Talk:Boston Marathon bombing/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Unprotect and activate pending changes?

Given the current goings-on, the article is currently horribly out of date due to its protection. Why don't we instead semi-protect the article and activate pending changes to prevent the BLP problems? --Conti|✉ 11:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Well level-1 Pending Changes wouldn't do anything if it was semi'd. Last I checked there was no consensus regarding the usage of level-2 Pending Changes under extraordinary circumstances. Personally I'd support an IAR application in this case, but I doubt that would get a consensus. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 11:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think PC2 has even been implemented on en.wiki, so this would not happen.Martin451 (talk) 11:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No, on a technical level it's definitely possible. See these sandboxes. It's also been previously used on several pages, as discussed at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/PC2 for Mangoeater targets. Not saying we should or shouldn't... but yeah, we definitely can. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 11:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not. PC2 is unwanted everywhere, and as far as I know the scheme has never worked on intensely edited articles. Wnt (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• We'd be " horribly out of date" if we were a news site, which we're not. Drmies (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

What's going on with the names?

Why are you censoring them? They are on news for hours. --89.210.164.165 (talk) 11:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the news, and the news has been wrong way too often over the past 3 days, so we are taking it a bit slower than most of them. We don't want to hurt any innocent people with incorrect reporting. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Note also that 89's claim is suspect. The vast majority of RS have avoided mentioning the names. It's primarily blogs and less reputable source (generally non RS) which have mentioned 'names' for 'hours'. The last reports by RS are reporting names and details which conflict with the speculation in blogs etc arising from police scanners and stuff. Nil Einne (talk) 11:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been monitoring the major news channels. They've been reporting the names for the last 30 minutes or so. Viriditas (talk) 11:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

And CNN was wrong for more than an hour just 2 days ago. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Old news. The correct names are now known. Viriditas (talk) 11:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

(EC) I think you're confusing the names. The names which have been reported for hours (but not by RS) are of a student who went missing and someone else. These names supposedly came from police scanners although at least one of them may have came from blogs, forums etc before that. These must be the names 89 is referring to and the vast majority of RS have avoided mentioning them (it seems for good reason). The names (well I only heard one name of the surviving suspect but perhaps some sources mentioned a second one) reported by RS recently are different and relate to a brothers from Russia somewhere near or in Chechnya, it seems 89 was not aware of these names and was not discussing them. Nil Einne (talk) 11:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW, in case it's unclear, my primary point is 89 appears to be mistaken. AFAIK, no names have been in RS or the news for 'hours', unless you mean crappy news sources which wouldn't generally be RS and therefore shouldn't really be considered here (perhaps there were a very small number which mentioned them, but it definitely wasn't many). And the recent reports suggest there was good reason for us to be cautious as these older names and details mentioned primarily in non RS appear to be mistakes. (As for the new name/s, they have been mentioned in RS recently, as I also mentioned in my first post. Even though it's probable that the RS are more confident in these name/s and details, hence why quite a few are mentioning them compared to the crappy apparently inaccurate stuff mentioned in non RS beforehand, I think we should still use caution given the history of mistakes in this case, or for that matter many cases when it comes to late breaking news of this sort.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

News source giving name and describing suspect being pursued as "identified": http://www.kake.com/home/headlines/Police-Boston-Marathon-Suspect-1-Dead-Suspect-2-Still-At-Large-203735071.html Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

If you are watching as of right now, the police have stated that they will not answer the media at the moment in regards to certain details, including "who these suspects are." The medical center that was taken the now deceased suspect is not releasing any statement on names either 98.198.85.83 (talk) 11:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

A reliable news source trumps your original research. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Even your link calls this 'preliminary'. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand it's important to be careful. But at this point, Boston Police, the AP, and pretty much all major news sources have named the two suspects. It's getting silly to wait much longer. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It's important to note that the page was protected to prevent the insertion of "the two suspects" which turned out to not be the names of the suspects at all. Haste was already proven to be a wrong move.--Gmaxwell (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

CBC

http://www.cbc.ca/news/ may help for more accurate updates. They usually name all sources of all information. They aren't trigger happy like the US media.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

http://live.cbc.ca/Event/Boston_marathon_4 Their blog has some as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal with regard to the names

On this front I propose adding to the end of the section MIT shooting and arrest the following: "Several possible names of the suspects have since been reported in the media, but there has been no firm confirmation of these names so far." That might keep people a bit more satisfied, even though it's still 'journalism', it's correct and probably won't be in the article for more than a day. We can easily retrofit the article with better more sourced information later on. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not true. The story has stabilized and the names are now known. Viriditas (talk) 11:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I'm watching the news now (BBC), and they have stated that none of the names they have heard will be released until an offical statement is released (meaning they may have names, but do not know if they are legitimate). It sounds like names are just being thrown out by blogs so far. 98.198.85.83 (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas, we are not the news. Official statements by police have not been openly stated yet. We must remember this is Wikipedia, not the news. 98.198.85.83 (talk) 11:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Except, you're wrong. The names of the suspects are now known. I didn't say we had to add them. Viriditas (talk) 11:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You are right, they released the details, however, this isn't a forum, so I question why you even told us this. 98.198.85.83 (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Are the page locking due to the name issue? I see that around 11:30 UTC we now have multiple news media reporting a name: "suspect identified as", "suspected named as", Washington Post, The Independent, ... —fnielsen (talk) 11:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I half-way rescind my comment. BBC has at least stated that the names are heard from scanners and blogs, the police have actually not "officially" released the names of the suspects. Until we can get all sources agreeing, I think the names are to be left out. And no, I think the lock was placed in order to prevent constant updates to match the various information of conflicting news sites. 98.198.85.83 (talk) 11:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

There are still inconsistent facts about the suspects. The Washington Post says "The one who was killed in a shootout was 20 years old; the one still at large is 19", while the New York Times says "The surviving suspect was identified as Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev, 19, of Cambridge, Mass., a law enforcement official said. The suspect who was killed was identified as his brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, the law enforcement official said." Given that they are still attributing this to unnamed law enforcement, we can wait. NW (Talk) 11:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Still the reports agree on some matters. Remember, reliable doesn't mean infallible. We should reflect the sources, not correct them. It's time to reflect the fact that the suspects are named as well as their country of origin. I'm concerned with BLP issues but this should block us from reflecting the sources are they are now. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

(EC) There are many other details which seem to change depending on who you're listening to. E.g. Some sources reported that the brothers who are allegedly suspects went to Turkey before coming to the US (mentioned above also) but CNN reported earlier they went to Kazakhstan. Some sources reported the surviving suspect was here about a year, CNN said not long ago he was here over 2 years. Nil Einne (talk) 12:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

We don't know if they are Russian or Chechen. 98.198.85.83 (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Reliable news source says, "Authorities say that the 2 Boston bomb suspects are brothers, are legal permanent residents of Chechen origin, and lived in the US at least 1 year." http://www.kake.com/home/headlines/Police-Boston-Marathon-Suspect-1-Dead-Suspect-2-Still-At-Large-203735071.html Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

And yet other news sites have been saying that authorities have not released that information, and discussed as to whether or not they were Russian of Chechen. CBS is saying their sources say they may be Turkish. 98.198.85.83 (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Potential Sources to name aforementioned suspect/be noted as inaccurate: As found by a Google search: https://www.google.com/search?q=Dzhokhar+A.+Tsarnaev&rlz=1C1GPCK_enUS523US523&aq=f&oq=Dzhokhar+A.+Tsarnaev&aqs=chrome.0.57j0j62l2j60.619j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#rlz=1C1GPCK_enUS523US523&tbm=nws&sclient=psy-ab&q=Dzhokhar+A.+Tsarnaev+associated+press&oq=Dzhokhar+A.+Tsarnaev+associated+press&gs_l=serp.3...30440.32607.2.32723.16.16.0.0.0.0.174.1817.6j10.16.0...0.0...1c.1.9.psy-ab.MmdMcNphwf4&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45373924,d.dmg&fp=11aee4af7a0a045b&biw=1024&bih=677

http://inagist.com/all/325199416455733248/ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/surviving-boston-bombing-suspect-named-as-dzhokhar-a-tsarnaev-following-shootout-that-left-other-suspect-and-police-officer-dead-8579362.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ap-surviving-boston-bomb-suspect-identified-as-dzhokhar-a-tsarnaev-19-of-cambridge-mass/2013/04/19/5d9de6ee-a8de-11e2-9e1c-bb0fb0c2edd9_story.html http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/04/ap_hunted_bombing_suspect_is_dzhokhar_a_tsarnaev http://www.businessinsider.com/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-2013-4 http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/19/suspect-doctor-video/2095957/ http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/04/19/ap_at_large_bombing_suspect_is_dzhokhar_tsarnaev_19.html http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/19/17817173-one-boston-marathon-suspect-killed-second-suspect-his-brother-on-loose-after-firefight?lite http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/19/dzhokhar-tsarnaev_n_3114881.html (probably shouldn't cite) http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/19/surviving-boston-marathon-bombing-suspect-hails-from-overseas-been-in-us-for/

Yet others say the FBI is still looking for names, or that the name is unavailable. Cautious resources: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/19/with-boston-dragnet-tightening-fbi-asks-give-us-a-name.html http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/16/17784776-fbi-releases-new-photos-of-suspects-in-boston-marathon-bombing?lite 173.210.119.194 (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Someone asked Russian or Chechen. Chechnya is part of the Russian Federation, so one can, in some senses, be Russian and Chechen. Bondegezou (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's please not go down that path. Shadowjams (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Administrators editing the article through full protection

Even though the article is fully protected, since it is only so protected because of BLP concerns, I and a couple of other administrators appear to still be editing it. If anyone has any concerns, please feel free to let us know here or on our talk pages. The purpose of the full protection is not to shut anyone out of shaping the article's content. NW (Talk) 11:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that sounds like a good idea. As stated, an official, according to Reuters, has released some names, but no one working on the investigation/manhunt have confirmed it as accurate. Couple that with the contradictions of various news sites on the web in regards to other details (and our personal views against the perpetrators, no doubt), I think administrative protection is a good idea. 98.198.85.83 (talk) 11:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I think this policy might raise concerns that this is "news managing" such as occurred here: http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Messaging-and-Collaboration/Wales-Denies-Censoring-Wikipedia-Over-Journalist-Rohdes-Kidnapping-497337/ Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I was about to raise a concern about admin editing. If we're fixing blatant BLP errors then that's fine, but any copy editing I'd have a problem with, unless it comes from a request on this page. It's a pretty short protection after all. GedUK  12:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

So now we have arbcom members editing through protection. It's "only" protected because of BLP concerns. No problem then. BLP concerns are not very important, and of course they don't apply to admins and arbcom members. You and the other thousand or so mop-carriers go right on and write the article. While you're at it, I suggest you change the policy to make it clear that admins are welcome to carry on editing fully-protected articles. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that if any administrator is violating our BLP policies, they would swiftly be desysopped. If an administrator (including myself) is breaking the protection policy to improve Wikipedia, that is OK. The reason I made this note on the talk page was for people to know that I highly encourage them to point out errors or places where they disagree with the substance of the edits I made. Not the philosophy behind why I made them. NW (Talk) 14:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to say I'm very uncomfortable with that position. I've not problem with your edits in this case, but 'improving Wikipedia' when only a very very small group of people can do it is troubling. GedUK  14:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Admins should not be editing a fully protected article unless consensus is reached for such edits. Even perceived minor edits should not be made. JOJ ^Hutton 12:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

One suspect is dead thus BLP does not apply for that individual.72.131.82.2 (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Except there is no firm identification of 'that individual' just yet, so BLP DOES apply. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

And BLP would apply anyway: WP:BDP. Ignatzmice•talk 13:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Any edits by Admin Drmies should be immediately reverted as long as this article is protecrted. He has been edit warring and openly attacking other editors. My faith in Admins is pretty low right now. Legacypac (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

He hasn't participated in the past 200 revisions, so don't throw a fit before there actually is something to talk about. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

He participated in one, just now, for grammatical reasons--which any admin is free to revert if it is deemed out of order. Legacypac, put your money where your mouth is and bring me to ANI. Put up or shut up. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with JOJ - leaving editing of this article to some elite is totally against how things are supposed to be done. If we go that way we should formally assign copyright to ArbCom Inc. and stop messing with their product. Wnt (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• I request that any admin who wishes to make any edit, either do it in response to an editprotected request or propose the edit here first. Admins have no special privileges over any other editors. This is important to follow. Apteva (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Prose fix

Under "National", we have the phrase "[[Portland, Oregon|Portland, OR's]]". I think this should be changed to "[[Portland, Oregon|Portland]], [[Oregon]]".—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. 98.198.85.83 (talk) 12:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Not worth a request template though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm just following the proper protocol.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen any objections, and it's fairly trivial, so done. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Means, Opportunity.....Motive?

We have the names of the perps now, which admins may kindly update in the article if they so choose.

These are the Chechen brothers from Turkey

— Dzhokar A. Tsarnaev, 19, of Cambridge, a Chechen who has been living in the U.S. as a legal permanent resident for at least a year. The deceased suspect, killed in a gun battle with police around 2 a.m., is apparently his 26-year-old brother, Tamerlan.

OK, so motive....Chechnya? From Turkey? Where are we on Chechnya? And Chechnyan Turks?? Anybody??? Erxnmedia (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum. I've striked that part of your comment that was inviting to make this a discussion forum. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Why Turkey? --Երևանցի ^talk 12:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This is already under discussion, a new section was not needed. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Turkey because they are from Turkey. Chechnya because they are ethnic Chechens. And Al-Qaeda+Syria by this article intersecting with this article and this article.

And no, User:TheDJ, this is not a random discussion I am starting. This is for editors to consider what should go into a Motivation section of the article because editing has been shut off, which interrupts the flow of give and take that would otherwise occur. Administrators are getting a little power-mad shutting off both article and talk about what should go into the article. Erxnmedia (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• NOTHING should go in the "Motivation" section until we have official statements saying what the motive was. Absolutely nothing. Ignatzmice•talk 12:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

What should go into the Motivation section is what independent, reliable sources say. It should have nothing to do with what you think or what speculation occurs here. It's behaviour like yours that has led to the locking up of the article. You can't edit, so go away for a while and learn some Wikipedia rules and policies. HiLo48 (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Civility much? Erxnmedia (talk) 13:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The policies and guidelines are clear on the topic of OR, wether or not one individual decides to recognize them or not. And please don't call eachother out, it's not helping at all. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

In any event it's just a couple of Cambridge high school students going off the deep end. Motives are probably not that deep unless it turns out that they were helped along by someone else. And yes, that is speculation! Erxnmedia (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Suspects Islamic Extremists

According to the suspect's social media sites, they had interests that include Islam and bombs.http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/04/boston-jihad-bomber-tsarnaevs-social-media-page-shows-his-interest-in-islam-and-bombs.html Patriot1010 (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Interest in bombs because of a bomb icon on a website? Puh-lease. --bender235 (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Patriot1010 and Bender235 are both completely correct. We know the suspects were Chechen Islamic extremists. We know what motivated them. The "interest in bombs" part is completely baseless though, it came from journalists who don't understand how social media works and has been mindlessly repeated around the internet without fact checking. If you look at the terrorist's social media page now, you can see police cars there where just the bomb used to be. Carl Kenner (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's a more reliable source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/19/us-usa-explosions-suspect-site-idUSBRE93I0JL20130419 One of them had posted videos that praised Syrian rebel Islamists: http://vk.com/video160300242_164905736 FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Editing through full protection

Can I just remind everyone that the article is under full protection; which means that no one should be editing it except to address urgent issues, or if they are an uninvolved administrator implementing a consensus. Previously, general editing through full protection has been heavily frowned on, even basic cleanup. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Arrested suspect whereabout?

Is the arrested suspect alive or death ? one hour ago sources and wikipedia (with source) read the arrested suspect died at the hospital. Yug (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll say it again

Well, looks like I went to bed just as things were heating up! Okay. I know this has been said upthread, but it really really really bears repeating: The full-protection will expire in two hours. Unless there has been a news conference officially releasing the names, do not put the names in. I don't care WHO's reporting them. Thank you! Ignatzmice•talk 12:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

"I don't care WHO's reporting them" That's nice. The FBI good enough for you, son? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the FBI would be good enough for me (though heaven knows they're not 100% perfect 100% of the time). I just wanted to make sure the source wasn't "some guy sorta related to the investigation who spoke to the Globe on the condition of anonymity 'cause he knew he was talking out his ass". Ignatzmice•talk 13:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, the FBI has named them. I thinks it's time to put the names in the article. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Please create a concise proposal of prose that you would like to see included, plus references and if there are no objections, than an administrator will add it. Wait, you are an admin, i know this :D —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, I will now (as George Aiken never actually said) "declare victory and get out". One's dead, a third's in custody; I guess we've held off long enough, and I won't complain more if the names get added. Ignatzmice•talk 13:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Seconded. The name was also released by the Boston PD [1] Rgrasmus (talk) 13:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Apparently the father has spoken to news in Russia stating that the suspect is a second year medstudent in the US [2] Rgrasmus (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

There have been several WANTED announcements from Boston agencies, so I think names are definitely OK now. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The names have been released, somewhat. Per the Boston Globe:

The suspect is Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev, 19, a government official told the Globe. The Associated Press reported this morning that the suspects came from the Russian region near Chechnya [...] The Globe has also learned that the dead suspect is Tsarnaev’s brother.

Update: The older, dead brother is Tamerlan. KirkCliff2 Letters to the Editor 13:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

What's happening here? Reliable sources includes news media. “... not 100% perfect 100% of the time” is irrelevant. Infallibility and omniscience aren’t the criteria and we’re not the judges. As I understand it, we reflect reliable sources. There is no final “story.” (I edit articles on the Twelve Century Renaissance and I can tell you there is still debate among the experts which I don’t judge but merely convey.) It’s time to give the names of the suspects and whatever other information that is widely reported. I worked on the Benghazi story in real time and we managed without this undue censorship. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yet noone is proposing a piece of prose + references for inclusion. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Is that the process now? Everyone in the world knows the names now, it's not rocket science.--Львівське (говорити) 14:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Such is always the process as long as a page is still fully protected. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Uploaded the latest FBI-released image of the suspect on wikicommons [3]. Unsure of the licensing at this point Rgrasmus (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I already provided the references. With the article locked due to bureaucracy, which Wikipedia obviously isn't intended to be, it's much more difficult to suggest prose than to simply write it ourselves. Any proposals will just be met with more bureaucracy, so why not let an admin do the writing using the references I provided? KirkCliff2 (talk) 15:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Such is always the process as long as a page is still fully protected. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Uploaded the latest FBI-released image of the suspect on wikicommons [4]. Unsure of the licensing at this point Rgrasmus (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Police have identified and officially released: "Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, as the dead Boston bombing suspect." SOURCE Patriot1010 (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I just offered that same source an hour ago. - KirkCliff2

Boston on Shutdown

They have shut down all public transportation and such in Boston, leaving the nineteen-year-old still alive without an escape route. Is it worth mentioning? KirkCliff2 (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You can propose some fragment here in this section for inclusion and if there is no objection, then it can be included in the article. Please list the sources for your proposed fragment. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It can be cited to the same article as the "shelter in place" order. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Here, here, and here, to start. It's also all over the TV, for what it's worth. KirkCliff2 (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is extremely significant that they've close down the subway, buses, Amtrak, commuter trains.Parkwells (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

But please remember this is an encyclopedia, not a blog. We need to have reliable, verifiable sources, and do not need to report live on everything that happens. Apteva (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

New hook for ITN?

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

Is anyone planning on proposing a new hook for ITN, with regards to the first suspect being killed, the "stay in place", the guard at MIT, etc? -- Zanimum (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I personally don't believe what's going on today is notable enough in itself to be a seperate new item in ITN. The bombings themselves are already up and what's going on today is a continuation of that event. It's (morbidly) fascinating to get an opportunity to follow both events live on the media. Even the live news reports are changing details of their stories hour after hour. CaptRik (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with CaptRik, actually. Original post: No experience, but perhaps A manhunt is taking place in the city of Boston following twin bomb blasts near the finish line of the Boston Marathon. I don't really know. Maybe we should wait until there's more info? Ignatzmice•talk 13:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

A major police manhunt underway, a suspect dead, and a major city in shutdown is news in itself; it's being carried everywhere. Yes, it relates to the bombing, but the shutdown of public facilities, schools and businesses of a city is highly unusual.Parkwells (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

and trains, buses, taxi's, and private driving prohibitions. Never heard of any lockdown this extensive anywhere in the world. Legacypac (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Motive

Reports that the websites of the suspects are venerating Islam, and Chechen independence. [5] --Kuzwa (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Shelter in place?

Just what does this mean? The article doesn't explain it at all. CodeCat (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I've wikilinked it for now. Should the article include a definition? -- Zanimum (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Whatever references we're using for that statement should pretty clearly define what the hell that means - and if not, we might need better references. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the Boston Globe has explained the term in their article as "stay inside and not open their doors to anyone, except police with proper identification." -- Zanimum (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Officials have told people to stay at home behind locked doors. Businesses, schools and other facilities have been closed, including the major universities.Parkwells (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• One of those occasions where a wikilink in a quote serves a very valid purpose. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Investigation section

Just a suggestion, but it might be helpful to divide the Investigation section into 2 subsections, "On-site" and "Off-site", for organizing information. At some point in time the On-site portion will end, but the Off-site investigation may go on for months. This format is being used on the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article and has been helpful. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

When did the marathon stop?

"Investigations", third paragraph: Some runners continued to cross the line until 2:57 p.m., eight minutes after the explosions.[15] "Responses", second paragraph: The marathon was halted abruptly. These statements seem to be at odds with each other, no? Ignatzmice•talk 14:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I imagine that since a marathon is spread over a wide area, it may take some time for the message to reach all the runners. And maybe the runners had stopped actually participating but headed for the finish anyway because that's where their teams and coaches and such were? CodeCat (talk) 14:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we can find the time that the marathon was stopped, but it was not right after 2:50 pm. The marathon was stopped at a specific location before the finish line at first, but then likely spread to the rest of the course. We need to look for RSs to add all of this information. This information is more important in the 2013 Boston Marathon article, than here. Apteva (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Suspects named

The two suspects have been named.[6] JamieSc (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed a multi-sourced sentence for the "Suspects" sub-section (see edit for the 3 links):

Authorities identified two brothers, 26-year-old Tamerlan Tsarnayev and 19 year old Dzhokhar Tsarnayev, as suspects--both immigrants of Chechen background originally from the Russian Caucasus. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

For the record: it's Тамерлан Царнаев (Tamerlan Tsarnayev) and Джохар Царнаев (Dzhokhar Tsarnayev) in their native Cyrillic script. --bender235 (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I've added the above paragraph. I'll leave the Cyrillic to you. Thanks for the info. Jason from nyc (talk)

Unprotect this page

Pages linked to from the main page should never or almost never be protected. This is extremely important to Wikipedia and has been discussed again and again. Unprotect ASAP. CoolMike (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

seconded.--Львівське (говорити) 14:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the full protection should be reduced to semi-protection. The names are on all news media and have been released by the police and FBI. BLP does not require us to wait until all investigations and prosecutions are done and all appeals exhausted before including the names which are presently being censored. Edison (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that full protection is a bit overdue since the names of the suspects are all over the Internet and these names have been released by official sources. It can be moved down to semi-protection.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I have reduced the protection status to semi-protected, per the discussion that went on when the page was fully protected - since the names have been released, the original reason for the full protection is no longer in effect. Duration of the semi-protect is currently 24 hours from now. Nandesuka (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to remove article's full protection

It will expire in 45 mins anyways, but due to discussion above that also mentions the FBI sources now, I propose that we unlock the article, since the original BLP issues are less likely to reoccur now that we have FBI provided information. If other admins agree, please state so. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I second this. Additionally, this section should be merged with the above section Rgrasmus (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Is your proposal for complete unprotection, or semiprotection? Unprotect will be a disaster, semi-protection at least stands a chance. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

By default in these cases, we return to the status quo that was in place before we switched to FP, so in this case, we would go back to semi indeed. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This article should definitely be semi-protected, rather than full open. However, the full protection is not appropriate. N2e (talk) 14:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I need to leave, so any admin that agrees with me, should feel welcome to execute the action I think, otherwise everyone simply needs to hold their breath for 30 more minutes :D —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Semi, please.Fletcher (talk) 14:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I've tossed a request at ANI to review the full protection as the issue of BLP/photo inclusion is pretty much nullified (as an original opponent of their inclusion) due to the events of the last 12 hr. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

For when the page protection is removed, I have uploaded the latest FBI-released image of the suspect on wikicommons [7]. Unknown the original source of the image Rgrasmus (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

And... it's gone... Rgrasmus (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done with semiprotection. (Twice, in fact. Whoops. Admin protection-conflict.)--ragesoss (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Stripped suspect was not a suspect

Since the page is locked for god-knows-what-reason, there's an error on the page, it reads "Several sources report that a suspect was surrounded by police and ordered to strip completely naked before being arrested and taken into custody.[85][86]" - if you actually read the sources, they state "The man was later released and is not a suspect in the case."--Львівське (говорити) 14:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The page was locked down for reasons that were stated above. You might want to add an edit request template to help get a response faster from someone who can fix the issue. Hope this help you out, --Super Goku V (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

At the time I cited those sources they believed the man was a suspect and did not say otherwise. I am surprised no one has deleted those lines yet. Some guy (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Duh, at the time they and everyone in the city of Watertown was a possible suspect. I do not think that arrest was, in hind sight notable, and can be removed. Apteva (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Suspect 2 got ran over by his own brother?

A listener on the Opie and Anthony show called in and said he was there when everything went down and he said that Suspect 2 got run over by his own brother(suspect 1) while he was fleeing from the police. This photo suggests that to be true https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BIN-UOtCQAAeMoV.jpg:large. The caller said he had photos of his car with bullet holes in it that he will be uploading when he is done being questioned by the police. 74.111.18.178 (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a picture of the gunned down MIT police officer. Nishkid64 _(talk) 14:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

And now we all know why original research can be bad... :) CodeCat (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

That's why I posted it here in the talk rather than in the article. Just in case I was wrong. 74.111.18.178 (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, it turns out that the caller of the Opie and Anthony show was right. He was run over by his own brother. 74.111.18.178 (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Unprotected draft article in user space

All, I created a draft article in my user space if people want to edit this article while the current page is being protected. You can find the draft here - User:Remember/boston marathon bombing draft. That way when the protection is removed we can incorporate relevant edits quickly. Unforunately, I am busy in real life so I won't be able to improve the article much right now. But I just thought this might help those that want to work on the article during the lockdown. Remember (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see what purpose that would serve. What do you want, for it to be merged into the article when protection is lifted? That's a terrible chore, and for what? Drmies (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It's a moot point now since the page is not as highly protected. But the idea would be that individuals could work on sections while the protection is in place and then merge them into the current article quickly. It really wouldn't be much of a chore. Just cut and pasting. But again, it appears to be a moot point now. Remember (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    • No, "merging" is not "cutting and pasting": the histories have to be merged. You can't copy and paste just like that (see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia): the editing histories have to be preserved. To give you an idea of what might be involved with that, have a look at Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves; even a quick glance will tell you why such would be a bad idea. I know you mean well, but there's ins and outs that not everyone knows about--it's not that simple, unfortunately. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure what you are talking about. I would not be merging articles. You would be working on certain sections in user space and then incorporating the the revised text into the finished product. People do this all the time on wikipedia. The userfication aspect only applies to articles that were rescued from deletion, not article that are being fixed up during protection. Anyway, like I said its a moot point so it's all irrelevant. I've requested speedy deletion in the user space. Remember (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
        •  Done The problem is that we can't just copy your text over from that page, only you could without violating our copyright policies, or we would have to give attribute on each edit linking back, or we could do a hist merge, which would be a nightmare. It is kind of technical as to why, but that is what Drmies is saying, you meant well, but it isn't very practical on a heavily edited article like this, and would likely cause some drama and lots of edit conflicts to boot. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
          • Well, now I am just curious about this because I want to understand it. First, Drmies objected to the move based on reasons relating to keeping the correct history associated with the page, but what he cited to related to when articles are deleted and brought back or moved en masse and not when people bring over sections that they have worked over from a sandbox user page. Second, you bring up issues related to copy right, but according to wikipedia's own policy page user space edits do not belong to the user ("However, pages in user space belong to the wider community. They are not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user. They are part of Wikipedia, and exist to make collaboration among editors easier...As with all other edits, user space contributions are irrevocably licensed for copying and reuse under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License and GNU Free documentation license.") So I am still confused and not sure that this activity is barred under current policy. But this is all moot and the discussion should probably occur on another page so we don't distract from improving the current article. Remember (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
            • Everything you write belongs to you. By virtue of posting it here, you are freely licensing it under CC. Wikipedia owns %0 of the content here, every bit of it is owned by the poster and simply licensed by the original poster. Yes, it is confusing, but that is the nut of it. Wikipedia is extremely cautious when it comes to copyright because it doesn't own any of the content. This is why you can't copy/paste other people's "words" without properly giving attribute, or doing a history merge. If a page say "part of Wikipedia", that means it is licensed to, not owned by, and simply means you can't exercise domain over it. ie: even in your sandbox or user page, I can edit, although there are some community accepted exceptions typically granted, such as we generally allow users to do whatever they want on their userpage and have control over it as long as they don't break policy. Yes, this seems contradictory. Welcome to Wikipedia. ;-) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
              • Actually such a draft or section thereof can be copied into another article by anyone. The draft needs, if it uses anything from this article, to attribute that. The procedure is to include a link to the source in the edit summary: from User blah blah/blah blah What that does is leave an audit trail to allow anyone to trace the contributor for attribution. I would prefer if all of our text was PD, but it is not, it is CC SA. It is better though, in these cases, to keep the discussion here, instead of creating what is essentially an article fork in user space. Apteva (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
                • So you drop a link in the edit summary, and then the draft gets deleted for one reason or another--and then there is no more attribution/history. Drmies (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
                • Unless the deleted draft is is oversighted or otherwise especially expunged, any admin can retrieve it if there is ever a question the authorship of the text. Merging an article or a draft does not rule out deleting the source article forever. Edison (talk) 00:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Other Missing Facts

1. A transit (MBTA) police officer has also been shot, apparently non-fatally but seriously. Is this mentioned anywhere? Don't see it.

2. A carjacking occurred sometime after the shooting of the MIT officer. I don't see this mentioned. The MIT officer's name has been released and was reported to the Boston Globe. Perhaps it should be discussed if it should be included.

3. The accused have now been identified, one deceased. Is it still a BLP issue to report on them as suspects?

Full protection should be dropped so people can develop the article. Fletcher (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• If you have additions for the article, you need to provide sources. There isn't any way to add stuff like this without them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

One suspect is still alive, and the other one is still technically a suspect until legally declared a perpetrator, albeit a dead one. KirkCliff2 (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess is page is protected...

I found extra information here, specifically about the policeman who was killed, I think this info is important (or does it have its own article?). Here is the aforementioned info:
Dr Richard Wolfe, of the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, said an individual was brought in with multiple blast and gunshot wounds to his upper body.

He was in cardiac arrest when he arrived at hospital and despite attempts to resuscitate him, he was pronounced dead at 01:35 (05:35 GMT), Dr Wolfe said.

The authorities were investigating whether the dead man had a home-made bomb strapped to his body when he was killed, reports said.

I bolded some of it. Monochrome Monitor (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Source on suspect's background

This is no doubt sensitive, but since Wikipedia is not censored, I suspect we need to cover it fairly. Reuters is reporting Boston suspect's web page venerates Islam, Chechen independence. N2e (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I added the source to the section about the suspects.--Commecicommeça (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

From the internetz: "World view: Islam. Personal priority: Career and money." Drmies (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Tsarnaev or Tsarnayev?

Both versions have been used by media for the suspects Tamerlan and Dzhokhar. What is our Wikipedia transliteration policies in this regard? werldwayd (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

There are various standards for the Romanization of Russian. Wikipedia does not seem to have a formal policy, and it could use either spelling.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Request to add both first and last names, in their original Cyrilic chars. Mdabasel (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 April 2013

Let's try this again. External links - replace Guardian article with TEMPLATE

• Boston Marathon bombing collected news and commentary at The Guardian

184.78.81.245 (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Shadowjams (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

 Not done - unnecessary - M0rphzone (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Suspect's internet page

His account on VK (social network): http://vk.com/id160300242 --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Not appropriate to include; it's original research for us to imply anything from it. If news sources refer to it and make statements, we can include those, but not our place to link to these. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Right. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

They have already, that's where the Islamist theory comes from in part. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/19/us-usa-explosions-suspect-site-idUSBRE93I0JL20130419 FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

But that doesn't mean we should link to the page. Surprised that it's still up, by the way. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No, but it means we can mention it in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not original research to simply mention/list the website. This sort of misinterpretation of original research and/or synthesis is all too common. OR/Synthesis occurs when some one tries to advance a new position, which is original research. (emphasis added) If the website says e.g.'We hate America', we are allowed to cite this as along as we don't construe it to advance a new position. e.g.'They hate America because most Americans are not Muslim.' -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Is it a reference? No. Is it an appropriate EL? No. It shouldn't be included. Again, we're not here to help with the investigation or to figure out motives. That's what the FBI are doing. We're summarizing the event, and the suspect's website is not part of that summary. --MASEM (t) 17:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Above you first claim that it's "Not appropriate to include; it's original research for us to imply anything from it" Now you're changing your argument and offering up opinion about 'helping the investigation' which no one obviously is trying to do here, nor has anyone tried to imply a new position. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Strawman: Masem said "Not appropriate to include; it's original research for us to imply anything from it." They didn't say that mentioning the website was OR. In fact, Masem gave perfectly valid reasons for a. not including it (in response to the original poster) and b. not deriving conclusions from it (lest any future editor extrapolate conclusions from it into the article). Masem wasn't changing an argument; you just put words in their mouth. Moving on. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Insert : Argumentative, conjecture. He said it wasn't appropriate to include and followed with concerns of original research in the same sentence. And yes, he indeed and clearly changed his argument when he said we aren't here to help the FBI with their investigation, which, again, no one has done, obviously. Are you trying to say we should not mention/list the website? Isn't that the important issue here? For 'some reason' you forgot to say.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It's OR to link them without being certain they're their own, and by the time the RS report on it they'll probably be taken down. There are already some fake twitter feeds circulating from what I've heard, so the chance of a made-up account are real. I question whether they would be appropriate to link even if we were certain they were verified. Shadowjams (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

If reliable sources, including the FBI, claim that it is their website then we can cite it here, again, so long as we don't try to advance a new position. Yes, we must be certain, but 'certainty' by itself doesn't constitute OR, esp since anyone would be able to come along and claim they are 'not certain, therefore it's OR'. Careful. We must go by established and written WP policy, not by personal interpretation and/or opinion.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the website serves no useful purpose here. It isn't used as a reference - and it can't be as any conclusions we'd make from it would be original research. As an EL, it's not important to the case itself, as it is not providing additional details that are relevant to the case. If there is information on motive that is derived from the website, we can link to references that state that connection, but we are in no position to include it. It is, effectively trivial information right now. (It sounds like they worked very much underground, and thus their public/social media appearance is giving no clues to motive beyond their nationality, and ergo we not going to learn anything from it). --MASEM (t) 18:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

More opinions: The website gives us an insight into the life of this individual, if anything, but that's my opinion. Let's stick to WP policy. No one has cited any WP policy that says we should not include this information. Your original concern about OR doesn't apply because, again, no one is trying to advance a new position. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

How about WP:ELNO? one should generally avoid providing external links to... Social networking sites... Blogs, personal web pages... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "generally avoid", however this event/subject is quite exceptional, and this particular link ties -directly- in with the 'suspect'. If using external links is your only concern then we can include it in a 'See also' section or in 'External links' if this by itself is indeed really an issue for some. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

(ec)"The website gives us an insight into the life of this individual" is pretty much a statement of original research. We have no idea - nor as WP can we state it - that the website is important to understanding the bombing. It may be everything (in which case I expect that the FBI will seize the site and wipe it from public), it may have nothing. And as Andy points out, it's just a personal website, so not really encyclopdic at all. If there is a connection, sources will certainly highlight it. --MASEM (t) 18:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I clearly said that was my opinion and further said we should go by policy. Please don't snipe at particular items while ignoring overall context and content. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• No This violates WP:ELNO to begin with, not to mention WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSPS. We can quote a reliable source that says something like "suspect X had an account on such-and-such site where he said this-or-that" (not even sure if that's the case here) but that's it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Agree with the frog. What he said is spot on. Shadowjams (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

FreeRangeFrog, you are misrepresenting BLP. Please cite the exact BLP passage that supports your opinion then point to or 'explain' where or how this will be accomplished here on the page. Citing/listing the website in question by itself doesn't do this. Thanx. Gwillhickers (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY states clearly: Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. The suspects' (and may I remind everyone they are still suspects) personal profile on a social networking site is, by definition, a primary source. Linking to whatever it happens to contain is, by definition, original research. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Once again, it is only WP:OR if you try to advance a new position or use the website listing in any way other than to say that the suspect has a website. Btw, no one has or wants to use the website as a primary source to cite other statements or opinions. It is only being presented as the suspect's website, so the passage you cited above regarding O.R./BLPPRIMARY doesn't apply, at all. And since they are still 'suspects' we don't try to advance a new position that says they are not. Again, you need to cite the exact passage in BLP policy to support the opinions you are trying to advance here. The page has a section for 'Suspects' and a picture of the 'suspect' and there is also no reason not to list the website of the 'suspect', again, not as a reference to advance a new position. This is getting to be typically and highly argumentative and fuzzy so you should really cite the exact policy that supports your claim and then show where someone has or wants to do what you claim will be done. i.e.Something that hasn't even been done yet. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Without any indication that the account is notable in and of itself other than belonging to him, I don't think it warrants inclusion. Otherwise it's just as relevant to link to his Flickr page, Amazon.com wish list, etc etc etc. There is a de facto implication of inclusion that the site is notable/relevant. Making the leap to confirm its notability/relevance without some secondary source indicating such, is OR on our part.204.65.34.104 (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This sort of opinion has already been addressed above. It's only OR if you are trying to advance a new position or idea that is not plainly evident from the source in question -- and once again, no one has used, or is proposing to use, the website as a source, primary or otherwise, to make statements in the article. The fact that the suspect created this website makes it quite relevant to him. To keep it out of the article you will have to cite a clear WP policy violation, or impeach the reliable source(s) that say the website is indeed relevant. In any case, the second suspect has been captured alive. It won't make much difference to the article if the website is included, I just take exception to people misrepresenting or citing irrelevant policy to prop up their arguments, such that they are. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Up there you said The website gives us an insight into the life of this individual. We're not here to give anyone insight about anything, we're here to repeat what other sources say about the topic covered by the article. Trying to gain insight into the life of an individual is OR, period. And since we can rule it out per WP:EL (not to mention because it is irrelevant to the central topic of the article), and you're not using it as a reference (which you couldn't anyway), then there is no real reason to include it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It's Rindge & Latin, not Ridge & Latin

The school the younger brother attended is Cambridge Rindge and Latin. Please correct it. It's in the "Suspects" subheading. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It's OK now; Abductive fixed it; kudos! Thanks. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Suspects are neither Turkish nor from Turkey

One of the suspects spent only 10 days in Turkey 10 years ago. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/turkish-minister-boston-marathon-suspects-not-linked-to-turkey/2013/04/19/c1243f0e-a8fe-11e2-9e1c-bb0fb0c2edd9_story.html 156.40.117.1 (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Our article doesn't seem to say anything about Turkey. How is this relevant? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

He's responding to Talk:Boston Marathon bombings#Means, Opportunity.....Motive?. I saw a news article saying that they were Chechnyans from Turkey. In fact they are from Makhachkala in Dagestan. In regards to motive, this article by Jonathan Kay clears things up. Erxnmedia (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Or maybe they're really from Kyrgyzstan, though they went to school in Dagestan briefly. This actually reinforces the connection with Turkey as Kyrgyz language is in the Turkic languages. Erxnmedia (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The introduction refers to both suspects as naturalized US citizens. That is contradicted by a later reference. One or both accounts are wrong.203.184.41.226 (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Image not displaying properly

The suspect image (File:Dzhokhar_Tsarnayev.jpg) isn't showing properly on my browser (Google Chrome). AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Andy, do you mean the way it seems to interrupt the light black horizontal lines that should go all the way to the right-side margin? If so, me too; using Google Chrome. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No - it wasn't displaying at all, though it seems to be ok now. The problem you have is probably just due to the way the display has to cope with variable browser display widths - there isn't any real fix for this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Need for photo of Tamerlan Tsarnaev

We have introduced now a picture of the younger brother Dzokhar. But what about the older brother Tamerlan? We need to put a photo of him for balance. And can't we use the photo of the suspects put up by police for all media outlets. I don't think there is copyright for such photos if already put in general use by police. werldwayd (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

If someone wants to upload one here (not commons) and write a fair use rationale, this is probably the best one the FBI has released so far. [8] 24.151.50.173 (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I am sure if we are patient enough (read: give it a day or so) we will have a head-profile shot of Tamerlan as opposed to the previous FBI blurry photos to use, to go along with the clear head-profile shot of his brother. --MASEM (t) 18:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

How about not putting pictures from the perpetrators/suspects? There has been a lot of talk about not giving people who do things like this presence after their acts, so that it doesn't contribute into motivating others who might want to seek for attention. --Mamsaac (talk) 08:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting idea but explain that rational to the world media, Google, Bing, FBI etc. Wikipedia is not going to make or break their fame. Readers want to SEE and read. Legacypac (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

References

References

References will be listed down here. Feel free to cite your sources on the talk page as such. KirkCliff2 (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev have a WP article? I was leaning towards yes and so created it when I thought the WP:BLP1E policy was surpassed, but it was reverted. I feel that including a full biography, sources of which will (and may already) be available, would give this article WP:UNDUE weight in the suspects section.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 17:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll just note that under no situation should each individual have their own article. If an article on the suspects ends up being created, it would have to be Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, see Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. Ryan Vesey 18:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

"Under no situation"? And "it would have to be"? Those claims are incorrect. See, e.g., Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, Ziad Jarrah, etc. (the list is a long one).

Ryan -- that may be your personal view as to how you would like wp to be. But your comment mis-states how wp is. Certainly there are many examples of "other situations" in which more than one individual involved has a wp article, as reflected above.

Whether it would be appropriate here is something that can be discussed. But let's not mis-state facts.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I for one would support a Wikipedia article here, between the two brothers there is enough information out there to spin off an article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

There probably is enough information for an article. But let's wait for the authorities to charge them as "perpetrators", as opposed to "suspects", which would confirm their role in the bombings.Bless sins (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

15 police injured

15 police injured during the chase and apprehension. Seems that these were mostly light injuries. Should we add them to the total number of injured? Nanobear (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be rather contradictory... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see what's contradictory, but let's wait until another news source gives them indepth coverage. Local news often lists small reports like this. I think the victims of the recent events should be separated as well. It would be misleading to mix the bombing and other victims. Shadowjams (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, misread it. But yes, it will be better to wait until we have a clearer picture. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No evidence of Islamism

While there is evidence that the suspects belonged to the Muslim faith, there's no sources that are calling this an example of "Islamist terrorism", or saying that it was motivated in any way by religious feelings.Bless sins (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Convenient the article doesn't use that phrase right now then isn't it. Shadowjams (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Someone had added 'Category:Islamist terrorism in the United States' - which certainly can't be justified at present. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

For the most part, the Subjects section is NPOV so far. The line about Tamerlan "who presented himself as a devout Muslim" would appear to be an exception. If he mentioned that he didn't drink or smoke because he was a Mormon, would it be included? 24.151.50.173 (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably yes. Shadowjams (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

How is telling about his religion NPOV again? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Until there is evidence (in sources) that his religious views were relevant to what he did, it shouldn't be included in this article. CodeCat (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

As a thought experiment, replace the phrase "who presented himself as a devout Muslim" with "who presented himself as a skilled boxer". We have nothing suggesting yet that the former is more relevant than the latter. Maybe we will later learn he was motivated by religion. Maybe we will later learn that he suffered brain damage from boxing. It's too soon to selectively highlight such biographical details. 24.151.50.173 (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The question is whether every detail on the suspects should be reported in the article or only those details that are relevant to the shootings. Reliable sources currently don't connect the suspect's religion to the bombings, but merely mention it, along with a whole host of other facts. Reporting the suspect's religiosity is about as relevant as reporting the suspect's favorite sport (boxing etc.).Bless sins (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

So is talking about his website or where he was born, what do those have to do with the shootings? I think we are trying to make a mountain out of an anthill here, I don't see anything wrong with posting info about the suspect if it has been covered widespread from sources. These sources also include family members. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It's off-topic. This article is about the bombings, not the suspects' personal details. So if it's not relevant in some way to the bombing, it doesn't belong here. CodeCat (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

There's quite a bit of info on the suspects,[9], such as all the schools they attended, who their family members are etc. There are many details on Tamerlan's boxing career.[10] None of these, including religiosity, seem to be very relevant to the case. Unless, there're objections I'll remove the irrelevant material.Bless sins (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Please do. CodeCat (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Terrorism is classified according to motivation, not the religion or ethnicity of the perpetrators. Otherwise Breivik, McVeigh and Rudolph would be "Christian terrorists." We need a source that makes the connection. TFD (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• That's a good illustration of the problem. Maybe even more specific--"Protestant terrorists." Imagine the outrage. Drmies (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it'd be crazy if an American paper ever referred to a group as protestant terrorists (you might want to read Ulster Defence Association, Ulster Volunteer Force). Shadowjams (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Reuters considers it notable enough to report that: "He has posted links to videos of fighters in the Syrian civil war and to Islamic web pages with titles like "Salamworld, my religion is Islam" and "There is no God but Allah, let that ring out in our hearts"."[11] --89.27.36.41 (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

That is nowhere near significant evidence, let alone proof, that their acts were motivated by Islamist beliefs. "Salamworld" is a social network aimed at Muslims. "My religion is Islam" and "There is no God but Allah, let that ring out in our hearts" are general religious statements no more signifying of violence than "I am a Christian" and "Jesus is Lord." polarscribe (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

His brother Tamerlan has also "Had videos dedicated to terrorism and Jihad on his YouTube channel [...] Among the songs on his playlists was one called ‘I will dedicate my life to Jihad.'"[12] If mainstream media is reporting this, so should Wikipedia. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Mainstream media is not connecting these facts to the Boston bombings. Such info belongs on an article about the suspects, but this article is primarily about the Boston bombings, not the suspects.Bless sins (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

"Slain Boston bomber was promising Golden Gloves boxer who turned to radical Islam after failing to fit in"[13] How is that not connecting the two? --89.27.36.41 (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

They were/are Muslims and they were/are terrorist (allegedly), whether they should be considered "Islamist" relies on circumstantial evidence at this point. They could be secular nationalists like the the PLO (though I doubt it). We should just report the facts at this moment and see what the authorities find on their computer and elsewhere for a more complete view of their motivations.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know all that much about Islam, but as far as I know, "jihad" is any kind of struggle, not necessarily one with religious motivation. So having something about jihad on a Youtube profile isn't saying much at all. It's quite possible that the struggle for Chechen independence is a form of jihad in Islamic terminology, even if the struggle itself has nothing to do with Islam. CodeCat (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

If it was a youtube profile maybe, but the editors above already linked you a few articles and a few more reasons. Shadowjams (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A while back this was removed under the guise of "consensus" which I assume was referring to this conversation; I don't see any consensus here. Given that it's changed enough it can't be neatly reinserted, someone might want to check those cites and see if any of that information could be added back in as appropriate. Shadowjams (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

There were several editors who said that details about the suspects that are irrelevant to the bombings don't belong in the article.Bless sins (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

There are a couple sources speculating based on flimsy circumstantial evidence. Last night, a few sources speculated that a missing student from Rhode Island was a suspect based on flimsy circumstantial evidence. We saw how that turned out. Until there is reliable evidence of their motive supported by official law enforcement statements, we should avoid this sort of speculation. We can afford to be right rather than first. polarscribe (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You mean Reuters, The Guardian, and the NY Daily News? Shadowjams (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Are they citing official government sources telling them of the motive, or speculating based on circumstantial evidence? I could pull up articles from "major" news sources that repeated the lies about that missing student. We rightly avoided repeating early, false speculation. We should continue to do so. polarscribe (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

We're not on an automatic delay simply because the news media has gotten things wrong in the past. We mirror reliable sources; we're not editors in the sense that newspaper editors are. We reflect verifiable, reliable information; with no deadline sure, but the flip side of that coin is with no arbitrary delay either. The cites are right above, you can read them yourself. The Reuters one seems to come from a facebook page, and there's a similar analysis on the Boston Globe where the reporter says she found the twitter feed through an old classmate. At this point I'm just repeating myself; I've said virtually the same thing a dozen times. The supreme irony is that for all the concern about the news getting it wrong our editorializing about what's reliable and what's not, based on the whims of editors here, is its own form of editorializing. Shadowjams (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Are the sources actually saying that the suspects were motivated by certain factors, (e.g. religion) to commit the bombings? Or the sources simply giving the reader as much detail possible about the suspects, whether or not it is connected to the bombings? All the sources I have seen, including those cited above, seem to fall within the latter category.Bless sins (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Please provide links to the reliably-sourced articles which report that these attacks were motivated by Islamism. An article which reports that they posted a Facebook link to videos of Syrian resistance fighters, or that they said a common religious phrase, is not evidence of such motivation.

The Daily Mail is a tabloid which routinely engages in sensationalistic speculation - it is generally considered on the BLPN to be an unreliable source for controversial claims about living people. polarscribe (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• What Shadowjams said.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

An edit was just made[14] that connects the suspects to Islamic extremism and Osama Bin Laden. While the edit lists four sources, only one of the sources connects the suspects to extremism, and that is an editorial[15] by Steven Emerson. Because Emerson who has already given false statements on the Boston bombing (see Steven_Emerson#Controversies), he is not a reliable source on the subject and more reliable sources are needed.Bless sins (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

We should hold off on calling it terrorism until there is proof of a political angle. It might just be regular mass murder rather than a terror attack. They were reportedly maladjusted and angry - they might just be another case of Dylan Klebold/Eric Harris, only involving siblings. We still don't know why they did it. Labelling it terrorism - islamist or otherwise - would be premature.TheSyndromeOfaDown (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

This is text book terrorism, and tons of sources rightly call it terrorism. Motive has little to do with terrorism - taking actions that create terror in the population is terrorism and we know the people of Boston felt under attack and scared. The original Q rephrased = is there religious motivation? My money is on yes from the bits and pieces that have come out, but only the suspect really knows right now. Legacypac (talk) 05:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand and respect what you are saying, but I disagree. Motive is what makes terrorism terrorism. Merely causing fear isn't what makes terrorism terrorism. If that was the case, the Boston Strangler and the Son of Sam or Zodiac killer would all be considered terrorists. Motive is key to terrorism - otherwise school shootings and mass shootings like in Aurora and Sandy Hook or any sort of bombing (like those carried out by the Mafia) would have to be labled it because they all caused fear. The same thing can be said about subway pushers - nothing freaks New Yorkers out like that (they did indeed feel under attack and scared). The brothers here might simply be sociopaths (or a sociopath and a follower), or as their uncle says, losers who are angry at the world because they aren't succeeding. Killing people because of rage or mental illness isn't always terrorism. If that was the case, why is the ricin suspect being treated like a psych patient rather than a terrorist (Elvis impersonation notwithstanding)? The media has already proven that it can be wrong repeatedly during this case. They haven't even released the results of the questioning. All I am saying is take it slowly until they actually pin down a motive - if it turns out to be terrorism, then run with it. It might not though. TheSyndromeOfaDown (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I have removed some text that pointed out that the suspect prayed five times a day. If that's a crime, or indication of terrorist intent, several million Americans, Christian and Muslim, should be arrested. HiLo48 (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting article for those wishing to name suspects.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22214511

For the past 48 hours, internet users have been working with each other to piece together clues about the culprits of the Boston bombings. The result? They got it wrong - and left innocent people fearing for their safety. Many are now asking: should "crowd-sourced investigations" be stopped?

Possibly worthy of inclusion in an article (or its own article), but not this one.Martin451 (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• If multiple newspapers and other media sources report on the "crowd-sourcing" than it should be included as a small part of the article (don't give it undue weight). A single sentence or two could be worked into the article somewhere. I'd wait a week or more to help put the crowd-sourcing component into perspective. If it is something that people are still talking about midweek next week than it obviously is important enough to include in the article. As a small part of the story it should be mentioned but keep in mind the actions of a crowd of anonymous users on the internet is a very small part of what is certain to be a long and detailed article. Wikipedia users need to remember that its not about 'getting it right' or using only 'official sources' its about using multiple reliable sources to document the event and its aftermath. It is very possible that false leads, law enforcement mistakes, and media mistakes become note-able enough in their own right to warrant a mention in the article. CoolMike (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• There was some previous discussion about this here: Talk:Boston_Marathon_bombings/Archive_3#Reddit_and_4chan_vigilantism. A few other sources are linked there and Slate.fr also ran some stories about it (I read another earlier this week, but can't seem to find it anymore). Considering that there are several sources, I'd say that it does merit a sentence or two. SmartSE (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia users need to remember that its not about 'getting it right' or using only 'official sources' its about using multiple reliable sources to document the event and its aftermath

But what happens when we _know_ and can clearly document that a source which would usually be considered "reliable" is not behaving in a reliable manner at all? What happens when 'multiple' is meaningless because they are simply repeating each other without further confirmation? There are now more innocent people who have been falsely named by the press as "suspects" then there are conjectured to be guilty parties. The purpose and effectiveness of requiring reliable loses meaning when we don't have a mechanism to respond to cases where they are clearly not. I don't think that requiring that the ultimate source of the data be clearly established as something stronger than twitter/reddit comments or undocumented regurgitation of other journalism (or reverted Wikipedia revisions…) is that high a bar in such cases. A compact representation of this standard is "official sources", but I'd also include things like serious investigative journalism— if there had actually been enough time for any.--Gmaxwell (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• • You've missed the point. Being 'right' or 'wrong' is unimportant. We are here only to document that reliable source 1, 2, 3, and 4 claimed or reported a piece of information. If a previously reliable source consistently misreports information or repeats other's bad reporting than they eventually become a non-reliable source (like the New York Post is in today's world and where you could argue the Boston Herald is heading). We shouldn't care if 'fact' XYZ is true or false, we care that source CNN, NYTimes, and the BBC all reported it as true. We attribute this 'fact' to these sources. If we try to decide for ourselves as editors what is correct, true, or false then we are doing original research and not following the mandate of Wikipedia. Note that the one exception to this important distinction, which you mentioned above, is when a source repeats the information from a Wikipedia article. If this is happening than we must not re-report this information. This post is by User:CoolMike - unable to sign in at the moment. 01:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.242.75 (talk)

Include. The internet/reddit/4chan vigilantism aspect of this event is novel and has been much commented on in the mainstream media as being novel. It deserves to be included as an aspect of this article. It may be difficult to do this now with so many cooks in the kitchen, but in a couple of weeks the louder editors will have moved on to the next Joe the Plumber, and at that point this article can be enriched with this aspect and some authoritative references on historical and political context of this act and the to-be-established motivations of the bombers. Erxnmedia (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is an article from Kyrgyzstan about the bombers

Has Tokmok become radicalized over the years? When I was there in the mid-1990s, that area was pretty secular and low-key: http://www.vb.kg/doc/225495_podozrevaemye_v_terakte_v_bostone_yehali_iz_kyrgyzstana_v_8_i_15_letnem_vozraste.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.203.97 (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

They are ethnic Chechens, not Kyrgyz. FunkMonk (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

"Both Dzhokhar Tsarnaev 19, and his brother Tamerlan Tsarnaecv, 26, who was killed overnight by gunfire, were born in Kyrgystan ..." [16]--39.41.212.239 (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Chechen leader reaction

Is my addition adding the reaction of the Chechen pres. appropriate? I know we get a little iffy about "reactions" but in this circumstance with the suspects apparently coming from a background as a family of Chechen refugees (though possibly never visiting the area itself) I felt his reaction, with the history of the area, warranted inclusion.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC) It is as valid as the Russian reaction, maybe more notable as it is a bit of a strange reaction from the leader. His wikipedia page is interesting. I'd like to see more views before we delete it.Legacypac (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

If there's any international recognition that's newsworthy this one would be at the top of the list. Shadowjams (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

1. He's not "Chechen president". He calls himself an "imam" and "head of the state".
2. Kadyrov routinely attacks America (like here 6 days ago - and few years ago he called on Moscow to attack the USA with nuclear weapons) and blames it for everything, and here he does it too. --Niemti (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

In this edit and another by the same editor part or all of the Chechen reaction was removed citing undo weight. 02:11, 20 April 2013‎ ExclusiveAgent (talk | contribs)‎ . . (70,232 bytes) (-213)‎ . . (→‎International: undue weight, again.) (undo) I prefer to leave all of it in. Maybe we can restore barring consensus to the contrary? Legacypac (talk) 02:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I feel that at least this section "Any attempt to make a link between Chechnya and the Tsarnaevs, if they are guilty, is in vain. They grew up in the US, their views and beliefs were formed there. The roots of evil must be searched for in America." should remain in. The last part is the standard condolence, but this is more relevant - the president (or whatever) of Chechnya saying this doesn't represent their people and that - in his view - the radicalization must have begun in the US. If we leave any part in, I think that is the part that should be left in.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Exactly what I just put back in (plus the critisim of US law enforcement) and came here to report. The part left in before was generic unimportant statements.Legacypac (talk)

Semi-protection edit request

Uncle's reaction

I would like to include the uncle's reaction to the article, especially in regards to knowing that his nephews are the suspects. The sentiment of his reaction is different from that of the uncle's and I think adding his reaction to the article will give a more complete family perspective of the tragedy. Here is a link http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/boston-mit-shooting-explosion-suspect-watertown-064355149.html Apandey09 (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC) add their aunt's comments.

Consider adding the content to Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev as this article is becoming too full of commentary and extraneous information. My76Strat (talk) 04:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Article re-title

Since the article covers the shooting at MIT, wouldn't it be sufficient to re-title the article as something like "2013 Boston attacks"? 3193th (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so, because the shooting is a direct consequence of the bombing. CodeCat (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• On another note: I think the time may be right to change the title to the singular: Boston Marathon bombing. A day of listening to the radio and reading the paper has led me to conclude that the singular is the proper way to title it right now. Drmies (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree that the article should be titled in the singular, because, for example, the September 11 attacks have always been referred to in the plural, because there was more than 1 perpetrator, and the perpetrators were all part of one collective organization (al-Qaeda). Since the brothers in the Boston bombings are arguably part of an independent terrorist organization, it would make more sense to have the article titled "bombings" rather than "bombing". Also, obviously, there was more than one bomb, and the two bombs were detonated at separate times. 3193th (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

While the context is a bit different, I imagine that there was more than one bomb dropped during the Bombing of Dresden in World War II. Location (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• The 9/11 attacks took place in different cities. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with CodeCat, and also agree that the title should remain in the plural, since there were two bombs. - Camyoung54 talk 22:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The current name is fine, although I see most news sources using the singular "bombing" as opposed to "bombings".Bless sins (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The word "bombing" is a verb which can included multiple bombs. I think the important aspect is that this was one specific incident (bombing) which included two bombs, not two separate events which would indicate bombings. Arzel (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The FBI most wanted poster related to it uses the phrase "Boston Marathon Bombings". I see nothing wrong with the plural, particularly given the substituentsubsequent (spell check) bloodshed. Shadowjams (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

So if there was no bloodshed than "bombing" would be appropriate? Sorry, but that doesn't make much sense; you don't change the meaning of a word because of a consequence. Also, I think you mean subsequent, substituent refers to atoms. Arzel (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Does nobody read anything? The FBI refers to it with a specific phrase. That's instructive. The subsequent violence is part of that event, so referring to it as a singular is grammatically correct. If they were discrete then plural would make sense. While we're having fun with spelling and typos, you meant "then" not "than. Shadowjams (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not "Chechen language", it's just Cyrillic alphabet (and Russified surnames)

Nevermind, I can edit. --Niemti (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Birth place

Wikipedia states "Born in Chechnya and from the North Caucasus, the two immigrated to the United States in 2000 or 2001.[66][67][68]" but those news reports cited say that they were both born in Kyrgystan. Other news reports also say Kyrgystan.[17]. Can someone please correct that. Thanks.--39.41.212.239 (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

There are conflicting reports on who was born where. Might need to wait for the sources to align. See some discussion on the Suspect's Bio Talk Page too.Legacypac (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

7-11 store

Hello. PBS says the suspects did not rob the 7-11 store in Cambridge. I'll remove it for now. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Here is a copy of the Associated Press on that subject that PBS cites. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll also note that this isn't the news organizations arguing against the police. The police initially confirmed the link, now they are "double-checking" [18]. I agree that it should remain removed until they reconfirm, if they do. Ryan Vesey 20:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

From WBUR "State Police say they have established that the bombing suspects were not the ones who robbed a convenience store in Cambridge, as had earlier been reported. A statement from State Police spokesperson Dave Procopio says "the bombers did purchase gas at a gas station in Cambridge later in the chain of events and we recovered images of them there."" Legacypac (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

BBC World Service shortwave also reported the 7-11 misinformation. ——Pawyilee (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Photos of second explosion site

This freely licensed set on Flickr has some photos of the site of the second explosion. I don't have time to upload them now.--ragesoss (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Aunt's reaction

I know somebody already mentioned including the aunt's reaction but no link was provided. Here is the link to an article http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/suspect-aunt-says-she-suspicious-investigation-190616201.html;_ylt=AnRXa4NJh10B_KWvnpw6HlqZCMZ_;_ylu=X3oDMTJsMHR2aGgxBG1pdANIQ01PTCBvbiBhcnRpY2xlIHJpZ2h0IHJhaWwEcGtnA2lkLTMxOTU2MzMEcG9zAzIEc2VjA01lZGlhQkNhcm91c2VsTWl4ZWRIQ00EdmVyAzc-;_ylg=X3oDMTMzcGdpZGdiBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDZDZiYjgyM2EtMzM1NS0zZWM4LWI5NjgtNjRiNjQzNDJjY2Y2BHBzdGNhdANibG9nc3x0aGVsb29rb3V0BHB0A3N0b3J5cGFnZQ--;_ylv=3 Apandey09 (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

"Playoff implicating game?"

Does this phrase mean something to hockey fans? The sentence is "The National Hockey League postponed the playoff implicating game between the Boston Bruins and Pittsburgh Penguins[99] after the club with local authorities canceled the "morning skate" practices.[100]" I do not see it in the reference, and it is not a term I have read before. Is there a better phrase to say how the postponed game was related to a playoff? Edison (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Come on Edison, you didn't fall off the turnip truck...a game with play-off implications. Drmies (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Not all readers are conversant in sports jargon. Neither "imply" nor "implicating" appear in Hockey or Playoff and "playoff implicating" appears nowhere else in Wikipedia. I thought maybe it was a typo. If it means something to some readers, then fine. For the team that would have won the game there would have been an "implication" they would get in the playoffs, maybe because one or both were highly ranked, or because of the point in the season, or its on national TV, or something. I'll file it with other sports jargon mysteries. Note that other sports terms which might not be understood by some of our world-wide readers are defined somewhere, like Sticky wicket and infield fly rule . Perhaps the special importance of the postponed game could be briefly explained, if it is worth mentioning its cancellation at all, via a Wikilink to some section of some article which distinguishes between those hockey games which are "playoff implicating" and those which are not. Edison (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It's in contrast to the Boston Celtics/Indiana Pacers game - which not only could not have possibly changed whether either team got into the playoffs, it also could not have changed either team's seed. Therefore in sports one would say that it had no playoff implications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.125.144.133 (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

[The preceding comment was me] Also I would add that while I don't blame anyone for being unfamiliar with the term "playoff implications", I do feel it is a more general / less jargon-y term than "infield fly" or "sticky wicket". 165.125.144.133 (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This article isn't written for Hockey fans - it needs rewording. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Even as a sports fan, 'playoff implicating' is awful phrasing. At least game with 'playoff implications' Hot Stop (Talk) 23:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Mentioning anything beyond the bare fact of the game cancellation is entirely unjustified in this context, anyway - I've edited the rest out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

More gunshots

The latest from CNN and WCVB is that a body was found in a boat in a backyard and more gunshots were heard. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Boston Globe is claiming they have the second suspect pinned down. I'd hold off on any major updates here. --MASEM (t) 23:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

He's alive, the scanners are reporting this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, something is going on though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Newest boston globe article [19] Shadowjams (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's wait until the situation is clear, and the identity is confirmed (It certainly sound like its the guy, but...) --MASEM (t) 23:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The 2nd suspect was arrested. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

People misidentified as suspects

I wonder if it would be worth adding a section to this article mentioning how, before the names of the suspects were publicly announced, various people were falsely identified as suspects in the media and the Internet. They include a 17-year-old called Salah Barhoun, falsely identified as a suspect on the front cover of the New York Post[20] and Sunil Tripathi, a missing person falsely identified as a suspect by reddit and other websites[21]. I'm aware there are BLP issues here, but I think it would be worth including this simply to clear these people's names and make clear they weren't involved. Does anyone else agree? Robofish (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

We aren't here to "clear people's names" - and while there may be grounds at some point for including a general section on media misreporting based on published sources describing such misreporting, we can't engage in original research to 'correct' the media. This article needs to stay on topic, and not go off on multiple tangents. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The story has been covered in the Guardian. I've drafted a section to cover it. Please comment or edit to see if it should be included in the article.--Nowa (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

== Misreporting of bombing details and suspects ==

• On Monday, April 15, the New York Post reported that 12 persons had been killed in the explosions and that authorities were seeking a “Saudi man”. The Saudi man, however, turned out to be a wounded student.
• On Thursday, April 18, the New York Post posted pictures of two persons on their front page implying that they were suspects. They were not. The New York Post has defended their reporting saying that they merely said the police were seeking more information about the people that were pictured.

I think it would be a good idea. It shows the role social media and the internet played in this story and how this negatively affected people.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

There was news video of two dark-skinned males who were handcuffed and sitting on the curb after being arrested while riding in a taxi, and a guy who was forced to strip naked and was then taken away, still naked, in a police car. Were these people implicated, or were they mistakenly arrested and then released? Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The guy who was forced to strip is mention in the 5:33, 5:41 and 6:06 p.m. updates and the taxi riders are mentioned in the 10:24 p.m. update: http://www.3news.co.nz/LIVE-UPDATES-Police-hunt-for-Boston-bombing-suspect/tabid/417/articleID/294897/Default.aspx Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I've added two new subsections in the suspects section, one for other arrests and one for people falsely identified as suspects. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks good.--Nowa (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Deaths section

Someone (not sure who) removed the MIT police officer from the Deaths section. He remains (correctly) in the infobox. Yesterday the decision was made to combine the MIT article and the Maraton Bombing articles. Since we are correctly treating this as one big event should we not list all victim deaths in the same section? Yes, the deaths were on different days, but compare to victim lists of serial killers that often span years or decades.Legacypac (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

There's been no discussion to my knowledge as to whether or not combine the two death counts. I believe they should be listed separately. They're both significant, but listing them together is confusing. If that requires tweaking the infobox template that can be done. Shadowjams (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I prefer to list the three bombing deaths in one paragraph, then a separate sentence for officer killed. That was the way it was at one point. I did not write it. Legacypac (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't write it there originally, but I prefer this gentleman be listed as a death. I restored it just now. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much. He died protecting the public, murdered in cold blood.Legacypac (talk) 04:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Article request: please write article for MIT Police Department

thumb|right|alt=Grainy MIT PD GIF file that needs to be retraced

Resolved

--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

An article needs to be written for MIT Police Department. Please help by writing this article. The author can model the article on:

• University of California Police Department
• Rutgers University Police Department

Cheers. Thanks. --Rangeblock victim (talk) 23:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Take it up at WP:AFC. Cheers! Ignatzmice•talk 00:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Article is created. Not a ton of info in it yet, but the basics [22]Legacypac (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Legacypac. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, matey! Cheers. --Rangeblock victim (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Please retrace the logo image

I did not make the uploaded logo click here appear on the article because it is grainy and ugly. Can someone with Photoshop/Illustrator skills retrace? Thanks. Cheeeers. --Rangeblock victim (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

FBI interview

ap reports the deceased suspect was interviewed by fbi in 2011 because another country asked them to do so because they thought he had links to extermisim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.240.21 (talk) 00:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the AP source?--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10878692

Also here: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57580534/fbi-interviewed-dead-boston-bombing-suspect-years-ago/

And somewhat related here:http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2013/04/boston-bomber-could-have-been-deported-after-2009-conviction/

NPR is also carrying this, but it would be nice to find the original original source: http://www.npr.org/2013/04/20/178084378/suspects-chechen-roots-draws-eyes-in-russia

Suspect arrested

They got him (heard over the scanner), so watch out for edit wars over this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

What exact time did you hear that? Emw (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

8:45PM local time it happened. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

"Suspect in custody. Officers sweeping the area. Stand by for further info." @Boston_Police on Twitter, 5:45 PM - 19 Apr 13, https://twitter.com/Boston_Police/status/325409894830329856 Emw (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

BBC confirms 'suspect in custody' [23] AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi! They're taking him to a hospital in an ambulance right now (heard from CBS) as well.... But YES! This needs to be included, for sure! http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/20/us/boston-marathon-bombings.html?pagewanted=all (more proof he has in fact been arrested...) 173.79.68.101 (talk) 01:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC) IP....

• Violation of NOTFORUM here, but heck-freaking-yeah. Ryan Vesey 00:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• my sentiments exactly. What a historical record the talk pages over the past week will make for the future historian.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Indeed I predict the Wikipedia editors of the future will look back and say "Jeez what a mess the talkpage of The Boston Marathon bombings was" =p - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Exact time of arrest?

Kevin, what exact time did you hear that on the scanner? The scanner announcement likely preceded the 8:45 PM ET Twitter announcement from BPD, but it's not clear how long that latency was. By the way, great catch! Emw (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably a couple of minutes before, I heard mention that they had a suspect in custody. I know I turned on the news around that time and realized that no one was covering, so that is when I decided to notify everyone here. I didn't note the time because I thought it was something that occurred a bit earlier, but I guess I should have, looking back. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I heard on NBC they were watching a local affiliate and one of the anchors said 8:42 was the time that they confirmed the suspect was in custody EDIT Doubled checked my twitter (I was listening to the scanner also) I posted at 7:42 (CDT) saying he was in custody. JayJay^{What did I do?}

That makes sense. At UMass, we have our own cable lineup, but the school refuses to bring us anything from the Boston area (even though the surrounding town gets these same stations), so I have been relying on scanners for my news. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Amherst is closer to Springfield, Massachusetts than to Boston, so UMass is in the Springfield, Mass. DMA. Great50 (talk) 04:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

True, but we still get Boston stations out my way. Oh well, it's water under the bridge, and it allows for me to see a less-sensationalized covering of life. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Invalid link

This page needs to be unlocked as there are several errors. For example, the "death of an MIT police officer" link to the "MIT shooting and Watertown incidents" section is incorrect. It links to the non-existing section "MIT shooting and Watertown incident", when the correct link should link to "MIT shooting and Watertown incidents". It does not work and the page needs to be unlocked so that errors can be fixed.Iosue3 (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Fixed. Viriditas (talk) 01:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Any other errors you (or anyone else) see can be listed here, and someone will correct them. LadyofShalott 03:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

the link to the suspects bio redirects back to here. please remove the redirection or make a valid article about them! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.95.1.134 (talk) 06:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Split suggestion

This article should really be about the bombings and not the other actions of the people who did it. I'm proposing that an article named Tamerlan and Dzokhar Tsarnaev is created, with a manhunt and shootouts, as well as the large amount of media publicity, I'm sure there's enough notability to split this and leave this article to just be about the bombing with only a small amount of information about the perpetrators. 149.254.56.59 (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Agree but wait - Now that the suspect has been taken alive an article should be made but lets wait for the legal system to start here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Strong oppose. We have plenty of days and weeks to decide on a split. Whenever we have breaking news items involving an ongoing incident that involves victims and perps, we by default include all of that information in one article, preferring to followWP:ONEEVENT. Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Either that or change the title to properly reflect what happened. This article is about the bombing and the shooting, not just one of those two incidents. --ABC Order (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a problem with that, in addition to the bombing and the death of an MIT officer the suspects have worldwide notability, WP:ONEVENT does not apply here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

ONEEVENT definitely applies here. Until we know more about the two, they're only notable for being the culprits here. --MASEM (t) 01:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The bombing and subsequent killing and capture of 'suspects' are all part of the same story as it is unfolding. If someone wants to create a separate biography on the suspects, let them, but there is no reason to leave a gaping void in this article by leaving out important facts surrounding the suspects and their possible involvement with the bombings. If they somehow discover they were not responsible (and it doesn't look that way) then we can edit the article accordingly. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion wasn't intending to completely remove all information about the suspects. The intention was to keep the biography here, and have a more in-depth biography on the article about them. The later events would be mentioned in the biography article also more in-depth, while this article only has a paragraph or two about them. 149.254.49.59 (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose — The editor wrote "This article should really be about the bombings and not the other actions of the people who did it." The implication here is that the other actions of the people who did it are not related to the bombings, which of course isn't true. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Not yet I have no doubt that these individuals will both be covered sufficiently for us to have separate articles on both, especially if Dzhokhar survives his injuries. However, we should wait until there is enough confirmed information to really justify separate articles.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose They cannot be separated, at least not based on what little information we have today. TFD (talk) 04:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

No WP:BIO1E. The individuals may become notable as we learn more about them. At this point, we do not know enough for there to be any justification to split off a separate article. As BIo1E says: "as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified". That point has not occurred yet (and what it really should say is "as the individual's DOCUMENTED role grows larger.") – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Miranda rights

Despite being an American Citizen the news report said Dzhokhar isn't being read his Miranda Rights. I think that's worthy of mention. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It should be, although the citizenship of the defendant is irrelevant to whether s/he gets read their Miranda rights.

The last report I heard said that they were invoking the public safety exception. Daniel Case (talk) 01:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I Don't have editing rights since this page is semi-protected so can someone who does add it? Mrmoustache14 (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that you do have editing rights, given your Wikipedia record. Great50 (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

We may wish to wait. I won't say why here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Despite what you all think you know, police officers are not required to read an arrested citizen their Miranda Rights. They cannot use any information provided by a suspect against them in a court of law if they do not read the Miranda rights, however, they are not required to read the rights during an arrest. 01:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.242.75 (talk)

We should leave it out of the article for the same reasons they are not reading him his rights. I am sorry that I can't explain on this talk page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

As the US Federal attorney stated, when public safety is at risk, such as this case, Miranda rights are not required. In addition, if you are a terrorist - you are a declared enemy of the United States of America and have neither rights under the Geneva Convention, and may be detained without charges, (but as stated since the suspect is a citizen, even a charge as traitor would still require due process in which they would be read their rights later - most likely at a time and place when they aren't killing cops and children). Of course the police used the former versus the latter in this case.Patriot1010 (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we can include it if the reasons above are mentioned. To include it without justification wouldn't be the right thing to do.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning#Confusion_regarding_use Miranda is not required indy_muaddib (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

That section does not at all say "Miranda is not required." Failure to Mirandize might prevent statements from being used in the prosecution's direct case and might prevent evidence derived from such questioning from being presented as evidence. News sources have mentioned the "public safety exception" to Miranda. The Public safety exception from the Supreme Court ruling in the New York v. Quarles case allows non-coercive questions about issues related to the public safety. If done properly, such such questioning sometimes results in statements of=r evidence which can be use in ght prosecution's direct case. (like "Are there any more guns/bombs?") this is from the an FBI article about the Public safety exception: http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/february2011/legal_digest]. Edison (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The public safety exception derives from New York v. Quarles, a case in which the Supreme Court considered the admissibility of a statement elicited by a police officer who apprehended a rape suspect who was thought to be carrying a firearm. The arrest took place in a crowded grocery store. When the officer arrested the suspect, he found an empty shoulder holster, handcuffed the suspect, and asked him where the gun was. The suspect nodded in the direction of the gun (which was near some empty cartons) and said, "The gun is over there". The Supreme Court found that such an unadvised statement was admissible in evidence because it was focussed and limited, involving a situation "in which police officers ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety." That exception was allowable, the court said, because of the immediate threat that the gun posed. More: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/04/dzhokhar_tsarnaev_and_miranda_rights_the_public_safety_exception_and_terrorism.html

Intrepid (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Do we have any sources about whether the Massiah Doctrine applies, particularly after Dzhokhar has been charged? If Massiah attaches, the public safety exception doesn't apply; see Moulton v. Maine. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 07:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Removed line from Suspects section

I removed this line: "A YouTube account in Tamerlan's name featured two radical Islamist videos, and Tamerlan's aunt said that in recent years, he had become increasingly observant and began praying five times a day." The source does not support the first part - it states "A YouTube account under Tamerlan's name featured two videos about terrorism." We cannot assume that those videos are "radical Islamist."

Nor is it relevant that Tamerlan prayed five times a day - literally a billion or more Muslims pray five times per day, because that is a tenet of their religious beliefs. It is in no way indicative of Islamism or extremism that someone prays a certain number of times. polarscribe (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

it says in several boston and usia articles firstly there is no confirmation it is even his channel, secondly it features a radically islamist video (or apparently two, didn't read that) so none of what you choose for editing sth. out is viable, btw. the controlled explosion at their home did actually not take place, even if it was many hours after its announcement that was so decided, on a sidenote, (really not to prominently) i am impressed with the speed with what things have recently been updated on this page. 89.99.243.65 (talk) 02:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Still Awaiting Why, Reason or Intent

Still awaiting for this section to be introduced. I would suspect by now, the Police would know this.

Might want to document within the Wikipedia time line that us messily civilians still have no idea why, else the reason is already embedded somewhere within the current article. --roger (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

You expect the police to have uncovered the entirety of the suspect's reasoning behind the bombings within minutes of his arrest? As he is still likely hospitalized and not in an interrogation room? When reliable sources begin documenting the reason/intent behind the actions, it can be added here. AuburnPilot (talk) 02:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Roger - We have no deadline. Keep waiting, patiently. HiLo48 (talk) 02:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

If you have sources for the "why", then please provide them. Nobody knows why at this point, thus there is no such section. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

We might want to be careful about adding every tidbit leaked by some anonymous person "close to the investigation" to some reporter. Edison (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The police are still trying to figure out the motives of the Sandy Hook shooter. We're likely not going to know here for weeks. As others have say, we've got no DEADLINE. --MASEM (t) 04:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Not to pile on (well, maybe to pile on)—remember, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. There is no reason for us to know the motive(s), and less to put any motive(s) the media might be spouting into the article. Like Masem said, they're still working on Sandy Hook (though one of the attackers survived here, so it might be solved quicker). The media will, no doubt, devote hundreds of hours' worth of airtime in useless speculation; as an encyclopedia, people should not come here for the latest hot air, and we shouldn't give it to them. We need to wait—weeks, months—until it is clear why, exactly, they did it. Ignatzmice•talk 04:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Granted, but likely going to be a frequently asked question and should likely not be embedded within the context of the article. (ie. FAQ) Right now, I don't trust myself adding a new section titled, "Intentions" with subtext "Currently unknown" as my typing would likely translate to something somebody might consider slanderous. (ie. "A mess of lone losers thinking they could change the entire world." might get tossed in. ;-) --roger (talk) 06:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Celebration

People in Boston applauded and got together and celebrated when the terrorist was captured. I can't source this right as of yet, but there are videos of it on YouTube. I think it should be added somewhere.--Matt723star (talk) 03:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It was on the news, but it doesn't seem relevant without further explanation. (All I saw were a few people waiting and applauding passing police cars at Mt. Auburn, which wasn't even the hospital the suspect apparently ended up at.) It seems more that they were applauding the excellent work of the police officers. But again, we need a ref; as you said, it can't be sourced yet. It cannot be added if it cannot be sourced. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSJ78TZNSts --Matt723star (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

One has to be careful with this stuff. The media loves it. Good vision for them to televise. But they have abused situations like this in the past by showing imagery of totally unrelated celebrations, and by doctoring imagery. We have to be sure that the "celebration" as seen was really one about the recent events. HiLo48 (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

And there is no reason to include any of it. Even if this is sourced out the wazoo, it's still not relevant. Of course people are going to be relieved. Just as they were tense while it was going on. And unaware of anything before it happened. Drmies (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The people in Boston rejoiced because their week of terror ended, a week of terror they've never felt or experienced before, it's absolutely relevant if you think of the fact that years from now, this will be something discussed, and it should be reminded that the people of Boston came together and thanked the police and united in strength. --Matt723star (talk) 07:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

http://news.yahoo.com/lightbox/suspects-identified-in-boston-bombing-slideshow/

New York Times update?

Can we take down the warning about the New York Times? I see that was from April 15 and considering the recent events and the consensus on what happened, I don't think we still need it. Do you agree? MidnightRequestLine (talk) 03:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no warning about the New York Times, but an appropriate warning about the New York Post is on the article. Can we be sure the Post will not have more articles about the incident and the suspects like the earlier ones which led to inaccurate information being added to the article? Edison (talk) 04:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Oops yes I meant the Post. Considering just about every news outlet in the world has now reported that the brothers are Chechen and have been killed or caught, including the NY Post itself, I think we're safe. I unfortunately do not know how to edit the editing page so if someone else could do it or enlighten me that would be spectacular. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit help requested

I tried to add two additional locations to the text box but only the second one shows! ~Can't revert die to edit conficts. Can someone with more skills fix this? ThanksLegacypac (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Just be a little patient. Take your time. Slow down. Wait for the others to finish their work. We have no deadline. HiLo48 (talk) 03:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The info box continues to confound me. Someone helpfully fixed my first error. Now I made all the locations disappear by adding an s to location :( Assume article BTW - lots of really good editing displayed here. Legacypac (talk) 03:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

all ok now - thanks guysLegacypac (talk) 04:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

International reactions to attacks

Notable remarks: The new leader for the Liberal Party of Canada, Justin Trudeau, controversially claimed in an interview with CBC the day after the bombings that the motivation behind this attack was somebody "feeling excluded [by Society]". This caused a minor controversy in Canada. [editorials and quotes can be found in major Canadian newspapers > Globe and Mail & National Post, CBCNews website] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.162.173.94 (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

the aurora shooting, sandy hook, and every other attack has a section with flags indicating the reactions of world leaders, the norway attacks also has this section so why not this one? its important — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.251.154.175 (talk) 03:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

No it's not. It's mostly extremely predictable guff produced by politicians saying what they think is expected of them. There's already an International section which even now contains a lot of statements of the bleeding obvious. HiLo48 (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

other similar pages hope it though, so why not this one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.251.154.175 (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Because that doesn't mean they've got it right. It's a bit like justifying doing something by saying "We've always done it that way." What do you think such an addition would add to the article that wouldn't already be obvious and expected? HiLo48 (talk) 04:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Like HiLo said, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. It's not important and not notable, and it shouldn't be in the other article either. Ignatzmice•talk 04:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

it should be its an important part of an article especially a terrorism article

ok i got an idea, how about creating a seperate article title something like "reactions to the boston marathon bombings"

Here is a real reaction with actual impacts to Boston: Canada is fast tracking an anti-terrorism bill Stuff like - go to jail for leaving to a terrorism training camp. Legacypac (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Two of you have now declared it to be important. Neither has answered my question - "What do you think such an addition would add to the article that wouldn't already be obvious and expected?" HiLo48 (talk) 05:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

i just think it should be a common part of an article of this type, if anything to see the different reactions various cultures have to something like this (if they vary) and just because it's interesting to read. just because something is expected it doesnt mean it shouldnt be part of the article or at the very least have its own article and like i said ALL the other similar articles have this, its just something that should be a common part of something like this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.251.154.175 (talk) 05:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that it's interesting to see the world uniting in times of fear but that's not what Wikipedia is here for; Wikipedia is not a PR machine for governments. Domestic political responses that are directly attributed to the bombings may be notable(ie. Cananda fast tracking their terrorism bill) but news of one minute peace, condemnation and such is not. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 05:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Articles like this are always at risk of ending up too big, containing far too much detail, much of it redundant. We have to take care on that front. If some international person said something surprising or controversial, it would matter, but right now this information is not an important part of the story of the bombings. HiLo48 (talk) 05:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Unless the article contains information relevant to International Relations, then international reactions are irrelevant and will only serve to popularize the event within media or politics. But seeing it's already in, shrugs. In other words, how does this event effect a Country on the other side of the world? I think quick one line reactions might be more useful for research purposes, in case future events are spawned because of this incident. (ie. International reactions prior to conflicts and wars.) People will naturally be more biased at the local level. From what I'm seeing from the news though, it looks like a few crazy individuals having their insane fun, trying to acquire International attention. --roger (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Possible additional links, Boston University links

Boston University has these links:

• "Letter from the Family of LU Lingzi." (Archive) April 17, 2013.
• Seligson, Susan. "BU Scholarship to Honor LU Lingzi." (Archive) April 18, 2013.
• Friday, Leslie. "BU Padua Study Abroad Students Mourn." (Archive) April 19, 2013.

Which ones are appropriate to use or list? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The Next Chapter

Not ready to include this in the article but according to "Police in New Bedford, Massachusetts, 60 miles south of Boston said three other people had been taken into custody for questioning about Monday's bombings. No other details were provided.""

However Reuters just reported "Three people in New Bedford, Massachusetts were questioned and released on Friday in connection with the Boston Marathon bombings, law enforcement officials said." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 04:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course everyone wants to know why and who else might be involved. This story will have wings for a while yet. Legacypac (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The surviving suspect attended UMass Dartmouth, geographically close to New Bedford, and a classmate stated that he and she had visited Russian friends of his in New Bedford on a few occasions - that's undoubtedly the who and why. Irish Melkite (talk) 03:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 April 2013

typo: "thew" should be "threw" in discussion of pressure cooker bomb thrown in Watertown. 99.184.206.48 (talk) 04:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Czech ambassador's statement

The Czech ambassador to the United States issued a statement on Friday stating his shock at the bombing, re-iterating the Czech Republic's stance against terrorism, and -- remarkably -- clarifying, for the benefit of confused social media users, that Chechnya and the Czech Republic are two different places.

This has been reported in several places. I'm currently unsure if it deserves a place in the article -- on the one hand, it's a notable official statement, on the other hand, to add it might seem inappropriate in tone -- but it's a quite remarkable statement for an ambassador to have to make. -- The Anome (talk) 06:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Are there seriously Americans out there who would confuse the two entities? Is the average American's knowledge of the world really that poor? Oh, wait...--ЗAНИA ^{talk WB talk}] 11:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, that they are already dissimilar. It's quite commonly stated when Chechnya is mentioned, Chechnya is publicized as being within the Ukraine region. Likely furthering anybody from confusing the two. They are already extremely dissimilar in spelling and pronunciation, adding any reference to their similarities would only provoke confusion that doesn't already exist. The only possible confusion, is if you had relatives within the 1700's and 1800's migrate to and fro from the Ukraine region, and into Poland or other territories. If you need somebody sensitive to this, my relatives were from Bohemia and the Czech region. ;-) --roger (talk) 12:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm well aware that we don't write only for people who are perfectly familiar with the geography of the world, but this is simply too much ... It takes one click to find out what is Chechnya (linked in the article) and what is the Czech Republic (not mentioned in the article). This is an article about bombings in a US city, not a 1st grade geography lesson. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I went to University in Washington DC where many of my American classmates could not place Washington State or British Columbia on a map. Someone actually asked me, in all seriousness, if British Columbia was where cocaine came from. So, good on the Czech ambassador. Legacypac (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Please no more terrible stories, Legacypac. My heart stops beating when I realize that Chechnya borders Georgia! --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Chechnya borders Georgia? Like Alabama? Okay, domestic terrorism, then. — O'Dea (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Correct the list of MA towns on lockdown during the siege.

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

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

Lazy writing and cross-referencing, Wikipedia.

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

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

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

The suburbs originally locked down were Watertown and the surrounding areas (anti-clockwise) of Waltham, Newton, Allston-Brighton, Cambridge, and Belmont (see Boston police department tweet). I saw on the day that the mayor of at least one other neighbourhood, possibly Somerville (I forget), volunteered to lock down as well, before the whole city of Boston was eventually shut down. — O'Dea (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)