Jump to content

Talk:Boston Marathon bombing/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Tamerlan Tsarnaev American or US Permanent Resident?

Our Deaths in 2013 page says he is "Russian-born American". However our report on this article actually says in the "Suspects" section "He was not a U.S. citizen, but was a permanent resident". Clearly this needs to be verified and the info here or in the "Recent Deaths" page be corrected. werldwayd (talk) 08:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the "Deaths in 2013" page. The cited source (CNN), in this article, clearly states that he is a "green card" holder, which is another way of saying permanent resident. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 10:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Tsarnaev was granted US citizenship on 11 September 2012. WWGB (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to see corroboration of that, since the Daily Mail is being quoted. I read elsewhere this morning that it was Dzhokar who became a US citizen that day. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Yup, NBC says it was Dzhokhar who naturalised last September. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 00:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Was the FBI Monitoring Boston Bombing Suspects for Years?

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/04/was-fbi-monitoring-boston-bombing-suspects-years — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.120.170.161 (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you find a better source?--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
To clarify, the article merrily reiterates the FBI interviewed one of the individuals at the request of the Russian government and turned up nothing. At some point, the mother was also called concerning the interview, according to statements made by the mother. Further hearsay by the kids or mother stating they were under constant investigation. No official statements or sources are cited concerning being under an ongoing investigation. Shrugs. People likely pop-up on their radar all the time. Doesn't mean they're constantly being monitored. --roger (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Using PC instead of semi ?

I'm wondering if it might be an idea to change the semi protection into Pending Changes. I'm sort of interested in seeing what would happen and if we are going to see a substantially different editing pattern. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

You could bring that up the requests for page protection.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
PC is generally for only rarely edited articles, which this one would not qualify for at this time. I think semi is correct at this time. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Trim or split

The suspect section is a Wikipedia:Coatrack. We should either trim it or split it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I think a split off to Tamerlan and Dzokhar Tsarnaev will happen in time, there is too much info that would be ignored that passes WP:GNG out there about the suspects to not have an article about the two suspects. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Wright brothers would be a good format. Do we want to call it Tamerlan and Dzokhar Tsarnaev or Tsarnaev brothers?--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Most articles that cover the same subjects have an area of overlap. Whose decision was it and where is the consensus to gut the 'Suspects' section entirely?? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
The decision to split the article was a WP:BOLD decision, but the consensus supporting that decision is being formed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Dzhokar Tsarnaev, if you want to comment there. —Swpbtalk•contribs 16:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It might be worth it if the younger of the Brothers Tsarnaev survives to stand trial. If he dies of his injuries we might not have enough sourced material to really justify splitting (much of what's being added now could probably be cut down the road). TheSyndromeOfaDown (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Parents' reaction

http://rt.com/usa/tsarnaev-brothers-parents-innocent-124/

This may be worthy of an add.
"In a telephone interview with Russia Today the mother of the two suspects claims they are innocent. She believes they were "set up" by the FBI. If she could talk to her son Dzhokhar, she would tell him "Save your life and tell the truth, that you haven’t done anything, that this is a set up!" (ref from above)
Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
It would probably work if taken in the context of what happened in the Chechen Wars (IE a lot of questions are out there about whether or not the Russian govt. used a false flag attack to kick off the second war). It would explain why a lot of the family thinks its a set up. TheSyndromeOfaDown (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like original research to go that far. Not sure the mother saying her boys are innocent is notable by itself, most moms would do the same. You see that with any crime. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Not any crime. Luka Magnotta's mom refused to comment to the media. Adam Lanza's mom probably thought he did it. This guy's mom turned him in. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Rename Boston Marathon bombings to 2013 Boston-Cambridge attacks

The new title makes the most sense because there were attacks carried out by the perpetrators both in Boston and Cambridge. The shooting at MIT should be included in the title because that attack led to the deaths of two people (1 police officer, 1 suspect); as well as the fact that the third attack helped initiate one of the BIGGEST MANHUNTS IN US HISTORY, and essentially the LOCKDOWN of the entire city of Boston. Due to these facts; the new title would be most logical. I'm open to any input on this subject, and the initiation of the new title. (Undescribed (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC))

  • It seems like a logical title for the event; however, it is not a title used in reliable sources. Unless reliable sources stop calling it the Boston Marathon bombings, we should retain this current title. Ryan Vesey 16:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
    • It doesn't matter what reliable sources are calling it; the most likely reason why media doesn't use the new title is because the events occurred several days apart. However; it IS the most logical title. (Undescribed (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC))
      • Au contraire, it does matter what reliable sources are calling it. We're not here to fabricate our own article titles, we depend on reliable sources and common names. And please stop shouting. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
[1], and no to the rename proposal.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
They didn't purposely "attack" innocents in the Cambridge area - it was a result of the manhunt once they were ID'd as the bombing suspects. Yes, the MIT officer died. All the effects are from the marathon finish line bombing. --MASEM (t) 16:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I for one would Oppose the move per WP:COMMONNAME - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The bombings occurred at and during the Boston Marathon, not some random time and location, one of the bombs going off at the finish line no less. Everything else is secondary and a result of this event. Without the bombings there would have been no lockdown in Boston, no full scale manhunt, no shooting, no national outrage, etc, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Please retrace the MIT Police Department logo image

Grainy MIT PD GIF file that needs to be retraced

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) 17:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

What's the PD claim here? There's certainly no statement of being in the PD from their website. Retracing it will create a derivative non-free work from a non-free work, and it would not be appropriate to include here. --MASEM (t) 17:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
You could email them and see if they will release one under a free licence for us.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Name of spouse

Another editor undid my edit: [2]

I wanted to add reference to Katherine Russell because the information will help to understand the life of the elder bomber and maybe what caused him to become unhinged: Wife (photos) of Tamerlan Tsarnev Boston Bomber Converted to Islam; 'Our Hearts Are Sickened', Says Her Family

Since he said he had no American friends, information about his wife if notable, because presumably she is an exception to this claim. --Rangeblock victim (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I highly doubt enstarz.com is a reliable source that can be used for this article. Hot Stop (Talk) 18:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it seems to be 'former spouse'. Please read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, with particular regard to WP:BLP1E, WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME. And yes, we'd need a better source for that for her name if we were to include it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I found a better source with same info and photos:

Cheers. --Rangeblock victim (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is generally considered to be a questionable source for items of any significance. In any case, as I have already pointed out, WP:BLP policy would seem to preclude naming the spouse. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Somebody deleted intermediate edits:

Can some please explain the deletion of history? Did somebody mess up the logs? Cheers! --Rangeblock victim (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

  • (cur | prev) 19:28, 20 April 2013‎ Polarscribe (talk | contribs)‎ . . (119,177 bytes) (+338)‎ . . (→‎Propose category Category:Terrorist incidents by Chechens)
  • (cur | prev) 19:23, 20 April 2013‎ Polarscribe (talk | contribs)‎ . . (118,839 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎Propose category Category:Terrorist incidents by Chechens: Eh...)
  • (cur | prev) 19:22, 20 April 2013‎ Polarscribe (talk | contribs)‎ . . (118,839 bytes) (+391)‎ . . (→‎Propose category Category:Terrorist incidents by Chechens: Eh...)
  • (cur | prev) 19:20, 20 April 2013‎ Rangeblock victim (talk | contribs)‎ . . (118,448 bytes) (-9)‎ . . (→‎Propose category Creating Category:Terrorist incidents by Chechens: typo)
  • (cur | prev) 19:19, 20 April 2013‎ Rangeblock victim (talk | contribs)‎ . . (118,457 bytes) (+566)‎ . . (→‎Propose category Creating Category:Terrorist incidents by Chechens: new section)
  • (cur | prev) 19:07, 20 April 2013‎ Polarscribe (talk | contribs)‎ . . (117,891 bytes) (+209)‎ . . (→‎Threaded discussion: You're right, irrelevant, so take it out if you want.)
  • (cur | prev) 19:07, 20 April 2013‎ Rangeblock victim (talk | contribs)‎ . . (117,682 bytes) (+29)‎ . . (→‎Rename Boston Marathon bombings to 2013 Boston-Cambridge attacks: Neutral Strong Oppose)
  • (cur | prev) 19:05, 20 April 2013‎ Trichinosis (talk | contribs)‎ . . (117,653 bytes) (+655)‎ . . (→‎Threaded discussion)
  • (cur | prev) 19:03, 20 April 2013‎ Polarscribe (talk | contribs)‎ . . (116,998 bytes) (+457)‎ . . (→‎Threaded discussion)
  • (cur | prev) 19:00, 20 April 2013‎ Polarscribe (talk | contribs)‎ . . (116,541 bytes) (+155)‎ . . (→‎Threaded discussion)
  • (cur | prev) 18:59, 20 April 2013‎ Shadowjams (talk | contribs)‎ . . (116,386 bytes) (+207)‎ . . (→‎Rename Boston Marathon bombings to 2013 Boston-Cambridge attacks: opp)
  • (cur | prev) 18:59, 20 April 2013‎ (Username or IP removed)‎ . . (116,179 bytes) (+358)‎ . . (→‎Threaded discussion)
Looks like Trichinosis inadvertently edited while logged out and wanted the IP redacted. polarscribe (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm guessing something like that happened, although a brief explanation would be nice. I don't remember if it's possible to distinguish between revdel and suppression by looking at the history page like that. Shadowjams (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Yup, that's what happened. Sorry for the inconvenience. Trichinosis (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
No big deal. Happens to everybody from time to time. Shadowjams (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Patience is a virtue.

KRON 4 have been nice enough to release some of their footage as stills, and upload them to flickr under a creative commons licence. There are 53 stills in the set here, and I have uploaded 4 of them to the commons. commons:category:Boston Marathon explosions (045 looks best).

Whomever replaces the current infobox picture (as I know some of you are itching to do) could you please put the current info box picture elsewhere in the article.Martin451 (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Pic 19 shows the first bomb exploding, pic 28 is unclear but probably the second from the reactions, and the other 4 show the second bomb.Martin451 (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
File:KRON 4 Coverage of the Boston Marathon Bombings045.jpg

Martin451 (talk) 09:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

I'm strapped on time at the moment but can someone add a tidbit to the post-arrest section that human rights groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union are criticising law enforcement regarding Dzhokhar and his miranda rights?source Thanks, — -dainomite   22:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Not muslims

unless belief and practice are different things. younger brother definitely not muslim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.141.164 (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Disregard
Respond in section below.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Younger boy still not muslim

unless belief and practice are different things. younger brother definitely not muslim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.141.164 (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/04/who-is-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-boston/64382/
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/04/who-is-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-boston/64382/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.141.164 (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
The article quotes another Muslim that states that the subject didn't follow Islam. Do you have a source that quotes the subject as not being Muslim?

File:BostonSuspect2.jpg & File:BostonSuspect1.jpg

File:BostonSuspect1.jpg and File:BostonSuspect2.jpg have been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

They haven't been nominated, but correctly tagged that they are questionably not PD and should be treated as non-free. --MASEM (t) 00:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Canadian fast-tracking

An anti-terrorism bill in Canada might be fast-tracked as a result of all this--the linked article says "presumably" (which wasn't reflected in the text in our article); in other words, it's all speculation. Besides, I don't see any relevance to this at all. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is speculation. The government has stated they wish to fast-track it and they need the speaker's permission. The opposition should try to block the fast-track as it messes up their agenda for those days. Whether it will be fast-tracked is speculation but the reigning power stating they wish to fast-track it is not. Does this make sense?--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
It's funny--Legacypac has again put this stuff in the article, but he can't of course say what the connection with this subject is, because no connection is drawn in the article linked: all it says is "presumably". Canoe, read the article--all it has to offer is a "presumably" and a "seems". But seriously, this ought to be in the article on the bombings? A terrorist attack, people died, a car chase with bombs, another person died, part of a city was locked down, a suspect was caught--and Canada might fast-track a bit of legislation. That's just terrible editing, never mind the bare URL and the edit summary which makes a false suggestion of talk page consensus. And never mind that the text actually says nothing about why it should be in the article. Par for the course. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I stand corrected. I thought "presumably" referred to the bill being fast-tracked. It probably is political crap to mess up the oppostion with a new Trudeau close to power. Normally Canada doesn't fast track bills unless they are needed NOW!. Do we have a large event coming up in Canada that we need this bill for or is it the government trying to slow-track the opposition plan for those days of sitting? --Canoe1967 (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
That's funny. We seem to have seen precisely this behaviour before. Can some of the excited editors here please slow down. We have no deadline!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Better that we create a great article rather than create a crappy one quickly.
And as for Canada, I can guarantee you all that the real reason for politicians anywhere to want to do this is to please paranoid voters, and they will do all in their power to make more of them paranoid. HiLo48 (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
HiLo, you're preaching to the choir. When the newness has worn off, we'll go back and comb this trivial stuff out of the article. Drmies (talk) 02:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right. I should stop looking at this for now. It's only annoying me. I'll come back in a couple of weeks. HiLo48 (talk) 07:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
The Canadian government choosing the day of the largest manhunt in US history for a domestic terrorist suspect to say they are fast-tracking the anti-terrorist bill that has been sitting around in committee for a while? Even if there is a 2nd motive to frustrate the Liberals (agreed it is a nice side benefit for the government), the timing is clearly in response to Boston Bombing. S-7 restores portions of Canada's version of the PATRIOT Act plus creates new crimes for traveling to support or train with terror groups. Maybe someone next argue the PATRIOT Act was not a response to 9-11? Since we are here to work on articles and not attack other editors, I'll leave it at that. Legacypac (talk) 02:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
And there you go again. You saying "the timing is clearly in response to Boston Bombing" is pure OR. Your opinion counts for NOTHING here. SLOW DOWN!!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Careful - I'm not doing OR, just summing up sources. Very highly regarded Macleans (first video) [1] The Globe and Mail (national newspaper) says the fast track is in response to Justin's comments about the Boston Bombing [2] plus the CBC already referenced. Also the only obvious direct reaction to my mention of this development on the talk page was a positive comment in this section. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boston_Marathon_bombings#International_reactions_to_attacks though maybe some people were negative, that must be inferred. Hence my ref to talk. If you really want to remove it, and weaken the article, whatever. It's a Canadian thing and we all know Canada is just the gray area on the map above the USA :) Legacypac (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Even your reference to the talk page was OR. Canoe's comment may confirm that the Canadian government indeed blah blah, but they didn't say a thing about what your text said or the relevance to the article. Next time you "refer to talk", maybe that's where you should go to defend your edit. I did my part: I reverted and discussed. Or you can claim IAR again. Either way, of what lasting value is a change in the schedule of a foreign government? Answer: none. It's not new legislation, nothing changes but the time scheme--for whatever reason. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Here is a good read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility When I cite Wikipolicy I was told IAR by an admin. When I agree IAR is being followed, other policies are rolled out. I do good faith edits, and I'm personally attacked and ridiculed for them (like restoring the word Suspects to the article). And I never suggested IAR here. Gotta love Wikiality where there is a policy to justify every position including ignoring every policy, and bullies can ignore all common sense to exclude important info.Legacypac (talk) 03:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
May 24 is our first long weekend of the summer season of travelling. I can see a point that our suits may have concern about passing the bill and training forces before then. Since we are not on deadline then there is no rush until they actually state that the bombing is the reason to speedy the bill.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I've just removed the following quoted text and citation from the International Reaction section to reduce controversy but am saving it here for possible future use. On Monday and Tuesday I expect lots of sources will support a direct link to Boston events. On Friday Boston so dominated the news that little else was published. "On April 19 the Canadian Government rearranged the Parliamentary agenda to bring Bill S-7, the Combating Terrorism Act, forward for debate and a vote on April 22 and 23. The proposed Act introduces new powers for police and courts related to suspected terrorists and creates newly defined crimes including traveling outside Canada to join or be trained by terrorist organisations.[3]" Legacypac (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone find a source for vehicular manslaughter charge for killing his brother?

This would be ironic and interesting. I am going to keep an eye out for a source. Sources that state he killed his brother:

Cheers. --Rangeblock victim (talk) 02:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

"..police chief Edward Devau told CNN.." It seems reliable enough.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

That can't/won't happen unless the ME concludes that being run over was the proximate cause. More likely is a charge of felony homicide - any death occurring during the commission or furtherance of a felony allows the actor to be charged w/ same. Irish Melkite (talk) 04:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Post-Arrest

"Law enforcement were alerted by an interview that ABC News’s Anthony Johnson conducted with Tsarnaeva when it was broadcast at 8am EST that morning.[122]" - The intent of this sentence is to suggest that LE became aware of the sister as a result of the interview. That's not at all clear from the wording and the sequence of sentences. (The sentence prior to it discusses the seizure of computers, etc, from the sister's home.)

I'd suggest something along the lines of 'Anthony Johnson, ABC News, conducted an interview with Alina Tsarnaeva, a sister of the accused suspects, at 8am EST on (date) at her apartment in West New York, New Jersey. Alerted to her location by broadcast of the interview, the FBI, West New York (NJ) Police Department, and Hudson County Sheriff’s Department subsequently seized computer equipment from her apartment.' Irish Melkite (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Decided to be bold and do it. Irish Melkite (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Lead issues

So much piecemeal editing (and piecemeal news reports) had the events in the lead out of order and confusing. I just rewrote it. A little longer but hopefully now in chronological and logical order. Legacypac (talk) 06:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

And than NucularWarfare did an awesome job of tightening it up. Thanks Legacypac (talk) 07:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

A citizen in a trailered boat

Could someone with the ability to edit this article fix this sentence? 80.174.78.102 (talk) 08:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I fixed it up. Shorter and no spelling error now.Legacypac (talk) 09:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Proof?

1. In the section "Manhunt and capture", it says: "...the suspects inflicted multiple gunshot wounds on Sean Collier, 26, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology Police Department officer...". However, the linked source doesn't say that Collier was killed by one of the Dzhokhar Brothers, and I haven't yet found any source that provided proof for that.

2. This also raises the question of what proof there is against the Dzhokhar brothers regarding the bombing. All we have so far is a very blurry video, which basically proves nothing, and that "The FBI said that one of the suspects was seen placing a backpack at the bombing scene minutes before the second bomb exploded", which doesn't prove anything either. So, is there any REAL proof yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.33.34 (talk) 09:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE, WP:REDFLAG etc. The article is limited to summarizing what reliable sources say.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me)

Edit request

Also, in the Reporting mistakes section, please change "Col Allan reported" to "Col Allan stated" (or "said" or something). His statement is not a report. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 11:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

First paragraph

The last sentence is "The FBI led the investigation into what it identified as a terrorist attack." It recently had the words "into what it identified as a terrorist attack" added, and I would recommend they be removed. It was a bombing and that is all we need to say. We do not need to try to glorify everything as a "terrorist" act. Apteva (talk) 06:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

There was a big debate on day 1 over "terrorist" but after the FBI, Local Police, White House, and darn near every news outlet in the world called it terrorism Wiki editors accepted reality and included the term. Blowing up bombs in a crowd, shooting up residential streets, throwing explosives at cops in a car chase, huge city locked down for a day and hiding in basements afraid... if that is not terrorism what exactly is terrorism?Legacypac (talk) 06:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
See Terrorism. I'd say this is more 'mass murder' by crackpots... or other socially disadvantaged people. YMMV. Ariconte (talk) 07:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Per that "Terrorism is the systematic use of terror", the word clearly does not apply. Apteva (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
No original research on Wikipedia. That means we report what the reliable sources say. They call it terrorism. Other Wikipedia articles don't qualify as sources. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 07:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Please go and update Terrorism, and good luck with that. HiLo48 (talk) 08:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Why? As I said, Wikipedia articles can not be used as sources to other Wikipedia articles (WP:WPNOTRS). In other words, what is said in that article should have no bearing on this article. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 08:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Why? Because you clearly believe it's wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 08:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I can't edit it; it's been semi-protected. But where did I say that the definition is wrong? --89.27.36.41 (talk) 08:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Wow, am I supposed to provide a lesson in logic now? Sad. HiLo48 (talk) 08:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't want any lessons from you, since your logic is subpar. All I have said in this discussion is that Wikipedia does not approve of original research and that reliable sources should be used instead. And please keep this discussion related to the article, not my person. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 09:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Verifiability, not truth. —Designate (talk) 10:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Ah well, I know that wiser heads will understand my point here. This article will be better after some time when things settle down and excited editors forget about it. HiLo48 (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Wiser heads are with your correspondent. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
From Terrorism ... "Since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism:

"Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them." Clearly, the term fits this act. --Nozzer71 (talk) 11:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

By the way, it is fine to explain what the FBI calls it down in the article, but it does not belong in the lead section. Apteva (talk) 07:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Agree with Designate. We reflect the RSs. They report, that in turn the FBI is handling the matter as a terrorism investigation. Unless there is a change to that, we don't satisfy an editor's POV by deleting the fact, due to his OR. It is both relevant and highly significant, and belongs in the lede, where it was for days.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
    • No. The lede needs to represent the significant facts of the article. It is not significant that the FBI erroneously calls it terrorism. Apteva (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
      • It's not significant that some Wikipedia editors feel the FBI, President Obama, et al don't know what constitutes terrorism and what doesn't. Hot Stop (Talk) 18:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
        • The President called it terrorism, the FBI is investigating it as terrorism, every major news outlet calls it terrorism, it meets the statutory definition of terrorism (18 usc 2331) and yet a few editors have decided in their own minds this is "'mass murder' by crackpots... or other socialy [sic] disadvantaged people." Sorry, but that's not good enough. Verify. Shadowjams (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
      • It's not up to you or any other editor to decide what's erroneous. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Those interested in this discussion may find this "comment" (opinion piece?) interesting: McGeough, Paul (2013-04-21). "Obama proves he can walk the walk". The Sydney Morning Herald. p. 38. Retrieved 2013-04-21. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

First sentence (old section head before combining under this section)

The bombing was not a terrorist attack, and we have no reason to start out the article saying it was ("The Boston Marathon bombings was a terrorist attack"). This is really absurd. It is fine to say in the article that the FBI is treating it as an act of terrorism, but nothing of the sort belongs in the lead section. Apteva (talk) 07:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely, but we'll have a fight on our hands. HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Your opinion does not matter anymore than mine does - it's the published material that matters. I can find you a dozen sources that call the bombings an act of terrorism (which they were); the question is, can you find any' reputable sources that support your bizarre point of view? --50.46.231.88 (talk) 08:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Apteva and HoLi48, neither of your opinions are at all relevant. Your fight is with Wikipedia policy. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

User Apteva just took out well sourced facts that FBI called it a terrorist attack. I also suggest advocates of the "It's not terrorism' POV provide at least one reputable source supporting that the FBI (esp since that's who is cited) the White House, or anyone above a dog catcher does not consider this terrorism. Until than, I'm repairing the article. Legacypac (talk) 09:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

You [Apteva] already made this argument in a section above. We use reliable sources; it's uniformly referred to as a terrorist attack. Your personal definition of "terrorism" isn't enough to overcome that. Shadowjams (talk) 09:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an excellent article on Terrorism. A lot of people have put a lot of effort over several years into developing the wording of that article. The definition there simply doesn't match with what happened in Boston. While I know that what's in one article here doesn't have to directly influence another, it's nonsense to think that something that happened in the past week is going to throw all that effort on Terrorism out the window when it comes to how Wikipedia uses that word. What's going to happen is that the mass excitement over this bombing will recede, reporting will become more rational, and the media (and thus the public) will stop calling it terrorism, or at least use that word a lot less than now when describing this week's events. We will begin to use more considered sources for the more considered version of this article, and the word terrorism will disappear from the lead. It's a shame we can't speed up that process. HiLo48 (talk) 10:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Call me dumb, but I can't see which part of the definition of terrorism this attack does not meet?--В и к и T 10:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Start with the word systematic. HiLo48 (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure your personal interpretation of a definition given in a Wikipedia article isn't a reliable source. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 11:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you've completely misunderstood what I wrote. HiLo48 (talk) 11:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
You have been twice asked to provide reliable sources that support your view, and have failed to do so. Stop wasting our time; either cough up some sources or go re-read our policies until they sink in. I doubt you'll be able to find WP:MAYBEINAFEWMONTHSSOURCEWILLSTOPCALLINGITTERRORISMSOUNTILTHENWESHOULDNTCALLITTERRORISMEITHER, but please let me know if I turn out to be wrong about that. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 11:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, we certainly do need to wait for some of the excitement to recede, don't we? HiLo48 (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I'll answer your question after you've answered our request for sources that contradict the "terrorism" designation. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 13:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” [5] My76Strat (talk) 11:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
And nobody knows if that was the case here yet. Remember, the crime has not been solved. Nobody has been convicted of anything. So to say that this crime fits that definition involves several assumptions. HiLo48 (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
We report what the FBI and mainstream media say, not what user HiLo48 of Wikipedia fame says. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors don't need to know that or anything else. Editors knowing things isn't relevant. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
From the very beginning of the article Terrorism: "In the international community, however, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition." and "Studies have found over 100 definitions of “terrorism”." --89.27.36.41 (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems unlikely the terrorism tag will go away since the Feds will be charging him with terrorism offences [4] which is sort of rare compared to say murder charges. Legacypac (talk) 12:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

If when the indictment comes down in the next few days, if it includes a charge entitled "terrorism" would that be sufficient to call the crime "terrorism"? Somehow I imagine another excuse or caveat will come up. Shadowjams (talk) 12:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
No. This is an encyclopedia and it is important for us to accurately report events, and not glorify them, as the FBI is trying to do, by pretending that it was terrorism. Apteva (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
You are basically demanding that we practice original research. That is not allowed in Wikipedia. We report what the reliable sources say. And the FBI certainly is amongst the most reliable sources in this case, especially as all mainstream media agree in their reporting. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
We use reliable sources to report facts. We have to sift through the sources available to find those facts. The facts we know is that there were two bombs. We do not know who placed them or why they were placed, and may never know. The word terrorism is not an accurate word to use in this article. We can say that the FBI calls it terrorism, but not in the lead, as that is not an essential fact of the article, and we can not call it something that it is not. Apteva (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Do you have reliable sources to indicate that the Tsarnaev brothers should not be called suspects, which is what FBI and all other officials are calling them? When the the FBI, mainstream media, the president etc. call it terrorism we should report it as such. BTW, why did you remove[6] two comments from this thread? --89.27.36.41 (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Here are two articles that bring into question the word terrorism.[7][8] Apteva (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
A blog and an unre liable state-controlled media outlet. You might want to do better than that if you're looking to change the article. If what that Russia Today story says is true, that would be highly relevant, but we need a better source. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 16:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Per the Wall Street Journal,[9] we can not call it terrorism unless it is certified as a terrorist act by the Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of State. Basically the bombs were too small to qualify, because they would have to have done over $5 million damage, which they clearly did not do. There might be a case in certifying the Mayor of Boston as a terrorist by doing $333 million in damage by shutting down the city, but not the bombers. Apteva (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
That is only in relation to insurance coverage. According to that source what you cite is needed only "In order to trigger the post-9/11 federal reinsurance program". We're not talking about insurance in the article. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
The point is that it is not really terrorism. There is no indication that there is anyone behind the attacks other than two people, and two people do not constitute an organization or government. There is no indication that this is a part of an organized group of attacks. There is no indication that there was any attempt to influence anyone in any manner. And finally there was not enough damage done to qualify as a terrorist attack. It is not a correctly applied term. This is an encyclopedia, not yellow journalism. Apteva (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
First of all, from the article Terrorism: "Studies have found over 100 definitions of “terrorism”." The term terrorism does not have a single generally accepted tight definition. Second, as stated above, your financial damages argument is related only to federal incurance claims as is said in the same source. That's a pretty small aspect of the story. Third, this is an encyclopedia based on reliable outside sources, not original research. If the FBI, practically all of mainstream media and the president of the country say it's terrorism, then it's terrorism. Claiming otherwise based on a minority view would be contrary to WP:FRINGE which says: "A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it is". The view of the majority of reliable sources should be presented as just that, a majority, which also means mentioning it in the lead. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Stick to the facts. It is a fact that it was a bombing. It is not a fact that it was terrorism. We always need to err on the side of caution in being objective in our description of the subject. That is not OR, it is caution. This is not a newspaper. We do not have to sensationalize things to try to sell papers. We do need to be objective and accurate. The criteria for deciding what goes in the lead is a summation of the essential elements of the subject. The words terrorism and terrorist fail that criteria. Like I said, we can mention in the article that so and so called it a terrorist act, and so on, but that is not an essential item that needs to be or should be in the lead, and it needs to be attributed, because it is absurd to say the bombings were or was a terrorist attack. Apteva (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

"The point is that it is not really terrorism." -- Your point is that you think it is not really terrorism. That's all you have offered. Your certainty that you're right that it isn't terrorism is not relevant. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 01:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
"it is important for us to accurately report events" -- wrong; that's not our job. Read Wikipedia policy. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
You stick to the facts. Everyone that matters (the FBI, etc.) say its terrorism. A couple rogue wikipedians saying it isn't terrorism because it doesn't fit their definition is OR. Hot Stop (Talk) 18:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. The facts are that there was a bombing. That goes in the lead and is the subject of the article. It is a fact that the FBI and some but not all call it terrorism. That is not important and does not belong in the lead, and is not a fact, even. Apteva (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Are you digging this hole deeper to bury the dead horse you're beating? Shadowjams (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
It is a fact, and is not a fact even. Fascinating. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/04/19/politics-on-tv-reacting-to-the-boston-manhunt/
  2. ^ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-target-trudeaus-stand-on-terror/article11436032/
  3. ^ http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/harper-government-poised-fast-track-anti-terrorism-bill-220341767.html
  4. ^ http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/21/us/boston-attack/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Suspects

Do you have reliable sources to indicate that the Tsarnaev brothers should not be called suspects, which is what FBI and all other officials are calling them? When the the FBI, mainstream media, the president etc. call it terrorism we should report it as such. BTW, why did you remove[10] two comments from this thread? --89.27.36.41 (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that should be "do we have", not "do you have". I believe there may be technical definitions of "person of interest" and "suspect". Basically everyone is a suspect, though some more of a suspect than others... Apteva (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Tamerlan's YouTube account

Should the detail that Tamerlan had been watching radical Islamist material on YouTube be included in the article? Trichinosis (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: It is not being proposed that this should be cited as an "explanation of motivation". The proposal is that this detail is cited when describing the suspect's profile.Trichinosis (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Threaded discussion

  • This is a clear coatrack attempt to speculatively and prematurely introduce an alleged motivation for the attacks when we have absolutely no reliable information about their motivation. Lots of people have watched YouTube videos related to terrorism. I personally have watched a number of videos of Syrian resistance fighters in action, some of whom are Islamist. Does this mean that I, a gay atheist Californian, am an Islamist terrorist? The bare fact that someone watched YouTube videos cannot, at this time, be said to have anything to do with the attacks. The motivation for the attacks may well be Islamist. Or it may be Chechen nationalist. Or it may be insane revenge fantasies. We do not know and there are no reliable sources reporting that law enforcement officials have determined any motive. Wikipedia does not need to be first, it needs to be right. Connecting these horrible attacks with any ideology at this point is premature. polarscribe (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Nobody is asserting that this proves the motivation of the bombers. That, I agree would be premature. However, this fact can be presented, along with Tamerlan's other habits, without any suggestion that this was the bomber's motivation. [ip address redacted], edit was by Trichinosis (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
What is your source for the claim that this was a "habit"?
Wikipedia is not a random collection of facts, and there is no evidence to suggest that the "fact" that his YouTube channel (not even proven to be his, though it's likely) has a page for videos on "Terrorism" has anything to do with the case.
Whereas it is more than evident that the intent of those who wish to include this fact are attempting to connect the suspect with Islamism through the flimsiest of speculative "evidence." polarscribe (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
So you consider his boxing hobby more informative than his watching of radical Islamist preachers? Trichinosis (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
You're right, it's probably irrelevant. So if you wish to take the boxing hobby section out, I won't stop you. polarscribe (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
You state that we have no reliable sourcing "reporting that law enforcement officials have determined any motive.". This is a straw man. We do have sources that report this fact without alleging categorical proof of the bomber's motivations. What context do you think the cited source presents it in, and why isn't this context appropriate for the article? Trichinosis (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Your status as a gay atheist Californian is a pretty good defense against being accused of Islamic terrorism, and there is no history or ideology of gay atheist terrorism. There is a large history of Islamic terrorism so when a Muslim commits a terrorist act against western civilians, people connect the dots. I do favor not stating motive here until sources become more clear, but I oppose removing sourced material on the suspects religion and ideology.Legacypac (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Watching YouTube videos does not establish agreement with the ideologies expressed in those YouTube videos, and any implication that it does is improper. "Connecting the dots" is original research, which we are prohibited from doing. Until it is clearly established in reliable, published sources that the ideologies expressed in those videos are related to the motivation behind the attacks, it does not belong in this article. polarscribe (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Propose category Category:Terrorist incidents by Chechens

AndyGrump deleted my category, stating that "no conviction yet", but I would like to add this in the future. Since there are other terror incidents by Chechens, e.g. Moscow theater hostage crisis, we should add a category. One question I have is, is a conviction really needed? Once the investigation is done (which it isn't), isn't a dead suspect good enough? Cheers. --Rangeblock victim (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Are there similar categories for other nationalities? Do we have a Category:Terrorist incidents by Americans? Category:Terrorist incidents by Saudis? It doesn't appear that way - probably because categorizing terrorist attacks by the nationality of their perpetrator makes little sense. The Oklahoma City bombing and the Unabomber were both committed by Americans, but that really doesn't tell us anything about the two attacks - their perpetrators had literally nothing else in common.
Besides, the one suspect in custody is an American citizen - so this would have to go in that hypothetical "Americans" category as well. polarscribe (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
You need to explain the need for this category. I can see none. TFD (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
We do not assign categories based on what a contributor 'would like'. Do you have a source stating that a Chechen has been convicted of terrorism in regard to this act? Clearly not... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Linking this to the Moscow theater hostage crisis or the School Attack is premature. There is no proof or reliable sources that say this had anything to do with them being Chechen or that there is any link to the groups that carried out those attacks. We don't know what motivated them. TheSyndromeOfaDown (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Umm, no. Crimes according to ethnicity categories is a horrible idea. This may change of course if it becomes an issue of nationality (link to separatists) instead of merely ethnicity as it currently stands. --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
We don't need to categorize every terroristic event categorized by ethnicity. JayJayWhat did I do? 21:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Second that, and in fact, it would be wrong to try to do so. Clearly there is still an ongoing controversy as to the accuracy or usefulness of ethnic categorization as a predictor of violence or "terrorism" (which itself is a problematic term). Unless there are reliable sources that ethnicity truly was a significant factor in why or how an event occurred (other than simply that an alleged perpetrator's ethnicity is reported), it seems to me that reflexively categorizing articles like this is OR, if not bigoted. Steveozone (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
The Chechen ethnicity of the brothers seems to be coincidental, as it would appear to that they attacks are unrelated to Chechen nationalism. Also, the younger brother was a naturalized citizen of the United States, so he's an American. Asarelah (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Do they have citizenship in countries other than America? Wouldn't that count in terms of nationality-categorization? -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
That's not really relevant. They are not convicted terrorists, so placing this article in such a category would be Original Research and also a BLP violation. CodeCat

(talk) 02:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It would only be OR if there were no sources with this info. I meant if there sources. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I Oppose the proposed category. I'll add in response to Erroneuz1 that if on or both were/are Russian (and this is very unclear) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_nationality_law applies. Legacypac (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. 1) Even if the category already existed, the suspects' terrorism is still alleged. They have not been convicted of any crime, so they would not fit the category. 2) The suspects are American, not Chechen, unless dual citizenship can be documented. --Crunch (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
The dead suspect is Chechen (U.S. green card holder). The alive suspect is at least an American, and we don't know if he kept his Russian/Chechen passport (need a source). --Rangeblock victim (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

How about a Category:Terrorist incidents by siblings of Chechen descent, one of whom was born in Chechnya and the other of whom has never been there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.226.133 (talk) 02:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Terrorist incidents in the United States

Considering all of the other U.S. terrorist incidents in the Terrorist incidents in the United States category, I'm really failing to see why this shouldn't be in it too. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It is already in the subcategory 'Terrorist incidents in the United States in 2013'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
That subcat is not in the 'Terrorist incidents in the United States' category. And again, numerous other terrorist incidents that occurred in the U.S. seem to make the cut for "Terrorist incidents in the United States." The 1993 World Trade Center bombing makes it. Centennial Olympic Park bombing makes it. Why not Boston? -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
There's some flawed logic here. If I want to see one category that lists all these incidents at the same time, how do I do that? Are you really suggesting that someone browsing this website should participate in the truly inefficient process of clicking each and every year to find an attack they're looking for, instead of viewing them all on one page? Should we be using "Improvised explosive device bombings in Massachusetts" and not "Improvised explosive device bombings in the United States"? What about "2013 Murders in Massachusetts" instead of "2013 Murders in the United States" ?-- Erroneuz1 (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categorization explains how categories work. I'm sorry you don't find Wikipedia's category system to be efficient, but that's how it works. If you wish to suggest a change to this process, Wikipedia talk:Categorization would be the place to start such a discussion. Terrorism in the United States serves as a list of all such incidents. AuburnPilot (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Then why is the Terrorism in the United States category not applicable? And you didn't address my other 2 questions. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
It's already in that category, as was explained above, by virtue of being in a subcategory. If you wish to see all terrorist attacks of the history of the world on one page, you would need a very large page, which is why they are subcategorized in certain ways, including by year. There is no category for 2013 murders in Massachusetts because, presumably, there aren't enough such murders in Wikipedia articles to populate such a category. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
This about the history of the U.S., not the world, but I fail to see why how large it would be in theory is in issue. There are many categories on this website that consist of hundreds and hundreds of articles. This article is in the "Terrorist incidents in Massachusetts" category, and is the only only article to populate it. It's also 1 of 2 articles in "Terrorist incidents in the United States in 2013." Therefore, this all appears to very subjective, and still not a good enough reason for this article not to be in "Terrorist incidents in the United States" along with 1993 World Trade Center bombing and Centennial Olympic Park bombing, and 9/11. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 02:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia categorization sucks. In this case the topic is overcategorized. If you want to see all incidents at once, you must look at List of terrorist incidents in the United States. (Well, it does exist either, the content has been moved to Terrorism in the United States.) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Bombs

I propose the following edits (primarily based on the idea that WP:NOT a bomb making manual):

Investigators found shrapnel that included bits of metal, nails, and ball bearings[1], and black nylon pieces from a backpack[2]. The lid of a pressure cooker was found on a nearby rooftop.[3] Investigators also found remains of an electronic circuit board and wiring; possibly used as a timer of the bomb.[4][5] Rep. Mike McCaul said "most likely, gunpowder was used in the devices".[6] All evidence was sent to the FBI Laboratory for analysis.[7] The improvised explosive devices are reported to be Fagor pressure cooker bombs.[7][8]

There's a third bomb, but I don't know much about it beyond [11]. I'm also pretty certain it doesn't need to be repeated that Mike McCaul is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, since his Wikipedia entry says exactly that in the second sentence, but feel free to ignore that change if there's some guideline for it. --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Disagree — Specifying what type of bomb the bomb was is not a manual any more than the M18 Claymore mine article is. This should take care of your first two points. As for the third, specifying what type of explosive was used is no more instructive than telling readers what octol is made from and how it's used. -- Veggies (talk) 01:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
    • No, I still specify the type of bomb, and the components, it's just changing the wording from "X was contained in Y was contained in Z" to "components X,Y,Z were found in the wreckage." There's no photographic evidence as to how the bomb was actually constructed, so until there's a reliable source beyond the Al-Queda bomb manual (I expect said reliable sources(s) to appear once the lab finishes its analysis), specifying such details seems like a waste of space. Mostly it's just consolidating information - the article is pretty long as it is, it doesn't need to be padded. If you go through the diff it's just moving stuff around. --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
      Mathnerd314159, is there a reason why you don't edit the article yourself? Indications are that you ought to be able. My76Strat (talk) 03:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
      I was just doing so, the refs have changed slightly so I'm updating them. --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Just a comment here, but I am an expert on this stuff, and what they were using was old fashion chinese gunpowder/propellant. It has been around for 1,500 years. Charcoal, Sulfur, and Potassium Nitrate. Black Powder. This was the most INeffective bomb you could make. You could mention that the huge white cloud afterwards was a dead giveaway of 'black powder'. You could also mention that if they used modern gunpowder, they could have done a 'great deal' more damage, almost as much as using RDX or PETN based explosives. Msjayhawk (talk) 03:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
      • We won't 'mention' anything of the sort without a published reliable source that says so. See WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Andy, just a post for the record. They used "black powder" at the marathon. No matter how much the FBI and such wish to use "Explosive" in the description, none have been found yet. Gunpowder or smokeless powder in a container can make an explosive device, but without true "high explosives". These are just burning propellants that create too much pressure for their container and blow up. Hence a pressure cooker as a simple pressure container for "Black Powder".. Msjayhawk (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Here are several reliable sources that mention the use of “a black powder” and/or “gunpowder”. --Nowa (talk) 12:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune may be "reliable sources", but that does not change the fact those reports were either speculation by people who had not seen evidence in this case, or third-hand hear-say by someone claiming an investigator spoke to them, or speculation based on previous bombings. In other words what it could be, not what Boston bombing evidence (now at FBI Lab at Quantico) had shown. A reliable source repeating speculation does not change that it is speculation and not established fact. ---Naaman Brown (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Good point. I've set up a Google news alert to see if there is an official statement as to what the explosive was.--Nowa (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ McLaughlin, Tim; Herbst-Bayliss, Svea (April 17, 2013). "Boston bomb suspect spotted on video, no arrest made". Reuters. slide 8. Retrieved April 20, 2013.
  2. ^ Maresca, Cara. "Patriots' Day: Waco, Oklahoma City, Columbine, and now Boston". MSNBC. Retrieved April 16, 2013.
  3. ^ Ellement, John; Brian Ballou (April 17, 2013). "Boston Medical Center reports five-year-old boy in critical condition, 23 victims treated from Boston Marathon bombings". The Boston Globe. Retrieved April 17, 2013.
  4. ^ McLaughlin, Tim; Herbst-Bayliss, Svea (April 17, 2013). "Boston bomb suspect spotted on video, no arrest made". Reuters. slide 7. Retrieved April 20, 2013.
  5. ^ "FBI seeks images in Boston Marathon bomb probe; new details emerge on explosives". CBS News. April 16, 2013. Retrieved April 16, 2013.
  6. ^ Lister, Tim; Cruickshank, Paul (April 17, 2013). "Boston Marathon bombs similar to 'lone wolf' devices, experts say". CNN. Retrieved April 17, 2013.
  7. ^ a b "Feds Race to Trace Boston Marathon Pressure Cooker Bomb". ABC News. April 17, 2013. Retrieved April 20, 2013.
  8. ^ Vinograd, Cassandra; Dodds, Paisley (April 16, 2013). "AP Glance: Pressure Cooker Bombs". Associated Press. Retrieved April 16, 2013.

Actual Chain of Events On Map

I'm seeing a lot of edits related to the chain of events. With all the reporting and updates, it is pretty confusing for editors to sort out. Also, for editors not intimately familiar with Metro Boston, the locations may be hard to understand. I found this map from Canada's National Post super helpful [1] Not suggesting it go in the article, but helpful for editors to look at before changing the sequence of events in the article. Legacypac (talk) 04:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a good idea, let me try to recreate it with open tools. --MASEM (t) 04:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • That would be AWESOME. Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 07:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Masem, the National Post map shows that map rotated -90 degrees from its canonical orientation, such that north is on the left. If you create something similar, please use the orientation shown in Google Maps, OpenStreetMaps, etc. such that north is on top. I second that create a map showing the chain of events would be an awesome idea. Thanks, Emw (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm trying to get an OSM map to start from with the right (north to top) orientation, but OSM is apparently having server problems. I also want to get an inset piece to show the box relative to the larger state. But yea, I will be doing it w/ rotation. --MASEM (t) 16:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Map's up - please let me know if you have suggestions to improve. --MASEM (t) 22:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks fantastic! Very valuable. Emw (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/19/graphic-boston-bombing-suspects-trail-of-violence/

Again, shouldn't Reaction be before Investigation?

I'd asked this before, but Miszabot buried it almost instantly. These reactions are to the bombing only, which occured before the investigation. Chronological order seems the way to go. If not, why not? InedibleHulk (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so, and I don't think it's commonly accepted practice to organise our contents exclusively (or even primarily) chronologically. The investigation is more pertinent to the "facts" of the case than is the reaction. Twenty years now, what the public will most remember is what motivated these people to do what they did, and how they carried out the attack, not what hockey games were cancelled or what Vladimir Putin had to say. It is more important, and so should come first, in my opinion. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 11:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Reactions to these events are reactions that have no immediate consequences and about the event as a whole. Any "reaction" that would have critically influenced the timeline of events (say, calling the FBI's released of the surv photos as a "reaction") should be part of the event's timeline and not considered a reaction. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Cyrillic versions of names

Can we please not do this? They were/are U.S. residents/citizens, and their official names are those on their residency/citizenship papers, written in the Latin alphabet. Cyrillic transliteration is trivial in either direction, and does not add anything to the article while cluttering up an already complex article with further unnecessary complexity. -- The Anome (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Worldwide interest, reporters in Russia investigating, Russian citizen(s), birth certs, passports, school records, immigration records and more in Cyrillic. Why is English the only important language? Legacypac (talk) 12:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
It isn't. We have links to articles in the Russian-language Wikipedia, not only in this article, but also in the article about the two brothers, which also, with considerably more justification, contains the Cyrillic versions of their names. -- The Anome (talk) 12:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Not that it matters to policy, but one of the reasons I visited the article last night was to check the Cyrillic spelling and ascertain the correct pronunciation of Dzhokhar. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 12:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I know that no detail is too small to argue about on Wikipedia, but why are you opposed to the Cyrillic version of their names? We regularly do this for people who have names in different scripts; look at every Chinese politician article. That includes immigrants that identify somewhat with that name. If you want to argue against this (again, why) then you need to do it on the basis of that... whether or not the Cyrillic version is fairly associated with them. You could probably spell my name in Cyrillic but I don't have any association with that script, so that wouldn't be appropriate. For someone from there though, it might be. That's the question. But this vague "they're residents so no" argument doesn't hold any water. Shadowjams (talk) 12:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Remember that we're a tertiary source, and respelling immigrants' names in their native script is not something secondary sources do. Just because ITSUSEFUL doesn't mean it belongs here. It could be seen as an example of original synthesis as well: although Russian-language sources use the given spellings (and they could be cited), we're making an original connection by assuming the Cyrillic spellings are somehow warranted just because they're Russian immigrants. —Designate (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I would expect the Russian article to be all in Cyrillic script with the English version of the names noted in English. How is this original synthesis when the names are just a fact not a conclusion? Based on how long they lived abroad vs US they used their Cyrillic names longer than the (obviously translated) English names. Also I believe from watching edits and talk page at the time that the names were sourced, not created by an editor and that there were efforts to get them right before inserting. Maybe the sourcing has been removed now but it was there and could be replaced. You can check the archived talk page and change logs if you don't trust my memory.Legacypac (talk) 13:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed them so many times myself. --Niemti (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Stupid claims of the "first domestic terrorist attack since 2001" or what not

Nope, for example Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting, or Casa Grande bombing that same year (last year). --Niemti (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, though it's probably not best to call the claims "stupid," since the sources reporting that are no doubt aware of those incidents. Postscript: there was also the 2010 Austin suicide attack, which everyone seems to have forgotten about for one reason or another. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 13:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
The phrase in the section heading doesn't occur in the article right now, and I don't immediately see where/if it was removed. Could you maybe explain what exactly it is you're complaining about? (and 2001? do you mean 2010s?) Shadowjams (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I removed it with this edit. I assume xe meant "since 2001" rather than "in 2001." Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 13:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Ah ok, thanks. Yeah, I agree, leave it out. Seems like recentism. Shadowjams (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I meant "since 2001", of course. And there were not even just some, but many.[16] --Niemti (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

"Grievous" injuries in first sentence under "injured" heading

Not NPOV. Serious, critical, these are more neutral. "Grievous" just screams irrational emotion. I actually agree with the term, but it's about NPOV, not what I or someone else thinks of it. 74.69.121.132 (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I agree. While "grievous" has been used in multiple media reports, I agree that it is neither an accurate term nor reflective of a neutral point of view. --Crunch (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Details of injured removed?

Some time in the last couple of days the names and details of some of the injured were removed. Specifically there were two brothers who each lost a leg, a mother and a daughter who were both seriously injured, a man who lost both legs (and was depicted in a widely-publicized photo) and the relatives of Martin Richards. I'm not sure what the rationale for the deletion was, but I think that these details should be restored. The fact that multiple families suffered serious injuries to two or more family members is an unusual and important aspect of this tragedy. GabrielF (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

With 100+ injured, it would be inappropriate to name all them them and what they suffered; focusing only on a few would be discriminatory. --MASEM (t) 16:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with GabrielF that those details should be restored, for the reasons he cites. If reliable sources consider these details relevant enough to include in their reporting, then I think they're relevant enough to include in this article. The more reliable sources mention a specific detail of the injured, the more relevant. Emw (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Why is it more relevant? It may be that those injuries are the only detailed ones that journo's have. It may be that others do not want details published, there are lots of reasons why, in media frenzy, some details are repeated over and over. So explain why these details are more relevant than any others. John lilburne (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I thought Massachusetts had a law prohibiting media from using victim's names... I know that for the last couple of years, the papers (at least around me) don't list the names of people in motor vehicle accidents, construction accidents, etc. Does anyone know anything about this? I'll see what I can find out... Grollτech (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • John, if some detail is covered by several reliable sources, then it is ipso facto relevant. In this kind of situation it would clearly be stylistically misguided to exhaustively list all of the injured and every facet of their injury. However, as is indicated by their coverage in reliable sources, this aspect of the subject is illustrated through synecdoche by bringing the details of a few instances of the injured to the fore. This requires editorial decision-making as to which examples to include and which to omit, but that curation has largely been done by the reliable sources. Emw (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Not a good idea to list every scrap and bruise but notable injuries like lost legs or extended time in critical condition would be very appropriate to list and widely reported in media - estimate under 20 people. Boston.com has a list running for example. The 6 year old dancing sister of Martin who lost a leg and maybe a foot too, plus her mom got serious head injuries and her brother died - she is a bigger victim in many ways than her dead brother because this will impact her entire life. We very rightly highlight the Transit cop's injuries.70.78.45.67 (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
To both of the above, we can summarize the general types of injuries - which included things like lost limbs, and the like - but without listing specific people. To name any specific one as an example would be undue weight on that one victim, and inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
If some significant plurality of reliable sources considers a certain set of facts relevant enough to note in detail, then how is that not notable enough to include in a Wikipedia article? Emw (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Technical note

Main article causes Chrome OS browser to send "aw snap", indicating something is wrong with the page. Likely a Flash video or unsupported video format embedded in the page[s]. Many users of Chrome OS reporting error on Google Groups, including this author. I have been able to duplicate the error each and every time. Please check video links and feeds.

Frank T. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankt3095 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 April 2013

External links

Based on your repeated refusal to use the Guardian template, I doubt you will add this link. I just want a record of how abysmal the oversight on this protected article has been. Refusing to include the FBI photos was the low point. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC) 184.78.81.245 (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy at WP:LINKFARM will explain why it wasn't added. Thanks for the suggestion though. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Intro unbalanced

Anyone else find it peculiar the intro talks more about the MIT shooting and manhunt than it does the event that the article is named after? Ribbet32 (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME controls the name for the article, and using that common name, reliable sources discuss the entire chain of events. We would not fork out articles for the MIT portions or manhunt. If you cna think of a better all-encompasing name, feel free to propose it. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I looked at that when I rewrote the whole lead last night. The bombing was confined to one street, lasted for seconds and it took less than an hour to clear under injured from the scene. The shootings, chase, firefight, manhunt, and capture covered a lot of physical ground and time and impacted the entire city. Simply a function of space required to concisely describe. I don't see it as a weight thing at all, Legacypac (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Any article—on a book, a person, a war—will talk just as much about the subject's ramifications as about the subject itself. —Designate (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The manhunt, carjacking, MIT shooting, etc. was lengthier and more complex than the bombing and therefore requires more length to describe. --Crunch (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev

The information on the suspects has been split into another article Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Therefore, any information on the suspects that is not related to the bombings by reliable sources should not be at this article. That information should be moved to Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. This is especially true for most of the background information.Bless sins (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

In the third paragraph there is a typo

firefight should be fire fight or more accurately gun fight — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.39.205.11 (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2013‎ (UTC)

'Firefight' (one word) is the correct term. Hot Stop (Talk) 20:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I think the correct term here is Shootout. Firefight refers to a shootout that takes place in a military context. A shootout is typically law enforcement vs. suspected criminals, which this was. See Shootout for a better explanation. --Crunch (talk) 23:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I've been writing firefight because guns, homemade grenades, at least one pressure cooker bomb and a stolen SUV were used as weapons. Far more than a gun battle or a shootout as one would normally think of these terms. This was more akin to urban warfare in IRAQ or something. Also sources are calling it a firefight. Legacypac (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Firefight and shootout both refer to the conflicts with guns. The difference between the two terms does not have to do with the types of weapons used but with the context. A firefight is part of a military battle. I agree that shootout doesn't really characterize a conflict in which bombs are thrown out of moving vehicles. It may be necessary to use more than one word to describe what happened, like "armed confrontation" or something similar. --Crunch (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
"Death race"? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
On a more serious note, this battle in Seattle is also described as a "firefight". No military involvement noted. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Initial description and identification

This section is misleading considering that other people were originally described and identified as suspects who were in custody. USchick (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

We have another section for that. How is focusing on the actual suspects misleading? Legacypac (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
The person initially detained was a Saudi student and they raided his apartment, carrying out bags of evidence. [17] Then several news outlets reported that a dark skinned man had been arrested. “Source of that description was a senior government official." [18] So the "initial description" did not start with the two brothers. USchick (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Good point. I think "Initial" should be removed. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Celebrations

It needs to be mentioned in the local reactions section anywhere, that Boston broke out into celebrations after the arrest of the terrorist. This is significant. And here's the source: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4896284/Boston-celebrates-the-capture-of-bomb-suspect.html --Matt723star (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to remove almost all names, even of the parents

I strongly suggest we remove all names of relatives and other people connected with the suspects according to Wikipedia:BLPNAME#Privacy_of_names. There is no reason for naming these people in an encyclopedia. It's bad enough that some or many of their names (and those of many other people in other news stories) are dragged through the media, often even without prior consent. We should respect their privacy and remember we are using media sources to write an encyclopedia, not a media summary! --Espoo (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems your beef is with the media and the reliable sources, not Wiiipedia in general. These names are in the media and in accordance with guidelines are used in the article appropriately. JOJ Hutton 22:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Looks like you didn't even bother to read the Wikipedia policy linked to above. I'll copy the most relevant part here for your convenience: Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. --Espoo (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
This needs to be treated on a case-by-case basis. Before you posted this I removed one here that was clearly irrelevant, but some of the other people who are widely quoted may be more relevant. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
(ec) @Espool. I read it. I read all of it, not just a small single sentence. Wikipedia policy is more than one liners. JOJ Hutton 22:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the names of private individuals should be removed unless they were involved. Adding names like these seems to me to be just another example of the ephemera associated with current events articles such as this one. Editors tend to add every detail they can find as long as its verifiable, which is fair enough, but in this case, since the names add no value to the article, they should be removed. Wiki isn't supposed to be a tabloid, and including the names of family members and relations who have had no involvement, and/or have not spoken to the media (as I believe is the case with their sisters) is superfluous. Can we remove them please? Leamhan spáis (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Mother, father, a sister in NY area, uncle(s), and a Canadian aunt all have made notable (even misleading, contradictory to reported facts like birth place, half crazy sounding) statements to the media. How do you properly report the statements without including their names? Legacypac (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

We could say "Tsarnaev's mother/sister/uncle/aunt said..." and leave it at that. I don't think we should, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Nevermind, we already do. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

A good summary of family reactions: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/boston-marathon-explosions-suspects-relatives-statements/ Legacypac (talk) 06:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


Dzhokhar's Vehicles.

I have found from sources that the CR-V Dzhokhar was driving was a silver 1999 Honda CR-V EX (typed the plate in CarFax). The article says the 2012-2013 ML350 he was getting away in is silver, even though it's black in ABC exclusive photos. Should this be fixed, as I don't know enough about the whole shabang to edit this in. I hope someone good with cars like me or just someone in general can help. Thanks. Atum World There's an Acadia for that too! 00:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

According the the Watertown Police chief interview with Wolf Blitzer there were two cars, with a brother in each, when the first cop showed up. They brothers attacked the first officer from two directions. Early sources said the stolen Mercedes SUV was silver but the Watertown chief said it was black. I now think the suspects CRV color got assigned to the carjacked SUV. The color is pretty unimportant, so maybe just remove the reference to the SUV color in the article. Legacypac (talk) 01:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Commentary about alleged motivations for the attack.

This is going nowhere productive
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Proving once again that Wikipedia is a leftist cesspool of filth and perversion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.153.34.82 (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

May I remind you that no one has been charged with a crime. Do you know something the FBI doesn't know? Perhaps you should contact them. USchick (talk) 03:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh, so no one's been charged. I guess then that the bombings have never happened, we have to wait until a judge confirms that people were blown up.
It would be helpful if you'd share your source for the claim that investigators have determined the motivation behind these attacks. We can include only that which is published in reliable sources. Speculation and rumormongering do not count. If the FBI determines that these attacks were motivated by radical Islamic beliefs, then we should certainly include that fact in the article. But at this point it's also possible that they were motivated by Chechen nationalism, by random insane revenge fantasies or by some other completely unknown factor. We do not know what motivated the attacks. When we do, we can include it. polarscribe (talk) 03:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
"Leftists" are open to the possibility that the Tsarnaev brothers were motivated by Islamism, as this Mother Jones post indicates. But as polarscribe notes, we can only speculate as to motive at this point. – Herzen (talk) 04:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I get that this title was changed for sensitivity reasons, but it should at least reflect the gist of the complaint. The first comment makes little sense, as is. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

In Boston Marathon bombings#Investigation pls change ball bearings to bearing balls. The former refers specifically to the bearing as a unit, although it is often erroneously used when referring to individual balls manufactured for use in bearings. Thx. 124.148.87.108 (talk) 04:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't edit the article, but thanks for sharing that. I've always wrongly called them ball bearings, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 Done Ariconte (talk) 05:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

FBI investigated Tamerlan in 2011 because of radical islam

CNN[19] is reporting that the FBI interviewed Tamerlan, the older brother, in 2011 at the request of a foreign government that suspected him of links to extreme groups, stating specifically that he was a "follower of radical islam". In addition to interviewing him the FBI did some other investigation as well, including looking at his travel history and internet activity. The FBI did not pursue the investigation further at that time. This should be added to the article. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. ( Your penultimate sentence tells us why.) HiLo48 (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
If CNN is reporting it, it should be added. All investigations of the suspects are notable. Your personal opinions do not matter. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
What if it's bullshit? We don't simply add it just because CNN reports it! We have to be a little more careful than that. HiLo48 (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
So I guess by your logic we ought to just blank the whole article and write it in six months when everything is known? That's not how Wikipedia functions. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 08:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
No, that's not my logic at all. It always amazes me how many people think they can win an argument by misrepresenting what their opponents say. It ain't ever going to work. HiLo48 (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
That's exactly what you did in the prior discussion related to use of the term terrorism. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 11:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and the the media's reporting on this is based directly on this FBI press release. So if you're saying that the report is "bullshit", then you're also saying that the FBI's own records are "bullshit". --89.27.36.41 (talk) 11:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
You have contradicted yourself. You say "Your penultimate sentence tells us why", but that sentence affirms that there was an investigation. But then you suggest that it's "bullshit", which implies (without any evidence) that there was no investigation. And if that isn't what you mean, then you're just expressing an irrelevant personal opinion. The fact is that it has been reported(not just by CNN) that there was an investigation, and that the FBI didn't pursue it at the time. Those are relevant to this article, and you have offered no argument for excluding them. (No amount of your insults of other editors is a substitute.) -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
The BBC say "The FBI said its agents had interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev in 2001 at the request of a foreign government, but found no cause for concern." [20] --Racklever (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
2001 must be a typo; Tamerlan was 14 at that time. CNN reports 2011 and mentions also why. Other mainstream news sources also report the story with 2011 ("two years ago") as the time.[21][22] --89.27.36.41 (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, it must be a typo. This is why we need multiple sources.--Racklever (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
2011 is given in this BBC piece [23] Jebus989✰ 13:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Another source: Boston marathon bombs: Tamerlan Tsarnaev 'interviewed by FBI in 2011' Trichinosis (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

If the article is ever split then it could go there. This article is about the bombing, not the suspects.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Currently the articles on the suspects are getting deleted. This article has a section titled 'Suspects' which currently includes information on, for example, their hobbies (boxing, wrestling). If hobbies are notable for suspected terrorists, then surely prior investigations on terror related issues must be notable as well. Notability is backed by mainstream media reporting. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
We should either trim the suspect section here or split it then. Otherwise it is coatracking.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
The article isn't too long yet. If trimming has to be done, I suggest replacing the hobby related stuff with the sourced information of the prior FBI investigation, which is made even more notable by its international dimension. I seriously do not fathom, how anyone can consider this information unnotable, considering that we're dealing with a man whom the FBI later did deem a terror suspect. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I have now added it to the article.--Racklever (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

(NOT including this legitimate piece of information is just wiki bending over backwards to be politically correct. The motivation, although not confirmed, is looking to be a belief in radical Islam. esp. for the older brother. Other evidence such as the older brother's youtube playlist points to radical Islam. Sources are available for this) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.162.173.94 (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The playlist doesn't mean much. I'm a New York Jew of Eastern European descent and I've watched videos about the war in Syria on youtube. The sourced FBI stuff should be included as long as it's kept in context (IE if anything came of it or if it was dropped). If it went nowhere than state that the FBI didn't find any evidence of him being radicalized. TheSyndromeOfaDown (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Is the fact that the elder Brother Tsarnaev boxed and wrestled really relevant? He didn't use an almighty forearm shiver to kill his victims. To include all of their hobby data seems uncalled for. TheSyndromeOfaDown (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Obviously we should have articles on these suspects, but this investigation is clearly relevant to the bombing, i.e. whether the bombing could have been prevented somehow. Hint: when multiple sources mention something in coverage of an event, it is likely to be relevant to the event. Wnt (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
    • No, we should not OBVIOUSLY have articles on these suspects. They are at this stage only suspects, not guilty parties. If they are found guilty, then yes, we will write article. if not, no. HiLo48 (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Too late. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Dzhokar Tsarnaev--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I guess you are also opposed to Wikipedia having an article on John Wilkes Booth or Lee Harvey Oswald, who never went to trial and thus were never found guilty. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 14:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion it's been widely discussed in reliable sources. Hot Stop (Talk) 04:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • If there are widespread reliable sources that report it, then of course, report it. The hypothetical the New York Times 'could be wrong at some point in the future' is not a justifiable reason to leave out information, particularly when it can be added in a neutral descriptive way. We use verifiability, remember. Shadowjams (talk) 09:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Um, the FBI interviewed him in 2011. Surely they would store that interview for quite a while (it's not like storage is expensive nowadays, even with budget cuts). So, they would have a file on Tamerlan which probably included photos, place of residence and other family members he was in contact with. Jump to the bombings. The FBI takes the lead on the investigation. They identify two suspects and they have pictures of both of them. Why didn't they run those pictures on their own database? Surely their facial recognition software is advanced. Why didn't it recognize Tamerlan (even if the identification was not 100% sure, by following up on that they would find that the person in white hat looked a lot like his brother, thus ID'ing him further)? They even said they "followed up on thousands of leads". It seems unreasonable that they wouldn't look in their own databases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.140.194.198 (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Please be careful in choosing media sources

I know someone will jump down my throat for this, but given the fact that the media is still making fairly horrible mistakes I think it would be in Wikipedia's best interest to exercise additional caution.

For example, Fox had Zooey Deschanel labelled as a suspect. CNN had a former CIA agent state that the younger brother was named after the first president of the Czech Islamic Republic. Reliable Sources aren't acting like Reliable Sources. Please be careful. TheSyndromeOfaDown (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I want to see a cite on the first one just for lulz. Shadowjams (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
For what it is worth, we would all benefit if the article was stubbed to two paragraphs and locked, with no edits permitted for a year. Apteva (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
A simple search easily finds plenty of source discussing the first issue [24] [25] [26] [27]. It was evidently a mistake with (semi?) automatic captioning software and still described the suspect as a 19 year old and a he, so I wouldn't say it's a significant mistake even if humorous. Nil Einne (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
When Fox says something it might actually be true, or not at all. In fact it's quite useless garbage. Don't even bother evaluate whether it's reliable or not. Electron9 (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
You sure seem Unbiased... ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
The Fox channel had it coming. Electron9 (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

FBI involvement

This news source supports the idea that the FBI could have known about the bombing ahead of time. [28] I think it needs to be mentioned in the investigation section. USchick (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

This is dated 17th April - speculative, totally out of date, and of no significance whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Out of date? It's a news source that claims the FBI could have known about the explosion ahead of time. Since the FBI was talking to them for years before the event, which makes it significant. USchick (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
This source talks about announcements at the marathon of a training exercise and an extremely high level of security compared to other marathons. [29] USchick (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Find a credible source that says the FBI knew about this specific threat prior to the bombing, and it will merit inclusion. Speculation doesn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
The news source claims the FBI could have known which is not the same as knew for a fact. The older brother was cooperating with the FBI for years. Just because there were "no intelligence reports" from outside sources, doesn't mean the FBI didn't know from their own sources who were cooperating with them. For years. And that's exactly what this news source states. What makes it not relevant? USchick (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
What exactly are you proposing to add to the article? That Fox claim that the FBI 'could have' known about the bombing before it happened? Based on a journalist who says just that, but presents no evidence whatsoever that they did? Journalists come up with empty speculation all the time - it has no place in an encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
This is a reliable news source stating that yes, the FBI could have known about it ahead of time, so claiming in the article for a fact that there was no prior knowledge is erroneous. According to policy, you should present all sides of the story, not just the ones you happen to agree with. The journalist is not speculating, he is presenting evidence of other bombings that the authorities knew about ahead of time and there's no evidence that this one is any different. USchick (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I give up. Since you are clearly incapable of applying basic common sense, I suggest you start a WP:RFC here - specifying exactly what text you wish to include, and which source(s) you wish to cite for it. That way others can deal with your ridiculous attempt to shoehorn facile speculation based on nothing whatsoever into the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
"The news source claims the FBI could have known" -- News sources don't make such claims; news isn't speculative, it isn't hypothetical, it reports events. A source that is sometimes a news source is not being a news source when producing something other than news. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 07:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
"This source talks about announcements at the marathon of a training exercise and an extremely high level of security compared to other marathons." -- Any **conclusion** that an editor reaches from such claims does not belong in any Wikipedia article. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Speculations are, by their nature, not reliable, nor are they news; it doesn't matter how the source is characterized. "The journalist is not speculating" -- this is plainly untrue. "there's no evidence that this one is any different" -- Absence of evidence that something is not true, according to one UShick's opinion, is not sufficient basis for Wikipedia to include a speculation that it might be true. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for replying to the 3rd opinion request. Unfortunately, since you're not logged in, it's not clear that you're not User:AndyTheGrump, so we still need a third opinion. Please feel free to log in and sign your post. USchick (talk) 03:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. The correct source to add on this topic is the one about congressional criticism of the FBI and their inability (or the constraint on the FBI by existing laws) to arrest suspects before they commit a terrorist act. This has happened many times and the source you are looking for was released within the last 24 hours and could be added. However, this criticism, IMO, has less to do with the FBI and more to do with law enforcement in general. I've been in many situations where I've called 9-1-1 and reported a crime about to take place only for the dispatcher to tell me "I'm sorry, sir, there is nothing we can do unless they are actually committing a crime". To the best of my knowledge, traditional law enforcement in the United States tends to react to crime, not prevent it, and of course, this is highly problematic. I also suspect that there are logistical problems that interfere with such crime prevention. But, on the bright side, most cities and towns are using GIS now, so they can track and prevent crime with a greater precision today than ever before, so maybe we are looking at a sea change in law enforcement. Viriditas (talk) 03:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Here is a third opinion. Andy is, in this case, completely right. Now please stick to improving the article and not speculation about who could have done what? Legacypac (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, yours is the 4th opinion. I am not the IP, and USchick should be aware that there is no requirement for contributors to have an account: asking an IP to 'log in' isn't appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
My fifth opinion is also the same as Andy's. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
There was no "third opinion request" nor would such a request be valid or relevant. I have stated facts which you have not rebutted; you're "you might be AndyTheGrump" and "you're not logged in" ad hominems cannot serve as such, as that would be fallacious. If you cannot rebut my assertions then you have lost the argument ... which is inevitable. - 96.248.226.133 (talk) 07:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm the one who requested a third opinion here [30] I'm sorry if asking for a log in is not the right thing to do. Now, back to the discussion. When the media asks questions, they are not "speculating," they are doing their job. When a credible news source reports something, it's not the job of Wikipedia editors to determine which news reports you like and which ones you don't. If you insist on having a policy like Wikipedia:Verifiability which in essence is Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, then you can't pick and choose to apply that policy only when it's convenient. Another policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view calls for balance, which is lacking in this article. The fact that the FBI was being questioned about what they knew ahead of time was reported in the news source I provided earlier and it was also reported here [31]. That's two credible news sources doing their job, asking questions and reporting their findings. According to another news report [32] "The suspects’ father, Anzor Tsarnaev, who lives in the Russian republic of Dagestan, also said the FBI had been watching his family and visited the brothers’ home in Cambridge, Massachusetts, five times, most recently 18 months ago, looking for Tamerlan. “They said there were doing preventive work. They were afraid there might be some explosions on the streets of Boston,” he said." So that's 3 credible news sources reporting about possible prior knowledge by the authorities. This information needs to be included in the article because the claim of "no prior knowledge" is not a fact. USchick (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Your request was invalid ... did you even bother to read that link? And I obviously did not respond to that request, contrary to your claim. In any case, all opinion is against you. I'm not going to bother to further address your denial of what is clearly and obviously speculation. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
The press' job is to ask questions, then print the answers, not print questions without answers. Those two newer sources are much more substantial. They don't say anyone had advance knowledge of the attack, though. Just that they'd investigated Tamerlan. And found no reason to suspect him of being a terrorist. That should be mentioned, I think. and the fact that some politicians are scolding on the FBI about it should be noted in "Reactions". His dad's words should be taken with a grain of salt, though. Parents say all kinds of things to protect their children or their childrens' reputation. Not saying he's lying. But he's very likely biased. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
The press asks questions and reports whatever the answers were provided, which is often more questions. The press does not invent answers where none exist. The father's testimony is not any less credible than investigators who are afraid of losing their jobs. USchick (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
If a subject answers with a question, it's still a question. The father's reaction would be appropriate in the Reaction section, but not as a counterpoint to the FBI's claims. Whether or not they fear losing their jobs or just want to lie, they're still a much more authoritative source for matters like these. A counterclaim will need some form of evidence, not just the dad's say-so. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Ah, so now you have evidence that investigators are lying for fear of losing their jobs? Anyway, the burning question of whose statements are **less** credible is irrelevant to whether or not speculation that the FBI had advance notice is speculation. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

"They were afraid there might be some explosions on the streets of Boston" Even if that is wholly and entirely true, it has nothing whatsoever to do with "FBI involvement" or "the idea that the FBI could have known about the bombing ahead of time". You say that "This news source supports the idea" ... but it's *your* idea and it is entirely speculative ... and illogical. We're all afraid that there might be some criminal acts throughout the world ... that's why we have government agencies that do what they can to prevent them before they happen. That does not imply that we or those government agencies are "involved" in such criminal acts or "could have known about" those criminal acts "ahead of time". You've had your 3rd, 4th, and 5th opinions; it's time to drop this. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Other arrests

This section is also misleading, since the investigation is about a sleeper cell. [33] So what if they were released? If they are cooperating with the FBI, of course they would be released. Just like the older brother was cooperating with the FBI for years, which is exactly what his mother said. USchick (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I found this source too, but reads very tabloid like, wild speculation. [1] No referencing sleeper cells without some strong sources. Legacypac (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Please don't insert that the taxi men and the naked man "were soon released" without a proper reference to support this. We have refs saying the Saudi bystander and the three people arrested at the housing complex were released, but I haven't seen any mention of the others being released. Feel free to reinsert with your reliable source as a reference. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Improve the article by finding a source than, not casting doubt on well known facts about living persons with a {fact} tag.Legacypac (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is misleading cause, if people are arrested they are taken to jail. These people seem to have been just taken into custody and questioned, if they were released. So this section needs to be renamed. Theworm777 (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you need to be jailed to be "arrested". Just taken into custody as part of an investigation. Whether you're held in a cell for years or a questioning room for minutes, you've still been deprived of your liberty, in a criminal context. At least that's what I take from the lead of arrest. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
A person has to be charged with a crime at the time of the arrest. If they cooperate and give up useful information, they get released. Otherwise, the charge sticks and they get fined or jailed. The fact that they were charged with a crime, and then released is meaningful. Does it say they were released on bond? That would go on their record. If they were simply released, it means they gave up information in exchange for their release. USchick (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
No, you don't have to be charged with a crime at the time of arrest. One can be arrested under reasonable suspicion, or detained for officer safety, or for any number of other reasons. If law enforcement then determine that there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a crime, they would then be taken to jail to await a preliminary hearing - then and only then would formal charges be laid by a prosecutor. If law enforcement determine that there is no probable cause, one may simply be released on the spot without further delay. There is no evidence that any of the other people arrested were jailed or charged with any crimes - they were immediately released after brief questioning. That in no way indicates that "they gave up information in exchange for their release" - rather, it indicates that law enforcement saw no reason to believe that they were in any way involved. polarscribe (talk) 03:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Do you have a reference to support the assertion that they were immediately released? As far as we know, they could still be in jail. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
They'd base that decision on answers to questions, which is technically "giving up information". Just not necessarilly in a bargaining sort of way (like how a murderer has charges reduced for telling where the bodies are), as "in exchange" implies. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
For the record, one doesn't even have to be taken into custody to be arrested--I was once arrested for driving with a suspended license (I didn't know, due to a snafu in the mail notification system) by a city police officer who told me up front that I was being arrested, but not going to be handcuffed or taken into custody because it was a first offense, the primary offense was a minor speeding charge, and I had no wants or warrants; the only thing taken into custody was my car, since he couldn't let me drive it home and couldn't legally leave it by the side of the road. All that's required for it to be an arrest is that you be legally stopped from going about your business as you were before, basically. rdfox 76 (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Former United States Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton told Fox News that the men may have been part of a "sleeper cell" and that others may be "waiting for the right moment" to strike. [34] Other sources reporting a "sleeper cell" investigation related to this bombing. [35] [36] USchick (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
John Bolton is a well-known right-wing hack making wild, unsupported speculative claims. The Daily Mirror is a tabloid also prone to wild, unsupported speculative claims, and the Canada Free Press article is based entirely on The Daily Mirror's claims. Pretty thin stuff. polarscribe (talk) 03:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
So there should be a reliable source stating that John Bolton is a hack, right? USchick (talk) 05:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
There's "The problem with Mr. Bolton is that he is a hack politician who has never shown any ability to build a consensus." It's a blog, but Charley Reese seems to have paid his dues in mainstream journalism and politics. I think, as far as opinion goes, he'd count as "reliable". Maybe not. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The lines about the arrests of the man who was forced to strip and the men in the taxi have been repeatedly deleted. These events are notable because the arrests of non-suspects (not the questioning, but the cuffing and detaining) is clearly a civil liberties issue, not to mention being forced to strip naked in public by the police as part of the arrest process. The news media found these events notable, too. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC) I found a story saying the naked man was later released, so I noted this in the article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Riding in a taxi is not usually something that get you arrested at gunpoint. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/boston-bombers-fbi-hunting-12-strong-1844844

Deductive reasoning

Are we allowed to deduce information for this article by combining multiple sources to state a fact that itself is not published? For example where the article states "Jeff Bauman, ... was adjacent to the location of one of the bombs" it is possible to show that it was the first explosion by interpenetrating photographic images and statements made by Carlos Arredondo, or would that be original research? My76Strat (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes that would absolutely be original research. And in a case like this, we know we'll likely get a definitive timeline once the investigation is complete that would affirm this, so there is no deadline to try to include that information without a good source. --MASEM (t) 13:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
WP:SYNTH is the relevant OR policy subsection Jebus989✰ 13:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. My76Strat (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
You can however state each of the relevant facts separately yet close together to help the reader do that WP:OR on their own. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Jeff Bauman said he was right beside the bomb and the fact his legs were blown off proves it. Also there are media reports of which fatalities were at which bomb site and which brother planted which bomb. Please stop trying to throw up policy to block verifiable facts. Legacypac (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
The fact that his legs were blown off does not prove that he was right beside the bomb. There is nothing verifiable about this. Proof of where he was will come out after the investigation is complete. The investigation has barely begun.--Crunch (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Nothing in OR blocks verifiable facts, quite the opposite Jebus989✰ 15:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
That is true. But there are no verifiable facts regarding the location of Jeff Bauman. It is complete original research to assume that he must have been "right beside the bomb." --Crunch (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Are you saying he was 6 blocks or 10 miles away even when he said the bomb was placed beside him and he was able to ID the suspect and his legs were blown off by the bomb? At some point facts need to be respected or we should just blank the article as all OR and unsubstantiated allegations. Legacypac (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you, and was replying to the comment above as shown by my original indentation Jebus989✰ 15:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Crunch - reread what I said. Fact 1: Bauman said the Suspect looked him in the eyes and set the bomb down beside Bauman 2.5 minutes before the explosion. (many RS) Fact 2: His legs were blown off. (many RS). Fact #3 people further away had no injuries or lesser injuries. (not true, Krystal Campbell was right up against the flags, about 6 feet from Bauman and she died within minutes)These facts all support each other. Please refrain from trying to use Wikipolicy to dispute well established facts. We should avoid deductive reasoning like A happened and B happened so C is a fact that is not supported by RS. But if A happened and B happened and C also happened (per RS) we should say C happened. For example Fact #1: A bomb exploded. Fact #2: People at the explosion site got killed and injured and people down the street or across town did not get hurt. Fact #3 The bomb killed and injured people who were around it. Not OR synthesis, or anything any reasonable person would dispute and it is easily sourced. Legacypac (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I am just returning after being away. I am surprised to see the additional comments and wanted to show some of the factual deductions.

File:Boston Marathon explosions (8653921886).jpg (moments after 1st, people running away, Carlos Arredondo barely seen approaching amidst the smoke)

File:Boston Marathon explosions (8653943396).jpg (Carlos Arredondo coming through the picket barricade)

File:Boston Marathon explosions (8654037142).jpg (overview of area clearly showing it as the finish-line area, and location of the 1st explosion)

File:Boston Marathon explosions (8653989808).jpg (Carlos Arredondo entering ground zero as people rush in)

File:Boston Marathon explosions (8654007868).jpg (Carlos Arredondo where he assisted Jeff Bauman, also the red cap woman is seen bringing the wheel chair used to transport Jeff Bauman at images top center)

File:Boston Marathon explosions (8654015430).jpg (another of Carlos Arredondo assisting Jeff Bauman)

File:Boston Marathon explosions (8654021280).jpg (another of Carlos Arredondo)

File:Boston Marathon explosions (8654066988).jpg (Carlos Arredondo at rear corner of amb 50)

[37] (the so-called "iconic photo" showing Carlos Arredondo with Jeff Bauman pushed by the red cap woman)

These are just the images on Wikimedia Commons, there are many others available on line, including videos and published statements quoting Carlos Arredondo as he described his location, which is obviously the same location as Jeff Bauman. The point is, it is clear to me that Bauman was in the midst of ground zero of explosion number one. I am fine to wait until someone publishes this fact however, even though I believe it is as clear as crystal. My76Strat (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boston_Marathon_bombing/Archive_6&oldid=1142529896"