Talk:Boston Marathon bombing/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

References

There are so many ref tags in this page we should have a section: <references /> to avoid the red error message and give a way to see them. But in the future, replacing "ref" with "sup" in each tag will make it much easier to read them on a talk page! Wnt (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• This can be avoided by placing {{reflist-talk|closed}} at the end of each section that uses ref tags. I've nowikied the references footer. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Rename r Subarticle(s) for

The assassination of the Sean Collins and subsequent shootout and lock down? Edkollin (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Manhunt, Assassination, Shootout, Lock Down, and Capture. Seems better to me if it has to be changed. Theworm777 (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • That strikes me as far too long for a subhead. polarscribe (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Manhunt and capture seems sufficient and encompasses everything that happened. There is also nothing about the shooting of officer Collier that fits the definition of an assassination, even if some law enforcement peers have characterized it this way. --Crunch (talk) 11:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The-tsarnaev-suspects-fbi-photo-release.jpg

File:The-tsarnaev-suspects-fbi-photo-release.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Did Chechnya make them do it

This article presents an argument in favor of lone wolf theory and against any kind of structured third-party involvement.. Congress will debate the matter on Friday.

Every news story that I've read in reputable sources says that the brothers were self-radicalized and were not in contact with any terrorist organization. Both the main Chechen terrorist organization and the Russian government have said that the brothers did not get help from Chechen terrorist organizations. Chechen terrorists have no motive to attack the U.S., because they hope to get help from the U.S., based on the longstanding distrust of Russia on the part of people in the U.S. government.

If a Chechen angle is relevant here, it's that the FBI apparently discounted the FSB's warning about Tamerlan, perhaps because it viewed Chechens as hostile only to Russia, so that they should not be taken seriously as a terrorist threat to the U.S. – Herzen (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

FBI dropping the ball is definitely part of this story and should be part of the article. It will take a year or two for all of the excuses to come out. If I were in the FBI and somebody, anybody, and especially a spook from the FSB told me that someone in the country was into political violence, I would keep an eye on that person forever. They might argue that they aren't in the business of domestic spying, that they are a law enforcement organization with strict limits and guidelines on when to engage with citizens, which forced them to break off contact with Tamerlan. Except that they are, specifically, mandated to spy on citizens for counter-terrorism purposes, and they are the only federal agency (AFAIK) authorized to do so. Spying generally comes without a time limit, the byword is "eternal vigilance". At the state level, the NYPD is also authorized to freely spy on it's citizens for counter-terrorism purposes. Does this mean that BPD and all large cities should and will now develop their own spy organizations to fill in for the FBI? This is not a Tin foil hat question, it is a possible outcome. Erxnmedia (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The FBI gets tips on hundreds of someones every week. You would keep your eye on them all? Forever? Even the ones you investigated and found absolutely nothing suspicious about? The FBI could use a guy like you, I guess! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Because the FSB is always bothering the FBI with vague suspicions. And because they are evil Russian dictators, there is no chance they might pass on anything resembling a sincere concern. 

(edit conflict)If it can be sourced that the FBI dropped the ball (e.g., with discussion of how/why it happened, not just people bashing them with vague reasoning), then it can be included. But like you said, it will take some time for us to really know what happened. The rest of what you suggest is original research and not really relevant here. For example, I could say that the FBI has limited resources due to budgetary constraints, so it's not possible to track everyone and everything...but that's again pure original research and not really relevant to discuss here. Note the edit message that this is not a forum for general discussion about the bombing...of course, certain speculation and discussion does help build the article, but wondering about the surveillance capabilities of various police departments is kinda outside the scope of things here. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh wait, they were going to spy on him, but the spellcheck was broken that day. Erxnmedia (talk) 01:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

"THE POWER OF CHECHNYA COMPELS YOU" - That's what you guys believe? It's "Chechnya" now (and Dagestan, presumably), and not "violent video games" that "make" people kill others in America?

Now, for your information, the Russians, who refused to provide any information in 2011, who didn't act on his visit and travels in Russia (which was very open - flying in through an airporr, flying off from an airport), deny any link, and didn't even react afterwards, deny a connection, and don't investigate anything.[1][2] And that's these guys who absolutely routinely extrajudicialy-execute/kidnap/"disappear"/torture people and blow-up/burn houses all through the whole extended region to combat "international terrorism" (who they actually say is sponsored by the USA and they are even "fighting in the mountains with the American and English [sic] special services"[3]), then declare all the dead people as "bandits and terrorists" (for example the neighbouring Ingushetia is for many years a site of extrajudicial executions, torture, forced disappearances, abduction-style detentions." The report by Human Rights Watch describes several extrajudicial killings in graphic detail, including the killing of Rakhim Amriev, a 6-year-old boy). So, the Russians would act with the usual "heavy hand", if they cared. They don't. --Niemti (talk) 09:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, the U.S. is influenced by Lee Harvey Oswald, another so-called "lone wolf terrorist" who travelled to the Soviet Union before the deed. People still debate that one, so understand there will be some fertile ground for ideas of some wider plan. Of course we should just copy whatever the sources say with an open mind. Wnt (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Talk pages are not a platform for you to express your hatred of particular ethnic groups. "The Russians" provided the U.S. with plenty of information that should have made U.S. security agencies consider Tamerlan to be a potential terrorist; the U.S. agencies just didn't follow through.

A police official source in Makhachkala, Dagestan, told NBC News on Sunday that the Russian internal security service reached out to the FBI last November with some questions about Tamerlan, and handed over a copy of case file on him. Tsarnaev had first popped up on the local police radar in Dagestan last summer, the source said. During routine surveillance of an individual known to be involved in the militant Islamic underground movement, the police witnessed Tamerlan meet the latter at a Salafi mosque in Makhachkala, the police official said. It was one of six times in total that surveillance officials witnessed Tsarnaev meeting this militant at the same mosque, according to the police official. The militant contact later disappeared, the police official said, but so did Tsarnaev before investigators had a chance to speak with him. The FBI never responded, according to the Dagestani police official.

Herzen (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the question should be "Did Dagestan make them do it" instead of Chechnya- after all, it seems the radicalization may have happened in Dagestan, and it was his mother- the Avar- who got deep into religion at the same time Tamerlan did, not so much the father (the Chechen). Just saying. The point is that we have no clue really how national identity played a role in this. We don't even really know what the identity was. Dzhokhar clearly identified solely as Chechen, but this isn't clear of Tamerlan, who may indeed have come to consider ethnicity totally irrelevant, favoring religious identity over it. We don't know. Until we do, we shouldn't put anything on the page about it. --Yalens (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Even a left-wing expert on the Middle East such as Gary Leupp sees the bombings as expressing a generalized Muslim grievance against the U.S. War on Terror, which is directed at Muslims. As I said before, it would be counterproductive for any separatist group in Russia to commit terrorist acts against the U.S., because such groups often get help from the U.S. government. The only question that remains, as far as I can tell, is whether Dzhokhar learned how to build the bombs from the internet, or whether he got some training from someone while he was in Russia. – Herzen (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

"Such groups" never "get help from the U.S. government". Anywyay, let's don't forget how Umarov said that Chechens should not get involved in the Syrian conflict because they have unresolved issues in the North Caucasus (and Syria's Russia's close ally). And previously also ordered all militants in the Caucasus and sabotage groups preparing attacks in Russia to ensure that they do not injure civilians. --Niemti (talk) 02:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess "a police official source in Makhachkala" didn't get a memo: Dagestan's interior minister Abdurashid Magomedov meanwhile rubbished any suggestion that Tamerlan had been "infected" with radical Islam during his stay in the Northern Caucasus. "According to interior ministry information, Tamerlan Tsarnaev did not have contact with the (Islamist) underground during his visit," said Magomedov, quoted by his spokesperson. --Niemti (talk) 01:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Also: The Russians have not told the United States whether they did any surveillance on Tamerlan while he was in Russia for six months in 2012, but the law enforcement official would not doubt the Russians kept tabs on Tsarneav. If they did, according to the law enforcement official, the Russians never came back to the FBI and said so and didn't provide any additional incriminating information about him. If the Russians held back information, it wouldn't be surprising, said a source familiar with the intelligence process and the flow of information. The Russians are generally "more formal, more irregular" in providing this kind of information to us. "'There's still a lot of suspicion" between U.S. and Russian intelligence operatives, the source said. "I am not sure they would share their source information with us." --Niemti (talk) 01:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, lol @ "your hatred of particular ethnic groups". --Niemti (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm... Niemti, it appears that Russian FSB knew about the older brother as an Islamic extremist and the older brother traveled to North Caucasus just before the terrorist act. It is very similar to the story with famous Zawahiri here. Do publications in media make such connection? Sorry, I did not watch this case closely and could miss something. My very best wishes (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

References

Carjacking

The Boston Globe has posted a long interview with the carjacking victim: [4]. Based on this interview, there are a couple things in the article that might need to change:

1. The current map of the incidents in the Manhunt and Capture section shows the carjacking as occurring in East Cambridge. Both the WSJ source currently used in the article, and the new Boston Globe interview say that it actually happened on Brighton Avenue in Brighton, near the intersection with Fordham Road.
2. The article currently says: "The Chinese carjacking victim stated that the brothers told him they would not kill him, because he was not an American." This is cited to a WSJ article which, in turn, cites a police report. This conflicts somewhat with the Globe interview which doesn't mention Tsarnaev making such a statement and does mention him threatening the carjacking victim's life. When the victim's phone rang, for instance, Tsarnaev told him: “If you say a single word in Chinese, I will kill you right now...” I'm wondering if we should delete this statement or qualify it by saying that the brothers threatened his life but also said they would not kill him because he was not an American. GabrielF (talk) 03:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The line "We're not going to kill you, because you're not an American" sounds like something out of a Die Hard movie. I don't know how that got into Wikipedia in the first place. – Herzen (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The line is there because it comes from a RS. The interview was 2.5 hours long and condensed into an article. Absence of a statement in one article does not contradict a statement in another article. Also much of the conversation reported by Boston.com fits the "not an American" position. Legacypac (talk) 05:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I unpublished the map because of multiple errors in it, notably the incorrect location of the carjacking.--Crunch (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Honda Civic

There is a flaw in the flow regarding the Honda Civic. It bears the marks of mass re-editing. The first mention of the vehicle is just referred to as "the Civic" with no association to how it came into the picture. The mention then awkwardly retraces back to the BOLO. I think this can get reworked to make sense. I'll keep my hands out of it because those of you who are much better informed will be able to make that work better. By the way, great job on making this a very readable article out of chaos. Trackinfo (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

BOLO? Why is this even mentioned? Apteva (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Suspect1and2.jpg

image:Suspect1and2.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Do we really need a photo of Obama meeting with his national security team?

I believe this photo (or a similar one) was removed once before, which is why I'm starting a new Talk section instead of just removing the photo myself.

Most people will agree that the Boston Marathon bombing was an act of terrorism, but I think that framing it in terms of national security is unnecessarily alarmist. The photo adds nothing to the article, and its inclusion reminds me of a primitive high school social studies textbook.

This is a local, domestic matter (yes, federal charges have been filed, but that's still handled in Boston, not Washington), so can we get a consensus to keep such photos out of the article? – Herzen (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I can see your point, but Obama did meet with his national security team about this, which is notable. Another reason the image is being used I'm sure is because those photos are public domain, and it's sometimes hard to find good public domain images. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You wrote that "most people will agree that the Boston Marathon was an act of terrorism." What makes it terrorism? Can anyone really say that he or she understands fully the motive that the Tsarnaevs had in committing this act? Other than the fact they are Chechnyan, there does not seem to be concrete evidence in the words or actions of the Tsarnaevs that suggests they sought to use violence as a tool of political persuasion. In fact, this act is no more or less terrorist in its nature than was the shooting at Sandy Hook. I think the motive is unclear there as well. It is entirely possible that Lanza was seeking to send a message when he killed those innocent children. I think it is dangerous to fall into the same trap as many media outlets who seem to be painting Adam Lanza as an isolated madman and the Tsarnaevs part of a global conspiracy when in reality, the two cases may be much more alike in motivation. For a more detailed explication of my claim, see this blog post by Rania Khalek, http://raniakhalek.com/2013/04/20/james-holmes-adam-lanza-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-and-double-standards/Ibnsina786 (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Notable to mention, but I don't see how a picture adds any educational value. Same with the press conference/speech photos. You've seen one, you've seen them all. The only thing that changes are the words, which are adequately covered by text. Seem like pictures for the sake of pictures. The one in the National reaction section, especially, is about as generic as they come. Obama, podium, logos, flag, drapery. Like literally hundreds before. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Since you mention a dearth of public domain images, I thought I'd give this link to a set of photos of the shootout in Watertown. Unfortunately they're of poor quality, so I don't think any of them are worth using, but maybe someone will think differently. – Herzen (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

They're licensed under "by-nd", so we can't use them. We need to be able to make derivative works. --GRuban (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of the photo. It shows the government was concerned and involved and illustrates the official response in Washington. Viriditas (talk) 07:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support, unless the caption text is in the body of the article. I was opposed because I thought the text would conjure the exact same mental image, making the photo redundant. But it seems the caption is the only place we mention this. So, I basically support the caption, but as long as it's attached to the photo, I have to support that, too. The National reaction podium pic is still pointless, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. Obama may seem ubiquitous, but he is not "generic" when he is addressing this specific issue and having an impact on what happens. Wnt (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Ubiquitous enough so where most readers can reasonably picture him in a described generic situation, is what I meant. Undue weight to also have the actual image. Obama's not a big part of this topic, he just happened to be President at the time.InedibleHulk (talk) 11:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Don't Support inclusion. We have the Obama speech video to show he is involved. There is nothing notable or memorable about that particular meeting. And no disrespect, but it wasn't the key action that solved the case. (meeting was a day after the police caught the guys). Btw, I am surprised we don't have any photos of the boat the second bomber was found in. -MarsRover (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Obama is only peripherally related to events in this article; almost any current event in the U.S. could be decorated with similar pictures of Obama sitting at a desk or standing around talking to people. The picture does not communicate anything meaningful, creating the appearance we are propagandizing for Obama. It is not Wikipedia's role to assure the public that Obama is concerned. Reminds me of recent pictures of Kim Jong-Un wearily looking across the border with his binoculars or pouring over maps. Fletcher (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I even read an article that said Obama could do little but get briefings. Unlike say, authorizing the SEAL Team move again OBL. I prefer photos of the killed officer or other victims - much more important to the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 18:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment offering them so much attention elevates the brothers to legendary heroes. USchick (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Adds no additional information not already contained within the article and the picture is so ordinary that it could have been taken at anytime over the past 5 years. Arzel (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - As Arzel writes, it adds no additional information not already contained within the article and the picture is so ordinary that it could have been taken at anytime over the past 5 years. --GRuban (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support. It proves Obama allows women in the situation room. Other than Hillary Clinton. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I hope that is a sarcastic comment. Arzel (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support relevant photo. --Yalens (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as previously stated it doesn't add anything not already contained within the article. Aneah|talk _to ^me 22:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Not only does the photo not add to the article, it detracts in my opinion. My76Strat (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Too long; suggest we move Reactions section

The article is now too long. Over 140K. As a first step, I would suggest the reactions section be moved to a separate article.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's too long. Nearly half the article are references/footnotes. Perhaps we can just edit the content without removing sections. I'm not so sure a reactions article is warranted. Intrepid (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:Article size would indicate it is too long for readability (not content). Hence splitting off to some pages. Note- no content is being [removed(Lihaas (talk) 10:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)).

The prose of this article measures 5653 words of text (34 kB), which is "readable prose size". This measurement was taken with the tool at User:Dr_pda/prosesize. According to WP:SIZERULE, if an article's readable prose size is less than 40 kB, then "Length alone does not justify division." Note that the relevant measure of "article size" is readable prose size. The number of bytes shown next to each edit in the article's history tab is much higher because it includes more than readable prose. Emw (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Gadzhimurad Dolgatov aka амир раббаникалы абу Дуджана

One of the Caucasus Emirate guys, Tamerlan posted his videos, he also happened to be around when Tamerlan was on his 6 month visit.Erxnmedia (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

References

Requesting comments about converting format of references

In my opinion it is overly cumbersome editing this article for all the references included inline. I'd like to centralize the references into the reference section using only the named reference inline; to significantly reduce the clutter in the editing view. Please indicate whether you support this or not. Additionally, does anyone know of a script for accomplishing this, if it is a direction we want to travel? My76Strat (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Nothing in MOS against such placement and, as compared to the Boston article, there are is a much higher density of double, even triple citations despite similar size and number of references overalls. GotR ^Talk 00:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Don't know of a script but I like your idea. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
• so another words the only thing inline would be <refname=x /> (or however it is formatted, I'm on my cellphone right now) with the actual info in the ref section? If so I'd support Hot Stop (Talk) 01:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • You can also use {{r|1234}} instead of <ref name="1234"/> to cut down on clutter a bit more, as you can see it uses less characters. — -dainomite   02:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
• So, WP:List-defined references? Chris857 (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, that would be the wiki-correct terminology. Thank you Chris857. My76Strat (talk) 03:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, there is a tool; see Help:Converting between references formats. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

  Thank you for that link John Broughton. I looked at it and one nice thing that immediatly surfaced is that you can use the script to restore the format back to the current style, as easily. I am very glad for this information. Thanks again. My76Strat (talk) 03:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• I would think that format is harder to use when there are more references, not easier. If I am editing a section, it is easier to put in the reference there, instead of making two edits, one to add material, and the second to add the reference. Apteva (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

  It is actually fine when someone adds the complete reference inline when editing. It just means someone will come along at various intervals and move the details to the reference section leaving only the template or refname. Same as if someone added a raw url right now; it just gets fixed later, most often by simply running the tool.My76Strat (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Since no one has commented in more than 60 hours, I will, either today or tomorrow, completely convert the format. GotR ^Talk 16:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

  Seeing no substantial objection I am preparing to convert the format to a list defined style. My76Strat (talk) 09:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

  A few things I didn't anticipate make this challenging in other ways. Help is good, always. My76Strat (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• I would have no objections to converting this back to normal inline references, which are far easier to add and maintain. This is a mess right now. Apteva (talk) 08:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Injury count consistency.

The number keeps changing, and now I'm seeing 264 in the lead, and 282, still, in the first section below the lead. Any way we can get the numbers consistent and final? KirkCliff2 (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The Boston Public Health number of 282 seems to be the most accurate. You can source pretty much any lower number you like in the media. I am really annoyed that someone (again) removed the killed and injured cops from the victims section. The article is about the whole event (including the MIT Killing and Watertown firefight) these two courageous officers deserve to be listed prominently as victims, not just in sentences buried in the story further down. Let's show some respect people. Legacypac (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Disputed counts should be spelled out as such, with sources cited. About the victims count: agreed, but for a different reason. "Total" should obviously include "law enforcement", "civilians" should not. Everywhere referenced, either make the counts distinct with these qualifiers, or simply include all casualties in the count. About the word "victims", I'd suggest "casualties" instead, since that unambiguously includes both killed and injured, and is generally a more neutral word. --Lexein (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Injuries are tricky to count. Some injured people don't go to the hospital (especially where it costs money), and not everyone who goes to a hospital after a disaster is actually injured (some are just excited). Patient confidentiality makes it hard to say who's who. As long as the number is sourced to somewhere, and isn't unusually higher or lower than the rest, should be good. The exact number may seem important, but we really can't comprehend the difference between 266 and 236 in any meaningful way, anyway.

And yes, cops are people, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the Boston Health Department is a pretty good source of how many people were injured. And, IncredibleHulk, while cops are people too, the police that were injured during the manhunt were not injured during the bombing. They should not be grouped into the number of people injured in the bombings. They were injured at a different time and place.--Crunch (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Continued reverting of the sourced injury number to earlier, lower estimates, borders on vandalism. I doubt that the Boston Health Department's count is going to change again at this late date. Legacypac (talk) 04:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Yesterday, the infobox said 282 but the body said 264 in both places...so I changed the body to 282 to match. Now, the body still says 282, but the infobox has been changed to 264! (And the total in the infobox no longer adds up.) If you look at the two refs used, Reuters for 264 [5] and the Globe for 282 [6], both say the numbers are from the Boston Public Health Commission. The Globe also says 27 hospitals instead of 26...again from the BPHC. Since both references are using the same initial source, there's no reason to use the 264 number. I'm changing the infobox back to 282 again since it's clear Reuters is older information from the same place. If anyone thinks this needs to be revised down for some reason...please discuss it here, and change both the article and the infobox (having them be inconsistent is worse than being slightly off.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 15:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

There are multiple articles dated April 23 that state the number as 264, based on Boston Public Health Commission information, including the Boston Globe in an article published later than the article you cite above.. Note that this number includes only those injured in the bombings, as it should. Additional people -- police and one suspect -- injured in the manhunt numbers 20 and should be noted separately. See: http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/2013/04/23/number-injured-marathon-bombing-revised-downward/NRpaz5mmvGquP7KMA6XsIK/story.html and http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/23/boston-marathon-injured-toll-rise and http://www.businessinsider.com/marathon-bombing-injuries-still-rising-2013-4 just for starters. Can we please stop this silly reverting? It's beginning to be vandalism. --Crunch (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, with regard to Legacypac 's comment about revertising to "earlier, lower estimates," the earlier numbers are higher not lower. Perhaps this is part of the confusion among editors. The count went from about 170 to 282 and then back to 264, where it has stayed universally and without waiver for five days. --Crunch (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The first article you mention [7] does state that the numbers were revised down, specifically from 282 to 264. So it appears 264 is the correct number to use, and that Globe ref should probably be the one used. (Rather than the AP ref which was cited when I made the numbers match both last night and earlier today.) The problem I had is that the numbers were inconsistent; that's the only reason I changed it, to make the article body and infobox use the same number. People have been changing one without changing the other, which obviously should never happen... – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 19:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

When an article, like this one, changes so rapidly, it is often difficult to have every mention of specific number match. The best solution when you come across this is not just to revert newly-added content to match the older content. The best approach is to examine the references and determine which reference is best. --Crunch (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

In this case, the refs provided were just the Globe (282) and AP (264) refs...so it did appear the number had been revised up from one to the other; examining the references didn't provide much insight past that. I've changed it to 264, using the Globe ref you provided that specifies the change from 282, and everything matches now. Hopefully that resolves this. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 19:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I've actually been making edits here with the Reuters citation -- Boston officials say 264 injured in marathon bombing since 05:51 on March 25. People were reverting it as quickly as I added it, so perhaps you missed this. --Crunch (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I saw that one, but between discussion here and that ref mentioning "the latest count is higher", assumed 282 being even higher made sense; my mistake. At least the current ref specifically notes a revision down from 282, and that number's gone from the article, so I imagine we're all on the same page now. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Super happy someone found the Globe ref stating the numbers were revised down and that it was because of duplicates due to ppl moving between hospitals. Before this no one suggested that the numbers were revised down (that I could see anyway). Legacypac (talk) 06:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

A bald, red-bearded Armenian Muslim named Misha

Does he exist? Is he the man behind the curtain? All mention of him has been scrubbed from the article as per above Misha section. Is this scrubbing WP:POV or admirable prescience on the part of the scrubbers?

Also, in case the Daily Mail has been blacklisted as a source by concerned Wikipedians, here are some more reputable citations.Erxnmedia (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Also phone interview about him and other reporting by CNN 70.78.45.67 (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The Week magazine considers the possibility that Misha was an FBI informant.

The Washington Post considers the possibility that Misha is a family myth.Erxnmedia (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Misha identified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason from nyc (talk • contribs) 13:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

and named and interviewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.45.67 (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

References

Victims

Minor formatting point. Should victims (and its subsections) each be pushed up one header? Rather than be a subset to bombings?--Epeefleche (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that ppl keep adding Collins' death and the injured cop during the manhunt to this section, when their death/injury are explained in detailed within the manhunt section. They should be separate considerations (the bombing victims/deaths from the manhunt victims/death). --MASEM (t) 02:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Then change the new section heading to Bombing victims. I think it's a good reformat since the part above the current Victims section doesn't function as a lead for what follows. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

As long as that distinction is made, that's acceptable. It's just that we shouldn't be grouping Collins' death among the 3 killed from the bomb explosion, and same with injured. --MASEM (t) 03:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

In earlier times the grouping of all the deaths and injuried into sections made perfect sense. Than someone got the idea to change the headings around so that the part above only included direct bombing vics. This makes the two cops hard to find buried in paragraphs about the manhunt etc. The article covers the whole sequence of events so the respectful thing is to include all the killed and injured together. The sections on the cops have always clearly said when and how they were killed/injured. What is the problem with that?

Legacypac (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't recall and can't be bothered checking what the article was like before but currently the article includes a section on the bombings. In this section there is a discussion of the bombings, and nothing else, like the proceeding manhunt. This section also includes a subsection on victims, which for some reason currently mentions the later victims, which makes little sense. I actually think the current layout and naming is preferable presuming the extraneous details are removed, to making the victims section a seperate section if it is going to remain in its current position. It doesn't make much sense to me to have a bombings section, then right under it a bombing victims section. If people want to move it to somewhere else like after the manhunt, then that may be okay to. Nil Einne (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 April 2013

Injuried is 282 now. http://www.wcvb.com/news/local/metro/Number-of-injured-in-Boston-Marathon-bombings-rises-to-282/-/11971628/19857266/-/chdojw/-/index.html

Cariisgreat (talk) 11:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done, but thanks for the suggestion.[8] Apteva (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done because there is a lower official number now - 264 injured.

Misha speaks

From The New York Review of Books. Erxnmedia (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

References

TV affected by Bombings

I don't know if this is too trivial to be mentioned on the page or not. I doubt that it would get it's own article like the affects 9/11 had on certain shows, movies, and whatnot. I'm wondering if any of the TV shows affected by the bombings should be mentioned in the article or not. I mean, the entire Friday schedule of that week was preempted mostly on the East Coast, if it even aired on the West. Some shows like Hannibal and Castle didn't air episodes that were considered too controversial due to their bomb related storylines. Others might have been affected as well. Is it worth mentioning?

65.214.69.226 (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing not here, but a mention on the individual shows would probably good, as long as you have evidence/sources that the bombing was the actual cause. FallingGravity (talk) 06:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's one RS: Why TV Shows Are Self-Censoring After the Boston Bombing (And Why It Won’t Last) --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The self-censorship of TV shows might, might, be notable. TV being pre-empted for breaking news is not notable. It happens all the time. --Crunch (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The article to add this to is Self-censorship --Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Map

The LA Times has a map here.[9] Or if you prefer, here,[10] which can be compared with File:Boston marathon event map.png. Apteva (talk) 04:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It's equally wrong, if not more wrong than the incorrect map created by a Wikipedia editor. The carjacking is still shown in East Cambridge, when it actually happened in Boston, in the Allston neighborhood. among other areas. See http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/allston_brighton/2013/04/in_neighborhood_where_carjacki.html for a description of the exact location. --Crunch (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

If the facts of where the details of events happened are still in question (what seems to be based on the SUV hostage) it doesn't make sense to update until these are nailed down. As I made up the game (but can easily move points) I just need to know what's the right locations to put markers. --MASEM (t) 23:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The location of the hijacking is particularly problematic because it's only based on the victim's report at this point. I suggest we leave out the map until locations are pinned down. I don't know what you mean by "As I made up the game." --Crunch (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Map as in game map. I think it is okay to use locations we find somewhere else for now, and correct them when we get better locations. To make this easier it would be helpful to update a blank map that anyone can use. (one with just the inset) In a revised map it would be okay to add the marathon route and the two places that runners were diverted to as well, although this might make it too cluttered. Apteva (talk) 05:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I can upload the map base I used (w/ inset) and without markers to commons, but again, I think it's best to wait until we have source agreement on where the carjacking/escape points took place. (I assume, as I read, all the other key points are still correct? --MASEM (t) 17:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

There should at least be enough sources for the release point, though at the time the police asked the media to not reveal it, as I recall. As to the carjacking, that location is certainly available to the police, and will also likely be available at some point. Apteva (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

See the second comment in this topic. The location of the hijacking has been widely reported, at least in the Boston area. However the only source for the location is an interview that the supposed hijacking victim gave to the Boston Globe last week and this is what's problematic. I don't know if the police have the ability to ever locate the precise hijacking location. There were apparently no witnesses and no cameras recording. --Crunch (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

We can always state for the carjacking point as being "Point of carjacking, according to victim". That puts any unreliability on the verifability of the victim, as long as we are accurately reiterating what he said. If the release point is not known and not established, but believed to be by sourced in a given area, that's also something we can "explain away" by carefully choosing the text around it. I don't think we need to worry about precision, just that from the MIT shooting, to the carjacking, and then to the Watertown shootings, the map shows the general path this manhunt took. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Now according to USA Today Robel Phillipos's apartment is next to the gas station where the carjacking occurred in Cambridge. Legacypac (talk) 02:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

That story seems inaccurate. The carjacking occurred in the Allston/Brighton area of Boston, which is across the river from Cambridge. The gas station is where the carjack victim escaped. Not clear if there is any connection. And wasn't Philippos at UMass at the time this was going down? Fletcher (talk) 03:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Local Boston television is reporting that Phillipos at one time lived with his mother in an apartment next to the gas station to which the car jacking victim ran after escaping from a gas station across the street. It is unclear if either Phillipos or his mother still lives there. Whether they lived there or not, it seems like a trivial coincidence and not a notable fact for inclusion in this article. --Crunch (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

References

The Canadian boxer

Maybe William Plotnikov (deceased) is the Svengali. Also mentioned:

• Makhmud Mansur Nidal (deceased, age 19)
• Messaging portions of the website of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth.
• Utamysh (no Wikipedia entry for this location), in Dagestan.

Erxnmedia (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Canadian press gave him a lot of press when he died, and now again with the link to the older brother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 18:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

As with "Misha" I think we should be taking it slow here, because... well, there's a lot of "this guy had links with" and "someone said they were tied to" speculation going on and so far it's all looking like a hot steaming pile of nada. "Misha" being a case in point. polarscribe (talk) 03:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Misha's "it was not me" coupled with his refusal to talk about his relationship with the bombers family is not very convincing. And just look - some editors said he did not exist a couple days ago. Legacypac (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

He didn't "refuse to talk about his relationship with the family," he said he had no contact with the family. He also asserted (without any known refutation) that he has cooperated with the FBI and is shortly to be cleared of any involvement. So no, the "Misha" that was alleged to be some sort of radical-terrorist-influencer appears to actually not exist because those claims at this point appear to be entirely false. polarscribe (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not Misha is real or not is a matter for the reliable sources to lay out. It doesn't really matter whether or not we are convinced - only what the RSs say about him. Same goes for the Svengali. We aren't a jury or an FBI tac team. The verdis are running amok on me. TheSyndromeOfaDown (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Apparently Tsarnaev left Russia in a hurry without picking up his new Russian passport (ostensible purpose of trip) a few days after the Canadian was killed.Erxnmedia (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Can I just say how pointless a thread beginning with the word "Maybe" is? We are not supposed to speculate. HiLo48 (talk) 08:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

References

Sub-section Suspects -> "Backgrounds"

Having a subsection titled Backgrounds buried in the middle of a large section on the suspects reads poorly in my opinion. I have tried changing it a few times only to have it reverted days later. When reading through the article and getting to the "backgrounds" section there is not enough context in my opinion for this sub-heading. Since the parent heading is many many lines above (off-screen for many), and the wording itself is strange (how often do you run across the plural of background?) I think we should change this to a better sub-heading. I have tried Suspect's Backgrounds which was reverted because it is a sub-heading of the suspects section (a point that is reasonable if not completely convincing). Next I tried Biographical backgrounds. This second one was better than the first although still far from a perfect sub-heading. This second change was reverted without comment by a different wikipedian than the first revert. Can anyone suggest a better sub-heading? CoolMike (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Since there is a big and expanding bio article on them we could just direct people to their bio. Just an idea, not saying this is the solution. Legacypac (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

What about just plain 'Background'? Fletcher (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Background alone still feels like it lacks context to me. Background to what or background of whom? By the time the reader gets to the sub heading the meaning of the heading is lost or at least confusing. I do like legacypac's suggestion of simply putting a main subject link under the suspects heading and removing the background sub-section myself. Thanks, also anyone else have any better ideas?! CoolMike (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I tried cleaning up the section a little last night, but it is hard to condense a lot of info like this, especially when an agenda of protecting Islam from RS is being pushed here. Everything has to be so heavily sourced and couched in "alleged" you can't just say what needs to be said. How do we decide which bio info is worth including and to what detail? Legacypac (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

UN official Richard Falk

i have tried to add the UN official richard falk's comments on the bombings, but they were removed by Ryan Vessey (as a "minor" edit!). richard is a very prominent person, and his comments brought the reactions of world leaders including the canadian foreign minister, the UK delegation to the UN, US ambassador to the UN, and UN secretary general ban ki-moon himself. so how is this not notable? it has been sourced to major RS around the world. what gives ryan?

here is the passage:

Richard Falk, United Nations Special Rapporteur dealing with issues of human rights in Israel and the Palestinian Authority, wrote a posting on his personal blog called "A Commentary on the Marathon Murders", which was reprinted in part on Al Jazeera's website, in which he called the Boston Marathon events, "horrific bombings". He also wrote that "the American global domination project is bound to generate all kinds of resistance in the post-colonial world" and that "the United States has been fortunate not to experience worse blowbacks". He also criticized American policy towards Iran’s nuclear program and friendship with Israel, writing more attacks are likely "if there is no disposition to rethink US relations to others in the world, starting with the Middle East."[238][239] Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird sharply criticized Falk, stating that “Once again, United Nations official Richard Falk has spewed more mean-spirited, anti-Semitic rhetoric, this time blaming the attacks in Boston on President Obama and the State of Israel. The United Nations should be ashamed to even be associated with such an individual.” The United Kingdom, in a statement by its UN mission, noted that this was "the third time we have had cause to express our concerns about Mr. Falk’s anti-Semitic remarks. It is important to the U.K. that special rapporteurs uphold the highest standards in their work and we have twice previously made clear that remarks by Mr. Falk were unacceptable." United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon rejected Falk’s statements, saying that they undermined the credibility and work of the UN.[240] United States Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice wrote that she was "Outraged by Richard Falk's highly offensive Boston comments", that "Someone who spews such vitriol has no place at the UN", and that it was "Past time for him to go."[241]. Soosim (talk) 08:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

So Falk (1) has a prominent position in the UN but (2) is writing on his personal blog not in an official capacity and (3) has no real connection to the topic of this article other than by way of offering his general commentary on world affairs. I am therefore skeptical such a large amount of text should be devoted to his opinion and the backlash it spurred. Yet, the opinion that terrorism can be seen as a blowback effect from years of US interventionism is probably too widely held to be considered WP:FRINGE, and our Reactions section does not seem to address this. Perhaps it could be distilled into something more concise, like "Richard Falk, a United Nations official, controversially described the bombings as blowback from U.S. foreign policy." I don't think his more general musings on Israel, Iran etc. are topical.Fletcher (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This is nothing that has a immediate direct effect on the bombing or dealing with those affects, and only a way for him to soundboard his ideas. Maybe its appropriate on his article, but not here about the bombings themselves. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

fletcher - yes, something distilled makes sense. I would add to what you wrote that world leaders reacted sharply criticizing him. otherwise, it looks like he is a foreign policy expert without flaw. masem - falk is certainly more relevant and attracts more attention than Chris Buckley and Laurie Burkitt, who are there now. and he is more relevant and notable than the Czech ambassador discussing something which is really no more than trivial and entertaining (about how americans don't know geography, etc.). Soosim (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This article is about the bombings. Reactions like Falk's are basically anti-US rants that are only tangentally tied to the bombing (basically, providing a spark to allow Falk to write about his opinion on his blog). This is not the place for such viewpoints, regardless of how important the person may be. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

well, I understand that this is your opinion as to why he said what he said, but he still said what he said. and he clearly tied the bombings to a larger picture. Soosim (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Many bloggers have, in several ways. Masem is right, Falk's blog is only tangentially related. To single out his views over others would be undue. What Falk does in his non-blogging time has no bearing on the notability of this posting. Same would go for any "important" person without a connection to the event. Even Kermit the Frog in a trenchcoat (personally, my highest authority figure, but not Wikipedia's). InedibleHulk (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 May 2013

Please change "At the site of the explosion, investigators found shrapnel" to "At the site of the second explosion, investigators found shrapnel" Referring to "the explosion" (singular) contradicts the article's introductory statement "two pressure cooker bombs exploded" (plural). News sources indicate that shrapnel injuries were sustained only by victims in the vicinity of the second explosion. Thank you. sources:
http://www.medicaldaily.com/articles/14945/20130427/boston-bombing-heather-abbott-raytheon-boston-marathon-amputation.htm http://abcnews.go.com/US/boston-bomb-survivor-seeks-guardian-angel-saved-life/story?id=19050944 http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/5-friends-recovering-marathon-bombing-article-1.1330392 Krolman (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit semi-protected}} is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. --ElHef (Meep?) 18:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, there is no claim that shrapnel injuries only occurred at the second explosion. Any report commenting on someone injured by shrapnel at the second explosion should not be interpreted as implying that was the only location where shrapnel occurred. Fletcher (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

"Mommy Dearest" Sources

The sources used to describe the mother are dubious at best...very xenophobic/racist in their content. Maybe get the info from a more objective/vetted source?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.164.76 (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2013‎ (UTC)

How exactly were suspects identified?

Under the Manhunt and capture section, 2nd paragraph, we say an all points bulletin was issued for their Honda Civic. But it is not clear at that point how the Civic -- or its owner -- was identified. I understand the Civic was left at the scene of the Watertown shootout, so obviously the registration could be traced to one brother from that point. But why then would an APB be issued for it? I don't actually see which source states there was an APB. I did google and found an NYT source here saying there was an APB issued for the stolen SUV, which makes more sense as the carjack victim had reported it to them.

Was there any time before they found the Civic at the shootout that police identified the suspects, or their car? Did Tamerlan have ID on him when they found him? Had the suspects not panicked and stayed home Thursday night, would their identities be known? I've read some people recognized at least one brother from the FBI photos released Thursday evening, but not that anyone reported them. Appreciate if anyone can clarify. Fletcher (talk) 02:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

What makes the Mistakes in reporting on this event different from any other?

Anyone who has ever been involved in an event reported by the media knows that it almost always gets something wrong, sometimes quite seriously. I cannot imagine us adding such a section to any other article. (Please correct me if I'm wrong and such sections do exist elsewhere.) It will not be significant information in the long term, which is the perspective we should always be writing from. I intend to remove it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I've already made this point in several threads. The media is inherently unreliable and always has been. In the 1980s and 1990s, I attended many events that were broadcast on television. In almost every case, the media got the event completely wrong, and they rarely issued retractions. Sometimes, they just made stuff up. What we need is for people to learn good critical thinking skills and for trained citizen journalists to report the news as it happens. To make this a reality, we need strong organizations dedicated to the rights of journalists that give them protected access to newsworthy events and freedom from arrest and imprisonment. Viriditas (talk) 08:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Getting instant images from "the public" certainly helps. As to other examples, we do have other articles that include a section on mistakes. See Aeroperú Flight 603#Reporting. There are others as well. I agree that anyone who has been to an event that was covered in the news can see that there is a huge difference between the event and the event as it is covered. I think this event has received far more media coverage than it deserved, by a factor of at least a thousand, but I am not sure why it got elevated to that level. If the goal was to kill people, they failed miserably. If the goal was to attract attention, we fell for it hook, line, sinker, and then some. Apteva (talk) 08:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, what you might see in the crowd from one position vs what is reported in the media can be different (though I have never noticed that myself) but that is not the point. The mistakes in reporting this bombing have been far greater and the mistakes themselves generated far more press than any event I can think of. That makes the mistakes notable and worth inclusion. Also, all the mistakes are out there on the net, youtube, and in print for people to see. If we are going to provide an accurate, fair, balanced article we MUST reflect the reporting errors. Are we running out of space in Wikipedia that we have to delete really well sourced, really widely discussed material? Here is a good read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Does_deletion_help Legacypac (talk) 10:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It's very nice to know that "the mistakes themselves generated far more press than any event (you) can think of." But that's obviously pure OR. What happened here was mass excitement by too many of our editors, who stuck anything they read or heard about the bombings in the article. THAT'S where the problem lies. Many of us pointed out many times that we have no deadline, but that didn't stop a lot of poorly judged content being added, in extreme haste, and now having to be cleaned up. The mistakes in our article were created by our editors (well, some of them), choosing to rush. Should we document all those stuff ups as well? No. Our goal is to create an encyclopaedic article. We get things right, according to the best sources, in a sensible, non-rushed time frame. If one of our excellent sources documents the reporting errors, we might pick up on it then. Right now, it's undue, unsourced garbage. HiLo48 (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

HiLo-needs to get over him/herself and stop twisting my words. A thinking person would realize that I am saying that in this story, more than any other story I can think of, RS reported about the reporting mistakes. Maybe OR but so is "Anyone who has ever been involved in an event reported by the media knows that it almost always gets something wrong, sometimes quite seriously. I cannot imagine us adding such a section to any other article." which is how HiLo48 started this whole section. Than HiLo48 moved to chrystalballing with "It will not be significant information in the long term," Next HiLo48 suggests he/she is going to delete the work of dozens of editors based on their opinion, something that is clearly going to be controversial. There is no deadline. Let things settle BEFORE deciding that something very widely reported is not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 18:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Until we actively make it impossible for editors to treat WP like a newspaper, editors will treat WP like a newspaper. Arzel (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Centennial_Olympic_Park_bombing#Richard_Jewell_falsely_implicated,   Richard Jewell,   Trayvon_Martin#Aspects_of_coverage   --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

There should not be a section about mistakes in reporting. Newspapers are the first rough draft of history. Such mistakes been happening since time immemorable; the mistakes are triva; the section is a violation of WP:UNDUE. Jehochman ^Talk 12:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Although I think that information should be on the talk page to help editors not make the same mistake over and over again. The archives will show we've talked about this before without reaching a consensus. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

There has been whole news reports written about the massive and extremely dangerous fuck ups of both the mainstream media and social media regarding their reporting of this event. It would be insanse for this article to simply pretend they never happened, not least on the patently false claim that such things are just a part of the ordinary standard of reportage generally (seriously?). Gruesome Foursome (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether mistakes in reporting happen or not, but rather whether mistakes in reporting were a part of the story or not. In this case, it appears that they were. cf.[11].--regentspark (comment) 14:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Yea, given the FBI were prompted to release the suspect photos due to the mis-naming by the press and crowd-soucring, this is a significant aspect of this story. Compare to the Sandy Hook case, where there was the fact that the shooter was carrying his brother's ID, and so the brother was temporarily considered the suspect, but this ended up as just a footnote in the story. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone think of any story in history where it is even possible to build a "Mistakes in Reporting" section this big based on RS discussing them? Legacypac (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC) No One bothered to answer this questionLegacypac (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

See Trayvon_Martin#Aspects_of_coverage. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree that the section is way to long. A single paragraph of a few sentences is probably all that is necessary. And, on reflection, it is probably better titled "role of media" or some such thing.--regentspark (comment) 20:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding this bloated section, I removed two sentences regarding Polish news, Sarah Palin and the Czech Republic which Legacypac reverted with an edit summary um not trivial. The Chech people are very concerned about being identrified with these bombers,—I'm not sure how this editor thinks this is a valid rationale to merit inclusion in the article about the Boston Marathon bombings, regardless per WP:BRD I'll post here for other opinions. Also, Legacypac you have made an extremely large number of reversions to this page, remember you don't own the article and your opinions do not trump those of others Jebus989^✰ 19:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

None of us own the article. Love the rational that my reversions justify your reversions. With over 5000 edits a lot of people have reverted a lot of things. When I brought up 3RR I was told IAR on talk by admins so ??? Legacypac 24.114.27.45 (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I actually haven't made any reversions. I know you've come close to breaking 3RR already but this is unrelated to that. I'm opening a discussion on the edit I propose (that's usually the way we work here, discussing things to reach consensus) Jebus989^✰ 23:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You have not made any reversions? What about "I removed two sentences regarding Polish news, Sarah Palin and the Czech Republic"? That is a real reversion. Some of my "reversions" are taking out cn tag and replacing them with cites, hardly edit warring. Legacypac (talk) 03:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Removing a paragraph is not the same as reverting an edit, likewise adding a reference is not a revert. Help:Reverting explains what a revert is if you're unsure Jebus989^✰ 11:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you read your own link to Help:Reverting ? Start with the first sentence... "Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page being restored to a previous version. " and goes on to talk about Manual and Undo. How does insulting our intelligence by pointing at a help page that proves my point help your credibility in this discussion is ??? Legacypac (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done Has now been removed by someone else Jebus989^✰ 12:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Answer The mistakes in reporting of the bombings are different from other mistakes in reporting because the very mistakes themselves were the subject of many news paper articles, radio programs, television programs, and other media sources. The process for deciding what is notable applies not just to articles but to sub-headings and sub-sections as well. These reporting mistakes clearly meet the requirements for notability. CoolMike (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, then. How about we fix our sourcing? What we have now is an OR section written by Wikipedia editors who are showing the world the mistakes that those clever editors have noticed themselves. It's largely sourced to the conflicting reports. That's the wrong approach. If it's really true that "the very mistakes themselves were the subject of many news paper articles, radio programs, television programs, and other media sources", then those articles, etc, should be our sources, not the actual mistakes. And what we include should contain no more than the mistakes those articles discussing the mistakes mention. HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's one source: David Carr from The New York Times on CNN. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, Are you sure about how the section is sourced? You might want to look at it again. If you still think that, perhaps you could give a few examples. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Answer refuted The whole mistake section is not notable because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newspaper. I can't tell you how many times editors have complained about my insertions because they weren't certain of the enduring value. And I respect those concerns. The "mistake section" is newsy not the history. It's transient and will be left out of the history of the event. Thus, it is news and not notable. We should have that information in the talk for our needs to avoid repeating mistakes but let's leave it out of the encyclopedia. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that the "mistakes in reporting" section should be removed for a few reasons. 1. Unless a reporting mistake directly led to an action that directly affected the actual event, they are nothing more than transient side actions as Jason from nyc explains. So if, for example, the police arrested the wrong guy and did so based on incorrect media reports, that would be important. Nothing like this happened. 2. It is impossible for Wikipedia to document more than a small number of the many errant media reports. --Crunch (talk) 12:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've read through the section and pruned the "run of the mill" reporting errors that happen with all stories. However, the NY Post showing the wrong people on its front page was an unprecidented error, similar to Dewey Defeats Truman, which will have enduring notability. I think the standard for inclusion is that the error in reporting was so egregious and significant that it altered the course of events (and thus became newsworthy). In this case, it prompted authorities to release photos of the real suspects. Jehochman ^Talk 12:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for pruning. However, I still do not see anything in the section that documents media errors that actually caused events to change. "Dewey Defeats Truman" is an event from another age, not the current age of instant communication and instant self-publishing with a worldwide audience. Our current media landscape is littered with errors from both the mainstream media and self-publishing, like Twitter. "Dewey Defeats Truman" also became famous when Truman was photographed jubilantly holding up the erroneous headline. The photo became iconic and enduring, not the Chicago Tribune story alone. I don't think you can compare. There is zero indication that the authorities released photos of the real suspects only because the media released photos of the wrong suspects. I again propose deleting the entire "Media Becomes Part of the Story section" because it is trivial and non-encyclopedic. -Crunch (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think it just needs a better name. "Becomes part of the story"? What next, "Tsarnaev brothers become part of the story", for the "Suspects" section? "Media involvement" sounds like a more appropriate title to me. FallingGravity (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Re "The whole mistake section is not notable because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newspaper." — Please note that according to Wikipedia policy, "notability guidelines do not limit content within an article". Also, suggest reading and giving relevant excerpts from the part of policy referred to, Not a newspaper, instead of making what seems like one's own personal policy pronouncements. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Update: After I posted my above message, Crunch deleted the whole section. Oh well, that sometimes happens in Wikipedia. I'll revert and hope it doesn't happen again before there is suitable discussion approving such a deletion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Please clearly state why you do not consider this discussion suitable, citing Wikipedia policy in your statement. And, also, please state any part of Wikipedia policy that supports keeping this section. Thank you. --Crunch (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

So far, it hasn't been shown that the material violates any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Perhaps you would like to address the points made in my previous message of 14:13, 27 April 2013? My understanding of the Wikipedia editing process is that if material hasn't been shown to violate policy or guidelines, then it becomes a matter of the judgement of editors as to whether or not specific material should be in an article. There have been numerous editors that have contributed to and supported that reliably sourced section and I think you need to show that there is a consensus before you can delete it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Sure. See WP:UNDUE which states in part, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiablea nd impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. " Bold is mine. Inclusion of isolated incorrect news reports is a clear example of giving undue weight to an insignificant aspect of the topic. There remains zero evidence that any of the incorrect news reports changed what happened in real life in any way. --Crunch (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a matter of judgement regarding how much space to give to any aspect of a topic. So far you have given your opinion that no space should be given to a discussion of mistakes by the media. I have a different opinion that giving no space to it would be a violation of NPOV because it covers up the failings of the media in this event. I agree that we shouldn't give too much space to it, but I disagree that we should not give any space to it.

Re "There remains zero evidence that any of the incorrect news reports changed what happened in real life in any way." — It obviously changed what happened in real life because it affected the reports of other news agencies, the perceptions by people, and us, since we are discussing it. But maybe more along the lines of what you were thinking about, note the following excerpt from a reliable source, "Those officials said Saturday that the decision on Thursday to release photos of the two men in baseball caps was meant in part to limit the damage being done to people who were wrongly being targeted as suspects in the news media and on the Internet."[12] So it looks like "the incorrect news reports changed what happened in real life". --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The more I think about this the more I'm convinced that the media mistakes don't belong. They are not part of the story of the bombing. They are part of the story of this article, because too many excited editors picked on any news, credible or not, and added wrong content to this article. Ultimately, it will all be gone. We have a template that identifies an article as being about an ongoing, current event. That contains good advice about rapidly changing reports and stories. Maybe we need to put it up in bold that some sources will (probably?) get it wrong and that we have no deadline, encouraging editors to wait until the media has sorted it all out. Maybe demand two independent reports 24 hours apart before adding new content while that tag is present. Maybe those interested editors can create a separate article called List of major media stuffups or the like. It could cover much more than this event. HiLo48 (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Remove the section all together. Split it off if you must, but it's out of place here. USA Today published a critique of initial reports regarding 9/11. They included a reminder that "initial estimates led to claims that Sept. 11 was the bloodiest day in U.S. history", I remember hearing that several times. It's not in the 9/11 article and this article doesn't call for it either. My76Strat (talk) 23:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The example of the Wikipedia article 9/11 doesn't seem appropriate since it is a much larger topic. The "bloodiest" item you mentioned was apparently kept when the topic was smaller, and removed or split off when the article grew sufficiently large. We're not at that stage and may never get to it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

If you want a better example consider Beltway sniper attacks. It was widely reported (and back by government experts) that the perpetrator was a white man. During this time, they let the actual perpetrators slip through several road blocks only to commit more murders. Yet, the initial slip-up in profiling is mentioned in only one sentence in the Wikipedia article. In our case, the mistaken profile given by a newspaper in a distant city for a brief period can hardly compare to that mess-up in the Beltway sniper attacks yet we have a whole section on it. Clearly the "Post" news story is just a passing news blip and violates WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." Jason from nyc (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Is the sentence of your example this one in the lead of Beltway sniper attacks, "It was widely speculated that a single sniper, initially identified as a white man with assumed military experience, was using the Capital Beltway for travel, possibly in a white van or truck." This sentence is about the mistaken identification of a white man and a white van or truck. If you do a search for "white" in that article you will find plenty of references to these mistakes. I think there are other mistakes mentioned too, although the white man and white van or truck are the two most prominent ones. As an example of an article discussing media mistakes of an event, see Trayvon_Martin#Aspects_of_coverage.

The "white man" mistake is mentioned only once and it is a mistake about the identity of the suspects which makes it similar to our example. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The policy quote you gave regarding "enduring notability" is referring to the notability of topics for articles, rather than particular items in an article. See the context of your quote from WP:NOTNEWS and the policy section Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article. In other words, according to policy, the consideration of enduring notability only applies to topics for articles, not to specific items in an article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, the proper criteria is "due weight." If your claim is based on the quote you give above some "officials" claim that a decision to release photos was "in part" the result mistaken identifications (including those in social media from photos of the crowd), we haven't seen a qualification "in part" (how much weight did this have on the decision?) or who these officials are (mistaken reports have come from other officials) and what the course of action would have been otherwise (release photos a day later?) To have a whole section based on "in part" is undue weight and speculation. If there is a certain and material change in the course of events it should be in the text in the appropriate time order and with the appropriate weight. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Re "Yes, you are right..." — I think you are referring to our recent discussion about enduring notability. If so, thanks.

You're most welcome. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the rest of your message is resurrecting a previous discussion about due weight and a comment I made 23:10, 27 April 2013. My comment was responding to another editor who wrote, "There remains zero evidence that any of the incorrect news reports changed what happened in real life in any way." So I gave evidence to show the editor's statement was incorrect. I think your point is that the item about what "law enforcement officials" said that was reported in a Washington Post article by three authors, wasn't worth mentioning by the authors or may be incorrect. Well, you're entitled to your opinion but then there's also the opinion of those authors that the item was worthwhile to report. Regarding the section, there's numerous reliable sources for it so I think it has due weight. Also note that it is placed at the end of the article so that it appropriately isn't given too much weight by being put in a prominent place elsewhere. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

While I see no quantitative criteria for "undue weight" I appear to your sense of proportion. The authors write extensively about social media and link to a whole article on the subject. When they write the decision to release the photos was "in part to limit the damage being done to people who were wrongly being targeted as suspects in the news media and on the Internet" that tells us that the news media concerns were a part of the part of the decision. At most this seems to warrant a passing reference in the timeline of the article. Do you seriously think that a whole section on media coverage (and perhaps add social media [13]) can be bootstrapped on the fact that part of a part of the decision was a concern with news media and part of a part of the decision was a concern with social media (which should have equal weight) in addition to the other parts? Jason from nyc (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Re "Do you seriously think", etc. — I have seriously thought about what I have written in my discussion with you and I have spent considerable time working on it. I'll stand by what I wrote and see what other editors think. Thanks for the discussion. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Since the media is used as a reliable source for Wikipedia, it's extremely important to show how often the media is wrong. I wish we could also show how much goes unreported by the same media. Wikipedia as an encyclopedia is limited to the sources available. Taking a critical look at that fact is encyclopedic in nature, factual, and offers a more accurate perspective. Silencing this information is censorship. USchick (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not. There is not an obligation to show how the media is often wrong. There is an obligation to follow Wikipedia's standards and guidelines, especially those for encyclopedic content, notability, and verifiability. --Crunch (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The obligation is for balance. How do you propose to achieve balance by presenting only one side? Before you respond, please see the discussion further down about Media Analysis. USchick (talk) 03:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a factual encyclopedia, not a place to post opinions. (see WP:NMO, WP:FORUM, etc). There are not two sides to facts. There is, therefore, no need for "balance." Media reports are always changing as a fast-changing event, like the Boston Marathon Bombings, develops. Eventually, the reports will solidify and present the same story. The solution to changing media reports is 1) to first confirm that a specific media source is not an outlier (for example the NY Post's early claim of 12 dead) and 2) to update the article contents and its references as reports change. It is NOT to document the complete history of inaccurate media reports related to the article. It is also not the place to discuss bias and errors in the media as they related to an event. --Crunch (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Anybody for nixing the "Error in number of people killed" subsection? The manhunt stuff I can deal with because they actually affected the FBI and police investigation, but this section is pretty much the definition of WP:UNDUE cited above. FallingGravity (talk) 06:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That subsection is appropriately smaller than the other subsection about wrong suspects, so it complies with WP:UNDUE. I think that removing it entirely would be a violation of WP:UNDUE. Although most of WP:UNDUE is concerned with minority vs majority viewpoints, which isn't the case here, I presume the part of WP:UNDUE that you are using is, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed the section about the short-lived New York Post error in stating number killed. As we have mentioned ad nauseum, the media make mistakes all the time when trying to get facts correct in a quickly-evolving high profile event. Isolate, short-lived of this type that have no effect on the actual event are not notable. --Crunch (talk) 11:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Re "I removed the section" — While there was an objection and this discussion was in progress? That's disruptive behavior and I have restored it.

Please note that I had just moved the small subsection to the end of the section to give it less weight, since the wrong-suspects subsection should be first. See current Media involvement section.

Also note that the NY Post has been singled out in reliable sources as the source of the errors, which other media have mistakenly followed, and the NY Post has been the one that is most criticized in reliable sources for its reporting of this event. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

This mistake is about the media and not the events. I see no material effect on the events or subsequent investigation due to hastily reported and incorrect tally of fatalities. Due weight should be zero in this case. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Re "This mistake is about the media and not the events." — The media's reporting are events of this bomb topic, as are arrests, search, shut down of the city, etc.

Re "material effect on the events or subsequent investigation" — Affecting perception of the public is an important effect, not just regarding the number of people dead, but also the credibility of the news media.

Re "Due weight should be zero in this case." — I think the topic has received sufficient attention in reliable sources to be given the small amount of weight that it has in the section, compared to the wrong-suspects subsection. It's part of the criticism of media coverage of this particular bombing event and shouldn't be suppressed IMO. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The references are mostly opinion articles commenting on the New York Post coverage. I could easily add a dozen paragraphs to the article if I added opinion articles that were critical of the media's coverage. There was one in the Wall Street Journal that I thought was interesting. I considered creating a whole section on commentary on (1) coverage (2) government procedures (3) prejudice for or against certain demographic groups, etc. However, I reframed from doing so since this articles is about the events, not the messengers. I don't see the consensus for the inclusion of the wrongful death totals. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Criticism of anything would probably be in an opinion column, so your criterion might exclude criticism of the media reporting of the bombing from the article. I don't think it's a good idea to suppress such criticism. It's useful encyclopedic info. For example, someone working on a paper about the media's coverage of various tragedies might look to this bombing article for material. In any case, the subsection in the article is not opinion, but rather the facts. Here's the subsection in question for reference:

"Also on the afternoon of the bombing and the day after, The New York Post reported that 12 people were killed by the explosions at the Boston Marathon. Two days after the bombing the Post reported only three dead, without acknowledging its prior error.

As we can see, it's brief. Also, it's at the end of the section and at the very end of the article. It's not given much weight in the article. I don't think that it should be completely removed and that seems to be the essence of our disagreement. Let's see what others think. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Unfortunately, you didn't give links to the Wall Street Journal article and others, so I can't comment on them. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The reports are coming from law enforcement officials briefed and in a position of authority to say what happened. According to them, there were 4 guns recovered, one of them was an automatic weapon recovered from the boat. [14] However, according to the officers who were there, but not authorized to say anything, there were no weapons on the boat and only one pistol recovered from the previous location. [15] and then 3 days later, after they get the story straight, since they can't get all those organizations to agree with the guy who wanted to plant the weapons on the scene, the truth comes out, no weapons on the boat, one gun recovered from earlier that night. [16] This is not a media mistake and should not be treated as such. USchick (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

If the speculations and errors in the news and social media have a material role in the story (as some suggest above), they should be part of the storyline. I have added this information to the storyline [17]. Comments? Jason from nyc (talk) 11:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree if it's relevant information, it belongs in the story. Sometimes it can be difficult to get consensus on what's relevant, so that's how it ends up in a separate section. I'd like to point out that the mistakes are not coming from the media. The media simply reports what other people say. The mistakes are coming from the story that keeps changing after the fact. Looking for a dark skinned male, found two white guys instead. There was an exchange of gunfire at the boat, his injuries are self inflicted because he tried to kill himself, oh never mind, he didn't have a weapon. That sort of thing is extremely relevant to this event. USchick (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Can we wrap this up and at least reach some consensus on what to do with the section about the New York Post short-lived errant reporting about the number of killed? And, understanding that Wikipedia:Consensus does not mean everyone agrees and is not based on a vote. --Crunch (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus for this section (number killed). It appears that only Bob believes it is a significant part of the story. I believe we have enough of a consensus to remove it. Let the other editors correct me if I'm wrong. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Re "It appears that only Bob believes it is a significant part of the story." — Actually, I just believe that this brief item about the media error in the number killed should stay in the Media involvement section at the end of the article. BTW, I didn't originally put it in the article. It was put in with this edit. Anyhow, let's see what other editors think. Of the editors currently active in the issue, you and Crunch apparently want deletion and I want to keep it. Not sure what USchick wants. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The current mistakes in reporting section is pretty poor and could be removed. My comments above (Answer) still apply, the media witch-hunt was historically significant and notable. For example, one news program I listen to frequently (Public radio's On Point) spent an hour talking about the implications of the media frenzy and the crowd-sourcing just days after the actual bombing. The section itself is in rough state and could be either removed or completely reworked. The mistakes regarding the number of deaths for example is not notable. The suspect in custody mistakes are also not notable. The NY Post mistakes are notable as referenced in the Wiki article. The crowd-sourcing is notable as referenced. I'd support either remove or complete overhaul of the section. CoolMike (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Additional Comments Notability in this case means we need sources that talk about the mistakes of other media sources. For example, we could say that the NY Post included photographs of two individuals stating that the FBI was looking for them (paraphrasing here - source the NY post), then we say that several other media outlets denounced this report as irresponsible (source 2-3 articles or reliable sources other than the NY Post). In addition, we can talk about the crowd-sourcing efforts but we have to source 3-4 articles talking not just about the crowd sourcing / internet vigilantism but talking about the implications of the crowd-sourcing as it applies to the event. For disputed sections we need to hold ourselves to a high standard! CoolMike (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the egregious errors reported by the media is more than notable, it generated some degree of hysteria and the repeated misidentifications in the press and social media most certainly was well reported on. If no other purpose exists for inclusion, the support of critical thinking in our readers is an important factor to retain this within the article. For, in truth, the press coverage was a true pig's breakfast that far exceeded other terror attacks that have been reported on in the past.Wzrd1 (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

There was plenty of hysteria here quite independent of the media's mistakes. HiLo48 (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Just adding to that thought... I think I'll create a Mistakes in Wikipedia article section, highlighting the fact that our article was crap too for a while, mainly because too many editors chose to ignore Wikipedia:There is no deadline, despite many warnings, and insisted on sticking into the article all sorts of unconfirmed nonsense from the media. I frankly don't see the difference between "our" bad reporting (not mine) and the media's bad reporting. HiLo48 (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The upside to this suggested section is that we wouldn't have to include chastising or finger pointing sentences in our section, along the lines of what we have for the NY Post: "Two days after the bombing the Post reported only three dead, without acknowledging its prior error." FallingGravity (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no way, ever, to prove that there was "hysteria" generated by misreporting. To even claim that there was "hysteria" is POV. --Crunch (talk) 23:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You might be thinking of the mental illness meaning for the term "hysteria" rather than the meaning, "3. a state of intense agitation, anxiety, or excitement, esp. as manifested by large groups or segments of society"[18] The term is used in the latter way in the LA Times article, Boston bombing: Bad journalism fuels terrorism hysteria. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hilo48 - Your missing the whole point! If there was significant coverage from reliable sources about the mistakes in the wikipedia article then it would also be notable! The fact that mistakes were made is not notable on its own. The fact that mistakes were made and the mistakes themselves garnered significant attention from the media, including newspapers and radio programs is what we are talking about here. Bad reports in the media are not ordinarily notable, just like, for example, a political gaffe in an important speech isn't ordinarily notable. But if that gaffe changes the momentum of the election, and if that change in momentum is noted by dozens of reliable sources and is later the subject of a lengthy article on the nature of political gaffes then perhaps the gaffe is notable! Here's an article I just found on today's 'front page' of Yahoo: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/bag-men-ny-post-lawsuit-143522063.html I wouldn't call this yahoo news source an RS exactly, but I'm sure that similar sources are everywhere! Note that this source actually links the internet vigilantism to the NY Post article, something that I find interesting personally. CoolMike (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to add that the error in the number of fatalities is not notable in my opinion per my remarks above. The fact that this error was made is not enough to include it in the article. We need secondary sources talking about the error and discussing it's importance relative to the event. CoolMike (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I added a Huffington Post ref that is mainly about the error of 12 killed. NY Post Criticized Over Coverage Of Boston Bombings Apparently it wasn't just that the NY POST made the error, but that "It stuck to this assertion all day, even as every other outlet put the number at two or, at the most, three." --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

So what? What impact did it have on anybody or any thing? HiLo48 (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

For one thing, it needlessly had an adverse effect on the credibility and confusion in the reporting of the Boston bombing. When the NY POST stuck to its error, it created confusion: 12 or 2? Twelve dead is much worse than 2, which is already a tragedy and doesn't have to be falsely made 6 times worse. There are questions of whether the media was careless in its reporting of the Boston bombing because it gave too much priority to pursuing viewers over accuracy. See for example the article and its video that is mentioned in the talk section Media analysis. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I added another ref, 7 False Things You Heard About the Boston Bombing. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Bob, I still don't see a consensus for the error in deaths. As you said a few times above, let's see what other editors think. Quite a few have objected. Let's try an experiment. I'll remove the section and well see if anyone else wants to defend it besides you. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, it looks like I currently am the only one arguing for keeping the fatalities error section. So there's not much I can do about its removal, except do an RfC for broader participation. For now I'm not up to that. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course "the media was careless in its reporting of the Boston bombing because it gave too much priority to pursuing viewers over accuracy." It happens all the time. I'm glad you're discovering it. Right at the start I pointed out that such a problem is not unique to this event. Every event I have ever attended or been part of and which has been reported on extensively by the media has been misreported in some way. You say that media mistakes adversely affected media credibility. I say, about bloody time! I still say that most of the mistakes hurt nobody. HiLo48 (talk) 04:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to point out, again, what the media reported were not mistakes. It was information that officials were releasing, which conflicted with other information being released by different officials. These are not mistakes by the media. USchick (talk) 05:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

And your unmistaken source for that is? HiLo48 (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The Governor said the suspect "exchanged gunfire with police from the boat." Surely the Governor knows what he's talking about! [19] Not really, "Tsarnaev was not armed and no explosives were found in his possession." [20] USchick (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I think one type of mistake that the media was criticized for was using only one unnamed source for a fact without getting independent corroboration. So the source made a mistake and the media made the mistake of not getting independent corroboration. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, when the Governor makes a public statement, the job of the media is to report what he said. Their job is not to act as a detective and investigate what he said. The governor wasn't there, so he's relying on someone in authority to give him a report. If you can't believe what the governor said, can you believe what the President said? Again, the misinformation flying around is not simply an error. USchick (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

There's an old joke in my part of the world... Q: How can you tell if a politician is lying? A: His lips are moving. Maybe not directly relevant to this case, but why would you believe a governor? HiLo48 (talk) 02:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Removal of paragraph about errors in Reddit

I removed the paragraph about incorrect suspects being identified on Reddit. Rumors or speculation on Reddit do not constitute a reliable source and are not notable even for this section that documents some errors in the media. --Crunch (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Redditt is not being used as a reliable source. In the paragraph, there are 4 reliable sources talking about Redditt. I restored it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I'll wait to see if anyone supports the paragraph before commenting again about it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Yea, we're not using Reddit/4Chan as a source, we're using RS's that noted, and in some cases, criticized the internet viligantism from these sites, that those those sites IDd were harassed by the public due to that, and the subsequent proof that they were wrong. That was a significant factor here in the investigation events and misreporting. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The internet is full of personal opinions, speculation, rumors and conspiracy theories about what happened. Unless you can show with references how Reddit either 1) influenced mainstream reporting or, better yet, 2) influenced actions in the case, it has no place here. --Crunch (talk) 14:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with your personal criterion for choosing what should go into the article. Seems arbitrary, very limiting and inappropriate. I'll wait to see any other arguments against your position before commenting again on this. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

[21], for one. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

USChick changed the section heading to "Conflicting reports" which IMO is a fantastic heading. It does not imply guilt on the media, police, or anyone. It accurately reflects what happened - a lot of conflicting info was reported - even in this article. Legacypac (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• What typical pedantry, Legacypac. "Error" doesn't necessarily imply guilt either, FYI. Moreover, your "conflicting" is murky, to say the least, because it begs the question of "conflicting with what?" For example, the very first thing mentioned is the famous New York Post screw-up, which one can call "conflicting" only in most pedantic of ways: conflicting with the truth. It was an error; you can look that word up in the dictionary. In fact, calling that a "conflict" of some sort is, in the context of that particular screw-up, nothing but a euphemism. Now, if you're wanting to wave the "we cite the sources" flag, wave this one and note the phrase "erroneously reported" in there (and in the NYT, "worst mistake". There was no conflict: there was a clear error. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with the way it is, I didn't mean to start anything. There's a lot of misinformation going on, all the ay around. USchick (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The para is overdone. As is this conversation. There were conflicting reports, as to fact (despite Drmies assertion to the contrary; "There was no conflict"). As is often the case when there are conflicting reports as to fact, to no one's surprise there were also errors (as Drmies says). So? This deserves very little editor time. And the para is tangential. If we are not going to delete it (which I would consider), it should be trimmed back severely. This isn't a coatrack about media reporting ... stick that in some media article. Let's get back to the topic. Sheesh.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Like much in these news articles it's a collection of factoids whose importance is not yet clear at all, and its very existence is due to editorial haste and zeal. The NYP stuff is already dealt with in their article, for instance. For now, I would support its removal. BTW, Epeefleche, "there was no conflict" in the NYP reporting on the Saudi-Arabian "suspect". I'm not saying there weren't conflicting reports in general, but a conflicting report is an error, and not the other way around. Drmies (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Go read a dictionary... Source A said X, Source B said Y. Often X and Y are true but sometimes X and Y can't both be true. If X says 12 killed and Y says 2 killed than Z says 3 killed and we settle out at 3 killed, than there is a conflict (Drmies) between X and Y and Z. Y however is correct until they get updated info. Also, when a newspaper reports that a police source said XYZ they are correctly reporting what was said (unless you can prove fabrication). It is not a media error it is a source error. Legacypac (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

References

Removal of content related to sister of Martin Richard

I reinstated the removal of the content that mentioned the younger sister of Martin Richard. It was removed in good faith with an edit summary that there was nothing special about her injuries to warrant the included mention. I disagree because it is mentioned in the prose that of the 282 injured, 2 were children. With only 2 children being injured and one of them being Martin's sister, I think this is significant. She was one of the amputations as well, and these fact compound the tragedy one family was forced to endure for the senseless act of indiscriminate violence. The mother was also critically injured as well, but being 1 in a group of 280 indicates not mentioning her. But in total only 3 children were victims, and two were from the same family, I feel this is worthy of mention, and it is sourced in wp:rs as well. My76Strat (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

We need to be writing our articles with clinical, emotionless approaches. Yes, it is tragic that one family was hit with both a death and an amputation, but there are >280 ppl + their family and friends that were impacted by this, and pulling out any one victim or family from the others because of special circumstances is not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 14:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed the content. In case the edit summary did not make it clear why, here's a longer explanation. First of all, there were far more than two, or even three, children injured. I have no idea how you decided that there were only two injured. Perhaps you meant only two remaining in critical condition on April 16, which is what the article actually says. Second, there is no valid reason to single out the sister, other than to make a claim, as you do above, that one family had to endure a worse tragedy than others. You do not know this. This is your opinion and constitutes Original Research, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. Every person who was injured and their family endured hardship. We have no way of measuring relative hardship. --Crunch (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

First, I did misread the prose and as you indicated, it was as of the 16th. Do what you like with the content. You have no cause to accuse me of original research. I reported facts that are sourced, made no claim in Wikipedia's voice, letting the reader decide what those facts meant to them. I gave my view on a talk page which is my take on the raw facts. And readers can decide for themselves, or we just leave it out after we deem it's not relevant. Speaking of other victims. If their story was covered in reliable sources, I would mention their circumstances too. There's no wp:or when the facts are sourced. Thanks for discussing it here. My76Strat (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

And you are STILL misreading. There were not two children injured as of the 16th. There were two children still in critical condition as of the 16th. And, I apologize if it offends you to hear this, but stating, as you did, "these fact compound the tragedy one family was forced to endure for the senseless act of indiscriminate violence" IS original research. --Crunch (talk) 04:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not offended; don't take yourself so seriously. My76Strat (talk) 08:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I fail to understand why some editors seem to care less about the human toll of this bombing. A 6 year old losing a leg, a brother and having her mother seriously injured in a terrorist attack, not notable enough to include in Wikipedia in spite of the fact we have no space restrictions? Sad, commentary on the state of Wikipedia. Maybe we should have a separate article for the dead and injured of the bombings... no wait that would just get deleted.Legacypac (talk) 04:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Whether or not editors "care about the human toll" is totally irrelevant when determining what goes into a Wikipedia article. The fact that space is unlimited is also totally irrelevant. Decisions are based on Wikipedia policy, not the personal feelings of the editors or on space limitations. Singling out some victims who might have a particular tragic case in the mind of one or more editor is considered a violation of multiple Wikipedia policies, including WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV in general. In sum, Wikipedia is not the place to discuss a person just because we find their story sad and tragic. --Crunch (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

  We wouldn't find their story sad or tragic unless we could find their story. Their story couldn't be found unless it was published. The reliable sources who published this story are the ones responsible for singling out which stories to print. All we can do is write about what reliable sources say using neutral prose. While we shouldn't say: "a particularly tragic event occurred when the second explosion killed an eight-year-old boy and seriously injured his younger sister and mother." it's a neutral fact that "The second explosion killed an eight-year-old boy and seriously injured his younger sister". My76Strat (talk) 05:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• If we did that, would you also propose mentioning that the second explosion injured the 8-year-old's mother, as well as his sister? Or that two brothers each lost a leg in the bombing or that a newlywed couple also each lost a leg? What abou the single mother who lost both legs and her daughter who suffered serious injuries? Where do you draw the line about who to include and who not to include in this section? --Crunch (talk) 23:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Crunch you dismiss my policy arguments as "totally irrelevent" and than throw up your own policy arguments without explanation. Worse you come across as a cold hearted person to me on this issue. According to your logic the people who died are more deserving to be singled out than a 6 year old losing her leg and her brother at one? She is not like someone who got hit with a flying nail or the older gentlemen who was knocked down but finished the race. I have no idea about your family situation, but I have two little girls and I can hardly imagine watching my one of my girls lose an leg and a brother and her mother injured, and than reading these kinds of heartless dismissive comments about her loss on a talk page attached to a Wikipedia article with nearly a million views. This attack is a lot less about faceless numbers and exact bomb ingredients and a lot more about real INNOCENT people who had their lives radically altered by the attack. Maybe Wikipedia should show some respect for the victims and their families, and not just the bombers and their carefully guarded family privacy. Oh and "clinical, emotionless approaches" is for losers and people who plant bombs next to 6 year olds. Legacypac (talk) 06:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

You can look up any of the policies that I stated if you don't know what they mean. Also, it's not the role of Wikipedia editors to decide who is more deserving. It's the job of us as editors to determine notability. With all due respect, I suggest that you familiarize yourself a bit with what Wikipedia is and is not. In particular, please re-read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a place to express our feelings or our opinions on how sad and tragic a certain event is or how bad we feel about an event. If you feel that contributing to Wikipedia in an emotionless way is "for losers" then Wikipedia might not be the place for you, since being neutral and detached is what Wikipedia is all about. --Crunch (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Or maybe it is you who should follow your own advice. Legacypac (talk) 04:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Media analysis

Interesting piece on the initial media reaction. We could include some criticism of that here.(Lihaas (talk) 10:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)).

The heading of the article is,[22]

"Boston: When the media gets it wrong

As journalists scrambled to cover the bombings, some reports hit embarrassing and even dangerous new lows."

From 00:45 to 10:30 in the video of the article, the topic is the erroneous media reporting of the Boston bombing. I thought I'd look up who the last commenter was at 9:58 into the video, and it turned out to be political psychologist John Horgan, Director of the International Center for the Study of Terrorism at the Pennsylvania State University. As a sample of the video, here is what he said.

"I think it's fair to say that there was a lot of misreporting, a lot of unverified facts, and individuals that were falsely identified as being suspects. In addition, there was no shortage of self-proclaimed experts who didn't hesitate to wildly speculate as if it was based on some kind of research expertise. It's time to address this problem in a far more mature way. I'm not saying don't watch the news when something like this happens, but don't participate in the theater that surrounds these kinds of acts."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Bob K31416, please stop signing your name on a new line. It's confusing. thank you. --Crunch (talk) 21:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't understand your comment regarding how I sign my name. Please come to my Talk page to discuss this matter about my editing behavior. --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

And how is an Islamic propaganda site a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.33.89.38 (talk) 01:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

If you are referring to Al Jazeera,

"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday that Al Jazeera is gaining more prominence in the U.S. because it offers "real news" -- something she said American media were falling far short of doing."[23]

--Bob K31416 (talk) 10:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

3 more arrested

Three more arrested, from Kazakhistan. Erxnmedia Erxnmedia (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

From carefully reading this article and other earlier articles about te additional arrests I conclude that Dias Kadyrbayev and Azamat Tazhayakov are the same two guys arrested on immigration violations and likely two of the three arrested and released in New Bedford before that. Looks like one of them has the Terrorista #1 license plate. Tam seems to have slept at their apartment after the bombings. I believe that this can be properly sourced. Legacypac (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That's pure SYNTH. We'll likely get the names of the three shortly, there is no DEADLINE. --MASEM (t) 17:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

And the Boston.com article has been updated to say just what I wrote above. Legacypac (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of more details coming: Let's wait for convergence in this story. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Lots of details including what they are being charged with and why. In many major news sources now. Legacypac (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

What state has room for Terrorista # 1 on a license plate? My state does not allow 12 characters, and does not allow symbols such as "#". "Friends said he had the license plate" does not sound like reliable enough sourcing to include the info. Wouldn't one of the usual blabbermouth law enforcement sources have run the plate by now and "leaked" confirmation to a reporter? I added the name of the third arrestee, since it was in the reference cited. I included his age and hometown, to avoid unnecessary headaches for others whi might have the same name. Edison (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Here. Erxnmedia (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

UMASS vanity plate, not a real plate. Various photos of it have been circulating on blogs (see Erxnmedia's link for an example). Useful profile for Phillipos Legacypac (talk) 02:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is on the front. Massachusetts does not issue front license plates. Apteva (talk) 06:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

References