Talk:Boston Marathon bombing/Archive 9

Conspiracy Theories
Why is there no mention of the conspiracy theories about the bombings in this article? This is a critical part to this article. --168.18.176.2 (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Conspiracy theories for any event nearly always fail WP:FRINGE and thus aren't appropriate. --M ASEM (t) 16:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Conspiracy theories should only be mentioned if reliable sources mention them-and only in keeping with WP:UNDUE. Argh.  My Fece Verdis are at it again. Th eSyndromeOfaDown (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I doubt if the theories even pass WP:GNG after every large scale thing like this there are always nuts out there who blame the government, sadly after 9/11 it has become pretty routine. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * On the bright side, anyone looking for what they consider "critical" information can find it the same way they'd find it on Wikipedia. Top Google results. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Boston Marathon bombings conspiracy theories is probably notable enough for its own article, but it should not be covered in this article per WP:FRINGE. Only majority and significant minority POVs should be included in this article.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Conspiracy theories should only be mentioned if they become significant. TFD (talk) 12:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * There is an overwhelmingly significant conspiracy theory for this event. Look on infowars.com. It explains it well. 168.18.176.2 (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It is not enough that a conspiracy theory website mentions it. You need to establish that it has attracted significant coverage in mainstream media.  TFD (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Infowars.com doesn't meet WP:RS anyhow. I walk my dog.  TheSyndromeOfaDown (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Nationality of victims
It would be interesting to see which countries the wounded came from. It was after all a very international sporting event. Or wasn't it? Did foreigners make up more than say 5 or 10% of the runners?

Bjarnulf, Oslo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.209.88.240 (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know the percentage but it's well known foreigners (specifically east Africans) often win the race. However, the bombs hit spectators rather than runners, and the spectators seem to be mostly local American residents. I doubt a listing of them will be reproduced on Wikipedia, but The Boston Globe has a list here, although I don't think it's exhaustive. If you're not from around here most of the hometowns listed are in the surrounding area. Notably one of the fatalities was a Chinese national, and coincidentally the carjacking victim was also a Chinese national... Boston has a pretty big Asian presence. Fletcher (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Sad to see that over 90% of the victims was americans. As it was exactly what the bombers wanted. Remember they spared the life of the chinese driver.

Bjarnulf, Oslo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.209.88.240 (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Specifics on bombs/killings
Might it make sense to indicate which brother was identified by the government of putting down which bomb, and how many people each bomb killed (e.g., the younger brother was said to have placed the second bomb, which killed one person)?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that makes a great deal of sense. I think that would add value to the article.  Does anyone have any sources for that info?  Thanks.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we're still waiting for the official report to confirm this information; there's speculation from photographs just prior, but nothing absolute. --M ASEM (t) 03:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The FBI's official complaint against Dzhokhar can be found here. The FBI does indeed claim each bomb killed at least one person, but one of the bombs killed two people and I'm not clear which. The FBI claims in the affidavit to have what sounds like clear video evidence of Dzhokhar planting the bomb but I don't think that has been released to the public. Fletcher (talk) 04:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * From reading tons of sources I understand Bomb #1 was placed by older bro closer to finish line 2.5 min before the first blast and it killed the Chinese girl. It also took both legs of the guy who looked into the older bro's eyes and later helped ID him. Bomb #2 was placed by the younger bro and it killed Martin boy and hit his family members. It was placed just seconds before the 2nd explosion maybe even after the first blast. Not sure where the other female vic was at. I don't think it is critical to the story here to go into this level of detail. They were evidently working as a team, so both guilty of placing both bombs in the eyes of the law. Legacypac (talk) 04:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually presumed innocent "in the eyes of the law," but that doesn't seem to mean much here. Steveozone (talk) 05:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Steve is right, and Legacy is right in part ... but if/when it comes down to a death sentence decision, one can't predict how a jury may react if the case is made that the younger brother's bomb did not kill anyone (even though he was an accomplice to his brother). Plus, it may well be what we would call "encyclopedic" ... certainly as much as  whether the bombs were 12 seconds apart or 13, or any other trivial detail we reflect to be encyclopedic.  A little thing like A's bomb killed 1 person, and B's bomb killed 2 people, seems appropriate IMHO for us to reflect.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * True enough. Obviously presumed innocent until proven guilty - that was not my point. If we can properly source who put what bomb and who it killed, than this info can be worked in. I do not think 12 vs 13 seconds is important though. Legacypac (talk) 05:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * How can anybody possibly say who put any bomb anywhere if the current suspects may not have put any bomb anywhere? You don't seem to understand what "innocent until PROVEN guilty" means. HiLo48 (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If the Justice Department alleges it, is would be alleged. If a bystander says he saw x put down a bag, which exploded, then that is reportable as "bystander said x."  If a suspect says "I put down a bomb," and an RS reports it, even that is not "guilty" -- as it is only one element of a crime. In any event, he is not guilty of anything if he is alive and has not yet been found guilty of it or confessed to the crime (which is more than confessing to putting down the bag) with his confession accepted by a court of law.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * While I disagree with HiLo here, the post you refer to was a racist vandalism by an IP address editor. I have reverted it. Legacypac (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I missed that. Intrepid  (talk) 05:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe he was radicalized by the Jamestown Foundation
The Voice of Russia reports that Tamerlan was radicalized by the Jamestown Foundation. Erxnmedia (talk) 01:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * If he may have been, it's speculation and this article needs to avoid speculation, in my opinion. My76Strat (talk) 01:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yep. The word "Maybe" instantly categorises this stuff. It's WP:SPECULATION, hence doesn't belong. HiLo48 (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Well according to the Russians that's how it went down. The "maybe" is my editorializing on their indisputable fact.  I doubt that there will be too many corroborating tales but you never know. Jamestown has been called a CIA front and Tamerlan's uncle used to live with a CIA guy, so you don't really know how this is going to play out.  This could end up being a good reference, hence it is a candidate for ultimate inclusion in the article.  Or in a section of the article on disinformation related to the event.  Either way, pretty interesting.  Erxnmedia (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * If we ever get a conspiracy theory section, you can put it there. Of course the Voice of Russia wants to blame Jamestown for anything- the VoR is run by the Russian government, which despises the Jamestown Foundation for its criticism of their policies. Only if we discuss the other (equally dubious) theories about him being a puppet of the FBI, FSB, still alive, innocent and so on, could we discuss this. --Yalens (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The best place to discuss this issue may be Hidden Nations, Enduring Crimes conference or its talk page. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Motivation (cont.)
Hi all. Starting over here. My goal is to fix the article and avoid an edit war. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * To start, Jason's version of the events is misquoting an excellent source, The Washington Post. Why do you think adding on "and..." (and then quoting and citing CNN and the Independent) is going to change the text of what the Post published? CNN was quick to reissue their story to match the Post, but you're citing CNN from the previous day (April 22) before they caught up. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why CNN dropped part of their earlier story. Did they post a retraction? I see that earlier today they used the phrase "radical jihadi" when they write "preliminary interviews with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev suggest that the brothers were self-radicalized jihadists." I hesitate to insert jihadi since it isn't widely used yet. The "defend Islam" is widely quoted. Isikoff of NBC news says "He said they plotted the bombing to defend Islam because of the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, federal law enforcement officials tell NBC News." Isikoff isn't getting this from CNN but straight from officials. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Jason. Thank you for your reply. Because you seem to have ignored my question about misquoting The Washington Post, I decided on two things. First, to repair the article. And second to continue this thread under "Motivation (cont.)" separately because this thread is getting very unwieldy. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Jason, I think we have the same objective. I'm going to try to reword the section "Hospital interrogation" (and possibly part of "Legal proceedings"). Please fix whatever I get wrong if you would. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see what the phrase "in their interpretation" achieves. I don't think the phrase used by several new sources "defending Islam" has any derogatory implications for the religion but reflects only on the suspects and what may go on inside their minds. However, the phrase "in their interpretation" being superfluous doesn't cause any harm either. As for sources, I'd prefer we use the NBC source since they mention that they heard this from authorities and not just other news outlets. I'll change that. Jason from nyc (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think CNN published a retraction. I think but don't know for sure that they rewrote their story in place (ref #145 here has a different headline and author than what was quoted originally). Perhaps Herzen or someone else who watches the media closely can say for sure. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Another likely explanation is that I could have given the wrong url at some point, losing track of CNN. That's an error I have made many times on Wikipedia. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - In my experience a lot of outlets will rewrite or edit online content in place. How they handle notification of that varies, and whether a record of it exists varies too. In quickly-changing stories all bets are off. Published newspapers/magazines are of course handled more formally. Shadowjams (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I added the bit about Dzhokhar trying to kill himself (which turned out to be wrong), citing the NY Times, but then the Times Web site redirected the link to that story to a completely different story that didn't mention the suicide event. The Times was still pushing the line about the suicide attempt in a new story, though. – Herzen (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need to worry about CNN very much at this point. Their credibility took a sharp dip when they pushed the story of a "Saudi national" being a suspect. I am only inclined to cite CNN if another source can be found saying the same thing. Thanks for cleaning up the text, by the way, – Herzen (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Our job is not to second guess reliable sources. We have some sense about which sources are reliable and which aren't... if the New York Times gets a basic factual issue wrong then that's on them; we're about verifiability. I've seen an absurd amount of armchair quarterbacking on this article since its creation, and while some caution and reticence is certainly called for, the holding back of information on the off-chance it might be wrong has become its own form of editorializing. Shadowjams (talk) 09:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent point. Jason from nyc (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What was needed here was some indication by Jason that he understands we can't piggyback, based on other sources, whatever we'd like to say on a source named in the article. As he did here. Instead he reverted my edit and walked away. I went to considerable effort to explain this to him and don't see evidence of comprehension on his part. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe we discussed this above. And I believe I responded to your final edit (see "I don't see what the phase ..." above). Jason from nyc (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I would recommend reverting this edit, as the motivation cited is the US wars, not religion. Apteva (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd argue the sources make clear that the motivation was a radical Islamist response to the US wars. Indeed, every day there are more articles about his radicalization process. It's now taken for granted.Jason from nyc (talk) 01:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. Officials have said that Dzhokhar has told investigators that he and his brother were motivated by the U.S. wars on Afghanistan and Iraq. You don't have to be a "religious extremist" to find those wars objectionable. The CIA call events like this blowback. This edit just ignored what the headline of the source that is cited for motive is, which is "Boston bombing suspect cites US wars as motivation, officials say." You can't get much clearer than that. And there are at least two sources (LA Times, CNN) that say the same thing. – Herzen (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. Plenty of sources cite their religion as a motivation .  Ignoring this is cherry picking by certain editors to protect Islam.   Plenty of people dislike the wars and they haven't turned into terrorists.  So why did these two?  Islam.   Hot Stop     (Talk)   02:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course the vast majority of people who oppose the wars don't resort to terrorism, but that's not the point. It is not clear that the younger brother was particularly religious. In the same way, the 9/11 attackers are often portrayed as "Islamic extremists", but few if any of them had strong religious backgrounds. Their motivations were political, not religious. The same is apparently the case here. I certainly have no inclination to "protect Islam". It just so happens that Muslims are a well-defined religious group, and since 9/11, the U.S. has had a tendency to make war on Muslims. (Iraq and Afghanistan are not the only examples.) – Herzen (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you read beyond the headlines the sources make it clear that they objected to US policy as Muslims. Here is a typical source "He said they plotted the bombing to defend Islam because of the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan." Your theory about attackers in general is POV. The sources say what the sources say. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

We can not write an article in the infobox on the motivation. No more than a very short motive should be there. As I see it, from the sources I have read, the most accurate motive is "response to the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afganistan". I would suggest "U.S. wars" as appropriate. Apteva (talk) 02:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sympathetic to your desire for a terse summary. How about "war against Islam," "U.S. wars against Muslims," etc. It conveys the sources description of the suspects as motivated by radical Islamist outrage over U.S. foreign policy. The combined political and religious aspects are in most sources. Although, it's admittedly preliminary and under study. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well definitely not "U.S. wars against Muslims" as that is not what the sources say. Apteva (talk) 03:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Apteva -- when there is information sourced directly to an RS such as the New York Times, and the subject is central to the NYT article, please don't delete it because you don't like it. Feel free to discuss on the talk page.  Furthermore, the entry you deleted ... via edit war, I might add, on a page where your multiple reverts are not appropriate ... was balanced in your direction by another (less weighty) ref.  Finally, this is English wikipedia.  "US wars" is not a motivation, in the English language.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me quote what I am reading. "The two suspects in the Boston bombing that killed three and injured more than 260 were motivated by the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, officials told the Washington Post." Apteva (talk) 03:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you not reading the New York Times ref? The one you deleted? That says in the first para: "The portrait investigators have begun to piece together of the two brothers suspected of the Boston Marathon bombings suggests that they were motivated by extremist Islamic beliefs".  And then you have Time, writing "Tsarnaev’s answers led them to believe he and his brother were motivated by a radical brand of Islam ... said U.S. officials".--Epeefleche (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, And it's not just cherry picking. Both the CNN and NBC  (and others ) use the phrase "defend Islam." By now it is widely taken for granted that radical Islam is at play. Let's reflect the sources.  Jason from nyc (talk) 03:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

"The first point to make is they are motivated by politics, not religion" (loosely quoted) Muslims are prevented by their religion from doing any harm. Apteva (talk) 04:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * @Apteva -- are you really, seriously, arguing for deletion of text supported by a number of our highest RSs ... based on your personal belief that of course they must be wrong, because as you say "Muslims are prevent by their religion from doing any harm"? That's jaw-dropping.  And completely inappropriate use of OR and your personal view to trump RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The other problem with assigning a motive, is that there is no group that has claimed responsibility for the bombing, and without even being able to say who did the bombing, how can we say what the motive was? I would just leave it blank until more is known. Apteva (talk) 04:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It is not true that "Muslims are prevented by their religion from doing any harm." Only Christians are. The New Testament replaces an eye for an eye with turn the other cheek, whereas the Koran repeats the principle of an eye for an eye. Also, this is how the Middle East expert Gary Leupp describes the attitude of Islam toward political violence:


 * What the media should really address is not “radicalization” but the gradual embrace of a specific idea found only on the margins of Islam: the idea that it is justified in the eyes of God (Allah) to kill innocent civilians in some circumstances if in so doing one protects the Muslim community. You don’t find that in the Qur’an, but in some fringe interpretations of one or two hadiths of the Prophet, actions such as the 9/11 bombings are justified. To embrace that proposition is not to become “radical” but to become criminally sociopathetic. What really seems to have happened was that the brothers were increasingly drawn to a terror-validating strain of extreme Islam, which the preponderance of Muslims see as a travesty of the religion.


 * Protecting Islam by killing innocent civilians may be an "idea found only on the margins of Islam", but it is still part of Islam. – Herzen (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Jason, but what does "defend Islam" mean in practice in this particular case? Retribution for the U.S. wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, both of which countries where secular, by the way, until the U.S. started messing with them. So clearly this is more about the right of nations and peoples to control their own destinies than it is about religion. To repeat, the younger brother showed no religious tendencies as far as I can tell (he was even a pot dealer), and yet he placed one of the bombs. The younger brother has been quoted by officials as saying that the brothers' motivation was the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bringing religion into it is much more speculative, and involves the older brother, who cannot speak for himself. – Herzen (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's the phrase used by sources with respect to the motive. We report what the sources say not our WP:POV.
 * This concept of Muslims being prevented from doing any harm is trotted out every time some Muslim claims they blew something up/killed a bunch of people or did other acts of terrorism in the name of their faith. It is getting a little hard to believe, at least for some segments of Islam. The radical Islam reason is no longer speculation. US Wars is not a stand alone Motive which is why I changed it to radical islam. As I write this the listed Motive is: "Extremist Islamic beliefs, including reaction to U.S. wars in Muslim countries" which is pretty darn correct.


 * @Apteva The suspect has said why they did is and the brother's move toward radical Islam is pretty compelling.
 * @Herzen - can you source that Afghanistan - ruled by the Taliban - was secular??? And Iraq has a nearly 100% Muslim population. Please go reread the sources re what younger brother said about his motivation. Also can you source he was a pot dealer? I read he was a pot user. Legacypac (talk) 04:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What other countries is the U.S. fighting wars in? Only two that I know of. And the source does not say "in Muslim countries", it says in Iraq and Afghanistan. Religion was mentioned as a possible motivation before the actual (alleged) motivation was indicated. At this point all we can say is "Allegedly U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq". In the article we can source the statement as from anonymous officials to the Washington Post. Apteva (talk) 05:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, the Washington Post article is skeptical that it's political. The article explains that we are essentially done in Iraq and finishing up in Afghanistan. Secondly, the vast majority of sources discuss "radical Islam" as an explanatory factor. We go with sources, not our pet theories or theological views (as many of you have been discussing above). Jason from nyc (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As for Dzhokhar being a pot dealer, here's a source: www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/04/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-dealing-drugs/64529/. It seems he needed money at some point so he sold pot on a small scale to some friends. --Yalens (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In my observation, the media seems to mention both the wars and religious sentiments as motivations. People here are just emphasizing the sourcing of the one of the two they consider more important based on their POV (and this goes for pretty much everyone). Tamerlan's religious sentiments were extensively reported on as causes, whereas Dzhokhar explicitly stated it was the wars that caused it. I think it would be best to mention both, as they both have been reported, not only as a compromise but as the correct way to do it. --Yalens (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

@Legacypac: The government of Afghanistan was secular when the country was a satellite of the USSR. The Taliban – then called mujahideen or "freedom fighters" – were created by the CIA with the help of Pakistani intelligence in order to make trouble for Russia. And the Iraqi government was secular when Iraq was ruled by Sdaam Hussein. This is pretty basic stuff. – Herzen (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously the motivation is an unresolved issue, and for now should be removed. In particular, it is absurd to have a commented out statement "see talk page" as if the statement that was placed there solely by edit warring was decided upon here on the talk page. That comment as well needs to be restored to what it said before (do not add motivation until it is agreed to on the talk page, or words to that effect). Apteva (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What is obvious to me is that there is not consensus support for your view that text--supported by a number of our highest-level RSs--should be deleted, because of your personal belief that of course the RSs must be wrong, because as you state above "Muslims are prevent by their religion from doing any harm".--Epeefleche (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Iraq - 95-97% Muslim. Afghanistan under Taliban - if you don't follow strict Islam they will kill you. Reason for Boston bombing is not connected to Islam but instead is the US wars against secular countries = a totally unsupportable theory. Legacypac (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Afghanistan and Iraq were both secular countries before the U.S. started meddling with them—in Afghanistan, by supporting the (Muslim extremist) mujahideen, in Iraq invading it, thereby destroying the authoritarian secular government and giving rise to sectarianism. Nobody is saying that the present governments of Ąfghanistan and Iraq are secular. – Herzen (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Guys, this is not a forum to discuss your interesting views on Islam, the US, or whatever. Take it to an actual forum. --Yalens (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I note that we are still no closer to deciding what to say about the motivation of the alleged bombers. I would suggest "Allegedly U.S. wars and extremist views". Apteva (talk) 05:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that wording ignores the critical role of radical Islam. There is broad editor consensus and we have a stable motive in the text box. Legacypac (talk) 05:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * An edit war does not constitute "a stable" anything. First, it is an info box and if it is not supported in the text it does not belong there, and as such does not require any references. Second, U.S. wars, is the primary reason given, not anything else, but we have to use the word allegedly because we can not definitively say who even did the bombing. Third, it is clear that it is politics, not religion that is the motivation, hence extremist views, not "Extremist Islamic beliefs", and fourth, "in Muslim countries" is superfluous, because the U.S. is only fighting wars in two countries now. Apteva (talk) 06:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read the sources given (and the lengthy article on the brothers) and any reputable newspaper site for that matter. The second source says he "told federal agents that he and his brother were motivated by extremist Islamic beliefs". How much clearer do we need? Please stop pushing your agenda of distancing these attacks from the suspects religion when the remaining brother clearly cited religion as the reason. Legacypac (talk) 06:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That does not address the above four concerns. We know that the first speculation of a motivation was beliefs, but a more definitive statement, and still speculative, is the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, hence that alleged motive should come first, not second. Until we have legal standing to know who even did the bombings, we can not be definitive about the motive, and must include something like "alleged", but obviously, the correct thing to do until we figure out what wording to use, is to leave it blank for now. Apteva (talk) 07:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, thought I addressed your 4 concerns by suggesting you refer to the RS but here goes: 1.The text supports the infobox. Info box has two sources to help protect against defenders of extremist Islamic beliefs trying to whitewash religion out of a terrorist attack. 2. I disagree with your assessment. 3. this was a religiously motivated attack (ie "Extremist Islamic beliefs") No RS is saying it is a politically motivated attack. 4. If the US was fighting in Japan or Germany or Canada the radical Islamist terrorists would not be blowing up 8 year olds over to defend Islam against US Wars Legacypac (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Quite correct. The article cannot include a description of the "motives" of people who may be, and are legally at the moment, innocent of anything they need motives for. HiLo48 (talk) 12:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's leave terminology like "radical islam" to talk radio. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We are going to report accurately what reliable sources say the suspect said his motivation was after he admitted involvement. How is that speculation? The two sources currently linked are The Washington Post and the New York Times and we could add 100 other RS if you like and they will all have similar wording. If you want a change, please find multiple better RS that says something very different than this article says now. @HiLo48's comment - come back and make your case after an acquittal. Until than there is going to be an article on WP that reports what RS are saying and we already have alleged/suspect all through the article so any reader will know they might be innocent. Legacypac (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As above, this is not talk radio. We can do better than this. Apteva (talk) 04:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't care if the suspect "admitted involvement". That is definitely NOT the same as as being found guilty by a court. Many people throughout history have confessed to crimes they didn't commit, sometimes to protect someone else, sometimes to gain fame, glory and kudos among peers, sometimes for other amazingly diverse reasons. STOP PREJUDGING THIS CASE!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 06:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point. I suggest we delete any supposed motive from the infobox until there has been a trial and we have something that we can actually put there. Yes I know that means waiting a year or two, but WP:There is no deadline. Apteva (talk) 08:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We are going to "report accurately?" How is this infobox at all accurate, when it ascribes to the "beliefs" of one of the world's most widely held religious movements that which a sick mind conceived and executed?  Do we report that Manson was motivated by the Beatles, who therefore should bear responsibility for his acts? McVeigh is not reported to be a Christian, is he? How about in this article, for now, in the "motivation" section we just put "Insane Murderous Delusions"?  Far more accurate.  An encyclopedia should mean less breathless cable-news-style "as it happens" reporting, and more reflection.  Saying in an infobox that these guys were motivated by Islam is entirely different than noting the sourced reporting that at least one of these guys apparently offered his horribly warped view of religion as some sort of justification for his behavior.  Steveozone (talk) 09:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Zone -- you just gave us an example of what inaccurate reporting of what what the RSs say would look like. The ibox in no way reflects what you indicate it states.  The ibox points to extremists.  You conflate it to the entire religion.  That's not appropriate, its not what the ibox says, and its not even appropriate for this talkpage IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * HiLo48 - your comments are not constructive to the improvement of the article. You are pushing an agenda that goes beyond even what the admitted bomber is pushing - trying to tell us he falsely confessed involvement and is falsifying his stated motivation. What will it take for you to accept what the suspect has said? Also I reverted your edit removing the place of marriage. Wikipedia is about verifiable information and you removed an easily verified fact. Please do not remove what you allegedly can't quickly find in the sources you allegedly checked.  As for Apteva's comment - we are not going to refuse to report information just because you don't like it.  Legacypac (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL. You may want to ease back on the personal stuff. I didn't tell you he falsely confessed. (Why do some here feel the need to misrepresent the words of those with whom they disagree?) Speaking of being constructive, it's much more constructive to discuss the words people actually write, rather than something you make up. The place of marriage is NOT mentioned in any of the sources surrounding the place you added it. It also needs to be clarified. Most readers of the article will not be from Massachusetts. There are many Dorchesters in the world. They won't think of the Massachusetts one first. The place of marriage is also surely not very important. HiLo48 (talk) 06:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll let your own words speak for you-they sound far worse than what I wrote anyway. Instead of deleting Verifiable info, just source it like this: "Tsarnaev married Tamerlan at a mosque in the Dorchester neighborhood." man she married in June, 2010 at a mosque in Boston's Dorchester neighborhood. "The Masjid Al Quran, in the Dorchester section of Boston, where Ms. Russell married Tamerlan Tsarnaev". Legacypac (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Who wrote that? (Legacypac has now signed the above post. No apology was forthcoming.) Anyway, who cares where she got married? It's trivia. HiLo48 (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Who cares? This is why we look to what RSs report to see what is notable.  Obviously, the RSs that report that information care.  And just as clearly, they believe that readers care.  By reflecting RSs, we can avoid making deletions to satisfy personal viewpoints.  I think its fine to reflect.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Too many editors get our sourcing requirements arse about. Yes, content must be reliably sourced to be included in an article, but being reliably sourced is never enough to justify inclusion on its own. The media has compulsory column inches and minutes of air time it must fill every day. We don't. We ALWAYS have to decide whether content is justified. We do not include widely reported trivia. HiLo48 (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * HiLo removed verifiable information based on his perception it was not sourced, so I sourced it, so now he says it is not important. The NY Times, Bloomberg and Yahoo News and hundreds of other media outlets included the detail because it helps us understand these people. Someone who writes "I don't care if the suspect "admitted involvement" should not lecture anyone on what is trivia. Legacypac (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Please drop the personal stuff. Right from the start of this part of the discussion I questioned the importance of the place of marriage. And when I wrote "I don't care if the suspect admitted involvement" it was in a particular context where it made an awful lot of sense. It's pointless discussing it outside that context. You also seem to have completely ignored my post immediately above yours discussing why being widely reported does not stop something being trivia. Gossip about Hollywood romances and their babies is widely reported. It doesn't end up here. Finally, this page is for discussing things. Please try doing that, rather than misrepresenting, attacking and (occasionally) ignoring others. HiLo48 (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Chechnya reaction
(Lihaas (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)).
 * This really belongs more with the other manifestations of the "Dzhokhar is innocent!!!!!" (which are also all over the place in the US) conspiracy theories which the page (currently) doesn't talk about.--Yalens (talk) 01:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no talk of a conspiracy theory here. The posters just say there's no evidence for the accusation. They don't accuse anyone else (as far as I see). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What, you haven't seen all the FreeJahar organizations in social media and their mass of conspiracy theory-esque youtube videos? They're pretty well reported on in the media too... As for the version over in the Caucasus... same difference. "Dzhokhar is innocent!!!" tends to ultimately blend in with conspiracy theory-like thought in many cases, of him being framed by someone or whatnot. It's just a bunch of Chechens and other Caucasians who can't fathom why their kin would do something like the bombing (notably, it's actually even worse when you consider the emphasis Caucasus cultures place on hospitality and that Dzhokhar would've been considered a "guest" of the US)... not much unlike the heavily female fanbase in the US who can't fathom why such a normal, nice and rather cute boy would do it... Whatever the case, its certainly not an official "Chechen reaction".--Yalens (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Saudis say I Told You So
Primarily the Daily Mail, copied by New York Post, Times of Israel.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Erxnmedia (talk • contribs) 13:20, 1 May 2013‎ (UTC)


 * This article American Media Institute has recently been created, referencing the DailyMail article above, by David Martosko and American Media Institute. It could use some attention. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Muslim name of Katherine Russell - Karima Tsarnaev
Note this fact: Katherine Russell (also known as Karima Tsarnaev )

A revealing interview: [] Including this gem: "Elizabeth Russell also said that the stories about Tamerlan Tsarnaev being some sort of “Golden Gloves” boxing champ are false. She said he only advanced beyond the first round in a local or regional Golden Gloves qualifying competition, but after winning one round, he lost and that was it. So some of the absurd mainstream media reports–that Tamerlan Tsarnaev became upset after he learned he wouldn’t be able to box for Team USA in the Olympics because he wasn’t yet a U.S. Citizen–are ridiculous. These guys were motivated by Islam and Islam alone, nothing else. (And, anyway, if he had been such a great boxer–he wasn’t–the U.S. would have instantly made him a citizen through a private bill, as it did with Canadian skater Tanith Belbin.)" Legacypac (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dzhokhar_and_Tamerlan_Tsarnaev#Tamerlan.27s_wife_Katherine_Russell_Tsarnaev
 * Unreliable source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * By "Muslim name", do you mean the name someone takes when he/she converts to Islam, like Cassius Clay becoming Muhammad Ali? I was skeptical at first, but a Google search does indeed reveal that "Карима" (Cyrillic rendition of "Karima") is indeed a Muslim woman's name (although it doesn't sound weird in Russian; Karina is a common Russian name). (My impression is that the Tsarnaev brothers spoke Russian with each other, and didn't know Chechen very well.)


 * I find it interesting that Katherine Russell apparently kept her maiden name when she got married. I find that pretty weird, especially considering that she started wearing a hijab. So I'm not sure whether it's worth mentioning her "Muslim name". It's not as if she learned Arabic.


 * On a final note, I read a report that the female DNA found on the pressure cooker remains did not match Russell's. News report that currently come up on Google news don't seem to be mentioning that. It's hard to avoid the impression that there's a witch hunt going on after Russell at the moment. – Herzen (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record, the name "Karima" has nothing to do with "Karina", it is the female equivalent of the Arabic male name Karim. FunkMonk (talk) 22:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Stop trying to solve the crime!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's not our job! Speculation of that sort is both pointless and inappropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe she kept her maidian name as I've seen her referred to with Tsarnaev name, it is just she spent her first 21 years as a Russell, her family who have spoken out are Russell's and seems like a good chance she is reverting to Russell again. Legacypac (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I actually think we should clear this matter up. If Russell dropped her maiden name when she got married, I'm not sure that Wikipedia should refer to her as "Russell", even if the mainstream media do. My hunch is that if Russsell had actually changed her name to "Tsernaev" when she got married, that would be reported by reliable sources, since that is a matter of public record and would say something about her. (The third possibility is that she kept her maiden name but added his last name.)


 * I've noted before that the media's coverage of Russell has been spotty. If they say she was "raised as a Christian" (many sources do), they never say what the denomination of her family is, which shouldn't be that hard to determine.


 * I might as well take this opportunity to mention that on the companion Dzhokhar and Tamerlan article's Talk page, there's a suggestion that his wife's name should be entirely removed, which I found to be utterly bizarre. – Herzen (talk) 05:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless she is charged by the police with a crime, she is a non-notable, non-involved individual, and we have no reason to use her name at all. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Apteva (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh come on, any biographical article about a person is going to mention whether the person was married (and if he/she was, don't you want to know the spouse's name?); also whether that person had any children is going to be mentioned. It is a significant part of Dzhokhar's biography that he had a child, so the identity of the mother immediately comes up. You seem to be assuming that we live in some weird, atomistic kind of society (which we may well be, but that's another matter). – Herzen (talk) 05:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Really non-notable? She married a terrorist - a man who's body no one wants, who most funeral homes refused, who his mosque refused to deal with, and who they are having trouble finding a burial spot for. People picketed the funeral home (never seen that before). She was living in the house where the bombs were built. There is no wikipolicy preventing naming her and she actually needs her own article now. Legacypac (talk) 05:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Which part of WP:BIO does this individual meet? Also, you've never seen anyone picket a funeral home? Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 05:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Having her referenced by name in this article and the one on the brothers seems fine. At this point she shouldn't have her own article though.  I have also never heard her called anything but her maiden name, so that's what we should use.   Hot Stop   02:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Potential notability indicators seen in a Canadian supermarket today - Katherine's name and photo on cover of the National Enquirer (not a RS obviously) and article about her (noted on front cover) of People. Legacypac (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Why is 2011 Waltham murders mentioning and link removed?
On the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks 3 jews was almost behaeded by unknowns in Waltham, near Boston. This was reported in the news some days after the Boston bombings. Because the elder brother was friend with one of the victims.

Why has all mentioning and link to this crime case been removed from the article? Has the police suddenly found another killer or something?

Please reinstate info and link to this crime case as they seems connected. Unlike other connections the press has come up with over the years this one does not seem far-fetched. But is in fact very likely. Bjarnulf, Oslo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.209.88.240 (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree the 3x murders should be linked, but I think that they are properly addressed over in the bio article where they have a subheading. This article is about the bombing and directly related events. Legacypac (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree with Legacy, and with IP insofar as they are in accord.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Dead vs deceased. I give up, but I'd love to know why
Not edit warring over this. I'll surrender to the bad mannered editors doing it. But can anyone explain why it's better to write deceased than dead? I've asked the two editors involved, and they will not/cannot tell me. No-one has written a decent Edit summary explaining it. I'm really curious. Why the obsession with this change? (And why the poor manners and incompetence surrounding it?) HiLo48 (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In exactly the same way I use 'purchase' instead of 'buy'. They have the same difference:). Joke aside, I just think that deceased may actually be more polite and becoming of an encyclopedia, because it just sounds more impressive and also a tad more formal, imho. Lectonar (talk) 09:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:EUPHEMISM in our Manual of Style says "Do not assume that plain language is inappropriate". Dead is plain language. I didn't see a problem with it. Maybe some do. I appreciate your thoughts, but we still don't know what those who made the change were thinking. HiLo48 (talk) 10:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The thing is that deceased is also plain language, though it arguably does have a more formal tone. My76Strat (talk) 10:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no stake in this, but it looked like a situation where an uninvolved opinion could be useful. In my opinion, deceased does not unnecessarily soften the meaning of the word the way passed away or a similar, more blatant euphemism would. WP:EUPHEMISM states in the lede, "The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly" (bold in original). Since this seems like a case where the synonym is quite equivalent, and more than one editor has replaced "dead" with "deceased", the editorial consensus of the group should be allowed to stand. VQuakr (talk) 10:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Deceased" is like "decession" and from the Latin "decedere" (which basically means "leave" or "depart", literally "go down".) This is euphemistically(?) the same as "passed away", in implying the dead person (in spirit) went somewhere else. Not into Latin myself, but this source explicitly says "decessus" is a euphemism for "mors". InedibleHulk (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, not planning to change it again. It can stay the way it is. The problem was with the approach of those changing it - no meaningful Edit summaries (in fact quite illogical ones), so no explanation, and no responses to questions on talk pages. It was kinda weird. HiLo48 (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I check dictionaries - dead is defined plainly as deceased and deceased is defined as dead. Neither is a euphemism. I believe deceased is a more formal legal term and it sounds better in this case. Our own WP Death article says " As a polite reference to a dead person, it has become common practice to use the participle form of "decease", as in the deceased;" The infobox said deceased for a long time before someone tried to change it citing (incorrectly in my view) WP:EUPHEMISM. Legacypac (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Personal opinion: if we are talking about specific, named people that have died (as here), "deceased" sounds more appropriate. When we are talking larger numbers where most are "nameless" (obviously, they all have names but they're all unlikely to be widely reported by media, eg for example, that recent building collapse that left hundreds dead), "dead" seems more correct. --M ASEM (t) 13:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Because this is essentially a personal opinion question (actually a MoS question but apparently our MoS is silent on this point) I prefer "dead" when it's in the active tense in a sentence (e.g. "X was found dead"; "X died...") and deceased when it's in an indefinite or inactive tense (if I'm misusing the grammar terms forgive me) (e.g. "X (deceased)"). Plain language approaches have a lot of advantages, the lack of additional implications is one of them. I think most of us agree "passed away" would be entirely inappropriate. I don't know exactly which diffs you're referring to HiLo... both terms are used in the article as it is now. Shadowjams (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Good explanation Shadowjams. You might say 3 people died (not deceased) in the blast. Sean Collier was shot dead in cold blood, so he is now deceased. X is in custody/captured, Y is deceased, and Z is in hospital. It is just a better word choice. Legacypac (talk) 07:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Manual of Style says writing should be concise. "Dead" is half the length of "deceased", and no meaning is lost. The MoS doesn't mention being polite (nor do I find the word impolite). If I was writing, I'd use dead. Also since we use "deaths" instead of "decessions". More consistent. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Your edit summary strains the bounds of good faith. Nothing in your comment here constitutes evidence that deceased is a euphemism. It seems that you have synthesized a conclusion not implied in the source linked above. You can argue for concision though such a rigid application as indicated by counting characters is a foregone recipe for disaster. Legacypac used "polite" in a faithfully rendered quote, not suggesting it as our endeavor. Here we have said "formal". If concision is your goal, remove the parenthetical completely as superfluous. So in fact, deceased is not a euphemism; using dead is your style preference, and you infer that your preference supersedes the collective preference of others. I admire your arrogance. My76Strat (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not this comment, my one above, with the blue link. It's a euphemism, like "passed away", because it suggests the person is still living, just gone (to Heaven or wherever). I don't like being called arrogant, but at least it's admirable. Thanks for sugarcoating that! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have stricken that part of my comment and amended it to suggest a synthesis has occurred. A words etymology does not follow that a words origin is an enduring part of its definition. What it began as does not impart meaning for what it is (or has become). I didn't call you arrogant as that would suggest the sum of your parts. I suggested that I admire the quality that motivates you to bold action, and I don't suggest that you change a thing in the sum of who you are. My76Strat (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks. You neither. Anyway, the parts of the root suggesting leaving are still fundamentally right there in the modern word. It's why we call former position-holders "predecessors". They left. After all these years and languages, we still have separate words for "decessus" and "mors". That's because they still serve separate purposes. One is to describe people who have no pulse or brain activity. The other is to describe people who also don't, in a comforting way that suggests they've "gone to a better place" (or a farm, if they're a dog). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * By that standard, deceased is actually more neutral than dead. While deceased suggest that the person has departed to the next stage, whatever that stage might be which includes nothingness, dead implies that the stage after life is nothingness, with nothing else possible. We don't teach, we present the facts and leave it for the reader to decide. Must we insist that nothing exist after life? Or is it more neutral to say someone is there, whatever it may be? I prefer the latter which is why I prefer using deceased. My76Strat (talk) 02:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. "Dead" refers to the person, not the person's consciousness (or whatever one calls it). A person (as I see it) is a combination of soul, physical form and social identity. Needs all three. Whether the consciousness goes into the cosmos, into a baby beetle or is simply obliviated, the person is dead. The identity and form also undergo changes (no more taxes, and liquefication), but we don't overtly hint at those either with "dead". We leave open all the after-death possibilities, and preclude none (except perhaps zombie theories). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * With a tip of my hat, I'll credit yours as a strong argument; made well. I still believe that either is fine while preferring deceased. I hope you'll pardon that I tested your character. I like to know some things about who I'm talking with, especially when discussing a topic like this. Best regards. My76Strat (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries. I'd rather have my character tested than my patience, and you've been a refreshingly civil "adversary". If you become notable and dead while I'm still on Wikipedia, I'll make it a point to note you as "deceased". InedibleHulk (talk) 11:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * IMO "deceased" is more appropriate IMO from both a legalistic and journalistic standpoint.  "Dead" comes across as just...crude.  We're writing an encyclopedia here, not a study guide for 10 yr olds. Tarc (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedia is not a newspaper or legal guide. The MoS says plain English works best. I'll leave your edit on the suspect, since there's something like a legal aspect to it, but not for the dead student. She's dead, in plain English. We don't know where her soul is gone, so we shouldn't use a word that has the "departed" connotations. The journalistic source also doesn't use "deceased". It says she "died" and "was killed". "Dead" sums that up. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking this over, my feeling is that the infobox might best be "dead" but could go either way, "pronounced dead" is clearly right, but deceased is somewhat preferable for "established a scholarship in honor of the dead student Lü Lingzi". Deceased does indeed refer to the departed, but this is not solely euphemism.  The scholarship commemorates the loss of a student from the university, not the actual corpse in the coffin, and so deceased is a preferable usage.  Deceased would be even more preferable in a probate sense, where property is reassigned due to the loss of the original ownership. Wnt (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Like I said at the MoS discussion (for those only here), memorials are for preserving the memory of the person, not the loss or absence of the person. No need to remember that, it's ongoing and current. But yeah, where legalities like wills are concerned, "deceased" has its own specifically codified definition. For general, plain English use, "dead" is the better word. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Those interested should know that we are having a similar discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch, spurred on by the discussion above. Flyer22 (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Killed
I've been trying to follow this discussion, but would anyone object to using the world killed? Maybe it's because of my background in journalism, but "killed" seems more appropriate because it suggests death as a result of a violent encounter.  Hot Stop   01:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems the best word for the job to me. As a verb, like "3 people were killed on Thursday" or "the bomb killed so-and-so". But not as an adjective, like "The killed were buried on Sunday". "Dead" still works best there. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Japanese government condolences over Boston bombing
As a note, I found that the Japanese government has condolence messages I'm not sure where it would be useful, but just in case I am mentioning them here. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Japanese: http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/press/release/press6_000117.html - http://www.webcitation.org/6GQkmVndN
 * English: http://www.nashville.us.emb-japan.go.jp/pdf/Message%20of%20Condolence%20from%20FM%20KISHIDA.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6GQkhqLiG
 * (alternate location of English document): http://www.nashville.us.emb-japan.go.jp/pdf/Message%20of%20Condolence%20from%20PM%20ABE.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6GQkjmLGa


 * I don't see how the reactions of any governments other than Russia and Chechnya are of any interest. (China might deserve a mention since one of its citizens got killed.) The whole "International" "Reactions" section should be pared down. – Herzen (talk) 07:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * There's absolutely nothing surprising there. Adds nothing to the article. It might as well be removed. HiLo48 (talk) 08:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree the fact that the event gained international attention is notable in regards to the event and belongs in the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * True. So we delete everything after the first sentence. HiLo48 (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

2013 Boston Marathon finish line explosion.png
file:2013 Boston Marathon finish line explosion.png is under NFCR -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 08:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Boston Strong
Why does "Boston Strong" redirect here when the word "strong" does not even appear anywhere in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.213.95.2 (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there another place you'd like it to redirect to?   Hot Stop   01:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it should be a part of the article the term has seen widespread usage since the event took place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Dzhokhar drove over Tamerlan
There is some dispute about this fact, which I find somewhat extraordinary and would like to hear more about. The first citation says "Kitzenberg does not confirm reports that Dzhokhar ran over his brother while escaping." I found another source that does quote the police chief of Watertown saying this, so I'll add it to the article. There is an eyewitness account that claims it was acutally a police SUV, but this has mostly been reported on by conspiracy theory sites; I haven't found a reliable source for it. Fnordware (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The eyewitness account of the arresting officers stated that younger brother drove over older brother. There's no dispute about the fact at all, except perhaps on a few rediculous fringe sites. Jehochman Talk 22:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * According to this archived article the coroner Dr. Richard Wolfe said, “I certainly did not see any tire marks or the usual things we see with someone run over by a car.”  and "the man was suffering from gun, shrapnel and blast wounds but the 26-year-old bombing suspect did not appear to have been run over." Boston Herald   USchick (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That was reporting at the time of the incident, which as we have seen, included a lot of inaccuracies. Upon full investigation it was determined that he was run over.  It says so in the coroner's report.  There is not doubt here at all. Jehochman Talk 23:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not a coroner's report, it's a death certificate read by a funeral director. But yeah, the cause of death should be the same in both. Shenanigans are always possible, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The coroner's report says bullet wounds and blunt trauma. What part of the coroner's quote is not clear to you? “I certainly did not see any tire marks or the usual things we see with someone run over by a car.” USchick (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Link? I think you are misunderstanding things very seriously.  Jehochman Talk 22:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Re Fnordware's comment, "There is an eyewitness account that claims it was acutally a police SUV..." — The woman who called into the radio talk show said she saw the police SUV hit a man, but didn't say he was run over. I think the difference is that a person who is hit by a car does not necessarily go under the car, whereas a person who is run over goes under the car. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Not a reliable source. One witness of a chaotic scene, at night, in the dark, while she was under extreme stress and fear from the barrage of gunfire, whose comments are reported in an non-reliable source, means nothing.  All reliable secondary sources report that Tamerlin was run over, and dragged, as Djokhar attempted to escape in the carjacked SUV.  The objections are pure nonsense and conspiracy theories.  Jehochman Talk 22:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, both accounts are compatible. The woman could have seen the police SUV hit Tamerlan and the police shooting him, and then Djokhar could have driven over him during his escape. Also note that Djokhar running over Tamerlan does not necessarily mean the tires ran over him. Tamerlan could have been caught under the car away from the tires and dragged. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is yet another discrepancy among many, I wish they would get their story straight. USchick (talk) 03:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The story and timeline are straight. Go to http://boston.com and read up on it.  The Boston Globe has extensive coverage.  All facts are clear.  In the fog of battle eye witnesses and reporters make lots of errors.  Once all that is distilled after a few days, the sequence of events becomes clear.  Jehochman Talk 04:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the tires might not have gone over the decedent. Accounts say the car went over him and he was dragged.   Accounts also say that a police officer put his vehical into neutral and rolled it downhill toward the perps to draw their fire. See this story. Jehochman Talk 04:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The link in Jehochman's message, denoted this story is more detailed than the other eyewitness account from the anonymous caller to the radio talk show. In Jehochman's link the witness is identified by name and address. Also in Jehochman's link there is mention of a driverless police SUV heading towards the suspects, which is somewhat consistent with the anonymous caller's account. I would suggest not using the anonymous caller's account since it probably doesn't add anything to the account in Jehochman's link but leaves open the opportunity to speculate because of its lack of detail. Also, I think the inappropriateness of using the anonymous source's account would be more clear if one considers prefacing the material with "according to an anonymous caller to a radio talk show". --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This explanation makes the most sense to me, that the car literally ran over him, which does not include getting squashed by the tires. At least it reconciles the police and coroner's stories. Although in this article the police chief does say that the running over was what killed him. Perhaps the chief was confused as well? Still seems extraordinary to me that the younger brother would drive over his older brother at all. Fnordware (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The UTC precedent
This is the first article where I've noticed a parenthetical extenuate the UTC time. I'm curious if this is a precedent for a trend? For me, it comes across odd, and I would rather not see it become standard. I would just as soon see it removed from this article. If not removed, it should be used with consistency as in all style options. IMO My76Strat (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe someone added that because the whole AM/PM thing is very confusing to some Europeans. Since Wikipedia is an international, not a specifically American, encyclopedia, I personally would prefer that all times were given in the 24-hour style.
 * I don't think the inclusion of UTC times is distracting, so I don't see why they should be removed. And there's no point in adding UTC times consistently, since once one UTC time has been given, people can easily figure out the UTC equivalent of other events described that occurred at about the same time. – Herzen (talk) 03:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia reports local articles in local time. I advocate sticking to US time, in 24-hour format, throughout the article. Police reports are filed using 24-hour times, and our esteemed media frequently gets the translation back to 12-hour time format wrong. Since this is an article about a crime, I think that's reason enough to stick to only 24-hour format, and leave out translation to other time zones, including UTC. We don't see articles about crimes in Europe bothering to translate to EST or PST or (gack) DST. --Lexein (talk) 04:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I second your proposal (although UTC is not just one "other time zone" :-) ). – Herzen (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It is customary to include the corresponding UTC if the time of the event is known. And because the 12-hour clock is more widely used than the 24-hour clock in the US, I would stick to using the 12-hour clock on all US-related articles, including this one. See WP:TIMEZONE and WP:MOSTIME. (For those who don't know, UTC is always written using the 24-hour clock.) Randor1980 (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You're wrong: articles about crime in Europe do not include UTC where local times are mentioned, as a matter of course. Please don't confuse the matter. 12/24 is a matter of taste. In fact, all times should be templatized so that people can elect to read them as local or UTC, or 12/24, based on their WP preferences. The addition of UTC is ridiculous. Specification of the local time zone (and format) is entirely sufficient. --Lexein (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not wrong that WP:TIMEZONE encourages showing both local time and UTC time. I agree that adding UTC is both verbose and not common practice, but there it is, right in the MOS. Maybe the discussion should be moved there. Regards,  Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

What time it was in France (or anywhere else) is pretty irrelevant to the story, as it did not have concurrent international effects. What time it was in Boston is obviously relevant, as some of the story involves lockdowns during working hours, rush hours, day/night schedules etc that add context to the story. However, most importantly the times are used as index markers of how far certain events are from each other, and for that purpose which timezone is used is irrelevant (but imo local time should be used per my previous argument). Although 12 hour time is more common in the US, I do think 24 hour time can make things less ambiguous, and doesn't really cause any interruption in reading. Including local time and UTC etc makes things difficult to read by really breaking up the flow of the text, especially in an article where so many times are used. Is there some template we can use that will automatically translate or optionally show UTC time for those that desire it? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Odd comment. The Boston Marathon is a major international event. Folks here in Australia wait to hear from friends they know who are competing. This year they heard on the news that a disaster had occurred. This was an obvious concurrent international effect. Time in other places was certainly not irrelevant to people whose friends may have been in danger.

Copyright infringement check
Please review this information and help to determine whether or not it violates copyright policy. Thanks. USchick (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Homeland security
The United States House Committee on Homeland Security called for hearings to examine Boston marathon bombings and their impact on national security.

Department of Homeland Security ordered a new procedure for U.S. Customs and Border Protection to immediately begin verifying that every international student who arrives in the U.S. has a valid student visa.


 * You were reverted because you copied it almost verbatim into the article. The information can be added if rewritten into our own words. Also, I doubt a new section is needed. Can it be integrated into an existing section? Fletcher (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

New titles for sections in "Suspects"
I thought these titles would better reflect the contents of the sections of this part of the article. I also changed the sequence of some paragraphs which I believe gives a clearer structure for the section and makes it more suitable for some foreseeable further additions. Laura Weintraub (talk) 06:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks ok to me... good job Laura. I wonder if the Other arrests and detentions section needs some restructuring where we describe the three friends. Does it make sense to quote the charges against them before the paragraph describing what they are alleged to have done? Fletcher (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I guess it would be more logical that way. :) Needs quite a lot of rewording though. Laura Weintraub (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Missing content
This article is missing critical framework by not mentioning, perhaps in the lead, that this attack was a target of opportunity against a planned 4th of July attack. It would be great if others agree, and perhaps help in telling this encyclopedic aspect of the story. My76Strat (talk) 04:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised the article doesn't mention the alleged initial plan for a July 4 attack; that should certainly be included. I don't think it belongs in the lede though; it's just information on how the attack was apparently supposed to play out initially, not how it did actually occur. But definitely belongs in the body somewhere. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 04:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A tricky BLP area. Nobody has been found guilty of this crime yet. The police version of events has not been tested in court. Your proposal would be part of the latter. It would have to be written with a lot of qualifications. HiLo48 (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you are right about that. But it does lay a valid framework, and it ensures an awareness of an issue that must be pursued until its answer is known. My76Strat (talk) 05:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The July 4th part should be discussed. It's been widely reported. I don't see any BLP concerns with that at all. Shadowjams (talk) 05:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The person currently charged with the crime is innocent until proven guilty. Any discussion of his alleged 4th of July plan cannot be based on any assumption of guilt. How would you word it? HiLo48 (talk) 05:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble understanding what would be included in this article if we accepted your interpretation of BLPCRIME; it would be a bare description of the carnage of the bombing, with no reference to the suspects. A guilty verdict is not the BLPCRIME lynchpin. For example, the dead brother will never be found guilty because criminal convictions cannot attach after death. That's a legal technicality, but it underlines why your interpretation of BLPCRIME is technical and absurd. It also has the benefit of not being what the guideline actually says. Shadowjams (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's just silly. We can say an awful lot. Most of what is in the article now is fine. All the allegations against the suspect that are directly related to the case are there, are well sourced, and written in appropriate language, not as facts, but as allegations of what it is claimed he did. To start writing about what he didn't do but may have thought about doing, with less evidence (for no other reason than it didn't happen), is becoming tangential and speculative. If, as reported, he is now planning to plead not guilty, claims of what he may have said to police are becoming problematic too. He may have said such words, but now may not stand by them. As for the dead brother, it's actually a lot easier. He's dead. He can't sue us. We can say more or less what we like, so long as it is properly sourced and objectively and well written. HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This doesn't seem too hard, really; "the suspected bombers had allegedly planned to detonate bombs on July 4, but  moved the date up because ", edited to fit reasonably. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 05:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, perhaps near the content where the younger Tsarnaev is alleged to have said they were prepared to travel to New York on the whim of an opportunity target. My76Strat (talk) 05:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * HiLo has some apparently unreal interpretation of our BLP criteria. I'd suggest you go edit the Kenneth Lay article, because legally he was never a criminal (it only attaches at sentencing). Our BLPCrime criteria is meant for things that aren't covered by every major news organization in the english speaking world. This subject has, and your selective faith in American governance, and a selective reading of the BLPCRIME guideline is novel at best. Shadowjams (talk) 07:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you think you could have discussed my words without turning it into a discussion about me? Grow up. (Oh, and who's Kenneth Lay? Don't bother telling me. I don't actually care. Like most of your post it won't add anything to this discussion.) HiLo48 (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of BLPCrime is consistently extreme, which is what I'm pointing out. That's all. Shadowjams (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Many times in my life I have taken extreme or minority positions, and been right. Don't ever let anyone tell you that the majority is always right. HiLo48 (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I added |added a sentence about Dzokhar reportedly telling the investigators about their plans for July 4th. Laura Weintraub (talk) 09:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Perfect. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 13:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Map of April 18-19
There is a hidden remark in the article about an older map that should be updated but it was easier to make a new one. However, that one may be better if updated.

"Map hidden pending its updating to reflect the actual, correct locations of where things happened. Hijacking of SUV did not happen in East Cambridge."

Laura Weintraub (talk) 08:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

"Target of opportunity"
My76Strat, thanks for all of your mindful copy editing. That makes everything better. :)

I am not perfectly sure though that the phrase "target of opportunity" is the best one to |describe describe the Tsarnaevs' choosing the Boston Marathon as their target. The fact that they previously planned something else, does not mean that they did not plan or anticipate this one.

Certainly, the source cited at that point does not state that. On the contrary, it describes their |"driving around the Boston area looking for (…) sites". For that reason, I put the citation a little earlier in the sentence where it does not look as if the NYT had suggested the "target of opportunity" interpretation.

I think a slight change would solve the problem. How about this?

"When they finished building the explosives sooner than anticipated, they accelerated their plans, choosing the Boston Marathon as their target."

Laura Weintraub (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern, and you may be correct. The labeling of this target as a "target of opportunity" is not my interpretation however, but one that is reflected in reliable sources. I will add a couple sources to facilitate verification of this and leave it for our collaborative efforts to remove or modify based on collective best interests. Thank you for the kind manner reflected in raising your concern. My76Strat (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple sources. Incidentally, there is a talk page RFC at Talk:Target of opportunity where consensus seems to agree that the article needs to be expanded in scope to include the many non-military applications of this term. I expect to ensure that article is broadened in scope; soon. My76Strat (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for that. Still, the term has the implication of "happening accidentally, without planning", which is not the case here. Therefore it seems to be a slight misinterpretation of the facts. Moreover, it's unclear whose interpretation it is: the reporter's/editor's, the official's or perhaps Tsarnaev's. So I would rather not use it here - but leave it for you or others to decide. :) Laura Weintraub (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * By definition a target of opportunity can be either unplanned, or unanticipated. In this case the target would have been unanticipated as they expected their efforts to fashion the explosives to take longer than it did. When circumstances change that allow for a target that was previously unanticipated, the defining criteria is met. Your concern is valid, and we are charged to avoid making statements in Wikipedia's voice that state a thing is one thing or another; especially when contention is raised. Because this is proper, I will copy edit the prose to include attribution of who says this is such a target, leaving Wikipedia's voice neutral on the matter. If there is a source that disputes this label it would be proper to qualify the attributed claim by reflecting the existence of counter intuitive claims in a proportionally equivalent manner. If a consensus emerges that another approach is better, we'll go with that; or perhaps you have additional thoughts? My76Strat (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So I've done these things and copy edited the whole paragraph. Some of the paraphrasing was too close to the source so I want to be mindful of that. My76Strat (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments vs. facts
Harel, the comment and analysis of Ray McGovern is simply not for this article - by definition it is a comment and not a descriptive summary of the facts. Therefore I hid that part. There may be other articles in WP about jihadist terrorism in general - and if that has a part summarizing expert's views on the background and reasons of it, this paragraph could be added to that.

As for the wording of what Dzhokhar's note said, the difference is between the video where Miller summarizes it in his own voice and the somewhat edited transcript of this, both on the same page of CBS News. I changed the wording for the former, as you suggested, but hid the ref to the secondary source. Laura Weintraub (talk) 06:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight?
Jason, I don't think a short paragraph about the disbelief of friends and the social media pages supporting the younger bomber is WP:UNDUE. It is not even the representation of a minority view, rather a brief summing up of a concomitant phenomenon and as such it is "treating this aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject" in the section about "Reactions". Therefore I put it back. Please give a bit more detailed reasoning for deleting it if you are still not convinced. :) Laura Weintraub (talk) 06:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We already have a paragraph suggesting that the younger brother had a far limited history and subordinate role (if convicted):"According to The Los Angeles Times, a law enforcement official said Dzhokhar 'did not seem as bothered about America's role in the Muslim world' as his brother Tamerlan had been.[63] Dzhokhar identified Tamerlan as the 'driving force' behind the bombings, and said that his brother had only recently recruited him to help."We also have extensive discussion of Tamerlan's radicalization over the years. But more importantly we have a separate article on the brothers. If we put everything everyone said about the brothers in this article we would duplicate the effort. Don't you think the subjective impressions of friends and strangers should go in the bio article if anywhere? Jason from nyc (talk) 10:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This is an encyclopedia, not a blog. What this kid's friends thought and how many girls think he's cute is quite irrelevant to a serious treatment of the subject matter, and is not a serious or legitimate point of view. Tarc (talk) 12:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * In my view this is not about Dzhokhar but about the public. If there is a section on reactions, this type of reaction should also be listed (as one that was significant or relevant enough to reach major news media, our primary source here). On the other hand, I agree that it should by no means be excessive, just a brief summary, and the rest of it may be detailed in the article about the brothers.


 * Btw, I would drastically shorten the background part in the same style: just a brief lead-like summary here, the rest of it in the other article. This should be done vice versa as well: e. g. the article about the brothers has a parallel description of the events of April 18-19 which should be redirected here. (By now it would be quite a task though.) Laura Weintraub (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a reaction to the accused and that's best covered in the bio article. The vast majority of info in the bio article has relevance to this article but we have only a brief summary in our "background" section. There was considerable debate about the extent to which we were expounding upon those who were merely accused. Almost the whole "bio" article is people's opinion of the accused (officials and reporters) presumably based on solid research. Yet, we leave out most of it. To add casual impressions, that quite frankly are not even unique in crime cases, adds a "human interest" dimension to the accused that just doesn't strike me as significant as much of the material that we relegated to the "bio" article. We have an excellent paragraph that deals with the relative role of the two brothers. Even that's speculative and self-serving. We've had battles that kept out significant coverage of the public's reaction to the victims. Dzhokhar popularity in a segment of the public? I can't see it having relevance. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's get rid of it. FallingGravity (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

MOS:BOLDTITLE

 * Revisited

The article states by internal comment, "Per MOS:BOLDTITLE and WP:SBE, neither the article's title nor related text appears in bold." I fail to see where the guideline supports this title not being in bold text! It states, "If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence". I certainly feel it is widely accepted that this event is known as the Boston Marathon bombings, and it can be easily accommodated in the opening sentence. In fact I find the current lead has an unnatural opening for not starting with the title, in bold text, as the article's subject. What am I missing here? My76Strat (talk) 07:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would dispute that it's a widely accepted "name"; it's a description of the event that many sources are using, but certainly not all. From a quick Google search, we can see "Boston Marathon bombings" appears in about 461 million results currently, but "Boston Marathon bombing" appears in 1.4 billion results. (So the singular actually appears to be more common.) There are plenty of outlets using terminology like "attack on the Boston Marathon", "bombing of the Boston Marathon", or similar. Why? Because there is no widely accepted name, thus they are doing the same as us...using a generic description, and often using different descriptors even within the same publication. I think the "2011 Mississippi River floods" example from MOS:BOLDTITLE is a good one here; our wording would have to be something like "The Boston Marathon bombings occurred when two bombs exploded during the Boston Marathon." (Since we need to be able to separate out "Boston Marathon" at the very least to separately wikilink it...and if we didn't, we'd end up being excessively vague.) That creates a completely unnecessary redundancy...which is much more unnatural than the current format, and only adds unhelpful clutter for the reader. ("Boston Marathon bombings" is already the title of course, and it appears at the top of the infobox.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 13:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * At times, titles do move, and with them, their bold attributes. My76Strat (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Additionally, while MOS:BOLDTITLE does suggest introducing the bold title in the first sentence, sooner being better, there is no requirement to state and wikilink the race's title in such a proximity that it be so awkwardly redundant. The article is not about the Boston Marathon but rather the bombings, and you can certainly fashion prose that introduces this subject in boldface and flows to the event without the slightest redundancy. My76Strat (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But it removes useful wikilinked information to do so, and more importantly, that the attack occurred during the marathon. (The timing becomes vague if that's removed.) Additionally, the information about there being two bombs has to go into the second sentence (or we have a redundancy there as well.) But we still need to note the "during" part somewhere. The obvious place for both is unbolded, in the first sentence. Do you have a suggestion of how you would fit in those elements and bold the title, without it becoming awkward or making the reader process multiple sentences to get the basic facts? – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 15:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It had a bolded title at one point, I'm not sure when it switched back. It needs to follow the WP:MOS and the bolded lead is a standard part of that. The times that doesn't happen is usually list articles or compound words. None of those apply here. Your specific objections in thise case 2001 aren't unique to this article, but others manage to follow the Manual of Style. At some point it needs to conform. Shadowjams (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't need to conform to MOS. While most articles can be styled to follow the MOS (which is a guideline, not an absolute rule), every article is presented differently and does not need to specifically follow the bold title standard. If including a bold title in the first sentence causes redundant and awkward wording, then we don't follow that guideline. In this case, including the phrase "Boston Marathon bombings" causes redundancy and awkward wording in the lede, as the topic of the article is already implied in the rest of the sentence, so no bold title is necessary. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There is nothing about following the guideline that requires the awkward redundancy as you suggest. I was asked to provide an example, and I'll gladly suggest prose akin to: The first explosion of the Boston Marathon bombings occurred on April 15, 2013, at 2:49 p.m. EDT (18:49 UTC), 13 seconds later, the second explosion was visible approximately 210 yd due east on Boylston Street. The bombs wreaked havoc on the Boston Marathon, killing 3 spectators and injuring another 282 people along the home stretch of the race.  This merely shifts the emphasis to this articles subject, without any disconnect from the race itself, and no awkward redundancy. My76Strat (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Compared to the current lead, that's rather long and convoluted. What was the attack? How many bombs were there? (Is the article even about a bombing event, or about the explosions that occurred?) You can add that by making it even more longer, but again, the wording to tell us when the event happened is gone. The description of what the attack was (two bombs exploding) is split into two parts and less descriptive. Your suggestion does not tell the reader whether the attack happened during the marathon, or if it was a related attack that affected the marathon, or if there were additional explosions. There is no need to try to wedge in so much clutter simply to bold a title. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 20:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't believe such a simple point is considered debatable here, but I guess given the trajectory of this article it's inevitable. "No, it doesn't need to conform to MOS. While most articles can be styled to follow the MOS (which is a guideline, not an absolute rule), every article is presented differently and does not need to specifically follow the bold title standard." That is one of the most ballsy declarations I've heard in a long time. You've articulated zero reason why this article is any different than any number of other tragedies. I think this is a case of unfamiliarity mixed with IDONTLIKEIT. Sorry, that won't fly. Shadowjams (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Not having a bold title does conform to the MOS, as MOS:BOLDTITLE explicitly says should be the case when a bolded title does not comfortably fit. The awkward bolded title would be the option that doesn't conform. As for your assertion that it did have a bolded title at one point, yes, it did: something like "The Boston Marathon bombings occurred when two bombs exploded at the Boston Marathon." Which is precisely what MOS:BOLDTITLE tells us not to do. I think M0rphzone meant we don't have to comply to the default position of bolding a title...which is precisely why the MOS gives us exceptions and alternatives. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 20:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This article, as it currently stands, doesn't have a bold title and it's so much better for it. Forcing a "common name" which doesn't exist to be the bold part of the lead sentence is so artificial.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Mentioning the proper name of the race first makes the bombings seem like an afterthought, shrouding the subject of this article in an effort to make this event an exception to the outlined best practice. I merely gave an example for consideration and it can easily accommodate the points said to be missing with an addition of two or three words; perhaps using even fewer words in total. There's no deadline however, but I don't see this article exceeding a B class rating as long as the guideline is dismissed with such nonchalance. My76Strat (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid trying to equate article quality with a "bold intro" is a waste of time. There's no need for any bold in the lead here, it's better to use the opportunity to link out to other articles and stay within the remit of MOS.  There's no "nonchalance", just a practical approach, and it has no impact at all on article quality assessments, so suggesting otherwise is a total red herring.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Why should you be "practical" when stating your belief that the article is better but my disagreement be characterized as a "red herring"? I disagree with you, I'm not intimidated at all, and I've made no attempt to change the article to conform to my belief. Cheers, My76Strat (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The thing is, I don't think you've provided a viable example of how we can have a bold title and still have a useful, informative opening sentence; see my comments on your suggestion above. I'd be the first person to say "hey, use that!" if we could fit the title in boldface. I do not believe it is possible (and did give it a little thought myself.) I have to agree with The Rambling Man; there is no article-quality issue, there is no nonchalant dismissal. If you have a better suggestion that conveys all the information the current opening does, without being significantly less readable and informative...please do present it! The real question here is: does this improve Wikipedia? Having every title in bold does not improve Wikipedia, since many titles make no sense in bold, thus the MOS:BOLDTITLE exceptions, as in this case. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 00:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I was more reactive to Rambling Man's edit summary than the content of his edit. Of course I likely misinterpreted it as well. I believe I could fashion prose to accomplish what you suggest, but I've already worn my welcome thin here, and best leave room for others to comment. Thank you nevertheless. My76Strat (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It had a very good lead once before that conformed to the MoS. I know this is a recent topic, which is why I'm in no huge hurry to fix the lead, but the assertion that this article is somehow unique in a way that it either can't be written, or shouldn't be written, in a way like almost every other article is, is absurd. I'm all the more baffled because I don't understand the motivation behind it. Shadowjams (talk) 09:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

What of the internal comment
In starting this thread, my concern was primarily that I disagree with placing an internal comment that makes it seem sanctioned in policy; and not allowed. I'd like to see it removed, and simply allow normal collegial editing interactions upon existing guidelines alone; and know that this is sufficient. My76Strat (talk) 04:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll just reiterate my previous comments. This article is not unique to make it an exception to the standard practice of bolding the title, as our Manual of Style requires. I don't see any compelling reason it shouldn't (aside from some editors preferring their specific wording) and it's ridiculous that a high-profile article like this doesn't follow the most basic of MOS guidelines. Shadowjams (talk) 04:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * MOS:BOLDTITLE covers the situation here, per my comments above. The point of the hidden comment is simply to direct editors to the applicable policy; it does not disallow any editing itself. Mainly, it's to make editors who incorrectly think "all titles should be bolded, no matter what!" read the applicable policy, particularly the more-casual editors who don't read talk pages as much. It was added since several such editors did bold the title, without participating in the discussion here, or apparently even reading it. The comment simply makes editors aware of MOS styling that applies to this article's intro. I do not see how this stops any sort of collegial interaction; it simply tells editors to read the applicable MOS guidelines for titles, and points to an essay explaining it further. I don't feel the need to again describe why this title shouldn't be bolded, due to previous comments; the MOS spells it out clearly. If you believe the title should be awkwardly bolded to conform to some nonexistent standard, I would suggest an RFC on that issue. The MOS certainly does not specify a "standard practice" or "guideline" of arbitrarily bolding everything; it specifies that some titles are bolded, and some are not. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 04:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with the spirit of your answer. I would simply argue that in such a case it seems more neutral to simply state "ensure that you have considered MOS:BOLDTITLE before changing this article's lead sentence". Then I would agree that this is what you are saying. The current wording is more suggestive of "this is how it is going to be", in my opinion. My76Strat (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I would recommend that you edit the hidden comment if you feel it's overbearing in its suggestion. However, I do feel there has been consensus in this and similar articles as far as (not) applying MOS:BOLDTITLE, sufficiently enough that the current hidden comment make sense. But again, if you feel like it's too much, you can certainly pare it down to point to this section and sound like more of a suggestion rather than an order to editors. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 05:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I edited it, removed the comment, and changed almost nothing of substance. Take a look at it. It reads like an encyclopedia article, nothing else has changed. If you object, bring it here please. But this is, imho, a stupid waste of time distraction. Shadowjams (talk) 07:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "The 2013 Boston Marathon bombings were a series of bombings that occured during the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013." This is the exact type of redundancy that MOS:BOLDTITLE says to avoid in the "Mississippi River floods" example. "2013" is redundant (though could be removed, so that's not so important.) "Boston Marathon" is redundant. "Bombings" is redundant. None of the extra text adds anything to the understanding of the article, it just replicates what already displays in the titlebar of the reader's browser, with extra words to cram it in. I am not sure why you think this is an exception to standard practice, or why you say the MOS "requires" it; the MOS clearly notes that sometimes bold titles are used, and sometimes they are not. I am reverting this so that we are compliant with the MOS, and so the title isn't filled with unneeded, unnecessary redundancy. The previous MOS-compliant non-bolded intro was stable for weeks; why change it now? If you don't like it, please argue something other than "standard practice" or "basic MOS guideline". It's neither, as one can clearly see from reading the MOS and looking at similar articles. (Some do have broken redundancies, but many do not. The correct action is to fix those that do violate the MOS, not apply boldface to those that don't.) There is also no event named "Boston Marathon bombings", so this is not a "widely accepted name", it is simply a description; the more common term appears to be the singular, but both are in use. That shouldn't matter to the reading of the MOS, whichever way the article is titled, though. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 12:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to revert it, but I'm dismayed you undid my change, which I think shows that the lead can easily conform to our guidelines, as do 99% of our other articles. It's not redundant. The title, "boston marathon bombings" is a singular article itself; it's not at all redundant simply because the term "boston marathon" is used in the next clause. Read the terms as individual articles, not as individual words, and you'll see, linguistically it's not at all redundant.


 * And it is standard practice, I don't see how you can with a straight face say otherwise. Yes you can cherry pick a few exceptions, but the overwhelming majority of articles bold the title. What part of "If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence" is unclear? Shadowjams (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, let's compare: "The 2013 Boston Marathon bombings were a series of bombings that occured during the Boston Marathon" vs "The 2011 Mississippi River floods were a series of floods affecting the Mississippi River". Note the prominent "Red x.svg" stating that the Mississippi River example is incorrect and should not be bolded. How is your bolded title at all different from that example? Other than the locations and events, they're practically identical! Of course it is common on the majority of articles, since most articles have a title that comfortably fits into bold in the lede. This one does not. "Lots of other articles do this" isn't a valid reason to ignore the MOS. (Not to mention, the bolded version makes it unclear whether the two bombs were the only ones, or if there were additional bombs in the "series of bombings" that your intro referred to. So that isn't just redundant, it makes the lede ambiguous, requiring even more unnecessary verbiage to explain it.) I don't see how you can say that it's standard practice when the exceptions are clearly spelled out. You need to read past the first general rule in the MOS. It is only standard practice when none of the several exceptions apply. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 20:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am in favor of changing the tone of the internal comment so that no ideas are stifled. Prose may be fashioned that you will endorse; and that would be fine. I do think you are missing some nuance with the guidelines above, or not. My76Strat (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're certainly welcome to change the tone if you believe it's stifling, but it simply reflects the consensus view from this and several other articles that the same notice has been used on. (While there may not be current talk page consensus with the active discussion, there was clear editing consensus when the article was under more active development, which is why I reverted it to the stable version.) Note that none of the ideas in the first part of this section, that you contributed to, resulted in a clear intro that was both bolded and not awkward/redundant. If you do still think you can fashion one, then by all means, please suggest an alternative that is bolded but presents the information as simply, clearly, and unambiguously as the current intro does. (See my comments above on your "The first explosion of ..." suggestion; those problems were never addressed.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 21:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that pursuant to advice at a WP:DR/N discussion on this, I removed the hidden comment entirely. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 14:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

This article's intro also being discussed further as part of a general discussion including other bolded intros, at WT:LEAD. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 14:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Is that the final place for that discussion (and all the other articles like it that you made this kinda change to)? Because it's been bounced around to at least 3 places now which has the effect of making this discussion very hard to follow, not to mention, I'm not thrilled about typing out my point again. Shadowjams (talk) 06:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Orlando shooting
We probably shouldn't add this until the FBI confirms it's related, but CBS is reporting that FBI agents shot and killed a man named Ibrahim Todashev in Orlando today, and that they believe it's tied to the bombings. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  12:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The FBI said they believed the individual was just an associate and not suspected in the bombings per this ref (and your ref doesn't state involvement either way), so we shouldn't post this. Of course, if it does emerge that he's suspected of being linked to the bombings (or possibly the Waltham murder, per that article), then it would make sense as you noted. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 13:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Tamerlin and the dead suspect may have been implicated in a triple murder. The FBI was following up on the bombing by interviewing known acquaintances of Tamerlin to see if there were an co-conspirators.  I believe the fact that this suspect freaked out during the interview and tried to attack the FBI agent and accompanying police officers with a knife is a relevant fact that should be included in this article.  Jehochman Talk 17:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

And this. NY Times Erxnmedia (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The interrogation and death in Orlando are already mentioned in 2011 Waltham murders. The FBI hasn't said that the man they killed was a suspect in the Boston bombings, so I don't think he needs to be mentioned in this article. – Herzen (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * They were trying to tie Tamerlan Tsarnaev to the Waltham murders. I think at a minimum, there needs to be a link to the article 2011 Waltham murders. USchick (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This was part of the bombing follow up investigation. The Feds are trying to make sure there were no other conspirators at large or instigators who might try to promote similar attacks.  As such, it should be mentioned. Jehochman Talk 12:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * At this point it's a no-brainer to include. Shadowjams (talk) 04:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

FBI execution of unarmed suspect
Some users are attempting to remove this subject from the article.

So far the facts are that he was shot multiple times in the chest and once in the head. He was unarmed at the time and was being interrogated for over 24 hours (reports vary to 48) by FBI agents and counter-terrorism agents. He was detained solely because he was friends with the bombing suspects and no evidence before, during or after the killing has tied him in any way to the bombings or assistance to the bombings. He was currently moving into a new house with his wife and converting their old home into a dentists office, showing lack of motive and planning that required a future.

As he was unarmed, according to the FBI, and restrained, that he was shot in the back of the head as well as front of the chest shows he was executed.

I suggest users be vigilant in including these details in the article as users have been repeatedly attempting to revert edits or delete any information, even when sourced with FBI statements, from the article. 203.59.92.107 (talk) 08:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Sutter Cane


 * It sounds to me like you are referring to Ibragim Todashev, so perhaps you should post your concerns with that article. And in general, it is not relevant what you or I think, but what has been published in reliable sources. If something relevant has been left out, the best thing is to post a source on the talk page or add it to the article. Fnordware (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the article on Todashev mentions concerns that the was "executed". The Boston Marathon bombings article links to the Todashev article. – Herzen (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm shocked. "...Bill O'Reilly criticized the Obama administration..."
There's a determined push to add a paragraph about Bill O'Reilly criticizing the Obama administration over the "fact" that "PRISM did not stop the Boston bombings." To me this is a totally pointless addition. It adds nothing to the story of the Boston bombings. To me as a non-American, it just looks like a (pretty pathetic) attempt at political point scoring by O'Reilly and the two editors involved here. But I could be wrong. And I won't edit war over it. HiLo48 (talk) 10:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I do agree that the section is undue weight, and should be removed. SirFozzie (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I note that the material has again been removed by User:Tarc. Thank you. Let's hope it stays that way. HiLo48 (talk) 02:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with the removal. Lots of pundits have said lots of different things about the Marathon bombings. I'm sure that we could write pages on what O'Reilly alone has said. I don't see why this particular comment is significant. GabrielF (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

When on 4/18 were the Tsarnaev brothers named?
The article has admirable chronological detail and clarity on most points. For example, the FBI released the photos of the Tsarnaev brothers at 5:20pm on April 18. Are there sources indicating when the connection was first made between the name "Tsarnaev" and these photos? Ideally, we could provide the time at which (1) people who knew the Tsarnaev brothers (friends from HS/college, etc.) made the connection public (tweets, etc.), (2) the authorities first announced that they suspected someone named Tsarnaev. I believe the article doesn't give any of this yet. Wareh (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * once the pictures had been released, one of the brother's aunts phoned the F.B.I. to identify them. Facial recognition hadn't turned anything up despite both of their names and faces existing in government databases.  . USchick (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I try to think about what detail will be important in Wikipedia articles in 10 years time. Time of day won't be. HiLo48 (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Boston bombings in relation to PRISM
Here are some sources I found: WhisperToMe (talk) 04:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Daly, Michael. "NSA Surveillance Program Failed to Invade Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s Privacy." Newsweek at The Daily Beast. June 12, 2013.
 * Hill, Selena. "NSA PRISM Surveillance Missed Boston Bomber, al Queda Connection: Tamerlan Tsarnaev Learned Explosives Online." Latinos Post. June 13, 2013.
 * Think tank: Lempert, Richard. "PRISM and Boundless Informant: Is NSA Surveillance a Threat?" Brookings Institute. June 13, 2013.
 * Brookings is certainly a good source, but the issue that I have is that the author is essentially speculating on what might have happened rather than saying that these programs were actually used. The Newsweek/Daily Beast source is similar. I don't think its encyclopedic to describe how sources think this program might have worked. GabrielF (talk) 05:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Would it not be encyclopedic only in the Boston marathon source? Or would you say that about say, PRISM also? An editor said it would be a good idea to have analysis on the notion that PRISM stops terrorism. I added sources about that to the PRISM article. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Dozens of other (in fact all other) anti-terrorism programs also failed to prevent the Boston bombings. There is no connection between PRISM and this topic. HiLo48 (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * From the PRISM angle, there are politicians who argue that terrorism is being prevented by PRISM. Critics are using the fact that the Boston bombings occurred as a counterargument. So in that sense there is a connection WhisperToMe (talk) 08:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you actually read and think about my post? ALL anti-terrorism programs failed to prevent the Boston bombings. Does that mean that ALL anti-terrorism programs deserve the same criticism? Will you list them all in the article? And, that a program failed to prevent one incident does not prove that it hasn't prevented other terrorism. HiLo48 (talk) 08:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I read your post. Remember WP:V means that verifiability is the criterion for inclusion, not truth. Do all anti-terrorism programs make the news? Do they have extensive commentary written about them? See, the argument "ALL anti-terrorism programs failed to prevent the Boston bombings" is not based on reliable sources (as no newspaper publication has used the angle that there were other anti-terror programs that have failed). There are only two programs being discussed: PRISM and Boundless Informant. There are reliable sources that cover how these two programs have fared in relation to terrorism programs. Then, in reference to this terrorist attack, I have only found sources that discuss PRISM. As for "And, that a program failed to prevent one incident does not prove that it hasn't prevented other terrorism." - The article itself doesn't make this claim but there are articles discussing other terrorist attacks in relation to PRISM. So far, in terms of reliable sources, I've seen the relationships between PRISM and four terrorist attacks, and AFAIK Boundless Informant and one of them. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We do not need sources to say that ALL anti-terrorism programs failed to prevent the Boston bombings. It's a fundamental, obvious truth. The bombings happened, so NOTHING prevented them. (Wikipedia allows such things without sources.) You are being very selective in which bits of the obvious truth you want to put in the article. What you want to add is also a case of WP:recentism. Just because something has been in the news lately doesn't make it more important than other, less topical things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 14 June 2013‎
 * Yup - this is nothing more than speculation/soapboxing. It tells us nothing about the bombings. It doesn't belong in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Have to agree that even if realiable sources are making the connection, it is soapboxing. There would really need to be a huge concrete statement and in-depth analysis of how PRISM didn't work here to include it here (say if there are congressional reviews or SCOTUS of PRISM and the lack of identification of these two comes up as a major argument, then there's possible reason to include, but not now). --M ASEM (t) 14:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

A Tweet as a source
Considering how many times inaccurate information was released by the media, I'd like to clarify this statement. The article claims that "At least seven improvised explosive devices were recovered in the searches: some in Watertown and some at the Tsarnaevs' house in Cambridge" and the sources is a Tweet and a reTweet. I suggest that a more reliable source needs to be found or this information needs to be removed. USchick (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. The only good third-party tweet is one with a link to an RS. And then, of course, we'd use that original source instead. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Found this. It says bomb squads collected seven (not "at least" seven) homemade explosive devices, but doesn't specify from where. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That story also claims he had explosives strapped to his chest, which later was determined as untrue. Some of these preliminary reports were unsubstantiated. USchick (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that happens. Do you know of anything to the contrary of the seven explosives claim? If so, and it's more recent and/or credible, we should keep our story up-to-date. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

category?
Category:Mass murder in 2013 Since only 3 people were killed, does this actually qualify as a mass murder? John Elson ★ 3Dham ★  WF6I A.P.O.I. 21:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe. Mass murder makes it clear that the term shifts over time.  In the 1960s, it would not have, but in 2013, since it was in one place, one moment, and the method was intended to kill many, the term has been applied.  I also wouldn't call the bombs weapons of mass destruction as the prosecutor did.  Remember there weren't any found in Iraq, and I'm sure Iraq had many conventional munitions capable of doing worse than these pressure cooker bombs. -- ke4roh (talk) 01:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, Mass murder is the murder of 4 or more people at the same place and time ProudIrishAspie (talk) 01:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Attempted mass murder, but not mass murder accompli, if that helps with categorization. It only partially succeeded, so multiple homicides or multiple murders would apply. --Lexein (talk) 10:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Follow what the sources say. Don't apply your own analysis!  Jehochman Talk 13:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should have any murder categories, till this is found to be murder by a court. It's a legal term, unlike homicide. Probably a safe bet Tsarnaev will be convicted, but WP:CRYSTALBALL. Probably debatable, so I've left them for now. I've removed the mass murder, though. The article on that is clear that the FBI uses a definition this doesn't meet. Since they're behind the case, they're the authority on the matter. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Amen. John Alan Elson ★  WF6I A.P.O.I. 02:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Clean-up needed!, No trial section, information on indictments, and ect.
Perusing the article I noticed there is not any information about the ongoing trial. There has to be some on the internet, of course from RS only, which is certainly relevant and needs to be added. People start help putting this section together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.65.232 (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The trial hasn't begun yet. All the pre-trial stuff is under "Legal proceedings". Well, not all of it, but the notable parts. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It was a bit out of date, now that you mention it. I added his status hearing date. Anything else you'd like to see? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

New source
This WGBH article gives information on the night of April 18/19, including the question of the friendly fire injury of Richard Donohue (presently mentioned in footnote 99) which seems useful. 1fish2 (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories
Um... I'm pretty sure there were a ton of conspiracy theories around this event. Could someone please mention that in the article?

Thanks. 168.18.176.3 (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There are a ton of conspiracy theories around virtually every event; are there any here that are particularly noted (that is, reported on in reliable sources)? That's the bar that needs to be met for them to be included. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 01:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Infowars goes into great detail about. That's a reputable and pretty renown news network. 168.18.176.3 (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I just checked it out, Infowars is a conspiracy theory website. When we mean sources we are talking about things like AP, CNN, BBC, New York Times, ect... the majority of conspiracy theories are also non notable. Even if the theory is notable on one side those who believe it then it would need to have counterbalance with reliable sources debuking it in order for the section to be WP:NPOV. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Infowars is not a "news network." It's a conspiracy theory website. For wikipedia purposes, it is not considered a reliable source. WP:RS can give you a more thorough explanation of what type of sources to use.  In this case, you might also want to read the guidelines at WP:FRINGE.  Thanks! --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Supposedly it's a false flag event with a friend of the Tsarnaev brothers being "assassinated" by the FBI with FBI being sketchy about the friend's death to cover up FBI involvement. Mother and wife of friend have evidence that renders the official version moot. This also casts doubt on "verifiable sources" because they only reflect official police and FBI statements. This thus is not an Islamic terrorist plot. This is most likely a coverup to hide entrapment by federal agents and police. The only time the FBI stated truth was when they said they didn't have any suspects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.180.19.113 (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

- i agree that there a lot of some ground in these conspiracy theories to be mentioned, we all saw pictures in the web about these guys with the skull signs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wpu6_kArb9U this video sums a lot of stuff up imo why there are so much people believing it was a conspiracy--Crossswords (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Second Boston Massacre
I would like to add this to the article at the end of the first paragraph:

"This attack became known as the Boston Marthon Bombings but has been reffered to by some as the Second Boston Massacre  in reference to the [Boston Massacre] of 1770."

I don't see what the issue is with stating the fact that it has been referred to as the Second Boston Massacre as it indeed has been referred to by some as the Second Boston Massacre. Yet My edits continue to be reversed stating that my sources aren't reputable. Though in all my sources it is referred to as the Second Boston Massacre. It is not as if it is some major fact that completely changes things, it is merely that it has been referred to by another name which, regardless of how reputable the five sources may be, is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.128.35.3 (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It is true that the sources you link have referred to the event as the 'Second Boston Massacre'. You have provided no evidence whatsoever that this is in any way of significance to the article though. I'm sure I could find headlines referring to the events under multiple different titles - but we don't list them all. Why should we? This is an article about the events themselves, not what they have been described as. We don't fill serious articles with trivia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It's a dumb, throwaway headline, nothing more. Tarc (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Rolling Stone Cover
The contribution that I would like to make surrounds the controversial decision for Rolling Stone to put Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover of their August 2013 issue. The lead article gives at length details of Tsarnaev’s childhood, teenage years and the subsequent steps that led to his horrific decisions. Although the article was written tastefully and exemplified outstanding journalism, the result was a resounding outcry, particularly from Boston and the surrounding New England area. The image they chose can be depicted as glamorizing or romanticizing him. It is eerily reminiscent of an issue with Jim Morrison of the Doors for example, essentially associating Tsarnaev as a rock star. National companies such as CVS and Walgreen’s, as well as a host of smaller local New England companies, elected not to sell the issue as an act of protest. In the end, the demonstration of these companies failed as Rolling Stone sold more than twice as many issues for the month of August. Many felt that the victims should be the ones to grace the cover, as opposed to the killer. Rolling Stone later defended it's decision to release the issue by referencing their legitimacy in the journalistic realm. It’s a compelling argument that I feel should be included with the Wikipedia article. Bscantland08 (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)bscantland08Bscantland08 (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It's already discussed at Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Location (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It's worth a few sentences here, too, with a Wikilink to the long version there. The hubbub was somewhat localized, but since the bombing was a hot topic in America and quite warm elsewhere, the coverage of the hubbub was significantly larger.


 * For what it's worth (not much), I agree with Rolling Stone's choice. Would people in general have even recognized the victims' faces? None are even notable enough for Wikipedia, let alone one of the world's biggest celebrity magazine's cover. The news made the Tsarnaevs celebrities first, Rolling Stone just capitalized. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

This attack needs uniformity with the 1999 David Copeland attack in the UK as a standard.
A bomb goes off from a source attacking the public, because of a political/religious agenda.

I just described both attacks.

They are exactly the same thing, and frankly they both need to be viewed as such. Lets have some uniformity here. Call them both terrorism/mass murder or neither.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Copeland


 * Given the discussion in Talk:David Copeland, i.e. Copeland was tried for murder not for terrorism, and that I can't find any reliable sources calling it "mass murder", I'm inclined to think that "neither" is the correct choice for Wikipedia-POV writing, except in reference to specific laws which specifically define terrorism, which don't exist in this case. And, relative to this position, the article is pretty good at not using the term "terrorism", outside of quotes, except for the "attack type" infobox entry, which I changed to lone wolf. There's also Category:Terrorist incidents in the United States in 2013; I'm thinking that should probably turn into a "Lone Wolf Incidents" category (there's a long list of links on the lone wolf page which can move into there), but I'm too lazy to do that. Finally, there's Portal:Terrorism; I'm going to pass on judging that, since WP:ALSO is pretty vague. In terms of structural uniformity, I think editing the Copeland article to match this one's layout would be a better idea than the reverse; this one has been edited and restructured dozens of times, and has 500+ sources, while Copeland has <500 edits and relatively little information. --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I undid you edits to Boston Marathon bombings as the article you linked to describes a person not an act. Therefore lone wolf is not the type but would be an acceptable description of the perpetrators. XFEM Skier (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So, from headlines like |"Holder fears 'lone wolf' terrorist attack", it seems to me like "lone wolf" can indeed be an attack type. Yes, the lone wolf article doesn't reflect this, but that article has a bunch of other problems (e.g. the giant list of links) so I'm not really convinced. --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * More headlines if you aren't convinced: "Experts seek clues in London 'lone wolf’ attack", "Obama: 'Lone Wolf' Attack is Biggest Concern", etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathnerd314159 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify what exactly are the changes to this article that you are proposing? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, to this article, just https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boston_Marathon_bombings&diff=612662007&oldid=612392027. But then I probably will rewrite the "Lone Wolf" article; I haven't really decided on the changes there. --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Lone wolf' seems normally to be a description applied to individuals acting alone - which isn't the case here. And we don't use Wikipedia articles as sources anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, "lone wolf" was coined to contrast with large terrorist organizations, e.g. even the low estimates on Al-Qaeda have >100 people, so in this case the 2 people or whatever is still "small" enough for "lone wolf" to apply. Also, Wikipedia wasn't my source, my source was, which says "The devices used in the Boston Marathon attack Monday are typical of the 'lone wolf'". If you want I could use more recent sources like , where the source states flatly "This ... is called 'lone wolf' terrorism—it's not attached to any organization", or , "The al-Qaida magazine Inspire has published a special edition ... warning the West of more 'Lone Wolf' terrorist attacks." By my count, that's 3 reliable sources using the term "lone wolf" to refer to the attack type of the bombings. Edit: and here's an exact answer to your question: "Whether “lone wolves” can logically come in pairs, the Boston perpetrators fit the category." --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 22:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Apparently, this is the place to discuss this. Seems a few months old and indirectly related, but good enough, I guess.


 * If we have the perpetrator saying it was revenge, and nobody saying it was terrorism or even positing political coercion goals, we're in no place to call it terrorism. That's original research, plain and simple. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You're entirely mistaken if you think what the suspect says matters. Here's a source describing it as terrorism as recently as today. . Or this one written soon after the attack. Or the federal indictment, which alleges the suspect "committed the offense after substantial planning and premeditation to cause the death of a person and commit an act of terrorism" .  Calidum Talk To Me 00:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It wasn't my mistake, the editor who reverted me cited the exsanguinated boat scrawling to justify it. But of course it matters. He was the one who did the thing, who knows better why? The prosecution's opinion matters, too, can't have a trial without two sides. But this isn't something they know, it's something they intend to prove in a court of law. Hasn't happened yet, so still just allegations.


 * I've moved the allegations to the part about him being accused and pleading not guilty, for proper context. Still in the lead, visibly blue, but without the presumption of guilt in Wikipedia's voice. Also changed it to "homegrown terrorism", simply because that's the article name (also the term used in the Atlantic piece). Does that seem fair? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move May 23, 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain t/ c 20:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Boston Marathon bombings → Boston Marathon bombing – While there were two bombs used, it is correct to describe the event as bombing because it is a single event. This is supported by a number of reliable sources, including the Boston Globe Boston Herald Wall Street Journal NY Times Guardian Washington Post Los Angeles Times Chicago Tribune Fox News CNN NBC News among others. Calidum T&#124;C 06:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. ONR (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't vote; you need to provide a reason for opposing. Calidum T&#124;C 17:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Per nom - it was effectively one bomb event with two separate but coordinated detonations. --M ASEM (t) 17:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Two bombs, but one event. For example: 1993 World Trade Center bombing - Multiply bombs, one event. CookieMonster755 (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Clearly it was one attack that involved multiple bombs.  So a bombing with two bombs. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "A bombing with two bombs," did you mean to support the move then? Calidum T&#124;C 20:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. "Boston Marathon bombings" does sound like it implies multiple events. —Tim Pierce (talk) 10:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and per WP:COMMONNAME. rdfox 76 (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit request on 23 June 2015
A protected redirect, Boston marathon bombings needs a redirect category (rcat) template removed and two added. Please modify it as follows:


 * from this:


 * 1) REDIRECT Boston Marathon bombing


 * to this:


 * 1) REDIRECT Boston Marathon bombing

Template Redr is an alias for the This is a redirect template, which is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. No protection rcat is needed, and if pp-protected and/or pp-move suffice, the This is a redirect template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed when and if protection is lifted.) Thank you in advance! – Paine 14:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.


 * ✅. --M ASEM (t) 14:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, M ASEM ! and Best of Everything to You and Yours! –  Paine  14:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The shootout section has referencing issues
The report finds that the agency coordinted fine, it was the officers as operators that were not coordinating well with one another or acting individually rather than as a unit: A 50-page report on the manhunt produced by Harvard Kennedy School's Program on Crisis Leadership found that a lack of coordination between the police agencies involved put the public at excessive risk during the shootout.[105]

"But the report found that response suffered when organizational lines broke down, notably during the shootout with the bombing suspects in Watertown and again during the capture of Tsarnaev. Police officers “operating as individuals, rather than in disciplined units” created dangerous situations that “threatened both responders and bystanders,” researchers found. " Zoratao (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Trail
what the trial show? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In English? We use sentences here. Trackinfo (talk) 08:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Deer trail? They are not even in season right now.  And as already stated, this is the ENGLISH wiki - please understand ... if possible. HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Two months after your question, the trial concluded with his lawyers saying that they they were unable to say why the bombing was conducted. 2601:600:8500:B2D9:612B:3A31:E262:B037 (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Appeal
On the last day possible, Dzhokhar's legal team filed an appeal after the previous 'placeholder' appeal. 14 pages are blacked out. http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/herald_bulldog/2015/08/dzhokhar_tsarnaev_blames_social_media_in_appeal http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2015/08/18/in-appeal-filing-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-blames-venue-social-media-for-conviction/ 2601:600:8500:B2D9:612B:3A31:E262:B037 (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 one external links on Boston Marathon bombing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20151222172851/http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2013/04/23/russia-contacted-fbi-multiple-times-concerns-about-alleged-boston-marathon-bomber/NXGbfiW7hyYeRpdryaK3mN/story.html to http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2013/04/23/russia-contacted-fbi-multiple-times-concerns-about-alleged-boston-marathon-bomber/NXGbfiW7hyYeRpdryaK3mN/story.html
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.rightsidenews.com/2013090733161/world/terrorism/al-qaeda-cleric-praises-tsarnaev-brothers-as-models-for-muslim-children.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130418084946/http://www.boston.com:80/metrodesk/2013/04/16/investigation-boston-marathon-bombings-continues/MiyV94Jle1LoBFHFhkW2NJ/story.html to http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2013/04/16/investigation-boston-marathon-bombings-continues/MiyV94Jle1LoBFHFhkW2NJ/story.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130418233451/http://www.boston.com:80/news/local/massachusetts/2013/04/16/feds-seek-suspects-motive-boston-bombings/QkejBWGEKMopcHVekRXTHP/story.html to http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2013/04/16/feds-seek-suspects-motive-boston-bombings/QkejBWGEKMopcHVekRXTHP/story.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130418065733/http://tfr.faa.gov:80/save_pages/detail_3_2050.html to http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_3_2050.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130421062853/http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2013/04/20/police-suspects-used-carjack-victim-atm-card/6zP1751OwoIegCQhKMqy7L/story.html to http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2013/04/20/police-suspects-used-carjack-victim-atm-card/6zP1751OwoIegCQhKMqy7L/story.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130427001533/http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/04/23/3359401/from-outsiders-to-bombing-suspects.html to http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/04/23/3359401/from-outsiders-to-bombing-suspects.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130421081651/http://www.boston.com:80/metrodesk/2013/04/19/bombing-suspect-attended-umass-dartmouth-prompting-school-closure-college-friend-shocked-charge-boston-marathon-bomber/YcEDA5nvNDi0T1jJTNjKiP/story.html to http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2013/04/19/bombing-suspect-attended-umass-dartmouth-prompting-school-closure-college-friend-shocked-charge-boston-marathon-bomber/YcEDA5nvNDi0T1jJTNjKiP/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Boston Marathon bombing. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.rightsidenews.com/2013090733161/world/terrorism/al-qaeda-cleric-praises-tsarnaev-brothers-as-models-for-muslim-children.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130426182245/http://boston.com/metrodesk/2013/04/25/middlesex-county-prosecutors-building-murder-case-against-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-officer-slaying/Z5ERGSAAeLeMaDTpsdLIjK/story.html to http://boston.com/metrodesk/2013/04/25/middlesex-county-prosecutors-building-murder-case-against-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-officer-slaying/Z5ERGSAAeLeMaDTpsdLIjK/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

5th victim?
Should we yet consider Officer Dennis Simmonds of the Boston Police Department as the 5th victim? A state medical panel has linked his death to injuries he sustained in the Watertown Shootout http://www.wcvb.com/news/boston-police-officers-death-may-be-5th-death-linked-to-marathon-bombing/32965112 Kilonum (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not quite what it says. Linked to "an injury sustained in the course of his employment". Watertown was one, but he'd also had a car crash in 2010 and something through his windshield in 2012. If I had to lean toward one of those three, it'd be the shootout, but that's not certain, hence the "may" in the story.
 * I'd wait for something a little more definite. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The article linked to in the current text says "...bombers Tamerlan and his brother Dzhokhar Tsarnaev engaged in a gun battle with police and tossed homemade bombs. Simmonds suffered a head injury in those blasts." But  says "...Simmonds 'was involved in a shoot-out and he was crouched for a long period of time. Once the scene was cleared he went to St. Elizabeth's Hospital' by ambulance" and "during the Watertown shootout in 2013, Simmonds injured his hand, back and ankle and suffered blurriness in his vision. He was relieved of his duties for a month." The more detailed account is the latter, and it doesn't sound like direct injury by grenade is correct. Andyvphil (talk) 03:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Tripathi was found dead April 23 or WHAT year ????
What bad writing and story telling. Does the author of this think it just stays the same year forever ??? Lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.70.198 (talk) 08:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2013, which is incredibly obvious given the context of the article being an attack that occurred April 15th, 2013. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Boston Marathon bombing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/363201342213441988148.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-got-information-from-foreign-government-that-tamerlan-tsarnaev-was-radical-islam-follower/2013/04/20/d171986c-a9d9-11e2-9e1c-bb0fb0c2edd9_story.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/geocheck/ci/http__3A__2F__2Fhk.apple.nextmedia.com__2Frealtime__2Finternational__2F20130417__2F51352522
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chechenpress.org/news/3587-zayavlenie-a-zakaeva-v-svyazi-s-teraktom-v-bostone.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140207095208/http://www.kavkaz.org.uk/eng/content/2013/04/21/17679.shtml to http://www.kavkaz.org.uk/eng/content/2013/04/21/17679.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

US/Russia cooperation
Current article gives biased portrayal. Both US and Russian intelligence organizations did not answer some requests for information, according to this article: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/23/russia-s-playing-a-double-game-with-islamic-terror0.html "The FSB then sent a second inquiry, this one to the CIA, seeking more information on the elder Tsarnaev brother. That one never got answered either." It's debatable whether this article should be talking about this subject at all, but if it does, it should be unbiased towards Russia (instead of appearing to 'blame' Russia). 2601:600:8500:B2D9:612B:3A31:E262:B037 (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, the Wall Street Journal article used indirectly as a reference only cites "anonymous sources". Thus, it's political persuasion, not legitimate reporting. A writer for Wikipedia can't use an anonymous source as a reference, so, by the same policy, a writer shouldn't be able to use a source which in turn uses an anonymous source. It's impossible to dispute that an anonymous source said something. Furthermore, the reference isn't really the WSJ; it's a Telegraph article using "the Journal said... unidentified sources said..." as a source. I couldn't find the original WSJ article. A title may be helpful. Accordingly, I have deleted the line that relies on a Telegraph Telegraph.co.uk article that paraphrases an unidentified (and unavailable) possible Wall Street Journal article.Nehmo (talk) 09:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Boston Marathon bombing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130422145042/http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/10010403717086/police-mit-police-officer-fatally-shot-gunman-sought to http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/10010403717086/police-mit-police-officer-fatally-shot-gunman-sought
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130419232421/http://www.bu.edu/com/comment/library/downloads/2010_comment.pdf to http://www.bu.edu/com/comment/library/downloads/2010_comment.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Boston Marathon bombing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130429071324/http://www.independentsentinel.com/2013/04/boston-bombers-not-inspired-by-inspire-other-updates/ to http://www.independentsentinel.com/2013/04/boston-bombers-not-inspired-by-inspire-other-updates/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130502005051/http://www.ci.somerville.ma.us/alerts/important-public-safety-alert-41913 to http://www.ci.somerville.ma.us/alerts/important-public-safety-alert-41913
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130422065952/http://www.wggb.com/2013/04/19/boston-suspects-father-dzhokhar-is-a-true-angel/ to http://www.wggb.com/2013/04/19/boston-suspects-father-dzhokhar-is-a-true-angel/
 * Added tag to http://www.wcvb.com/Second-Boston-Marathon-bombing-suspect-in-custody/-/9849586/19814816/-/cw8b4az/-/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140307122448/http://www.chambliss.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2013/4/chambliss-statement-on-the-boston-terror-arrest to http://www.chambliss.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2013/4/chambliss-statement-on-the-boston-terror-arrest
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130420014458/http://now.msn.com/tamerlan-tsarnaev-said-he-had-no-american-friends to http://now.msn.com/tamerlan-tsarnaev-said-he-had-no-american-friends
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130422145055/http://www.kgw.com/news/Thousands-cross-Willamette-for-Boston-Remembrance-Run-203630051.html to http://www.kgw.com/news/Thousands-cross-Willamette-for-Boston-Remembrance-Run-203630051.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140307085243/http://www.lajollalight.com/2013/04/21/ucsd-professor-says-boston-marathon-was-lone-wolf-terrorism/ to http://www.lajollalight.com/2013/04/21/ucsd-professor-says-boston-marathon-was-lone-wolf-terrorism/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boston Marathon bombing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://world.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=26264&content=92052754&pageNum=-1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170420050404/http://hudsoncountytv.com/news/sister-of-boston-bombers-draw-fbi-to-buchanan-street-in-west-new-york/ to http://hudsoncountytv.com/news/sister-of-boston-bombers-draw-fbi-to-buchanan-street-in-west-new-york/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of content that is sourced
IP editor deleted sourced content because it did not agree with their personal experience. Please find a source that supports your position. Wikipedia cannot verify the personal recollections of individual editors. Jehochman Talk 14:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Derek Maltz about the work of the Joint Terrorism Task Force after the warning
JTTF --https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBfVL4MuXPs Information Sharing Crime and Terror Walls- Derek Maltz --87.170.195.204 (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)