[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Talk:Boston Marathon bombing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cowicide (talk | contribs) at 20:00, 16 April 2013 (→Remove mention of al-Qaeda?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hockey and Basketball Game Cancellation

Is this worthy of inclusion? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 22:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say no.--Dom497 (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say yes - its a major league game and a direct result of the bombing Oddbodz (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd wouldn't think so. Ground stop yes, hockey game no. Open to suggestions. Ignatzmice•talk 22:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(EC x 632763537456 AAAAAAAAAAGGGHHHHH) a couple of other events have been cancelled too, so we can lump them in one sentence really. For instance the BSO has cancelled this evening's performance.[1] Sophie means wisdom (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial information, such as the cancellation of a sports event, should be kept out of the article. Qworty (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? In what way does a one-sentence mention damage anything? It makes the article more complete. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 22:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bundling is a reasonable compromise, although I wouldn't use more than a well sourced sentence if it must be included. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree to including a sentence summarizing major event cancellations. These are relevant to the scope of the incident. bd2412 T 22:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like the Celtics have cancelled their Tuesday game at TD Garden as well. I agree with the above that a short section somewhere in the article would be appropriate. Canuck89 (have words with me) 00:34, April 16, 2013 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with including a sentence or two regarding cancelled sports events (and I hate sports).. No, it's not of the utmost importance to the article, but it's relevant enough that 2 or 3 sentences could be included regarding sports and/or other events that were cancelled as a result. I don't have a source for it onhand, but I know the police chief (or or some police spokesman) held a press conference a couple of hours ago asking everyone in Boston to go home and stay there, so I think this could all be bundled together into a reasonable little section of its own. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't let it turned into a list. I once found, in an article about a British snowstorm, a list of over twenty postponed football games. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 09:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flags at Half-Mast

"Flags at half-mast" also seems non-notable, and shouldn't be in the "Emergency response" section even if it is. Ignatzmice•talk 22:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flags at half-mast are included in articles like the 2011 Tucson shooting and Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.  TheArguer  SAY HI! 22:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From what I remember, the order for flags to be flown at half-mast can only be an executive order from the President, or an order from a state governor affecting only the flags in the given state. Thus, it seems out of place to be including the unofficial order given by Boehner. -- Rgrasmus (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has come up in various settings before. Various officials have control over their respective buildings, so it's not unusual for Boehner to give the order for the Capitol and legislative buildings. Similarly, the President for those under his control. It's not "unofficial". Shadowjams (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about official or not official, but flying the flag at half mast when there is a disaster or death is pretty run of the mill and not particularly noteworthy by itself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean "Flags at Half-Staff". Masts are part of ships, so a ship is the only place you can fly a flag at half-mast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.247.134 (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, per our article Half-mast, that distinction doesn't apply everywhere outside the US. While this article should use US English, people speaking on the talk page do not have to. Nil Einne (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newtown School Shooting

The marathon was dedicated to the newtown shooting, with families of the victims attending the VIP section. Someone should mention it in the article. Sopher99 (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Information regarding Newtown attendees has been added to Boston Marathon 2013. I'm not sure if it needs to be regurgitated here. Aneah|talk to me 00:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do see the mention of the '26 seconds of silence to honor the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting', but no mention of Newtown families in the VIP section close to the explosions.FrankRadioSpecial (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Injury Counts

A producer at WGBH (the local PBS station) has tweeted the following as of 6:58 local time:

  1. #bostonmarathon Hospital update: Tufts - 9 patients hurt from attack, none critical, 8 more patients w/ marathon-related injuries
  2. #bostonmarathon Hospital update: Boston Medical Center - 20 patients total, 2 children, most have lower leg injuries
  3. #bostonmarathon Hospital update: Mass. Gen. - 22 patients total, 6 critical, 5 serious
  4. #bostonmarathon Hospital update: Brigham & Women - 26 patients total, 2 critical, 8-10 serious
  5. #bostonmarathon Hospital update: Bethg Israel - 21 patients total, 18 major, 3 minor, 7 life-threatening

Source: https://twitter.com/thejamesedwards I don't know whether this can be used. Maybe WGBH will put it on their website shortly. There are some other hospitals in the area but these are probably the main ones. GabrielF (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe add the severely injured

There're some gruesome pictures circulating on troll channels. Those people deserve the respect to be mentioned as more severely injured than others. --fs 23:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Map image

Map added, seemingly with accurate location points. Stalwart111 07:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Map showing site of first blast (right), and second (left)

The first blast site (right) is correct. The second is very close or possibly exact. There is a blank version of the map at commons. Please feel free to adjust the second site. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anna, hi! Sterling work on the map, and fast too. If the Boston Globe map above is accurate, the site of the second explosion is by the intersection of Boylston Street and "Ring Road", i.e it should be half-a-block to the right on your map. Can you fix this? I'd do it myself but my notebook is rubbish. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Do you have an url for the map? Is it right on the corner? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here: http://bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/04/15/explosions-rock-boston-marathon-finish-line-dozens-injured/yLhfDT1XC3HXSa8wPiVijL/igraphic.html --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
see also here, and here. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That map markup exaggerates the scale of the event. The windows of the stores adjacent to the bomb location weren't broken. The map markup is half a block wide. --John Nagle (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I moved the second blast marker to the right. Is that okay? (You might need to purge.) It's now the just between the BG map and this. Please feel free to adjust it further or, as the John Nagles says, make the rings smaller. There is a blank version at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2013_Boston_Marathon_bombings_map.png for that purpose. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Odder: Site 1 is too far left. Check google maps, see the address, and compare to published video and images. Site 2 is in the middle of the road, but video shows it coming from the north side. I like the 1 and 2 thing though. 124.66.10.78 (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC) (That was me logged out. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Try this angle. Hope it helps clear things up: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/04/15/us/site-of-the-boston-marathon-explosion.html?_r=0 Twinbros22 (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Twinbros22, it did indeed help! The location of the blasts should be more precise now (you might need to purge your cache to see the change, though). odder (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
see also here, and here. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox

The infobox currently lists the attack type as "bombing", which redirects to bombardment—not the same at all. "Bombing" is the correct term, but it should link elsewhere. Is improvised explosive device too specific? Bomb seems to be, again, focussed on the aerial version. Ignatzmice•talk 23:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bomb seems the most accurate since we don't have reliable sources calling it an IED or similar yet. We'd need confirmation that it's some sort of homemade device to link to that. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I redirected bombing to bomb as it is a better fit. United States Man (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patriots' Day

I don't see a mention in the article that today is Patriots' Day, the day the marathon is run. I'm restricting my edits to the talk page today, and will just leave it to the judgement of those of you working with the content to decide if it is worth adding a few words or not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has certainly been discussed, in detail, in media coverage, even here in Australia. Stalwart111 23:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Much speculation online as to whether that's important. We don't really know yet. As I said above, I'd lean against until we have more info on attacker and motive. Ignatzmice•talk 23:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I meant just a link. The Boston Marathon is always run on Patriots Day. I wouldn't assign it as a motive, just noting that is what the day is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The holiday is mentioned on the main page. I'm not sure it needs to be mentioned in the lead, but I think it would be a good addition.  TheArguer  SAY HI! 23:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is pertinent. April 15 is also the anniversary of the Belfast Blitz and many other things, but there is no clear connection between this event and any of that other stuff, including Patriots' Day. One could argue that maybe there's a stronger connection to be made to Patriots' Day, but that's speculation and possibly original research. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a story here suggesting that there might be a link (MSNBC). I'll let others decide what to do with it. Bouchecl (talk) 00:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't a fair comparison. The Belfast Blitz isn't relevant to Boston, Patriots Day is. Ryan Vesey 05:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously never saw the movie "Patriot Games".Eregli bob (talk) 07:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I read the book, but I don't understand your comment. Ryan Vesey 12:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Today is tax day. hmm....


I can see including the mention of it being Patriot's day, however, I have an issue with the article tying those events all together. I don't think that the Columbine Massacre had anything to do with political motivation. [2] Aneah|talk to me 01:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually a direct thread running from Waco to Oklahoma City to Columbine; McVeigh was angered by the ATF actions at Waco and deliberately chose the anniversary of the fire to set off his bomb. Columbine is sketchier as ascribing any motive requires a degree of speculation, but there's certainly evidence that they intended to create a connection between their actions and McVeigh's (although perhaps less for political reasons than for simple notoriety). cmadler (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's a thread from Waco to OKC to Columbine, but I don't think the "claims" in that article are going to hold up. Patriots' day is a state holiday in MA, but is not significant elsewhere. The association with tax day confuses it -- it's only by chance that tax day and patriots' day coincide this year. Even then, while anti-government groups might sympathize a bit with Waco, and maybe even with McVeigh, no with any coherent political views would see Columbine as anything to emulate. I think that this is pure speculation without even a coherent story from someone who happens to be a journalist. I know this isn't a popular point of view here that a reputable source can be overruled by rational thought, but there's only a connection with the date, not with Patriots' Day or tax day which happen to fall on it. Kevinpet (talk) 05:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a bit about this with a citation to the NYT story, which explicitly calls it out. Steven Walling • talk 03:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aaand it was removed. If anyone wants to reuse it:

Sources such as The New York Times noted that while no perpetrators or suspects had been identified, the April 15th tax deadline and Patriots' Day were both associated with violent acts in the past by "radical American anti-government groups".[1][2]

There ya go. Steven Walling • talk 03:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Third Bomb in Lead

I removed this because it's a single source reporting the event; I wasn't aware it was being editwarred over until checking the history... The article linked to is many hours old, when there was more confusion. If you read the article, it notes "UPDATE: Boston officials confirmed there was a third explosion at the library." The confirmation link goes to the NY Post (which has already given us a bunch of screwy information, per previous talk page discussions), but even that link says: "Boston fire officials previously said that the third explosion was linked to the ones that occurred at the Marathon but later updated their information to say that the explosion was not related."

It's an unrelated incident, and covered as such down in the body where it belongs: "A fire at 3 p.m. inside the mechanical room of the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, briefly thought to be related to the marathon explosions, was not caused by a device and is apparently not related to them.[49]" There's still some reporting that it may be related, but it's all conflicting report and speculation. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you got it (at least partly) wrong, I believe. It's not referring to the "fire". But just another BOMB, that was discovered by Boston PD, and taken care of. You're saying there's no confirmation or source for that? Again, don't get it confused. It's about another un-detonated third bomb being discovered and handled by police. Not another "explosion". Gabby Merger (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there was a third device that BPD detonated, in the vicinity of the initial bombs, as well as at least one more device past that apparently. There may or may not have been a bomb at the JFK library; that appears to be under investigation, and the only clear information is that it was apparently SOME sort of explosion, not necessarily a bomb.
You may be confusing that with the one that BPD did detonate near the initial scene. It doesn't make sense to put that in the lead without also including information about the other explosives reportedly discovered...and since this is such a mess of reporting, it's probably best to keep it out. (And particularly not use a reference titled "BREAKING: EXPLOSION AT JFK LIBRARY" when we have other sources[3] noting things like "A Boston Police spokesperson told Talking Points Memo on Monday that an explosive device had gone off at the library. This information was later clarified on Twitter by BPD Public Information Bureau Chief Cheryl Fiandaca, who described the incident as "fire related."".) Edit: I realize you may not be referring to the library, but the source used really makes it seem that way, intentional or not. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, it was a third bomb discovered near the finish line, not the library. So I guess my point is why not modify the edit, since at least that seems to be fairly solidly sourced and confirmed, removing the JFK Library part only, and putting a better ref, instead of removing it altogether? Isn't WP recommendation and policy to modify, rather than to totally remove? Especially when this is solid sourced confirm for a third bomb at least discovered? I'm sorry, the fact that a whole third bomb was found in the area seems pertinent and important. Gabby Merger (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I first saw the sentence, it specifically mentioned the JFK library (checking the history, apparently it was edited to remove that by the time I hit edit myself, but still with the unclear reference which made it seem like it was still referring to that.) I wouldn't have removed it if the source made sense...chalk it up to confusion with the rapid-fire changes to the article and attempt to avoid edit conflicts. However, if it's readded, I think it needs to clearly describe that multiple other devices were apparently found, not just the one that was safely detonated. (Also not sure it's lead-worthy due to the information on additional explosive devices still being unclear; it's perhaps better discussed in the body for now where the current reporting uncertainty can be covered better.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any objection to me adding a link to the google finder page for the attack?

I've removed it. Completely unencyclopedic.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The activation of Google's Person Finder service was mentioned in the article. There is a separate page for that. No need to list it as a separate external link. Aneah|talk to me 00:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This event is only the second active Google People Finder event. I checked some common names and it is being well used. Legacypac (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 15 April 2013

Edit request answered. Stalwart111 07:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think there were 12 people killed in the bombing. http://niagara-gazette.com/local/x1097424123/Bombing-suspect-reportedly-in-custody-12-reportedly-dead 76.69.129.41 (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source cites Post, which has been crap for reliability on this story. See threads above. Ignatzmice•talk 23:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the Post is .... diverging with the breadth of other sources so far. --j⚛e deckertalk 23:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox image

Why are we using a copyrighted and low-resolution image with a digital on-screen graphic in the infobox? Was there anything wrong with previous, higher resolution image that we actually have permission to use?  TheArguer  SAY HI! 23:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it shows the actual explosion? My feeling is that we should keep it. Feel free to cite policy at me; that's just my personal opinion. Ignatzmice•talk 23:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FUR requires "the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts" --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Not sure, though the image rational should look closer to File:1987_Punch-up_in_Piestany_01.JPG if it is kept. (Personally, I am alright with it since it does give an idea to what has happened.) --Super Goku V (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There does seem to be a valid reason to use it under Fair Use, as obviously we can't expect to find a free version and it does show an element of the event that can't be duplicated. As to preference, I will leave that to everyone else. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I missed this when I wrote that, but the image is a .png, while it should be a .jpeg per WP:IUP#FORMAT from Category:Screenshots of television. It looks like it will need to be updated to keep it. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the reason why the criteria mentioned above requires 'the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts' is because an image being non-replaceable with a free image is only one requirement under our NFCC criteria. We also generally require the image doesn't compete with intended commercial use of the copyrighted work. A problem we tend to have with media images is even if they are unique, we are competing. This can apply to videos as well. For various reasons we allow this with iconic photos or cases when the image itself is the subject of commentary, a well known example of this is File:TrangBang.jpg (we did receive some limited permission, but it doesn't affect our stance) but this doesn't seem to apply here (perhaps a depiction of the 78 year old runner could be an exception). This isn't unique to this bombing, there are other cases, e.g. airplane crashes, explosions etc where the only images depicting the event are media images which we generally don't use. If there are amateur videos or images of the bombings which aren't being made freely available (even if not under a free licence), we lose the 'competing' concerns but this may also raise questions about the 'irreplaceable' claim. While I'm not concluding we can't use any such images, the only image I've seen so far does look problematic to me. Nil Einne (talk) 05:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: 2013 Boston Marathon terrorist attack

As even in this article we can read that: "The Federal Bureau of Investigation is treating the bombings as a terrorist attack." Furthermore it is a much better description of the event than the simple name bombings. 91.83.194.227 (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So far no terrorists group has claimed responsibility for the little bomb that killed two people, so you shouldn't add terrorists attack just because it's americans first reaction to blame it on Muslims, it's probably a case of domestic violence. EthanKP (talk · contribs) 15 April
Just so you know, Americans don't define "terrorism" as being foreign caused. Most of our terrorism has been home grown. It is defined as using violence for political goals, and the nationality of the perpetrator isn't relevant to calling it terrorism. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From the Boston Globe: "Boston Police Commissioner Edward F. Davis said, 'We’re not being definitive on this right now, but you can reach your own conclusions based on what happened.'" I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia's current events policies, but do think it's much too premature to change the article name. X-Kal (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) So far as I can remember, this is the first mentioning between a religious group and the event itself. I believe that terrorist attack was suggested not for what you are suggesting is the reason, but for what has been said in the news. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, a rename seems premature. Let this settle a few minutes, really. Eventually this will almost certainly be retitled in view of WP:COMMONNAME, but events like this often shift in common name over the first few days. Moving it back and forth in the interim from an existing neutral title is at best a waste of effort. --j⚛e deckertalk 00:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it was, we wouldn't rename it "terrorist attack" given what's known so far. The Oklahoma City bombing, 7 July 2005 London bombings are good examples. Shadowjams (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree no need for "terrorist" in article title, now or ever (the current title "2013 Boston Marathon bombings" is more than fine). Casual/infrequent editors can learn more at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)#Conventions and WP:NCE#Examples.--→gab 24dot grab← 02:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just now (on MSNBC etc) it was noted that the President, in his press conference, PURPOSELY did not use the word "terrorism". Being very careful to not be hasty with that word, as "terrorism" has a technical definition. It's not known 100% for sure yet (apparently) if this was a (technical) act of "terrorism" (in the sense of political motivation, etc...) So naming the article (I guess, according to these things said) with the word "terrorist" in the article name, apparently would be at this point a bit premature. Gabby Merger (talk) 07:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes

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

Are people ok if I switch to pending changes? The studies after the trial seemed to suggest that anons could add a lot of good information for current events like this and I think this might be a very good option for it. James of UR (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would prefer not. There are so many edits happening so fast, adding more then waiting for changes to be accepted, using a system most people aren't familiar with, that is likely to cause more problems than it fixes. Several people are actively working the talk pages, and any IP can ask here and get a reply in a matter of seconds. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concur. I have very little experience with pending changes, but from what I know of it I suspect using it on a page like this would play merry hell with the edit conflicts. It's bad enough as it is. Ignatzmice•talk 00:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • And agree here too. Pending changes works poorly on rapidly changing articles, there was a pretty strong consensus on this point after the original trial. The interface plus lots of pending edits equals mess. I'd rather see it unprotected if it came to that. --j⚛e deckertalk 00:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Time

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

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

"Homemade bomb?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit request April 15, 2013

The picture for the article is great, but is there a more HD version that could be used? The one up is to grainy. I know there's more important things to add to it, but I think a clearer picture would be a good thing. --Matt723star (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photography

Hey,

I've come across some Flickr photos here which may be useful for the article as they're CC-BY, thus free to use, but my concern is that they may be wire photos, and therefore not actually CC-BY. Preliminary research shows that the account holder is a senior employee at KRON-TV, which the photos are labeled as part of news coverage, but I would like someone with more access to American resources to check. Sceptre (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing titles there that suggest it's KRON coverage, I certainly understand your concern. Try dropping a note to the flickr user? --j⚛e deckertalk 00:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since they are admitting they are KRON property, I don't think contacting them will help since technically, the flickr user is infringing copyright, likely a wire service. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My precursory search has revealed two things. First, the KRON 4 News site doesn't seem to be posting any other Flickr pictures at all -- suggesting that the news organization does not use Flickr. Second, the Flickr user does not have a real name attached to the user profile. It is my belief that any reputable journalist would have a full name and some way of linking back to the news site for verifiability. X-Kal (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since a reputable journalist would not be posting valuable photos that would be considered part of his work for his employer, the person is probably a nonjournalist employee who was there and took personal photos which he may post as he chooses. Ask.165.121.80.150 (talk) 03:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 16 April 2013

Terrorist Drill With Bombsquad and Dogs

The Boston Globe tweeted "Officials: There will be a controlled explosion opposite the library within one minute as part of bomb squad activities." at 12:53 P.M. on the day of the attack.[4]

UM Coach Ali Stevenson and others report to have heard announcements over the event loudspeaker of a drill taking place with a bombsquad and dogs. Attendees were told not to worry. [5] [6]

https://twitter.com/BostonGlobe/status/323886879453892609 Williamottman (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Not done, for now. I'm inclined to agree with Dennis. I think the full timeline will become clear in good time and will be supported by good reliable sources. Relying on tweets to build part-timeline is probably not a great idea at the moment. But more than happy to discuss it. Stalwart111 01:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Numbers/Police Information

141 injured at the least. 2 dead, minimum 17 in critical condition. More are likely to die. Police is going to have press conference. There is a very vague suspect who may not be anything, but he is according to John King of CNN a dark-skinned male with a black backpack and black hoodie sweatshirt possibly with an accent that may suggest he is a foreign national. According to King this information was released by the Boston Police Department. Bomb likely included ball bearings due to shrapnel removed from those treated in hospitals.Samuel Marcus 1999 (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Samuel Marcus[reply]

CNN ref mentions the ball bearings --j⚛e deckertalk 00:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Three confirmed dead. Let's not jump to conclusions on the suspect. Go Phightins! 01:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is big leap from a BOLO (be on the lookout for) to a suspect. --Crunch (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timing Error

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

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

Exact time and location of second bomb blast

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

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

Number of undetonated devices

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

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

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

Controlled Explosions

Controlled explosions were being carried out at the same time as the actual explosions that went off. [7]

If the statement about controlled explosions is to remain, a better more reliable source needs to be cited. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference NYT-marathon-blasts was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "Patriots' Day: Waco, Oklahoma City, Columbine, and now Boston", MSNBC
  3. ^ http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BOSTON_MARATHON_EXPLOSIVES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
  4. ^ "Boston Globe tweets about controlled explosion".
  5. ^ "Ali Stevenson reports bomb drill announcement".
  6. ^ "Boston Marathon explosion: University of Mobile coach offers first-hand reports from scene".
  7. ^ http://www.naturalnews.com/039926_Boston_marathon_bombing_terrorism.html

Hoax on site

This page has a hoax. The culprit has not been found yet.

Anonymous173.74.57.205 (talk) 01:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Credible threats"

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

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

Edit request on 16 April 2013

Edit request answered. Stalwart111 07:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please change "The Federal Bureau of Investigation is treating the bombings as a terrorist attack." to "The Federal Bureau of Investigation is treating the bombings as a terrorist attack, though no perpetrator has officially been identified." I feel that a careless reader could misinterpret the original and assume it is a confirmed terrorist attack. Machdelu (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Updated headline

The headline "Officials: Boston Marathon bombs kill 2, hurt 49 - Update 5:15 p.m. ET" has been changed on the news agency's website. Do we change the citation headline in the references section, or leave it as is? X-Kal (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, probably. TBrandley 01:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 16 April 2013

Edit request answered. Stalwart111 07:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'd like to change the statement that the JFK library was "in fact" not related to bombing on boylston st. it's too early to tell this definitively and the citation from the dorchester paper is inconclusive and is not a reputable source. Bluemtmedia (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Boston Police, this is still being investigated.[5]  TheArguer  SAY HI! 02:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a few hours old now (I've not been watching the news) but I think newscasters on NBC noted that some official mentioned that the fire was caused by some incendiary device. Can anyone speak to the accuracy/plausibility of that? —Rutebega (talk) 02:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have been hearing that the fire was originally thought to be connected, but now is being investigated as a separate event, as a mechanical fire in the newer part of the JFK library. Go Phightins! 02:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fox News is reporting that police are still investigating, but the events are unlikely to be related.  TheArguer  SAY HI! 02:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Let's just wait until this settles. Too many conflicting reports, but most sources seem to be saying it was unrelated. It'll probably take a few days for the cause of the fire to be completely confirmed. The WordsmithTalk to me 02:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Web archive any references to hospital websites

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

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

Was this a terrorist attack?

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

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

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

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

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

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

What sources are saying

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

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

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

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

Year in title

Isn't it just a tiny bit redundant? How many other "Boston marathon bombings" have there been? FunkMonk (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There haven't been any, but there has only been one 2013 Boston Marathon.  TheArguer  SAY HI! 02:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's event naming convention says to provide at least two of these three: where? what? when?, so it might not be wrong to remove the year (though that is arguable). However, it seems unlikely that a consensus will soon resolve that the year must be removed. Consider "2003 Bam earthquake"; as the guideline WP:NCE#Conventions states, "There is no other "Bam earthquake" in Wikipedia, but earthquakes happen many times in history in the same place, so the year is a useful identifier." Frankly, I'm unsure that the Boston Marathon has never before been "bombed" (though certainly not as notably as on 2013-04-15), and (sadly) I'm even less sure that it will never again be bombed. I'd guess experienced editors will agree that the year should remain.--→gab 24dot grab← 02:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly right. We had something similar with the 2012 Sivakasi factory explosion, which I think was renamed 2-3 times before that title was settled on. Stalwart111 03:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Though I suppose it should be acknowledged that there have been other fireworks factory explosions there and nearby in the past and so the distinction by year is critical, rather than simply useful. Stalwart111 03:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with FunkMonk and 24, I have heard no one in the media call this be the name "2013 Boston Marathon bombings". There is no justification to prefix with "2013" and there is even an argument that is doesn't need to be plural either. No media is using a plural. And look at the definition of "bombing": "2. bombing - the use of bombs for sabotage; a tactic frequently used by terrorists". It already implied to be plural. Just rename to "Boston Marathon bombing" and trust me noone will be confused. --MarsRover (talk) 03:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but what part of the current title is confusing? Weren't these bombs detonated during the 2013 Boston Marathon? The page has move protection. We can decide on the name later, as we did as a community with the shootings in Connecticut.  TheArguer  SAY HI! 04:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "the media" don't dictate our naming conventions. It can be argued that the bombings should be in the singular, but there's bigger fish to fry right now than the title. Stranger things have happened. Moving this article around from title to title is no help at all; give it time. Remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a news blog. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The event is trademarked as the 2013 Boston Marathon, so there should be no problem whatsoever with the title starting with 2013 Boston Marathon. The use of bombings vs bombing I could be convinced either way. Abductive (reasoning) 04:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say the title was confusing I said it was needlessly redundant as was pointed out by several people. And as implied by all the media. But Yes, we can leave it the way it is. --MarsRover (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The year in the title is actually useful, because what if some copycat bomber decides to disrupt a future Boston Marathon? Canuck89 (converse with me) 05:34, April 16, 2013 (UTC)
Huh? "Redundant" means that information is repeated (eg "bombing explosions"). The discreet title "2013 Boston Marathon bombings" certainly isn't redundant. In fact, let me be clear: I prefer the current title "2013 Boston Marathon bombings"; I consider the suggestion "Boston Marathon bombing" to be inferior to the current title. While the year may not be strictly necessary, it is useful; note that World Trade Center bombing redirects to 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and United States Senate bombing should redirect to 1983 United States Senate bombing. Regarding "bombings" or "bombing", it must be noted that the event discussed in this article involved multiple detonations (compare 7 July 2005 London bombings and 21 July 2005 London bombings, each of which involved multiple detonations). Articles which use the singular word "bombing" typically involve a single detonation (eg Centennial Olympic Park bombing, March 6, 2008 Times Square bombing, 16th Street Baptist Church bombing, Casa Grande bombing, Harvey's Resort Hotel bombing, Los Angeles Times bombing, Poe Elementary School bombing, and Wall Street bombing). It seems obvious that the plural term "bombings" should be used to title an article about an event involving multiple detonations, such as this event described in this article. --→gab 24dot grab← 05:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misunderstood you. Your examples sort of prove the point you don't need to have the year so I didn't think you were arguing for the year. But just to clarify the definition of "redundant": "No longer needed or useful; superfluous. (of words or data) Able to be omitted without loss of meaning or function.". When there have only been one bombing/attack of that kind on a Boston Marathon, the year is "redundant" in the title. Like I said before leave it the way it is. Don't really want to argue. --MarsRover (talk) 06:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting tedious. Again, there was NOT "one bombing" as you now claim, but at least two bomb detonations. Further, did you even look at your own dictionary link? While it does include your cherrypicked definition of "redundant", your own link also includes this:
Ever heard of Redundancy (engineering) or Redundancy (user interfaces) or Data redundancy or Gene redundancy or RAID? The term "redundant" plainly connotes repetition; why pretend otherwise? Here are the "redundant" entries from three more dictionaries:
--→gab 24dot grab← 09:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is kind of moot and has already been discussed several times, and why I move protected the page. I don't care what it gets named eventually, but experience tells me that we need to wait a week to debate the name so we can use the guidance provided by the actual reliable sources. There is no need to even debate the name at this early stage, it isn't going to get renamed this week and the current name is sufficient for now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

photo source

Here is a set of 147 images, freely licensed on Flickr, from a nearby office building. I've posted a request on Commons to have the whole set uploaded, but in the meantime editors may want to select and upload any individual photos that are relevant for the article.--ragesoss (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through all 147 images and think that these are some of the best photos in the set. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  TheArguer  SAY HI! 03:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd concur that those are some of the better ones.— -dainomite   03:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded one to replace the fair use image in the infobox. Steven Walling • talk 04:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shame, though--the one you took out had "iconic" written all over it. Drmies (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know, it was ultimately a much better photo. If you want, we can put the fair use one back, and move the other to the body. There's still a fair use argument to be made I think, since one is of the explosion itself, and the other is after. Steven Walling • talk 04:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I don't want to tell you what to do; you know this stuff as well as or better than me. That image, though, will remain with me for a while, for all its distance and objectivity--and it has time standing still. I appreciate your response and concern, though. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I sent Aaron Tang a line via Flickr feedback thanking him for sharing these incredible pictures under CC BY. --DarTar (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Aaron's account is flagged on the commons, although these seem legitimate, the commons think he as flickrwashed photos in the past. Commons:File:2013_Boston_Marathon_explosions_aftermath_emergency_services.jpgMartin451 (talk) 05:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My $.02: The pic of the explosion is overall a "better" photo, for several reasons:
it is brighter (not as smoky), making it easier to see details (especially in a thumbnail)
it is therefore more eye-catching, which I believe is an important consideration; if an image isn't visually arresting, why have it in the infobox?
while the current image is very poignant (obviously I don't know, but I would bet that woman on the ground next to the ash is dead), in its thumbnail version it just looks like people milling about
the free-use image captured the explosion as it happened, which is not very common in cases like this
Therefore I think it should be restored. Barring further input, I may convince myself to do that; in that case, consider this my rationale. Ignatzmice•talk 05:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bombings and the like are rarely bright and clear, they are normally filled with confusion, people milling about. non-free images should only be used when free images are not available.Martin451 (talk) 05:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me, Ignatzmice. Steven Walling • talk 05:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like the image, but I do not think that it will survive the issues already brought up earlier in the talk without changes. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bombings and the like are rarely bright and clear, they are normally filled with confusion My point exactly—why should we put in a picture that looks more like a "stock photo" when we have one of the explosion itself? In addition, it is now very small; I don't think it's much bigger than it appears in the infobox. I can't comment as to the more general issues raised by Nil Einne above. Ignatzmice•talk 05:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I won't put it back (that'd be getting close to the spirit, if not the letter, of 3RR, and I've got to head out anyway), but I think there ought to be more discussion—we should get some consensus, please! At the moment, the pic in the infobox is very similar to the one in "Victims" below. If we aren't going to use the one of the explosion, we should at least use the brighter/clearer one. Ignatzmice•talk 14:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On a related note, the author says that he witnessed the event from his office window, located half a block from the finish line of the marathon and he uploaded to his flickr stream a high-resolution image of the crowd at what he suggests to be the location of the first explosion, allegedly shot an hour before it happened (I am reporting FYI only – as this obviously counts as WP:OR – from his reply to my thank you message). --DarTar (talk) 05:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section "Who did this[ bombing] and why"

a separate section on this topic:

  1. IMHO is desperately needed to collect & report on the various claims of (and leads to) answers to this (or lack thereof) which are rapidly being made, especially so these frequent reports & updates (every ~5 min) don't conflict (as create save conflicts) with the other edits on the article also rapidly coming in.
  2. IMHO it needs to include "All seemingly-serious claims", or perhaps "all notable claims", yes even ones dubious and even ones later found out to be false, in order to inform people on the status of each: be it true or false, if notable, people need to know which are true & false.
    1. I note here several Wikipedia users have (IMHO very incorrectly) made numerous edits to remove answers to this Q which, at least in THEIR CLAIMED judgement, are false, (such as the NYPost article of a suspect in custody, removed (one of many times) at 20:55, 15 April 2013 edit by JDDJS as 21:19, 15 April 2013 edit by ShaleZero also even stating effectively "Please do not add anything about the supposed suspect.."); but this NYPost article, even if totally false (I don't know) is still so so significant that plenty of users are rightfully going out of their way to search for it it here and if not finding here, add it. And there could be many other leads & answers that were deleted. So then (hopefully accidentally but still wrongfully) these Wikpedia deleters, such as the two mentioned here, are then seemingly actively working to HURT this investigation in terms of finding leads and what's false & true on this this most key question -with much of this they actively deleting.
    2. Indeed Rachel Maddow just now said (MSNBC at EST8:21pm) that the FBI themselves says "No information being too insignificant, no potential lead being tool small.", so where the heck do these random Wikipedians get the audacity (or maybe malign intent..) to go deleting others leads!
    3. I add, yes, less likely claims should be less featured (as not listed first) but if remotely possibly notable, they should NOT be removed IMHO;
  3. To handle the potentially many claims of many levels of accuracy, this section I think would be best organized via top-level heading of say "All seemingly-serious claims from most-to-least apparently-reliable:"
    1. Yes this suggests a sorted list or table.
      1. I've heard Wikipedia users say essentially that lists are "not encyclopedic" so not good; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Embedded_lists I can't find the official policy on this but regardless, I profoundly disagree.
  4. Due to the edits on this article happening at ~4 per minute, I found it extremely hard (like being the "13th caller to a big radio giveaway") in order organize some of the existing text of the article into this new section (most of the time I ran into edit conflicts in the <1min it took make the edit, including to update my text with the new text coming in), but finally I was able to make 2 such saves both easy to fix and the 2nd case the problem was so small it wasn't even noticed, BUT before I could even fix these errors my new section was removed
    1. 00:36, 16 April 2013‎ --my 1st save, where unfortunately created a error; this was seconds later undone (excessive, as it was merely a problem of a missing tag and something I would have promptly corrected, but understandable as it did introduce a serious page error, as a result from my not doing a preview that one time in order to get my edit suspended before it would be denied in a few seconds due to someone else editing)
    2. 01:15, 16 April 2013 --my 2nd save: all good except "Since then, .." should have been at the end of the prior point, but even before that minor error could be spotted, 1 min later User:TheArguer deleted this section merely as "not encyclopedic" -very wrongfully, IMHO, including he also then carelessly deleted the contributions of a number of other users by this his casual deletion; and I see from the article edit history this is seemingly typical of him, with 8 out of 10 of his edits being deleting other user's content (and these are all of confirmed users on this page) and only 2 additions and all seemingly tiny; IMHO for this notable destructive deletion, and seemingly like others he's done, unless he suddenly apologizes and goes back and goes back and undoes his damage, he should be censured and have his edit privileged suspend partially or entirely.
    3. I am quite saddened User:TheArguer did this notable destructive deletion and of not just my new contribution (of this section and to ~2 new claims) but to the long-standing additions of several other users, nonetheless due to the difficulty I've had in getting changes to save (which ironically would have been alleviated by this addition), I'm not planning to do more work on this article, but for those who are, leaving this note so they can make appropriate fixes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MBParker (talk • contribs)
  • Absolutely not. We cannot put speculation about who is behind what on a Wikipedia page; to do so would violate our policies on posting information about living people in the very worst of ways. We are an encyclopedia, not a most wanted list; we will include what is encyclopedic and supported by reliable sources; nothing more and nothing less. Your proposal is neither. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. TheArguer's reverts were quite justified. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are supposed to be an encyclopaedia not a place to list leads to help the FBI/investigation. One would hope that investigators are not trying to use us a list of leads either. Nil Einne (talk) 04:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above screed by MBParker makes little sense to me, but the fact that reliable sources have talked about multiple possibilities for suspects gives context to the fact that we don't know for sure yet, and that it could be foreign or domestic terrorism. People typically jump to a conclusion based on their personal prejudice, so showing that sources present a couple possible investigations and associations is actually helpful for framing the event. Steven Walling • talk 04:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please assume good faith, I didn't realize I was deleting existing edits until a couple minutes after, and by then they were replaced. Thank you to whoever did that! Making ordered lists of claims based on how reliable they seem is not something we do here. One of Wikipedia's core content policies is verifiability. Another one of these policies is to not analyze information in which there are no sources, such as ordering them. The last of three core content policies is to have a neutral point of view. These factors, along with the fact that we had a lot less information at the time, led me to delete this section. I've experienced a lot of edit conflicts as well, and since there are so many people working on this article, people have beat me in adding information that I tried to add myself. I've done my best to keep the article as accurate as possible, I'm sorry you feel this way.  TheArguer  SAY HI! 04:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most encyclopedic way to handle this is to wait six months and then write the article, but IRL most of us readily recognize the need Wikipedia can fill (heck, even Google News routinely links to the Wikipedia article for a breaking news story). So, the way around conflicting and seemingly wrong reporting is to simply quote (or paraphrase) and reference the verifiable source right alongside seemingly conflicting information and references (eg NY Daily Planet reports that there were 10 explosions, while NY Gazette reports only 4). Readers will appreciate being allowed to think for themselves, and we mitigate the risk of hiding or overly-interpreting raw reports.--→gab 24dot grab← 05:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really don't think this is a good idea and I think reverting attempts to include it was right, but I certainly understand the sentiment. General tracking of the investigation (by summarising major/key points as they appear in reliable sources) will happen anyway, but conducting (in effect) our own quasi-investigation to track all claims (no matter how off-base or speculative) just isn't a good idea. We're not, after all, the FBI. But, again, I appreciate the sentiment and the amount of work you have done to (try to) explain it to everyone. Maybe we need a WP:NOTFBI? Stalwart111 06:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, we do need a WP:NOTFBI. I've just created it, and proposed on the WP:Village pump (policy) page that it be added as a subsection to WP:NOT. -- The Anome (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Abbreviated ref tags

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

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

See also section?

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

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

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

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

April 15th - The Lincoln Connection

Exactly. Stalwart111 08:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nobody pointed this out yet but April 15th is also the day Lincoln died. It is known that some in the "patriot movement" despise Lincoln as a tyrant, such as Tim McVeigh who was arrested wearing a shirt bearing the words of John Wilkes Booth as he shot Lincoln, "sic semper tyrannis" (as always with tyrants).

More wild speculation. Wait until the perpetrator is found/is arrested/makes a confession/publishes his/her screed, then get back to us. Ignatzmice•talk 06:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Preparedness

May be worth noting that local police were equipped to stop an attack, although the system failed somehow. Shii (tock) 09:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit notice re New York Post

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

Yes, this was thoroughly hashed out here, and in edit summaries, throughout most of the day yesterday. I seem to call one of the NYPost articles reported 12 deaths (although, to be fair, this may have been a typo when only 2 deaths were confirmed). Regardless, we just can't add sensitive information to an article like this based on the reporting of the New York Post. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 10:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If "12" was a typo, the fact that they let it stand throughout the day says a lot about the reliability of their article. ShaleZero (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The notice is no longer appearing on the article. Does it need to be moved to match the new title? Also, it may need to be reworded to take into account the Daily Mail jumping in with the Post. ShaleZero (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguities under the Investigation section

The last paragraph says:

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

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

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

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

Bruins and Celtics Games

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

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

POV Pushing in Investigation Section

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

Agreed. I was too lazy to put here. Kennvido (talk) 11:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There have been no terrorist incidents in the U.S. on Patriots Day or Tax Deadline Day as far as I can recall. This just seems like lazy speculation on the source's part and it puts undue suspicion on groups of people, before the government has even indicated that it has any evidence to incriminate the perpetrator(s). --Tocino 11:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and this was discussed in the thread Patriots' Day above. Stalwart111 11:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

8 year old

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

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

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

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

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

13:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

        • Why the rush to remove factual sourced information? The child was named, a memorial gathering held for him, and tragically his mother and sister (unnamed in the sources, but we know the family name) were very seriously injured. As other vics are named publicly, add the names here. Some days I think some editors get a power trip from reverting good edits 3 seconds after they are made.70.78.45.67 (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ice hockey?

WTF is ice ice hockey. In usa its called hockey change it 174.91.154.65 (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ice hockey not the same as hockey.--Auric talk 13:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying 'hockey' can either refer to ball hockey or ice hockey. Saying 'ice hockey' is being specific towards which type of hockey. Canadaguy1982 (talk) 19:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

mobile cell phone service

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

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

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

Last time?

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

Furthermore going to that Ref sources (Global Terrorism Database) It seems there was a Bombing in 1995, Blew up in front of a church but caused no casualties. [2] Avion365 (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I was probably thinking of something else. Thanks.--Auric talk 19:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

Saudi National mentions

There was a Saudi National that was, for a while, reported as being held as a suspect[1], but this was proved to be false.[2] He aperently was just there for the marathon and was questioned by the FBI and was released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avion365 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Globe is reporting that the apartment in Revere was the home of the Saudi national[6]. He is 20 years old and studying English in the US. I think it might be worth mentioning that the residence that was searched was home to one of the individuals who was questioned. GabrielF (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That should be Edited in the "Investigation" Section, second paragraph. They said they have no persons in custody yet they did detain people and questioned them, from the way the article was written and various things it seems they held unto him for awhile and searched his house, or a house next to his. They may or may not be connected. Or you could edit in the second paragraph that it was misreported (because of this guy?) and that he was in fact just question and in the third paragraph his house was in fact searched ( if it was) and that his roommate made comments. Avion365 (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And now we have the Daily Mail picking this up. Hoo-friggin'-ray. ShaleZero (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/authorities_under_suspect_guard_y2m8cJO29uC2PDGIjYBalO
  2. ^ http://bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/04/15/perfect-day-turns-evil/W7KQHq1NWFqukte3VQ14DJ/story.html

According to the most recent data

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

Remember... WP:NOTNEWS

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

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

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

If you look at the 7/11 London bombing article and the 9/11 article, you'll see that responses by nation just aren't used. Rklawton (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See the statement above, we're not a news agency, we're an encyclopedia. Recent articles have had those sections, that is an error in those articles. Ryan Vesey 15:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motives

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

We should do no such thing. We're an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. When someone is caught and we learn their motives, we can report that. Until then, we shouldn't repeat speculation about likely motives. Ryan Vesey 15:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Likely motives and the real motives are 2 different things. AS Vesey said we do not speculate. JayJayWhat did I do? 15:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Insert -- edit conflict) Not (nearly) always. Your forgot to mention that likely motives are most often actual motives, esp where it concerns terrorist acts. I wasn't suggesting that we mention Israel's Independence Day, etc, only that we cover what paths the FBI and others are pursing in terms of motives if there are Reliable sources that cover it. Btw, WP is more than an encyclopedia, as it has news coverage, articles on video games, tv shows, movies, etc, etc, -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There will be a lot of media speculation about the motive, there always is. At the moment it is beyond the range of the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Motives are at the core of the bombings, and again, if there are Reliable Sources that cover the FBI's pursuits in this area it should be mentioned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No it shouldn't. The sources may be reliable, but they are covering that information using the standards of journalism, which allows that sort of material. An encyclopedia is a reference work. Ryan Vesey 16:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What Ryan said. As an encyclopedia, our job isn't to publish rumors, only established facts that have been covered by multiple reliable sources. If anything, we should lag behind those sources, so we don't accidentally publish something that will end up getting corrected by the source later. Summarizing documentable facts in a neutral and trustworthy fashion, that is our job. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is yet another straw man. No one said anything about including "rumors", only that the article cover the FBI's progress in tracking down the culprit(s), which is largely based on likely motives. As theory goes, many articles touch on theory, esp scientific articles, so if the FBI, in fact, has any, the readers should know about them. I agree however that we wait a bit for some of the dust to settle (no pun intended) before we include the FBI's take on motives, theories, etc, but again the readers should be informed about where the FBI and others stand on this topic, and again, only if there are reliable sources that cover this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I agree with your reasoning, but can you show us these source where the FBI have officially said they are investigating links between the bombings and Israel's Independence Day? Nil Einne (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I indicated above, it is not my suggestion that we cite Israel's Independence Day per se as a motive for the bombings. I just offered this up as a viable possibility to convey a point about motives. Again, the readers should know about the FBI's pursuits and what they are based on. You can believe the FBI is not just acting on what (little?) evidence they have but are indeed going through their records while looking into viable theories and likely motives. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. None of us work for the FBI. Even if any one of us did, we would know we can't tell random wikipedians what we're looking in to. And we'd also hopefully know that in any case, wikipedia goes by reliable sources, not what random people tell us. The point of the talk page is to discuss ways to improve the article. In an article under as much development such as this, there's no reason for us to speculate what the FBI are looking in to here. Unless there are sources saying the FBI is investigating the connection to Israel's Independence Day, then the fact it's something the FBI could be investigating it is not something to discuss here since it's not something we'd ever mention in the article. The simple fact is, as others have said it's way to early for us to discuss motives much at all in the article. By the time there's anything much to add, this section would likely have been long archived. BTW, wikipedia is an encyclopaedia only. We have much wider coverage, and much more immediate coverage then traditional encyclopaedia, but all our articles are written from an encyclopaedic viewpoint and intended to be encyclopaedic articles. If you want news coverage, I suggest you check out wikinews [7]. Nil Einne (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you're missing the point, again. We cover the facts, and if in fact the FBI are pursing motives and theories we report this fact if it is covered by reliable sources. Btw, the news article about the bombing was and is on the front page of Wikipeida main, and will be covered in WP main in the future. Thanks for your thoughts on Wiki news just the same. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The real point is that those are some pretty big 'if's in there, and a conversation about incorporating this kind of material into the article isn't useful unless and until they're satisfied. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) There is no news article about the bombing on wikipedia. There is an encyclopaedic article aka this article. This article is linked from the ITN section (which in case there is any confusion, is not a news section, I suggest you check out the candidate section or talk page if you need clarification about that), with a brief one or two sentence blurb, but there is no 'news article' on the main page, or any article about the bombings (a blurb with a link is rather different from an actual article). If you don't understand the difference between a news article and an encyclopaedic article, with respect I suggest you do not edit this article. Also may I repeat one last time can you kindly provide these sources you keep talking about? If you cannot provide source showing the FBI is pursuing the link with Israel's Independence Day or whatever else you want to bring up, then we're basically discussing nothing here so this discussion should end. Note that no one ever said we should not cover solid reliable sourced info about the FBI's investigation, simply that we should not report random speculations and that it is way to early for us to go in to much depth about motives, as borne out by your apparent inability to provide actual reliable sources despite continually bringing them up. P.S. I don't know what you mean by 'WP main'. This encyclopaedic article is already part of the wikipedia's collection of articles and is not going to become some other part of wikipedia when the ITN link disappears. As per the many other discussions, above, it could eventually change name, and potentially subarticles will be formed, but this doesn't mean it isn't already a part of the encyclopaedia. Nil Einne (talk)
P.P.S. As a final comment please remember to WP:AGF. It is unlikely your comment was 'deleted by arrogant editor' [8]. If you look at the history [9] [10], it seems most likely some sort of weird EC, perhaps even hidden by the software so without any real opportunity for the editor involved to notice what happened, caused it to be deleted. This sort of stuff happens on wikipedia particularly with highly edited pages and while it's understandably annoying, it also means we need to be careful before we accuse people of intentional wrong doing. Nil Einne (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article headers and subheaders

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

7/11? Don't you mean 7/7? Randor1980 (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably need more confirmation or whatever..

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

Tweets vary - depends on the organization. I see no reason why we can't wait for word from the official investigators. Rklawton (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an updated Globe story [11] where they have an investigator who wasn't authorized to speak on the investigation confirming that there was shrapnel in the bomb. Don't know if we want to use it still, seeing as we do not have an official name to back up the statement.. but at least the article may be a good way to find information to add to the Wikipedia page. SirFozzie (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Universal Hub, a well-respected Boston news blog, has some quotes from senior doctors at BWH and MGH: [12]. GabrielF (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

explosion photo?

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

Local reaction

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

Bombing or bombings

Someone brought up an interesting point. So far as we know, this event was a single bombing with two bombs. As a result, it appears we should change the article title from plural to singular. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Academic. Plural or singular, it doesn't make much difference as the meaning is the same. Let's not splinter the attention into too many directions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, yes, but I'd think we're all pagemoved out at the moment. Give it some time. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Singular. It is a bit academic, but there were two bombs that were part of a single bombing event. There seem to be about 2x as many Google hits for "bombing" vs "bombings" at the moment as well, so the singular seems to be what's being used more commonly. (But close enough that that's not a great indicator.) Not a huge deal in any case, but may as well see if there's some consensus with the move protection having expired. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 16:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to taking a page-move break for among other reasons, crystal ball. However, I think we should revisit this in a few days or a week. Rklawton (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • This was the idea behind why I move protected it for a week, after a series of disruptive page moves. Realistically, we should follow the lead of the sources in naming it and we won't know for a week, so it is better to keep it nailed down until then. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International coverage

These links can be used for finding international coverage.

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

We must avoid prurient content at all costs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

makeup of the bombs themselves?

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

  • We can only report what is found in reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have a sourced statement in the "Investigation" section: "A person who was briefed on the investigation said at least one of the devices was made of 6-liter pressure cookers filled with metal, nails and ball bearings and put in a backpack.[63][64][65][66]" ShaleZero (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (EC) This was mentioned in one of the sections above, but a large number of sources are now reporting the bombs were built using pressure cookers inside backpacks, possibly using timers to set off detonation [13] [14] [15] [16]. Nil Einne (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm working, so haven't looked at those links in detail—but bear in mind that multiple sources reporting on the same person speaking unofficially aren't really independent. Just something to keep in mind. Ignatzmice•talk 17:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - this is a single source, and needs to be treated with caution. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

References

  1. ^ "Bomb Details Emerge in Boston Inquiry". The New York Times. Retrieved April 16, 2013.
  2. ^ "Investigators believe Boston bombs were pressure cookers hidden in backpacks, officials say". NBC News. Retrieved April 16, 2013.

second victim named, on Globe homepage now

The Globe has posted the following on its homepage:

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

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

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

Muslims, etc

Reiterating: until/unless there is consensus otherwise (which I haven't seen), we do NOT need knee-jerk stories about how "Teh Muzlimzz are gleeful!11!!!!!1!", am I correct? Ignatzmice•talk 18:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You sir, are very much correct. We need to keep our heads about us and wait for facts, not speculation. Plus, we need to decide if the inclusion of reactions by any groups is something that may be considered encyclopedic. Aneah|talk to me 18:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources aren't the sticking point. Of course, radicalized Muslims who hate us are going to be giddy. That doesn't mean it is relevant to this event. If anything bad happens to Americans for any reason, you can expect they will be gleeful, which demonstrates that their "glee" isn't notable. It is expected, which is why it offers no encyclopedic value by itself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - besides, we don't even know if Muslims are responsible. Rklawton (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No need for this page to be semi-protected

WP:RFPP is the place to continue this discussion. LadyofShalott 19:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page was protected within the first hour "to be on the safe side". That's a knee-jerk reaction that we get every time an article like this is created. It shouldn't happen. It smacks of elitism. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We editors here at Wikipedia do not want to semi protect articles as it is great and wonderful when everyone edits, however just like in real life there are those who make it bad for everyone else. There have been those who were being disruptive, posting wrong info, and who were posting things on this page to get a rise out of others. (vandalism). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was no need for pre-emptive protection. There was no persistent vandalism. Any vandalism to this page would last about a nanosecond before being reverted; this very message has received 4 replies in the space of about 2 minutes. Elitist and patronising. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't party to that discussion. But if you're saying that you now routinely protect articles of this nature even though there is no evidence of persistent vandalism, then I think you are doing the encyclopaedia and its readers a disservice. That is a wrong-headed approach which runs counter to everything that WP is about. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been familiar with breaking news articles like this and unfortunately semiprotection is a necessity this early in the cycle. The edit conflicts alone would make editing almost impossible. Semi protect isn't just for vandalism but sometimes just for having a workable editing pattern. Shadowjams (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. It needs to be semi-protected for at least a while. Already, this morning, nutty conspiracy theorist stories abound; and just as sure as I'm here writing about it, some conspiracy theorist nutjob behind one or more of them will try to post about it here, anonymously. Dennis was right to do it, and I applaud him for it.
    Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I very much doubt that if the article were semiprotected now there would immediately be a torrent of edit conflicts. I don't believe that the article was flooded with ECs when it was protected. Protections should not be pre-emptive. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hoo boy. Take a look at the edit history. Most emphatically yes, there are edit conflicts, and it'd get worse if it was unprotected. Sometimes I almost think it should be full-protected (and I'm not an admin). Ignatzmice•talk 19:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the IP doth protest too much. He was posting on a block arbitration page too. He may have been banned under a different screen name or IP number. He be trolling. Vilano XIV (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove mention of al-Qaeda?

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

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

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

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

That's not the case here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A pressure cooker also used here that had nothing to do with al-Qaeda. Cowicide (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About vs. approximately

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

WBC

Similar to a-Q above—is mention of WBC a coatrack (or could it be construed as such)? Seem to me it's a given those loonies will picket every tragic event in the US, no need to mention it here. Add something on their entry if you do desire. Ignatzmice•talk 19:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a little less of a coatrack than the al-Qaeda material...but I also don't think it belongs in the article. WBC had no notable involvement with the incident, past doing their usual "protest every single thing we can for publicity." It doesn't seem relevant, and I don't think it belongs. Not unless it receives wider coverage than just the standard "WBC protested something again, and some people reacted as usual." – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 19:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)(edit conflict)Best to add it on the WBC article, if at all. It's a bit soon for funerals yet.--Auric talk 19:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So once again Westboro rears it's ugly head with the same message: Protest the funerals and ect? The question should be is do we need this in the article and does it help anything? I see it as WP:SOAP - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:24
It's news! Like it or not! None of us like WBC! See my section about it, below! Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please calm down a bit? Yes it is news but just because it is there doesn't mean Wikipedia should include it per policy and guidelines. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe whomever's deleting it as fast as I put it back should calm down! It won't hurt the article to leave it in 'til we settle this, will it? (a rhetorical question) And to what policy and guidelines are you referring? Or should we be removing all references to WBC's protests and threats thereof throughout all of Wikipedia? What policies and guidelines? Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ADDENDUM) And by the way, it's not similar to a-Q references! All of that is just speculation. That WBC made the threat is actual; and news. We don't get to not include it because we don't like it. Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)In it's current form, it also seems very WP:UNDUE (though it still wouldn't belong even if pared down.) If the WBC actually protests the funerals (it's just a threat at this point) and if that somehow becomes notable, then maybe it'd be notable for the article. A threat of protest by a group that routinely threatens to protest practically every major event like this does not seem notable. Certainly, it's notable for the WBC's own page and can be included there. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 19:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to being WP:UNDUE I also agree with Lady that it has Notability issues. Are we going to include WBC in every event they send empty threats to do something for? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attack type: Terrorism

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

Westboro Baptist church - got deleted - I reversed - got deleted - STOP IT!

I added a "Protests" sub-section to the "Reactions" main section; and then added this well-documented and hard news, neutral paragraph:

On the day of the attack the Westboro Baptist Church -- an American independent Baptist church known for its extreme ideologies, especially against the LGBT community -- posted a press release to its Twitter account in which it thanked God for that day's bombings, and announced its plan to “picket the funeral of those killed.” Pointing-out that the federal government is classifying the bombings as a terrorist attack, yet is being unclear about whether it's “domestic or foreign nature,” the release went on to claim to answer the question with: “Here’s a hint — GOD SENT THE BOMBS! How many more terrifying ways will you have the LORD injure and kill your fellow countrymen because you insist on nation-dooming filthy fag marriage?!” By early the next morning, some nearly 4,000 people had signed a “We the People” petition on the White House website asking for that banning of such demonstrations by the church at victims' funerals. Additionally, a posting that same day on a Twitter account affiliated with the hacker group Anonymous warned that Church leaders would be targeted if they made good on their threat to picket the funerals.[1]

References

  1. ^ Edwards, David (16 April 2013). "Westboro to picket Boston funerals, blames 'fag marriage' for bombings". The Raw Story website. Retrieved 16 April 2013.

It keeps getting deleted, and the second deletion cited "WP:SOAP" (Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion). No one is getting on any soapboxes, for godsake! It's hard news; and just because said hard news contains Westboro's craziness doesn't mean that it's written to promote them! I'm AGAINST Westboro, for godsake; I'm not promoting it. Bother to actually read the paragraph, and not assume that I have an agenda. Like it or not, Westboro is now part of this story, just as it became part of the Roger Ebert story after it threatened to picket his funeral, too!

Please stop deleting it! No one should have that kind of power, here! Discuss it, here, fortheloveofgod, rather than just unilaterially deleting!

Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest editing the Westboro content down to a single sentence and keeping the link to the Westboro Baptist Church Wikipedia page that provides more information on the church's history of picketing events like this. --Crunch (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Crunch has got the solution. It should be in both sections. Kennvido (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

Please see the "WBC" section directly above this one. ShaleZero (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section already on this above, the addition doesn't help the article. You also broke WP:3RR discuss it here first editors above (me included) are against including it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's news! It's now part of the story, and all of anyone's wishing won't change that! We don't get to keep things out of articles just because we don't like them! And the WBC section, above, was obviously made while I was making this one. It's all happening fast; don't make it sound like I'm not bothering to read this page. Geez! The arrogance of this place! Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comment above and calm down a bit, a wikibreak might help. Im sorry you feel the way you do but I see a consensus against including it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"first terroristic attack"

There's a new addition to the lede saying that this is the "first terroristic attack" on US soil since 9/11. Is this appropriate? I'm not sure what "terroristic" means and I think many people would dispute that this is the first "terroristic" attack on the US in 10 years. GabrielF (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that. Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting proves them false, and that's just one of the recent ones. Ryan Vesey 19:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR, and false at that. I agree. Ignatzmice•talk 19:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is nowhere near the first terrorist/terroristic attack in the US in 10 years. See [[18]] --Crunch (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Mildly off topic but—

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boston_Marathon_bombing&oldid=550694245"