects had been arrested (CNN, among others)
• That two teenagers were the suspects (again, NY Post)

This is also the subject of an FBI statement (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/18/business/media/fbi-criticizes-false-reports-of-a-bombing-arrest.html?_r=0 )

These seven major media mistakes aren't currently (with one exception) in the article, despite the coverage they got. [Exception: "Some news reports initially said that more bombs had been found." (eight citations follow this sentence).] Nor is the FBI statement. But these mistakes, and the FBI statement, are an important part of the story (again, based on discussions about them, in reliable sources). So a separate section seems justified. Otherwise, this seems sort of whitewashing how messy the real world is. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

If there are sources discussing the misreporting, such commentary may possibly merit inclusion at some point - but I'd suggest that it would be best left until the situation has stabilised, and we can deal with the matter without getting swamped in trivia and WP:OR. For now, we are better off trying to avoid such secondary issues, in my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Legacypac (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC) It is a big part of the story, but much of this was in the article at various points but removed against Wiki policyLegacypac (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Legacypac, with your 200+ edits you shouldn't be preaching "Wiki policy" to others. If you think this "misreporting" is a big part of the story, then I don't think you know which story really matters. The article is about the bombing. Any "misreporting" hasn't led to anything related to the investigation. In other words, it's really not that real. Can you maybe develop an interest in other articles? BTW, Andy, good point. It may well become relevant, but it doesn't need to be included now while this whole situation is in turmoil. Who knows--maybe the misreporting is being misreported. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Let's not bite the newbies. Misreporting is part of the story. Some people have a hard time understanding that. // Internet Esquire (talk) 07:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Who gave you the right to tell me I can't read policy. I have several accounts for different things on wiki. You got the whole "they are not Suspects" thing dead wrong. Seriously, think before you attack people.Legacypac (talk) 03:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• In reality, this is a non-story and we should not add a section on it. Misreporting is a mundane act during a breaking story. There's nothing to talk about here unless you like noting that the sky is blue and water is wet. What we need to do as an encyclopedia is write about a stable topic that has settled down, not highlight the fluid nature of reporting. Viriditas (talk) 03:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• When Sandy Hook happened and bad news reporting rushed out, the only piece of misinformation that had to survive was the misnaming of Lanza's brother as the shooter, to clear him. Same here - just because there was misreporting in the first 48 hrs is not our place to comment on. On an article about modern news media, sure, but not on a story like this. --MASEM (t) 03:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The one misreport I find notable at this point is the NY Post's idiocy with their "bag men" front page...but that's notable to the NY Post, not to the Marathon bombing. And that, the death toll, and the Saudi national stuff are all covered on the NY Post's page already. There are now various sources discussing the misreporting, but in the context of "these media organizations suck", not "this is relevant to the Boston Marathon incident." It's not like the misreporting has affected the investigation, though the FBI did tell the media to be more careful. Something like this [16] might be relevant to the Reddit article, for example...but it doesn't seem relevant to the marathon bombing. But perhaps sources will appear that do analyze how the misreporting may have affected this incident, rather than just note it happened. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought there was a section on this point earlier... I either imagined it or it's been removed. Seems fairly relevant to the general media reporting. I certainly wouldn't name the section "media misreporting", but a section discussing media response, or maybe under response in general, is certainly appropriate. Shadowjams (talk) 03:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Building a section around the media's contortions would be WP:SYNTHESIS. I would prefer to see no mention of reporting at all in Wikipedia articles on news events. This is because any information in a Wikipedia article should be confirmed by multiple sources, so that calling out one organization for either getting the scoop or being wrong is a pointless waste of text. Readers come here for the consensus view, not for a blow-by blow of scoops and retractions. Abductive (reasoning) 04:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• There is a lot of coverage of the New York Post's misreporting; however, I think that might be better for inclusion in the New York Post article. Ryan Vesey 04:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  That seems like it would be UNDUE on the NY Post article, but appropriate as a sentence here. Undoubtedly there will be a lot of discussion about media responses here, and what went wrong, so that will factor in. I think it would be appropriate in that section. Until that coverage happens though there's no RS for it so we don't include it (simple). Shadowjams (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  UNDUE on the Post article? It must be included! In this article, no. Abductive (reasoning) 17:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Interesting idea. I saw an RS article about how the bombings have been one of the most difficult stories for the media. Some instances of misreporting are quite notable, such as the 9/11 "Car bomb at the state department" story, which is mentioned in the 9/11 article. I think that if more reliable sources begin to discuss the misreporting, we should include some the discussion and examples into this article. Nanobear (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Suspect Information

To me the admins and others need to stop reverting stuff about the suspects as it is important to the article and the investigation. The FBI is asking for everyone's help in identifying the two men in the photos and at least one of the two is a suspect as I heard there are images of him placing a bag at the location of the first bomb just seconds before it went off, if you don't think that makes him a suspect your stupid. UnknownElement (talk) 03:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, we effing know they're effing suspects. A suspect is a suspected perpetrator. They have not been charged. There are links to the FBI page with the pictures. PLEASE will someone read WP:NOTNEWS. We don't need to have ever new development plastered on the article; we're not a wire service, nor are we 4chan. If you want to be a "citizen vigilante" or whatever you are more than welcome to go to 4chan, reddit, whatever. We're trying to write a neutral and unrushed encyclopedia article over here. Ignatzmice•talk 03:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• This is just friendly advice. Please keep in mind that this story is going to draw a lot of new and existing editors. It would be good to be calm and wise in our responses. We are a welcoming community. We don't want to push away new or seasoned editors. If you've been working on this article for several days and you feel burnt out may I suggest taking a day or two off. There are plenty of editors to manage. And then come back. :) Gorba (talk) 04:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In the case of many editors bringing up serious BLP concerns, it is absolutely appropriate to keep it off the page until the RfC concludes. We have to err on the side of caution if there are legitimate BLP concerns being raised. "The FBI is asking for everyone's help" doesn't apply; Wikipedia is not an investigative agency tasked with helping the FBI. It is an encyclopedia. The photos are linked, and are all over the Internet and every form of media. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

To the OP, you're not going to convince the group that is against the inclusion by appealing to patriotism or a desire to assist the authorities. Not that it's a bad thing, but it's just not on the plate in terms of what should matter for wikipedia's policies. However, there are plenty of other reasons to argue for their inclusion (least of all the ridiculous notion that something on the front page of every major paper leads to a BLP issue). Stick to the policy arguments. Shadowjams (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Shadowjams, has it occurred to you that we're not a newspaper? You can bring up your arguments, your other reasons--but that those of a different view hold "ridiculous notion[s]" is not a productive way. That there are BLP issues is undeniable; you seem to want to argue that because it's in the paper it's no longer a BLP issue. I disagree, and I don't think that position is ridiculous. I don't think yours is either, but all this talk of a few obstructionists blah blah certainly is. Drmies (talk) 05:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes I know that a suspect is a suspected perpetrator and that they haven't been charged because the dang FBI is looking for them and when they do find them and quedtion them they may become suspects. I knnow Wikipedia isn't a wire service and I don't want to be a "citizen vigilante" I'm n tryig to post relevent and important information. I'm not rushing I just want to make sure any important information about the event is not missed. I'll go edit other articles and no longer edit this topic for the time being. UnknownElement (talk) 03:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• I'm repeating what I said above only because this thread is a repeat: this will be a historic development in the case that will be reported in a good encyclopedia article 20 years from now. People will want to know when the FBI first pointed the finger at somebody, and if so, who it was. Innocent or guilty, this is a development worth reporting at any time. Wnt (talk) 03:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  Of course it is. I'm flabbergasted by the obstructionism on this article from a small number of editors. The name issue above was a clear example, this is the newest. Never in my editing of current event topics have I seen such willful obstructionism (and this isn't my first rodeo). I only barely see reference to policy in these. Shadowjams (talk) 03:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  We're an encyclopedia, not a news service. Wikinews specifically is thataway. The type of mentality that, for example, behind the reasons wanting to include the photos ("the FBI put them out, everyone else is doing it!" is not aligned with making a work that is meant to be an academic research guide. Further we've been tasked by the Foundation to be extra careful on BLP, and despite the fact that these two men may be guilty and deserve whatever fate they are sentenced to, they are still living persons that are not publically known, and deserve appropriate privacy along the lines that the Foundation has requested. (Let's put it another way - if you just happened to resembled one of those two men and lived in the Eastern Seaboard, do you think you'd be happen if WP put up these images of you?) It's taking the academic high road. --MASEM (t) 05:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  NotNews is an article notability guideline, one I've used countless times myself. It is not, however, a built in delay on reporting what is widespread coverage by virtually every news service in the U.S. and beyond (it was front page of the bbc's uk page at one point). The BLP debate is above; that's fine; but notnews isn't relevant to this point. Shadowjams (talk) 06:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Missing info in this article....(details as to which of the two specific bombs did what...as far as death and injury)

I was trying to see some information on this article as to what damage or death the second bomb did, in this case. I was under the (wrong) impression for some reason, that bomb number one (the one we mostly keep seeing on video) was the one that killed all three people. That's not the case.

The 8-year-old boy was actually killed by bomb number two. The one that exploded about 12 seconds later, about a block away...and which has not been shown as much on TV etc. This isn't conjecture, but sourced and confirmed.

You can see here, for example, on the New York Daily News website.

We need to (in my humble opinion) make it clear somehow what bomb did what to whom, and where, and who was killed by which bomb, etc, and if possible who was injured (the very bad injuries) from which bomb. But really mainly especially the deaths... The fact that 8-year-old Richard was killed by bomb number two seems pertinent and important, and worthy of at least some mention somewhere, in an encyclopedic article that wants to be complete and thorough and informative. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of conflicting info about who was where. For example I saw a photo with the 8 year old at bomb site 2 standing still yet read a report that the boy and family were running from site toward site 2 when the site 2 bomb exploded. I tend to believe the photo because the killed were most likely right at the bomb site, but that is just a guess. Clearly a coordinated attack and clearly both bombs did a lot of harm, so for now, without credible sources, best to leave out the detail.Legacypac (talk) 05:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Newspaper reports talk of the family having gone to a spot "nearer the finish line", "by the finish line". Now, this one says it was the first bomb, and it's a few days old and not from the highest-quality newspaper. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it doesn't mean it's right either. But since this explicitly says "second bomb", I think to wait it out is the best thing. All these may be credible sources--but they're reporting necessarily confusing events. Drmies (talk) 05:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

To Legacy above. The point is there are some "credible sources" stating it pretty definitively, that 8-year-old Richard was killed by the second bomb. What may not be so certain (as yet) is what these credible sources are saying, maybe. But so what? (to Drmies) If that's the case, hardly anything would be put in the article (or less than there is now) since lots of things are theoretically "new" and "confusing". My point is that at least a number of "credible" or "reliable sources" are reporting this. Even though maybe some others have said "first bomb".

And to my broader point, since two bombs detonated, shouldn't some info and details be given some how some way, as to what bomb did what, and to whom, in general? Why should Wikipedia be less detailed, informative, and complete, than other sources? on something like this? You think I personally was the ONLY one interested or curious as to what the second bomb did, and to whom? Obviously others (readers, inquirers, researchers, etc) would be interested too. So something should be mentioned somewhere on this WP article on this.

I do agree though that it may be wise to wait a few days to see what is stated on this in other sources. But what if the conflicting info doesn't change any time soon? I guess we pick the MOST "reliable source" and go with that. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that all sources I've seen indicate the boy died at the second bomb site. The differences were "he ran there"or he was standing there" All for including verifiable info here. Legacypac (talk) 07:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Analysis of photos on Reddit shows that Krystle Campbell died at the first blast, while Lu Lingzi and Martin Richard died at the second blast. I can't find any reliable news sources that confirm this however, and OR isn't allowed, so... this is one of those things that's true, but can't be in the article (yet). – Quadell ^(talk) 13:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, sort of. But isn't Daily News "reliable"? And also, the point is that these specifics and facts should be in the article. If some decent reliable sources are saying that the boy was killed by the second bomb, it would seem pertinent and informative, and even necessary for this article to mention it somewhere, however briefly. And also, again, isn't the Daily News considered a "reliable source"? It says clearly that Martin died by the second bomb blast. So can't we go with that on the article (and if there's a change, then simply change it later)? Gabby Merger (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

MIT Shooting

Boston media has reported a shooting at MIT, resulting in the death of a police officer. Whether or not this is connected to the Boston Marathon bombing, please create a new article reflecting this incident. Great50 (talk) 04:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

A) I don't get the relevance of posting this here. B) Why can't you make it? Hot Stop (Talk) 04:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a strange situation. It could be related, but we have no evidence as of yet. I'm sorry to hear about the death of the officer. Viriditas (talk) 04:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It's only relevant if you can cite a reliable source linking the two (more than on air anchor chatter too). Shadowjams (talk) 04:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Certainly I wouldn't think this is related, not until we have info otherwise. See 2013 MIT campus shooting, which was tagged as a copyvio of the MIT emergency website; I wikified it a bit, but there it is if you want to do stuff with it. I don't know as it's really notable yet, though (sad as that is). Crazy people have guns; they shoot people; people who get shot die. Newsworthy but not necessarily encyclopedia-worthy. Ignatzmice•talk 04:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Just an FYI, there's a situation in Watertown that may be of interest. No links but twitter is blowing up. Hot Stop (Talk) 04:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's a link [17] gunfire and explosives it seems related to the police shooting. Ryan Vesey 04:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

If this is is all related to the marathon bombing, this should be quite an article before we're done. Qworty (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Live feed on Boston TV [18]. Qworty (talk) 05:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Two suspects in custody, according to Channel 5 Boston. Qworty (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The MIT shooting is related to the marathon one way or another, since it involves SWAT teams, helicopters, and explosions. Nergaal (talk) 05:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Such similarities in no way justify the merging of two articles without solid proof of their connection to each other. Would we merge the articles on WWI and WWII together because they both involved soldiers, guns, and international conflict...? EryZ (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Before the shooting, there was a robbery at a Shell gas station. Keep the article 2013 MIT campus shooting just in case there is a link to the Boston Marathon bombing. Great50 (talk) 05:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

A Globe reporter is now saying on twitter that a Marathon suspect is in custody after the Watertown incident. Keep an eye out for confirmation. There are also better photos on the FBI website. GabrielF (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Now on the Globe website[19]. GabrielF (talk) 06:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Globe is strongly implying the MIT shoot out is linked. I don't think that's enough for it to go live yet, but it's looking possible. What is posted needs to be only with full context, preferably quoting news sources. Prudence, but no arbitrary "wait" deadlines. Just reliable sources and circumspect additions to the article. Shadowjams (talk) 06:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/04/18/mit-police-officer-hit-gunfire-cambridge-police-dispatcher-says/4UeCClOVeLr8PHLvDa99zK/story.html Nergaal (talk) 06:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

WHDH seems to be conflicting the Globe on whether the first suspect was killed or apprehended in Watertown. Please remember to try to verify things with multiple sources... (Remember what happened with the supposed arrest a couple days ago.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 06:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Anything new related to the MIT shootings should go into the Massachusetts Institute of Technology shooting article, which can be merged later if facts pan out that way. Shadowjams (talk) 06:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. It's looking more and more to be related, and we'll know within the next few hours. Viriditas (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You're not actually disagreeing with anything I said... Shadowjams (talk) 07:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Just heard over Boston police scanner: "The party that is outstanding is the party with the white hat from the photos." Still OR but things moving fast. GabrielF (talk) 06:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

There were 2 gas station robberies, one of them being a 7-Eleven at 10 PM. Carjacking of a Mercedes occurred after the MIT shooting. Please note this information that is connected to the shooting. Great50 (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's avoid an(other) edit war. Let the info be added and sourced cooperatively without deletions. Plenty of time later today to clean up. With the world media on this story doing updates there is going to be conflicting info out there. Legacypac (talk) 07:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

If it hasn't been firmly established that this MIT shooting incident is linked to the bombings on Monday, I don't understand how that section is currently in this article. It doesn't belong here (yet, IF ever). It needs to be solidly confirmed that the two events are truly (at all) connected. Just my opinion. Gabby Merger (talk) 07:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no evidence that this event is connected with the bombings, and there was nothing in the text even suggesting it, making the whole section pointless, so I removed it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The only thing connecting them in the current text is that there's a "Suspect 1." It is likely connected, but maybe make the section actually say that with proper references if it is? (Unfortunately, short of full protection, I doubt we're going to keep random speculation and loosely sourced reporting from being inserted and warred over while the media figures out WTF is going on.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 07:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the section I removed has been restored, and because someone here is is over-excited, it's been put back, and the article looks like rubbish. HiLo48 (talk) 07:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Dude, you're too slow. Viriditas (talk)

When I removed it there was absolutely nothing in the text to tell us why it was there. No connection with the bombing was mentioned. It made that section look quite stupid. People might be excited, but what they write has to make at least some sense. HiLo48 (talk) 07:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Bullshit. There are multiple reports in the Boston area linking these two together, and multiple news outlets are reporting this in the region. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

People are going to be "over-excited" no matter what. I'm not even close to the crime scene and I'm shaking a little. What matters is that those of us who (relatively) know what we're doing write this, as opposed to people who don't know how to cite, or to couch their language in "such-and-such has reported". Obviously, I'll defer to any consensus that we're jumping the gun on referencing this shootout. That said, I'm watching a guy right now who's saying that they threw an improvised bomb at the cops. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 07:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, this article provides a loose connection (WHDH is way more specific on that). Also, here is the online stream to the thing right now, so feel free to listen in. A lot of us in the Boston area know how to game the news, in that we know what to listen in to, so I know what I am doing and refuse to add speculation. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

And here's another from the original MIT shooting article. Let's just keep it merged in for now. The Boston Globe is pretty reliable. It's hard enough to keep up with the sources with all the merging and unmerging. Steven Walling • talk 07:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The Globe is indeed generally very reliable. But no outlet is a good sole source when they're quoting anonymous law enforcement sources about breaking news. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 07:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree BS. Not just media in Boston reporting - Pakistan, Dubai, UK, Canada, probably on the moon if it had a TV station.Legacypac (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You do realize time has passed since the poorly sourced stuff was first inserted? (And still isn't properly tied to the bombing in the article.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 07:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Suspect 1 is alive. See photo at http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/americas/article3743697.ece and pay attention to his right hand, fingers raised off the ground. This would not be so if he were a corpse. — Quicksilver^{T @} 07:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Not according to WHDH (I would love to provide an article, but I can't find one at this time confirming this). Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

WHDH is showing video of him naked being put in cruiser. Very alive.Legacypac (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3)Looking at photographs and making such determinations is original research. A reliable source needs to state that. The disposition of the suspects, if they are even the two people wanted in the bombing, is still quite unclear. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 07:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

RS's seem pretty much split on the matter, and it would be OR to consider either point of view more likely simply based on whose evidence looks more solid. I'm sure we'll know within the next few hours. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 07:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Channel 7 reports that Commissioner Ed Davis, BPD, has identified the white-hatted suspect from FBI photos as the individual being currently sought in Watertown. No other source as yet Irish Melkite (talk) 08:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)~Now Channel 7 saying same, and that Suspect 1 is captured.Legacypac (talk) 08:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/EdDavis3 -Location (talk) 08:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Official Police Briefing - Suspect 1 shot and captured. Suspect 2 sought. Massive manhunt. Stay in homes. Definitely Marathon bomber suspects. 1 killed officer, 1 critically injured. Not releasing or discussing names.
• 2x7-11 robberies, shot MIT officer in his car, carjacking/kidnapping, released carjack vic, firefight where Transit cop shot, captured Suspect 1, Suspect 2 got away and seeking him now.Legacypac (talk) 08:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Davis, Mass State Police colonel, and Chief DeVoe, Watertown PD, doing press conference live - on ch 7. A MBTA Transit police officer shot and at Mt Auburn Hospital. MSP states 1 (declines to state in custody or dead) - white-hatted suspect being sought. Decline to give names. 20 block perimeter, believe individual sought is a "terrorist" (Davis). Next briefing in about an hourIrish Melkite (talk) 08:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

With further news reports, I'm beginning to doubt the reliability of the The Times photo and article at the link I copied from the article page, above. The guy on the ground doesn't look injured, just inconvenienced. Boston police were reporting that the first suspect suffered severe injuries, either in the firefight or as result of detonating one of his bombs, succumbing shortly thereafter in the emergency room at the hospital. What gives? Was The Times just posting a random image of an arrest just to be posting, even when they had no solid facts? I'm not prepared to advance conspiracy theories, but perhaps The Times shouldn't be used as a source if the quality of their reporting is so poor. — Quicksilver^{T @} 17:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The "inconvenienced man" is neither suspect #1 or suspect #2 but the would be suspect #3 who was striped, apprehended, and subsequently released when it became clear that he was not involved. My76Strat (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I added some stuff about the impromptu police press conference, and a ref. It needs work, lots of work. So please work on it, any of you. This article right now has been messed up, and needs some straightening out. That's one of the problems with an on-going chaotic messy current event, and news proclamations. But I'm sure the article will get smoothed over and organized correctly soon enough. Gabby Merger (talk) 08:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's be careful not to put out tactical info here. Agree-clean up later please. People are reading the page for info Legacypac (talk) 08:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Gabby, did you 'hear' it stated by the MSP colonel or Cmsr Davis that suspect 1 was dead - or was that Ch. 5 supposition. I'm pretty certain that the presenters declined to state as to Suspect 1 being in custody or deceased. Also, as regards 'impromptu' - BPD radio made announcement directed specifically to the media 30-45 mins prior to same, advising that it would be held. Irish Melkite (talk) 08

53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Irish, it was SOURCES that used that word, that called it "impromptu", not I. I put the ref there. Not sure why you're saying this to me. What exactly is the problem? I said clearly also that others should work on that paragraph. It needed work, I said. So? It was a rough draft, that was smoothed over a bit. But again, the word "impromptu" was not something I thought of, but was mentioned on the news (both TV and web page sources). Gabby Merger (talk) 09

29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Gabby, relax - was just asking/commenting Irish Melkite (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

A suspect was taken to Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (hospital). Arrived at 1:20 AM, hospital tried to help them, but they pronounced them dead at 1:35 AM. (per press conference at the hospital) No indication if this was the person stripped naked when they were arrested, but not likely as that person was very alive and well when arrested and walked to the police car. Apteva (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The person who was naked and stripped was questioned and released at the scene - he was completely uninvolved and an innocent bystander. polarscribe (talk) 09:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Dr doing press conference stated multiple gunshot wounds and blast injury to trunk consistent with explosive device shrapnel. Was in cardiac arrest on arrival, unable to be resuscitated. Irish Melkite (talk) 09:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

MBTA and commuter rail systems shut down in entirety by order of the Governor per a press conference seen on Ch. 7 Irish Melkite (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC) All businesses in Watertown to remain closed and no traffic in or out of Watertown. Irish Melkite (talk) 10:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Delta Alpha 81 has 3 suspects in custody boston cab 375 - 3 occupants - bomb truck needed - at 464 Commonwealth Ave Charles Gate East at 8:15 per radio to YC2 Irish Melkite (talk) 10:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Please be cautious with rumored perpetrator names

Should any rumors circulate about possible perpetrators please be mindful that listing these names on Wikipedia— regardless of the surrounding text— will make them more authoritative in the eyes of may ignorant and crazy people. The listing on a name here may result in someones death, or at least posing the risk of wreaking the life of an innocent person, so the strongest editorial standards should be applied. --Gmaxwell (talk) 07:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Should we just block anyone if they do it, unless it is fully sourced? I know it's a bit draconian, but in my haste to nuke one purported suspect (oddly, the dots also connect for them), I ended up BLP-tagging this page, but it would be good to add something to dissuade people to the edit notice. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No, of course we shouldn't block well-meaning editors for adding what is fast becoming widely-known information. Just revert until the major news agencies go with it Jebus989^✰ 07:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I think any known-rumored names should get abusefilered until at least some law enforcement person mentions them. Its very likely that in the craze to have the latest scoop some "journalists" will report them— as they have with other known incorrect things. Misinformation is one thing, but an incorrect name could have much more serious consequences.

I hereby pledge $100,000 to assist in civil litigation against any and all Wikipedia editors who insert what turns out to be false names in this article resulting in harm, unless the names came from law enforcement via official channels.--Gmaxwell (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX // Internet Esquire (talk) 08:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I mentioned this earlier, but it's late and I am not making sense. Also, I edited the page notice to reflect your concern, so I hope that helps. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 08:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. Abusefiltering would be better— since it would be easy to make the edit and miss the notice.--Gmaxwell (talk) 08:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Legal threats are entirely inappropriate and unnecessary Jebus989^✰ 08:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Humor, however, is perfectly fine, especially when validly reminding people that they're legally responsible for anything they write here. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 08:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It isn't a legal threat. Do not libel people and risk their lives through irresponsible behavior and you will have no problems. If you do, then an inability to personally afford to bring a tort claim will not prevent the victim from receiving justice. You are responsible legally and morally for your edits. Sometimes they can have major consequences— for yourself and others. Please think carefully, it's not a video game that you get a high score on by getting first post.--Gmaxwell (talk) 08:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Some people have a hard time understanding this. // Internet Esquire (talk) 08:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Again I'd point you to our firm stance against legal threats, you should be able to make your point without using them. Additionally, I haven't edited the article but thanks for the reminders Jebus989^✰ 08:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be clear that just as the article's topic needs to be treated with caution, as well the edits made by well-meaning people should be treated with caution- there does seem to be a sense of failing to assume good faith and biting the newcomers by using blocks. I would have an editing note as such added like the New York Post thing. (To be clear, I agree with not posting the names at all).CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Both names will be on the front pages of every news site in the next few hours, so you should probably figure it out before then. Viriditas (talk) 08:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I've just removed both names, cited to a site which cited Twitter which cited police scanners. Let's just wait until they confirm in the morning at the press conference or whatever. Steven Walling • talk 08:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, their insertion can be trivially prevented through the abusefilter. That confused or irresponsible editors would insert it was easily forseeable (as I did above), and I've now seen people on IRC scrubbing spam-blogs for repeats from Reddit in order to justify it as coming from journalists.--Gmaxwell (talk) 08:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It's fully protected now YuviPanda (talk) 09:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Pete Williams, an NBC News anchor, just specifically stated that law enforcement sources tell him the rumored names of suspects are incorrect - and that the suspects are from overseas, have been in the U.S. for only one year and had significant military training. This is why we need to be careful with names. polarscribe (talk) 09:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

http://inagist.com/all/325199416455733248/ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/surviving-boston-bombing-suspect-named-as-dzhokhar-a-tsarnaev-following-shootout-that-left-other-suspect-and-police-officer-dead-8579362.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ap-surviving-boston-bomb-suspect-identified-as-dzhokhar-a-tsarnaev-19-of-cambridge-mass/2013/04/19/5d9de6ee-a8de-11e2-9e1c-bb0fb0c2edd9_story.html

Thats nice. The names at the time of this discussion were different people who are now confirmed innocent— even though they were picked up by some press. Mr. Anonymous linkbomber, your proposed justification might have gotten innocent people killed if it prevailed some hours ago.--Gmaxwell (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Full protection

Full protection of this page represents a degeneration in WP practices; admin is supposed to be a chore/added workload; WP project standards now changing so that ONLY admin can edit important pages. I am a long time WP editor (from project start, as a matter of fact) and merely pointing out the evolution/change of WP "assume good faith" ethic. Editors now assumed, through this practice, of being vandals rather than dealt with on a one-to-one basis. just stating the obvious.-Camelgamin1 (talk) 09:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it was with some regret that I requested it. I personally prefer (and suggested above) a more targeted tool. I wish history had worked out differently and we'd gotten a flagged revisions that wasn't project managed by people who hated the idea and didn't have a community that saw it as a risk to uncompromising openness (which is now compromised more than any flagging would have caused), and we wouldn't have to compromise between openness to editing and always giving the non-editing-savvy public an unadulterated drink from the fire hose. :( As someone who edits almost exclusively anonymously for the last several years, I certainly can feel the impact.--Gmaxwell (talk) 09:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

We are not in a hurry. Editors were edit warring without discussing on the talk page first. If we don't behave then articles get protected. After the first revert it should have been brought to the talk page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, you bring up good points, but we have since project start been fighting against the principle "admin is a super-user type of editor" account. Since project start we have been warring against the idea of privileged status for admin-ship, which leads to a bad/hierarchal power dynamic. I only bring this up to keep the community informed about this issue. It's a slippery slope we have to watch. -Camelgamin1 (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't soapbox on article talk pages.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Considering several Admins (not the one who locked thankfully) were edit warring on the page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 09:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

For those who understand full-protection such as this, you'll already know that admins should only now edit it to a) remove policy-violating text/images, or b) implement changes that have been arrived at via WP:CONSENSUS discussions on this talkpage. That does not mean admins are super (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. There are sufficient eyes on this article that protection seems to be an over-reaction. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. The article should remain fully protected until the story stabilizes, which will be a few more hours (or so). We have too many amateurs pushing unsubstantiated theories and adding the names of innocent people and crazy hypotheses that can't be verified. Viriditas (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia still works 99.9% of the time. Full protection like this is the extreme exception, rather than the rule. The reason semi-protection is not working here is because the article is one of the highest profile for the US, is on going, and involves possible terrorism. So people with agenda are editing this to get their own personal views etc. in. Another few days or weeks this will settle down, and work again. Sufficient eyes only work when people are not sock/meat puppeting or agenda driven, against people who are playing fairly by the 3RR etc.Martin451 (talk) 10:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Fully protected edits using the template are doable and highly recommended. In other words, anyone wanting to add content can do so using the template. Viriditas (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to propose a policy that breaking new stories should be protected against "amateurs " (however that's defined, FFS). Until then, ether is no policy supporting protection on that basis. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Absurd. ¦ Reisio (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Two suspects wanted by the FBI for the bombing.jpg

FYI, File:Two suspects wanted by the FBI for the bombing.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Minor edit request

"died in hospital" to "died at the hospital" per American English. --Siradia (talk) 09:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

In the line after that, perhaps we should also reference the hospital press conference that confirms the guy died? Would anyone object to that? — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 09:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Done. Thanks! AGK [•] 09:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

New York Post

Shouldn't this article cover the false identification by the front cover splash of the New York Post of two men unrelated to the bombings? Seems like press abuses should also be part of the coverage. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

If that is notable, the only place it should appear is in the article about that newspaper. Apteva (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I would say it should appear in this article, if it appears there, as it is about misidentification, and the manhunt concerning the criminals of this case. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You might consider adding CNN to any study of false identification. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Fox News, the AP, and Christian Science Monitor all made the same mistake as CNN. Here's a reliable source for the record. (Thanks CSM.) -SusanLesch (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Put reaction section before investigation?

Seems it should be in chronological order. I tried, got edit conflicted once and gave up. I know someone here is more determined. But do they agree? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's just wait for a bit

Over at reddit.com, people can get all the breaking news. Once it's all settled down, wiki can get the encyclopedic info. Different communities, different goals. You guys can just debate here while things happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.206.190 (talk) 09:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Effects on Community

Some of this might be worth adding to article.

• MIT officer ambushed in cruiser, shot and killed.
• MIT closed for day. Harvard closed down. Emerson closed.
• From Press conf. Entire MBTA transit shut down. Go home, do not wait at bus/train stops. Large areas ppl told to stay in doors. No businesses in large area allowed to open for day. No drtiving in or out of Watertown allowed.
• Again, same suspects as Boston Marathon bombing.Legacypac (talk) 09:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Full closure list at http://www1.whdh.com/weather/school-closings-delays Irish Melkite (talk) 11:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request - lede addition

− One of the suspects and an MIT police officer were killed during a shootout at MIT on April 19. - Tenebris 10:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC) + − http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/20/us/explosives-detonated-in-massachusetts-standoff.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.41 (talk) 10:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not correct. The suspect was not killed at MIT. The suspect was shot in a different incident in Watertown, after police stopped a car. polarscribe (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The officer was not killed in a shotout, he was ambushed and never made it out of his car. Legacypac (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I got caught in an edit conflict and solved it wrongly. Proposed revision: One of the suspects and an MIT police officer were killed during a series of violent shootouts on April 19. - Tenebris

I suggest: "According to news reports, one suspect was killed in a shooting incident at Watertown, Massachusetts while a manhunt is underway to apprehend the second suspect." --regentspark (comment) 11:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Person stripped naked - not a suspect

"a suspect was surrounded by police and ordered to strip completely naked before being arrested and taken into custody" is now known to be wrong. That sentence could be removed. Nurg (talk) 09:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Agree can remove. It is a true sentence but the person turned out not to be one of THE Suspects.Legacypac (talk) 10:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah, and I'm sure someone will ID him online soon, if they haven't already, in which case we've got BLP concerns. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 10:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Agree, this can be removed. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• If that's actually true then it is a noteworthy aspect of the investigation whether or not the person was guilty! Just make sure to emphasize the person was innocent. This might be a case to "avoidvictim" under BLP by omitting the name, but not the event! Wnt (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I have closed this edit request as this article's protection was downgraded from full to semi after this request was made and at any rate it appears to be Already done. If I am wrong feel free to re-open as {{edit semi-protected}}. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Suspect 2 in custody?

Just heard it on the police scanner that they caught suspect 2.74.111.18.178 (talk) 10:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Suspects told the car jack vic they were the bombers.Legacypac (talk) 10:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Heard that too. Definitely not enough to go off of in the article, though. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 10:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, no reliable sources on it yet, of course. Shouldn't be too long, though. Evidently he had either caught a ride with or carjacked a taxi. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Reporting on Ch 7: suspects from Turkey. international military training. Here for about a year.Legacypac (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Pete Williams of NBC reports either Turkish or Chechnyan nationals, in country for over a year. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Associated Press names the surviving suspect. polarscribe (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This piece of information should be in article (at some point)

The two suspects are brothers. And from Cambridge. And have Massachusetts driver's license. Sources have said. Obviously (either now or later) that information will be in this article (or in related articles). Gabby Merger (talk) 10:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Boston police officially saying they are brothers and have released the name of living one (19 year old). Nationality is Chetchen, but lived in Turkey before coming here. Not students. Legal permanent residents. Military training. One lived with girlfriend in Cambridge.Legacypac (talk) 10:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, we know. We're all watching the news. Still, we don't need the breathless updates on talk every second. Viriditas (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Present the content with good sources and then add {{Edit protected}} to the top of this section. Viriditas (talk) 10:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The only reason I brought it to Talk was because the article (as you know) is LOCKED...and maybe to get an Admin (who may be reading the discussion points here) to add it now. Otherwise I would not have brought this to the Talk page, but would have simply put in the article directly myself (without mentioning necessarily it on Talk). Gabby Merger (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Did you not understand the directions I just gave you? Viriditas (talk) 11:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas, please remember Wikipedia's civility policy. — O'Dea (talk) 11:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I understood your "directions", and I also understood that they were not totally necessary, for the simple thing I was trying to do. It was a casual thing. Not necessarily so official for the edit protect tag. Coulda gone either way. And I was addressing your "we don't need the breathless updates on talk every second". I meant well, no biggie. Cheers. Gabby Merger (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Men with backpacks at Boston Marathon private contractors?

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/freedom-press-not-free/2013/apr/18/men-backpacks-boston-marathon-private-contractors/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.120.88.45 (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)