Jump to content

Talk:Boston Marathon bombing/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 9

Sudden outbreak of common sense

“I just think everybody -- including everybody in the press -- needs to chill out here. Let the investigators do their work. " - Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.)[1] This article is more or less complete now until more solid info emerges. --John Nagle (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

So where's the outbreak of common sense? I sure as hell don't see it. If you disagree, take a look at the shameful "saudi national" and "black man suspect" stories. Ryan Vessey is right; this country is racist and fuhh ktup. Yes, saudi towelheads are usually religious fanatics and it was saudies who did 9/11. And yes, blacks have an average IQ of 80 in the US and 70 in Africa. (There are also smart blacks like me). But that doesn't change the fact that Americans are largely stupid, racist rednecks who jump to wrong, xenophobic conclusions.
No common sense outbreak at all. Dave Bowman - Discovery Won (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Number Injured

Last sentence of the lede states the number injured as 183, but the cited reference only reports 170. There are other sources which do support the figure of 183. See CNN , which is pointed to by other sites as their source for same. My wiki skills don't extend to creating reference citations, so I'll leave that to someone with the expertise. Irish Melkite (talk) 07:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

  • See WP:CITE, or ask some clever person to install whatever that gadget is called. :) For now, these numbers will vary: the article reflects what sources report, and one editor updating one part may not be aware of different numbers elsewhere. For the while we'll have to live with a moderately inconsistent article, perhaps. Drmies (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Victims

And the number of hospitals treating injured is referred to as eight. But then more than eight are listed. In the text.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I corrected the eight to ten - consistent with the list Irish Melkite (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the link to the Alabama blog which followed the name of the Chinese victim, as her name does not appear in that article. Irish Melkite (talk) 08:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

NYPD interview

The deletion of the NYPD interview [2] is unclear. Epicgenius simply says "link". The link goes to YouTube but the publisher there is the ABC News, - if I do not misunderstand the attribution. The link is to a reputable institution. — fnielsen (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The deletion reason is confusing, but I don't think that belongs there either. It's speculation by a 3rd party not connected to the investigation, based solely on examining photographs and video, not analyzing the bomb itself. I think we should wait for a more official explanation of what happened. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 12:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Excessive referencing

"The first exploded outside a Marathon Sports store at 671 Boylston Street, the second about one block farther west of the finish line.[2][5][5][8][9][10][11][12]"

Is there a good reason that this single sentence requires no fewer than seven references and one repeated reference? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of Canadian consulate

This seems to be a point of contention...I personally don't think it should be included. It's not really an "international reaction", just standard coverage of one of many buildings that were evacuated in the area. It also seems WP:UNDUE with the sheer number of other consulates and similar in the area. For example, the Portugese consulate is located practically on top of the explosion site. Spain fired their consul in Boston for not staying open: [3]. The Chinese consulate had to react to the actual death of one of their citizens. Doesn't seem like a "routine" evacuation (as routine as you can get in the wake of a bombing) without anything noteworthy happening makes sense to include. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff)

There are many institutions in the area of the bombing, including the Boston Public Library across the street. Unless there was an action other than closure, this does not seem relevant. --Crunch (talk) 11:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The point of contention is that a vandal took out something reported in the Canadian press and very interesting to Canadians because it was "not interesting" - 3 times. Yet inconsequential details like a broken window on the library and police forces in other cities going "on alert" are included. The info 2001:db8 seems interesting too.Legacypac (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Some other inconsequential details aren't really needed either (broken window at the library does seem excessive, although it has some notability since that's a landmark building right near the explosions; the lack of major damage so close is really what's possibly notable, not that a window was broken.) But WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good reason to include less relevant material. Things shouldn't be included because they are "interesting"; they should be included if they're notable to the event and relevant to the article. See my WP:UNDUE point about not including details where basically anyone could say "this is interesting to *my* country." Can you provide a better rationale for it being notable to the incident? I think the removal was justified, since it appears to have been an orderly evacuation...as hundreds of other buildings (many much closer) experienced as well. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 16:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I suggest Legacypac also take a read Wikipedia:Vandalism, as it's generally considered unhelpful to call edits vandalism when they are not (regardless of whether the edits were 'good' or 'bad'), see for example Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal". Nil Einne (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
This article does not need to describe how "nothing happened". Nothing happened. Abductive (reasoning) 20:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok, sorry for calling the edit vandalism - call it blanking out a section of the article 3 times in a row against 3 other editors efforts to include than restore the section. But hey, 3RR (and common sense) does not apply here. I'm joining the bandwagon now. I just removed all the "nothing happened" uninteresting non-events cited in NYC and Washington based on the prevailing logic. CheersLegacypac (talk) 03:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Faulkner Hospital name

Faulkner Hospital is never referred to as Brigham and Women's Faulkner Hospital. It's true that Brigham and Women's owns it now but I believe its name in this article should match its name in its Wikipedia article. --Crunch (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Should the Chinese victim's name NOT be disclosed?

Unresolved
 – We shouldn't add the name before 17:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC) without further discussion here, per consensus to wait and see if it is published widely, per WP:BLP. Discussion is still open. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Her parents requested media not to disclose her name, although there are some news agencies already disclosed her name, should we respect her parents' request at least for several days? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyferz (talk • contribs) 12:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No. WP:BLPNAME does state "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it". But I read "intentionally concealed" as relating to legal or security matters, rather than things like family members' personal wishes, and the name has been widely disseminated. We're an encyclopedia, so we should report the reliable information on her name. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 12:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
WP:BLPNAME cannot provide an exhaustive list of when it is appropriate to omit names. This is surely a case for editorial discretion. We should respect the wishes of the family. The encyclopaedia would be lacking if it did not include the number of fatalities; it does not need to include their names. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Not at all. The names of the victims are important pieces of information and make a big difference to the article. --Crunch (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
What difference do they make? 80.174.78.102 (talk) 13:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • No. The desire of Wikipedia editors to satisfy the readers' need for fodder for mental masturbation is far, far more important than honoring the dead by honoring the wishes of their family.
  • Agree, yes. It doesn't help the article any to have it in. Anyone who would know her personally has already found out. This is just "prurient interest" again. Ignatzmice•talk 13:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd say yes, and screw the rules if they say otherwise. There's nothing critical about her name being in the article, no understanding of the event is lost by withholding it, and I think the family's wishes should be taken into consideration. It doesn't have to be forever, anyway. There's a time and place for reporting the truth without regard to people's wishes, particularly if they wish it because they've done something wrong, but this ain't it, and she hasn't. I don't see an overriding reason to cause real people real grief and stress for this. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Okay, I went ahead and did it. Feel free to yell at me if that was wrong. I left the reference in there (the title is "somethingorother releases Chinese national's name"), so if anyone really wants to know they can click through. Ignatzmice•talk 13:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • If the sources are widely reporting it, then we should. If they aren't, then we probably shouldn't. While the names of the victims are important, WP:BLP says we don't turn a blind eye to other considerations. In a case like this, it is better to wait a few days, then if desired, start a discussion at WP:BLPN or another public forum to allow input from the community on how to handle it. Not having that one person's name isn't going to undermine the credibility of the article in the interim. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The victim's name should not be disclosed. Although no longer living, BLP still applies per WP:BDP. Including it does not help the article. Bahooka (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • An IP editor added an interesting compromise: the "American" first name of the deceased, as evidenced by her Facebook page. (Incidentally, Facebook would be a reliable source for something like this, assuming we're sure it really was her page.) I'm more inclined to let this stay in the article, though it's still really a tossup for me; what do y'all think? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    I wouldn't let something stay in the article referenced solely to a facebook page. --regentspark (comment) 14:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    Yeah, I guess that's true. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    I'd keep it out. Her name is her name, no matter which one. It doesn't add anything to the article. If she were the Chinese ambassador, e.g., we'd be remiss not to mention that, no matter the family's wishes. But she's just a student. We'll put the Chinese name in later. Ignatzmice•talk 14:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    Agreed. I can't see any way in which the inclusion of her name would be useful to the typical reader. The article references Goolge Person Finder, which is an appropriate resource for anyone concerned about friends or family in the area. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • How about this as a compromise--we state (with reference) that the family requested that the media not disseminate her name? ("A Chinese national, whose family requested the press leave her anonymous...") rdfox 76 (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Either list all of the victims by name, or none of them. Family request means nothing. What if the family asked that the entire fact that she was killed not be reported? --Crunch (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not censored or dictated by wishes or niceties. We publish information from reliable sources. WWGB (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    Of course. This should not even be a point of debate. --Crunch (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Absolutely. Why in the world should we pass up a golden opportunity to victimize the victim's family again? Kudos to you for recognizing that what's important is you and me, and not the victims or their families. Well done.
    • Okay, I'm backing out now. As you say, consensus has faded for now. Won't remove it again. Ignatzmice•talk 14:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • We choose which information from which RS to publish: we edit. If there is no reason to include a particular fact, or if there is a good reason not to include it, then we don't include it. You need to make a case stating how it is helpful to publish this girl's name, against the wishes of her family. Nobody is saying that we can't publish it, but you need to say why we should publish it. In what way is it helpful to the typical reader? 80.174.78.102 (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia isn't censored, but making an editorial decision that respects real human beings and agrees with our BLP policy isn't censorship. Suggesting that this is censorship (or that media outlets are failing in their duty because they "have gone along with [the parents'] wishes")is just as false as suggesting that those who seem dead-set on getting the name in have ulterior motives. And really, "This should not even be a point of debate" is complete nonsense: of course this should be a point of debate. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • (ec)There is no consensus to retain or delete the name. Going to WP:BLPN may be the best move (BLP applies to recently deceased persons per WP:BDP.) WP:NOTCENSORED does not trump WP:BLP. Bahooka (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Edits such as this are, at this point, disruptive. There is no consensus here right now, and BLP tells us to err on the side of caution. Perhaps BLPN is the best place to go, rather than an RfC on this busy talk page. Bahooka, maybe you can get it started? And, again, I resent the invocation of CENSORED: editorial decisions do not equal censorship. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    Also, WP:BURDEN states that the burden of proof lies on the adder or restorer of the material, not the remover of the material. I know that that policy isn't directly applicable here (since the verifiability of the name is not in dispute), but given the BLP issues, I think the same principle applies. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Notwithstanding that I'm involved, I'd say there is consensus in favour of keeping it out of the article. There are only two editors arguing in favour of including it, and imo they have produced no persuasive arguments for inclusion. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The name is well sourced public info. Is the request to remove the name sourced? I say leave the name in for completeness. People want to put a name and a face to tragedy. It helps them cope.Legacypac (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • So you think we should ignoreWP:BDP, a policy which brings in WP:AVOIDVICTIM. "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.250.22.11 (talk • contribs)
  • Wait, Legacypac. Your sympathy goes as far as to include the Wikipedia reader, who needs help to be able to cope with the tragedy, but excludes the verified and explicit wishes of the victim's family? "Inconsistent" doesn't even begin to describe that strange attitude. "A name and a face"--you want pictures too? From before or after? Drmies (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Consensus is assessed on the strength of the arguments. That her name should be included because it helps readers cope with bombing is about the daftest argument imaginable. You don't seem too concerned with helping her parents cope with the loss of their daughter. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The issue here is the question of whether or not the name is critical to the article. In this case, inclusion of the name of a non-notable person adds virtually nothing. Per WP:BLPNAME, and per general good editorial practices, we should allow BLP/privacy concerns to trump the virtually nonexistent "benefit" added by including the name. Ryan Vesey 15:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) "At the family’s wishes, officials from the Chinese Consulate and Boston University, where the victim was a graduate student, have not identified her." WP:BLPNAME applies here. It's not taking away from the article to leave the name out until it's been widely distributed, and the name is private. No need to include it as far as I can tell, and WP:CENSORED does not apply to violations of BLP. --RAN1 (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) While it's true that Wikipedia is uncensored and absolutely not bound by the wishes of any victim's family, we might ask ourselves: does mentioning this victim's name help the reader understand the topic of the article in any way whatsoever? If it does, then we should mention it because (1) that's the reason the article exists—to help our readers understand the topic—and (2) we're revealing nothing that hasn't already been revealed by a plethora of media and therefore are not serving as the origin of the family's distress. If it doesn't help our readers understand the topic, then there's no reason to pile on to what innumerable other media are doing; we can take the high road and make a deliberate choice to be humane. My two cents: the victims' names are irrelevant to understanding the topic at this stage; while they eventually should be included for the sake of completeness, there's no rush. Rivertorch (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, but that's reading like WP:NOCOMMON. Could you please link a policy? --RAN1 (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    The paragraph of the essay you linked suggests basing one's position (in part) on "the interests of the encyclopedia", and that was central to what I said. Did you miss that bit or was I unclear? Rivertorch (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    Nope, I took another look at NOCOMMON, and I understand the gist of your argument. I agreed with the position, just didn't know what to make of the argument behind it, but after taking a closer look at it and NOCOMMON, I'm cleared up on that now. Sorry about the confusion. --RAN1 (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The victim's ID has been well established and can be cited by numerous reliable sources. Isn't it about time we included them?
  • Agree. It is a little awkward that many other people are named, and she isn't—but as the IP keeps pointing out (thank you IP), WP:AVOIDVICTIM trumps. People who want the latest gossip can go find it elsewhere. There is no significant disruption to the article because her name isn't in it. Ignatzmice•talk 16:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Nonsense. The names of the victims "adds nothing"?? Names of victims just so happen to add, uh, the names of victims. Her name has been published across the country by countless reliable sources, so I hardly think citing it here at WP is going to 'victimize' anyone. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see this going anywhere anytime soon, but I feel it's a good idea to simply drop the topic for a reasonable length of time (e.g. 2-4 hours), come back to this, and if there's no dispute over whether or not to add the victim's name, re-add it and close the discussion. Until then, we leave the victim's name off the page. Otherwise, this is only going to drag out while new information comes in. --RAN1 (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, change your "2-4 hours" to a "1-2 days" and I'm on board with that (but y'all know my views already :) ). The name will be put in the article eventually, but with that whole WP:NOTNEWS thing, there's no rush. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Went for hours since this will be archived in a day. I'm willing to go for 24 hours if everyone's fine with that. --RAN1 (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I think that is best. We are not in a rush to build the article, believe it or not, and BLP and other considerations trump timeliness. Again, we are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
24 hours sounds okay to me. The correct name, whatever it is, will have gone far and wide by then. (edit conflict) Also, what Dennis said. (THANK YOU DENNIS for being an oasis of calm here. It really helps.) Ignatzmice•talk 17:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
That sounds very reasonable. There's certainly encyclopedic value to having the names of the victims, but not so much that we lose anything by waiting a day or two. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 17:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Concur. Several news outlets have already named the Chinese graduate student, but OK we can certainly wait another 24 hours. Quis separabit? 17:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Disclosing Victim's ID

At this late date all the victims have been identified and can be easily cited by numerous reliable sources. Any source that claims otherwise is lagging behind with their updates. Btw, the strawman references to WP:BLP are inappropriate. The article in question is not a biography, it's a news event, and now a contemporary history article, albeit in the making, on WP, so we need to move forward and bring the article up to speed and stop fighting amongst ourselves and make the WP article and the many thousands of readers who come here for information our first priority. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Very good. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Now not only is the vic's name gone, but the original info that she was a grad student at Boston U and all sources have been removed. The source I read says her own father released her name. How can the family say they don't want her named (and I've not seen that sourced) when the family released her name? Legacypac (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
See section above that discusses this, and it appears that a consensus is to wait and not add the name. Discussion is still open, but it should be left out during the discussion. No need to keep starting new threads. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC) (moved by me)
Discussion is all over the map, and WP is now lagging behind in the world of information. At this point any individual editors making deletions needs to cite WP policy violations before taking it upon themselves to delete well sourced and good faith content or we will have to bring the culprits to a notice board. Time for a new consensus. See below:-- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is supposed to lag behind when it comes to news. Ryan Vesey 18:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
It says here that "The third person who died was a Chinese citizen whose identity was not being made public at the request of the victim's family". Ryan Vesey 18:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
At first her family did not want to say her name but then they change there mind and now they say it is ok, they told the chinese news, and now it is ok to say her name with no prblms, the family will not be mad at u

Please stop deleting my comments!! Once again, I undid your 'hat' as we need to establish consensus, which is done by legitimate polling, allowed by WP policy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

  • The following was reported by Washington Post "More than 19,000 people in China left messages or digital candles on Sina Weibo, the Chinese equivalent of Twitter, in Lu’s memory." Needless to say at least 19,000 in China know her name and have left condolences. I am going to take the initiative and post her name. If you feel this is wrong feel free to undo my edit but I think news of her name is inevitable. Gorba (talk) 18:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it is ok to include now. It has been decide.
I have never removed any additions made by any one on this site. On my side I've lost count the number of times my edits have been removed based on personal opinions of others. If Wikipedia wants to bring in more contributors they really need to resolve this problem. This wild west styled dictatorship of what appears and doesn't based on the opinions of a few people really needs to stop, and most especially if the information posted has been confirmed (in the case of Lingzi Lu she was confirmed by Boston University and numerous other sources). With all that said I am officially resigning myself from Wikipedia. I'm sick of this. Gorba (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


Arbitrary deadlines have no place here... we should base the decision on the widespread coverage. It's in every major paper, including the Globe and the New York Times, CNN, etc. Shadowjams (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus for a 24-hour moratorium - Editors have continually been trying to cite full and clear, victimless information that simply reports what very reliable sources have published and have been blocked at every turn by reverters. Seeing how so many reliable sources are now reporting on all the deceaseds' names, can we drop the bizarre moratorium on editing, now? -- Veggies (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

So are you guys going to the Chinese student's name or not? Because everyone knows her name now, and it's weird that you have named the other two victims. Either have all the victims named, or don't.

I don't even know why this is even a debate. Lü Lingzi's name has been disclosed in the news already, big time, and Wikipedia is NOT in the business of being an uptight suppressor of information, and a censor, because of emotional or over-sensitive issues. Leaving the name out would leave the article incomplete. The other two names have been revealed, on this article, and so should Lingzi's IF it's been copiously revealed on the TV news, and print news...which it kinda has. That's just my take. Gabby Merger (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
You're right. It's a disgrace what's been happening—and endorsed by admins, as well. -- Veggies (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Second that. I expected the article to be mobbed with people trying to suppress stuff for no obvious reason, but this is ridiculous. Troll IPs posting long diatribes in all caps lock deserve more indulgence than anybody trying to claim that the victim of an international-level top news terror murder should be kept secret based on some kind of unique Wikipedia ethics against covering a story. Wnt (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Somewhere way up higher in this wall of text, Dennis Brown said he asked me to weigh in with my opinion. I have not read the wall of text, although in skimming it, I got a sense of the arguments in favor of and against disclosing the woman's name in the article (it is disclosed at the moment). I'm not going to argue the policy issues (even though Drmies thinks I'm a policy wonk). Others have done that, and it's an interminable road to nowhere because many editors, in my view, are going to interpret them in a result-oriented manner. So, I'm going to rely on common sense (horrors), or at least my common sense. Not only do I believe the woman's name should not be disclosed, I don't think any of the victims' names should be disclosed. Thus, I would list the victims (assuming we have to do lists) as follows:
    • a 29-year-old female restaurant manager from Medford, Massachusetts;
    • a 23-year-old Boston University graduate student from Shenyang; and
    • an 8-year-old male child from Dorchester.
  • My reasoning - and I believe one or more editors already argued similarly - is that the actual names of the victims are of zero importance to anyone except maybe people who know them. We are not covering a story. We are not a newspaper. We are not "lagging behind" just because we don't include non-notable victim names. We are an encyclopedia, although many editors here seem to forget that.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
That's an interesting argument, but it's more of a philosophical point rather than one that belongs here on the talk page of a crime article. If we focus on the guidelines as they are, we see evidence of exemplary articles that have victims names included. -- Veggies (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Notability is the threshold for articles, not every single fact that goes into articles. Even so, there's not a shadow of a doubt that these people pass GNG by this point, though as standalone articles they'd run afoul of BLP1E - which would only affect how the article was presented.
The use of having the names is so people can look up what happened! There is a whole community of people right poring over every picture now trying to track down who the hell the bomber was. Are we an encyclopedia or the Office of the Imperial Censor? Wnt (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Extensive biographical info and reports of memorials in China [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 17:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

BLP does not apply, she is dead. It is disappointing. --209.188.52.203 (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

  • This is a response to all the comments since my last edit. My statement was not a "philosophical point". Reduced to its essentials, I'm saying that the names of the victims are not noteworthy, and to answer another editor's comment, I said nothing about notability except that the victims are not notable. Everything that we include in an article should be relevant and noteworthy. Absent such a rule, you could put anything in any article as long as it's reliably sourced and doesn't contravene some policy. That would be absurd. As for the link to the other article where there is a list of victims, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If you like, I can remove them, but at this juncture I'm not removing anything, just offering my views. Let's take a more typical crime where one person is murdered. It would be logical to have information about the victim, but it wouldn't just include the victim's name. It would provide information about the victim to give it context and meaning. A mere list of names without more is pointless. Finally, BLP controls information about living persons and people who have recently died.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Very common to list victims names on Wikipedia. The first 2 I checked: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Pickton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_Olson 100% include all known victim's names. It is a BIG part of the story.Legacypac (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
At the risk of repeating myself, I don't care if 300 articles do it. Your saying it's a big part of the story doesn't make it so. Why?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Obviously you should have more than just the names - a reader should know if the victims were runners, and have some sense of what they did etc. (For example, if a person reads that a Chinese citizen was killed in the bombing, obviously one of the first things that is likely to cross his mind is whether they were targeted in a hate crime or if they were a diplomat targeted by hostile interests, etc. By putting down a few sentences about who they were, you can start to shape the overall pattern of a person's expectations so that their further research will be most productive)

Pope Francis

What do people keep removing well-sourced information about the Pope's reaction? I think it deserves to be in here. Bearian (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There have been several discussions on this general topic, with the consensus being we don't need reactions from international leaders. Yes, they're all sending out boilerplate condolences. That doesn't make them notable. Thanks though! Ignatzmice•talk 14:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
But if a leader is HAPPY this happened, it should be noted. Kennvido (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
No. As discussed above, haters will hate when anything like this happens (and while hating is bad, I can definitely see where they're coming from). That's not notable either. Ignatzmice•talk 14:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Correct. We aren't here to publish every platitude and pitchfork jab. Both kinds of reactions are expected from these sources, so they aren't notable, they are trivial in the larger scope of things. Of course the Pope is saddened and radicalized Muslims are happy. This isn't a notable thing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
If it's in the sources, it's notable. You might want to loop it out as a reactions article if there are a lot of them, but I will say that it is not obvious to me what radicalized Muslims would say about this, and while I'm not a fan of theirs I think it comes perilously close to authentic religious bias to say otherwise. There is every possibility that Taliban leaders could say right now that this was a terrible event and should remind Americans of how wicked we are for attacking with drones, etc. They don't have to take malignant glee in it. Wnt (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
"If it's in the sources, it's notable": nonsense. It's notable if it's notable. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Agree. Westboro Baptist is planning a protest, it is in the sources, is it notable? Of course not, they always do this. This makes it trivial. Saying that the Pope would offer his grief and radicalized Muslims would take glee isn't religious bias in the least. If the leaders of the Taliban came out and said "This is a terrible event", well that might be notable, because it is against the grain for them, and it would show a change of their politics and a willingness to stand in solidarity. Or if the Pope said "Good, bomb them", the same would hold true, that would be an unexpected turn of events and at least arguable as a notable response. If you expected the reaction, it isn't notable. Otherwise, we would have 100k of responses from every nation, group, leader, dog catcher, etc. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Lead section

I'm thinking about expanding the lead section to at least three-four paragraphs. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

  • To avoid controversy, I suggest writing your ideas here first, and get input from others. That way we don't have a revert fest. You know how people are about ledes, we can all get picky about them, and there may have already been discussion in the ever growing archive about one or two of the points you want to add. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Very well. Here goes nothing...:

The Boston Marathon bombings was a terrorist bomb attack on the Boston Marathon in downtown Boston on Patriots' Day, April 15, 2013. The blast claimed 3 lives and injured 176 people. The pressure cooker bombs detonated 12 seconds apart. There were initial reports of other bombs and a related fire, but these have not been confirmed to have existed or been related.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, which is investigating the attack along with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Counterterrorism Center, launched an investigation with the FBI treating the bombings as a terrorist attack. As with other large-scale terrorist attacks, conspiracy theories dispute the official claims and allege the involvement of additional perpetrators. As of April 17, no suspects have been named, and there have been no arrests or claims of responsibility for the attack.

I will expand on it as I go. Thoughts or objections? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
You don't need the "The Boston Marathon bombings was" part; see MOS:BOLDTITLE and WP:SBE. I also don't think it being Patriots' Day is notable for the lead, unless there's confirmation that it was specifically connected to the holiday; the phrasing suggests a link. Clarifying the list of investigating agencies seems helpful (it's a little awkward to read as it is, though.) I don't think the lead needs to mention that conspiracy theorists dispute things, since that's a given with any major incident (as your text notes), nor to mention the initial conflicting reports... – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 18:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, with all of the recent reports, what would be a good lead section? Any ideas? Also before I get blamed for doing anything wrong, I just want to let everyone know that I have an exceptionally low tolerance for uncalled for disrespect or edit warring over trivial matters or controversial subjects. That's one of the reasons why I post on talk pages such as this. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd suggest that the final sentence of the suggested lead paragraph would be more accurate as "There were initial reports of other bombs and speculation that a fire at the JFK Library was possibly related; however, authorities subsequently denied the existence of any additional bombs and have stated that the fire was unrelated'. Irish Melkite (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
That's a bad idea. It might be relevant in the body, but certainly not in the lead. Active, fluid stories like this always have unconfirmed reports and speculation in the first 24 hours. While it makes sense to cover it in the body, we usually ignore it in the lead as the story settles down. Otherwise, what happens is that you lay the foundation for conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated allegations. Viriditas (talk) 10:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
As regards the second proposed paragraph, it ignores any mention of the BPD, which is the principal local law enforcement agency involved in the investigation.Irish Melkite (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Tabloid sources

Please don't add anything sourced to a tabloid here. We are not a tabloid ourselves, and do not, per WP:IRS and WP:BLPSOURCES, use such as sources. Don't even think about sourcing anything solely to a tabloid. If it's worth including, there will be better sources. --John (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Suspect

Regarding John King, CNN, "a lead on a suspect", etc., etc., and to reiterate what Joe keeps saying: We don't need to "scoop" anyone or report "breaking" news. If it turns out they have apprehended someone, we should still wait until they actually charge them before putting ANYTHING in the article. Remember the "Saudi national incident". Okay? Ignatzmice•talk 17:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Now CNN is saying there has been an arrest.[2] based on video evidence. Will see where this goes.Legacypac (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, we can report that there is an arrest when and if that happens, preferably when the BPD or FBI announces it; putting just that in the article would be fine (but certainly not until there are multiple sources accurately reporting it.) But yes, we really ought to wait until someone's charged before adding more than the most basic details. And certainly not things like speculation on activity at the courthouse, or vague "we think they have someone in custody" junk. Wait for official confirmation. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 18:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • ...and now Kennvido has added that, um, well, maybe not after all. Okay. I'm going to take a short break now, but I strongly urge that ANYTHING about arrests be removed completely from the article until more is certain. Ignatzmice•talk 18:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
      • They're all retracting them now as fast as they can. There is no confirmation of any arrest of any suspect from any official government agency. We do not need to try and break the news - that is not what Wikipedia is for. We can afford to wait for something more than anonymously-sourced, quickly-walked-back media reports. polarscribe (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Shouldn't it be noteworthy that for two or three hours CNN from noon to afternoon local time reported repeatedly (and now explained to be falsely) that not only a suspect identified from video footage had been arrested, but that the person, quoted repeatedly as "a brown-skinned man", had even been transferred to a court of law by federal police already (the "federal police" bit was re-visited briefly while discussing whether the suspect was a foreigner or US citizen)? That they continued to say they had several unofficial confirmations of that arrest from several different sources within the law enforcement community and were only waiting for the official confirmation? --37.81.4.51 (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
          • It might be noteworthy at some point as part of a broader look at media coverage of the event, but that will require context which can only be developed through time. I'm sure that by tomorrow there will be many published media criticism sources analyzing this apparent reporting mistake. That will be the time to include it. polarscribe (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Info went in, well sourced, but was immediately removed by one of the people who gets a power trip from destroying other editors work. Legacypac (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/04/18/boston_marathon_explosions_third_victim_attended_elite_high_school_in_gritty_chinese_city.html
  2. ^ http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/17/us/boston-blasts/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

FBI/Boston Police press conference

News has just broken on CNN that the long-awaited FBI/Boston Police press conference has been not only canceled for today, but it's been officially said that nobody knows when and if there will be any press conference at all. The interesting thing is that this was not just a quickly-drawn up conference for the bombings, but really the traditional daily 1pm BPD press conference (today's only difference to this tradition announced was that the FBI was said to also be present at today's conference, which today was first pushed to 2pm, then 5pm, then 7pm, then 8pm, then totally canceled until further notice) which in the CNN report seemed like it's been a daily tradition for years.

So it could be notable that the bombings have disrupted as of now this years-old unbroken Boston Police tradition of communicating with the press and public, and someone high-up in the BPD was quoted that he has no idea when and if at all it's ever gonna commence. Like, he doesn't know at this point if the BPD will give another press conference ever again. --37.81.4.51 (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

What is the relevance to this article? Are you suggesting some edit? --Crunch (talk) 00:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
It was the bombings that pointed BPD to have the FBI at their daily press conference (or the FBI invited itself as the leading authority in the case or however that went) and a recurring big official announcement to that was made, then suddenly there's 4 different push-backs over the course of just a few hours, then not only that particular press conference is canceled for that day, but a high-up in the BPD says clearly he has no idea if the BPD will ever hold another press conference again throughout its existence until kingdom come, after there's obviously been a daily press conference for years (decades?), without ever skipping a single day. All in one day, and all in connection with the bombings.
I don't know about you, but I guess that could be notable enough to warrant an entry relating to that newsbit in the Investigations, Reactions, or a Consequences section, if a written article for that information can be found on the CNN website, or the video of their conference reporter making that report. Somewhere along the lines of:

On Wednesday, April 17 the Boston Police Department made an announcement that it would reveal information on 'substantial progress' on the investigations during their daily 1pm press conference and that they would do so in attendance/in co-operation with the FBI, but over the course of the day, the conference was pushed back a number of times until it was not only fully cancelled at around 8pm local time, but BPD official XYZ was even quoted by CNN as that he had no idea when and if the Boston Police Department would ever hold a press conference again, on the bombing case or any other issue.

37.81.4.51 (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Things get cancelled all the time, for all sorts of reasons. It would absolutely be original research for us to speculate as to why this one was cancelled and what the BPD might do long-term. I can't see that anyone has actually said there wouldn't be another, ever, just that today's didn't happen and the person wasn't sure when another would be scheduled. I have breakfast most days but I happen not to have had breakfast today. I don't know exactly what time I'll be having breakfast tomorrow, if at all. But that doesn't mean breakfast is cancelled forever. Yeah? Stalwart111 01:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I think the analogy to the quote would be rather closer to, "I canceled breakfast for today (today's conference), most likely I'm not gonna have breakfast anymore in the future (any FBI/BPD press conference on the case at all), and in fact, I don't even know when or if I'll ever eat lunch or dinner again (any future BPD press conference on whatever issue)." That's not a speculation on our part, it's what I understood the quote on CNN to be saying. --37.81.4.51 (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Point taken--but here's the thing: we'll report this fact if, in the future, it turns out that the FBI/BPD press conferenciers never had breakfast again. Besides, we're not the news: not every detail that's appropriate for a news medium to report is fitting for an encyclopedic article. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict): Well, in that case, a post or thread like this on the talkpage could at least work like a post-it reminder to remind people later when any of us may no longer be around or interested. --37.81.4.51 (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
And I'm still unclear as to where the "most likely never again" bit comes from. Didn't he just say he didn't know when? There's a big jump from "I don't know when" to "never again". Stalwart111 01:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Did you see the report from the conference reporter? He gave a little of how he was pushing the official back and forth, if indirectly in reported speech, and how the "don't knows" only came after repeated questions on why the cancelation and when another press conference could be expected to be held, "I don't know anymore if there's gonna be a conference on our progresses in this case later, I don't know if any conference by the BPD ever again, but definitely not at this hotel", something like that, only turned to 3rd person. --37.81.4.51 (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I get where you're coming from. But I still agree with Drmies that it's way to early to report on anything like that until we have something more concrete. It would be significant if the BPD decided to never have another press conference ever again, obviously. But an unclear comment from an unknown representative wouldn't be anywhere near enough to to verify such a claim yet. But, yeah, including it here for posterity and future reference is perfectly fine! Stalwart111 02:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Read what you wrote and think about the context. To my ear, it translates as a frustrated Public Affairs officer saying 'I said it once, I said it twice, give it up, I don't know' in response to multiple rephrased versions of the same question by the reporter who 'was pushing the official back and forth'.Irish Melkite (talk) 10:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Too many photos

Per WP:NOTREPOSITORY do we really need all the photos in the article? Can some that are good but not the best maybe be removed? We can create a photo gallery on the page if you guys want. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not too sure WP:NOTREPOSITORY applies in this case. There are a lot of photos in the article, but I think they enhance the article, not hurt it. That's just my opinion though.  TheArguer  SAY HI! 06:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
A gallery sounds fine near the end of the article (if it comes to that). Many Wikipedia articles have many photos and/or a gallery. To qualify as a "repository" it would seem we would need many dozens of redundant photos. Unless absolutely necessary, there shouldn't be any more than one photo per section, and if we include a gallery I would limit it to ten photos, possibly in a collapsible box. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Remember that you can also include a "Commons has more images related to..." box as well. I'd caution against the gallery approach if it is just showing more of the havoc around the scene. --MASEM (t) 15:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Masem, I couldn't agree more. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
At present it is a mess, but if we put them all -> right it would be terrible. How about a drop-down show/hide bar for the 4x aftermath shots?
It would not only help layout, but also address any issues of squeamish ppl/children accidentally seeing potentially upsetting images. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Its not an issue of potentially offensive images. (NOTCENSORED, and with a bombing, one would expect to see pictures of destruction and injury, so there's no application of "principle of least surprise" to use here). It's just, basically, too many images from a computer software standpoint as well as formatting and layout. The infobox one is good, as well as a couple of others, including showing like the recovered pressure cap. But with so many, they're overwhelming the text on the page. As all of these are free images they should all be at Commons and we can provide a link to direct people if they want to see more. Hiding/collapsing galleries is strongly discouraged. --MASEM (t)

Pakistani Taliban denies involvement

Would this be good to put in the article? (CNN Source) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why. Unless there was a serious reason to believe they were involved, this is just a statement about a non-fact. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, it seems the media have dug up some "terrorist experts" mostly from the Bush administration who are pointing towards Al-Quaeda already, so a denial by an Islamist (terror) group formerly allied with them could be notable in response to that. --37.81.4.51 (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
At the risk of redundancy, we're an encyclopedia. Somebody says something, and it's wrong, and someone else says it wasn't them. In other words, nothing happened but some airtime got filled. And it doesn't matter that reliable sources reported this--not everything that can be reliably sourced is of encyclopedic relevance. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
That was in there for a while (along with a statement by the Iranian gov't re: US hypocrisy re: drone strikes and another statement, I forget who by), but it got taken out as not notable. Maybe I can find a diff. I didn't contest it at the time, as I don't really know if they're notable. Ignatzmice•talk 02:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Diff I was talking about here, but the Pakistani reference seems to have been gone a long time already... Ignatzmice•talk 02:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I removed it [4] with the following reasoning: "A denial of involvement from a non-accused group doesn't seem a notable response; further, there are multiple loosely affiliated Taliban/al-Qaeda groups, and another *could* be responsible (so don't imply that's false with the denial))". In other words, it might be notable if an RS said "Islamic terrorist groups don't seem to be linked to this", but not just one of the many groups saying that themselves. (And I think we're far away from addressing speculation on motives yet.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. Ignatzmice•talk 02:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Of course claims of responsibility or nonresponsibility from suspect groups are relevant. It's more a question of not going overboard and giving each denial undue weight, or being misleading (there are many groups with different leadership). That CNN article is barely a paragraph. A small piece that mentioned a number of terrorist groups denied responsibility would be perfectly reasonable, in fact necessary. What we don't need is a large paragraph listing each group in detail. I think this approach echoes what most people are saying. But a blanket exclusion is equally wrong as a long drawn out list. Shadowjams (talk) 03:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Well the Pakistani Taliban is listed as terrorist group by the USA and not country so I was not sure here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


I strongly suspect that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are terrorist cell organisations, somewhat like the IRA. One section may deny involvement, but a different cell or group may have done it without the other knowing. However if these groups had been involved it is highly likely that they would have claimed responsibility by now.Martin451 (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
A lot of people have that initial assumption, but it hasn't been the case in the past. Bin Laden initially denied involvement in the 9/11 attacks (" Al Jazeera broadcast a statement by bin Laden on September 16, 2001, stating, "I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation."[95] In November 2001, U.S. forces recovered a videotape from a destroyed house in Jalalabad, Afghanistan. In the tape, bin Laden is seen talking to Khaled al-Harbi and admits foreknowledge of the attacks.[96]"). Similarly in the underwear bomber and the Fort Hood attack. See this article for more background. Shadowjams (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Trash cans

What is the best/latest information regarding the placement (or not) of the devices in trash cans? Abductive (reasoning) 03:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Haven't been actually following the news sites (just running maintenance on the article/talk page), but the impression I got was that the trash-can theory was just something spouted by the talking heads (or, as Drmies put it, the glue sticks). Certainly a possibility, but I don't believe anyone official is saying that's what happened. Ignatzmice•talk 04:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I read earlier today that the bombs were just on the ground. I suspect trashcan placement was speculation.Legacypac (talk) 04:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
There's a lot of speculation, including on the person who dropped a bag somewhere (not in a trash can, I suppose) while he was on the phone. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Trashcan was in the first day reports, including the New York Times (I added the line at one point and that was my source). I haven't seen that mentioned much since; not to say it's incorrect, just unclear. Probably best to be ambiguous about it until it's certain. Also, in some of the pictures there's not an obvious trashcan in the area, so that tempers agaist it too. Shadowjams (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Family Guy controversy

Raised in good faith but I can't see any support for inclusion. Stalwart111 00:53, 19 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.

Should the Family Guy controversy be kept in the article?

I only added the above content believing it was notable enough for the article. I hardly agree that a controversy that's been widely reported by countless reliable sources qualifies as being completely trivial. For example, another article (regarding an event of similar scope) lists dozens of unverified content similar to this. Are they not pieces of trivia? If the content was removed for being too soon or specific on such a recent event, then I'd justify its removal, but the "trivia" argument just doesn't seem that concrete. Clarify me if I'm misunderstanding though. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 06:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

What Family Guy controversy? Ryan Vesey 06:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
It is total trivia. This article is about the bombing, not some facile hoax. Nothing more needs to be said. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Family Guy mash-up parallels Boston Marathon bombings Network removes episode after edited version appears online. Terraflorin (talk) 06:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Ryan Vesey, Terraflorin has pretty much provided the gist of what the controversy is about.
AndyTheGrump, hoax or not, it is information that's been widely reported by reputable news sources in relation to the bombing. That's why it was added to the "Reactions" section, it's not as though the subject of the bombing was abandoned and the whole article was suddenly refocused to that particular controversy. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 06:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
What part of 'this article is about the bombings' is so hard to understand? Any 'reactions' regarding this are to the hoax, not the bombings... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
It's an utter triviality, and certainly not the equivalent of the President's two speeches, with which it was sharing a section before it was quite correctly removed. Qworty (talk) 06:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep it out, had Family Guy actually made fun of it and caused outrage, it might be worth including. This is just a poor-taste internet hoax. Ryan Vesey 06:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
All right, it appears that there's a leaning consensus towards its exclusion (unless someone else wants to counter-argue). If that's the shared agreement, then I'll support it too. Please note, that I just wanted to make sure the content was not hastily removed without some thorough discussion. Thanks to the editors who provided clear and elaborated explanations. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 06:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
This has to do with it, but it doesn't have anything to do with this. We don't mention Pamela Anderson in the article about the Sun because it shone on her nicely. The content should appear in Wikipedia somewhere, just not right here. Wnt (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
👍 Like Ignatzmice•talk 17:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

'pressure cooker explosives'

Since the contributor responsible has restored this bit of confused terminology to the lede after I deleted it, I suppose we will have to discuss this here. To my mind there is no such thing as a 'pressure cooker explosive' - it is the content that is the explosive, not the container.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think I've found compromise wording: 'pressure cookers containing explosives'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Either that or "pressure-cooker bomb." Qworty (talk) 08:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Just for completeness, the basic idea is that an IED constructed in a pressure cooker will be more "violent" or "explosive" because of how a pressure cooker is sealed—therefore, many terrorists use pressure cookers when they make IEDs. I don't know if you think that makes it worthy of inclusion or what. Ignatzmice•talk 12:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I was a little uncomfortable with the somewhat made-up "pressure cooker bombs" as well (probably should be "pressure-cooker bombs" in any case), but the term is being used in reliable sources. I haven't seen anyone officially use "pressure cooker bomb", but it's appeared in unofficial leaks [5] and many media outlets are using it as well. However, to address your first concern, compare to a pipe bomb; the pipe is not explosive either, but the container is the notable feature in both cases. I'd lean towards keeping "pressure-cooker bombs" unless a better descriptive name starts being used. "Pressure cookers containing explosives" suggests the pressure cooker is just a random container (e.g., like the backpacks these pressure cookers were supposedly in), rather than an integral part of the bombs...which they appear to be. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 14:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I kinda totally missed the "explosives" vs "bombs" part, that I just saw in the edit history. Oops. Yeah, "pressure cooker explosives" doesn't make any more sense than a "pipe explosive" would. Keep the term, but keep it as "pressure[-]cooker bombs" rather than the "containing" version per reasoning above. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 14:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
hello...finally I chime in here, the very editor who has the issue. Sorry I was not able to comment and make my case before, was busy. Anyway...here we go.
"pressure cooker device" is sufficient...for a sentence or two later. The point again (it's funny how others don't see it) that...
saying "two pressure cooker bombs" right off the bat in the very very first sentence, SOUNDS WEIRD AND IS AWKWARD READING. Not as smooth. Not as easy as saying (for the first sentence) simply "two bombs".
The words "pressure cooker" should be in the lede, yes, but just a sentence or two later. For further nicely contextual elaboration. But as far as the very first sentence, saying succinctly in the first sentence "two bombs" is better and smoother reading. Cheers. Gabby Merger (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree; the lead read awkwardly to me as well with "pressure cooker bombs" right at the very beginning. It looks fine now, and "pressure cooker devices" avoids any issues with "explosives". (And I can't think of how to cleanly fit "pressure-cooker bombs" in there vs "devices", either, which is really a trivial point in any case.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 20:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but no: 'pressure cooker devices' makes little sense. A pressure cooker is a device for cooking. Either describe them as 'pressure cooker bombs' (though I doubt the term was in common usage before this event) or describe them explicitly as 'pressure cookers filled with explosives', which is what they were. We shouldn't be using confusing terminology in the lede where a straightforward description tells the reader all he/she needs to know. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
If you can fit "pressure cooker bombs" in without making it awkward, go for it. I tried, but couldn't think of anything without putting it back in the first sentence...but that's awkward as well. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I already stated above how saying immediately right away this awkward weird rough sounding "two pressure cooker bombs" is CLUMSY, DIFFICULT, UN-FAMILIAR, WEIRD, AND UN-SMOOTH READING. And other editors concur. And how exactly does "pressure cooker devices" a couple of sentences later (in the lede too) "make no sense" in the context there? Saying simply "two bombs" in the very beginning sentence is smooth and easy. (Again, for the very first lede sentence). Saying it the other way just doesn't sound or seem appropriate even for the very first sentence. And the point is that, just a sentence or two later, describing the bombs as "pressure cooker devices" contextually is not such a problem, as that is the type they are, and does "make sense". The main point is that "two pressure cooker bombs" in that word order in that very first sentence comes off difficult and awkward and strange. And very rough reading. Gabby Merger (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion to include false flag accusations made by prominent radio talk show host Alex Jones

Clear consensus that this is fringe material. GabrielF (talk) 15:30, 18 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.

Would it be notable to include that it has been suggested by infowars.com and Alex Jones that this is a governmentally staged event to increase TSA presence, take away freedoms, and blame it on their political enemies to vilify them before making their move (think Nazi tactics of staging a Polish attack on Germany before starting the invasion to rally the support of their citizens Gleiwitz incident). The accusations are factual based, relating to witness reports, footage, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.84.7 (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

No. It's WP Fringe bullshit. Vilano XIV (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
This is why IPs shouldn't touch this articleVilano XIV (talk) 11:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Not "bullshit" and fringe theories are still included in article, WP:FRINGE simply states it should not be presented more notable than it is. 206.45.84.7 (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Yea, coming from someone with 10 edits. The hypocrisy is delicious. Pot calling the kettle black. No need to be upset over differing opinions. Like a toddler throwing a tantrum. It's called maturity. Learn it.206.45.84.7 (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • If you heeded all the false flag claims there have been over the last few decades, then the only people attacking American soil would be the CIA, FBI and ATF.Martin451 (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I just can't see how Jones or his website would be considered a reliable source for anything, especially not an event like this. I had a look at his site - nothing he has said about this is "factual", it's just bizarre conjecture about hats and boots and unidentifiable devices. Crazy stuff. Stalwart111 11:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Yea, he's bringing up the point because that's the attire the military would be using. But anyway, can a witness report be a reliable source?
""They kept making announcements to the participants do not worry, it's just a training exercise," Coach Ali Stevenson told Local 15." - link 206.45.84.7 (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Pointless.
Alex Jones is only notable for being an abject moron - and attracting more of the same to his nonsense. Your suggestion is going to be DOA. Get over it. Go make some crank phone calls to the Newtown victims. It'll soothe you. Vilano XIV (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Do you have anything better to do. What did I tell you about maturity. Act like a child and you should be treated like one. You need a timeout. Or in this case, a ban. Morons are those that have a close mind and blindly follow what they're told. Open minded people ask questions before making a judgement. Thanks for showing up. 206.45.84.7 (talk) 11:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah, Vilano, I might not agree with inclusion but suggestions like that aren't particularly helpful or mature. We've had suggestions for including everything from Al Qaeda to the Pope and some stuff about a crazy WWE conspiracy (as in, wrestling!). Best way to deal with those suggestions is to consider them and then explain, with references to policy, why we think they should not be included. Stalwart111 11:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • On that quote; I can't actually see how it "proves" Jones' claims. All it says is that a coach saw sniffer dogs around the finish line before the bombs went off. And? Using sniffer dogs at major events is pretty standard stuff these days. And of course, when asked, their handlers would want to play it down by reassuring people that there was no known threat, which is exactly what it says at the end of the article. But maybe I've just been drinking the kool aid? Stalwart111 12:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Of course it doesn't prove them, I was just saying these are the type of things he uses as supporting evidence. Are notable claims made by notable people on a topic worthy to be in the article of said topic, even if they're faulty and not necessarily true?
  • The standard for that would be reliability, not notability. Someone can be notable but not a reliable source. For a claim like we would likely need multiple reliable sources to have said the same thing. One notoriously unreliable source wouldn't cut it. And it's not clear what the coach is suggesting (nor would he be a counter-terror expert, for example) so he likely wouldn't be considered a reliable source for those sorts of claims were he making them without Jones. Stalwart111 12:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Ok, I understand now. Was just trying to see how I can improve the article by adding an alternative view to the one set forth. Thanks for the explanation as well as being civil. A quality not often found around here. 206.45.84.7 (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I understand that. The best way to improve the article would be to add pertinent facts that don't fall afoul of WP:NOTNEWS and can be verified by multiple reliable sources. Eventually (as much as we might hope otherwise) there will likely be a bunch of conspiracy theories and some of them might become notable enough in their own right to justify a separate article (to end up in Category:Conspiracy theories). But for now, WP is likely to stick to the "mainstream" stuff that comes from major news sources. Stalwart111 13:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
So some crazy told people they were going to die? That happens to me every time I walk to the bus - same lady every day. Stalwart111 12:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I support including just about everything, but Alex Jones's picture illustrates the Wiktionary entry on WP:FRINGE. (Well, maybe it doesn't, but it should ;) He probably has issued an opinion on every world event ever. Wnt (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Videos clearly show 2 bombing suspects

It has been reported that videos at the crime scene have identified two bombing suspects and authorities are currently weighing whether to release the images to the public later today.[1][2][3] These are coming from at least three reputable newspapers and there are multiple sources listed in the articles. I wanted to run it by other editors to ensure that this would not be deemed WP:NOTNEWS. gadol87 (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

This seems referenced well enough to cautiously add to the "Investigation" section; enough time's gone by since first publication that it doesn't appear to be more misreporting. I think we should leave out the information about them planning to release the images until that actually happens though, and just mention that investigators found images of suspects from surveillance video. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 14:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I added it to the article without the reference to the possibility of the images being released. I decided to leave in that the surveillance tape showing the man depositing the backpack at the scene was reported by a city councilman yesterday. gadol87 (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

If/when these images are released, should they be posted in the Investigation section of the article? gadol87 (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Only if they are free media. For one, they would still only remain suspects, so until convicted we shouldn't treat them as special cases. Second, WP itself is not to be used to aid in the investigation. --MASEM (t) 15:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • They aren't called "suspects". At least, not according to the FBI. What the NY Post says, that's another matter. Drmies (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Right you are. Napolitano said they want to "speak" with the two individuals in the videos and that she's not ready to label them suspects. Should we make this update in the article?[4] We also should settle on whether the images of the suspects should be posted in the article. I imagine there will be free media available since they are being released by the FBI (and there could be a fair use case made). The question is whether posting them would be "aiding in the investigation" as User:Masem states or if it enhances the Investigation section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadol87 (talk • contribs)
The Boston Globe's calling them "suspects" in the headline ("Authorities have clear video images of two suspects"). The New York Times is using the term "potential suspects." There's no need to split semantic hairs about this. Shadowjams (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
There's certainly no need to go putting in pictures of people who may have done it. It irrelevant and smacks of newsism. We should WAIT until someone is a) arrested and b) paraded as "definitely thought to have done it, yes uh-huh for reals" before putting in a picture. Ignatzmice•talk 19:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Who said anything about putting in pictures? Shadowjams (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Quote: If/when these images are released, should they be posted in the Investigation section of the article? gadol87 (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC) I would strongly urge that we not. Not until we know for certain they're pictures of the right person. It would be the Saudi national all over again, only worse. Ignatzmice•talk 21:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I think there's a distinction to be drawn between information from the news media through anonymous sources and information that's been officially released by the FBI. The FBI took at least 24 hours before releasing this, if not longer. There was a decision to put this material out there that almost certainly involved weighing the potential negative effects. That was not true in the Saudi case. I don't know what standard of proof you're looking for before agreeing to post these photos, but if its a conviction then that would mean that we might wait a year or more to publish a key part of this story.GabrielF (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

"Second, WP itself is not to be used to aid in the investigation. --MASEM (t) 15:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)" Why would anyone except the bombers not want to aid the investigation in some way? Legacypac (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Because we're an encyclopedia, not an effing message board or liveblog or news site! We have the pictures linked already, which is enough. More than enough, in my opinion. The purpose of a newspaper or news network is to report the news as it happens; the purpose of an encyclopedia is to report on the news that actually did happen, as seen later. Ignatzmice•talk 22:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm deeply offended that anyone would be worried that they or we might somehow help find who did this. WOW Legacypac (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It's time to think of what this article will look like in a year's time. It will not contain blow-by-blow, day-by-day details of the investigation. It will contain its conclusions. The rest is trivia and recentism. HiLo48 (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Videos Said to Show Clear Images of 2 Bombing Suspects". The New York Times. 18 April 2013. Retrieved 18 April 2013.
  2. ^ "Authorities have clear video images of two suspects". The Boston Globe. 18 April 2013. Retrieved 18 April 2013.
  3. ^ "Video images yield two possible Boston bombing suspects". The Los Angeles Times. 18 April 2013. Retrieved 18 April 2013.
  4. ^ "FBI wants to speak with people seen in video at Boston finish line, Napolitano says". 18 April 2013. Retrieved 18 April 2013.

Reddit and 4chan vigilantism

I've tried to put Reddit and 4Chan vigilantism into Investigation section a couple of times and got cut.

Reddit pointed to a Blue Robe Guy and 2 athletic guys with backpacks. Then Reddit this morning said the 2 guys were id'd on Facebook and are local athlete and coach who went to the police to get cleared.

Nevertheless, the NY Post this morning ran a big photo of the athletic guys on the front page, as being circulated by "the authorities" (as opposed to them grabbing it from Reddit or 4chan), and there is still no retraction from Post.

I really think that the phenomenon of crowdsourcing/vigilantism and its consequent outcomes are a legitimate historical part of this story that should be included in this article. Also, the case of the NY Post, their use of this tragedy as a psy-op opportunity to exploit against a certain ethnic community which has been in historical opposition to a certain other ethnic community, is in itself notable.

These photos and Reddit and 4Chan activity have now been recounted and disucssed globally in articles by Slate and many mainstream news organizations, rendering them notable. (1 editor said wait multiple news cycles first, but this is still notable as a technical/cultural phenomenon in itself.)

Opionions, folks? I know you've got them!

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I have been looking at how to add this but I don't think its immediately warranted at this time. If the FBI's two video suspects (the ones ID'd today) turn out to be the ones that 4chan/reddit hit on, I'm sure we'll have reliable sources that will congratulate the effort, but even now, it's suspect (see this WaPost piece [7]). I'm sure there's an article (if not on the 4chan/reddit articles themselves, but another on crowdthinking/etc.) where this information is definitely valid, but until it's connected officially to the actual law enforcement sources, it is highly speculative. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
OK, but let me mention that one aspect in which this is notable is that just now we have reached a critical mass in social media for this particular kind of crowdsourcing for this particular kind of event. For example, this crowdsourcing was not evident in London, Madrid or Oklahoma bombings. Erxnmedia (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable source that says that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
No, just personal memory that there was no outcry over Reddit and 4Chan activities during any of these events. I am an avid news reader, so I would remember if there was. Also, Gawker has already called out the Post for running photos it probably knew were wrong for purposes of anti-Arab propaganda, so there's that aspect. Erxnmedia (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Did those sites even exist back then? Sophie means wisdom (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Not to play too much CRYSTALBALL here, but if it is truly the case that 4chan/reddit broke the identity of the suspected bombers, I'm pretty confident we'll have enough articles to work from to create a notable topic (if one doesn't already exist) about this rise of crowd-sourcing investigation. I do note that back at the Sandy Hook shootings and probably earlier that 4chan/reddit go all over this stuff to pull up anything they can find, but this might be the first time they hit on something key. It is sourceable - not on this page yet but elsewhere - that this happened with this incident, but the larger effect is going to remain vague until we know how correct/incorrect they were. --MASEM (t) 16:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
In any event, when the New Yorker has a go at it, you know it's an official trope. Erxnmedia (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Militarized Covert Black Ops/Navy Seals at the scene?

Please see WP:RS for guidelines on what are considered reliable sources. GabrielF (talk) 15:35, 18 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.

http://imgur.com/a/sUrnA/noscript https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_AYbNz-uS4 https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151436653076630&set=p.10151436653076630&type=3&theater http://intellihub.com/2013/04/15/explosive-intel-military-drills-running-at-boston-marathon/ www.infowars.com/navy-seals-spotted-at-boston-marathon-wearing-suspicious-backpacks/ infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used https://willyloman.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/hat.jpg

More WP:FRINGE material. Maybe the talk page should have a FAQ section. It could point out that this type of material will not be added unless it appears in a reliable source (ie not a blog written by the tinfoil hat brigade as per usual.)--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pics o' suspects

Closing to allow discussion to continue in the active RFC. No need for multiple threads. Stalwart111 01:12, 19 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 FBI says the images of the suspects that they have just posted at FBI.gov are free for the public and media to use and publicize. Sounds like the go-ahead for uploading and adding them to the article. Abductive (reasoning) 21:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Please please please pretty please with however many cherries you want on top, can we NOT actually put he pics in until we know for certain that those are the perpetrators? They're already linked to. We don't need more than that. Ignatzmice•talk 21:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Free as in beer or free as in speech? Further, per BLP, until convicted, it might be improper for us to include. If it turns out these are the two and the images are free as in speech, then adding them is fine, but until then we should not. --MASEM (t) 21:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
What would it take, a notarized letter? Abductive (reasoning) 21:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The FBI's definition of free isn't our definition of free. It's important to realize that these images came from news agency footage, a mall security camera, and possibly private individuals' cameras. Just because they are in FBI possession does not mean that they become PD-USGOV; that would be licensewashing. Unfortunately these images are, by our standards, non-free. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Yup. --j⚛e deckertalk 22:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I would imagine that the case for fair use would be extremely strong given the transformative nature of the use (surveillance video vs encyclopedia). I don't see how the owner of the surveillance camera could make a claim that use of the images on Wikipedia could diminish their capacity to use the images in commerce, given that the FBI is distributing them on its website. GabrielF (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Abductive. It's one thing to decline to publish things that are just idle speculation by people on Reddit or the New York Post, its quite another to publish something that's been officially released by the FBI. I don't see any reason why BLP would limit us from saying that the FBI identified the two men as suspects. GabrielF (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
From WP:BLPCRIME: "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." 24.151.50.173 (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I've given it serious consideration. These images are being published worldwide-publishing them here is not going to hurt the people. I am amazed at some editors finding every excuse to revert - yet we are also told to Ignore all the Rules! Legacypac (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure how one can reconcile "photograph leading on national network news coverage" and "FBI press conference to distribute your picture to the public" with "relatively unknown". That seems ... a stretch. --j⚛e deckertalk 22:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
They just became extremely famous as Suspect #1 and Suspect #2. Need their own wikipage now :) Legacypac (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the FBI's asking the public to id them is pretty strong evidence of their "relatively unknown" status. If they get id'ed, and charged and become known, the pictures would most likely then become appropriate. 24.151.50.173 (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Lacking a name for the face does not equal "unknown" it just means "name unknown" to the FBI at this time. Legacypac (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The two people cited as suspects have had their lives changed forever and are now part of the biggest news story in the nation. They may be innocent, but the images published by the FBI images are indelibly associated with the investigation, regardless of their guilt or innocence. --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

They will only be "indelibly" associated with the investigation if they are arrested for the crime. Even then WP:BLPCRIME states, "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." gadol87 (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


FBI's images of the suspect have been uploaded, but are not in the current article at this time:

thumb|FBI image of suspect,
thumb|left|FBI image of suspect
thumb|left|FBI image of suspect
And those three images are gone, per my comment above. Feel free to upload them locally if consensus to put them in the article develops, however you cannot upload them at commons. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Disagree with Sven. The pictures have been secured by the government, edited, and posted on a government website as part of an FBI investigation. These pictures have been volunteered or subpoenaed as part of the criminal investigation. If there were private interests prior to the posting, funds or permissions have been secured. Otherwise, these pictures could not be disseminated to the public. There's no copyright washing. --Thedrake000 (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for just deleting them outright instead of taking the time to move them / correct the licensing information. If I were an admin, I might be tempted to actually help make it easier for people to include the images in the article by using my expertise to FIX it instead of just deleting it. Glad the time I spent uploading the images was time totally wasted. No wonder we have problems with editor retention --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Where is consensus, where is anyone's opinion except Manguard Sven's? No one in the world is considering these not free use except this editor.Legacypac (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

False reports of arrests and Suspects sections

These two sections are mucking up the article and should be removed. Wikipedia isn't a news source or a tabloid journal. It is a encyclopedia. Information posted should be vetted and only after an actual suspect has been announced by law enforcement. I formally ask that these two sections be removed until an actual suspect is in custody and their name has been released to the public. Gorba (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but good luck on that one. I'd be happy if we could decide not to have the photos. WP:BLPCRIME reminds us that people are "innocent until proven guilty"; I wouldn't even ask that we go that far, I want to wait until these people have been captured and interviewed and formally charged. It's not like the FBI is infallible. Ignatzmice•talk 22:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The FBI doesn't even call them suspects. I removed that word, and the YouTube links that accompanied it. It's primary stuff, and it's not our job to link it (or help the investigation). We need to reference the fact that the FBI announced this, not give the evidence. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
It's time to think about what this article will look like in a year's time. It will not contain blow-by-blow, day-by-day details of the investigation. It will contain its conclusions. The rest is trivia and recentism. HiLo48 (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Before insisting they are not "suspects" watch the press conf. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQr4AZgGiNc Legacypac (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Drmies I feel that the information I provided is important to the investigation and my help the FBI get a much clearer image of the suspects or more information about them, so please stop rmoving my edits or you will be reported for Edit warring UnknownElement (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
This article is NOT here to help the investigation. It's here to document the event in an encyclopaedic way. HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • You know who does the FBI's job? The FBI. Please feel free to report me and watch out for that boomerang. Legacypac, it may be your reading skills: the link was to the FBI site, where the word "suspect" was not mentioned. It is apparent that to some editors our BLP policy is worth little more than toilet paper, and that WP:NOTNEWS is even less. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
It is clear the IAR is in effect here. The FBI link may not include "suspect" but the FBI said "suspect(s)" multiple times. Watch the press conference (primary source) or check ANY news site (secondary) for sources of the word suspects. It was sourced to a TV report, but someone deleted that too. What are you trying to prove exactly? Wikipidia is in no danger of BLP violation for reporting what thousands of media are reporting. Legacypac (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
You keep confusing us with a media outlet. You say "suspect" when the provided link says no such thing. IAR is not in effect here at all, not while you show such blatant disregard for the R of BLP. "Suspect" is not to be treated lightly. The NYT and the LA Times ran stories with "suspect" in the headline, where the actual story had "possible suspect". That may not be a big difference to you, but it is to others, not just me. Before you start ignoring all the rules, learn a couple of them. Drmies (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I respectfully request that you show respect for other editors including me. If you can't, I suggest taking a break from editing here. The 3RR rule has been completely abused and no action taken to enforce it. Dennis Brown (an admin) said several times we are IAR. Legacypac (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
As to the continued assertion that the FBI site does not says suspect I quote:

April 18, 2013, 5:00 p.m. EDT Remarks of Special Agent in Charge Richard DesLauriers at Press Conference on Bombing Investigation

Our collective law enforcement team has pursued thousands leads and tips. As I said two days ago, we are working methodically and with a sense of urgency to identify those responsible for the bombings. Within the last day or so, through that careful process, we initially developed a single person of interest. Not knowing if the individual was acting alone or in concert with others, we obviously worked with extreme purpose to make that determination...

More importantly, it was done to ensure the future safety of the city, the commonwealth and the country. Indeed, through that process, the FBI developed a second suspect.

Today, we are enlisting the public’s help to identify the two suspects.

After a very detailed analysis of photo, video, and other evidence, we are releasing photos of the two suspects. They are identified as Suspect 1 and Suspect 2. They appear to be associated.

Is that clear enough? Legacypac (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Whether to include FBI photos

Continue the discussion at the RFC below. We don't need multiple threads on this. Shadowjams (talk) 01:07, 19 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.

it might help id the people in pics — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Since when do encyclopedias not include pictures? Legacypac (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I can see why one would not want it published on an "encyclopedia" but if it helps, then perhaps it should go up there? Then again its not like the fbi needs the help of wikipedia readers.. they get enough help from elsewhere. I've changed my mind, dont publish
  • Wikipedia's role in the social fabric is to provide information in a resource-rich encyclopedic format. As editors our job isn't to post fringe information, rumor, and conjecture. We also need to be careful not to post pictures of suspects until there is an actual arrest made, otherwise all we do is reduce Wikipedia to tabloid trash. Wikipedia is respectful resource, but that respect is only earned through responsible posting. Gorba (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • So maybe WP should not have published anything about Osama bin Laden until he was arrested or maybe tried and convicted? Legacypac (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The pics are clearly encyclopedic, and need to be published. It's on every evening news and the fbi's website. Shadowjams (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The news media has a collective conflict of interest. Their job isn't to report the news. Their job is to make money for their network. Money is received from ad revenue. Advertisers only give them money when they see the network has a large number of viewers. So the media will do and say anything to keep eyeballs glued to their networks. That means reporting anything from fact to rumor and dwelling on it for hours to fill up air time. Gorba (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
That's an interesting existential point, but let me link you to the FBI [8] website that lists it. I'm frankly astounded at the weird "no" knee jerk reaction (and I am quite familiar with our policies regarding current event stories; I've worked on a few). Even if these individuals are unrelated, the fact that they've received widespread (an understatement) coverage by the FBI makes them part of the article regardless. This really shouldn't even be an issue. Shadowjams (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Publishing pictures of those who dun it is perfectly acceptable. Publishing pictures so that we can help the FBI catch them is not. Treating this article as another website to get your news fix is also not OK. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Drmies: read what i wrote. Regardless of if they "dun it", it's part of the story, just as previous leads that didn't pan out are. One week from now, regardless the outcome, those pictures will be part of this article, you and I both know that. So why the obstructionism now? Shadowjams (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Drmies. Wikipedia is a non-profit encyclopedia. It is not the "media" or part of the commercial media establishment. It is simply an encyclopedia reference. Any information posted should be vetted and free from conjecture. Gorba (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
No Shadowjams, I don't know that at all. I take serious objection to the NEWS aspect of all this. It was unseemly and lurid in the Trayvon Martin case, and it is the same here. And now a whole bunch of IP editors, new editors, and uninformed editors want to make us the mouthpiece of a US law enforcement organization. What is the encyclopedic value of those pictures? Nothing--beyond that the fact that they are pictures. Well, we knew that. Drmies (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers Legacypac (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Drmies isn't biting you. Not here, anyway. From what I've seen, the most you can claim is that he's nipping back after you bit him. There are, indeed, lots of IPs and new accounts who are trying to insert breaking news into this article, completely ignoring WP:NOTNEWS and the excellent essay Joe Decker wrote. It's not biting to point that out. Ignatzmice•talk 00:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not an IP editor, new editor, or uninformed editor. I've been editing since 2007. My comment was to remind about the policy. I do object to his reverts of OBVIOUS facts clearly seen in the sources - ie FBI did not use word "suspect" when a quick glance at the linked page shows they used it 4 times in the first 3 paragraphs. Legacypac (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Asked here and answered elsewhere with our thanks to James of UR and Ignatzmice (again). Stalwart111 00:43, 19 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.

I've recently been looking at the talk pages becuase it understanding on how the article was made and I have to say, the editors are large in numbers. I have to ask 1. What drives you all to do this?

2. why does wikipedia make the talk page editable??? Can't someone edit teh whoel talk page and remove all the discussion if one wants to? shouldnt wikipedia leave the talk page uneditable??

much thanks for your reply.. (I'm sure people will hate for asking this here, but I am not sure where else to ask) 130.63.112.134

  • Will reply on your talk, suggest others do so as well if they feel like it. Ignatzmice•talk 22:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • This is not the appropriate use of Talk. The Talk section is for the article in question. I would suggest asking this in the appropriate area. Gorba (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • alright disregard this topic guys, I've gotten my answer. Id simply remove it.. but then it would not be cool according to practices of wikipedia
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.

HELP

Edit request (of sorts) declined with explanation as to why. Stalwart111 01:28, 19 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.

PLEASE HELP ME PUT UP THE BANNER FOR THESE FBI SUSPECTS. SOURCE FBI http://www.fbi.gov/news/updates-on-investigation-into-multiple-explosions-in-boston/image/array-500 MUST PUT FBI SAYS ARMED AND DANGEROUS THX

This is an encyclopaedia. We do not have banner headlines - particularly relating to entirely unsourced material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Not me, for sure... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Andy's right about that we don't do banners, and we serve a different purpose than a most wanted poster. Scroll up for discussion about whether or not to include the pictures for encyclopedic value (I say yes, but that's a separate discussion). However, you can't possibly be serious with the "entirely unsourced material" comment Andy. Shadowjams (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The FBI seems to have said that the men "should be considered" armed and dangerous - not that they were armed etc - a subtle distinction, but an important one, not least for legal reasons... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boston_Marathon_bombing/Archive_3&oldid=1140152817"