Jump to content

Talk:Boston Marathon bombing/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Edit request 4.17

Under "Victims," first press citation next to Martin Richard ('"Death of terror's tiniest victim called 'surreal,' 'tragic'". CNN. September 11, 2001. Retrieved April 16, 2013.') has been given the obviously incorrect creation date of 9/11/2001.

Done. Nice catch; thanks. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Time

The picture shows that the race clock read 4:09. Shouldn't that mean that the explosion occurred at 2:09pm (as the race started at 10am), not 2:50pm as the article states? 136.167.228.6 (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The race might have started later than planned. Considering what the media is saying, I would believe that ~2:50 is correct, though a sentence to the fourty minute difference should likely be mentioned if it can be explained. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
http://baa.org/spectator-information.html -Location (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

"Homemade bomb?"

The article quotes Boston police that at least one of the bombs seems to be a "homemade bomb." This leaves the article sounding silly. Are we to suppose that the other might be a "storebought bomb," a "professionally made bomb," or perhaps a "military grade bomb?" How does "possible homemade bomb" add to the article? I suggest removing supposition that one bomb was a homemade bomb, for the present, until experts have analyzed the remnants. We need not include every random utterance of every policeman. Edison (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Someone has improved the article by accurately quoting the officials to the effec that both bombs were home-made and crude, with shrapnel. But rather than "shrapnel," which makes it sound like a military device, shouldn't the article say "ball bearings," which some news stories state? Edison (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "homemade bomb" is a pretty common phrasing. It basically serves to differentiate between a bomb you could make with a pipe and some explosives and a converted mine or claymore. the point about sourcing and claiming things too early is well taken but the phrase itself is fine. Protonk (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The ball bearing fact has yet to be confirmed. The CNN story which included the report of ball bearings has been redacted. See http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/15/us/boston-bombings-injuries/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholson (talk • contribs) 05:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for removing the ball bearing mention which the news sources also removed. It's important as "ball bearings" would indicate a deliberate fragmentation device versus a concussive device that merely created incidental fragmentation from nearby objects (such as a trash can it was placed in). It makes a difference in future security efforts as adding fragmentation metal to a bomb makes it harder to smuggle somewhere. Also the video of the first blast appears more concussive than fragmentation GCW50 (talk) 08:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The ball bearing rumor has now been out to rest:

"But Dr. Ron Walls of Brigham and Women's Hospital, which received 31 patients, said the debris found in some patients' wounds did not appear to be from ball bearings. "Everything we saw was sort of ordinary ambient material that could have been propelled by the blast but was not added to the device," Walls said. "It was not the kind of things that would be added to a device to make it more injurious than it otherwise would be." GCW50 (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The historical truth is that TV viewers were led to believe that there were ball-bearings etc in the wounds, and then it seemed to be resolved that only random environmental debris was in the wounds. This passing flip-flop is worth mentioning in a summary of the history of the coverage of this event.-96.233.19.238 (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

And now, some doctors at other hospitals are saying fragmentation materials were added. Of course, most of the doctors, unless they were in the military, probably haven't had much experience with this before, and there were two separate bombs, which might have differed in make-up. We'll probably need to treat added fragmentation material as "iffy" until a formal report or an X-ray is released. GCW50 (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a reference for this on their website, but Fox News is now reporting on the air that law enforcement is reporting that A) the bombs appear to have been made out of pressure cookers with explosives and ball bearings inside, and B) that this particular design was first seen in Afghanistan, but has been seen in many other locations since then and that this doesn't imply anything about who did it and where they came from. Even so, I think that if someone could find a more detailed citation for it, that would constitute sufficient evidence that ball bearings were used as fragmentation material. rdfox 76 (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Reuter posted some bob squad evidence photos that showed some ball bearings and small nails, so we finally have some facts! [2] 13:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BOSTON_MARATHON_EXPLOSIVES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
  2. ^ http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/17/us-usa-explosions-boston-idUSBRE93F06T20130417

Timing Error

Hi, so the "Attacks" Section of the article states that the winners had passed about two hours previously. This is not quite accurate. The Boston Marathon (like most large marathons) has several different starts to spread out the runners. Elite Men started at 10AM, and the leader crossed at 2 hours and 10 minutes (12:10PM), so by the time the bombs go off (2:50PM), they had been done for almost 3 hours. Note that the clock in the videos shows 4:09. This is the time elapsed from the beginning of the 3rd Wave of starters at 10:40AM. So at the time of the explosions, Wave 1 had been running for 4h 50m, Wave 2 for 4h 30m, and Wave 3 for 4h 10m. So: 1. The assertion that the leaders finished 2 hours previously is based on a (very reasonable) misunderstanding of the finish clock. 2. 2:50PM is not all that close to the time of peak finishing for the Boston Marathon (which explains why you see relatively few people crossing the line in the videos of the explosion, and the people you do see are wearing white bibs, meaning they are from the 2nd wave. These people represent the tail end of the 2nd wave, the 3rd wave had mostly not arrived at the finish yet). All this to say that the leaders finished almost 3 hours prior the explosions, and that the peak finishing time was likely some time before 2:50PM. The claim that the bombs were set to go off when the peak number of runners passed through was too good for news outlets to pass up. Sorry for the long message, I'm new to all of this and don't know how to make the changes. Hopefully someone else can. Source for Start Times: http://www.sbnation.com/2013/4/15/4225530/2013-boston-marathon-start-time-route-course-map ajpruns (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You are probably quite correct, but we need to wait for the news media to read your original research and include it in their updates, at which time we can cite them as reliable sources. (And don't think they aren't reading this talk page). Edison (talk) 00:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Lol. Abductive (reasoning) 01:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
That would be an example of citogenesis. Del♉sion23 (talk) 01:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Exact time and location of second bomb blast

The rationale laid out above seems like a straightforward determination of 2:49:43 PM (or, more precisely, a second or two before then) as the time of the first blast at 671 Boylston Street -- 10:40 AM start time for third wave as reported here + 4:09:43 as recorded in the timestamp in the WHDH 7NEWS photograph of the explosion (File:2013_Boston_Marathon_finish_line_explosion.png).

At http://bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/04/15/explosions-rock-boston-marathon-finish-line-dozens-injured/yLhfDT1XC3HXSa8wPiVijL/igraphic.html, The Boston Globe reports that "13 seconds later, (the second blast) occurred further from the finish line near Boylston Street and Ring Road." That puts the second blast as having occurred at 2:49:56 PM. This 13 second difference is verifiable by watching a video from The Boston Globe on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=046MuD1pYJg. The first blast occurs at 0:06 s, and while nothing can be seen directly, the low-pitched thud of the second blast can be clearly heard at 0:19 s. Is there any more information on the exact street address of the second blast? Emw (talk) 02:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


The 13 seconds between the blasts is very clear cut and has been verified in reliable news media (Boston Globe, many times). Can we not get this changed in the main article? This topic has also been manually archived (twice) which would normally suggest that this is an accepted or closed subject, yet it remains unchanged..? 99.18.46.29 (talk) 04:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You have to take into account that in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=046MuD1pYJg the sound of the second blast travelled a 175 m longer way to the camera. (35 m from the first blast equals 20 % detour of the indirect - reflected by the houses - paths from the second blast.) Divided by the Speed of sound of 340...350 m/s that travel needs 0.5 seconds longer, reducing the original time lap between the two blasts to 12.5 seconds. Additionally the much less loud and swelling up slowly sound (from the second blast) could have suffered some trigger delay by automatic noise suppression as well as our awareness, too, which makes more probably the - rounded - integer 12 seconds the better calculated value, nearer to the true value. (My calculation in German: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Anschlag_auf_den_Boston-Marathon_2013#Zeitspanne_zwischen_den_2_Explosionen_.3D_12_Sekunden) --Helium4 (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Number of undetonated devices

I removed an uncited claim from the article that there were five found, feel free to restore if there's a source. --j⚛e deckertalk 00:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

THanks to Kennvido for restoring that with the WSJ ref. --j⚛e deckertalk 00:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Watching CNN; they say that there are reports of as many as five, but only two are confirmed. Go Phightins! 01:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Confirmation, only two parcels containing explosives were discovered by investigators. All other suspicious packages until this point were not found to contain an explosive device. Viewed Live in PC, Ref as follows;http://livewire.wcvb.com/Event/117th_Running_of_Boston_Marathon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avion365 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The news this morning said that the only known explosive devices were the two that exploded. Everything else consisted of "suspicious packages". Some of these were "neutralized" as a precaution, but that doesn't mean they contained an explosive device. Rklawton (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

"Credible threats"

I understand that our statement "There were no credible threats before the race" is directly copied from here, which means it should be changed anyways, but I feel the wording really needs changing. Stating that there were no "credible" threats implies that threats were made that weren't credible. I haven't find any evidence of that in any searches. Could we write "No threats were made before the race"? Ryan Vesey 01:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

How about "There was no indication that an attack was imminent"? SirFozzie (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Ignatzmice•talk 01:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
"Credible threats" is a term from American intelligence (namely the FBI) that has been used for years. The article says there were no threats deemed credible, not no threats at all. "no indications that disruption was imminent" seems better than copying. Sir Fozzie's works too. Go Phightins! 01:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Changed. Go Phightins! 01:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Web archive any references to hospital websites

There are only a few, but they all link to the "recent alerts" for that hospital, hence referenced content will soon be removed. I'd say wait a while so we (and them) can get the numbers right, then web archive these sources. I'll check back in the morning, if no has done it then I'll do the honours. Cheers — MusikAnimal talk 02:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. I am not entirely sure how...if I can figure it out I will try to do so, but someone else doing it will be the fastest way :) Go Phightins! 02:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Ha, nah it's easy, WebCite is the only on-demand web archiving service I know of, and the WP guide for citing this service can be found here. It's situations such as this where web archiving is critical. Thanks — MusikAnimal talk 02:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Which citations need archiving? Go Phightins! 02:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
No way to really link to the refs themselves as those WikiLinks change, but the reference titles are "Boston Marathon incident updates", "Update on Public Emergency - Monday, April 15, 2013" and "Update from Boston Children's Hospital April 15, 2013" — MusikAnimal talk 02:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
All right. I tried one and this is what I came up with. It's late in my neck of the woods, so that is the last one I plan to do tonight. Go Phightins! 02:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Likely, "20 ^ Boston Children's Hospital, Update from Boston Children's Hospital April 15, 2013 April 15, 2013" and "22 ^ "Update on Public Emergency - Monday, April 15, 2013". Brigham and Women's Hospital. Retrieved 16 April 2013." Links are this one for the Children's Hospital and this one for Brigham. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Was this a terrorist attack?

I'm not sure if this was a terrorist attack or not. Is there any info on that which I can use to update this article with? Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 02:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Obama was careful not to utter the word in his briefing, and the media also has not been using the word much that I've seen. I would say wait until we get some retrospective coverage before labeling it as such. Go Phightins! 02:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I think the comment about the FBI treating this as a terrorist attack is good enough for now.  TheArguer  SAY HI! 02:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, the former Asst. Director of the FBI says that it is terrorism as if it was not, the FBI would not be in charge. Go Phightins! 02:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Before you ask whether this is a terrorist attack, then you have to ask what terrorism is. Usually when terrorists attack, they claim the attack very quickly, and in some cases used to claim the attack before the bombs went off (often by just a couple of minutes). This is notable in that no organisation has publicly claimed responsibility, or if it has the media has kept silent. Also the bombs seemed designed to cause mass injuries rather than mass death (ball bearing shrapnel), which is not the way Al Qaeda seem to operate.Martin451 (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Terrorism isn't limited to Al Qaeda. Hot Stop (Talk) 03:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Terrorism is not limited to Al Qaeda, in fact people from the US have sponsored terrorism in other parts of the world. Terrorists groups like to claim responsibility very quickly. Part of terrorism is say "look it was us, we can do it again." They like to claim before another group tries it on. Often when there is no advertised claim, it is the work of an individual (or very small group).
The point of the Al Qaeda comments, was is not how they work.Martin451 (talk) 04:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Not limited to death, either. Just terror. Much more terrifying to be badly wounded than dead. Dead people don't care anymore. And after they're buried, we typically don't see them again. Wounded people remember, and remind others. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I think the answer lies in the sources, as always. The most reputable sources note that it could be either domestic or international terrorism. Steven Walling • talk 04:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The term "terrorism" implies an intent to cause terror. Can we (or Dianne Feinstein for that matter) say this without knowing the intent of the bomber? What's the difference between something like this and a mass killing? Maybe the goal of the bomber was just to kill a bunch of people. Why is it up to the news, or the FBI to pin intent on someone at this point? 131.191.98.224 (talk) 04:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I haven't heard FBI statements, but my assumption is the more official ones have tried to avoid saying it is definitely a terror attack/terrorism, rather simply that they are treating it as one (which I'm presuming is the norm for any bombings of this type). Nil Einne (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The What sources are saying subsection immediately below has a statement from the senior FBI official for Boston, Richard DesLauriers. In that statement from the day of the bombings, DesLauriers calls the event "a criminal investigation that is a potential terrorist investigation" (emphasis mine). Emw (talk) 11:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It may be worth a look at our own Terrorism article. It says "Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion." We cannot know yet if this is part of a systematic use of terror, and there's no evidence of coercion. While some here may want to disagree with that definition, it's what Wikipedia says at this point in time, so it's a bit hard to claim this incident as terrorism. HiLo48 (talk) 08:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The rationale above is a subtly (but fundamentally) incorrect way of thinking about whether the article should claim that these bombings were an instance of terrorism. That determination should not be based upon whether we think the facts in this case meet the criteria for terrorism. Instead, the determination should be based upon what the preponderance of sources are saying with respect to that question. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth. Emw (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
When the FBI or any other government agency says "Terrorist", they mean associated with some group with at least three identified members that has been defined by their agency to be a "Terrorist Group". This could be anything from three Caltech graduate students that burned a Hummer dealership to the entire nation of Nigeria (one of 14 officially defined "terrorist nations").

What sources are saying

Below is what sources are saying about whether this event was an instance of terrorism (emphasis mine):

  • "The president did not refer to the attacks as acts of terrorism, and he cautioned people against 'jumping to conclusions' based on incomplete information. But a White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity afterward, said, 'Any event with multiple explosive devices, as this appears to be, is clearly an act of terror and will be approached as an act of terror.' 'However,' the official added, 'we don’t yet know who carried out this attack, and a thorough investigation will have to determine whether it was planned and carried out by a terrorist group, foreign or domestic.' The New York Times, http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/live-updates-explosion-at-boston-marathon/, most recent timestamp: "9:53 P.M."
  • Indirect assertion that this was an instance of terrorism: "But the marathon will be back next year, no matter how much security is required, and the crowds should yell twice as loudly. No act of terrorism is strong enough to shatter a tradition that belongs to American history." The New York Times (written by the editorial board), http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/16/opinion/bombs-at-the-boston-marathon.html, most recent timestamp: "Published: April 15, 2013"

Feel free to add entries above. Emw (talk) 04:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Brilliant source work. Thanks Emw. Steven Walling • talk 04:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Section "Who did this[ bombing] and why"

a separate section on this topic:

  1. IMHO is desperately needed to collect & report on the various claims of (and leads to) answers to this (or lack thereof) which are rapidly being made, especially so these frequent reports & updates (every ~5 min) don't conflict (as create save conflicts) with the other edits on the article also rapidly coming in.
  2. IMHO it needs to include "All seemingly-serious claims", or perhaps "all notable claims", yes even ones dubious and even ones later found out to be false, in order to inform people on the status of each: be it true or false, if notable, people need to know which are true & false.
    1. I note here several Wikipedia users have (IMHO very incorrectly) made numerous edits to remove answers to this Q which, at least in THEIR CLAIMED judgement, are false, (such as the NYPost article of a suspect in custody, removed (one of many times) at 20:55, 15 April 2013 edit by JDDJS as 21:19, 15 April 2013 edit by ShaleZero also even stating effectively "Please do not add anything about the supposed suspect.."); but this NYPost article, even if totally false (I don't know) is still so so significant that plenty of users are rightfully going out of their way to search for it it here and if not finding here, add it. And there could be many other leads & answers that were deleted. So then (hopefully accidentally but still wrongfully) these Wikpedia deleters, such as the two mentioned here, are then seemingly actively working to HURT this investigation in terms of finding leads and what's false & true on this this most key question -with much of this they actively deleting.
    2. Indeed Rachel Maddow just now said (MSNBC at EST8:21pm) that the FBI themselves says "No information being too insignificant, no potential lead being tool small.", so where the heck do these random Wikipedians get the audacity (or maybe malign intent..) to go deleting others leads!
    3. I add, yes, less likely claims should be less featured (as not listed first) but if remotely possibly notable, they should NOT be removed IMHO;
  3. To handle the potentially many claims of many levels of accuracy, this section I think would be best organized via top-level heading of say "All seemingly-serious claims from most-to-least apparently-reliable:"
    1. Yes this suggests a sorted list or table.
      1. I've heard Wikipedia users say essentially that lists are "not encyclopedic" so not good; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Embedded_lists I can't find the official policy on this but regardless, I profoundly disagree.
  4. Due to the edits on this article happening at ~4 per minute, I found it extremely hard (like being the "13th caller to a big radio giveaway") in order organize some of the existing text of the article into this new section (most of the time I ran into edit conflicts in the <1min it took make the edit, including to update my text with the new text coming in), but finally I was able to make 2 such saves both easy to fix and the 2nd case the problem was so small it wasn't even noticed, BUT before I could even fix these errors my new section was removed
    1. 00:36, 16 April 2013‎ --my 1st save, where unfortunately created a error; this was seconds later undone (excessive, as it was merely a problem of a missing tag and something I would have promptly corrected, but understandable as it did introduce a serious page error, as a result from my not doing a preview that one time in order to get my edit suspended before it would be denied in a few seconds due to someone else editing)
    2. 01:15, 16 April 2013 --my 2nd save: all good except "Since then, .." should have been at the end of the prior point, but even before that minor error could be spotted, 1 min later User:TheArguer deleted this section merely as "not encyclopedic" -very wrongfully, IMHO, including he also then carelessly deleted the contributions of a number of other users by this his casual deletion; and I see from the article edit history this is seemingly typical of him, with 8 out of 10 of his edits being deleting other user's content (and these are all of confirmed users on this page) and only 2 additions and all seemingly tiny; IMHO for this notable destructive deletion, and seemingly like others he's done, unless he suddenly apologizes and goes back and goes back and undoes his damage, he should be censured and have his edit privileged suspend partially or entirely.
    3. I am quite saddened User:TheArguer did this notable destructive deletion and of not just my new contribution (of this section and to ~2 new claims) but to the long-standing additions of several other users, nonetheless due to the difficulty I've had in getting changes to save (which ironically would have been alleviated by this addition), I'm not planning to do more work on this article, but for those who are, leaving this note so they can make appropriate fixes.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MBParker (talk • contribs) [Yes, I added this Talk, and specifically on 04:24, 16 April 2013,. I do daily electronic commenting but all of it except-for-Wikipedia gets signed automatically and the last time I did a Wikipedia comment ("Talk") was very long (~2.5 years) ago so I forgot to sign, so thanks to User Drmies properly adding, and just 3 minutes later, that I authored this :-) MBParker (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)]

  • Absolutely not. We cannot put speculation about who is behind what on a Wikipedia page; to do so would violate our policies on posting information about living people in the very worst of ways. We are an encyclopedia, not a most wanted list; we will include what is encyclopedic and supported by reliable sources; nothing more and nothing less. Your proposal is neither. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Indeed. TheArguer's reverts were quite justified. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • We are supposed to be an encyclopaedia not a place to list leads to help the FBI/investigation. One would hope that investigators are not trying to use us a list of leads either. Nil Einne (talk) 04:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
    • The above screed by MBParker makes little sense to me, but the fact that reliable sources have talked about multiple possibilities for suspects gives context to the fact that we don't know for sure yet, and that it could be foreign or domestic terrorism. People typically jump to a conclusion based on their personal prejudice, so showing that sources present a couple possible investigations and associations is actually helpful for framing the event. Steven Walling • talk 04:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Please assume good faith, I didn't realize I was deleting existing edits until a couple minutes after, and by then they were replaced. Thank you to whoever did that! Making ordered lists of claims based on how reliable they seem is not something we do here. One of Wikipedia's core content policies is verifiability. Another one of these policies is to not analyze information in which there are no sources, such as ordering them. The last of three core content policies is to have a neutral point of view. These factors, along with the fact that we had a lot less information at the time, led me to delete this section. I've experienced a lot of edit conflicts as well, and since there are so many people working on this article, people have beat me in adding information that I tried to add myself. I've done my best to keep the article as accurate as possible, I'm sorry you feel this way.  TheArguer  SAY HI! 04:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The most encyclopedic way to handle this is to wait six months and then write the article, but IRL most of us readily recognize the need Wikipedia can fill (heck, even Google News routinely links to the Wikipedia article for a breaking news story). So, the way around conflicting and seemingly wrong reporting is to simply quote (or paraphrase) and reference the verifiable source right alongside seemingly conflicting information and references (eg NY Daily Planet reports that there were 10 explosions, while NY Gazette reports only 4). Readers will appreciate being allowed to think for themselves, and we mitigate the risk of hiding or overly-interpreting raw reports.--→gab 24dot grab← 05:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I really don't think this is a good idea and I think reverting attempts to include it was right, but I certainly understand the sentiment. General tracking of the investigation (by summarising major/key points as they appear in reliable sources) will happen anyway, but conducting (in effect) our own quasi-investigation to track all claims (no matter how off-base or speculative) just isn't a good idea. We're not, after all, the FBI. But, again, I appreciate the sentiment and the amount of work you have done to (try to) explain it to everyone. Maybe we need a WP:NOTFBI? Stalwart111 06:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
You're right, we do need a WP:NOTFBI. I've just created it, and proposed on the WP:Village pump (policy) page that it be added as a subsection to WP:NOT. -- The Anome (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

"Time" "Timing error" and general Boston marathon info.

Earlier in the day, there was a statement in the article, and also TV interviews, that that particular time was when the most runners would be finishing. The 2012 marathon article isn't very good and doesn't discuss the necessary statistics of finishers. And the BAA web site has only different statistics about 2013. I can't find their archives for 2012, but they probably don't have the right statistics either. There must be a source for the wave-statisics of previous Boston marathons, with their combined arrivials?165.121.80.150 (talk) 04:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Realistically, this article isn't going to be very good for at least a week. There are too many cooks to make it a great article. This is pretty normal while an event is ongoing. As to statistics and tying that to the timing of the bomb, that would be original research and it can't be included unless quoting a reliable sourced. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
When statements are quoted without a source given, a reliable source such as the BAA archives could be cited to agree or disagree with the report without being "original research"165.121.80.233 (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Abbreviated ref tags

This is just a note to remind editors that abbreviating to shortened ref tags in articles like this can cause problems. I realize we want to tidy up in good faith, and I would usually perform this type of task myself, but this article is currently being heavily edited, and shortening to abbreviated ref tags means the "mother" reflink can easily be removed in someone's edit, leaving the "daughter" tags as orphans, prompting other editors to remove them, promting still other editors to believe the info is unsourced and remove the info altogether.. I know this is good faith attempt to tidy up and keep the article managable, but for now I think it's best to leave full reflinks as they are until the dust settles on this ongoing story. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 04:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I agree with you. It is going to be impossible to clean up this article for a week, since the copy keeps changing by the minute. We do better if we don't sweat the little things and just tolerate double citing and other minor inconveniences, and just make sure the copy itself is clean and cited, even if the cites are not perfectly formatted or condensed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

See also section?

Is it really necessary to begin linking to other bombings with no established relationship to this incident whatsoever? --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 06:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Necessary? No. Though no doubt they will get added, on the usual WP:OR grounds... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, that's kind of my point – WP:OR outlines all the reasons why it doesn't belong here.. There was another link listed in the section which someone already removed earlier, but having a "list" of unrelated bombings just encourages future editors to add more and more.. Anyway, thanks for taking it out.. If we can get a few more replies here it will make the work of removing them easier if/when they are re-added.. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, this always happens, and it's always wrong. But being wrong never stops it from happening. Just gotta unhappen it as it happens, like always. No point repeating why it's wrong. Four letters in the edit summary. WP:OR. Couldn't be easier. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

"""::::(edit conflict) a template of US bombing or the list is better

  • We need to find out who likley did this before worrying too much about a "see also". We don't know enough to properly link it, including if the perpetrator was domestic or foreign. That fact will likely dictate what is proper to link there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit notice re New York Post

Per the earlier discussion on this talk page, and after the continuing re-addition of single-source material from the New York Post subsequent to that, I have added an edit notice for this article. -- The Anome (talk) 09:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this was thoroughly hashed out here, and in edit summaries, throughout most of the day yesterday. I seem to call one of the NYPost articles reported 12 deaths (although, to be fair, this may have been a typo when only 2 deaths were confirmed). Regardless, we just can't add sensitive information to an article like this based on the reporting of the New York Post. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 10:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
If "12" was a typo, the fact that they let it stand throughout the day says a lot about the reliability of their article. ShaleZero (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The Onion has devoted space to mock the New York Post's "reporting" of the story. Abductive (reasoning) 00:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Ha! Ignatzmice•talk 00:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The notice is no longer appearing on the article. Does it need to be moved to match the new title? Also, it may need to be reworded to take into account the Daily Mail jumping in with the Post. ShaleZero (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
As of right now, the edit notice appears to have been fixed and is showing up properly. Grandmartin11 (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Ambiguities under the Investigation section

The last paragraph says:

"Early in the morning on April 16, police were searching an apartment in the nearby Boston suburb of Revere. Police pulled over a suspicious driver who drove past the State Police barracks several times after the bombings. They are searching the driver's home because he seemed nervous according to officials.[49][50][51][52]"

It is unclear if the apartment being searched, mentioned in the first sentence, is the same home being searched, mentioned in the last sentence. It is, according to citation 49. It is also not in any of the given citations that the home being searched belongs to, is owned by, or is inhabited etc by the person pulled over; in citation 49 it simply states that the suspect "led" police to the home. It might better be expressed something like:

Early in the morning on April 16, police were searching an apartment in the nearby Boston suburb of Revere. The home is connected to a suspicious driver who police pulled over, after the driver drove past the State Police barracks several times after the bombings. They are searching the driver's home because he seemed nervous according to officials.[49][50][51][52] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontoursecretly (talk • contribs) 10:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, changed to residence, which would cover both until the news outlets get it straight. Kennvido (talk) 10:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Bruins and Celtics Games

The cancellation of Bruins and Celtics games is not an Emergency Response. If included at all, it should be under a new category, perhaps called Community Response. --Crunch (talk) 10:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I came here to post the same thing, but created Boston title and moved there. I guess we'll find out want others think. Hope you approve. God Bless Boston! Kennvido (talk) 10:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • We already had this discussion last night. A single sentence saying that several events (sporting and otherwise) were cancelled, and well sourced, is more than adequate, as that would be expected and it is relatively a minor inconvenience considering the event. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I added words and additional cite to make it fit in this area. Kennvido (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
We did go over this yesterday, and it was decided a sentence or two was acceptable. I think the issue at hand is whether the way it's placed as an "Emergency response" within the article is working. I suggested yesterday that the games (as well as any other major events that were cancelled) could be bundled with the information regarding the Police commissioner asking the people of Boston to go home and stay there, in which case a retitling for a sub-section might be appropriate, but I'll leave that to others to decide.. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 11:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the question is whether it belongs under the heading Emergency Response. I suggest adding a subhead "Local" under the "Reactions" heading and putting stuff like this there. --Crunch (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Done. --Crunch (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

POV Pushing in Investigation Section

This Sentence "The April 15 tax deadline and Patriots' Day are both associated with violent acts in the past by militia and "patriot" groups.[11][13]" Seems to be pushing a point of view. I have read both the articles associated with this and April 15 has not been associated with violent acts in the past according to the articles and Wikipedia. Patriots day has had some events the first mentioned being WACO which the government made their final charge on that day it does not seem the Branch Dividians chose that day to set fire to their compound they did it in response to the action of the government personell there. Then the other citation the article mentions is the Oklahoma City Federal Building Bombing. This happened NOT on Patriots's day but on the anniversary of the WACO incident. Unless there is a actual conection to these militia or "Patriot" Groups we should remove this line. VVikingTalkEdits 11:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I was too lazy to put here. Kennvido (talk) 11:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. There have been no terrorist incidents in the U.S. on Patriots Day or Tax Deadline Day as far as I can recall. This just seems like lazy speculation on the source's part and it puts undue suspicion on groups of people, before the government has even indicated that it has any evidence to incriminate the perpetrator(s). --Tocino 11:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, and this was discussed in the thread Patriots' Day above. Stalwart111 11:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
It should be noted the Patriot's Day proper is April 19 - which does coincide with Waco, OKC etc - but they tend to put the holiday on the closest available Monday.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

8 year old

This sentence "Three people were confirmed dead, one of whom was 8-year-old Martin Richard of the Dorchester neighborhood of Boston. His mother and sister suffered critical injuries after seeing their father crossing the finish line."

I don't see why only one of the victims needs to be highlighted. The media prefers to focus on children but I don't think doing this on Wikipedia is very neutral. I wanted to ask here if I could remove it. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 12:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

  • This was discussed above. It was in the lede, where it didn't belong, but if properly sourced, saying that one of the deceased is a child isn't particularly problematic if it is in the main body and done in a neutral fashion AND all this is properly sourced. It is a fact of the event. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The reason the 8-yr child is getting such singular attention now is that details of other two deaths have not been made public. -96.233.19.238 (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

  • At the very least we can remove the remarks about mom and sister, just after seeing their father cross the finish line. Once the names of the victims are released, they'll all be listed in this section. --IP98 (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Trimming it up a bit to keep it neutral seems fine, making sure that anything left is actually in the sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER

13:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Why the rush to remove factual sourced information? The child was named, a memorial gathering held for him, and tragically his mother and sister (unnamed in the sources, but we know the family name) were very seriously injured. As other vics are named publicly, add the names here. Some days I think some editors get a power trip from reverting good edits 3 seconds after they are made.70.78.45.67 (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Because we err on the conservative side when it comes to publishing information, by design, just as any other encyclopedia does. We aren't a newspaper. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Mobile cell phone service

At first, cell service became too congested to work well. Then, they shut down cell service to prevent using it to trigger possible additional bombs. Now, cell service seems to be restored to normal?

How quickly did cell service get overloaded? Over how large of an area? Had additional COWs been added for the event? When was it decided to shut down cell service? When was it shut down? How many towers? Serving what area? When was service restored? We are writing history here; what happened?-96.233.19.238 (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

  • We aren't writing history, actually. We are documenting and summarizing what has already been covered by reliable sources, as that is what an encyclopedia does. We don't worry about being up to the minute with information, either. If you have some sources that overview this, please point us to them. From what I've seen, there is conflicting info on the cell service, but I haven't looked that closely this morning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Last time?

Some information should probably be included as to the last time a bomb went off in Boston. I can't find it, but I'm sure it happened in the 19th century.--Auric talk 14:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Last Bomb that caused Casualties was by the United Freedom Front. It was Conducted on April 22, 1976. It was a bombing of a court house and 22 people were injured.[1] Avion365 (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore going to that Ref sources (Global Terrorism Database) It seems there was a Bombing in 1995, Blew up in front of a church but caused no casualties. [2] Avion365 (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I was probably thinking of something else. Thanks.--Auric talk 19:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/04/15/a_brief_history_of_terrorist_attacks_in_boston
  2. ^ http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/IncidentSummary.aspx?gtdid=199511150001

According to the most recent data

Everything in this article is "according to the most recent data" - in fact, that's true of every fact in Wikipedia. There's no need to state it after specific facts. Rklawton (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Remember... WP:NOTNEWS

When events like this occur, there is a natural tendency for people to rush to Wikipedia and "report what the sources are saying"... including every new development that is being reported in the media... but please remember that this is an encyclopedia and not a news source. WP:NOTNEWS applies. At this point in time, (less than a day after the event) we have more questions than facts regarding the bombing... and the media is still rushing around reporting on any "breaking news" rumor they can get their hands on. This includes misinformation, false leads, and outright speculation. In other words... right now, the media reports are less than reliable. Use extreme caution. Hesitate before you put the latest "this just in" bit of information from the media into the article. Wait... until we are sure that the information is a) accurate b) actually relevant. Ask yourself, will this bit of information be important enough to include in the article a year from now. If you are not sure... don't add it (yet). Blueboar (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Why aren't we adding specific country responses with flag icons?

The international response is here, yet there is a HTML comment: Please do not add responses from foreign leaders and/or flagicons. What's going on?--Louiedog (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the 7/11 London bombing article and the 9/11 article, you'll see that responses by nation just aren't used. Rklawton (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
See the statement above, we're not a news agency, we're an encyclopedia. Recent articles have had those sections, that is an error in those articles. Ryan Vesey 15:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to see flag icons with the diplomatic statements, please add. The Russian article has it. --192.223.243.6 (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd like all such reactions sections deleted from Wikipedia, since they are pointless and ugly. Please don't add it. Abductive (reasoning) 06:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Motives

The article doesn't say anything about likely motives. Motives for such cowardly acts are usually and basically the same. Two bombings about 10 seconds apart more than suggests that someone was trying to make a statement. Also, April 15th is Israel's Independence Day, and Patriot's day, widely celebrated in Boston, fell on April 15th this year. There must be plenty of sources that have something to say about likely motives. So should this article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

We should do no such thing. We're an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. When someone is caught and we learn their motives, we can report that. Until then, we shouldn't repeat speculation about likely motives. Ryan Vesey 15:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Likely motives and the real motives are 2 different things. AS Vesey said we do not speculate. JayJayWhat did I do? 15:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
(Insert -- edit conflict) Not (nearly) always. Your forgot to mention that likely motives are most often actual motives, esp where it concerns terrorist acts. I wasn't suggesting that we mention Israel's Independence Day, etc, only that we cover what paths the FBI and others are pursing in terms of motives if there are Reliable sources that cover it. Btw, WP is more than an encyclopedia, as it has news coverage, articles on video games, tv shows, movies, etc, etc, -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
There will be a lot of media speculation about the motive, there always is. At the moment it is beyond the range of the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Motives are at the core of the bombings, and again, if there are Reliable Sources that cover the FBI's pursuits in this area it should be mentioned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
No it shouldn't. The sources may be reliable, but they are covering that information using the standards of journalism, which allows that sort of material. An encyclopedia is a reference work. Ryan Vesey 16:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
What Ryan said. As an encyclopedia, our job isn't to publish rumors, only established facts that have been covered by multiple reliable sources. If anything, we should lag behind those sources, so we don't accidentally publish something that will end up getting corrected by the source later. Summarizing documentable facts in a neutral and trustworthy fashion, that is our job. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
This is yet another straw man. No one said anything about including "rumors", only that the article cover the FBI's progress in tracking down the culprit(s), which is largely based on likely motives. As theory goes, many articles touch on theory, esp scientific articles, so if the FBI, in fact, has any, the readers should know about them. I agree however that we wait a bit for some of the dust to settle (no pun intended) before we include the FBI's take on motives, theories, etc, but again the readers should be informed about where the FBI and others stand on this topic, and again, only if there are reliable sources that cover this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Not that I agree with your reasoning, but can you show us these source where the FBI have officially said they are investigating links between the bombings and Israel's Independence Day? Nil Einne (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
As I indicated above, it is not my suggestion that we cite Israel's Independence Day per se as a motive for the bombings. I just offered this up as a viable possibility to convey a point about motives. Again, the readers should know about the FBI's pursuits and what they are based on. You can believe the FBI is not just acting on what (little?) evidence they have but are indeed going through their records while looking into viable theories and likely motives. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
You're missing the point. None of us work for the FBI. Even if any one of us did, we would know we can't tell random wikipedians what we're looking in to. And we'd also hopefully know that in any case, wikipedia goes by reliable sources, not what random people tell us. The point of the talk page is to discuss ways to improve the article. In an article under as much development such as this, there's no reason for us to speculate what the FBI are looking in to here. Unless there are sources saying the FBI is investigating the connection to Israel's Independence Day, then the fact it's something the FBI could be investigating it is not something to discuss here since it's not something we'd ever mention in the article. The simple fact is, as others have said it's way to early for us to discuss motives much at all in the article. By the time there's anything much to add, this section would likely have been long archived. BTW, wikipedia is an encyclopaedia only. We have much wider coverage, and much more immediate coverage then traditional encyclopaedia, but all our articles are written from an encyclopaedic viewpoint and intended to be encyclopaedic articles. If you want news coverage, I suggest you check out wikinews [2]. Nil Einne (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually you're missing the point, again. We cover the facts, and if in fact the FBI are pursing motives and theories we report this fact if it is covered by reliable sources. Btw, the news article about the bombing was and is on the front page of Wikipeida main, and will be covered in WP main in the future. Thanks for your thoughts on Wiki news just the same. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The real point is that those are some pretty big 'if's in there, and a conversation about incorporating this kind of material into the article isn't useful unless and until they're satisfied. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
(EC) There is no news article about the bombing on wikipedia. There is an encyclopaedic article aka this article. This article is linked from the ITN section (which in case there is any confusion, is not a news section, I suggest you check out the candidate section or talk page if you need clarification about that), with a brief one or two sentence blurb, but there is no 'news article' on the main page, or any article about the bombings (a blurb with a link is rather different from an actual article). If you don't understand the difference between a news article and an encyclopaedic article, with respect I suggest you do not edit this article. Also may I repeat one last time can you kindly provide these sources you keep talking about? If you cannot provide source showing the FBI is pursuing the link with Israel's Independence Day or whatever else you want to bring up, then we're basically discussing nothing here so this discussion should end. Note that no one ever said we should not cover solid reliable sourced info about the FBI's investigation, simply that we should not report random speculations and that it is way to early for us to go in to much depth about motives, as borne out by your apparent inability to provide actual reliable sources despite continually bringing them up. P.S. I don't know what you mean by 'WP main'. This encyclopaedic article is already part of the wikipedia's collection of articles and is not going to become some other part of wikipedia when the ITN link disappears. As per the many other discussions, above, it could eventually change name, and potentially subarticles will be formed, but this doesn't mean it isn't already a part of the encyclopaedia. Nil Einne (talk)
P.P.S. As a final comment please remember to WP:AGF. It is unlikely your comment was 'deleted by arrogant editor' [3]. If you look at the history [4] [5], it seems most likely some sort of weird EC, perhaps even hidden by the software so without any real opportunity for the editor involved to notice what happened, caused it to be deleted. This sort of stuff happens on wikipedia particularly with highly edited pages and while it's understandably annoying, it also means we need to be careful before we accuse people of intentional wrong doing. Nil Einne (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
People who delete things by mistake usually say so immediately following and you're getting a little long winded about unrelated matters regarding the article. No one said the article wasn't part of an encyclopedia, only that WP features news items on its front page, not just on Wiki news. Again, we need to include all important facts as they unfold. If it is learned from reliable sources that the FBI and others have made inroads to suspects via theories and likely motives this should be covered. There is no legitimate reason not to. We should give the readers, our first priority, all important facts. Motives are important. They are why the bombings occurred. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Article headers and subheaders

I think we should be using the 9/11 and 7/11 bombing article headers as our standard here. They are very similar, and I see no reason for this article to significantly differ. Rklawton (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

7/11? Don't you mean 7/7? Randor1980 (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Maybe 7/11?--Auric talk 20:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably need more confirmation or whatever..

But the Boston Globe twitter account is reporting that a Brigham and Women's Doctor is saying that there was "intentionally placed shrapnel" inside the bombs that exploded, as they were pulling BBs and Nails from those injured in the blasts. From their tweets: BRIGHAM DOC: "There is no question that some of these objects were implanted in the device for the purpose of being exploded forward." We need more then the tweets, correct? SirFozzie (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Tweets vary - depends on the organization. I see no reason why we can't wait for word from the official investigators. Rklawton (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Here's an updated Globe story [6] where they have an investigator who wasn't authorized to speak on the investigation confirming that there was shrapnel in the bomb. Don't know if we want to use it still, seeing as we do not have an official name to back up the statement.. but at least the article may be a good way to find information to add to the Wikipedia page. SirFozzie (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Universal Hub, a well-respected Boston news blog, has some quotes from senior doctors at BWH and MGH: [7]. GabrielF (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Explosion photo?

(From above, as things tend to fall off the radar) The photo of the explosion has been changed back. I still prefer it, for the reasons listed above. I'm not going to change it again, as that's getting close to the spirit (if not the letter) of 3RR. But I do think there should be consensus on which to use. In any case, if we aren't going to use the explosion photo we should at least use the seconds-after photo that is brighter (that photo is currently in the Victims section, and is therefore a little redundant). Ignatzmice•talk 15:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Local reaction

The reactions - local sub heading needs much more detail. The majority of the 'reaction' to the event is local. For example, the governor of Massachusetts (Deval Patrick) and the mayor of Boston both held press conferences before the Obama conference. Additional information regarding local law enforcement and city government reactions could be added. As it stands now the national and international reaction sub headings have better detail and sourcing than the local reaction sub heading. There were more non-emergency and non-run workers that ran to help then there wore emergency workers and run workers. CoolMike (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Those sections have a tendency to get out of hand. "Reaction" in the sense of "actions taken after an event happens", that's legitimate content. "Reaction" in the sense of "person X or statesman Y expressed their grief and sympathy", that's another thing and should be handled with editorial care, lest we get yet another Reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, which blurs the two kinds of reactions. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It seems like there is some overlap between what is discussed in the local reaction section and what is included in the responses section. As an example, both section mention the MBTA being shut down. I am not sure whether the information in the local reaction section would best be placed in the responses section. Or possibly, the Responses and Reactions sections could be merged together? Rgrasmus (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed the reference to the Bruins game being cancelled and then uncancelled from the article (seemed trivial). I agree with Rgrasmus that MBTA is repetitive but on the other hand, it fits well in both sections. Maybe we can add this quote from Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis from the first news conference after the bombing:

We’re recommending to people that they stay home, that if they’re in hotels in the area that they return to their rooms, and that they don’t go any place and congregate in large crowds.

— Ed Davis, 4/15 Afternoon Press Conference[1]

It adds a quote from a notable local official (like the National section does) and it gives information about how the police asked people to stay in their homes. gadol87 (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Eligon, John; Michael Cooper (15 April 2013). "Blasts at Boston Marathon Kill 3 and Injure 100". The New York Times. Retrieved 17 April 2013.

International coverage

These links can be used for finding international coverage.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

We must avoid prurient content at all costs.

Prurient: : marked by or arousing an immoderate or unwholesome interest or desire; especially : marked by, arousing, or appealing to sexual desire

There are several sections and passages that contain material that falls into this catagory. These include arousing descriptions of amputees and the injured.

While WP requires the material added to the article should be from a reliable source as a necessary condition, but that is not a sufficient condition. The inclusion of material that appeals to our baser instincts should not be added and if added should be removed. It is interesting to know that some reliable source provided the original information but it does not follow that it must be used and if not of genuine use in enlightening or too far off topic it should not be included. We do not need to know that some victim was maimed about the face, nor do we need to know that a particular victim was wheeled from the seen spraying blood and ichor from severed arteries, nor do we need to know what part of the body was found at the scene. Those details have no genuine value and I have removed them as they contribute nothing to the article. I have the impression that there are more than a few people editing such articles as this, who have an rather unwholesome interest in providing such gory and useless material and I urge you to delete it whenever you find it just as I will. Vilano XIV (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I think what you're looking for is "encyclopedic", "neutral", and "undue weight". Other than that this encyclopedia contains quite a bit of prurient information. Rklawton (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
What are you talking about? You haven't edited anything (actually, you can't, it is semi-protected and this was your first contrib). The words "face" and "amputation" don't even appear in the entire article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Let us focus on the message and not the messenger. Rklawton (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I did, the two words he complained about don't exist, the action he described didn't happen. Those are the message, friend ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
You also went off on an tangent regarding his ability to edit the article. Rklawton (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Amputations were mentioned on the talk page, which means they'll end up in the body sooner or later. I'm a new user, so I haven't been verified yet - but I will be! Sorry about the tenses, English isn't my first tongue. Vilano XIV (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

  • There we go, clarity. Just because it is discussed on the talk page doesn't mean that it will be added to the article. This is a bit of a staging area, but I can assure you that we all share your desire to keep the article from having inappropriate material. That is why many of us are here, just to answer questions and help insure the article stays neutral and on topic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Makeup of the bombs themselves?

any information on the makeup of the bombs themselves? I keep reading "improvised devices", but that could mean anything. Anything about their makeup, or what they contained? Any possible sources for materials? Anything about size or construction? Anything? --98.70.56.207 (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

  • We can only report what is found in reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • We have a sourced statement in the "Investigation" section: "A person who was briefed on the investigation said at least one of the devices was made of 6-liter pressure cookers filled with metal, nails and ball bearings and put in a backpack.[63][64][65][66]" ShaleZero (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • (EC) This was mentioned in one of the sections above, but a large number of sources are now reporting the bombs were built using pressure cookers inside backpacks, possibly using timers to set off detonation [8] [9] [10] [11]. Nil Einne (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm working, so haven't looked at those links in detail—but bear in mind that multiple sources reporting on the same person speaking unofficially aren't really independent. Just something to keep in mind. Ignatzmice•talk 17:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes - this is a single source, and needs to be treated with caution. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Should we not include that pressure cookers have been used in many IED's in the past (2010 Times Square car bombing attempt and the 2006 Mumbai train bombings.[1][2])? For people that don't know much about IED's, it gives context and shows that pressure cookers are nothing new. gadol87 (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It may take a few days for EOD teams to put together the compositions and be able to publicly confirm the device and composition. Aneah|talk to me 18:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Reuters posted photos from the bomb squad today that show the remnants of a pressure cooker, ball bearings, small nails, batteries and some wire today, so we finally have some hard FACTS about the makeup of the bombs and that they were indeed augmented with fragmentation. [3] GCW50 (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Bomb Details Emerge in Boston Inquiry". The New York Times. Retrieved April 16, 2013.
  2. ^ "Investigators believe Boston bombs were pressure cookers hidden in backpacks, officials say". NBC News. Retrieved April 16, 2013.
  3. ^ http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/17/us-usa-explosions-boston-idUSBRE93F06T20130417

Second victim named, on Globe homepage now

The Globe has posted the following on its homepage:

BREAKING NEWS: A second victim has been identified in Boston Marathon bombings: Krystle Campbell, 29, of Arlington. According to her grandmother, Lillian Campbell of Somerville, Krystle had just moved to the town a short time ago. She had been living with her grandmother to help her through an illness for the past couple of years.

Krystle recently left a job as a manager at the Summer Shack for a job at another restaurant in the area. She went to watch the marathon every year and was there with a friend this year. The friend is hospitalized with serious injuries. (less) (less)by Adrienne Lavidor-Berman on 4/16/2013 at 2:12:27 PM

I've added this to the article, but I'm not sure how to source this since it isn't a separate article on the Globe's website yet. GabrielF (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Remove mention of al-Qaeda?; Times Square bombing pressure cooker?

In the article is this line: According to English-language terror magazine Inspire, a pressure-cooker bomb is a preferred weapon of al-Qaeda.

Would it be good to remove that? It does not seem directly relevant. It is heavily implying that al-Qaeda was involved, but offers no real facts. Besides which, the sources are dodgy. Rawilson52 (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd probably say remove; dunno whether "Inspire" is reliable or not. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm leaning that way too. Ignatzmice•talk 18:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I removed it and let's keep it out. It's an attempt to WP:COATRACK Al-Qaeda into the article on mere speculation. Qworty (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Again, sources aren't the trick, unless a government official makes a claim. We don't need to publish speculation, unless it is overwhelmingly sourced enough to be a story in and of itself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I removed it as well before seeing this. There haven't been any connections made to al-Qaeda. It's WP:OR to suggest that al-Qaeda is somehow part of the investigation by using a coincidental fact as "evidence" to place that material int he article. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 19:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
That's a very central misunderstanding of what OR is. Editors can engage in OR. RSs don't. Because OR "original research" refers to material facts and ideas for which no reliable, published sources exist. But this isn't the first time I've seen the concept misunderstood and conflated.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The New York Times thinks something is relevant. To avoid the appearance of pov editing on our part, we don't generally delete RS-supported information.

It would be OR, or coat-racking, if an editor himself said: "Hey -- I remember reading in an article that was not about this bombing that a similar bomb was used in a different bombing; I'll reflect that."

That's not the case here.

And there is as far as I know -- Dennis, point to it if you are aware of it -- any guideline that suggests that a top-level RS source is not completely appropriate here. If there were some such rule, we could delete the vast majority of this article right now, saying "No government official said it."

Or a pov editor could use that rationale to just delete those parts he dislikes.

The assertion of the need for sources other than our best RSs here is, I believe, not supported by our guidelines. And unsupported assertions of that type open up the floodgates to other editors making up "super-requirements" (and asserting them, as though they are in fact guidelines) to delete whatever they dislike from a pov perspective. Slippery slope. If there is any concern, the proper way to handle it is to attribute -- say "The New York Times reported that ..."--Epeefleche (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

My point being that if a source or two simply opines "This looks like the work of Al-Qaeda" from the reporter or writer, then that isn't strong enough to publish, imo. If they are quoting a government official, then it is, in proper context. The fact that several sources might just mention al-qaeda as a possible source isn't strong enough to include either, as that is just speculation, not fact. While sourcing is important, we don't publish everything that a source has to say, only the parts that also meet criteria on POV and relevance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I'll repeat what I said to Epeefleche on my own talk page: "Certainly you've been editing Wikipedia long enough to understand that just because something has RS doesn't mean it belongs in a particular article. This is a weak attempt to tie al-Qaeda to the bombing, when in fact no one yet knows who perpetrated it. Thus, including this in the article IS speculation." Qworty (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
If an RS reports "Bomb characteristics were similar to those used in the x bombing" (Nobody said here that the bomb here was the work of anyone), that is certainly relevant. We should not over-state it, of course, as your example does. We can attribute it. But it is a fact. It is reported by a top-level RS. There is not a blp issue in sight. POV is not an issue -- we are not concerned with the pov of an RS -- only the POV of an editor. And that an RS is an RS. And if you think that the Pentagon Papers would not be wikipedia-reportable until a government official said something about them, I differ. That this is relevant is self-apparent, I would think. Of the highest level of relevance -- in fact, I daresay, that is probably why the high-level paper in question reported it. If the paper report that a victim used to run the marathon, that might be less than relevant. But this? Not a close call.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)This isn't pure WP:OR (WP:COATRACK fits better I guess; I called it "basically WP:OR" in my edit summary for that reason), but it's essentially OR to suggest that al-Qaeda has something to do with the investigation...even if it's not stated outright. The insertion of that material creates the appearance that al-Qaeda is somehow linked to or related to the investigation, which no sources support. That's what I was calling "basically OR" (even if it indeed isn't quite what WP:OR means; I should've used a different term.) Of course, we do "original research" to create articles and determine notability in the first place, but inserting a random similarity goes beyond the scope of what that research covers. The source may have said the characteristics are similar, but not that it's related to this incident or its investigation. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 19:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
According to Epeefleche's logic, we should just paste in entire articles from the New York Times, because it meets RS. Obviously, that's not how Wikipedia works. We pick and choose which RS statements to include in articles, in order to write the best article, not just to parrot RS. And it is NOT in the best interests of this article to suggest that al-Qaeda was behind the bombing, when that is sheer speculation. Qworty (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Wait a sec: where did the New York Times report this? The source it was cited to was from Daily Mail, which--though I may be wrong--I seem to remember is not very reliable. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
You're right. The Times didn't report it. I was just using the Times as an example. The actual source may not even be RS. But it doesn't matter who the source was, because it's still just speculation. Qworty (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

A pressure cooker bomb article was created, and al-Qaeda's use is mentioned there. I think that makes perfect sense as to how to handle this information, since it's currently wikilinked from the infobox on this article. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 19:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

A pressure cooker was also used in the 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt. <ref>{{cite news|title=Bomb Details Emerge in Boston Inquiry |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/us/officials-investigate-boston-explosions.html?hp&_r=0|publisher=[[The New York Times]]|accessdate=April 16, 2013}}</ref> Epeefleche (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

That's from an RS, sure, but it's also simply a similarity between the two that hasn't been otherwise linked. The relevant section is about the investigation, and nobody is comparing the two events past the NYT saying that a previous attack used a similar device when discussing pressure cooker bombs in general (but not linking it to the Boston attack in any fashion.) It would go well in the pressure cooker bomb article, but I do not think it belongs here. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 20:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
A pressure cooker also used here that had nothing to do with al-Qaeda. Cowicide (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Uses of pressure cookers in other bombings are irrelevant to this event and constitute nothing more than trivia per THIS article, no matter how well-sourced they may be. Thus I say keep out any mention of other pressure-cooker bombings. Qworty (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
That's my point, Qworty. I don't think other pressure cooker bombings should be mentioned either since it's just adding to speculation. Granted, if ONLY al-Qaeda used such weapons, that would be notable, but that's not the case. Cowicide (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The New York Times believes the similarity in delivery mechanism is relevant enough to this specific event to report it, as reflected above. The same with CBS, who also thought it relevant to this attack. CBS adds the additional relevant information: "These types of pressure cooker explosives were used in Afghanistan, India, Nepal and Pakistan, according to a July 2010 joint FBI and Homeland Security intelligence report. One of the three devices used in the May 2010 Times Square attempted bombing was a pressure cooker, the intelligence report said. "Placed carefully, such devices provide little or no indication of an impending attack," the report said. The Pakistani Taliban, which claimed responsibility for the 2010 attempt in Times Square, has denied any role in the Boston Marathon attack." And NBC now thinks it relevant and reports: "One of the three devices that was to be used in an attempted bomb attack in Times Square in 2010 was a pressure cooker. Earlier that year, terrorists used a pressure cooker bomb in an attack in Pakistan. And in 2006, more than 130 people were killed on the transit system of Mumbai, India, when pressure cookers loaded with explosives were placed on trains." And see The Washington Post coverage of the same, and that of the Huffington Post, and US News..--Epeefleche (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
    Yes, but none of those articles (other than the original, unreliable Daily Mail one) connect pressure-cooker bombs to Al-Qaeda, so they're not usable as sources for mentioning Al-Qaeda. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
    And I would add that connecting the dots in various sources is exactly what WP:SYNTH says we can not do. On source says A=B, another says that B=C, but we can't infer that A=C without violating that policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Synth is Dennis connecting the dots in various sources. This is nothing of the sort -- it is the RS reporting a fact. wp:synth of course refers to editors. Not RSs, reporting related facts.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
    I'm quite familiar with the concept of synth. Drawing conclusions based on sources instead of using direct quoted facts is a sythnesis if both didn't report the same thing. There is no need to try to get ahead of the sources on this, we are NOT a newspaper. We document after the fact, we don't try to draw conclusions based on the sources. Tying in al qaeda would not be proper at this stage. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Synth is not five RSs connecting the dots. It is a wp editor connecting the dots. See what I have highlighted below. Reflecting what the RSs say is precisely what wp:synth indicates is perfectly appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
You are correct ... my deleted diff (all I am seeking to restore) did not mention AQ. I'll change the header here to clarify -- the two edits were related, but not the same. Perhaps you and other editors can, especially with all the other RS refs now, and even borrowing from some of their additional language, support the restoration of the NYT ref as I had it.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • What wp:synth actually says: wp:SYNTH states (emph added):

    "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.... The second paragraph is original research because it expresses a Wikipedia editor's opinion ... To make the second paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source would be needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point.... In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia."

Epeefleche (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

References

About vs. approximately

Slazenger, I'd be delighted to hear why you think "approximately" is a better choice than "about". PRRfan (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It's really trivial, and the general idea gets across no matter which word is used. Cocona is of the opinion that there isn't merit in such a minor edit. CoconaB (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
It was less a case of approximately vs. about and more a a case of the way you had it worded. It was "On April 15, 2013, two bombs exploded during the Boston Marathon at approximately 2:50 p.m.". You changed it to "On April 15, 2013, two bombs exploded during the Boston Marathon about 2:50 p.m.". You introduced incorrect grammar into the article, and even if it had been "at about" it would have been no more descriptive nor accurate than "at approximately". About throws a greater deal of uncertainty into a time estimation than approximately does from my understanding. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 23:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Mmm, I'd be curious to see a citation that says "at about [time]" is grammatically correct and "about [time]" isn't. Meanwhile, here's the AMA Style Guide website talking about "about" and "approximately"; it suggests that "about" is more appropriate for non-technical publications, like WP.PRRfan (talk) 02:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I would generally favor "approximately" in reference to time. However, if we go with about, I believe Slazenger is correct. The way the "about" entry was originally worded, if not outright grammatically incorrect, does not sound encyclopedic or sounds awkward. At the least I think "at" needs to be added.204.65.34.104 (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Attack type: Terrorism

Both Obama and the FBI are calling this an act of terror, as Wikipedia is not censored WP:NOTCENSORED, and the word terrorism meets what this is according to sources we should keep terrorism in the attack type. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

3RR

Mildly off topic but—

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.

I haven't been keeping score, but I'd bet large amounts of money that most of us who've done more than a passing amount of edits here have broken the letter of WP:3RR. Is there a general guideline for stuff like this, or is everyone just being common-sensical by not getting anal about it? Ignatzmice•talk 20:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey, someone does it three times in 24, it's edit warring and ALL that do it should be held to the rules, sorry. Kennvido (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Probably nobody noticed--I'm guessing an invocation of common sense. Remember that, as well, there are some exceptions for reverts that don't count (vandalism, BLP issues), that may help individual editors get past the line. I'm certainly not going to be going around digging through the history looking for violations that don't cause drama, and I doubt anyone else acting in good faith will either. While it'd probably be best to try and live within 3RR going forward, unless someone has some real problems to report... Could we get back to building an article, please? --j⚛e deckertalk 20:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
So, we ignore the rules, Ok. As long as we ignore them regarding all articles. Kennvido (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
You are welcome to report violators at WP:EWN, seriously. I personally believe that in this case WP:IAR trumps, but enjoy. --j⚛e deckertalk 20:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Or just bring it here, plenty of us admin are already watching. And as long as the edits are for the purpose of reverting vandalism or edits that are clearly against the consensus, tolerance is the order for the day. We don't enforce policies just because they exist, we do so to improve the encyclopedia. See WP:5P #5. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Some editors are reverting valid added info within seconds. They don't even have time to read the sources before jumping to conclusions and reverting. With all the edit conflicts it is tough to get info in except in little chunks. I suggest other editors wait at least... 5 minutes and check the sources before they revert. Legacypac (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Example: Qworty has 4 significant reverts in the last 50 edits - and more before that within 24 hours. Is the quote at the top a real rule?
Indeed, WP:3RR is a real rule; but so is WP:IAR. However, the content dispute about whether to include sport cancellations/memorials really needs to stop. Ignatzmice•talk 00:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm requesting a 24 hour ban for Qworty because just repeatedly deleting good faith edits is not improving the article just annoying other users. Their reverts are beyond sports memorials. Legacypac (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

What I suggest is that if you think someone is erring by doing these reverts, put a polite note here so it can be reviewed. Considering the traffic, I tend to be a little lenient if their efforts are genuinely in good faith. (Note: that doesn't mean that other admins will, so you break 3RR at your own risk, even if in good faith) If they keep messing up, we can warn and/or take action. That said, everyone should be careful with 3RR and please try to not overdo the reverts (excepting clear vandalism). If in doubt, ask the other editors here first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the last few edits of Qworty, I see him enforcing the existing consensus here. If you have specific diffs of him not doing that, please present them so we can look. Dennis Brown - 2¢

While some of the most recent edits may be ok, the shear number of reverts is unacceptable and some reverts are just his opinion which is not worth anything more than that of other editors. There are lots of editors on this page to police it or fix errors - no need to have editors breaking the 3RR rule with 19 reverts so far. Also take a look at the editor's talk page, especially the post titled "Do not do this sort of thing again [1]" where Jimmy Wales threatens to ban Qworty from WP for disruptive editing. I just want to see a useful article, not an edit war.Legacypac (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

If there isn't a problem in particular with his edits, then taking action would be the same as punishing him for being productive. Again, if there are specific problem edits that need looking into, I will be glad to (ping me on my talk page, I might miss it here), but I can't take action unless there is a specific problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Given that this article has driven a coach and horses through WP:NOTNEWS, enforcing WP:3RR for no better reason that 'it is a rule' would be totally ridiculous. We have to ignore normal policy, if we are to avoid the article descending into chaos. There is nothing to prevent anyone reporting someone for exceeding WP:3RR - but if they do, they should expect to have to explain how this is in the interests of the encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
So I'm guessing no one cares that among other questionable deletions [[12]] removed the same 732 characters 3 times (see contribution log) for a bogus reason while I and another editor restored the information in the international reaction section about the Canadian Consulate located 250 m from the blast. Had there been a US diplomatic post that close to a terrorist attack it would have it's own section. If this is just a free for all... well what the heck.. let's toss all convention. Legacypac (talk) 06:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Getting your panties in a bunch isn't helpful. I've already said that if someone is reverting multiple times but it isn't to revert vandalism or maintain the consensus, just provide the diffs here. A link to all their contribs isn't helpful by itself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry - thought I was pretty specific. Here is list of the three identical reverts (see link above):

02:49, 17 April 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-732)‎ . . Boston Marathon bombings ‎ (→‎International: Nothing happened to MIT either, should we spend three sentences describing that?)

00:54, 17 April 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-732)‎ . . Boston Marathon bombings ‎ (→‎International: No)

00:31, 17 April 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-732)‎ . . Boston Marathon bombings ‎ (→‎International: Canadian Consulate not interesting, removing per WP:UNDUE) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)

Given that it contains a link to a copyright-violating YouTube video, it could have been reverted 300 times without violating policy. It was misplaced in any case, and if it belonged anywhere (which is highly questionable) it didn't belong there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
While I generally agree with your statements here, Dennis Brown, I think it behooves us all to keep things from escalating. One way to do so, especially by those of any prominence in the disucssion, is to avoid language like "Getting your panties in a bunch". I'm sure it wasn't intended malevolently, but it's in bad form. And if someone actually WAS doing that, it certainly wouldn't help reach consensus by saying that.204.65.34.104 (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Qworty#http:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fw.2Findex.php.3Ftitle.3DWikipedia:3RR.26redirect.3Dno

List For Victims

Maybe we should start an alphabetical list for all the victims as their names become available to honor them. We have some to start. God Bless Boston! Kennvido (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I vote no. We don't do that kind of thing for other tragedies (see, as a totally random example, US Airways Flight 1016). Ignatzmice•talk 20:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Seeing there are only three victims (Thank god not more) I don't see much use in a list. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, honor the three killed for something useless against America and Americans AGAIN! Just sayin' Kennvido (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
As people have pointed out, whatever the motive for the attack this was an attack on many nations, the Boston Marathon being an international event. Ignatzmice•talk 20:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
We are including the victims though in prose form, its not like we are excluding them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Your point, prose or list. A list looks much cleaner. And brought up only three fatalities, so why mention injured? We should not mention injured. Unless you all are okay with having a prose with over 180 names. Or leaving some or many out like they don't matter should names not be released. Can't have it both ways. Kennvido (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I would agree to have the names of the injured not posted. You would only see the names of the people killed at tragic events not the names of the people who were injured. Canadaguy1982 (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
That's what I say, no injured just those who lost their lives. Kennvido (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

ONLY THREE PEOPLE DIED!!!!!!, that doesn't need a *** listEthanKP (talk · contribs) 16 April 3:45 (UTC)

Agreed, but WP:CIVIL Vilano XIV (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The thread seems to be consensus = no list. (So, why are victims currently in a list?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the article edit history, and the paragraph form stuck until April 17, 09:32 when User:Harizotoh9 unilaterally and without discussion or edit summary changed it to bulleted list form. (That user has no contributions to this article Talk page.) So I'm going to change it back. (And in the process, I'm going to change the order of the three victims at the same time, from youngest to oldest, as opposed to alphabetical by last name, because that is what average reader commonly searches for or would notice first, the youngest, instead of either noting or caring the list happens to be in alphabetic order by last name. In addition, every news report I've seen on the deaths has also consistently reported the youngest fatality first.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

What needs to be understood, which is missing in the thinking of a number of editors on here, is that it's NOT JUST the number of dead victims that comes into play. But the NATURE OF THE EVENT that the deaths occurred in!! (Sighs...) Is it even a debatable issue or question that this Boston Marathon terrorist bombing is not just some regular murder situation, but an OUTSTANDING event, that has has wall-to-wall coverage on every news network, internet, tv, and print, etc etc? THAT'S WHY a "list" and names of victims (especially the three dead so far) is warranted and is not out of place. Try focusing more on the nature of the occurrence and crime, and the type of event, it took place in, rather than just on "well it was only 3 people who were killed". Because that alone, the number alone, does not determine it. Gabby Merger (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Ihardlythinkso, the information about the type of wounds is described in the text as well as how many were of such and such, if we had a list for every single victim who was wounded we would need a separate article just to cover it all. If it isn't broken then don't fix it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Yankees tribute removed

User:Qworty removed the mention of the Yankees holding a moment of silence and playing Fenway Park favorite "Sweet Caroline" at their game tonight. Qworty claimed that this is trivial. I would argue that the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry is the most famous in American sports, and that Boston is well-known as a sports town. This is a symbol that is a lot more meaningful for people than, say, a moment of silence at the NY Mercantile Exchange, which we include. GabrielF (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

While we don't want long lists of trivia (or any trivia, really) I concur that silence at a Yankees game is more notable than silence at the NYMEX. Ignatzmice•talk 20:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Since yesterday, there have been multiple attempts to include memorial events/cancelations involving just about every professional and non-professional sports team on the Eastern seaboard. We simply can't include all of this sports trivia, as it's WP:UNDUE and WP:TRIVIA. It's not just limited to the Yankees--who aren't even a Boston team, for that matter. Qworty (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The names are trivial facts. Don't include them, please. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 20:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I unfortunately must agree with GabrielF; we're dealing with a huge, ruthless, and very historic rivalry. And also, undue weight seems to deal more with viewpoints from sources themselves. Why do you interpret it as being undue? And what "names" do you refer to? ViperSnake151  Talk  20:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The tribute should be left and get rid of the trivia. Kennvido (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

So the song "Sweet Caroline" by Neil Diamond is now of the same weight as a speech by the President? Are you guys KIDDING me? It's clearly WP:UNDUE and has no business at all in this article. Qworty (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't see how mentioning all these minor tributes is encyclopedic. They aren't really relevant to the core subject matter. This is more stuff for newspapers trying to fill column inches, not a serious encyclopedia trying to document facts. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I saw some footage from those events. It was very nicely done, very touching. But none of these things are of encyclopedic value. This is a combination of feel-good keyboard activism and a failure to understand NOTNEWS. The claim that such tributes are of encyclopedic value shows a misunderstanding of what an encyclopedia is. Good work, Qworty. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

'Social Media' section

This looks like trivia to me. Are there any precedents for including such ephemera in what is supposed to be an encyclopaedia? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

If this were 1996 and all this "social media" stuff were new, then maybe it would be interesting. In 2013, it is a matter of course. It can be removed as trivia. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
This inarguably plays a role in the aftermath of the event. The section should be retained. The only reason I can think of for removing this would be space constraints. Has the article grown so large that some less than essential parts have to be jettisoned or spun off? Bus stop (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
As per OSS, this is 2013. Social media does/will play quite a large role in the immediate aftermath of any event like this—getting information, pictures, video, etc out faster than otherwise. We don't need to mention it every single time. If someone happened to, for example, tweet a picture of the attacker planting the bomb, and that picture lead to the attacker's arrest, that would be notable. Ignatzmice•talk 20:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
(ec) How has it played a specific role here? A photographer uploaded something to Flickr? A Twitter hashtag trended? This stuff happens after every single major event now. If something actually changes as a result of the social media aspect of this event (like a suspect is identified or something), then that would be noteworthy. But as it stands, this section is like saying "TV stations covered the event and people watched the coverage". Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with AndyTheGrump. It's commonplace trivia with no significance relative to the event as a whole. If a social media campaign produced something major, then it could be included. Ryan Vesey 20:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't agree. I was just reading the Social Media section and wanted to open the links to the Youtube landing page as well as the Flickr pages in order to review the material. Unfortunately the links were already gone when I clicked them... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.214.189.80 (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
    • If you are looking for the most up to date info on social media, Wikipedia is a bad source. Try going directly to YouTube or Twitter. I would agree with Andy here, unless there is something extraordinary going on, social media is just a communications medium at this day and age. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The references are important. In removing the section you are removing the 5 good references used in that section. Bus stop (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
You can't use youtube or similar as a citation anyway. They don't pass WP:RS. As a general rule, a website that won't pass WP:RS isn't a good candidate for an external link, with few exceptions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • As I added the subsection the thought occurred to me that is was not that relevant. On the other hand one sees news reports describing how social media is part of the event. One citation: "Authorities have recognized that one the first places people go in events like this is to social media, to see what the crowd is saying about what to do next" [13] It is, however, unclear to me whether social media images and videos constitutes an important part of the material for the investigation. — fnielsen (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I suppose we could put the Flikr link and YouTube links in the External links section instead? — fnielsen (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's a fine idea. Bus stop (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
What purpose is linking Flickr and YouTube? I'm generally against these kinds of links on any article, as there is no "official" page there for the event. Most people know how to find them, so it isn't doing much except reducing an encyclopedia article to the level of a blog. External links in general should be to reliable sites that contain information not found in the article, not to libraries of user generated material. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
We do have a guideline for situations like this. That guideline, incidentally, specifically forbids external links to Twitter. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm usually aware of what policy is on things, but sometimes forget which exact policy covers it (blame it on old age). Appreciate the pointer, which clears up the issue handily, that they should not be included. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I guess it is not that relevant to link to Flikr in this case as many of Tang's photos are already on Wikimedia Commons: [14]. — fnielsen (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Please note edit conflicts: [15]. You are erasing me. — fnielsen (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

That they are licenced properly and uploaded to commons is different, as they are vetted to make sure they are legally licensed and in scope. I know this seems strict, and yes, other articles will do that sometimes, but I will remove it as soon as I see it there. In articles like this, ongoing tragedy, we have to be fairly strict with policy else it will get flooded with bad edits and endless debate. I see it regularly as I often patrol these types of articles when something big happens. That is also why I don't actually edit the article and just clerk the talk page, so it is clear that it isn't my editorial opinion or preference in style, but real policy considerations. Sorry about the edit conflict delete, it is a flaw in the software here, sometimes it just deletes the edit, even if you don't force an EC save. This only happens on talk pages and articles like this, that are getting heavy traffic, from my experience. I've been in EC hell, like us all, but as I'm sure you can guess, it wasn't intentional. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Fine. I experience EC too. — fnielsen (talk) 07:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Victims Section

In the 'Victims' section it mentions metallic bead, "...about 2 to 3 millimeters (0.08 to 0.1 in) in diameter, a little larger than a BB..." A standard BB is .177" (about 4.5 mm), so if the information about the size of the beads is correct, then they are _smaller_ than a standard BB.

99.179.45.241 (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Cited article has doctor quoted as saying "a little larger than a BB", then narrator says "two to three millimeters". Obviously someone needs a [sic] here; the question is, who? Ignatzmice•talk 21:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the poor estimate of 2 to 3 mm as unreliable. Wait until multiple sources converge on a size. Also, keep an eye peeled for the total number of BBs. Abductive (reasoning) 21:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I got tied up elsewhere, but was going to suggest just that, removing the questionable portion only. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Obama video

I think thank today's video in which President Obama announced that the FBI are investigating the events as an act of terrorism might be more useful for the article than the current one (from yesterday), so I uploaded it to Commons at File:President Obama speaks on attacks in Boston (2013-04-16).ogv; please feel free to switch the files. odder (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

If that video is used, it should be in the Investigation section, as opposed to reaction. Whichever is used, perhaps link to the unused one in the caption. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The Obama video should be taken down on the grounds that it gives one political POV undue weight. Either take it down or post one from the GOP. Equal time or no time. Vilano XIV (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Um, no. Not unless we have a dual presidency, which we don't. There's nothing political about it—he's the president, he gave an address after an attack. Bush gave an address after 9/11. Ignatzmice•talk 20:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
It's not a party response, it's an executive response. Ryan Vesey 20:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Alleged Before & After picture showing bag

Boston's WHDH report Photos sent to 7News by a viewer show the scene just before and right after the bombs went off. "In the first picture you can see a bag next to a mailbox and up against a barricade along the marathon route. In the second, there is no sign of the bag."

I'll let others decide when and whether to include this in the article. --HectorMoffet (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Wait until we have someone official confirm that's what it is. Otherwise it's speculation. Highly plausible speculation, but still. Ignatzmice•talk 23:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
"The viewer who took the pictures says there may be an hour or more between when the first and second pictures were taken". Not 'just before'... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking there were WAY more people in the first pic than the second... seems if there were that many when the bomb went off there'd be more dead. Wild guesswork, my opinion only. Ignatzmice•talk 00:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Pure WP:OR, but the shadows have moved significantly too. I think we'd best leave any mention of the images out unless and until they are discussed in other WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Is there an unblurred version of the second picture? If that was the bomb then its effective range was quite limited. The mailbox about 1ft away and the tree about 8ft away appear completely undamaged.GabrielF (talk) 00:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
WP:OR prohibits research done by wiki editors, not by a RS. WHDH in Boston reported and gave their opinion on the photos. CNN has now also reported on the photos: CNN report Is that not enough sources yet? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
We're discussing notability here, not verifiability. Just 'cause it's true that WHDH posted speculation about a photo doesn't mean we need to talk about it. Wait until it's confirmed as being important. Remember, we're an encyclopedia, WP:NOTNEWS. Ignatzmice•talk 00:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Penske rental van

What happened to this "Police are searching for a Penske rental van and for a hooded man who left the area before the explosions" [16] [17] --IP98 (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Rawilson52 happened. I'm tempted to agree with him, unless you can scare up a second source. Ignatzmice•talk 00:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
All the reporting on the suspicious van seems to go back to one article from NBCNews which has not yet been reported elsewhere. The Christian Science Monitor seems to have mixed up some of the details and added "hooded man" to the story. If the part about the rental van is put back in, it should at least be without "Penske" or "hooded man," which are nowhere in the original article. And sorry if my deletion went to far. Kind of new. Rawilson52 (talk) 00:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Nah, you're fine. I tried to find other sources and couldn't. Looks like NBC jumped the gun. Even found one that said Penske called the FBI and never heard back. Cheers. --IP98 (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Photo

Mentioned before, but with the recent change/un-change I wanted to bring it up again. (Last time, I promise. No matter how it ends.) I'd like an answer to this question: Does the fact that the "explosion" picture is non-free outweigh its benefits over the "aftermath" picture? Whatever we decide, we should include a comment saying not to change the picture, or to discuss on the talk page first. Ignatzmice•talk 00:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Avoid Yes, this is the FREE encyclopedia. We should avoid non-free images where ever possible. It's certainly possible to avoid non-free images in this case, so by all means, let's avoid them. Rklawton (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
One of the biggest reasons I brought up the issue yesterday was because I kept looking at the photo (even after I posted on the talk page) and never actually noticed the explosion until you pointed it out to me. The bombing happened yesterday, chances are good that we'll have a free image better than the non-free explosion picture in the future. I'd like to wait to hear the opinions of other editors before deciding on my own, but until we reach consensus, I think we should keep the free image.  TheArguer  SAY HI! 01:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep in mind that yesterday, there was a shortage of Free images available. Now that we have some to choose from, I would say the old consensus is now obsoleted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 4) I think that at this point, we cannot make much of a claim to fair use under our guidelines for non-free content...free equivalents are available. Go Phightins! 01:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

References

Asked and answered. Stalwart111 07:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

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 there a way to consolidate the references or put them into the columns? Sorry, I may be picky but I think the amount of refs, which will likely grow, takes up a significant space of the article. --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • I DX for fun! 00:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Honestly, the references are going to be a mess for the next week no matter what we do. There are so many edits happening at the same time, it is impossible to format properly or you end up in edit conflict hell. Anytime you have an ongoing tragedy like this, this is the norm, and we just have to tolerate it until the edits slow down enough that someone can do this properly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:51, 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.

Edit request on 17 April 2013

And so I'll close this on the basis of Kuyabribri's final comment. Stalwart111 23:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

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 sentence "At the time of the first explosion, the race clock at the finish line was showing 04:09:43, meaning 4 hours, 9 minutes, and 43 seconds since the third wave, or group, of runners started the marathon." is not supported by the reference provided (#14). As far as I can tell, only Wikipedia, several blogs, and Die Welt mention it – presumably because of the statement made in the article. Could this statement be removed as original research]? Thank you. Sonoma's bridge (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It may indeed be WP:OR, but I'm inclined to leave it in. It's the most common-sense explanation for the discrepancy between the clock and all major news media, who are reporting the bombing as occuring around 2:45 or 2:50. Other input welcome. Ignatzmice•talk 00:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The listed source (#14) has an embedded video that shows the explosion at the clock time listed.  Cjmclark (Contact) 01:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I think the question pertains to the time from the start of the third wave, which the BAA lists as 10:40 am. WP:OR is needed to find this. Not sure why the clock wasn't still ticking in time with the beginning of the first or second waves, though. Location (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. Curious. A little OR actually reveals that, per the BAA's web page, "Digital clocks...indicate the unofficial running time from the 10:00 a.m. start only." See here.  Cjmclark (Contact) 01:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
"...positioned at every mile and 5k mark" 26.2 ≠ 26.0, 35km = 24.89mi, 45km = 27.97mi. So maybe that's a special clock for the finish line. Ignatzmice•talk 01:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
It's not beyond the realm of possibility, but it seems awkward to have to count on people in the first and second waves all finishing before third wave finishers so you can give the third wave an accurate finish clock. Pretty much every race I've been in, the non-first wave folks just have to suck it up and either time it themselves or wait for their chip time.  Cjmclark (Contact) 01:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The plot thickens. Ignatzmice•talk 02:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
After a bunch of searching, this is the only source I can find that refers to the waves of runners, or to the clock at all past just noting the time: [18] "Clark was among the third wave of finishers crossing the line at exactly four hours and nine minutes in", describing a runner who was there. But that still doesn't explain how the clock is being changed (is it being skewed slowly? jumping every once in a while for each wave, as the current text implies? flashing the time for each runner, since that seems like the only way it'd be the accurate elapsed time?) I think we need a source that explains the discrepancy to keep the part about waves. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, I found out what edit it was. Abductive says it is a basic misunderstanding in the Edit Summary. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
So that's one of the first OR points, then... I still stand behind that, though my faith in starting to wobble. Interesting that the story says both "exactly four hours and nine minutes" and "4:09 flat", implying in both cases 4:09:00, which is 43 seconds off from the clock. I tried to search at the BAA site, but they don't give any results for "Clark, Demi" or "Fort Mill, North Carolina". Ignatzmice•talk 02:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Search bib# 21724. -Location (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
That would still be considered original research, IIRC. It isn't explicitly stated in the article itself. Sonoma's bridge (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
As a point of order, details can be sourced to a primary source as long as nobody challenges it on talk. I gather that people as challenging it here, so what should the article say? Abductive (reasoning) 03:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
It should say whatever's correct... which is not very obvious at the moment. Maybe it would be better to simply present the clock-time without comment, or not even mention the clock time and go with the reported explosion time. The clock time's in the photo anyway, if people want to try and figure it out themselves. Ignatzmice•talk 03:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
It seems plausible, but it does raise some questions. Can you explain how the clock works then, e.g. does it jump backwards every once in a while for each wave? We might have better luck finding a source if we have more information as well. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I have closed the {{edit semi-protected}} request solely because the article has become unprotected. Subject to consensus and the policies on verifiability and neutral point-of-view, any editor should be able to make the requested edit. If the article becomes protected again, feel free to re-activate the {{edit semi-protected}} tag. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:34, 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.

Carlos Arredondo

Should we mention Carlos Arredondo, who is a notable activist seen assisting victims of the bombing? He is discussed in this NYTimes article and in other sources. [19] GabrielF (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It's mentioned on his article, which is enough. We're not a newspaper; we don't need human-interest stories to sell copies. Ignatzmice•talk 01:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
That is the problem with newspapers. If the story gets covered more than one news cycle, and they think it is more notable than just filling up space for an article for one day, then it would make more sense, but at this time, I would hesitate to add it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Thought I had already commented here, must have been lost in edit conflict. This was reported this evening on NBC Nightly News as well, but I agree that we should hold off to see what the historical perspective on this is prior to adding it. Go Phightins! 01:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Improved map image

Please see: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:2013_Boston_Marathon_bombings_map.png

Thank you, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Nothing there... separately, whatever the timing of the pre-bomb picture, the post-bomb picture shows the second to be at 755 Boylston, a bit up-race of the crosswalk: http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/boston/10010384080855/exclusive-fbi-investigating-photo-that-shows-bag/ Looks close enough to me, but if you wanted to be really compulsive it could be moved five pixels or so. Ignatzmice•talk 03:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Incidentally, I just read this quote from that link: "One after another, you see this individual really fleeing from the scene, which is either for one or two reasons. So either he was badly burned and panicked, and fleeing, or he was fleeing for some other reason,” said the man who took the photos. Well, yep, I think that pretty much exhausts the possibilities for why he was fleeing! Sheesh. Ignatzmice•talk 03:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Its the talkpage click on the file for the image. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

That's odd. Try http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:2013_Boston_Marathon_bombings_map.png Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

That works. What is it you want us to do with that? Ignatzmice•talk 03:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Help with the improved map image and upload newer version of it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry. I'd given an enwp link. I will refactor above in good faith. Sorry if it causes later comments to not make sense. Rv if you like. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry—no graphic design/image editing experience. Anyone else? Ignatzmice•talk 03:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories

Looks like the "truthers" are already out in full force - they're claiming this was a "drill" and/or a front to cover up for Obama signing something or distracting information away from CISPA. Should there be mention made of these theories? Here are some links to discussions.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.253.198 (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

This is all WP:FRINGE stuff. It's really not notable for the article at all; it would give undue weight to a conspiracy that appears to exist in the minds of a very few, and some of these people exist for almost any event so it's fairly routine and expected. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Only one confirmed pressure cooker?

Link from recently added photo says FBI only confirms one bomb was in a pressure cooker (AP, updated 3 hrs ago). Should we update to reflect this? Ignatzmice•talk 04:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)!

Absolutely, though corroborating sourcing would probably help. Our article is incorrect if that's the case. Bunch of things to change, so go for it if it appears valid. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, egg on my face. Looked at several other sources (all nominally derived from the AP) and I don't see anyone else saying this. On the other hand, I don't see why someone would just make that up, so let's keep an eye out. Ignatzmice•talk 04:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Here's one from the Chicago Tribune that's sourced to Reuters instead: [20]. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Narrator says "cookers" plural; DesLauriers quoted as saying "cooker" singular. I guess we should leave it for the moment. Ignatzmice•talk 04:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh. Bottom of article says "at least one, possibly both" built with pressure cookers. Ignatzmice•talk 04:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I missed the "cookers" up top myself. It still seems unclear, and at worst we're describing two pressure cookers instead of one pressure cooker and one unknown device. I guess sticking with what the vast majority of sources say is best, until we see more than vague sourcing on this report. It reads like both AP and Reuters may have come from the same (leaked?) FBI report. Good catch though. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with sticking with what the majority of sources are saying at the moment. I think that if we eventually change the article to reflect this information, there is a great need to emphasize that the FBI simply does not have enough evidence to determine for sure that both are pressure cookers, even though it is rather likely.  TheArguer  SAY HI! 04:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Saudi national

Should we mention this source about the Saudi national in the article? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

From the article, "Investigation" section: The Washington Post reported that the individual was being treated as a witness, not a suspect, by law enforcement.[80] The New York Times also reported that a law enforcement official said that investigators had determined the man had no involvement in the attack.[81] Seems fine to me. Ignatzmice•talk 05:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
No mention of the Saudi national should be made in the article at all. The only reason it got the coverage it did is because our country is racist. If we are going to mention it, and we currently do mention it, we should certainly make it clear that he was a witness and not a suspect. In addition, I fixed the section heading. He's not a "nationalist" he's a Saudi "national". Ryan Vesey 05:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Well said.  TheArguer  SAY HI! 05:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe in a week or so (once people aren't checking here for breaking news, which you know they are, even if we tell them not to) we should just remove all mention. In the meantime, I think we ought to keep it as-is. Ignatzmice•talk 05:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay then. Sorry if I misinterpreted it as a nationalist. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

This section should be reduced now to one sentence if mentioned at all since it came and went in the press - there is no point to wait a week. I agree that:

Injured Saudi is a witness, not a suspect, in Boston bombing

is a good source - Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and WP:UNDUE both apply here. -Classicfilms (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The mention as it was the last time I read it, the one sentence cited reference, is clearly relevant, hardly misleading. Despite Ryan's personal views that the U.S. is intrinsically racist, it's been reported on widely and within full context it's obviously relevant to how the investigation unfolded. Shadowjams (talk) 07:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
What Shadow said.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The fact that the Saudi man was ever reported about, investigated, and detained is a small blip in this whole issue. Its importance is zero. It only got the widespread coverage again because people wanted someone to blame and we love to blame Saudi's. I see no reason to maintain coverage of this nonevent in the Wikipedia article. Ryan Vesey 18:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, I disagree, and I think most others do too. It is relevant to the evolution of the investigation, just as similar false leads are relevant in many others (there are ample examples in most others). Your personal feelings about the U.S. which you made clear above, are not a sufficient ground to leave something like that out. Agreed it shouldn't be a major piece, because it isn't, but the current description of it is perfectly adequate and not undue weight at all. Shadowjams (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I worded my above comment poorly, so you misunderstand my "personal feelings about the U.S.". In any case, I ask you to quit linking the weight of my argument to whatever perception you have of my views of the US. Ryan Vesey 19:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boston_Marathon_bombing/Archive_2&oldid=1147960956"