Talk:Boston Marathon bombing

Should the Chinese victim's name NOT be disclosed?

Unresolved

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

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

• No. Her parents don't get to dictate the reporting of the news, even if some news outlets have gone along with their wishes. See WP:NOTCENSORED --Crunch (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Yes. It makes no difference whatsoever to article. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No. WP:BLPNAME does state "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it". But I read "intentionally concealed" as relating to legal or security matters, rather than things like family members' personal wishes, and the name has been widely disseminated. We're an encyclopedia, so we should report the reliable information on her name. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 12:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME cannot provide an exhaustive list of when it is appropriate to omit names. This is surely a case for editorial discretion. We should respect the wishes of the family. The encyclopaedia would be lacking if it did not include the number of fatalities; it does not need to include their names. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. The names of the victims are important pieces of information and make a big difference to the article. --Crunch (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

What difference do they make? 80.174.78.102 (talk) 13:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• No. The desire of Wikipedia editors to satisfy the readers' need for fodder for mental masturbation is far, far more important than honoring the dead by honoring the wishes of their family.
• Agree, yes. It doesn't help the article any to have it in. Anyone who would know her personally has already found out. This is just "prurient interest" again. Ignatzmice•talk 13:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• I'd say yes, and screw the rules if they say otherwise. There's nothing critical about her name being in the article, no understanding of the event is lost by withholding it, and I think the family's wishes should be taken into consideration. It doesn't have to be forever, anyway. There's a time and place for reporting the truth without regard to people's wishes, particularly if they wish it because they've done something wrong, but this ain't it, and she hasn't. I don't see an overriding reason to cause real people real grief and stress for this. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay, I went ahead and did it. Feel free to yell at me if that was wrong. I left the reference in there (the title is "somethingorother releases Chinese national's name"), so if anyone really wants to know they can click through. Ignatzmice•talk 13:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• If the sources are widely reporting it, then we should. If they aren't, then we probably shouldn't. While the names of the victims are important, WP:BLP says we don't turn a blind eye to other considerations. In a case like this, it is better to wait a few days, then if desired, start a discussion at WP:BLPN or another public forum to allow input from the community on how to handle it. Not having that one person's name isn't going to undermine the credibility of the article in the interim. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I would add that User:Bbb23 could offer a good 3rd opinion on this, he has a history of working at BLPN and isn't involved with this article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    • These are excellent reasons for not disclosing it. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• The victim's name should not be disclosed. Although no longer living, BLP still applies per WP:BDP. Including it does not help the article. Bahooka (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• An IP editor added an interesting compromise: the "American" first name of the deceased, as evidenced by her Facebook page. (Incidentally, Facebook would be a reliable source for something like this, assuming we're sure it really was her page.) I'm more inclined to let this stay in the article, though it's still really a tossup for me; what do y'all think? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

  I wouldn't let something stay in the article referenced solely to a facebook page. --regentspark (comment) 14:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

  Yeah, I guess that's true. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

  I'd keep it out. Her name is her name, no matter which one. It doesn't add anything to the article. If she were the Chinese ambassador, e.g., we'd be remiss not to mention that, no matter the family's wishes. But she's just a student. We'll put the Chinese name in later. Ignatzmice•talk 14:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

  Agreed. I can't see any way in which the inclusion of her name would be useful to the typical reader. The article references Goolge Person Finder, which is an appropriate resource for anyone concerned about friends or family in the area. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• How about this as a compromise--we state (with reference) that the family requested that the media not disseminate her name? ("A Chinese national, whose family requested the press leave her anonymous...") rdfox 76 (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Either list all of the victims by name, or none of them. Family request means nothing. What if the family asked that the entire fact that she was killed not be reported? --Crunch (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not censored or dictated by wishes or niceties. We publish information from reliable sources. WWGB (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

  Of course. This should not even be a point of debate. --Crunch (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Absolutely. Why in the world should we pass up a golden opportunity to victimize the victim's family again? Kudos to you for recognizing that what's important is you and me, and not the victims or their families. Well done.
  • Okay, I'm backing out now. As you say, consensus has faded for now. Won't remove it again. Ignatzmice•talk 14:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• We choose which information from which RS to publish: we edit. If there is no reason to include a particular fact, or if there is a good reason not to include it, then we don't include it. You need to make a case stating how it is helpful to publish this girl's name, against the wishes of her family. Nobody is saying that we can't publish it, but you need to say why we should publish it. In what way is it helpful to the typical reader? 80.174.78.102 (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia isn't censored, but making an editorial decision that respects real human beings and agrees with our BLP policy isn't censorship. Suggesting that this is censorship (or that media outlets are failing in their duty because they "have gone along with [the parents'] wishes")is just as false as suggesting that those who seem dead-set on getting the name in have ulterior motives. And really, "This should not even be a point of debate" is complete nonsense: of course this should be a point of debate. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• (ec)There is no consensus to retain or delete the name. Going to WP:BLPN may be the best move (BLP applies to recently deceased persons per WP:BDP.) WP:NOTCENSORED does not trump WP:BLP. Bahooka (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Edits such as this are, at this point, disruptive. There is no consensus here right now, and BLP tells us to err on the side of caution. Perhaps BLPN is the best place to go, rather than an RfC on this busy talk page. Bahooka, maybe you can get it started? And, again, I resent the invocation of CENSORED: editorial decisions do not equal censorship. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

  Also, WP:BURDEN states that the burden of proof lies on the adder or restorer of the material, not the remover of the material. I know that that policy isn't directly applicable here (since the verifiability of the name is not in dispute), but given the BLP issues, I think the same principle applies. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Notwithstanding that I'm involved, I'd say there is consensus in favour of keeping it out of the article. There are only two editors arguing in favour of including it, and imo they have produced no persuasive arguments for inclusion. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• The name is well sourced public info. Is the request to remove the name sourced? I say leave the name in for completeness. People want to put a name and a face to tragedy. It helps them cope.Legacypac (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• So you think we should ignoreWP:BDP, a policy which brings in WP:AVOIDVICTIM. "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.250.22.11 (talk • contribs)
• Wait, Legacypac. Your sympathy goes as far as to include the Wikipedia reader, who needs help to be able to cope with the tragedy, but excludes the verified and explicit wishes of the victim's family? "Inconsistent" doesn't even begin to describe that strange attitude. "A name and a face"--you want pictures too? From before or after? Drmies (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Consensus is assessed on the strength of the arguments. That her name should be included because it helps readers cope with bombing is about the daftest argument imaginable. You don't seem too concerned with helping her parents cope with the loss of their daughter. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• The issue here is the question of whether or not the name is critical to the article. In this case, inclusion of the name of a non-notable person adds virtually nothing. Per WP:BLPNAME, and per general good editorial practices, we should allow BLP/privacy concerns to trump the virtually nonexistent "benefit" added by including the name. Ryan Vesey 15:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) "At the family’s wishes, officials from the Chinese Consulate and Boston University, where the victim was a graduate student, have not identified her." WP:BLPNAME applies here. It's not taking away from the article to leave the name out until it's been widely distributed, and the name is private. No need to include it as far as I can tell, and WP:CENSORED does not apply to violations of BLP. --RAN1 (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) While it's true that Wikipedia is uncensored and absolutely not bound by the wishes of any victim's family, we might ask ourselves: does mentioning this victim's name help the reader understand the topic of the article in any way whatsoever? If it does, then we should mention it because (1) that's the reason the article exists—to help our readers understand the topic—and (2) we're revealing nothing that hasn't already been revealed by a plethora of media and therefore are not serving as the origin of the family's distress. If it doesn't help our readers understand the topic, then there's no reason to pile on to what innumerable other media are doing; we can take the high road and make a deliberate choice to be humane. My two cents: the victims' names are irrelevant to understanding the topic at this stage; while they eventually should be included for the sake of completeness, there's no rush. Rivertorch (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but that's reading like WP:NOCOMMON. Could you please link a policy? --RAN1 (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

  The paragraph of the essay you linked suggests basing one's position (in part) on "the interests of the encyclopedia", and that was central to what I said. Did you miss that bit or was I unclear? Rivertorch (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

  Nope, I took another look at NOCOMMON, and I understand the gist of your argument. I agreed with the position, just didn't know what to make of the argument behind it, but after taking a closer look at it and NOCOMMON, I'm cleared up on that now. Sorry about the confusion. --RAN1 (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• The victim's ID has been well established and can be cited by numerous reliable sources. Isn't it about time we included them?
  • We're not discussing verifiability here but notability and editorial decisions. The fact that the sources are reliable isn't the point. Ignatzmice•talk 16:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• This should wait until there is official confirmation, as Boston University recently tweeted that the name being used in some media sources is incorrect. Tarc (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • So maybe we are discussing verifiability after all! Another reason to wait a week and then add it. Ignatzmice•talk 16:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • That's gotta settle it, then. We asbolutely do NOT want to report a name if there's credible evidence that it's wrong. Thanks for pointing that out, Tarc. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks Tarc. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I'd pull it as well, at least for a few days until the dust settles. If it turns out to be correct, I'm afraid I do believe that it's been widely enough disseminated that I'd argue for inclusion ("the horse has left the barn"), but given the significant possibility of a factual error, I'm going with exclusion per User:Joe Decker/Breaking News Sources. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
      • The plan was always to put it in—the dispute was when, given the fact that the family had asked for it not to be released. I don't think I've seen anyone arguing to leave it out indefinitely. Ignatzmice•talk 16:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Cool. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
        • I don't think you've read the section. The plan certainly isn't to put it in at some point in the future. We'll have to have another discussion before it is restored, no Bold actions on this one, and I'll certainly be opposing it if the parents have not changed their statement. Ryan Vesey 16:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think we can assume that the Boston University press release at http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/grad-student-killed-in-blasts/ has the correct name --Crunch (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• The names of all the deceased victims has been well established and can be cited by numerous sources. Enough of this endless bickering and endless deletions!! Btw, I did not vote 'yes' to the above heading as it reads but 'someone' took it upon themselves to cut my original 'yes', approving inclusion of victim's name, and pasted it to this section. Who is doing all this reckless editing?? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• I don't care if it's well established or not. It adds nothing. Ryan Vesey 16:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Agree. It is a little awkward that many other people are named, and she isn't—but as the IP keeps pointing out (thank you IP), WP:AVOIDVICTIM trumps. People who want the latest gossip can go find it elsewhere. There is no significant disruption to the article because her name isn't in it. Ignatzmice•talk 16:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Nonsense. The names of the victims "adds nothing"?? Names of victims just so happen to add, uh, the names of victims. Her name has been published across the country by countless reliable sources, so I hardly think citing it here at WP is going to 'victimize' anyone. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Well, change your "2-4 hours" to a "1-2 days" and I'm on board with that (but y'all know my views already :) ). The name will be put in the article eventually, but with that whole WP:NOTNEWS thing, there's no rush. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Went for hours since this will be archived in a day. I'm willing to go for 24 hours if everyone's fine with that. --RAN1 (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that is best. We are not in a rush to build the article, believe it or not, and BLP and other considerations trump timeliness. Again, we are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

24 hours sounds okay to me. The correct name, whatever it is, will have gone far and wide by then. (edit conflict) Also, what Dennis said. (THANK YOU DENNIS for being an oasis of calm here. It really helps.) Ignatzmice•talk 17:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

That sounds very reasonable. There's certainly encyclopedic value to having the names of the victims, but not so much that we lose anything by waiting a day or two. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 17:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Concur. Several news outlets have already named the Chinese graduate student, but OK we can certainly wait another 24 hours. Quis separabit? 17:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Disclosing Victim's ID

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

• New York Times : China Mourns the Death of a Student in Boston Blast

• Huffrington Post : Lu Lingzi, Boston Marathon Bombing Victim

• CBS : Boston Marathon bombing victims

• CNN : Boston Marathon bombing victims:

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

Very good. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Now not only is the vic's name gone, but the original info that she was a grad student at Boston U and all sources have been removed. The source I read says her own father released her name. How can the family say they don't want her named (and I've not seen that sourced) when the family released her name? Legacypac (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

See section above that discusses this, and it appears that a consensus is to wait and not add the name. Discussion is still open, but it should be left out during the discussion. No need to keep starting new threads. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC) (moved by me)

Discussion is all over the map, and WP is now lagging behind in the world of information. At this point any individual editors making deletions needs to cite WP policy violations before taking it upon themselves to delete well sourced and good faith content or we will have to bring the culprits to a notice board. Time for a new consensus. See below:-- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to lag behind when it comes to news. Ryan Vesey 18:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It says here that "The third person who died was a Chinese citizen whose identity was not being made public at the request of the victim's family". Ryan Vesey 18:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

At first her family did not want to say her name but then they change there mind and now they say it is ok, they told the chinese news, and now it is ok to say her name with no prblms, the family will not be mad at u

• I've hatted the "vote" below. This isn't about voting anyway, it is about policy, and policy isn't clear, which is why don't publish yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

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

• The following was reported by Washington Post "More than 19,000 people in China left messages or digital candles on Sina Weibo, the Chinese equivalent of Twitter, in Lu’s memory." Needless to say at least 19,000 in China know her name and have left condolences. I am going to take the initiative and post her name. If you feel this is wrong feel free to undo my edit but I think news of her name is inevitable. Gorba (talk) 18:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is ok to include now. It has been decide.

I have never removed any additions made by any one on this site. On my side I've lost count the number of times my edits have been removed based on personal opinions of others. If Wikipedia wants to bring in more contributors they really need to resolve this problem. This wild west styled dictatorship of what appears and doesn't based on the opinions of a few people really needs to stop, and most especially if the information posted has been confirmed (in the case of Lingzi Lu she was confirmed by Boston University and numerous other sources). With all that said I am officially resigning myself from Wikipedia. I'm sick of this. Gorba (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

I don't even know why this is even a debate. Lü Lingzi's name has been disclosed in the news already, big time, and Wikipedia is NOT in the business of being an uptight suppressor of information, and a censor, because of emotional or over-sensitive issues. Leaving the name out would leave the article incomplete. The other two names have been revealed, on this article, and so should Lingzi's IF it's been copiously revealed on the TV news, and print news...which it kinda has. That's just my take. Gabby Merger (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You're right. It's a disgrace what's been happening—and endorsed by admins, as well. -- Veggies (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Second that. I expected the article to be mobbed with people trying to suppress stuff for no obvious reason, but this is ridiculous. Troll IPs posting long diatribes in all caps lock deserve more indulgence than anybody trying to claim that the victim of an international-level top news terror murder should be kept secret based on some kind of unique Wikipedia ethics against covering a story. Wnt (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Somewhere way up higher in this wall of text, Dennis Brown said he asked me to weigh in with my opinion. I have not read the wall of text, although in skimming it, I got a sense of the arguments in favor of and against disclosing the woman's name in the article (it is disclosed at the moment). I'm not going to argue the policy issues (even though Drmies thinks I'm a policy wonk). Others have done that, and it's an interminable road to nowhere because many editors, in my view, are going to interpret them in a result-oriented manner. So, I'm going to rely on common sense (horrors), or at least my common sense. Not only do I believe the woman's name should not be disclosed, I don't think any of the victims' names should be disclosed. Thus, I would list the victims (assuming we have to do lists) as follows:
  • a 29-year-old female restaurant manager from Medford, Massachusetts;
  • a 23-year-old Boston University graduate student from Shenyang; and
  • an 8-year-old male child from Dorchester.
• My reasoning - and I believe one or more editors already argued similarly - is that the actual names of the victims are of zero importance to anyone except maybe people who know them. We are not covering a story. We are not a newspaper. We are not "lagging behind" just because we don't include non-notable victim names. We are an encyclopedia, although many editors here seem to forget that.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

That's an interesting argument, but it's more of a philosophical point rather than one that belongs here on the talk page of a crime article. If we focus on the guidelines as they are, we see evidence of exemplary articles that have victims names included. -- Veggies (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Request

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.

---

Can someone who's in favor of including the name please explain to me why WP:BDP, which brings in WP:AVOIDVICTIM, should be ignored?

• My interpretation of WP:BDP and WP:AVOIDVICTIM is that they address whether or not to write an entire article about someone who is notable only because they were the victim of a crime. It is not meant to dictate whether or not to include victims' names when writing an article about a notable crime. --Crunch (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

  Having said that, I have no objection to excluding all three of the victims' names, as long as it's done consistently. Either include all three or exclude all three. --Crunch (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There's no reason to keep withholding her name. Her name had originally not been released, pending permission from her family, but it is now released officially, which gives us the right to publish it.Jessica Archer (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Jessica Archer

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.

Too explicit bomb instructions?

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

---

Is it possible to be less expicit on how to make such bomb? Or at least move technical details down in the article? Now the design is specificed in the three first words of the article. Mange01 (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED. There is all kinds of information about creating and doing all kinds of unpleasant stuff all over Wikipedia (and all over the Internet and every library.) Accuracy is more important except in extreme cases. The detail seems relevant enough; similar articles note the type of weapons used. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 12:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• As I read it now, it is pretty general information and not a "how to" guide. I agree that this level of detail is helpful to provide the reader of a general understanding of the device. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Yes. If this is unfortunate, it is because the world is a terrible place. We aren't censored and this is relevant and verified information. This article will never contain a real and useful manual for prospective bomb builders, and the amount of detail is limited (and will remain limited); this kind of general information is freely available even through Homeland Security. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Pressure cooker bomb would be a more likely place for detailed information to pop up, although it currently steers well clear of "how-to" information. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Mange01 Look down. Is there a string? Vilano XIV (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Exact location of second bomb

Per the article above about the before-and-after pics, no matter the timing of the first photo, the second clearly shows the explosion happened at 755 Bolyston. Is it synthesis or original research to see that and put it in the article? Why do we only have the address of the first blast? Ignatzmice•talk 13:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No question about it. It was at 755. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Done, then. Ignatzmice•talk 13:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Pope Francis

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

There have been several discussions on this general topic, with the consensus being we don't need reactions from international leaders. Yes, they're all sending out boilerplate condolences. That doesn't make them notable. Thanks though! Ignatzmice•talk 14:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

But if a leader is HAPPY this happened, it should be noted. Kennvido (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No. As discussed above, haters will hate when anything like this happens (and while hating is bad, I can definitely see where they're coming from). That's not notable either. Ignatzmice•talk 14:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Correct. We aren't here to publish every platitude and pitchfork jab. Both kinds of reactions are expected from these sources, so they aren't notable, they are trivial in the larger scope of things. Of course the Pope is saddened and radicalized Muslims are happy. This isn't a notable thing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

If it's in the sources, it's notable. You might want to loop it out as a reactions article if there are a lot of them, but I will say that it is not obvious to me what radicalized Muslims would say about this, and while I'm not a fan of theirs I think it comes perilously close to authentic religious bias to say otherwise. There is every possibility that Taliban leaders could say right now that this was a terrible event and should remind Americans of how wicked we are for attacking with drones, etc. They don't have to take malignant glee in it. Wnt (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

WHICH Site Had The Most Victims?

I haven't heard any breakdown of which of the two blast sites the most and the worst injuries or deaths occurred. Just wondering. Anyone know? Kennvido (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd guess it was all a big mess, and people were too busy dealing with it to take notes. That said, there are surely lots of pics of that time frame, and I bet the FBI is looking at that too. Haven't seen any news stories about it. Ignatzmice•talk 14:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Still would be interesting to know. It seems, by the picture released, many more were nearer, really right next to, the second bomb than the first. Those poor people. Prayers... Kennvido (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The locations were separated by some distance so it was not all one big mess. The exact details should come out eventually. --Crunch (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Eventually, I would imagine that this would be included in the article, but not until it is covered in a reliable fashion by the sources. Right now, they don't appear to have released reliable information about the individual bomb damage. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

That's what I said in my queston. No one has given that info. Nevermind. Kennvido (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Correct Number Of Victims

176 182 or another amount hike! Which one of you is going to come up with a concrete number of victims? It is no wonder many people come to this site and laugh as to the accuracy of information. Some will defend with info is constantly fluid. That still can't explain why a different victim totals are in the SAME article. You change one, change them all. Not trolling here, just want the same number throughout the article. That's not asking the impossible. Kennvido (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Which one of you is going to come up with a concrete number of victims?" is a bunch of hot air: that's the trolling part, and "It is no wonder many people come to this site and laugh as to the accuracy of information" is also trolling. If the media don't all report one and the same number, we can't report a "concrete" number--I assume by "concrete" you mean something like "one single" number. That there are different numbers in the article is easily explained by the fact that edits are done piecemeal, that there are tons of edit conflicts, and that the numbers are mentioned in different parts of the article. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Let me put it this way, IF one is going to update, update the WHOLE articles number. Not just one here and there willy nilly. It's called continuity. Continuity leads to being believable.

"International event"

In regard to this edit, which reinstated information about the Spanish consul being fired, well, here we go.

Spain's Foreign Affairs Ministry fired its Boston consul for closing the consulate at its normal office hours, despite the emergency and the presence of Spanish citizens running in the Marathon. [1]

It's very poorly written: was the consul fired despite the emergency, or did he close the consulate despite the emergency? Fortunately the linked article clarified. But what on earth is the point of including this in the article? It's not an "international event" of any relevance, as the edit summary claimed. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree, leave it out; if it's really that significant, say so on the consul/consulate's article. Ignatzmice•talk 15:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

And I hate to bring this up again, but the Canadian Consulate blurb really isn't necessary. It's not about security arrangements, as the other two paragraphs in the "International" section are, and as has been pointed out there were tons of buildings in the area that were affected. We don't need it. Ignatzmice•talk 16:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Boston Marathon is a highly international event with many international runners and visitors. People from Canada, Spain etc care about the effect on their countrymen. No one is trying to remove info about effects on specific US facilities, even far removed from the blast area. Eg. Boston Airport, transit system, US Capital flag, "other police departments on alert" etc. Specific hospitals and a specific hotel evacuation is mentioned. Is this just American bias at work? Legacypac (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The closure of the Canadian consulate isn't an 'international event'. It is an event in Boston. Incidentally, regarding the original removal of this material, it originally contained a copyright-violating link to YouTube - and as such the revert was not only legitimate, but required by policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Lead section

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

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

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

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

I will expand on it as I go. Thoughts or objections? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't need the "The Boston Marathon bombings was" part; see MOS:BOLDTITLE and WP:SBE. I also don't think it being Patriots' Day is notable for the lead, unless there's confirmation that it was specifically connected to the holiday; the phrasing suggests a link. Clarifying the list of investigating agencies seems helpful (it's a little awkward to read as it is, though.) I don't think the lead needs to mention that conspiracy theorists dispute things, since that's a given with any major incident (as your text notes), nor to mention the initial conflicting reports... – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 18:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, with all of the recent reports, what would be a good lead section? Any ideas? Also before I get blamed for doing anything wrong, I just want to let everyone know that I have an exceptionally low tolerance for uncalled for disrespect or edit warring over trivial matters or controversial subjects. That's one of the reasons why I post on talk pages such as this. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Tabloid sources

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

Suspect

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

• Like Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Now CNN is saying there has been an arrest. based on video evidence. Will see where this goes.Legacypac (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• OMFG, are we a liveblog or an encyclopedia? I won't remove it without solid community support (I've done way too much reverting as it is), but PLEASE can we calm down until things are more definite? Ignatzmice•talk 18:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Liveblog! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, we can report that there is an arrest when and if that happens, preferably when the BPD or FBI announces it; putting just that in the article would be fine (but certainly not until there are multiple sources accurately reporting it.) But yes, we really ought to wait until someone's charged before adding more than the most basic details. And certainly not things like speculation on activity at the courthouse, or vague "we think they have someone in custody" junk. Wait for official confirmation. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 18:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• ...and now Kennvido has added that, um, well, maybe not after all. Okay. I'm going to take a short break now, but I strongly urge that ANYTHING about arrests be removed completely from the article until more is certain. Ignatzmice•talk 18:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Washington Post, citing AP, now reports that arrest is imminent. I think we've got a lot of reliable sources for this at this point. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    • They're all retracting them now as fast as they can. There is no confirmation of any arrest of any suspect from any official government agency. We do not need to try and break the news - that is not what Wikipedia is for. We can afford to wait for something more than anonymously-sourced, quickly-walked-back media reports. polarscribe (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Shouldn't it be noteworthy that for two or three hours CNN from noon to afternoon local time reported repeatedly (and now explained to be falsely) that not only a suspect identified from video footage had been arrested, but that the person, quoted repeatedly as "a brown-skinned man", had even been transferred to a court of law by federal police already (the "federal police" bit was re-visited briefly while discussing whether the suspect was a foreigner or US citizen)? That they continued to say they had several unofficial confirmations of that arrest from several different sources within the law enforcement community and were only waiting for the official confirmation? --37.81.4.51 (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
        • It might be noteworthy at some point as part of a broader look at media coverage of the event, but that will require context which can only be developed through time. I'm sure that by tomorrow there will be many published media criticism sources analyzing this apparent reporting mistake. That will be the time to include it. polarscribe (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

References

"The Scene"

There are a couple of pictures showing the aftermath of the bombings and they are described as "the scene". Maybe they should also specify which of the two bomb scenes they depict, for instance "the scene of the first bomb". Eddyproca (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

"The scene" is noted somewhere in the article as a 12-block area that they designated the day after the attack. If there's confusion, that should perhaps be made more prominent. It would be helpful to identify which bomb was which where possible, but that information isn't necessarily available and they were close enough that it's not a huge deal for things like pictures. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 18:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Arrest made

"Authorities have arrested a suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings based on security video that showed a man depositing a bag at the bomb scene before the blasts, according to multiple media reports citing U.S. and Boston law enforcement sources. An official announcement is expected later today. " [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.50.173 (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Why was this deleted? It had a reliable source and is notable. No press release but is that a necessity? >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 18:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There are currently sources saying an arrest, and others saying no arrests. Both things cannot be true, so we need to wait until it's more clear whether or not there has been an arrest. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 18:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There is too much from CBS and NBC saying there is no arrest. Senior law enforcement official tells ABC News “no arrest yet” in Boston bombings. We must wait. Kennvido (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Note the new title for that article "Conflicting reports in arrest of possible Boston Marathon bombing suspect". We don't need to publish conflicting "facts". We wait for confirmation in a few reliable sources, which won't take that long if an arrest was made. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Listening to NPR, and they are saying there is no confirmation of an arrest yet. --Yksin (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

NBC just repeated (a couple minutes ago) that they have confirmation from BPD that there was not an arrest. So that's opposing the information, not just a lack of information. We'll know more soon enough. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 18:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

CNN is now retracting their statement. Let's just slow down and not try to break the news. Wait until there's hard facts or an official announcement. polarscribe (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Dennis, please can you deal with Cjbailey19? I am willing to take the heat for 3RR as well, but he needs to stop. See page history. Ignatzmice•talk 18:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Per the official, verified Twitter account of the Boston Police Department, no arrest has been made as of 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time. polarscribe (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Boston Police and the US Attorney have issued statements that there is no arrest. GabrielF (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

HuffPo article about the conflicting reports: [3]. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 18:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

If I could get out of class, I'd happily go down to the Moakley courthouse and try to find out myself, but the US attorney is saying no arrest.[4]. GabrielF (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There's apparently an FBI press conference scheduled for 5PM. But the FBI also just confirmed NO arrests. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 18:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, CNN keep insisting repeatedly by this time on the air that they had a number of law enforcement sources inofficially as well as several independent local news outlets report to them that an arrest in relation to the bombings had taken place sometime between Wednesday morning and noon, that now "consternation" (which is the repeated phrase) rules among both those local news outlets as well as the mentioned law enforcement sources as to how what they all told CNN has been reported as/turned out false, and that obviously Boston government officials keep giving confused or conflicting accounts on the issue. --37.81.4.51 (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Contradictions are good! There is no better time to carefully document an issue than when it is contested. The AP says their source is standing by his story and everyone else is saying no. So say that and let the reader understand what is known, and what is not. Wnt (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Her family said it is okay to post her name

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

---

the chinese girl who died, her family said it was ok to say her name, at first they said they did not want to say her name, now it is ok, and it is in chinese news, so it is ok to include. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.93.254 (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, what's your source for that? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It's up on CNN's frontpage article right now. Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Washington Post: Boston University identifies third bombing victim as Lingzi Lu — Yksin (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Her name is Lu Lingzi and she was very pretty and nice and i am sad she die.

If you say she is nice then you may have known her. If this is the case, I'm sad that she died but I am also sad for you. The things that Americans do makes me ashamed to be one. Dave Bowman - Discovery Won (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Please see the discussion up higher on this page, and keep the discussion in one thread up there please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Time for new consensus

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.

---

As indicated above, the ID's of the deceased have long been identified by numerous reliable sources and it is now time too bring the article up to speed and include all the identities, as WP is now lagging in the world of information.

Should we now include ID's. (Please make comments elsewhere to keep list clean and easy to read.)

• Yes. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• OK to include if it adds value to the page - not OK if just a list of names. 18:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Nothing has changed since the last discussion (like two hours ago), so no, I'm still for waiting for 24 hours. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Unless someone can show some clear statement that the family retracted their desire to keep her name private, then no we should not include it. It is disruptive to continuously push this issue when consensus developed against you. Ryan Vesey 19:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• u dont understand wikipedia. there is consensus to say her name please. also her family does not speak much english, so they wont mind if u put her name because they cant read it anyway.

• Where is this consensus? From the discussion above, it looks like the consensus there is to hold off for 24 hours. "they can't read it anyway" is the absolute worst reason to do anything ever. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not voting here, but the idea that "they won't mind because they cant read it" is patently offensive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• No - The "have long been identified" claim is false, the 3rd victim's name has not positively verified. Until that is cleared up, by an official announcement by law enforcement, the Chinese consulate, etc...then that should be left out. Note; I do not factor in the "wishes of the parents" into this, that is immaterial. Tarc (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose No harm in waiting, I think we should be slow and right rather than rushed and wrong. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources are now saying her name and as such I am changing to Yes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources were mentioning her name long before you started reverting honest edits. A little more effort on your part would have sufficed. -- Veggies (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Mostly it was from the source found below, BU after all is where she was attending. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

[5] Yeah, right. "2:21 PM" <-- nearly two hours ago. -- Veggies (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No need to attack the people who support your position, I have since reversed my opinion lets leave it at that. - 20:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The University had published the information at least 4 hours ago as you can see from the link in this diff [6]. Shadowjams (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes - There is no consensus on a 24-moratorium, to begin with. And why exactly are we holding off on citing multiple reliable and notable sources that have published her name. It certainly doesn't violate the 1st principle of BLP. And you'd be hard-pressed to argue that publishing a name is tantamount to victimization. Mind clearing things up? -- Veggies (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I had something written here earlier that's disappeared, but my point is that there's very little "consensus" to wait... it was a few editors within a 30 minute timeframe that came up with the 24 hour wait idea... which is kind of unheard of, especially in a story developing this quickly. The fact that there's a holdoff on publishing the name at all is strange when it's been reported so widespread by every major publication. And yes, many of the calls to hold off were well after it was published by major sources (NYT, Boston Globe, CNN, etc.). Shadowjams (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes - Boston University has now published the name of the third victim.[7]. Since they previously said that they witheld the name pending permission of the family, I can only assume that they have now received that permission. GabrielF (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes Wikipedia should not censoring information that is already widely disseminated by sources that are both reliable (news media sources) and official (the university itself released the name of the student). Also, no consensus on a 24-hour moratorium exists (a few people supporting against equally large opposition is not "consensus"). —Lowellian (reply) 20:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Yes per GabrielF. That seems to address any BLP/BDP concerns. Unless someone has a current reference that the parents do not want it published, it seems fine to add now; I was under the impression that current information was that it should be withheld. Many, many RSes publishing the name now as well, parents' wishes or not. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 20:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. First of all, the proper method of discussing this is WP:RFC. Furthermore, WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is not a replacement for CNN or BBC. It is only designed to document notable events. Sorry for being curt, on my mobile currently. --RAN1 (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, WP:BLP applies to all information regarding living people, not just articles based on them (sorry for fragmented posting). --RAN1 (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, assuming the situation is as Vesey stated below. --RAN1 (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Yes The link I mentioned earlier documenting the family's desire to keep the name private has now removed that information and given her name. [8] That is enough of a change for me. Ryan Vesey 20:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Yes The names have received widespread coverage in reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• STRONG YES. The names are public. I am sick and tired of WP arguing about the minutiae of their rules, then blatantly abandoning them wholesale when someone has a crooked admin friend. Dave Bowman - Discovery Won (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Procedural objection to a third (!) thread being started on this when a sizable number of editors have already commented in detail above and actual discussion was occurring. Allegations of misbehavior by administrators should either be supported by clear evidence, using diffs, or retracted. Rivertorch (talk) 21:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Ownership issue

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.

---

Again, please don't start new threads, keep it all in one place where people can easily view ALL the information. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You do not own the page and have no right to make such deletions, even as an administrator. Let's move forward. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers is so mad he could SPIT! Vilano XIV (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Gwillhickers' assessment. Without a clear consensus, you arbitrarily forbade any mention of her name (forgetting the fact that her name is already mentioned in the talk page and the sources cited in the article) based on an incorrect reading of BLP. -- Veggies (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't forbade anything. I noted a consensus to simply wait a short period. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. The fact that there is so much disagreement that another thread was begun is an obvious sign that there is no consensus for any such thing. -- Veggies (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

who is in ccharge here

No one. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

To many alphas all over this article. It's seems to me people are less interested in posting confirmed data and more concerned that they post the information first. It's really ugly and completely goes against Wikipedia's openness. Gorba (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

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

I note that Dennis Brown acts like he owns this page and says under 3RR that there are no rules here. He also accused me of wearing panties in the 3RR section (his words!). I suggest we now ignore this rouge editor. 70.78.45.67 (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC), Legacypac (talk) 01:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC) (logged-in)

Full protection requested

Since editors insist on editing against consensus, I have requested temporary full protection of this article. Ryan Vesey 19:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

That's silly. Go argue the point itself, don't try to shut it down this way. Shadowjams (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Full protection doesn't shut it down at all. It forces editors to quit restoring the content and engage in discussion. Ryan Vesey 19:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, right. There are plenty of open questions that no one has answered yet. If you're so interested in engaging in discussion, maybe you could save some time and reply to those. For example, why can't I use this to cite a verified piece of information? -- Veggies (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Verifiability isn't the issue, the issue is BLP concerns. The family requested that the name not be used and nobody has produced a statement saying otherwise. The name seriously isn't that important, so BLP issues should trump other concerns. Ryan Vesey 20:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not the only consideration. And where is the reference for the family doesn't want name disclosed? Does that consideration apply to the Boston Globe, New York Times, and Boston University too? Because they've all published it. Maybe we shouldn't, I don't know, but I don't think what you're arguing for is as clear cut as you think. Shadowjams (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

See my comment in the new consensus section above. Ryan Vesey 20:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Uh, and since when do the parent's requests overrule the inclusion of well-referenced material?

• BLP: "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed" - Not a factor, as her name has been widely published.
• BLP: "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons." - The victim of a public bombing is not a "loosely involved" person. -- Veggies (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you for the sake of arguing with you. Circumstances have changed and I have noted my support for inclusion of the name. Ryan Vesey 20:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Next time, try not to waste so much of our time. -- Veggies (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Screw off. Ryan Vesey 20:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

From the source: "her family had requested at first that her name not be released." The name has been released to the sources and it appears the family has since relented. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I was going to request full protection when I saw that someone already had. There are a lot of well-meaning Wikipedians here, some of them experienced editors and all of them well meaning, who seem to think we're on some sort of a deadline. We are not. It is of paramount importance that we write about the topic accurately; concerns about comprehensiveness are secondary, and concerns about timeliness shouldn't matter at all. Events are still in flux and may be for days to come. The article is in reasonable shape now (or it was the last time I looked), and no harm would come from locking it down and making only those changes that consensus—the kind that emerges from extended, reasoned discussion—allows. Rivertorch (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

If full protection is to keep some editors from deleting the sourced content, that's one thing, but to keep them from restoring it? I don't think so. Plus, any protection will make the article obsolete within hours. Lots of people want to work on it - you want to send them all away because they want to cover the available information neutrally and accurately? Forget it! We finally have the names of all three victims, and it looks like that was a battle royale. We need RID of people who think we should make up our very own fairy tale about events instead of summarizing the actual available data. Wnt (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we need to protect the article, just remove the editors who keep deleting any sourced info they find uninterestingLegacypac (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Victims section

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 get that it's good to honor the 3 dead, one whom was chinese national, but it's unneeded cause only three people died if lests say ten+ were killed then it could to have a victims section deticated to honor them, but it's ignorant and pathetic to have one for only THREE people. Hundreds of people die in sucide bombings in other places and guess what that never is metioned in the media nor does it have it's own article.EthanKP (talk · contribs) 17 April 2013 6:34 (UTC)

It's an English language article - it's based on what is available to the majority of English speaking editors. Most English sources don't cover or name victims in bombings outside of their region. Xinhua probably only named the Chinese National - which will probably be reflected on the Chinese Wikipedia. The Arabic language wikipedia probably would be a better place to take that up. Vilano XIV (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Unless of course, it's the case that you just don't like Americans and couldn't care less about them dying.

(edit conflict)The article is still developing. It is also possible that some of the injured will die of their wounds and be added to the number. You could also create a List of victims of suicide bombings article if you think it proper. Be bold!--Auric talk 19:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a false assumption that a victims section is there to "honor" them. It's a pertinent part of the general information of any article like this, and well represented in the referenced sources. It would be hard to accept an argument that the victims SHOULDN't be mentioned, because there weren't "ten+". Number shouldn't matter to the general principle. It's a focal point of much of the coverage, it's in almost all of the major sources referenced here, and it's notable content. Calling something "ignorant" and "pathetic" is not a great way to get consensus on an issue. The fact that many people die in bombings is irrelevant to this article. The sole questions that are relevant to inclusion are 1) notability (as supported by referenced sources here), 2) verifiability (ditto), and 3) realtive size/level of detail comparable to the article itself. If the victim section balooned to a large size, then I think you have a valid argument it should be daughtered. But not that it shouldn't exist because of some esoteric notions about what is the proper number of people to be killed to warrant it.204.65.34.104 (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. While it's appalling that there isn't this much mention being given to the 30+ killed in a bombing in Iraq on the same day, that's what it is, and it's not Wikipedia's job to change that. Ignatzmice•talk 19:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The names of two of the dead have been included in the WP article, yet for some reason the article continues to single out Lingzi Lu, not even mentioning this women's name, as if she were a dog or a cat, and in spite of the fact that at least three editors have tried to include her name and have cited it with a variety of Reliable Sources -- all the while a couple of the same editors continue to make deletions, not only in the article, but on the talk page, deleting and moving text made by other fellow editors. This, btw, is completely disruptive. There is no clear consensus and it's about time we caught up to the rest of the information world and included the name of this woman. This nonsense about "victims" and that her name adds nothing to the article is simply that. (her name means "nothing"?? Thanks, I'm sure her family and friends appreciate that one.) Lingzi Lu's name is now known in China and the rest of the world and again, has been for some time now as this women's name appears almost everywhere. We have waited long enough. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Finally, this women has been given a name by the editors of Wikipedia. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I think this issue is resolved and it'd be best for everyone to let it go. Shadowjams (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I agree to just "let it go" but in some countries this stuff happens reguraly< everyday > with bigger losses than just 3!! I don't know the exact word for this but it's sort of dishonoring the other people who died in bombings that dont get metioned atoll just because they are muslim, like the other editor mentioned that same day a bomb in Iraq killed 35 people!!, Probably women and childern. Don't you think that's worth having a victims section for, oh wait I forgot they arn't American so lets forgot that happened!!EthanKP (talk · contribs) 17 April, 23:20

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.

Images

We shouldn't be claiming news images under fair use. Copyright wise its highly questionable and the free images we have are adequate.Genisock2 (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely disagree. This is a major event and news images are the clearest example of fair use I can think of. CNN isn't going to sue wikimedia for including a photo of this bombing. Does anyone here have any common sense? Or is seeing how far you can push an imapplicable restrictive rule more important than informing people? Dave Bowman - Discovery Won (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Geni. The usage here is depriving them of their commercial value. If copyright wouldn't forbid this usage then it has no justifiable purpose in the context of news photography. The fact that we could potentially coerce copyright holders into not enforcing their rights against Wikipedia for fear of loss of good will has never been a justification here, and would do nothing for subsequent reusers of our articles. Not respecting the law weakens us everywhere, not respecting the copyright of commercial media outlets makes it harder to partner, not adopting freely licensed images which are available to us discourages their creation. There are places where there is a difficult trade-off, but this isn't one of them.--Gmaxwell (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree - I deleted the images from the article until:

1. The reason for fair use is made clear...
2. The NFCC criteria is completely filled out on the file description (currently it lists "n/a" for important criteria) -- Veggies (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Please check the history

I just reverted to last good version. I meant to revert a major rearrangement of the lede by a brand new editor, but someone else added something--a heavily-warned editor. So, I just reverted to last good version (21:41, 17 April 2013‎ by Leandrogfcdutra). Hope all is well. Please check. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

More excessive referencing

Please could someone tell me why "The first exploded outside a Lens Crafters store at 699 Boylston Street; the second, one block farther west at 755 Boylston Street.[2][4][7][8][9][10][11][12]" needs EIGHT separate references? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It should probably have at least 15 references. Adding more would be appreciated. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hilarious. It probably needs one reference. See WP:CITEKILL. Please fix this ludicrous overuse of eight sources to reference, at most, three facts. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, if there weren't eight different references, nobody on Wikipedia would believe there had even been a bombing in Boston. Qworty (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you all drunk? And I couldn't find anywhere in those eight references that referenced either 699 or 755 Boylston Street. Perhaps we should remove all the references and replace it with a {{cn}}? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Can people stop being facetious here? The Rambling Man is correct. We should have at most one reference for one piece of information and really no more than 3 or so for a sentence, if we need more than that we should create two sentences. I'll go ahead and reduce the number later today if I get time/unless someone else has time to go ahead now and figure out which source we should use to cite it. It's going to be difficult, but at some point we need to start figuring out where overlap lies in the references, then begin getting rid of the less reliable sources and cite the information to the more reliable sources. Ryan Vesey 22:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There are three or four other areas of the article which are clearly over-referenced, I'll start removing those too. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)On a more serious note, the addresses and references don't quite agree. [9] is referenced and says "one explosion had happened in front of the Marathon Sports store at 671-673 Boylston and the windows were blown out at a LensCrafters optician’s store". (Referring to the first blast affecting both.) The LensCrafters is at 699 Boylston, which the article states was the site of that explosion. But it looks like the explosion actually happened in front of Marathon Sports, and also blew out the nearby LensCrafters' windows. The 755 Boylston address for the second bomb looks correct. I'm going to change the location to what the boston.com ref says, since 699 Boylston doesn't make sense given the map location, and few other refs support it (I suspect those that do copied it from Wikipedia.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

On an equally serious note, I'm going to remove the sources which are here that simply duplicate other sources. This article should not become a library of sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 4) It's not like WP:CITEKILL is policy, but there's no reason to have that many references for that one sentence. Two seems like a good number for that statement, as it's pretty damn descriptive, but it should removed entirely if there's nothing that supports it. Wouldn't determining the addresses for the locations ourselves be original research? Qworty, I don't see how that's relevant at all. Let's be civil here.  TheArguer  _{SAY HI!} 22:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it's an essay, but why would a sentence that contains, what, three facts need eight citations? And Qworty obviously isn't aware that the Boston bombings are all over the press all over the world, almost to the point of tedium. No-one's saying this didn't happen. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Two reliable sources are sufficient if indeed they are reliable -- multiple sourcing is sometimes called for when the statement in question is controversial. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we're aware of that I think, but thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The references support the addresses fine; I didn't find major refs using the 699 Boylston address and it wasn't at the right place on a map (maybe someone looked up the address of the LensCrafters?), and the other addresses are now referenced properly and agree with the map. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

And the excessive refs on that particular sentence have been removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment this is a developing story, items with one or two sources have been rightly removed. While it's developing, a little WP:CITEKILL doesn't hurt anyone. This will be one of the things to get cleaned up later. --IP98 (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

One of the deleted references says in a comment that it is "only for the second picture". Do you know what the second picture is, or if we still have a reference for it? Wnt (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC) (This comment was removed right after posting, presumably by accident.

My "source" for the 755 Boylston address was a set of pictures supposedly taken just before and just after the second blast, clearly showing "755" on the building—but there had been doubts as to when the first shot was taken, so I was being careful to only ref the second one. Now it seems there's a textual ref for the address, so all is well. Thanks for checking! Ignatzmice•talk 23:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

If you don't referance something at least 5 times some overzealous "editor" will delete it within 10 secs.Legacypac (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Boston Globe Victim list

The Boston Globe has a list of victimes (fatalities and injuries) here: [10]. GabrielF (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It looks nice but it is not a reliable source as if you click on " If you have some information, please click here.", you can edit/add victim info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

All that does is let you contact the Globe, the list itself isn't directly editable. The BBC has a similar form on many articles. GabrielF (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we have add a list of victims to the article?  TheArguer  _{SAY HI!} 22:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

A full list of victims seems a bit much given how many there are, but I'm open to hearing the debate. Shadowjams (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

My preference would be to keep only the deaths in, if that. If people want to, they can start Victims of the Boston Marathon bombings or similar and put a {{main}} in the "Victims" section here. Ignatzmice•talk 22:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree that the victim list is infeasible simply due to the number. We can't list out the dozens of people who'll eventually show up in various references. I don't think we should cover specific injuries at all, unless they're notable in some particular way; we can simply note that many people lost limbs, etc. The deaths make sense to list out since there are only three of them, victims is undue weight to the sporadic few we have listed even now and will grow to be unmanageable. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm only suggesting that this is a source that might be of use - for each person on the list the Globe provides a source. GabrielF (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• A full list (including wounded) is too much. (I'm not suggesting that you're suggesting that, Gabriel.) We're always already straying in NOTMEMORIAL territory by listing victims in such articles. Drmies (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Why not do a table break-down based on nationality (IE France 0 Killed 1 Wounded)- they have them for the Bali Bombing etc. Vilano XIV (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I've seen things like that for air crashes (see e.g. Korean Air Lines Flight 007, table in the first section)—but those are mostly for fatalities. I guess we could well do one for injuries, if we get detailed enough sources. Ignatzmice•talk 23:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Those numbers were released by the ICAO. We have no sources. Why is this being discussed?  TheArguer  _{SAY HI!} 23:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

At some point such a list will be available, who knows how soon. Anyway, a list of injured should not be included. How Korean Air Lines Flight 007 got promoted to GA with that non-MOS compliant table full of flags is not clear to me; a table with at most three columns is overtabling it. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Bombings section

In the Bombings section, it states: "The blasts blew out windows on adjacent buildings, but did no other structural damage, an indication of the anti-personnel nature of the devices." What is that clause (in bold text) supposed to mean? Can someone clean up the wording a bit, so that it is more clear? Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

That the device was primarily intended to kill people rather than damage stuff. Agree that needs to be cleaned up, and make sure it's properly referenced. The current refs don't seem to support that, even though it does appear to be correct. (Should be a ref explaining the use of shrapnel, etc.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep, see anti-personnel weapon. Could even be linked to that article. Stalwart111 22:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The added link is helpful. I don't think most readers would be familiar with that terminology. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Just because there was no structural damage does not mean the bomb was not intended to cause structural damage. It only means that no structural damage occurred. The result is not an indication of the motive. To say otherwise is pure speculation. The enter phrase about the anti-personnel nature" should be deleted. --Crunch (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I would say it doesn't matter what the bombs were intended to do—they were anti-personnel, because they affected people more than buildings. But I guess the phrase as it is implies that they were intended to be anti-personnel (which, while certainly likely due to the shrapnel, isn't confirmed), so if you want to remove it I won't stop you. Ignatzmice•talk 01:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Ricin envelopes and JFK fire

I know there's been a consensus at least on the envelopes back in the archive, but I also know that consensus can change, not least of all due to new rationals and points raised. For instance, it could be said to be noteworthy that at least most major news outlets speculate upon a potential link between the envelopes, the JFK fire, and the bombing, because of all happening in such close succession. I'm mostly watching CNN here and I can't quite make out what's pure editorial speculation and what links they're saying are factually under investigation by government authorities, whether those links exist or not. --37.81.4.51 (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I would include information about the JFK fire because the possibility of a connection has been made repeatedly by reputable news sources. Also, the police are treating this as a possible arson case. See: Arson squad arrives at JFK Presidential Library; Building closed ‘indefinitely’ for investigation into fire after marathon bombings. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't—any link is pure speculation until the authorities say otherwise. Arson happens. Ignatzmice•talk 23:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

And, again, why do we have to report everything that's reported? What I see on the news is, when those things are mentioned together (not everyone does it), that the talking glue sticks on TV need to fill airtime, and do that by making connections even while saying there is no evidence of a connection. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

"Talking glue sticks" I love it! Ignatzmice•talk 01:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Chinese names of Chinese dead and injured

Is it within BLP to post, on this talk page, Chinese names of any Chinese victims injured or killed, in case they are mentioned in the article? If they are mentioned (especially if they make witness accounts to media figures) it would be good to mention their Chinese names so people can easily find Chinese sources about them. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, as long as the sources actually use these names (no impromptu translations by editors, please!) Wnt (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you'll find (in threads above) that some names have already been posted here on the talk page. I can't see any harm in posting Chinese translations of names already posted, especially if it helps to find reliable sources. But there may be an alternate view to mine. Stalwart111 23:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll check to see if the names of the persons were posted. I found a Xinhua article which gives the name of one student who was injured. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Be careful even with sourced Chinese names, though: I've seen instances in Wikipedia where Chinese-language news sources were basing their reports on translating English news reports, and made a guess at the Chinese characters for someone's name. You'll probably want to compare a few sources, and have a Chinese speaker (perhaps yourself!) read the articles to make sure that in context you're getting reliable information. --Amble (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok. For the deceased student, there was a bilingual New York Times source that uses the same characters (吕令子) and said that a state-run newspaper in Shenyang, a Chinese university official, and a classmate had identified her. I found the same characters or their traditional Chinese equivalents in sources in Hong Kong and Taiwan.

• Buckley, Chris (Chinese name of journalist: 储百亮 Chǔ Bǎiliàng) "China Mourns the Death of Student in Boston Blast/中国哀悼遇难女留学生. NYT. April 17, 2013. - While Buckley is not ethnic Chinese he was given a "Chinese name" that is used in Chinese language publications

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure those are good sources for the student's name in Chinese. --Amble (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Reference for Injury count doesn't support actual statement.

Someone may want to have a look at reference number 3. The reference is used to support the 183 death count in the infobox and in the lead of the article, yet nowhere it states this actual number (Statement: "more than 170 people".) I suppose it may be best to replace this one entirely with a better source and would have done so myself, if i wasn't about to log off for the day. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

People have been changing it back and forth all afternoon, I believe based on what CNN is saying on-air. Ignatzmice•talk 23:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like CNN and others are using this. Google News is full of hits for Boston 183. See [11] for example, which says 183 hospitalizations, which may or may not be precisely the same as injuries. Some sources like [12] come up for 184, but only a couple of tabloids stake out the higher numbers.

P.S. I just got reverted here again, the second time in half a dozen comments.[13] Some people here seem to be misunderstanding or misusing the "edit conflict" screen, which is no surprise, because it's a really crappy thing and always has been. It's easier to copy your whole text block, hit the Editing Talk: page in your browser history sidebar, paste in fresh. Wnt (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

(That wasn't intentional, sorry! I did paste my particular comment into the top box [I've been copying my comments before I hit save, as it's just simpler that way in case I need it]. I think the software sometimes overwrites, even when you don't mean it to. Ignatzmice•talk 23:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC))

Please add Shenyang to Chinese Victim's entry

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.

---

Parallelism with including other victim's hometowns. It's in the referenced source article. 24.151.50.173 (talk) Today, 18:27 (UTC−5)

 Done Ignatzmice•talk 23:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Request for modification to article

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 noticed the description under the photo in the 'Victims' section states that it is at the site of the first blast. This may not be correct.

According to pictures here http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/17/us/boston-blasts/index.html?hpt=hp_c2 it looks like the site of the second blast. CNN's reports on television show pictures of the same running man captured by Lord and Taylor's security camera and state that it occurred at the site of the second blast.

Until it can be verified whether the photo in this article is of the site of the first blast or the site of the second, perhaps the description of the photo could be modified to remove reference as to which blast site is shown. 69.126.219.24 (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)unregistered user

Nope, that's the first one. See File:1st Boston Marathon blast seen from 2nd floor and a half block away - about 10 secs after blast.jpg—you can see the finish line in the upper-right corner. The other picture has the same glass awnings, which aren't at the second site (pix here). Ignatzmice•talk 00:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Definitely it's the first one, further to the east. --Crunch (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Is the lede really inadequate?

With information still changing frequently, I think it makes more sense to keep the lede short and update specific sections as needed. I don't really think it's too short, and the "Oh noes the lede is too short!!1!" tag looks unprofessional on an article as highly-edited as this one. Can we get rid of it? Ignatzmice•talk 00:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

We can't get rid of it. The lead doesn't comply with WP:LEAD and the template should remain until someone fixes it. Ryan Vesey 00:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

We can get rid of it--I just did. Per BOLD. With an article like this, with so much in flux, it's not to be expected that the lead reflect the article content completely, and the tag is a bit distracting. Let's fix the lead a bit, a bit at a time. Drmies (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, the only things in the article and not in the lead are the "reactions" of various kinds, and the quickly-taken security measures. All things considering, then, the lead is surprisingly comprehensive, though probably too short per LEAD. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

FBI/Boston Police press conference

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

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

What is the relevance to this article? Are you suggesting some edit? --Crunch (talk) 00:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It was the bombings that pointed BPD to have the FBI at their daily press conference (or the FBI invited itself as the leading authority in the case or however that went) and a recurring big official announcement to that was made, then suddenly there's 4 different push-backs over the course of just a few hours, then not only that particular press conference is canceled for that day, but a high-up in the BPD says clearly he has no idea if the BPD will ever hold another press conference again throughout its existence until kingdom come, after there's obviously been a daily press conference for years (decades?), without ever skipping a single day. All in one day, and all in connection with the bombings.

I don't know about you, but I guess that could be notable enough to warrant an entry relating to that newsbit in the Investigations, Reactions, or a Consequences section, if a written article for that information can be found on the CNN website, or the video of their conference reporter making that report. Somewhere along the lines of:

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

37.81.4.51 (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Things get cancelled all the time, for all sorts of reasons. It would absolutely be original research for us to speculate as to why this one was cancelled and what the BPD might do long-term. I can't see that anyone has actually said there wouldn't be another, ever, just that today's didn't happen and the person wasn't sure when another would be scheduled. I have breakfast most days but I happen not to have had breakfast today. I don't know exactly what time I'll be having breakfast tomorrow, if at all. But that doesn't mean breakfast is cancelled forever. Yeah? Stalwart111 01:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the analogy to the quote would be rather closer to, "I canceled breakfast for today (today's conference), most likely I'm not gonna have breakfast anymore in the future (any FBI/BPD press conference on the case at all), and in fact, I don't even know when or if I'll ever eat lunch or dinner again (any future BPD press conference on whatever issue)." That's not a speculation on our part, it's what I understood the quote on CNN to be saying. --37.81.4.51 (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Point taken--but here's the thing: we'll report this fact if, in the future, it turns out that the FBI/BPD press conferenciers never had breakfast again. Besides, we're not the news: not every detail that's appropriate for a news medium to report is fitting for an encyclopedic article. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict): Well, in that case, a post or thread like this on the talkpage could at least work like a post-it reminder to remind people later when any of us may no longer be around or interested. --37.81.4.51 (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

And I'm still unclear as to where the "most likely never again" bit comes from. Didn't he just say he didn't know when? There's a big jump from "I don't know when" to "never again". Stalwart111 01:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you see the report from the conference reporter? He gave a little of how he was pushing the official back and forth, if indirectly in reported speech, and how the "don't knows" only came after repeated questions on why the cancelation and when another press conference could be expected to be held, "I don't know anymore if there's gonna be a conference on our progresses in this case later, I don't know if any conference by the BPD ever again, but definitely not at this hotel", something like that, only turned to 3rd person. --37.81.4.51 (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I get where you're coming from. But I still agree with Drmies that it's way to early to report on anything like that until we have something more concrete. It would be significant if the BPD decided to never have another press conference ever again, obviously. But an unclear comment from an unknown representative wouldn't be anywhere near enough to to verify such a claim yet. But, yeah, including it here for posterity and future reference is perfectly fine! Stalwart111 02:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Too many photos

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

I'm not too sure WP:NOTREPOSITORY applies in this case. There are a lot of photos in the article, but I think they enhance the article, not hurt it. That's just my opinion though.  TheArguer  _{SAY HI!} 06:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Pakistani Taliban denies involvement

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

I don't see why. Unless there was a serious reason to believe they were involved, this is just a statement about a non-fact. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, it seems the media have dug up some "terrorist experts" mostly from the Bush administration who are pointing towards Al-Quaeda already, so a denial by an Islamist (terror) group formerly allied with them could be notable in response to that. --37.81.4.51 (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of redundancy, we're an encyclopedia. Somebody says something, and it's wrong, and someone else says it wasn't them. In other words, nothing happened but some airtime got filled. And it doesn't matter that reliable sources reported this--not everything that can be reliably sourced is of encyclopedic relevance. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

That was in there for a while (along with a statement by the Iranian gov't re: US hypocrisy re: drone strikes and another statement, I forget who by), but it got taken out as not notable. Maybe I can find a diff. I didn't contest it at the time, as I don't really know if they're notable. Ignatzmice•talk 02:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Diff I was talking about here, but the Pakistani reference seems to have been gone a long time already... Ignatzmice•talk 02:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed it [14] with the following reasoning: "A denial of involvement from a non-accused group doesn't seem a notable response; further, there are multiple loosely affiliated Taliban/al-Qaeda groups, and another *could* be responsible (so don't imply that's false with the denial))". In other words, it might be notable if an RS said "Islamic terrorist groups don't seem to be linked to this", but not just one of the many groups saying that themselves. (And I think we're far away from addressing speculation on motives yet.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Ignatzmice•talk 02:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course claims of responsibility or nonresponsibility from suspect groups are relevant. It's more a question of not going overboard and giving each denial undue weight, or being misleading (there are many groups with different leadership). That CNN article is barely a paragraph. A small piece that mentioned a number of terrorist groups denied responsibility would be perfectly reasonable, in fact necessary. What we don't need is a large paragraph listing each group in detail. I think this approach echoes what most people are saying. But a blanket exclusion is equally wrong as a long drawn out list. Shadowjams (talk) 03:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Well the Pakistani Taliban is listed as terrorist group by the USA and not country so I was not sure here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Chinese text warning

I added {{Contains Chinese text|section|image=}}, which is as small as I could get it, to the "Victims" section. Is it box-overload, though? How important is it that we have the Chinese text; if we have the text, how important is it that we have the box? Ignatzmice•talk 02:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely critical if you want readers to have access to sources in that language. Even top-notch publications such as National Geographic almost exclusively omit Chinese information, when there are towns of the same romanised (after removing tone marks) name in the same county; without them there is potential ambiguity in mapping, leaving the reader in the dark. GotR ^Talk 03:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

May I ask why we have the Chinese text in the first place? IIRC, including the text is only necessary when introducing the subject in a biographical article. If the only thing it does is cause needless problems, why include it?  TheArguer  _{SAY HI!} 05:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

On the English Wikipedia within the article body it's commonplace to include a person's name in the foreign script if the person doesn't have his/her own Wikipedia article. With the Chinese name one can search for Chinese articles about the person; without it one won't know how to search for things about her in Chinese. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. =)  TheArguer  _{SAY HI!} 06:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

No problemo :) WhisperToMe (talk) 06:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Trash cans

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

Haven't been actually following the news sites (just running maintenance on the article/talk page), but the impression I got was that the trash-can theory was just something spouted by the talking heads (or, as Drmies put it, the glue sticks). Certainly a possibility, but I don't believe anyone official is saying that's what happened. Ignatzmice•talk 04:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I read earlier today that the bombs were just on the ground. I suspect trashcan placement was speculation.Legacypac (talk) 04:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

There's a lot of speculation, including on the person who dropped a bag somewhere (not in a trash can, I suppose) while he was on the phone. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Kofi Kingston controversy

I added information about this but it was removed. I believe it is valuable to highlight that a WWE superstar who is Bostonian, and who celebrates people in distress (with his theme song S.O.S.) and who attacks people using explosion-oriented attacks (the "Boom Drop") only 3 days prior to the attack was in Boston and won the United States championship there, to the accolades of the crowd.

It is possible that the ones who bombed the marathon were enthusiastic members of the WWE Universe celebrating their local hero regaining his championship for the third time, so 3 days later they set off explosions (much like WWE sets off pyro, often recklessly, like when they burned the Undertaker) and harmed many people.

We should look to see if any members of the WWE Universe in Boston are fans of Kofi Kingston (especially those with a family who came from Ghana or Jamaica, which are Kofi's themes) and see if perhaps this whole thing was just an accident from merrymaking that got out of hand. Ranze (talk) 05:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You serious? OR if so. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

This article is based on published reliable sources, not batshit-crazy conspiracy theories cooked up by 'contributors'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL, but erm... yes.  TheArguer  _{SAY HI!} 05:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Family Guy controversy

Should the Family Guy controversy be kept in the article?

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

What Family Guy controversy? Ryan Vesey 06:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It is total trivia. This article is about the bombing, not some facile hoax. Nothing more needs to be said. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Family Guy mash-up parallels Boston Marathon bombings Network removes episode after edited version appears online. Terraflorin (talk) 06:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Ryan Vesey, Terraflorin has pretty much provided the gist of what the controversy is about.

AndyTheGrump, hoax or not, it is information that's been widely reported by reputable news sources in relation to the bombing. That's why it was added to the "Reactions" section, it's not as though the subject of the bombing was abandoned and the whole article was suddenly refocused to that particular controversy. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 06:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

What part of 'this article is about the bombings' is so hard to understand? Any 'reactions' regarding this are to the hoax, not the bombings... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It's an utter triviality, and certainly not the equivalent of the President's two speeches, with which it was sharing a section before it was quite correctly removed. Qworty (talk) 06:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep it out, had Family Guy actually made fun of it and caused outrage, it might be worth including. This is just a poor-taste internet hoax. Ryan Vesey 06:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

All right, it appears that there's a leaning consensus towards its exclusion (unless someone else wants to counter-argue). If that's the shared agreement, then I'll support it too. Please note, that I just wanted to make sure the content was not hastily removed without some thorough discussion. Thanks to the editors who provided clear explanations. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 06:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)