Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DangerousPanda (talk | contribs) at 09:43, 19 April 2013 (→Full protection: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Boston Marathon bombing. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Boston Marathon bombing at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Disaster management Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Running Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Running, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of running on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RunningWikipedia:WikiProject RunningTemplate:WikiProject RunningRunning Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: edit history watch purge tag all running related articles with {{WikiProject Running}} adding assessment and importance parameters when missing find references for articles listed on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Running/Unreferenced BLPs adopt an article and promote it to GA Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Massachusetts / Boston Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts - Boston (assessed as High-importance).

A news item involving Boston Marathon bombing was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 15 April 2013.

This page was proposed for deletion by Sosthenes12 (talk · contribs) on 15 April 2013. It was contested by Theopolisme (talk · contribs) on 16:35, April 15, 2013

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 12 hours may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

RFC: Include FBI photos?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The discussion over whether or not to include the newly-released FBI photos is spread over multiple sections above. I would like to consolidate.

Should this article include the newly-released FBI photographs? GabrielF (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• No. A link to the FBI website with a photo of the suspect will suffice. Misplaced Pages's job is to gather and present information in an encyclopedic format. It is not the "media" or part of the commercial media establishment. If people seek 'late-breaking news' they can go to other resources. Gorba (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

  We have no policy to exclude reliable verifiable information because it is too new. Shadowjams (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes There is no doubt that the media has irresponsibly published photographs and descriptions of potential suspects and that we have been correct to limit our inclusion of those reports. However, I think there is a significant difference between the New York Post printing something based on who-knows-what and an FBI press conference. Remember that the FBI has had these photos for at least 24-hours. The decision to release them was made by the people who are in the best position to know the positive and negative effects. These are clearly photographs that are very important to understanding this story, and I think its very difficult for a reader to grasp what the photos do or do not signify without seeing them. GabrielF (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• YES We should use these pictures. They are suspects and have been released by the FBI. I think they are encyclopedic photos released by the FBI and should be used to show part of what the investigation has found. No matter if they did this or not the photos are part of the investigation are in reliable sources and can be used here. Theworm777 (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• No - These people (whoever they are) are still covered under WP:BLPCRIME and should be presumed innocent. Let the media circulate the images—Misplaced Pages is meant to circulate verifiable information, not to track down murder suspects. -- Veggies (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• No* From WP:BLPCRIME: "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." If they, get id'ed and charged,and become well known, we can revisit this decision.24.151.50.173 (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't believe that BLPCRIME is relevant here. Photos of these individuals are on the home pages of half the news organizations in the world. They are not "relatively unknown". GabrielF (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

We are now giving " serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured" and I think this should be used these peoples names are not being gave out here just. Photos that are part of the investigation. Theworm777 (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• No. The name Richard Jewell rings a bell. Viriditas (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

  And yet our Centennial Olympic Park bombing article includes discussion of him being suspected by the FBI. That's all anyone's asking to do here. Shadowjams (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

  Talk about missing the point! No, we are not going to help you create another Richard Jewell. And I don't think you really understand how Misplaced Pages works. Viriditas (talk) 02:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Of course we should - We already include the text that the FBI has released the photos, there's 0 questions that the information meets our reliable sources and verifiability requirements. What policy basis is there for keeping out the photos. The only remotely plausible argument to exclude them is concerns over undue weight, but that's easily handled by only including a composite (or one), and by making sure the caption text is purely descriptive ("the FBI released these photos"). There is zero policy justification to exclude them outside of some philosophical objection to including news that is "too recent." (A trend i've seen in this article unlike any other current event article i've worked on). Shadowjams (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• No, what Viriditas said x 1000. When they're formally charged we can have this discussion again. Ignatzmice•talk 23:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• No Photos of blurry, unknown people vaguely described as suspects do not help illustrate anything. In a historical context, they would mean very little unless they become the only photos of these individuals (e.g. if the FBI doesn't make progress, and sources start saying that.) Wait until the individuals are hopefully found, and until they're actually charged with something if that happens. WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLP in general especially apply when we don't even know who these people are. The FBI will need much more evidence than just matching these people to their pictures to move forward, and so should we. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• No. Unencyclopaedic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• No. They are not charged or convicted, and this spells BLP violation in so many ways (the FBI's guidelines are different from ours). There is no way in which adding those (blurry) photos will "help the reader understand the article" or some such thing. And we're not the news, and we're not here to help the FBI in their investigation. For that, you could consider joining 4chan. Drmies (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

They are encyclopaedic and I dont see how you can say they arent. They are part of the investigation. we are not "suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing a crime" so WP:BLPCRIME does not apply here they are just suspects in the investigation. When there is reliable sources there is no "BLP violation".Theworm777 (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I could say it again? Or, I can say that the pictures would add nothing to the article besides color. Drmies (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't be glib. By that logic let's just remove all the pictures. Shadowjams (talk) 23:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. What you get from the photos is a sense of the scale of the investigation that is hard to convey with words. Seeing the quality of the images gives you a sense of what the investigators have to work with. Suspect #1's face is very obscured, for instance but there's a clearer shot of suspect #2. The sense that I get is that identifying these two people will be fairly difficult. You get a sense of the size of the crowd and the magnitude of the task involved in processing these images. You get a sense of what the FBI has to go on - the suspect's don't seem to be interacting and there's nothing odd about their behavior so you can see that the FBI has had to correlate what's in these images from what they've learned from other sources. I think its similar to the difference between reading about a famous building and seeing a photo of the building - its hard to grasp what you read without the image. If that's just "color" then I would suggest that color is essential to an encyclopedia. As John Hodgman likes to say, "specificity is the soul of narrative". GabrielF (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes They are encyclopedic and absolutely critical to understanding this story. FBI is asking to focus on these two suspects and no one else. Did Misplaced Pages wait for an arrest before writing about or posting pics of bin Ladan? How about images of other terrorists. If these suspects don't want their pics on WP they are free to come here and remove them Legacypac (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh. The FBI is interested in these two suspects, and you have just promoted them to "terrorists". Great: judge and jury. You know, Bin Laden was already notable by our standards before 9/11. That you'd draw such a comparison is a clear indication to which extent your interest is to improve the project. Drmies (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Wow - I thought we were supposed to assume other editors are acting in good faith. I used a FAMOUS example of someone who was accused and not caught or convicted. Everyone is calling the unsubs terrorists. Bombing a crowded street is terrorism period. Was there a debate about putting the famous Unibomber sketch on wikipedia before he was caught and convicted? Legacypac (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. BLPCRIME reads " For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." (emphasis mine). These are not relatively unknown suspects-- these are the most famous suspects on the planet right now-- they are extremely known-- Misplaced Pages isn't not tarnishing their reputation by admitting that they're wanted by the FBI, we're just stating an encyclopedic fact. --HectorMoffet (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

These people are completely unknown. We do not know anything other than that these are pictures of unknown suspects, and I think it's important to remember the "unknown" part. You can't accuse a blurry picture of a crime; you need to identify the individuals first and link them to the incident. (Or charge them as John Does or something.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes they are here btw, video and poster. I was surprised to find these photos all over the news, but not here.. When those photos were made available, one wonders of course if they are in the neighborhood. Electron9 (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• No - Obvious copyright violation. FBI is not the copyright holder of the released images.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

  I'm fairly certain there's a strong fair use claim to those images... as would be the position of every major news organization in the U.S., and some beyond. Shadowjams (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes — (edit conflict) WP:BLPCRIME does not prohibit including the pictures. It asks editors to seriously consider the issue. The FBI did not immediately release the pictures because it was seriously considering the issue too. According to the media, the FBI's decision to release was partly based on a video it has, but hasn't released, of one of the individuals putting down his backpack where one of the explosions took place. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• No If this was a media website I would say sure, but Misplaced Pages will not look good if the suspects turn out to be innocent. Best to leave the pictures out... for now at least. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• No This is not encyclopedic content. Our job is to summarize what happened and document facts, not speculate or help catch criminals with fuzzy pictures. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  What has happened is that the FBI has released photos. It is wholely appropriate to document that fact and to present those photos alongside.WTucker (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  Actually, it is wholely a BLP nightmare since they haven't been arrested, nor indicted, just declared "a suspect". Our policy on WP:BLP trumps the "cool" factor of having the photos included at this stage. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  I am not asserting that we should say anything that is not in reliable sources. And I propose that the topic is the FBI's release of the photos, not the individuals shown in them. There is not a BLP problem if we reliably source our statements and use the photos to supplement the statement that the FBI released photos of two "persons of interest". It is not about the "cool factor" if such even exists here. The FBI's release of the photos can be reliably sourced and it is appropriate to include them when talking about the photos.WTucker (talk) 05:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Applying the No logic, I'm expecting that all the photos and names will be removed from this article shortly http://en.wikipedia.org/FBI_Most_Wanted_Terrorists Legacypac (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Please, do us all a favor and get over yourself. Read the very first sentence of that article: The Federal Bureau of Investigation's Most Wanted Terrorists is a list of persons who have been indicted (formally accused) by sitting Federal grand juries in the United States district courts, for alleged crimes of terrorism. These suspects here have NOT been so indicted. Ignatzmice•talk 00:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Or put more gently, other stuff exists. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. Pictures of people identified by the FBI as suspects with the purpose of getting the public to look for them? Of course that's encyclopedic, it's a crucial part of the story. Like D. B. Cooper below. --GRuban (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Yes We should not cast guilt; but, it is wholely appropriate to document the fact that the FBI released photos and to show those photos alongside that statement of fact. No guilt aspersions, no incriminations, just statements of what happened. This is not a copyright violation, it is clearly fair use.WTucker (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment re copyright — Doesn't seem like the pictures can be copyrighted. According to Misplaced Pages:Public_domain#Non-creative_works

"In short: Bare facts are in the public domain. Works must show sufficient human creativity to be eligible to copyright at all."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• No - As stated before, "These people (whoever they are) are still covered under WP:BLPCRIME and should be presumed innocent." As the story is ongoing, the value of including the images is really under dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoffeeWithMarkets (talk • contribs) 00:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This was addressed before by myself and others. Please see previous comments. For example, WP:BLPCRIME does not prohibit the use of the pictures. Also, the pictures are being widely distributed and are now famous. Putting them in Misplaced Pages will have negligible effect on the reputation of the subjects. Your concern could only apply for the case of the pictures being little known outside Misplaced Pages.

Regarding the ongoing aspect of the story, Misplaced Pages is unique and valuable because it can manage rapidly changing information, especially for an article like this where there are so many editors contributing and vetting each other's work. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes per D.B. Cooper precedent. Suspects are integral to the story and the article. If they are cleared by the FBI, we can remove the image afterward. --Tocino 00:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• ABSOLUTELY. JEE-zis Christ, the FBI released these pix as suspects! That some people object: I can't think of a single better example of why wikipedia is so screwed up that neither I nor any other college instructor lets it be used in academic citations. And the suggestion that we can't use them because they're copyrighted? I left WP in disgust a few years ago because of this kind of B.S., and when I come back, by God, the retards are still running the place. 'Will you people please use a modicum of common sense when making edit decisions??' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave Bowman - Discovery Won (talk • contribs) 00:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Absolutely! Even if they're not the culprits, it's notable as of today that the FBI decided to hold a big press conference where they showed the photos. So we can upload these images to Wikimedia Commons and use them while the story develops. Once a culprit is found, we can remove the wrong ones from the article but keep them on Commons. As far as copyrights go, the images are public domain as they were taken from CCTV surveillance video. Brian Williams even said they're public domain. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• NO Major BLP issue until they are officially charged or convicted (and no, once we post that with the assuming they are the suspects with pictures, we can't take that back and it could be a legal issue for WP). A link to the FBI site is fine, but we cannot infer what those pictures mean in light of our very strict BLP policy. --MASEM (t) 01:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

References

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/Ted_Kaczynski

• Comment Dave Bowman has gone ahead and added them. It looks as if he may have consensus for that, based on this section. Still, it seems inconsiderate not to give warning here. Ignatzmice•talk 01:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I see no consensus here, I would wait for an uninvolved admin to close this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment There is no "BLP issue" when there are many reliable sources like this has. Theworm777 (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Well im not breaking WP:3RR if someone wants to revert based on no consensus here feel free. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Even if the consensus ends up being to include, because it is a BLP issue for their inclusion at this time (while the above goes on, they have to stay off by default. WP:3RRNO would say that going past 3RR to keep these off is reasonable (not a violation). --MASEM (t) 01:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Okay, well seeing that this is a heated debate here, will an uninvolved admin make a ruling and close the discussion after a bit? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
      • In less than 3 hours?! Please. Shadowjams (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
        • You beat me to saying this. And I would note that Masem is 100% correct above. I tire of arguing the point, but if there is a serious BLP consideration, then BLP says you don't add the material until it is settled. The problem is that most aren't arguing about policy, they are arguing what they want to happen. I wouldn't expect those !votes to get much weight if they aren't addressing how this doesn't violate BLP. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Many of us are arguing it is NOT BLP-which is a policy arguement. In the end these photos will be included. Legacypac (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes—IF these are pictures of the actual perpetrators they will be included. Until we know more, keep them out. Ignatzmice•talk 02:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Photos are of actual suspects. Very clear. Legacypac (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Actual suspects ≠ actual perpetrators. Very clear. Ignatzmice•talk 02:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• BLP was never intended to prevent use of an FBI suspect photo because the suspects might not like it. Obviously. This is exactly why WP has the reputation of being run by clueless bozos. I'm not getting 3RR banned over this, so for today, we'll leave out an FBI photo that was in every newspaper in the world. But I'm taking this to arbcomm now. Dave Bowman - Discovery Won (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • You are 'taking this to arbcom' because you don't like people disagreeing with you at a RFC that is still running? Jeez... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• If anyone believes the pictures are a violation of WP:BLP, please quote the relevant excerpt from that policy that you are using to reach that conclusion. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Yes There is no BLP issue here, in my opinion, because Misplaced Pages including the photo as an illustration to support the statement "The FBI released this photo..." does not, in fact, accuse, defame, or otherwise injure the parties in question. Nandesuka (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes they are. Until they are convicted, our inclusion means we're treating these individuals as the culprits. We're writing an encyclopedia, not a news wire service, and thus it is totally inappropriate of us to include them until they have been shown to be charged or convicted of the crime. --MASEM (t) 02:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Your understanding of BLP does not conform with Misplaced Pages policy. Put simply: you are mistaken. If you think your understanding is correct, then I encourage you to raise this issue at Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard, where you will quickly learn why your description of the WP:BLP policy is inaccurate. We are not "describing these men as culprits". We are, rather, correctly writing that the FBI has identified them as "Suspect 1" and "Suspect 2". Nandesuka (talk) 03:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Given the mess that 4chan and reddit did with their "investigation" and false accusations against the wrong people, without any names to attach to these people we should stay far and clear away from invading privacy. And so what encyclopedic value does putting the images on the page provide? We're not a newspaper, so there's no point in risking legal problems until they are identified by name. --MASEM (t) 03:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
        • I'd assume the FBI has better investigators than 4chan and Reddit Hot Stop (Talk) 04:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

section break image RFC

• Comment-- I think there's a legitimate debate over whether to include images. I'm for inclusion, but there's no deadline, nor a consensus. It's not going to hurt anything if we take a day or two to quell concerns over BLP. --HectorMoffet (talk) 03:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Note that at Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Boston_Marathon_Bombing_Suspects, OTRS volunteer User:FreeRangeFrog has said: "If the FBI has named those two unknown people as suspects then that's what we call them, unknown people who are suspects. If they cease to be suspects then we stop calling them that. Those photos are all over the world now, we're not infringing on anyone's privacy by referencing them. No need to get creative with the BLP stuff until their identities are known" That should be enough to quell concerns , IMHO. Nandesuka (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    • "Referring to" and "plastering their pics on the article" are different things. I agree with HectorMoffet—if these people did it, that will become apparent soon enough; we'll put the pictures in and no harm done. If they didn't do it, putting their pictures in is a (further) violation of their privacy and assumed innocence. Ignatzmice•talk 03:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, but our responsibility is to write a decent article and given that this is a happening issue it behooves us to be reticent. We aren't the news media; what we write here is supposed to last until after the fish has been wrapped in today's NYT. BTW, FreeRangeFrog is not the God of BLP; that they gave their opinion does not "quell concerns". Drmies (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
        • So according to you,we can never use *any* FBI "wanted" poster, including Abbu Assaui, the Al-Queida leader. We can CALL these two Boston guys suspects, because we're just quoting the FBI. But if we print their FBI photo over a caption that says "FBI says these are suspects", that's somehow different.
        • You're so locked onto specific words (BLP) that you ignore their meaning and their intent. Life is not a computer program, Masem. It requires humans to have good judgement and common sense. Both are lacking in the present case. It's why WP has zero credibility in Academia. And Wales doesn't care as long as he gets five grand for college speeches and can f**k groupies.
        • I'm not going to arbcom. I'm completely disgusted. If anyone else wants to raise hell about this Masem character and his outrageous limitation on our presentation of manifestly public information, message me and I'll back you up. Other than that, the hell with it. I'm outta this article. The goofballs and the dorks and the bozos win again at Misplaced Pages--like always. Dave Bowman - Discovery Won (talk) 03:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
          • The key words from BLPCRIME is "relatively unknown". These are two strangers. These are not major names (as best we know) in a terrorist organization. They have a right of privacy and presumed innocence until they are convicted. --MASEM (t) 03:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Drmies is threatening to ban me from editing for 3RR! Yesterday I was citing 3RR on several people and Admin Dennis Brown said that 3RR does not apply on this page. So which is it? Go ahead and try to ban me for reversing inappropriate deletions. Legacypac (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

That's the policy. One of them can remove information ten thousand times as long as they can plausibly claim that they are protecting a suspected terrorist wanted by the FBI from unwanted invasion of their privacy, but you'll get banned for 3RR. Wnt (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Legacypac cain't read. I warned them for 3R. Besides--this is someone who claims such intimate knowledge of Wikipolicy, and when IAR applies, and all that jazz, but can't tell a block from a ban? Or a warning from a threat? And I seriously doubt that Dennis would have said "3RR does not apply here". 3RR may not apply to anyone removing the image, since they can invoke BLP. The side that wants to insert the picture cannot possibly claim to enforce any Misplaced Pages policy, and 3RR certainly applies there. If that seems unfair, well, our policies are intended to protect the LP in BLP, like that poor brother in the Sandy Hook case. And we err on the side of caution. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to 3RR him Drmies I think you should refer it to ANI and let someone else have a looksee, out of prudence if nothing else. Shadowjams (talk) 03:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Again with Drmies slandering me. I have only inserted info and reverted deletions of material other editors wrote. All good faith edits. I don't claim to be an wikipolicy expert, but I am also not a newbie here and I can certainly read. People will keep inserting these images regardless of what anyone thinks. It's the nature of Misplaced Pages, anyone can edit it.Legacypac (talk) 04:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The FBI released these pictures. Even supposing (as is not unlikely) that people find them, they come forward and are exonerated, the fact that they were publicized in this way makes them an important part of the investigative sequence, and we should still have them in the article even after we can safely put "exonerated" in the figure legend. Wnt (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• No, and I'm honestly a bit surprised at the vehemence in the include side. We're not an outlet for speculation, and we're not a news site. We wait until the dust settles and clearer picture emerges, both figuratively and literally. —Torchiest _edits 03:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  Let's be clear about what the RFC is about... about whether or not to include the photos the FBI released as part of the encyclopedia article. It should never say anymore than that simple fact (at this time), and I don't think anyone has argued otherwise. You're leaping to the assumption that reporting on the FBI's actions is tanamount to an accusation; it certainly is not (and I would not support any insinuation that made that). Shadowjams (talk) 04:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  We can report on the FBI's activities without the image. —Torchiest _edits 04:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  Let's write an article on the Mona Lisa without a picture then. Hot Stop (Talk) 04:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment. I don't really care one way or the other but... Editors should consider our BLP policies, Fair use image policies, not news, no deadline, etc. Chances are they will be in custody before this RfC is closed anyway.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. The FBI has released a photo of these individuals and warned the public that they are should be considered armed and dangerous. How can this article be considered current or accurate if this information -- and the photo is not included? Maybe the FBI is making a Richard Jewel mistake, I don't think so, but that's the FBI's job and their area of expertise (way more than anyone here). Are Misplaced Pages editors better at deciding if these photos should be released than the FBI is? And if Misplaced Pages editors are going to question all facts under Rubicon of "could the provider of this info be making a mistake," this whole site would be empty. I see people concerns, but really, editors are going to question the FBI's judgment about evidence in a crime?!

The above was reverted? This is a request for comments on the *talk* page. Is it WP to erase comments on the talk page when solicited? 24.90.73.152 (talk) 03:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

With all the edits going on here, there are edit conflicts every other time you try. Sometimes the software works; sometimes it overwrites someone else's addition when you put yours in. Sorry it happened to you. (As an example, I just got an edit conflict right now.) Ignatzmice•talk 04:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I originally received a edit conflict trying to revert your revert as well. 24.90.73.152 (talk) 04:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes the fact that the FBI is saying they are suspects should be good enough for us. And per FreeRangeFrog's comment referenced above, it's not a BLP issueHot Stop (Talk) 04:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes Allow me to clarify my comment at WP:BLP/N. The FBI has stated that there are two suspects. They released images of them. Reliable sources have repeated the story, and have published the photographs, stating what the FBI has said so far about them. Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source - as long as we don't assert anything about the suspects (guilt or innocence) then we can publish the photos and say exactly what the media has said what the FBI said about them. Nothing more, nothing less. If the FBI decides tomorrow that these are not suspects, then the media is going to say the same thing, and we will reference that, without making assertions about what has happened. Surely then we can have a discussion about keeping the photographs, and I'll argue that they should be definitely taken down. That's it. There's nothing BLP-ish here, at least yet. As to whether or not we should be covering breaking news right down to the minute - if I had a dime for every time I've quoted WP:NOT#NEWS on an AFD that everyone wanted to keep because omgthisisreallyimportant I'd be a rich man indeed. We shouldn't, but we do anyway, so might as well do it right. What we cannot do is publish conjecture from unreliable sources (or synthesize material, or create original research) as to their identity, whereabouts, size, age, names, etc. Just as any other criminal or crime victim. It's not that hard, really. We document what other reliable sources say about a topic. That's what we do, and that's what we should be doing here. §FreeRangeFrog 04:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• I was originally not planning to comment here but your comment has changed my mind. Some people like Wnt have asserted that even if the FBI changes their minds, it's likely we'll be keeping these pictures because they'll be so significant given that these people were named. While I'm not convinced this is correct, it's not something I can be bothered discussing. However your argument here is we should put these images up even if we may be taking them down tomorrow if the FBI changes their mind. This strikes me as a very bad thing to do, not complying either in spirit or letter with WP:BLP. The fact that these images have been widely disrupted elsewhere is not sufficient reason for us to ignore our BLP policy. And this wouldn't be the first time we've avoided repeating something or waited to repeat something which is widely covered in RS because of BLP issues. I'm now clearly leaning to oppose their inclusion, it's far more important we get this right, then do it right now, regardless of what WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, not that I think the sometimes excessively newsy approach in cases when there isn't significant BLP concerns is a good reason to adopt a newsy approach when there are BLP concerns. When things change, we can re-assess but even if we end up including these images later, that doesn't mean we made a mistake by not including them initially. Nil Einne (talk) 04:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• The thing to consider, besides what BLPCRIME says, is that we are NOT#NEWS. We have the ability to be current, but we should be looking towards the permanance of the information and not so much just to be up to date. Tracking the investigation in near-real time is good - this is all stuff of academic importance later (how long it took to find them, etc.) But the exacting at the moment details aren't always appropriate. It's reasonable that the FBI will ID these two people and likely provide photographs of them (or news media will find some), at which point these pictures will become worthless, showing that they have no permanence in this article. This, added to the BLP issue, is a clear reason why we shouldn't be including these images. --MASEM (t) 05:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• To me this is a clear case of WP:WELLKNOWN. And I appreciate that we are not a news outlet, but the reality is that we clearly are with these types of things. Otherwise we'd be more amenable to simply deleting these types of articles whenever they crop up, but then "In the news" wouldn't be credible... and so on. If we're doing it, let's do it right, or let's not do it at all. As for concerns over the suspects' privacy, the US Government and every media outlet in the planet already took care of trampling it. I see no harm in us documenting it. In any case, I'm seeing reports just now that one of those two suspects is dead. The issue might be moot here in a few hours. §FreeRangeFrog 08:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes The FBI photos are as reliable and encyclopedic as photos get. /// Internet Esquire (talk) 07:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 April 2013: Suspect not seen placing backpack on video

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The Suspects section states that one of the men "was captured on video placing a backpack". However, from the provided sources, he was only reported to have been seen placing the backpack (not on any video). 68.43.151.176 (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done Since the reference doesn't say who saw them place it, just that the FBI said so, I noted that it's "according to the FBI" even though it's generally preferred not to state things as such. I assume it was from a witness statement, but that would be original research without a reference. It would be good to find out where that information actually originated from. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The info came from the Press Conf. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQr4AZgGiNc Look at the Q&A from 3:22 in the video. FBI says Suspect 2 was seen placing bomb "within minutes" of the blast. Did not specify eyewitness or video. Legacypac (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Why do we show an image of DB Cooper?

For people opposing inclusion of the suspect images, I wonder how you feel about our inclusion of images of the never-convicted D.B. Cooper? Why does BLP apply here but not there? In both cases, we have FBI-provided media of an unknown suspect that was released to apprehend a suspect currently at-large. --HectorMoffet (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Because WP:OTHERSTUFF, D.B Cooper has not convicted because he was never found. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Neither the suspects here nor the DB Cooper suspect have been found. This would seem to argue that we would apply BLP consistently to them. --HectorMoffet (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No, because many people (including the law enforcement officers or whoever it was that gave him the money) saw him an positively ID'd him. Then he happened to disappear. They know who he is, they just can't find him. This is very different: They know someone did it, they just don't know who. They suspect it could be these (unidentified) people, who are innocent until proven guilty. Ignatzmice•talk 00:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

From the article: "The question was rendered moot in November when a Portland grand jury returned an indictment against "John Doe, aka Dan Cooper" for air piracy and violation of the Hobbs Act. The indictment in effect formally initiated prosecution of the hijacker that can be continued, should he be apprehended, at any time in the future."

Just read the DB Copper article. Lead says his is an "unknown" subject and the article says he used an alias. Further down 9 different people are named and discussed as suspects who might be D.B. Copper. How does the BLP policy to that article exactly. Also similar sketch and named suspects in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/Zodiac_Killer Legacypac

• D.B. Cooper was indicted by a grand jury, these suspects have not. Apples and oranges. All you have to do is read the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• The D. B. Cooper image is public domain. The suspect photos are copyright. We can't host copyrighted images of living people without a 'free license' from the rights holders.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

References

1. Denson, Bryan (November 24, 1996). D.B. Cooper legend lives. Oregon Live archive Retrieved March 6, 2011.
2. Gunther 1985, p. 179. sfn error: no target: CITEREFGunther1985 (help)

Yes, but copyright does not apply http://www.usa.gov/copyright.shtml Legacypac (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Use by the FBI doesn't remove copyright from the original photographers; only if the work was actually created by the government. That said, the NFC aspect is a red herring. DB Cooper is rather famous. These two people are relatively unknown and thus doesn't make sense to tempt BLP with them. --MASEM (t) 05:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Lu Lingzi ref addition

• Parents of China Victim Get U.S. Visas April 18, 2013 WSJ

108.195.138.54 (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for photos

Not related to whether or not the photos should be included. However, if we are to include themm, they are video screenshots of the suspects and we need a valid fair use rationale to include them. "Anyone who objects to FBI suspect pix on copyright basis is out of their mind" will not suffice. We do not suspend copyright policy because the FBI edited or redistributed someone else's work. The5₉ (Talk) 02:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

From http://www.fbi.gov/boston/press-releases/2013/remarks-of-special-agent-in-charge-richard-deslauriers-at-press-conference-on-bombing-investigation-1, "The photos and videos are posted for the public and media to use, review and publicize." I guess one could argue there is a theoretical harm here, but that seems like a pretty strained argument. Nandesuka (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

We require the photos to be free in license, not free for use, to be considered free use. Otherwise, they would have to meet NFC policy to be included. --MASEM (t) 02:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Well Masem, it's in there now. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Masem and The359 that if these photos are included, they will need to meet the NFCC criteria. As I'm sure were others, I was thinking this even before the photos were released and now they have been released there's nothing to suggest there's anything different from what was expected. Nil Einne (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Article should be modified so as not to be a mouthpiece of President Obama

The current version says "He later described the bombing as terrorism".

This may be a compromise between opponents, who want to say that Obama is a socialist dictator, and supporters, who want nothing mentioned.

The neutral viewpoint is that there is commentary from multiple news sources, including CNN, that President Obama was criticized for not characterizing the incident as terrorism. This should be mentioned. It should not be mentioned in such as hidden way, such as "he later described the bombing as terrorism". "He later" is not encyclopedic. The fact that he did not do it initially is encyclopedic. Fuck, he was probably being cautious and didn't want to offend al-Qaeda.

Possible wording might be "President Obama was noted by multiple news analysts (add citation, such as CNN and BBC) as not characterizing the incident as "terrorism" but he later did the next day" BoizeeIdaho! (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, what you are saying would be original research, drawing your own conclusions and attempting to make this a coatrack against Obama. Obama isn't the subject of this article, the bombing is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with Mr. Brown. Qworty (talk) 03:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Regardless of party affiliation there is no mouthpiece when it is a direct quote from the President of the United States. Misplaced Pages is simply quoting what he said as it pertains to this particular event. Gorba (talk) 04:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed new section: Media misreporting

There have been a number of media false reports after the bombing - mistakes that themselves have been reported on in reliable sources, and mistakes that are part of this story:

• New York Post reports 12 dead
• That there were other bombs than the two that actually exploded
• That the fire in the JFK library was related to this incident
• That a Saudi national was under arrest
• That cell phone service had been shut down to prevent bomb detonation
• That suspects had been arrested (CNN, among others)
• That two teenagers were the suspects (again, NY Post)

This is also the subject of an FBI statement (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/18/business/media/fbi-criticizes-false-reports-of-a-bombing-arrest.html?_r=0 )

These seven major media mistakes aren't currently (with one exception) in the article, despite the coverage they got. Nor is the FBI statement. But these mistakes, and the FBI statement, are an important part of the story (again, based on discussions about them, in reliable sources). So a separate section seems justified. Otherwise, this seems sort of whitewashing how messy the real world is. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

If there are sources discussing the misreporting, such commentary may possibly merit inclusion at some point - but I'd suggest that it would be best left until the situation has stabilised, and we can deal with the matter without getting swamped in trivia and WP:OR. For now, we are better off trying to avoid such secondary issues, in my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Legacypac (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC) It is a big part of the story, but much of this was in the article at various points but removed against Wiki policyLegacypac (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Legacypac, with your 200+ edits you shouldn't be preaching "Wiki policy" to others. If you think this "misreporting" is a big part of the story, then I don't think you know which story really matters. The article is about the bombing. Any "misreporting" hasn't led to anything related to the investigation. In other words, it's really not that real. Can you maybe develop an interest in other articles? BTW, Andy, good point. It may well become relevant, but it doesn't need to be included now while this whole situation is in turmoil. Who knows--maybe the misreporting is being misreported. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Let's not bite the newbies. Misreporting is part of the story. Some people have a hard time understanding that. // Internet Esquire (talk) 07:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Who gave you the right to tell me I can't read policy. I have several accounts for different things on wiki. You got the whole "they are not Suspects" thing dead wrong. Seriously, think before you attack people.Legacypac (talk) 03:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• In reality, this is a non-story and we should not add a section on it. Misreporting is a mundane act during a breaking story. There's nothing to talk about here unless you like noting that the sky is blue and water is wet. What we need to do as an encyclopedia is write about a stable topic that has settled down, not highlight the fluid nature of reporting. Viriditas (talk) 03:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• When Sandy Hook happened and bad news reporting rushed out, the only piece of misinformation that had to survive was the misnaming of Lanza's brother as the shooter, to clear him. Same here - just because there was misreporting in the first 48 hrs is not our place to comment on. On an article about modern news media, sure, but not on a story like this. --MASEM (t) 03:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The one misreport I find notable at this point is the NY Post's idiocy with their "bag men" front page...but that's notable to the NY Post, not to the Marathon bombing. And that, the death toll, and the Saudi national stuff are all covered on the NY Post's page already. There are now various sources discussing the misreporting, but in the context of "these media organizations suck", not "this is relevant to the Boston Marathon incident." It's not like the misreporting has affected the investigation, though the FBI did tell the media to be more careful. Something like this might be relevant to the Reddit article, for example...but it doesn't seem relevant to the marathon bombing. But perhaps sources will appear that do analyze how the misreporting may have affected this incident, rather than just note it happened. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought there was a section on this point earlier... I either imagined it or it's been removed. Seems fairly relevant to the general media reporting. I certainly wouldn't name the section "media misreporting", but a section discussing media response, or maybe under response in general, is certainly appropriate. Shadowjams (talk) 03:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Building a section around the media's contortions would be WP:SYNTHESIS. I would prefer to see no mention of reporting at all in Misplaced Pages articles on news events. This is because any information in a Misplaced Pages article should be confirmed by multiple sources, so that calling out one organization for either getting the scoop or being wrong is a pointless waste of text. Readers come here for the consensus view, not for a blow-by blow of scoops and retractions. Abductive (reasoning) 04:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• There is a lot of coverage of the New York Post's misreporting; however, I think that might be better for inclusion in the New York Post article. Ryan Vesey 04:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  That seems like it would be UNDUE on the NY Post article, but appropriate as a sentence here. Undoubtedly there will be a lot of discussion about media responses here, and what went wrong, so that will factor in. I think it would be appropriate in that section. Until that coverage happens though there's no RS for it so we don't include it (simple). Shadowjams (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Suspect Information

To me the admins and others need to stop reverting stuff about the suspects as it is important to the article and the investigation. The FBI is asking for everyone's help in identifying the two men in the photos and at least one of the two is a suspect as I heard there are images of him placing a bag at the location of the first bomb just seconds before it went off, if you don't think that makes him a suspect your stupid. UnknownElement (talk) 03:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, we effing know they're effing suspects. A suspect is a suspected perpetrator. They have not been charged. There are links to the FBI page with the pictures. PLEASE will someone read WP:NOTNEWS. We don't need to have ever new development plastered on the article; we're not a wire service, nor are we 4chan. If you want to be a "citizen vigilante" or whatever you are more than welcome to go to 4chan, reddit, whatever. We're trying to write a neutral and unrushed encyclopedia article over here. Ignatzmice•talk 03:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• This is just friendly advice. Please keep in mind that this story is going to draw a lot of new and existing editors. It would be good to be calm and wise in our responses. We are a welcoming community. We don't want to push away new or seasoned editors. If you've been working on this article for several days and you feel burnt out may I suggest taking a day or two off. There are plenty of editors to manage. And then come back. :) Gorba (talk) 04:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In the case of many editors bringing up serious BLP concerns, it is absolutely appropriate to keep it off the page until the RfC concludes. We have to err on the side of caution if there are legitimate BLP concerns being raised. "The FBI is asking for everyone's help" doesn't apply; Misplaced Pages is not an investigative agency tasked with helping the FBI. It is an encyclopedia. The photos are linked, and are all over the Internet and every form of media. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

To the OP, you're not going to convince the group that is against the inclusion by appealing to patriotism or a desire to assist the authorities. Not that it's a bad thing, but it's just not on the plate in terms of what should matter for wikipedia's policies. However, there are plenty of other reasons to argue for their inclusion (least of all the ridiculous notion that something on the front page of every major paper leads to a BLP issue). Stick to the policy arguments. Shadowjams (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Shadowjams, has it occurred to you that we're not a newspaper? You can bring up your arguments, your other reasons--but that those of a different view hold "ridiculous notion" is not a productive way. That there are BLP issues is undeniable; you seem to want to argue that because it's in the paper it's no longer a BLP issue. I disagree, and I don't think that position is ridiculous. I don't think yours is either, but all this talk of a few obstructionists blah blah certainly is. Drmies (talk) 05:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes I know that a suspect is a suspected perpetrator and that they haven't been charged because the dang FBI is looking for them and when they do find them and quedtion them they may become suspects. I knnow Misplaced Pages isn't a wire service and I don't want to be a "citizen vigilante" I'm n tryig to post relevent and important information. I'm not rushing I just want to make sure any important information about the event is not missed. I'll go edit other articles and no longer edit this topic for the time being. UnknownElement (talk) 03:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• I'm repeating what I said above only because this thread is a repeat: this will be a historic development in the case that will be reported in a good encyclopedia article 20 years from now. People will want to know when the FBI first pointed the finger at somebody, and if so, who it was. Innocent or guilty, this is a development worth reporting at any time. Wnt (talk) 03:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  Of course it is. I'm flabbergasted by the obstructionism on this article from a small number of editors. The name issue above was a clear example, this is the newest. Never in my editing of current event topics have I seen such willful obstructionism (and this isn't my first rodeo). I only barely see reference to policy in these. Shadowjams (talk) 03:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  We're an encyclopedia, not a news service. Wikinews specifically is thataway. The type of mentality that, for example, behind the reasons wanting to include the photos ("the FBI put them out, everyone else is doing it!" is not aligned with making a work that is meant to be an academic research guide. Further we've been tasked by the Foundation to be extra careful on BLP, and despite the fact that these two men may be guilty and deserve whatever fate they are sentenced to, they are still living persons that are not publically known, and deserve appropriate privacy along the lines that the Foundation has requested. (Let's put it another way - if you just happened to resembled one of those two men and lived in the Eastern Seaboard, do you think you'd be happen if WP put up these images of you?) It's taking the academic high road. --MASEM (t) 05:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  NotNews is an article notability guideline, one I've used countless times myself. It is not, however, a built in delay on reporting what is widespread coverage by virtually every news service in the U.S. and beyond (it was front page of the bbc's uk page at one point). The BLP debate is above; that's fine; but notnews isn't relevant to this point. Shadowjams (talk) 06:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

One pressure cooker bomb or two?

The information here reportedly came from an FBI update, that seems to be after the initial reports. Can anyone dig up a link to which FBI press conference it came from? This seems to be the most accurate (even when we initially described two pressure cookers, the sources conflicted), since CNN is explicitly attributing it to the FBI. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

There are some sources that said that both were, but I guess it's not considered 100% for sure yet on here. (Also, if you can give some input on my section right below, on which bomb did what, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Gabby Merger (talk) 04:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

missing info in this article....(details as to which of the two specific bombs did what...as far as death and injury)

I was trying to see some information on this article as to what damage or death the second bomb did, in this case. I was under the (wrong impression) for some reason, that bomb number one (the one we mostly keep seeing on video) was the one that killed all three people. That's not the case.

The 8-year-old boy was actually killed by bomb number two. The one that exploded about 12 seconds later, about a block away...and which has not been shown as much on TV etc. This isn't conjecture, but sourced and confirmed.

You can see here, for example, on the New York Daily News website.

We need to (in my humble opinion) make it clear somehow what bomb did what to whom, and where, and who was killed by which bomb, etc, and if possible who was injured (the very bad injuries) from which bomb. But really mainly especially the deaths... The fact that 8-year-old Richard was killed by bomb number two seems pertinent and important, and worthy of at least some mention somewhere, in an encyclopedic article that wants to be complete and thorough and informative. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of conflicting info about who was where. For example I saw a photo with the 8 year old at bomb site 2 standing still yet read a report that the boy and family were running from site toward site 2 when the site 2 bomb exploded. I tend to believe the photo because the killed were most likely right at the bomb site, but that is just a guess. Clearly a coordinated attack and clearly both bombs did a lot of harm, so for now, without credible sources, best to leave out the detail.Legacypac (talk) 05:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Newspaper reports talk of the family having gone to a spot "nearer the finish line", "by the finish line". Now, this one says it was the first bomb, and it's a few days old and not from the highest-quality newspaper. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it doesn't mean it's right either. But since this explicitly says "second bomb", I think to wait it out is the best thing. All these may be credible sources--but they're reporting necessarily confusing events. Drmies (talk) 05:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

To Legacy above. The point is there are some "credible sources" stating it pretty definitively, that 8-year-old Richard was killed by the second bomb. What may not be so certain (as yet) is what these credible sources are saying, maybe. But so what? (to Drmies) If that's the case, hardly anything would be put in the article (or less than there is now) since lots of things are theoretically "new" and "confusing". My point is that at least a number of "credible" or "reliable sources" are reporting this. Even though maybe some others have said "first bomb".

And to my broader point, since two bombs detonated, shouldn't some info and details be given some how some way, as to what bomb did what, and to whom, in general? Why should Misplaced Pages be less detailed, informative, and complete, than other sources? on something like this? You think I personally was the ONLY one interested or curious as to what the second bomb did, and to whom? Obviously others (readers, inquirers, researchers, etc) would be interested too. So something should be mentioned somewhere on this WP article on this.

I do agree though that it may be wise to wait a few days to see what is stated on this in other sources. But what if the conflicting info doesn't change any time soon? I guess we pick the MOST "reliable source" and go with that. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that all sources I've seen indicate the boy died at the second bomb site. The differences were "he ran there"or he was standing there" All for including verifiable info here. Legacypac (talk) 07:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

MIT Shooting

Boston media has reported a shooting at MIT, resulting in the death of a police officer. Whether or not this is connected to the Boston Marathon bombing, please create a new article reflecting this incident. Great50 (talk) 04:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

A) I don't get the relevance of posting this here. B) Why can't you make it? Hot Stop (Talk) 04:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a strange situation. It could be related, but we have no evidence as of yet. I'm sorry to hear about the death of the officer. Viriditas (talk) 04:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It's only relevant if you can cite a reliable source linking the two (more than on air anchor chatter too). Shadowjams (talk) 04:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Certainly I wouldn't think this is related, not until we have info otherwise. See 2013 MIT campus shooting, which was tagged as a copyvio of the MIT emergency website; I wikified it a bit, but there it is if you want to do stuff with it. I don't know as it's really notable yet, though (sad as that is). Crazy people have guns; they shoot people; people who get shot die. Newsworthy but not necessarily encyclopedia-worthy. Ignatzmice•talk 04:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Just an FYI, there's a situation in Watertown that may be of interest. No links but twitter is blowing up. Hot Stop (Talk) 04:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's a link gunfire and explosives it seems related to the police shooting. Ryan Vesey 04:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

If this is is all related to the marathon bombing, this should be quite an article before we're done. Qworty (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Live feed on Boston TV . Qworty (talk) 05:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Two suspects in custody, according to Channel 5 Boston. Qworty (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The MIT shooting is related to the marathon one way or another, since it involves SWAT teams, helicopters, and explosions. Nergaal (talk) 05:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Such similarities in no way justify the merging of two articles without solid proof of their connection to each other. Would we merge the articles on WWI and WWII together because they both involved soldiers, guns, and international conflict...? EryZ (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Before the shooting, there was a robbery at a Shell gas station. Keep the article 2013 MIT campus shooting just in case there is a link to the Boston Marathon bombing. Great50 (talk) 05:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

A Globe reporter is now saying on twitter that a Marathon suspect is in custody after the Watertown incident. Keep an eye out for confirmation. There are also better photos on the FBI website. GabrielF (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Now on the Globe website. GabrielF (talk) 06:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Globe is strongly implying the MIT shoot out is linked. I don't think that's enough for it to go live yet, but it's looking possible. What is posted needs to be only with full context, preferably quoting news sources. Prudence, but no arbitrary "wait" deadlines. Just reliable sources and circumspect additions to the article. Shadowjams (talk) 06:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/04/18/mit-police-officer-hit-gunfire-cambridge-police-dispatcher-says/4UeCClOVeLr8PHLvDa99zK/story.html Nergaal (talk) 06:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

WHDH seems to be conflicting the Globe on whether the first suspect was killed or apprehended in Watertown. Please remember to try to verify things with multiple sources... (Remember what happened with the supposed arrest a couple days ago.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 06:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Anything new related to the MIT shootings should go into the Massachusetts Institute of Technology shooting article, which can be merged later if facts pan out that way. Shadowjams (talk) 06:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. It's looking more and more to be related, and we'll know within the next few hours. Viriditas (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You're not actually disagreeing with anything I said... Shadowjams (talk) 07:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Just heard over Boston police scanner: "The party that is outstanding is the party with the white hat from the photos." Still OR but things moving fast. GabrielF (talk) 06:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

There were 2 gas station robberies, one of them being a 7-Eleven at 10 PM. Carjacking of a Mercedes occurred after the MIT shooting. Please note this information that is connected to the shooting. Great50 (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's avoid an(other) edit war. Let the info be added and sourced cooperatively without deletions. Plenty of time later today to clean up. With the world media on this story doing updates there is going to be conflicting info out there. Legacypac (talk) 07:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

If it hasn't been firmly established that this MIT shooting incident is linked to the bombings on Monday, I don't understand how that section is currently in this article. It doesn't belong here (yet, IF ever). It needs to be solidly confirmed that the two events are truly (at all) connected. Just my opinion. Gabby Merger (talk) 07:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no evidence that this event is connected with the bombings, and there was nothing in the text even suggesting it, making the whole section pointless, so I removed it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The only thing connecting them in the current text is that there's a "Suspect 1." It is likely connected, but maybe make the section actually say that with proper references if it is? (Unfortunately, short of full protection, I doubt we're going to keep random speculation and loosely sourced reporting from being inserted and warred over while the media figures out WTF is going on.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 07:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the section I removed has been restored, and because someone here is is over-excited, it's been put back, and the article looks like rubbish. HiLo48 (talk) 07:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Dude, you're too slow. Viriditas (talk)

When I removed it there was absolutely nothing in the text to tell us why it was there. No connection with the bombing was mentioned. It made that section look quite stupid. People might be excited, but what they write has to make at least some sense. HiLo48 (talk) 07:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Bullshit. There are multiple reports in the Boston area linking these two together, and multiple news outlets are reporting this in the region. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

People are going to be "over-excited" no matter what. I'm not even close to the crime scene and I'm shaking a little. What matters is that those of us who (relatively) know what we're doing write this, as opposed to people who don't know how to cite, or to couch their language in "such-and-such has reported". Obviously, I'll defer to any consensus that we're jumping the gun on referencing this shootout. That said, I'm watching a guy right now who's saying that they threw an improvised bomb at the cops. — PinkAmpers& 07:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, this article provides a loose connection (WHDH is way more specific on that). Also, here is the online stream to the thing right now, so feel free to listen in. A lot of us in the Boston area know how to game the news, in that we know what to listen in to, so I know what I am doing and refuse to add speculation. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

And here's another from the original MIT shooting article. Let's just keep it merged in for now. The Boston Globe is pretty reliable. It's hard enough to keep up with the sources with all the merging and unmerging. Steven Walling • talk 07:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The Globe is indeed generally very reliable. But no outlet is a good sole source when they're quoting anonymous law enforcement sources about breaking news. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 07:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree BS. Not just media in Boston reporting - Pakistan, Dubai, UK, Canada, probably on the moon if it had a TV station.Legacypac (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You do realize time has passed since the poorly sourced stuff was first inserted? (And still isn't properly tied to the bombing in the article.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 07:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Suspect 1 is alive. See photo at http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/americas/article3743697.ece and pay attention to his right hand, fingers raised off the ground. This would not be so if he were a corpse. — Quicksilver 07:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Not according to WHDH (I would love to provide an article, but I can't find one at this time confirming this). Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

WHDH is showing video of him naked being put in cruiser. Very alive.Legacypac (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3)Looking at photographs and making such determinations is original research. A reliable source needs to state that. The disposition of the suspects, if they are even the two people wanted in the bombing, is still quite unclear. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 07:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

RS's seem pretty much split on the matter, and it would be OR to consider either point of view more likely simply based on whose evidence looks more solid. I'm sure we'll know within the next few hours. — PinkAmpers& 07:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Channel 7 reports that Commissioner Ed Davis, BPD, has identified the white-hatted suspect from FBI photos as the individual being currently sought in Watertown. No other source as yet Irish Melkite (talk) 08:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)~Now Channel 7 saying same, and that Suspect 1 is captured.Legacypac (talk) 08:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/EdDavis3 -Location (talk) 08:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Official Police Briefing - Suspect 1 shot and captured. Suspect 2 sought. Massive manhunt. Stay in homes. Definitely Marathon bomber suspects. 1 killed officer, 1 critically injured. Not releasing or discussing names.
• 2x7-11 robberies, shot MIT officer in his car, carjacking/kidnapping, released carjack vic, firefight where Transit cop shot, captured Suspect 1, Suspect 2 got away and seeking him now.Legacypac (talk) 08:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Davis, Mass State Police colonel, and Chief DeVoe, Watertown PD, doing press conference live - on ch 7. A MBTA Transit police officer shot and at Mt Auburn Hospital. MSP states 1 (declines to state in custody or dead) - white-hatted suspect being sought. Decline to give names. 20 block perimeter, believe individual sought is a "terrorist" (Davis). Next briefing in about an hourIrish Melkite (talk) 08:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I added some stuff about the impromptu police press conference, and a ref. It needs work, lots of work. So please work on it, any of you. This article right now has been messed up, and needs some straightening out. That's one of the problems with an on-going chaotic messy current event, and news proclamations. But I'm sure the article will get smoothed over and organized correctly soon enough. Gabby Merger (talk) 08:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's be careful not to put out tactical info here. Agree-clean up later please. People are reading the page for info Legacypac (talk) 08:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Gabby, did you 'hear' it stated by the MSP colonel or Cmsr Davis that suspect 1 was dead - or was that Ch. 5 supposition. I'm pretty certain that the presenters declined to state as to Suspect 1 being in custody or deceased. Also, as regards 'impromptu' - BPD radio made announcement directed specifically to the media 30-45 mins prior to same, advising that it would be held. Irish Melkite (talk) 08

53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Irish, it was SOURCES that used that word, that called it "impromptu", not I. I put the ref there. Not sure why you're saying this to me. What exactly is the problem? I said clearly also that others should work on that paragraph. It needed work, I said. So? It was a rough draft, that was smoothed over a bit. But again, the word "impromptu" was not something I thought of, but was mentioned on the news (both TV and web page sources). Gabby Merger (talk) 09

29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Gabby, relax - was just asking/commenting Irish Melkite (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

A suspect was taken to Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (hospital). Arrived at 1:20 AM, hospital tried to help them, but they pronounced them dead at 1:35 AM. (per press conference at the hospital) No indication if this was the person stripped naked when they were arrested, but not likely as that person was very alive and well when arrested and walked to the police car. Apteva (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The person who was naked and stripped was questioned and released at the scene - he was completely uninvolved and an innocent bystander. polarscribe (talk) 09:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Dr doing press conference stated multiple gunshot wounds and blast injury to trunk consistent with explosive device shrapnel. Was in cardiac arrest on arrival, unable to be resuscitated. Irish Melkite (talk) 09:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Please be cautious with rumored perpetrator names

Should any rumors circulate about possible perpetrators please be mindful that listing these names on Misplaced Pages— regardless of the surrounding text— will make them more authoritative in the eyes of may ignorant and crazy people. The listing on a name here may result in someones death, or at least posing the risk of wreaking the life of an innocent person, so the strongest editorial standards should be applied. --Gmaxwell (talk) 07:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Should we just block anyone if they do it, unless it is fully sourced? I know it's a bit draconian, but in my haste to nuke one purported suspect (oddly, the dots also connect for them), I ended up BLP-tagging this page, but it would be good to add something to dissuade people to the edit notice. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No, of course we shouldn't block well-meaning editors for adding what is fast becoming widely-known information. Just revert until the major news agencies go with it Jebus989 07:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I think any known-rumored names should get abusefilered until at least some law enforcement person mentions them. Its very likely that in the craze to have the latest scoop some "journalists" will report them— as they have with other known incorrect things. Misinformation is one thing, but an incorrect name could have much more serious consequences.

I hereby pledge $100,000 to assist in civil litigation against any and all Misplaced Pages editors who insert what turns out to be false names in this article resulting in harm, unless the names came from law enforcement via official channels.--Gmaxwell (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:NOTSOAPBOX // Internet Esquire (talk) 08:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I mentioned this earlier, but it's late and I am not making sense. Also, I edited the page notice to reflect your concern, so I hope that helps. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 08:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. Abusefiltering would be better— since it would be easy to make the edit and miss the notice.--Gmaxwell (talk) 08:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Legal threats are entirely inappropriate and unnecessary Jebus989 08:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Humor, however, is perfectly fine, especially when validly reminding people that they're legally responsible for anything they write here. — PinkAmpers& 08:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It isn't a legal threat. Do not libel people and risk their lives through irresponsible behavior and you will have no problems. If you do, then an inability to personally afford to bring a tort claim will not prevent the victim from receiving justice. You are responsible legally and morally for your edits. Sometimes they can have major consequences— for yourself and others. Please think carefully, it's not a video game that you get a high score on by getting first post.--Gmaxwell (talk) 08:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. Some people have a hard time understanding this. // Internet Esquire (talk) 08:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Again I'd point you to our firm stance against legal threats, you should be able to make your point without using them. Additionally, I haven't edited the article but thanks for the reminders Jebus989 08:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be clear that just as the article's topic needs to be treated with caution, as well the edits made by well-meaning people should be treated with caution- there does seem to be a sense of failing to assume good faith and biting the newcomers by using blocks. I would have an editing note as such added like the New York Post thing. (To be clear, I agree with not posting the names at all).CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Both names will be on the front pages of every news site in the next few hours, so you should probably figure it out before then. Viriditas (talk) 08:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I've just removed both names, cited to a site which cited Twitter which cited police scanners. Let's just wait until they confirm in the morning at the press conference or whatever. Steven Walling • talk 08:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, their insertion can be trivially prevented through the abusefilter. That confused or irresponsible editors would insert it was easily forseeable (as I did above), and I've now seen people on IRC scrubbing spam-blogs for repeats from Reddit in order to justify it as coming from journalists.--Gmaxwell (talk) 08:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It's fully protected now YuviPanda (talk) 09:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Pete Williams, an NBC News anchor, just specifically stated that law enforcement sources tell him the rumored names of suspects are incorrect - and that the suspects are from overseas, have been in the U.S. for only one year and had significant military training. This is why we need to be careful with names. polarscribe (talk) 09:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Full protection

Full protection of this page represents a degeneration in WP practices; admin is supposed to be a chore/added workload; WP project standards now changing so that ONLY admin can edit important pages. I am a long time WP editor (from project start, as a matter of fact) and merely pointing out the evolution/change of WP "assume good faith" ethic. Editors now assumed, through this practice, of being vandals rather than dealt with on a one-to-one basis. just stating the obvious.-Camelgamin1 (talk) 09:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it was with some regret that I requested it. I personally prefer (and suggested above) a more targeted tool. I wish history had worked out differently and we'd gotten a flagged revisions that wasn't project managed by people who hated the idea and didn't have a community that saw it as a risk to uncompromising openness (which is now compromised more than any flagging would have caused), and we wouldn't have to compromise between openness to editing and always giving the non-editing-savvy public an unadulterated drink from the fire hose. :( As someone who edits almost exclusively anonymously for the last several years, I certainly can feel the impact.--Gmaxwell (talk) 09:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

We are not in a hurry. Editors were edit warring without discussing on the talk page first. If we don't behave then articles get protected. After the first revert it should have been brought to the talk page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, you bring up good points, but we have since project start been fighting against the principle "admin is a super-user type of editor" account. Since project start we have been warring against the idea of privileged status for admin-ship, which leads to a bad/hierarchal power dynamic. I only bring this up to keep the community informed about this issue. It's a slippery slope we have to watch. -Camelgamin1 (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Considering several Admins (not the one who locked thankfully) were edit warring on the page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 09:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

For those who understand full-protection such as this, you'll already know that admins should only now edit it to a) remove policy-violating text/images, or b) implement changes that have been arrived at via WP:CONSENSUS discussions on this talkpage. That does not mean admins are super (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Two suspects wanted by the FBI for the bombing.jpg

FYI, File:Two suspects wanted by the FBI for the bombing.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Minor edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"died in hospital" to "died at the hospital" per American English. --Siradia (talk) 09:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

In the line after that, perhaps we should also reference the hospital press conference that confirms the guy died? Would anyone object to that? — PinkAmpers& 09:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Done. Thanks! AGK 09:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

New York Post

Shouldn't this article cover the false identification by the front cover splash of the New York Post of two men unrelated to the bombings? Seems like press abuses should also be part of the coverage. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

If that is notable, the only place it should appear is in the article about that newspaper. Apteva (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Put reaction section before investigation?

Seems it should be in chronological order. I tried, got edit conflicted once and gave up. I know someone here is more determined. But do they agree? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:41, April 19, 2013 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• C-Class Crime-related articles
• Low-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• C-Class Death articles
• Low-importance Death articles
• C-Class Disaster management articles
• Mid-importance Disaster management articles
• C-Class Running articles
• Mid-importance Running articles
• WikiProject Running articles
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• Unassessed Terrorism articles
• Low-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Mid-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
• C-Class Massachusetts articles
• Mid-importance Massachusetts articles
• WikiProject Massachusetts articles
• C-Class Boston articles
• High-importance Boston articles
• WikiProject Boston articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment