Talk:Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev/Archive 1

Archive 1

Manhunt and capture section Merge

I propose we merge bits (Not the whole thing) that have to do with the suspects here to this article - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Citation requested

I have reinstated the {{cn}} tag, requesting a source to verify that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was taken by police to Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. If I am missing something, please advise, otherwise I am not seeing and have not seen this fact mentioned in wp:rs. Thank you. My76Strat (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, he was taken in an ambulance, but you can see that he had a police escort in the footage, and to me it seems common-sense that there would have been police officers present in the ambulance. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest copy-editing the prose to either reflect the role of law enforcement as "escorting" the ambulance, or simply state that "Tsarnaev was transported" to the hospital without further suggestion. To me the verbiage implies the police transported the mortally wounded suspect themselves; a false implication, indicative of poor judgement. I would have changed the prose myself, except I allowed that it may in fact have been accurate. My76Strat (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Terrorism categories removed

I have removed Category:FBI Most Wanted Terrorists and Category:Individuals designated as terrorist by the United States government from the article because I cannot find a source that places the subjects into either of those two categories (nor does the article text confirm the subjects' inclusion in those categories). — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 22:29, 20 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) 23:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

File:BostonSuspect2.jpg & File:BostonSuspect1.jpg

File:BostonSuspect1.jpg and File:BostonSuspect2.jpg have been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because this was already discussed. A strong consensus was reached that this article stay.--Pollack man34 (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... Article had been at AfD less than 24 hours ago. Passes WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTABILITY --Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes

I feel we move both infoboxes to the top of the page??? Like in the article on Harris and Klebold???

I think it is better if they are in their respective sections.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

One killed his brother?

Currently the infobox reads that the younger one killed his brother. While it sounds like he drove over his brother, that may not be the cause of death. The IED strapped to his body or the "too many to count" bullet holes reported by doctors might just have done him in. I will modify. Legacypac (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed while the media has reported that one brother ran over the other the cause of his death is TBD - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I just read the infobox, and it looks like someone removed that information altogether. Should that be reverted? — Thatemooverthere (Talk) 20:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

he is alleged to have killed his brother, this cannot be stated as fact as he has not been convicted of the crime.Martin451 (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. Until they been convicted of the crime, Wikipedia cannot state that they killed 3 people, 1 cop, and that Dzhokhar killed his brother. — Thatemooverthere (Talk) 20:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Correct. Taemerlan's cause of death has not even yet been officially determined. Even if it is found that he died as a result of being run over by a car driven by Tamerlan, we are a long way from Dzhokhar even being charged with murder, yet alone being convicted. --Crunch (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

BLP?

Please be aware of WP:BLP. Wikipedia cannot claim any crimes by anyone alive who has not been convicted of said crime. The article and infoboxes should reflect this.Martin451 (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• BLPCRIME applies to low-profile individuals and not to well-known individuals, in whose cases WP:WELLKNOWN is the appropriate policy to follow.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Quote from WP:WELLKNOWN "A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he actually did."

The allegations can be reported, but not the assumption of guilt. Using things like infobox murderer is against BLP.Martin451 (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious -- aside from the poor name given the infobox, which readers do not see, is there anything in the presentation that suggests that the person committed the murder? Or is it simply a matter, other than that, of more easily allowing for (once we have them) presentation in the infobox of the charges, and the like? --Epeefleche (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

When the infobox says "killed X", "injured Y", "weapon used", then it says the person is guilty, which is what the infoboxes said earlier. Keeping infobox murder allows anyone to see this if they edit the article (or view the source), and will invite some editors to add details that should not be in the article. Infobox murderer implies guilt.Martin451 (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree. The killed brother will never be charged or convicted, but overwhelming evidence shows he committed the crimes. He was captured and killed in a firefight - no question he participated in the firefight. The infobox template should be restored as it reflects the reported sources (police etc)Legacypac (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• WP:WELLKNOWN has no bearing on whether to claim that either Tsarnaev committed a crime. It has to do with whether or not to report an allegation or to ignore the allegation altogether. With regard to the infobox, we should change the infobox used to a more generic one with the same basic fields for the reasons stated above by User:Martin451. --Crunch (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• And ... I now see that the Infobox has been changed. --Crunch (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes

1. Should we move the ibox of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev down to his section?

2. His brother, I believe, did not die in Watertown but in the hospital in Boston (see ibox).

3. The longer form iboxes should be used, as they have useful parameters.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not looking for a reference now but I read about the Doc who received him he was bled out and in cardiac arrest. Another source said the doctors could not count the bullet wounds. A suicide vest also seems to have exploded. Though maybe he was formally called for dead in the hospital, he was killed/died on a Watertown street. Legacypac (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Pinpointing the exact time of death is often not precise. This is why doctors formally call a specific time of death. He was declared dead at the hospital in Boston, not at the scene of his capture in Watertown nor on the way to the hospital, a trip that possibly would have taken him through one or more other cities/towns. For this reason, we should list his location of death as Boston. This is also almost certainly the location that was printed on his death certificate, which is a matter of public record. --Crunch (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protect

Boston Marathon bombings is semi-protected for what appear to be BLP reasons, this probably should be too. --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with that.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Better pictures of Tamerlan available, should be added instead

The blurry hat and sunglasses picture needs to be replaced with something else. For example: [1]. TomCat4680 (talk) 00:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to upload it, just make sure you can prove fair use! --Pollack man34 (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox murderer?

Is it a violation of BLP to put this infobox on the page? They are only suspects, not convicted, so there are no sources that say they actually killed anyone. It seems inappropriate to place this template in the article until then. CodeCat (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Does it really matter, it is such a minor thing that nobody will notice anyways. I imagine the use of infobox murder is because it is more useful then the regular infobox. JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not the name of the box itself that I am concerned about, it's also the contents it displays. Displaying someone's name with "killings" is a violation of BLP if they are not convicted of that act. Just ask yourself, what if they are innocent? Has Wikipedia helped to perpetuate a falsehood? You can also look at it from another point of view. There are no reliable sources that say they are the perpetrators, because no source that says so without a conviction should be considered reliable. Therefore, putting it in the article is obvious Original Research. CodeCat (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm doubtful they are innocent, the FBI has been tracking them for days and knows every detail about them. JayJay^{What did I do?} 15:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• It's highly unlikely that we'd get this wrong, but for now it's best not to have an encyclopedic article which has already drawn the conclusions. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• At minimum, there is zero BLP issue with the dead man. Also, there are RS reports that the two said that they committed the bombing.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I still don't quite feel comfortable with it. Wikipedia considers verifiability and not truth, but isn't that also what a court does? It seems wrong for us to say they're guilty when a court hasn't determined it yet. CodeCat (talk) 02:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• There is a difference between killing and murder.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

  We do name 19 Hijackers in the September 11 attacks even though none were convicted in court. Lee Harvey Oswald is said to have assassinated JFK; again, no conviction. The point is that dying before trial should not require that one call a spade a more glamorous name, in my opinion. My76Strat (talk) 06:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. As I said ... as to the dead man, there obviously are no blp issues.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

RS say they admitted to both the bombings and killing the MIT officer to the car jacked guy. One brother is died in firefight with police so no need or ability of court to convict.

• From BLP policy on crime: "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. 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." Using this test:

• 1. Are they "accused of a crime" - heck ya and the world watched them do some of it.
• 2. are they "presumed innocent until proven guilty" - of course, as always.
• 3. will they be "proven guilty and convicted by a court of law"? - Not the dead one anyway. If the live one is not convicted of some serious crimes... well God help us all.
• 4. Are they "relatively unknown" - these guys are more famous than the Pope now (do you know the Pope's real name for example). Since they are well known now, the rest of the guideline does not matter but we continue anyway.
• 5. "editors must give serious consideration" - check, we are doing that anyway
• 6. "not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured" - The reason for this is presumably to protect the reputation of a living person. Is there anything we can say at Wikipedia that will protect their reputation against the massive media coverage saying they are accused, suspected, captured, being treated as terrorists etc etc etc. Heck No.
• It is a verifiable fact that 3 people died in bombings and 1 officer was shot dead, plus all the injuries. These are the suspects. Why can't we say this in the info box again?

Legacypac (talk) 05:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The media and wikipedia editors have got this wrong several times before on this case. Like it or not this is an encyclopia not the gossip column of your favourite tabloid. Infobox murderer should not be used for either brother until the living one is convicted or dies. Wikipedia can report the allegations, but not draw conclusions about their guilt or innocence. The car jack victim claims the brothers admitted their crimes to him, but he is a witness and we don't know how reliable he is, we can repeat those claims, but not treat it as a confession of guilt.Martin451 (talk) 08:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It will be added if they are convicted --Pollack man34 (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Categorization

I think some of the categories which are not commonly shared with both brothers should be seperated into the redirects, as seen in The Wachowskis article. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 12:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. Is there a guideline you base that on? The person clicking through "cat x" should be able to come here, I would think, rather than to an empty page that imparts zero information.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The person clicking through "cat x" will be directed here. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 01:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev

The information on the suspects has been split into another article Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Therefore, any information on the suspects that is not related to the bombings by reliable sources should not be at this article. That information should be moved to Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. This is especially true for most of the background information.Bless sins (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you intend to post this note elsewhere?--Epeefleche (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. My apologies for the mistake. I've posted it: Talk:Boston_Marathon_bombings#Dzhokhar_and_Tamerlan_Tsarnaev.Bless sins (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

All Crimes are Alleged

Please be aware that neither of the subjects of this article has yet been convicted of any crime. One is dead and never will receive any conviction. All references to murder, car jacking, assault, etc. should be referred to as alleged. --Crunch (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your statement at this time, and as to the living brother until there is a court determination, but at what point and under what process does this change for the deceased? Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold are included in murderer's categories even though there was never a court determination. 24.151.50.173 (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

1) The above does not apply to the deceased; and 2) quotes.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I added a warning message to the top of the talk page here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant opinating closed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This talk page should be used to discuss the article, not the subject of the article. GabrielF (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Extended content

He was set up by our government, all of the proof is there, you're all just too blind to see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeJahar (talk • contribs) 21:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC) "Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is innocent" is a group on Russian Facebook (Vkontakte) with thousands of members. Guess it was one of them. --Niemti (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Yep, "FreeJahar" it's them: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-is-innocent-facebook-page-attracts-over-12000-fans-as-conspiracy-theorists-and-teenage-girls-send-the-freejahar-twitter-and-instagram-hashtag-viral-8585061.html Guess it should be noted in the article. --Niemti (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Also http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/04/cult-of-tsarnaev/ etc. --Niemti (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Oh, and about this Wikipedia 'fact': " However, Tamerlan was seen by Dagestan police engaging in surveillance making six visits to a known Islamic militant in a Salafi mosque in Makhachkala.[131][132]" Guess what: 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. Geez, you guys. --Niemti (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Don't "archive" until the issues are fixed. --Niemti (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC) This is complete nonsense. What are the issues that need to be fixed here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Registered to vote?

Should we have something on how Tamerlan was registered to vote, despite not being a U.S. citizen? link -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't exactly consider BuzzFeed a reliable source. Also, the BuzzFeed article in question says that Dzhokhar was the one registered to vote, not Tamerlan. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 21:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Technically the source is Nexis, and they're reporting it. Read closer: "Nexis also shows Tamerlan Tsarnaev as a registered voter." Here's another source [2] -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, my bad on not noticing the one about Tamerlan! The Newsday article looks like it checks out. That said, how did they find out Tamerlan was registered to vote?The article says public records provided the information but I've been searching around for the last 20 minutes and can't find a place to verify voter registration in Massachusetts. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 22:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be no way to verify it online, unless you want to contact the Cambridge clerk. Here's another source [3] -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

All right. I'm still not sure about where I stand about its merit for inclusion in the article, though. First of all, is it really relevant to the article? Second, neither of the articles specifically state where they found out that Tamerlan was a registered voter. The Newsday article says that public records provided the information, but doesn't name a specific source. Did they get the information from whatever local/state government office is responsible for keeping track of it? Or did they read the BuzzFeed page (or some other page) and just assume that the screenshot the screenshot given was legit? — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 23:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it's relevant bio information. The real curiosity is how it happened. I think Chris Geidner has demonstrated he's not unethical. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources say he became a citizen in 2012. [4] [5] So he could have registered legally. Abductive (reasoning) 16:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

No, they say he applied in September 2012. Still pending. As a former resident of Cambridge I a can tell you that in many towns around Boston you can register and vote without being a citizen. Not for national elections but for many local offices non citizens can and do register and vote legally 16:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.64.230 (talk)

No, see (@joshgerstein) where Politico reports Tamarlan was NOT registered to vote in Cambridge. Explanation seems to be that the same Cambridge city database lists residents in the census at a local address as well as if they are registered to vote at that address, and apparently Newsday noted just the presence in the database without confirming the voter registration. (Someone should check to see if Tamarlan is listed as a resident or voter at his wife's address as well as in Cambridge.) The Politico report goes on to say that the only one registered to vote at the Norfolk St. residence, Cambridge, was the suspect's mother, Zubeidat. I don't believe she is a U.S. citizen at this point, just permanent resident, although she now resides in Dagestan with a Russian passport. Apparently she was registered to vote when she checked a box on her application for a driver's license with the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles (in compliance with the Motor Voter Act). (The report says she did not in fact vote in any election. A proposal to allow non-citizens to vote in a local school board election did not go into effect in Cambridge.) Apparently no other member of the family checked off the voter registration box on their driver's license application, so were not registered. The issue raised by the Newsday report of how Tamarlan supposedly registered to vote even though not a naturalized U.S. citizen should be dropped, but there might well be meaningful discussion of the implementation of the Motor Voter Act's potentially allowing non-citizens to vote illegally in federal elections if the city or state voter registration bureau does not or cannot check to verify citizenship.72.187.163.144 (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems pretty settled that this is a mistake: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/marathon-bombing-suspects-not-registered-to-vote-90420.html Politico's explanation: "Municipalities in Massachusetts conduct an annual census by mail. In Cambridge, that census is handled by the city’s Election Commission. As a result, voter and census information is stored in the same computer system, which may have led commercial databases to list the brothers and other family members as voters when most of them were not." Though it is correct that they both are listed as registered voters in Lexis (Dzhokhar is listed twice, even), that system itself contains a disclaimer that explicitly states that it should not be relied on and is about as good of a source as Buzzfeed: "The Public Records and commercially available data sources used on reports have errors. Data is sometimes entered poorly, processed incorrectly and is generally not free from defect. This system should not be relied upon as definitively accurate. Before relying on any data this system supplies, it should be independently verified. For Secretary of State documents, the following data is for information purposes only and is not an official record. Certified copies may be obtained from that individual state's Department of State." Politico's article purports to have gone to the source of official records. Considering the other media pieces either do not cite their source or cite a commercial database, which itself says it should not be relied on, and considering the generally good reputation of Politico, I say this statement should be removed from the wikipedia article. If you disagree, please cite a source that at least claims to have looked at official records and reasoning for why the statement should be restored. We wouldn't want Wikipedia to contribute to social media's spreading of rumors, would we? Alternatively, the statement could be restored as "Reports have stated that the brothers are registered to vote, citing commercial compendiums of voter records; however, other sources have reported that the official voter records do not contain registrations by the brothers." Or something to the effect of including the points I've made above for deletion. Nonetheless, I don't believe a credible wiki article on the brothers could appropriately include a report on a dubious claim that has been almost certainly disproved and explained. The statement is not about them at that point--it's about the media's coverage of them. Make a section for false reports, and put it there if you really want the statement to be included. Btaylor0000 (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Moral of the story: reporters are pretty lazy and jump at opportunities to sensationalize. Database clearly says to independently verify, but it took another publication to do that for them, but only after a bit of sensational news was manufactured. Wikipedia editors hopefully aren't as lazy and are willing to make the extra effort to verify published claims (being on the internet doesn't make it true), particularly media claims, and particularly media claims that either don't cite sources or don't cite official sources. Btaylor0000 (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Tamerlan's birthplace

In this press release, the FBI says that they were both born in Kyrgyzstan. However, IIRC the uncle said that Tamerlan was born in Russia. I know that various media outlets have reported different things, and currently we don't list a conclusive birthplace for Dzhokhar. Should we not list a conclusive one for Tamerlan either? Or is the FBI just plain wrong? — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 02:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

"Russia" means different things at different times to different people. But generally if I think I have two RSs saying different things, and neither is clearly superior to the other in terms of being official, I reflect both. I haven't looked at this issue, but that may be the way to go.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Uncle Ruslan Tsarni very clearly says: Tamerlan was born in Dagestan, which is an autonomous region in Russia. Dzhokhar on the other hand is identified by his uncle as being born in Kyrgyzstan which is clearly not Russia. Both were not born nor according to him on his TV declarations "anything to do" with Chechnya. Hope this helps werldwayd (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

According to this source [6] the parents were married in Elista, Kalmyk Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic in 1986 and that's where Tamerlan was born. Since 1990-1992 the area became an autonomous republic within the Russian Federation. The other 3 children were born in Kyrgyzstan.[7] USchick (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Anzor Tsarnaev

The article seems to be trying to avoid the father's name, but this is a Wikipathology that can't be sustained. We're supposed to avoid victimizing unknown people, not omit the name of someone being cited in literally hundreds of Google News results. Normal biographic information should be included as you would for the parent of any article subject. Wnt (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• I may have missed it but do you have a reference that can be used to cite the father's name? --Crunch (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

"anzor+tsarnaev"&btnG=Search&hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws a few Wnt (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

This has now been incorporated in the article that says: "The brothers were born in Kyrgyzstan in 1986 and 1993, and are ethnic Chechens. Their parents are Anzor and Zubeidat Tsarnaev, who also have two daughters, Amina and Bella." We have quite a few references on them now and this is substantiated and resolved. Thanks for pointing out the missing name of parents earlier. As a matter of interest, many media did mention "Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev" A pertaining arguably to Anzor. werldwayd (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you. The statement "both alive" has been changed to show their names in both of the person infoboxes. --Crunch (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not really a case of avoiding victimization (which is covered by WP:AVOIDVICTIM), but of privacy. I would argue that the father's name should not be included. Per WP:BLPNAME, "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event.... When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.... The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons." As a low-profile person whose only involvement with the bombing appears to be that he is related to the two bombers, it's probably a better idea to omit the name in order to afford him privacy. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 14:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

"Chechen" or "mixed Chechen-Dagstani" origin?

Uncle of the tsranevs, Ruslan Tsarni, says that Tamerlan was born in Dagstan, a neighbouring region and not in Chechnya. He had 'bothing to do with Chechnya". Uncle Ruslan also specified the children were not purely of Chechen ethnic, as their mother Zubeidat was of Dagstani ethnicity. Only the father Anzor was Chechen. He also mentions conflicts and strained relations in the family because of the children's Dagstani mother did not want to comply with the Chechen roots and traditions of the Chechen origin father Anzor. I don't know what is the Wikipedia practice in this when one has mixed ethnic origins. For example if the father is Chechen and the mother Dagstani, we call the children of "Chechen ethnicity" as paternal system would do or of "mixedChechen-Dagstani origin" as would more egalitarian systems do. For example, a Danish artist may be born of a recently immigrated Egyptian father and a danish mother. Do we say the artist is of Egyptian origin or mixed Egyptian and Danish origins. My instinct and logic says we should mention both father and mother ethnicity and call the children of "mixed chechen Dagstani origin". werldwayd (talk) 21:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The sources that I've seen say that she was born in Dagestan, but do not specify her ethnicity. Dagestan has many ethnic groups including Avars, Dargins, Kumyks, Azeris, Lezgins, Laks, and others. For all we know at this point she may have been an ethnic Chechen who happened to be born in Dagestan. --PiMaster3 ^talk 02:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Considering that lineage and last name are usually inherited from the father's side, I would think that the paternal Chechen ethnicity takes greater precedence over the maternal ethnicity. Yes, they may be half Chechen and half Dagestani by blood, but for practical reasons, we recognise them as Chechen first. Most of the media reports have moreover been calling them as Chechen compared to Dagestani, so that's another reason. PiMaster3 also makes a valid point. Nevertheless, for what it's worth, I've added Category:American people of Dagestani descent‎ into the article. Mar4d (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The mother of Tamerlan and Dzokhar was not Chechen. In fact big disagreements arose as the mother was Dagestani and didn't want to abode with Chechen culture. Listen toi 8:50 onwards for a minute... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZ3XV0fOhRs For further confirmation that she was not Chechen and rebelled against her husband and family's Chechen roots starting from 10:40 for another minute and a half. werldwayd (talk) 04:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Precisely Avar. Which is a dominant Dagestani ethnic group. --Niemti (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Omission

Shouldn't this article mention that the younger brother drove over the older brother? That seems germane. Even if it is only an allegation by authorities, and not a "proven" fact (i.e., lacking an official conviction as of today's date). Thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It is extremely widely reported now and is important as one of the possible causes of death. Younger might even be charged with his murder yet. All the care with "alleged" makes me wonder about some editors here. One brother was captured in a firefight after charging at officers. Is his participation alleged in the firefight? Maybe it was someone else shooting and he happened to get countless bullet wounds in the process. At some point verifiable facts come into play here.Legacypac (talk) 02:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The consistent use of alleged is following Wikipedia's policies, specifically WP:BLPCRIME. There is no need to "wonder about some editors here." Things that might happen, such as Dzhokhar being charged with murder are speculation at this point. If you want to mention that one brother drove over the other, you can do so by quoting, for example, the Watertown police chief's statements that that happened. --Crunch (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Post-bombing, pre-capture developments should be elaborated on

Right now they're sketchy, cryptic, and anyone not already knowing about them will learn nothing of importace here - and by this I mean the killing of a police officer, the carjacking, etc. --Niemti (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Connection to triple homicide?

The media is starting to report a possible connection to an unsolved triple homicide from 2011 (see http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/boston-bomb-suspect-eyed-connection-2011-triple-murder/story?id=19015628#.UXWXDqI4uSp). Where should this go? 50.76.9.1 (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

One take away is that if your friend is murdered you should attend the service because if you don't you look a little guilty. Great find. Worth watching. Legacypac (talk) 00:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Dzhokhar, is he dead?

If so, please update the little box thingy about him on the right, telling us he's dead and not just "born". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.114.202.32 (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Also, his home town was not "Kyrgyzstan".

• "Little box thingy"... it's called an infobox. And no, he's not dead. --Preceding signed comment by Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 22:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciations

Also, we have to make the pronunciations of the brothers' names in IPA format, not in this format: [djo-KHAR tsar-NA-yeff].

Perhaps someone could help? -- Preceding signed comment by Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 22:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Current event tag

When should the current event tag be removed? Now that he has been captured and charged, I'm not sure events will be as fast-moving.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

This article contains Cyrillic text.

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

---

Is the "This article contains Cyrillic text." box necessary? I understand its purpose -- but is it required? Also, if it is required, is it required at the top of the article? It strikes me that the benefit of having a text box of such limited interest to and utility to the average reader --- and, no less, at the top of the article rather than at the bottom where, say, we would put a portal -- is less than the annoyance it creates, as it distracts the reader from reading what he really wants to read. And does so at the outset of the article. If it is not required at the beginning of the article, I would urge that it either be deleted or moved to the see also section. It's a question of common sense, and weighing cost vs. benefit.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

In all honesty, a lot of readers are from countries/areas where Cyrillic wouldn't be defaultly installed on computers. Therefore, people will see either ???????? or the unicode boxes for the text. Standard procedure is to put it at the top, but below infoboxes if needed. That's where it is now, and it's not too distracting. It's a small box. Imo, the infobox is more distracting, especially because a lot of the substance isn't ever in the infobox. But basically, it's needed because a non-negligible amount of readers may not be able to see Cyrillic text. gwickwire^talk_editing 03:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The Cyrillic you mention is just the names of the individuals Dzhokhar and Tamerlan, and that's buried way down NOT in the article but in a "note". In my opinion it is redundant since the article itself doesn't contain a single Cyrillic character anyway.... If such a warning is actually needed, if any, since we have Джоха́р Царна́ев, Тамерла́н Царна́ев, the note about Cyrillic should be near bottom note not at the top of the article. The way it stands now is absolutely meaningless. I suggest the Cyrillic warning is placed just near the note itself at the end of the article. werldwayd (talk) 03:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Um, the names are in Cyrillic in the two infoboxes... And there's that big honkin whitespace at the top, it won't break a section header look/flow if we put it there... It just looks better. gwickwire^talk_editing 04:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I support removing it. I hate the Wikipedia habit that just because somebody, somewhere created a template message and added it to one page, we're now obligated to add it to thousands of pages forever and ever. These things are like grey goo sometimes. We need to take a step back and wonder why this cruft exists.

Almost all readers can access Cyrillic at this point (it's 2013). The tiny minority that can't view it aren't going to be confused by the word "Russian:" followed by question marks. They'll know it's supposed to be Russian letters. You need a basic amount of technology to access web pages, and it's OK to assume the reader has that technology. We don't need a warning for em dashes or floats, even if some browser somewhere might not support them. I definitely don't like the argument that we should just fill whitespace with things because there's whitespace.

The only Cyrillic in this article is the subjects' names. It's trivial. The reader can survive without a message explaining that they're maybe seeing question marks or boxes or maybe not seeing question marks or boxes. I can understand distracting the majority to help a minority, but this doesn't even help the minority. It's distracting everyone for no benefit to anyone. Let it go, I say. —Designate (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

"Russian: ????" means to me and most people that it is unknown, not that there's Cyrillic letters. And I'd like to see your study that almost all readers can access Cyrillic just because of the year. We have a lot of users still running either old OSes, old fonts, old Unicode systems, old browsers, etc. for various reasons, who won't be able to see it. Hence why articles with Japanese, Chinese, Cyrillic, and other non-standard text have this template because it may cause confusion. I'm not saying we should fill it because it's whitespace, I'm saying let's fill it with something that will reduce confusion among readers who aren't as technologically advanced as we are. My grandmother uses a computer with Windows 95 still, and she uses it just fine without knowing anything about Unicode. But when she comes to the ??????? she has no clue what to do. Hence why we put these messages to explain to users why they're seeing a question mark, and to make them not think "let me go google their names in russian wikipedia must be stupid and not know them". The reader isn't just our technologically advanced countries, there's a lot of readers from small countries, or third world countries that are lucky to have internet, much less super up to date OS and stuff. This is a non-negligible minority, hence why it is on many other articles right now. gwickwire^talk_editing 04:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with editors werldwayd and Designate. Either bury deeply, or remove. It distracts, and the cost of that distraction way outweighs any benefit, IMHO. It's a matter of editorial judgment, but to me this is a no-brainer. Don't encumber the top of an article with a big box that is something the reader didn't come here to peruse. If they can't read the Russian (whatever percentage it is), they have been on the internet enough to probably figure out why ... and if they can't, let them ask their 14-year-old. Why ruin the reading experience for everyone else?--Epeefleche (talk) 05:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:ACCESSIBILITY (and the accessibility WikiProject) says that we have to provide for those who aren't 21st century people who have the most up to date everything. Thus, we warn readers of text that isn't standard Unicode (latin characters, numerals, and some special characters) by a box that really isn't that obtrusive.. The average reader can read the first few words, "this article contains Cyrillic text" and say "Oh, that doesn't apply to me" or "Oh, if I see ????? then I know what it is". We have to provide for the reader, not to all of the editors who have technology that is super up to date. gwickwire^talk_editing 19:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• The box that begins that page says "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." Using common sense, it does not make sense to mar the beginning of the article with that box. Nor do I see a mandate in what you pointed to to do so. Stick it down in the See also section or thereabouts. As reflected in a combination of those who have reverted you, and those commenting here, you do not have consensus for forcing that box onto the top of the page. Nor is it mandated by anything you pointed to. Please just respect consensus. (And, btw, without knowing what comes next, I certainly would not know that I do not have to read further after reading "this article contains Cyrillic text". This just leaves the majority of readers with a waste of time, foisted upon them.)--Epeefleche (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• I love how apparently we aren't going to care that a very non-negligible (in case that's confusing, it means too large to just forget about) number of editors will not have Cyrillic fonts installed. Thusly, they need this box to tell them why they aren't seeing text right. It is very standard procedure to put this on any article with Cyrillic text in it at all. Since it's in the infoboxes, we have to put it before the infoboxes, and the only feasable location is then the opening below the image. It's not mandated, but it's best and standard procedure. You've given no good reason to throw out best procedure for this case other than "I don't like it". gwickwire^talk_editing 20:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• I understand and respect your opinion. I don't think the placement is helpful on a cost-benefit basis, and note the lack of consensus for your well-meaning comments. It's a matter of judgment, and the benefit to a minority by that placement appears to most of us to be outweighed by the cost to the minority. I point to commons sense, which your link highlights, and wp:consensus.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• I understand and respect consensus when it is based on valid points. I don't like it, it looks ugly, "common sense" without reasoning that makes sense to me don't really make me want to see a consensus. Your comment that since it's a minority at all we can't have it is blatantly rude to the minority. You have to remember that editors from all over the world, from places from the USA and UK to the Philippines and parts of Africa are reading Wikipedia as English learners, and those who are reading it in such areas may not have Cyrillic installed. We may differ in opinion, but I'd like to see a lot more editors comments, or at least some good reasoning other than "cost vs benefit" when there really isn't any cost, before I agree with removal (not that I have to if there's reasoning, but I'll support removal if reasoning is given). The cost that is brought up is that apparently it detracts from what the reader is looking for. In my opinion, we must remove the infoboxes, pictures, and any extraneous information then. The cost is that it may look a bit ugly (not really, it does blend in with color scheme and size if we add |image= to the end of it) and apparently it takes the average reader (who you seem concerned about) 5 seconds to read "this article contains Cyrillic text..." and a comment on how to install fonts if need be, whereas it takes the non-average, but non-negligible minority of readers who don't have the fonts installed a long time to figure out "Why are there boxes? Why are there ????? ? Does Wikipedia not know? What do I do?" and then give up. We are to provide information to everyone, not just those who are super techy and know how to do everything themselves. gwickwire^talk_editing 21:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think that the Cyrillic text notice should be removed, because the only Cyrillic text is the brothers' names. Those are easily translatable into English. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 22:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Then we need to remove the Cyrillic text itself. The notice isn't because some people can't understand or read Cyrillic languages, it's that some users/readers computers cannot display the text, so they see boxes or ????????. I'd not object to removing the language in the infoboxes and modifying the current footnote to say "NOTE: Requires Cyrillic fonts installed, see Help:Multilingual support for more info.", as it'd then be the only place Cyrillic is displayed. Can we all agree to that? But as it is, the notice is below all Cyrillic text, meaning that users see the ?????? or boxboxboxbox before they see the help. That defeats the purpose of the notice. gwickwire^talk_editing 23:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

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

FBI Ten Most Wanted

I don't see in this article where it is documented that they were added to the FBI Ten Most Wanted list, as the categories state. If this is true, it should be documented and referenced. If it cannot be, then the cat should be removed. The rest of the article looks great. AlaskaMike (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed that cat the other day, but it was subsequently added back in this edit. I'm removing the category again because, in the words of WP:BLPCAT "[c]ategory names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources". The edit summary of the edit that reinstated the cat reads, "they were the most wanted men in the US. See FBI wanted posters." I'm not entirely sure what posters the editor was referring to; I've seen the posters myself, and nowhere do they say that either suspect is (or was) on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list. We need a WP:RS (preferably the FBI itself?) that states that one or both of the men were on the Ten Most Wanted List and it needs to be mentioned in the article before we can place the article in this category, especially since this one is a BLP. (I'll leave a note on the talkpage of the user who reinstated the category, directing him/her here so he/she can read my rationale.) — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 14:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you, Cymru. In this case I wanted to assume good faith. I mean, if someone had added the cat, "Deciduous trees" or "Active volcanoes" to this page, than clearly they could have been deleted without discussion. But I felt this could have been a well intended if incorrect edit, so I assumed good faith. When good faith is evident, I believe discussion is warranted. Thanks for your participation. AlaskaMike (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking it up in a search, I'm getting junk hits from multiple articles where someone else was on the list - I really don't think they were on it. Remember, the Ten Most Wanted list is a specific thing updated by a specific process, not just a general description of anyone they are after. I doubt they would have been added to it until they had had a chance to flee well outside the Boston area. Wnt (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to correct me...but when someone is the most wanted man/men in the U.S....that kinda makes them in the top 10. #1 actually. "most-wanted man". "most wanted". I could keep going. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 04:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

But they were not added to the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list, were they? If they weren't, they don't belong in that category, which is only for people who were added to the official FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list. It's a violation of BLP and Wikipedia's categorization guidelines to have them in that category without a RS saying otherwise. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 20:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is no question here - there is no evidence that they were ever actually added to the Ten Most Wanted list before they were killed/captured. Ergo, they don't belong in that category. polarscribe (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Dzokhar's Residence?

The article says that Dzokhar was a sophomore at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth and living in the school's Pine Dale Hall dorm. Yet in the sidebar his residence is given as Cambridge, MA, presumably in his brother's apartment at 410 Norfolk St. I understand that "residence" is a bit nebulous for a college student, and it's not entirely impossible that he frequently commuted between Darthmouth and Cambridge (they're about 67 road miles and 80 minutes apart) but it would be nice to nail down his usual daily residence or at least cite both. Karn (talk) 07:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I pondered that as well. I did read somewhere that his official residence was Cambridge. It may well be, though, that his official residence is Cambridge, and he is dorming at the dorm but even if he lives there most of the year it is not his official residence. This can vary depending on the purpose of residence in the real world, though, as for tax purposes it would be where you reside most of the year, but for other purposes it would be his Cambridge address. For some purposes, such as getting a driver license in certain jurisdictions, you need to intend to make the location a "fixed and permanent" place to live, which would not include a dorm. Probably best to reflect both in the ibox, with explanation for dorm.Epeefleche (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Perpetrators vs. suspects

I just removed about 4kB of text from the lede that "summarized" the bombings and aftermath in excessive detail. Stuff about the perpetrators of the bombings goes in the bombings article. This article is about the suspects in the bombings. Obviously it can discuss what they're accused of and all that stuff, but in my opinion we should only be discussing what we definitively know the about the brothers (i.e. biographical details and the fact that they were named as suspects and that Dzhokhar's been charged). — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 16:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

External links

I removed all the external links, because none of them met WP:EL. They were all either links to articles that are referenced within the article, or links to Facebook(?) which don't belong here. polarscribe (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, this looks to me as a legitimate link or ref. My very best wishes (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, I thought I saw something from Slate in there already but it was a different article. I'll take some time to work that in. Thanks for catching that. polarscribe (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think indicated Slate article is a legitimate external link. It may be used for a reference though werldwayd (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Influence of mother in enlisting radical mystic cleric

Article stating that from 2007, the boys' mother enlisted the tutorage of an Armenian convert and radical cleric, who stated that he could talk to demons, a behaviour which their uncle believes brought on their extremism. Surely this deserves a mention. Indiasummer95 (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2313076/Tamerlan-Dzhokhar-Tsarnaeva-Did-controlling-mother-Boston-bombers-lead-radicalization.html

Yes, whoever brainwashed these guys was responsible for their terrorist act. My very best wishes (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is not a reliable source for contentious claims about living people - and claiming that their mother is ultimately responsible for turning them into radical terrorists is certainly a contentious claim about a living person. polarscribe (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, the idea that she 'was responsible' for the attacks by letting a nutbar cleric preach at the kitchen table once seems pretty laughable. But we can accumulate bits of background nonetheless. I think right now we should include the arrest the Mail and a half dozen others mention for allegedly stealing $1,624 in clothes from Lord & Taylor (original source: 7:24 pm June 13 2012 [8]) but given the way this article has been I don't plan to fight over it until some bigger name papers confirm the truth and importance of the allegation. It is relevant because the home environment is always relevant to a biography, and especially, to considerations in sentencing young defendants. Wnt (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Asylum vs refugee status

The background section states, "In the U.S. the parents received asylum, ... They then applied for refugee status." These are obviously incorrect and misleading statements, which are not based on the sources cited. When a person (asylum-seeker) is granted asylum he becomes a refugee, there is no 2 different statuses. It is all in the body of international laws regarding refugees -- Refugee law, also Asylum in the United States.Axxxion (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

What do you read the refs as saying?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Split into Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev?

Before we start splitting the brothers into two separate articles shouldn't we wait a bit for more to unfold? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

No. It seems certain that enough information will come out to justify two full-length articles, and it will be much easier to split them now than wait for another couple of hundred edits.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we should wait for this information to come out first, I understand that you feel that more will come out and agree with you but right now the two are better presented in one article. There is no Wikipedia:DEADLINE here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

No. Tamerlan, being deceased, will just be a footnote, with nothing beyond the bombing warrantying an article. What will develop will come out of Dzhokhar; however, suspicions are that this plan was hatched by Tamaerlan.Dogru144 (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it's much better to wait a while before discussing any split. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I saw the size of Dzhokhar's article it was a mere 5KB of info (A stub article) compared with 13,432 bytes on his brother (Not exactly footnote size), things are still coming out there is no harm waiting. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Why do we need to spilt everything into different articles? Having these two in one article is easier for navigation, especially because these two where the sole accomplices of the Boston bombings. JayJay^{What did I do?} 21:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but an editor had WP:Boldly splitted the two so I wanted to gain a consensus first. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• What Pink said.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

With the way this article is expanding, they will eventually split, but for now there just isn't enough information to split the articles. --Pollack man34 (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

In German de:Wikipedia now splitting the brothers into two separate articles: de:Tamerlan Tsarnaev and de:Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. best regards --Coffins (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Split up into two separate articles?

Should this article be split up into two separate articles? This article seems a bit long. — Preceding signed comment added by Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 20:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, one for each brother. Good idea.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• For wp purposes, an article is considered long and should definitely be split when it is at about 100kb; this is at half that. Ultimately, it should be split IMHO; this becomes more appropriate as the size increases. But not quite yet.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I wonder if we should just keep it and condense? I'm sure that as time goes on, information will be condensed here, and if you look at the Columbine school shooting article we are able to have an article on the students together with no problem. For now, one article is fine imo. Btw, I changed the : to * to make it easier for someone reading to see where someone's new comments start, especially when we all used : at the beginning :) gwickwire^talk_editing 21:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

There's no rush, we'll cross that road when we get to it.— -dainomite   21:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Right now the brothers are more notable kept in one article, I say wait. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Tamerlan facts

Has anyone seen any info on when his daughter was born? Or how he did in school at high school or at Bunker Hill (we do know how his brother was faring in college). Would be worth adding, for completeness, if we have it, IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

About the daughter's birth date, the precise date may not be known. But all reports are that Zahara, Tamerlan's daughter was three years old at time of the bombing. We have confirmed reports that the couple got married in 2009-2010 period after he dated her in 2006 or more probably 2007. They met in her first year at university. A safe "educated guess" would be that they married in 2009 and Zahara was born in 2010. But just an educated guess as I said. werldwayd (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

For how Tamerlan fared in high school and at Bumker Hill, most sources say he was barely making in his academic studies. Just barely. What is also clear is that Tamerlan did not graduate in his studies and was a college dropout. His father Anzor Tsarnaev blamed him heavily for having dropped out of college to pursue a boxing career which the father found futile. werldwayd (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. We now know the date they married,[9] and that she was already pregnant, but I haven't seen the date or month of birth. As to how T performed in school -- that is interesting. Can you point me to it? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

About Tamerlan's and Dzhokhar's academic performance and the father's ethics and reaction, see [10] "She [meaning Maret, Anzor's sister and Tamerlan's aunt] told how her older brother Anzor had high expectations for his children, especially his older son Tamerlan. Anzor was disappointed when he heard that Tamerlan, who was killed in a shoot out early Friday morning, had dropped out of college". About dropping out of college, it was after three semesters in the community college studying to become an engineer. About the father's ethics and how he brought up his children and how each one behaved, the best I've seen is the report by Boston Globe here: [11] werldwayd (talk) 03:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

So does this count as a confession

The Washington Post in citing an anonymous official saying that he has acknowledged his role in the bombings and his motivation was the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/boston-bombing-suspect-cites-us-wars-as-motivation-officials-say/2013/04/23/324b9cea-ac29-11e2-b6fd-ba6f5f26d70e_print.html

Most people seem to focus on his motivation, but I think the operative point is that he acknowledges that he was part of the bombing plot. What do you think, should this be added.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• If he states that he committed the act of bombing, we can reflect that with proper RSs. But the "act" is just an "element" of the crime -- he can always claim a defense, such as entrapment or duress or insanity. So, he is not even with such a statement guilty of the crime (and is still "suspected" in that sense).--Epeefleche (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

See also

Editor Polarscribe has now deleted the See also section. With an edit summary saying: "links with no stated relationship to the subjects of the article".

The deleted section contained the following:

• Faisal Shahzad, Pakistani-American who confessed to the 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt, which included a pressure cooker bomb
• Najibullah Zazi, Afghan-American U.S. resident and al-Qaeda member, pleaded guilty in 2010 to planning bombings of New York City subway

This is precisely the sort of situation where a see also is appropriate, and such sections appear in similar events. See WP:SEEALSO. As it states, the contents of see also sections are for bulleted lists of internal links to related Wikipedia articles, editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent (such as "made a similar achievement on April 4, 2005"), and the links in the "See also" section should should not repeat links which appear in the article's body.

It states that the see also links:

"do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics."

I think the see also section and its contents should be restored, as matching the above requirements. The contents relate to the two most similar bombings or attempted bombings in US cities in recent years.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• There is no confession, guilty plea or conviction in this case. This might seem obvious or whatever, but as almost certain as we can be that they were involved, the presumption of innocence still applies. It is inappropriate to categorize or connect this article with confessed or convicted bombers until there is either a confession or conviction. polarscribe (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Read the block quote above. Especially the part about "do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." But in any event, in addition to all the other related points, the living brother has now been charged. And both brothers have been reflected in RSs as having said they did it. And they and the see alsos are also related by the fact that they were all suspects of recent major bombing attempts that were highly notable of US cities.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree whole-heartedly with Epeefleche. The "See also" section should be restored. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Polar -- please stop deleting the see also section, unless you garner consensus support for your position. The above clearly reflects why it is appropriate. And one is dead. And the other is explaining how he did what he did. Which is similar to what the others did.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. I think a number of other notable American terrorist bombers belong in this list as well. polarscribe (talk) 04:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

See also section needs defined criteria

OK, so basically the "See also" section has already become a dumping ground to link these people with any and every random terrorist who might have used the same weapon or who also watched videos? That's just not on – we're not going to make this article into a laundry list of every terrorist ever for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that one of the article subjects has not been convicted of any crime and is entitled to a presumption of innocence.

Reference an article like Ted Kaczynski or Timothy McVeigh – the See also sections contain only links that are clearly relevant and directly associated with the article subject. Those links include related philosophies, people known to be closely associated with the men, etc. They are not used as a place to list everyone who ever used a truck bomb to blow up a building, or everyone who ever sent a mail bomb.

We already have articles and categories to list terrorists. This article cannot be added to them because one person is yet to stand trial. Making the "See also" section into a back-door "list every other terrorist ever" section is not the way to get around that. polarscribe (talk) 02:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

This has already been discussed above. No need to open it up as a new discussion.Epeefleche (talk) 04:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Polar – are you being pointy? You first describe the two existing see also entries, reflected above, as "a dumping ground," and a "laundry list of every terrorist." Obviously, those two entries were nothing of the sort. There were 2 entries. Of people accused of bombings or attempts to bomb. Of public places in US cities. In the past four years. One with a pressure cooker bomb.

And you yourself have just now added three "see also's" – where the similarities are far more attenuated. Including, in contrast to the above two entries from the recent past, an entry going back over 100 years. And you seem to have chosen three entries of people whose motivations – something you stress above – have far less to do with their alleged bombings than the philosophy the live fellow here speaks of. I would hope you are not being pointy, but otherwise – why would you make this edit, in light of your comment?--Epeefleche (talk) 04:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The similarities are far less attenuated. The attackers and attacks I linked to are much 'more similar in that they were all successfully carried out, all killed and/or wounded a significant number of people and became significant events in the history of American domestic terrorism.

I'm not going to argue the point – the article has a See also section, and I won't revert it or delete it. But the two entries you added are hardly the only relevant See also links. Unless you are going to argue that the only relevant criteria for "See also" is that some people are Muslims and some people aren't. Which is not exactly NPOV. polarscribe (talk) 04:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Given your statement, moments ago, that it is important that "see also" links have "related philosophies" ... I'm a bit puzzled by your additions. They also are as long ago as over 100 years. They also include not bombings of the public, but of individuals. It really looks like you are taking a list of 2 quite similar articles – which you labelled a "laundry list of every terrorist" ... and are trying to make a point by adding to it a number of far less related entries, turning it into ... a laundry list of every terrorist.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Please explain how a religious extremism-motivated bombing of a sporting event that killed two and injured 111 is less related to this situation than a never-carried-out plan to bomb a subway. polarscribe (talk) 05:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, your suggestion that this has anything to do with WP:POINT is way off base. I'm not "disrupting" anything. I'm not making edits that I disagree with. If we are going to have a See also section, which I no longer dispute, then I believe these articles are similarly related, if not even more so, to the articles you included, and they thus belong in the section. polarscribe (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

That one is fine, IMHO. It's the ones that have little to do with this ... not Islamist (or religious) in motivation ... that fits your description of what you think we should not have – but what you just added – that catches my attention. You yourself just moments ago stated that it is important that "see also" links have "related philosophies" ... and then you added ones that did not. Rather than ones that did. Attention grabber.

As well as your additions of events of over a century ago (as opposed to the 2 existing ones from the last 4 years), ones that are not bombings of public areas, etc.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I note that ExclusiveAgent removed all of my additions to the See also section. I have replaced, at the very least, Eric Rudolph, who was convicted of perpetrating a religious-extremism-motivated deadly bomb attack on a sporting event in the middle of a major city – literally the most similar previous terrorist attack in American history. I would ask that ExclusiveAgent discuss his rationale as to why he feels it doesn't belong. polarscribe (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• He may very well think it does not belong because of the dissimilarity on the criteria that you highlighted above – "related philosophies". The motivation of Rudolph (anti-abortion and anti-gay-motivated) was dissimilar to the subjects here (and the two "see also" subjects), which was radical Islamism. And/or, he may see it as older and therefore less relevant – the prior two listed see also's having taken place in the last three or four years, and the one you listed having taken place three to four times as long ago. I now upon more careful consideration support his deletion, for those reasons, upon reflection, though I support it weakly – as it did have the common factor of being a bombing (in one instance) of a public place. And I support his other deletions, for the above reasons.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• The common motivation is religious extremism. One was Christian, the other was Muslim. They are both alleged to have committed their attacks out of extreme religious beliefs. If you're going to argue that the "See also" should be a list of only-Muslim terrorists, we have a serious NPOV problem. polarscribe (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
• I would note that there are multiple reliable sources drawing linkages between the two attacks. polarscribe (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
• More reliable sources here.
• No reliable sources are provided for any other entry in the "See also" section. polarscribe (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• There are multiple co-centric circles here. For example, proximity in time to this one. Location. Weapon used. Motivation. For each, one can draw co-centric circles.

So, for date – a) same year, b) same 5 years, c) same decade ... and so on. Same for location – a) same city, b) same country, c) anywhere in the world. Same for weapon – a) pressure cooker bomb, b) home-made bomb, c) bomb. And same for motivation – a) Islamic fundamentalism, b) any religious fundamentalism, c) any terrorism. There is nothing NPOV about recognizing this, and applying it – just because in one of those factors, an editor may perhaps have a POV.

I do note that not one of your additions was of a person who shared the motivation of Islamist fundamentalism. That's curious.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, while I can understand why Exclusive Agent removed Rudolph (older, different motivation, etc.), I'm on the fence about that. I defer to EA and you and others at this point -- I could go either way. The fact that a sporting event was among his attacks does bring him closer in one cocentric circle, even while on other measurements he is more dissimilar, so inclusion of him is not unreasonable.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

weapon of mass destruction link

I think someone should make an article Weapon of mass destruction (U.S. criminal law) or something, because if their small improvised devices were "weapons of mass destruction" there were actually thousands if not millions of tons of WMDs in Iraq. --Niemti (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, some more might be written about the shooutouts and Dz.'s arrest (flashbangs etc). --Niemti (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Add to this link. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 13:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• The Bush administration used one definition of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in 2002-2004. But empire builders, at the DoJ were already debasing that term as early as 2005.

Abdullah Khadr, Omar Khadr's older brother was repatriated to Canada in December 2005, after being secretly held in a Pakistani torture prison. He had two weeks of freedom, before the RCMP arrested him, because a Prosecutor in Boston had requested extradition. I sat in on the first two days of his extradition hearing, and I was shocked to hear that the extradition request accused him of selling weapons of mass destruction. The documents also said the total value of all the weapons he had sold had been just $28,000. I thought "If Saddam could have bought his WMD for $28,000 why the heck wouldn't he do that, rather than risk the UN catching him run secret weapons development programs?"

As it turned out, the weapons he was accused of selling were some old Soviet small arms, AK47s, PK machine guns, and some mortar rounds. Among those mortar rounds were some white phosphorus incendiary rounds. The DoJ, it turned out, were claiming white phosphorus munitions were proscribed chemical weapons. Mind you, at the same time, the DoD was defending its use of white phosphorus munitions in Fallujah.

What she claimed was the indiscriminate use of incendiary weapons on civilians in Fallujah was what Giuliana Sgrena had been reporting on when she was kidnapped.

It was the DoD's position that white phosphorus artillery rounds, when used properly, saved the lives of nearby civilians. White phosphorus is an incendiary. It burns with an incredibly to flame that is almost impossible to put out. It even burns under water. So it is horrifying to be hit by sparks from an explosion from one of these rounds.

These rounds also produce copious and highly visible white smoke. The DoD's position is that it is the smoke that makes it humane. And the horrible burns it inflicts are what caused the DoJ to classify it as a chemical weapon, and thus a form of WMD.

It is the DoD's position that when an artillery battery fires at a distant target, it should use white phosphorus rounds, with their highly visible smoke, for the first few shots, until the artillery observer says they have zeroed in with the right range and direction so the rounds are falling right on target. Once they are on target they are supposed to change to high explosive rounds, which will gradually reduce the target to rubble.

When Iraqi civilians had reported the Marines had employed the indiscriminate use of white phosphorus, and had the cruel burns to prove it, the DoD had denied it. A couple of junior artillery officers blew that claim, when they published an article where they wrote about what they called their "shake and bake" mixture. Rather than switching totally to high explosive once they were on target, they would instead switch to a mixture of high explosive and white phosphorus. The high explosive rounds would start to collapse fragile buildings, causing the occupants to panic and flee into the open, where they would be more likely to be hit by flying sparks of white phosphorus, and have parts of their body lit on fire, with fires that couldn't be put out. Geo Swan (talk) 13:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Jamestown Foundation

Did Tamerlan Tsarnaev attended a workshop sponsored by the CIA-linked Jamestown Foundation? The Russian newspaper Izvestia cites documents produced by the Counterintelligence Department Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia confirming that the NGO “Fund of Caucasus” held workshops in the summer of 2012 and Tsarnaev attended. http://izvestia.ru/news/549252 --80.136.6.16 (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Title

Suggest the names be reversed, so they are in alpha order, in the title.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved move - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 16:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with this move to Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. The order should be in age order meaning Tamerlan should be first then Dzhokhar werldwayd (talk) 06:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

"Should be?" Why is that?--Epeefleche (talk) 06:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

First of all, as I clearly mentioned, Tamerlan is the older one. That's enough for me at least as the starting point. Plus, all later details point to the primary / majour role of Tamerlan, to "secondary role" of Dzhokhar. The reports implicate Tamerlan as the mastermind and the instigator in all this. Tamerlan was the radicalized element for many years. He was investigated after a request by Russians by the FBI in 2010. He travelled to Russia, converted to and practiced radical Islam. Dzokhar was not. He was a student, he didn't practice even basic Islam belief, he didn't go to Russia, there was no indoctrination or trying to enroll him for a mission. He was living with his brother and "went along" with all this because he looked up to his brother. In all aspects, training, planning, indoctrination, implementation, Tamerlan was the leader, Dhokhar simply a follower. Many speculate Dhokhar was an impressionable 19 year old juvenile kid who succumbed to peer pressure now called "the sibling effect". He just agreed to go along with his brother Tamerlan's plans, just because he was his brother... For all intents and purposes, Tamerlan was the "ring leader" of the bombings and the principal figure, Dhokhar just an accomplice and follower of lesser status. werldwayd (talk) 06:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

He is the older one. So what? He may also be the taller one. Still, so what?

Our most common way of ordering on wp is in alpha order. I think that self-evident.

As to your view that the older one is the mastermind -- that is simply conjecture at this point. And even if it were the case, we have no way of knowing if it is, or how much it is the case, etc. Very "OR", subjective. And some conjecture out there suggests otherwise. We don't to my knowledge base order on such squishy subjective guesswork.

And I'm also not ready to switch Bonnie and Clyde.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

There is Lyle and Erik Menendez to consider. My76Strat (talk) 06:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

And Bob and Mike Bryan.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I am curious if it might be better to follow the example at Williams sisters and title this as Tsarnaev brothers? My76Strat (talk) 06:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I actually like that. Lots of precedent. And in wide use.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

You say "So what? He may also be the taller one. Still, so what?" Are you being cheeky or in some silly mood here? Age does matter. Nobody is talking about longer or shorter, or is this just your "funny way" of commenting on the disparity of height between the two brothers. That's what I get from your unfortunate shorter / longer comment. Tamerlan being the "mastermind" of it all is very well established based on his track record for many years. Don't discount this as some speculation. It is based on a long track record (flight to Russia, FBI investigarions in 2010, radicalized positions on his websites, practice of radical islam). Dhokhar is a minor "newcomer" and "secondary figure" in all this. This is clearly established with countless reports, not some journalistic or personal subjective view. Your "Bonny and Clyde" is a very bad example and shows you in some "unserious mood" as well. "Bonny and Clyde" was very commonly known as "Bonny and Clyde" in all literature. The example of Bob and Mike Bryan is a frivolous example as well. Bob and Mike were twins, there was no age difference between them. Bob and Mike Bryan example you brought is irrelevant to Tamerlan and Dhokhar case who are not twins. Lyle and Erik Menendez is a very good example though. Lyle born in 1968, Erik in 1970, thus Lyle coming earlier than Erik and not applying alphabetical order. werldwayd (talk) 07:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Half serious. Half smiling. I'll leave you to guess which. Anyway, I'm open to considering other options. Despite standing by what I said. As to the Bryan brothers, they do list the younger one first, in alpha order. And as to Bonnie and Clyde ... how do you think it became commonly known that way in the first place? It is the opposite of age order. It is the opposite of "mastermind" order. It is alpha order, though. How about Sacco and Vanzetti? Anyway, I'm open to consider all. At the moment, I think I may very well like My's suggestion. The Tsarnaev brothers. Or (better yet?) perhaps: The Brothers Tsarnaev. Has a ring to it, no? The Brothers Grimm, as well of course as teh Brothers Karamasov come to mind.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Williams sisters article IS NOT a precedent because there are also separate articles for Venus Williams and for Serena Williams. The third article, about both of them, deals exclusively with their career as one tennis duo and does not address the individual lives or careers of Serena and Venus. --Crunch (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with everything that User:Werldwayd said above. In fact, before even reading User:Werldwayd's posts, I came to this Talk Page to post the very same things myself. In a nutshell, age and "ringleader status" of Tamerlan certainly trump alphabetical order of Dzhokhar's name. Also, though of less import, the FBI labeled Tamerlan as Suspect #1 and Dzhokhar as #2. The names of the brothers should be reversed in the article title. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it's very likely that the current order will become more common in general use than the reverse order because Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has outlived his brother. There is likely a longer history to unfold. Of course, this is conjecture. My point is that it would be sensible to wait and see. Jacknstock (talk) 03:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I am surprised this article has the order "little brother" then "big brother". Or "suspect #2" then "suspect #1". The Lyle and Erik Menendez are a perfect example of what to follow as far a naming goes and it is not alphabetical. Either is age or importance to the case. --MarsRover (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the names should stay as is. Dzhokhar is the only one alive to be charged and go to trial. That trumps age and whether he was a follower, or not. You have to look at this in terms of history, not as of today. When the trial begins, everyone will be talking about Dzhokhar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.234.133 (talk) 02:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, but I also find the process of renaming articles to be very tedious. It would have been better to name the older brother first, but little would be gained by renaming the article one more time. – Herzen (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Citizenship issues: "American, Russian"?

I believe that Dzhokhar may be a dual citizen of the U.S. and Russia. His parents were Russian, so he should be a Russian citizen even though he was born in Kyrgyzstan. One does not lose Russian citizenship on naturalization to another country, e.g. the U.S. (source). Thus, he should still have Russian citizenship. --50.193.52.113 (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

For Tamerlan, he had only "US permanent residency status" but was not naturalized citizen yet and clearly not American. So the question. Can we identify him as holder of Russian citizenship? For Dzokhar, I have no problem of calling him holder of a dual Russian / American citizenship werldwayd (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

If Dzhokhar was born in Kyrgyzstan as reported, than this is a possible scenario:

• "A child born on the territory of the Kyrgyz Republic, the parents of who are persons without citizenship permanently residing in the Kyrgyz Republic, is a citizen of the Kyrgyz Republic." This section would give him Kyrgyz citizenship at birth assuming his parents were "permanently" residing in country.

• Same law says "2. Obtaining citizenship of another sate by a citizen of the Kyrgyz Republic shall not result in termination of the Kyrgyz Republic citizenship." So becoming an American citizen would not end Kyrgyz citizenship.

• The US does not require renouncing other citizenship on obtaining US citizenship.

• Under Russian nationality law he could acquire citizenship via his parents (assuming they are Russian citizens) and also by moving to Russia under a bilateral treaty between Russia and Kyrgyz Republic.

Without knowing all the details, my assessment is that he obviously was not a US citizen before obtaining US citizenship, but he was (or at least was eligible to be) either Russian or Kyrgyz or both. Becoming a US citizen would not end either a Russian or Kyrgyz citizenship, so most likely he became a dual citizen or even held three citizenships.

I am not proposing to put this in the article, but if sources suggest other citizenships we should check against this post for reasonableness. Legacypac (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Tamerlan was a Russian citizen. The Russian passport authority in Makhachkala confirmed that during his visit to Russia in 2012 he claimed that he had lost his Russian passport and asked for a new one. However, it was not ready before he left Russia for USA again. Maybe this information should be added as well[12] Oleg-ch (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC) The Kyrgyz said that Tam was a Russian (totally consistent with being born in the Russia part of the USSR to Russian Parents). Case closed on that. The Kyrgyz also confirmed that the younger brother is a Kyrgyz. We know he became a naturalized American too. He seems to be eligible for Russian citizenship too... but I have not seen a report suggesting this third citizenship. Legacypac (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Waltham 9/11 murders article made

I feel this should be put up for AfD. 1. The two events have not been linked 2. it's all alleged info. 3. It has notability issues as a stand alone article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Any feedback on this? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I created the article because of the huge amount of attention that this is getting tonight. This unsolved, apparently unmotivated brutal murder of three strong young men in their own apartment with no evidence of theft or of forced entry attracted a lot of attention in 2011 and ongoing attention in 2012 in the Boston area. Not least because of the brutality and unusual detail of stabbed/slit throats. Now, today, it has come out that the murder - committed on the tenth anniversary of 9/11 - was of a man whom Tamerlan whats-his-name marathon bombing guy publicly called his "best friend". If my "best friend" died I would attend the funeral. Tamerlan did not attend. Instead of trying ot take the article down, why not expand it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winfield22 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is there is nothing that connects the brothers to this crime other than media talk. A WP:BLP violation and an issue here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Ummm...so you're saying that there is nothing that connects the brothers to this crime other than reliable sources?? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Im saying there is no evidence that they were involved with the crime, yes there are reliable sources posting things but no proof has been put forward. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• If RSs discuss the deceased in connection with the event, it would seem worthy of mention. At minimum. How it should be mentioned, and whether it should be a stand-alone, and whether it should be a major section here, I would have to think about.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• The fact that ABC reported that authorities believe Tsarnaev may have been responsible for the triple homicide makes it appear to be significant and related.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It is unbelievable this guy jumped from nice guy to mass casualty bomber. Basic facts include: He left for Russia just after the murder. All 3 vics were jewish and Tam had recently become radical Muslim. He knew one vic very well, boxed with him, stayed at his house. Lots of people in Boston area coming forward with info. It's connected by RS - of course all alleged (but so is the whole bombing etc) but now connected. Also, no BLP issues for a dead terrorist suspect. Legacypac (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The article should remain separate. The connection is currently alleged with very little actual evidence, just circumstantial, so the details should not appear in this article. wrt the notability of the Waltham article, it seems already has significant coverage, and should remain otherwise the details will appear here.

re: Legacypac, the nice guy gone bad. Compare him to the Senator calling for the surviving brother to be tortured. Unfortunately the circle of revenge is very easy to start, and very hard to break. The US government has been responsible for many innocent deaths over the years, which contributes to it being a target for terrorism.Martin451 (talk) 11:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

We've got enough to battle about on this page without going into American foreign policy. Let's try and steer away from that. polarscribe (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• I now have had time to go over all the references given about these triple Waltham murders and they are speculative work and sensationalist just to attach the name of the Tsarnaevs with the triple murder by association and sheer speculation with no proof whatsoever. I am not against a mention of these concerns in the biography section of Tamerlan and Dzhokhar that they "may" have been "allegedly" "possibly" involved, and that the police is so concerned about the circumstances of the unsolved murder to investigate and look into a "possible" link. Having said that, I am strongly against a full section headed "2011 Waltham murders" in bold for this, at least for now. Readers as soon as they see a separate section in the biography section would go "aha, told you see. He did it". Our presentations should be more objective and not sensationalistic and tabloid-way of reading things from a misguided heading like some newspapers are doing. We should stay away from "demonizing people" just on a speculative suspicion of victim relatives about a possible involvment. I suggest incorporation of the paragraph of the Waltham murders WITHIN the section called 2009-2011 and NOT as a separate section as this separate section is totally unmerited based on what is known and based on the references given. The triple murder happened in 2011, so it can come easily as a paragraph there in 2009-2011. Let the police who is "looking into the matter" come to a conclusion, then we can deal with this matter in a separate paragraph. werldwayd (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we have to be extra-careful about precisely reflecting the facts, on this non-BLP issue. But so far I think it does. Just objectively mirror what all manner of RSs are reporting. No more. A separate section seems appropriate, as this is entirely separate from all the other material, and notable enough for a separate article.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

We are not asking for the deletion of the paragraph. Keep it as additional speculation. We are against a "separate heading". Just that the paragraph is incorporated into the 2009-2011 section, not in a separate section. That's mostly what we are asking. werldwayd (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

A separate section seems appropriate, as a) this is entirely separate from all the other material that surrounds it, and b) notable enough for a separate wp article.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

In the spirit of compromise, I demoted the section to a subsection. I don't know if that pleases everyone, but it does seem like a reasonable middle-ground. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Earlier I actually rearranged the information into rough chronological order and started the date range sections. I believe the 3x murder is appropriately handled as a level 3 (3=) like the other sections, at least for now. It is distinct from the undisputed biographical info collected together here, for a few reason, including it is an allegation, unlike the early life, marriage etc and year ranges. I moved the marriage/wife info into early life even though it spans into the date ranges because it seemed better to keep it together. If the year range sections get too big or some significant event in say 2010 comes up we can divide into tighter sections, like single years. Legacypac (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Colleague Epeefleche says: "A separate section seems appropriate, as a) this is entirely separate from all the other material that surrounds it..". And what about if tomorrow the police look into this and have a complete falling back and say they concluded that the Tsarnaevs have nothing whatsoever to do with the Waltham murders? How accountable we become morally for having given this misguided speculative matter such undue prominence as to give it a separate section in Wikipedia? Why can't we wait for a police confirmation, not just some flimsy sensationalist media speculation of having featured for days and weeks of a possible weak-based assumptions about such a precise connection with the triple murders? I can tell you there were some and there will be more and more suspicions against these two culprits of many previous acts regardless of any proof. Any anti-American actions contemplated can be attributed possibly to them. So do we keep on adding more and more "banners" like this Waltham case and its "separate section status" simply because it doesn't tie in with the rest of the sections? A separate section without police confirmation is entirely inappropriate if you ask me. And very premature... even if later on it becomes a truth down the road. werldwayd (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I keep coming back to separate section based on mere speculations that have gone cold with no substantiation whatsoever. It is just an eyesore on our page and a sensationalistic apprioach to a mere specualtion. In the absence of any further leads to this, and no link to the Tsarnaevs as far as what is known for now, I am reverting it to a paragraph within the section 2011 leaving the text intact.. for now. werldwayd (talk) 13:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

This so-called allegation and suspicion of being involved in a gruesome triple murder has been restored again and again as a separate section. I will not revert it anymore. But it is my firm position that keeping it as a separate, greatly unmerited section is tantamount of demonizing somebody by blaming him for anything and everything. A very typical sordid tactic by the way, that is applied over and over in "war on terror" times without much questioning until it is too late. And we as Wikipedia have fallen pray to this after a news item was thrown in as a test bomb. I kept it, but within 2011 when the murders happened. But apparently you will have none of it but to accentuate unproven speculations that may turn to be just myths. We should have been more cautious in giving credence to speculative and unproven stuff like this. But still colleagues want to buy into this by giving it a separate section. So be it. werldwayd (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with those who restored it, and would have done so myself had I seen it deleted. Clear notable, well-referenced, sufficiently separate from the rest of the text, and has its own wp article as well (properly so). Not sure why you call the suspicion "so-called." It is RS-supported. While you personally may doubt ABC's view, for example, we simply reflect what RSs say rather than the personal views of editors.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, it's too soon to call the investigation concluded and there are plenty of reliable sources discussing the possibility. polarscribe (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I actually feel that a section heading sets it apart from the biographical info which helps point out it is only a "suspected" connection. I don't want to jump to convicting him for these murders - it could well be someone else. However, even if, say, there turns out to be a completely different killer found, the murder of Tams best friend is a potentially significant factor on his changing mindset, which I believe is how the media started making the connection in the first place. Also, we (and I'm not pointing at anyone in particular here) should all remember this is not an episode of CSI where the murder investigation is all wrapped up in under an hour. Legacypac (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Query Re. Referenced Tweet

"On the day of the 2012 Boston Marathon, a year before the bombings, a post on his Twitter feed mentioned a Koran verse often used by radical Muslim clerics and propagandists"

I can't find this. Either I'm missing something or this is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.111.228.242 (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I recall having seen it in the ref.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The ref does still say it. Nil Einne (talk) 05:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The reference says it but that doesn't mean the primary source does. Signed, 122.111.228.242 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.127.127.247 (talk) 09:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Since we prefer secondary sources to primary sources, that is not an issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't entirely agree. Although we greatly prefer reliable secondary sources to primary ones, if there is strong evidence a reliable secondary source is wrong we don't necessarily have to include it, particularly in a case like there where there is so much to cover and if the info isn't covered in many sources (I don't know if this particular point applies here). There are good reasons why we require Wikipedia:Verifiability and why we prefer verifiability over someone's opinion of the truth, but as the removal of the phrase 'the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth' and the essay Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth attest, this doesn't mean we should ignore all logic and refuse to accept the possibility of a source being wrong, particularly in cases where there is reason to believe it may be wrong like rushed deadlines (a common problem during the bombings) and when that detail is only covered in a few sources (as stated earlier, I'm not sure if that applies here but the point stands particularly as we have no evidence presented here of a lot of sources). We probably shouldn't dispute the source in the article, unless we have sources that do so, but we can consider whether we have to use it.

However 1.127/the OP appears to be mistaken, or at least partially mistaken. I myself easily found "they will spend their money and they will regret it and then they will be defeated" on the @J_tsar twitter. (For me it's shown as posted at '5:38 AM - 16 Apr 12'.) That quote appears to be a simplified form of this Quran verse, Surat Al-'Anfal [8:36] [13]. I don't know if it's something 'often used by radical Muslim clerics and propagandists', but I think there's enough to say the source isn't obviously wrong so we might as well let it stand unless there are better ones. (I think a more relevant issue is not if they use it, but the quote itself. As the quote seems to be something many non radical Muslims may use, and is not that dissimilar, particularly in the simplified form, to something Christians and others would use. So simply saying it's used by radicals and propagandists could be misleading. If we can find a source discussing the quote in more detail all the better, we can consider what to include without violating undue.)

Nil Einne (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Boat shootout

Was Dzhokhar "exchanging" gunfire with police when he was in the boat? I read that he was not in possession of a firearm. Abductive (reasoning) 05:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Mistake report

There are some mistakes in 2008 Tamerlan's biography, that make the text all worng. Thanks - Joxemai (talk) 07:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. - Joxemai (talk) 08:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

New categories need to be added

I find the present 4 categories mentioned on the page (Avar people / Chechen people / Islamist terrorism in the United States / Sibling duos) inadequate and not enough. An expert in such matters should take a look into this and add some more relevant categories. werldwayd (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Most of the categories for people are on the individual Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev redirect pages as per style, because categories for people apply to individual people, and it is not necessarily true that a category which applies to one also applies to the other. polarscribe (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

What of the deletion from this page of common categories? That is not explained by Polar's comment. Plus -- can Polar point to a policy supporting his position? That would be helpful. But, given the deletion of cats such as Avar people (and many other cats), I don't see the explanation -- even if it is based in a guideline, which remains unclear to me -- as appropriate. Werld has a point here.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

BelleNews.com not a WP:RS

After taking a look at a "Failed Verification" tag an anon left, I did a little checking and discovered that BelleNews.com is not at all a reliable source suitable for use on Wikipedia. From their About Us page:

"The content on the website is user submitted and no editorial control is exercised except for compliance with federal law and the US constitution."

This basically makes that site nothing better than a fancy personal blog and we should find better sources. I have removed all references to it. polarscribe (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Good catch :) Thanks Legacypac (talk) 01:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

I requested that this article to be semi-protected, meaning no I.P contributors are allowed to edit due to persistent vandalism over the past few days, thanks to an admin, this request has been accepted. After a period of three days the semi-protection will go off, but until July 26, 2013 any contributions from IP's will be reviewed by the admins. Thanks PBASH607 (The One Day Apocalypse) (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Suspect1and2.jpg

image:Suspect1and2.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 23:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

How are their names pronounced in Russian and Chechen (and maybe English)? At the very least, could accent marks be provided on their names? CodeCat (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

There's a good chance that the Russian pronunciation of the surname has the stress on the final syllable: tsar-na-YOFF. I have no information on Chechnyan pronunciation nor on how they pronounced it in English. Bill Jefferys (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. In Russian it is pronounced tsar-NA-yeff.Oleg-ch (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Would [t͡sɐrˈnajɪf] be a good representation of the last name? I think Dzhokhar is [d͡ʒɐˈxar] from what I have heard, but what about Tamerlan? CodeCat (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I know that sometimes Russian 'ё' is written (particularly in printed material) without the umlaut: 'е'. But it's still pronounced as if the umlaut were there. I wasn't sure (which is why I only said "probable") and was hoping that someone with better knowledge than I would clear this up, and you have. Bill Jefferys (talk) 22:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It's based on stress. When e is stressed it often becomes ë and is pronounced yo instead of ye, but the tradition is to still write e then, so you may see both possibilities. CodeCat (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Right, I didn't know how it was stressed. I made a guess, which was wrong. That was my ignorance, and I am glad that Oleg-ch was able to clear it up. Bill Jefferys (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I contend that the IPA description of the pronunication of Dzhokhar AND source 1 are both wrong--it's jah-har, not jo-har. For one thing, Slate asked a speaker of Kyrgyz instead of a speaker of Russian--the Tsarnaev family speaks Russian and Chechen, but not Kyrgyz, and any Russian speaker can tell you the unstressed O would be an "ah" sound. For another, Dzhokhar himself transliterated his name as "Jahar" on multiple sources, including his Twitter page; even if Chechen vowel stress rules deviate from the Russian ones, we have evidence he personally used the Russian one. Also, every WBZ interview with a friend who knew him personally and interacted with him pronounced his name as Jah-har. Only the talking heads get it wrong. Blondredhed (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)blondredhed

The "kh" (< Ru. х) in Dzhokhar (Ru. Джохар) goes back to a Chechen "хӀ" (see Джохар), so shouldn't it be an [h] according to Chechen orthography? 66.31.43.228 (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Count of injured revised downward

Authorities have revised the number of injured to 264. The article has been updated. See refs that I added to the article. --Crunch (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe from reading the various articles that they actually revised the count up on the same day. Seems unlikely that the Boston Public Health Authority put out a number after doing a count and than went "Opps" a bunch of these injured are not injured in the bombing. Much more likely another hospital or two reported more injuries and they moved the count up. Legacypac (talk) 06:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

And the difference is that the lower number is based on 26 hospitals, while the higher based on 27 hospitals. Legacypac (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Characterization of the Islamic Society of Boston

The "2008" section includes a biased description of the local mosque. The article should reflect the fact that the U.S.A. Today article about the Islamic Society of Boston is inconclusive, and that there is no clear evidence suggesting that the mosque is "teaching" extreme or hate-filled Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.234.23 (talk) 05:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant opinating closed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This talk page should be used to discuss the article, not the subject of the article. GabrielF (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Extended content
He was set up by our government, all of the proof is there, you're all just too blind to see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeJahar (talk • contribs) 21:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC) "Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is innocent" is a group on Russian Facebook (Vkontakte) with thousands of members. Guess it was one of them. --Niemti (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Yep, "FreeJahar" it's them: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-is-innocent-facebook-page-attracts-over-12000-fans-as-conspiracy-theorists-and-teenage-girls-send-the-freejahar-twitter-and-instagram-hashtag-viral-8585061.html Guess it should be noted in the article. --Niemti (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Also http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/04/cult-of-tsarnaev/ etc. --Niemti (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

"Invisible" family with all immediate relative names and family hidden?

I have provided more than 5-6 reliable articles that Tamerlan's and Dzokhar's parents' names were Anzor (the Chechen father) and Zubeidat (the Dagestani mother) and this gets deleted again and again. I have provided references about the actual name of his wife Katherine Russell and that they had a daughter Zahara, again providing many clear references for proof, she even released a message about mourning her husband and the father of her daughter, and yet they get deleted. First I thought it was an oversight. But now I am finding more an attempt to de-humanize Tamerlan as some "unknown" unrelated "foreign threat" with no family roots, no parents worthy to be mentioned by name, nor a wife in grief to be respected and duly acknowledged. He married a "woman" indeed. is this the way Wikipedia presents individuals, that they married some "woman"?Shame!. I read with justifiable horror the way it was put in Wikipedia: Tamerlan and Dzhokhar were "born" to what we call a "Chechen man" and what we call a "Dagestani woman". Tamerlan marries "some woman" (again that awkward word) from Cambridge etc etc... As if his parents didn't matter, despite their huge input and relevance in their lives, their upbringing, their coming to America, their heartfelt reaction when they heard about their children. To us, they are some unnamed "man from Chechya" and some unnamed "woman from Dagestan" (why name them as humans indeed). Tamerlan married a certain nameless "woman" from Cambridge, and oh yes she converted to Islam to marry him. But her name? No need to know that nor the name of their daughter Zahara. Are we being overprotective about family or just being mean to dehumanize them. For all we know, this was an ordinary family just like any other family. They suffered hardship (because of ethnicity or poverty or both) and they decided to immigrate to US for political asylum just like hundreds of thousand every year and lived as an American family. They studied, achieved in sports, and in case of Tamerlan, fell in love, formed a family and had a child. Then the brothers, particularly Tamerlan got indoctrinated and committed a terrible crime for a "cause' he believed he was serving, leading his 19-year old brother into this by peer pressure and undue influence and they did what they did. No need to disrespect them this way. Keep the names of the immediate relatives and the wife for that's where they come from. And because it is relevant werldwayd (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 05:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Privacy of names Shortcut: WP:BLPNAME

Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons.

The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced.

I question how "a reader's complete understanding of the subject" is advanced by revealing the name of a non-notable individual not involved in the attack. WWGB (talk) 05:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Huge difference between cutting out a fleeting mention in a news story (say, the name of one eyewitness who talked to a reporter) versus having a paragraph of information sourced to an interview in CNN without saying who was interviewed! This is not being dug out of court archives; it is the major thrust of multiple articles. If you were writing a biography of Marie Curie, would you suppress all mention of who her parents were? Wnt (talk) 05:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Since you ask: it is critical to my understanding of the topic that I understand how it is that we have two alleged terrorists who don't know anybody in America having political asylum in America from a country all the way on the far side of the world. That means knowing who applied for asylum, why he (not they) applied for asylum, what decisions were made about him. It is easy to cut out even the most obvious biographical information from an article when you limit its content to only what you can imagine a use for -- when you refuse to use your imagination for any reason at all, even momentarily. Wnt (talk) 05:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Nothing above addresses why the names of parents, sisters and an uncle need to be revealed. WWGB (talk) 05:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I second the grave concerns of User:Wnt about the actual need to identify parents and siblings and family. My genuine concern is that this actually serves to de-humanize the culprits as mere terrorists, and greatly hamper our understanding of the case as an encyclopedic entry. werldwayd (talk) 05:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

WP is not "revealing" names of family members that are all over the news every day. Scrubbing family member names in some sort of "protection deal" while they are freely giving interviews to the world press is dumb and makes WP look dumb and protects no one. Legacypac (talk) 07:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Cause of Death of Tamerlan is NOT NOW Known

The Boston Police Chief just appeared on local television again and said clearly that the cause of death of Tamerlan Tsarnev is not known and will not be known until the medical examiner's report is complete. So please do not add anything that speculates on his cause of death. --Crunch (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree that we should not get ahead of the RSs on this.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

We have a RS now. Watertown Police Chief has been very reliable and precise so far. He told Boston.com Suspect #1 was captured but struggling. Officers were trying to handcuff him when Suspect #2 drove at them high speed. Officers jumped away, Suspect #1 was hit and dragged down street, killing him. This is as good as it gets everyone. I updated article. Legacypac (talk) 05:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The Watertown police chief is not an authority empowered to declare cause of death - that is a function of the Medical Examiner. The 'reliable and precise' police chief, having been overshadowed by the Boston Commissioner and the Mass State Police colonel throughout these events, is seemingly working hard to be sure that he gets seen and quoted everywhere, lest anyone forget that police work in his city was taken over by others for the hours of the manhunt. I have deleted the reference to the cause of death being dragged by the car. Irish Melkite (talk) 10:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I seems like you are expressing a personal POV against the Police Chief that defies common sense. Should we also wait for an ME report on the MIT Cop or the bomb vics before reporting what RS say about cause of death?

A new report from the police force that was on the scene with hands on the suspect trumps an older report by a police chief of another city that had likely not been briefed yet. Right now the article reflects what has widely been reported by RS. If/when the ME comes out with a report, I encourage you to add that info too. Legacypac (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The Watertown police chief has made numerous statements that have since proved to be incorrect, so I agree with Irish Melkite. The police chief stated the shootout began at 12:25 a.m. Now they say it was around 1:00 a.m. He said the brothers had heavy weapons including long guns (rifles). It's now known only Tameran had a hand gun. There was also a report that Tamerlan died from injuries sustained from an explosive suicide vest. A photo circulating online of a dead Tamerlan does not show any injuries on his chest from explosives, or evidence that he was run over and dragged by his brother driving the SUV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.234.133 (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no issue w/ Ed Deveau, the Watertown Chief, but reality is that, as I said, he isn't empowered to declare a cause of death. RS report that the docs at Beth Israel Deaconess who worked on the deceased, deferred to the ME as to cause of death - and they are much better qualified than Ed Deaveau to declare same. As to Deaveau, he was not visible in a single conference during the entire manhunt - all were managed by Ed Davis, BPD Commissioner, and Tim Albiun, MSP Supt, who were on the ground in Watertown from shortly after the gunfight and exercised full control of the operation - eclipsing Deveau - not politically correct, but that's how it was.

As regards the bombing vics and Sean Collier, if you want a precise CoD, yes, we should wait for the ME, BUT the big difference w/ them is that there is not competition for the CoD/perpetrator in those instances. In the case of Suspect 1 (too lazy to spell his name), you've got 3 possibilities - self-inflicted bomb blast (still not discounted by some reports that describe blast type injuries to the trunk), police inflicted gunshots, or filially-inflicted MV injuries - a bit less clear-cut. Irish Melkite (talk) 11:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Cause of death now determined but will not be released until someone claims the body. But no one wants the body it seems. Legacypac (talk) 02:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Are they terrorists?

Should be using the word "allegedly" because he has yet to be tried in court. Come on, wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weka (talk • contribs) 07:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, It is up to a court to decide. The policy is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Persons accused of crime --Racklever (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed to the objection expressed above to the terminology in this case. Of course, it can be argued, they did spread terror. So in that sense "terrorist" may have been used. But yes, technically, this is an unfortunate use of the term in a Wikipedia article, particularly at this stage. I take objection to our wording that says "[they] are suspected of being the terrorists responsible for the April 2013 Boston Marathon bombings". A rewording is in order here. werldwayd (talk) 07:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

That the wrong link. Obviously, as it only applies to BLPs, it is not relevant to the deceased. Furthermore, as to the living fellow, the pertinent link is WP:WELLKNOWN. "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation ... is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative...." As it directs us, we follow the RSs. Anything other is an effort at a level of censorship that wp does not embrace.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• The authorities have labeled the bombing terrorism, and have labeled (at least) the younger brother a terrorist. All RS-supported. In addition -- as to the deceased, obviously there are zero BLP issues.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Still, and regardless of what some American official statements say, it is preferable for us in Wikipedia to stay away from what is generally agreed to be a "loaded term". There's always a better (less controversial) and more widely acceptable terminology we can use, particularly at this stage. Like "alleged perpetrators of the Boston Marathon bombings" or "accused of perpetrating the Boston Marathon bombings". Such terminology gets wider acceptance worldwide while saying the same thing. I am waiting for wider comments though before going ahead with the change. Perhaps there is more support for keeping the "terminology" despite my, and obviously many others' objections werldwayd (talk) 08:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It is preferable for us to reflect the RSs. Otherwise, one engages in censorship in their personal choices. WP is not a place for individual editors to censor out what RSs report.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Epeefleche, I don't know if I agree with your POV or the other, but will you please stop labeling the opponent's efforts as "censorship". I'm getting kind of sick and tired of every editorial decision to remove something or not include something as "censorship", when they're just different editorial opinions. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Drmies -- this is not a battleground. We are not opponents. Please stop labeling good faith editors as opponents. As to the substance, there is something called censorship. It is not one of the dirty words. And POV editing through removal of RS-supported material that guidelines direct us to reflect is ... the word you have a personal problem with. If you think that there is no such thing as censorship, and that the removal of such information when directed by the guidelines is not that, then you can speak your mind without labeling other editors "opponents" and appealing to how it makes you sick and tired. People may get "sick and tired" about many things; but this is better had as a non-emotional discussion, without labeling editors.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

With regards to the deceased, blp still applies to the recently deceased, however there is also guilt by association. Labelling the dead brother as a terrorist will also label the living brother as one. By all means repeat the allegations, but that is what they are, allegations.Martin451 (talk) 08:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

As to the assertion that blp applies to dead people, if they were recently alive -- what is the basis for saying that? Is that in the guideline on blp? Or is that a personal view?--Epeefleche (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The older brother is dead and thus will never be tried in court. As a comparison: Wikipedia calls John Wilkes Booth an assassin, not an alleged assassin, despite the fact that he was never tried in court. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 11:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• The characterization of John Wilkes Booth as an assassin rather than an alleged assassin is also a violation of BLPCRIME. Copying a mistake does not make it right. --Crunch (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

BLP aside, the sources for Booth's guilt, with the benefit of nearly 150 years to verify and confirm before publishing, are far more reliable than any source we presently have that would ascribe guilt to either brother. That is the benefit of slowing down and waiting for calm and careful inquiry. The purveyors of the 24-7 news cycle apparently don't mind being wrong trying to be first. Steveozone (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

This got decided on the Bombing page-the police, white house and the whole world is calling them terrorists and the event a terrorist attack. FRING positions have no place here. Can someone close this pointless discussion? (and thetr is a hell of a lot more evidence of guilt against these guys than against Booth. No video of Booth to start with.) Legacypac (talk) 02:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• They could always be called "alleged bombers", which stops short of calling them "alleged terrorists".

I don't want to shock anyone with this comparison, because I know how shocking the sudden strike and sudden carnage was to anyone who viewed the TV coverage, or even heard about it.

However, the CIA is allowed to use drones, even when they may kill innocent civilian bystanders. Back during the invasion of Iraq President Bush authorized aerial strikes without consulting higher ups, when those in charge felt their was hot, actionable intelligence on the location of Saddam Hussein or any of the senior members of the leadership circle. Strikes had been pre-authorized, even if civilian casualties were anticipated. For the lesser members of that deck of cards sudden aerial strikes were authorized even if the deaths of 30 civilians were anticipated. If the target was Saddam himself, or either of his sons, the cap on civilian casualties was dropped.

I think it was PBS Frontline were I remember these figures. Fifty "decapitation" attempts were made. Only one success was claimed. Saddam's cousin "chemical Ali" was reported to have been killed in one of these decapitation attempts. But it turned out that claim was incorrect.

Sudden carnage from an unexpected explosion is horrifying whether you are a civilian watching the Boston marathon, or an Iraqi unknowingly walking down a street where US intelligence has sent a cruise missile because they suspect Saddam hideout is on that street.

I am not suggesting we call USAF fighter pilots and CIA drone pilots terrorists, but some people have called them terrorists.

Calling the brothers "bombers", or "alleged bombers" is completely accurate, doesn't mislead anyone, so I am going to suggest considering avoiding calling them terrorists, except when we quote, summarize or paraphrase a specific RS. Geo Swan (talk) 06:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

“I was always appalled when our western partners and the western media called the terrorist, who did bloody crimes in our country, ‘insurgents’, and almost never ‘terrorists’,” Putin explained. [14] USchick (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Missing information

Oh, and about this Wikipedia 'fact': " However, Tamerlan was seen by Dagestan police engaging in surveillance making six visits to a known Islamic militant in a Salafi mosque in Makhachkala.[131][132]" Guess what: 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. Geez, you guys. --Niemti (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't "archive" until the issues are fixed. --Niemti (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

This is complete nonsense. What are the issues that need to be fixed here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The issues, obviously, are:

1. Lack of information about the "FreeJahar" social media trend (widely reported in mass media).
2. Incorrect information that "However, Tamerlan was seen by Dagestan police engaging in surveillance making six visits to a known Islamic militant in a Salafi mosque in Makhachkala." (the rumor officially refuted by Dagestan interior minister) --Niemti (talk) 04:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised that I even have to explain it, and that my posts were repeatedly hidden and mixed up with "Irrelevant opinating" (??). Seriously, you people. --Niemti (talk) 04:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Or at least not necceserily incorrect, but officially denied (by the government). Novaya Gazeta is not simply "Moscow's respected newspaper"[15] it's a liberal opposition newspaper (that is often being harrassed and had several of their reporters assassinated and nobody was convicted for this). Plus, the article is not mentioning Plotnikov (an ethnic Russian Canadian from the same article, who was actually acknowleded by "Russian security operatives", even if it was just online (allegedly)). --Niemti (talk) 04:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Ad guess I'll have to "irrevelant opine" up with "complete nonsense" myself. --Niemti (talk) 04:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Niemti -- It's a basic wp concept - we reflect what is in the RSs. If the RSs report something, and you have RSs that say something different, reflect that as well. But the mantra is "verifiability, not truth".--Epeefleche (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Niemeti -- you really have to stop engaging in original research, deleting what RSs say, and putting in information not supported by RSs in relation to this event that reflect "what you know." That's OR. Such as you replaced the description of a Moscow newspaper that some other editor put in, which was reflected in the RS footnote relating to this matter, with your personal view.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Also also, the article needs to use the original NG article (with all the details according to their sources) instead of The Telegraph's short and possibly confused re-telling.

Here's some more: The account in Novaya Gazeta said that one of Mr. Tsarnaev’s contacts was Mahmoud Mansur Nidal, who was killed on May 19 after a standoff with Russian authorities at an apartment house in Makhachkala. Surrounded by Russian security forces, Mr. Nidal took several hostages, according to the news agency Interfax, and at one point threw a grenade at the authorities. The hostages were released after some negotiation, but Mr. Nidal refused to surrender and was shot dead, Interfax reported. Another possible contact was Mr. Plotnikov, a Russian émigré to Canada who became disenchanted with life there, converted to Islam and then moved to Dagestan to join the Muslim insurgency. He had been trained in boxing by a well-known Russian coach in Canada and was known among the Muslim rebels in Dagestan as “The Canadian.” Mr. Plotnikov became a member of the Mujahideen of the Caucasus Emirate and had briefly been detained by Russian authorities. --Niemti (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, the article in New York Times certainly qualify as RS. Same about "Telegraph" in UK and Novaya gazeta. No, there is no need to search anything in primary sources when it was claimed in a reliable secondary RS (like these articles New York Times and Telegraph). Yes, this is an important information proposed to include by Niemti, and I believe it must be included. My very best wishes (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I firmly disagree - this is all becoming far too much about these other people and far too little about the subjects of the article. We do not need to include detailed life histories of everyone Tsarnaev ever may have possibly come in contact with according to someone. polarscribe (talk) 08:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    • No one suggests to include detailed life histories of everyone Tsarnaev come in contact. However, if there is a reliably sourced information that Tsarnaev met with certain people who possibly indoctrinated Tsarnaev as the future bomber, all such people should be mentioned in article. I am talking about this in principle (maybe this is already included). In particular, this edit looks very much legitimate to me. My very best wishes (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
      • No, it looks completely illegitimate to me. The fact that they met Tamerlan is of interest. The fact that they were killed before he left is of interest. We already mention that. The specific details of how they died is completely irrelevant to this article. It belongs in biographies about those people - not a biography of Tamerlan and Dzhokhar. The circumstances of their deaths are not known to have any link to Tamerlan, and there is no allegation that Tamerlan was in any way involved in the actions that led to their deaths.
      • This article is big enough and complicated enough without introducing even more tangents spinning off. If it didn't directly involve Tamerlan or Dzhokhar, it doesn't belong in their biography.
      • We now have a biography for William Plotnikov and one could probably be created for Mahmoud Mansur Nidal. The details of their activities which did not involve Tamerlan or Dzhokhar Tsarnaev belong in those articles, not this one. polarscribe (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Nidal was just a random local teenage rebel (either 18 or 19 years old at the time of his death), so he's independently not notable. Even the way he died (literally blown away, along with a building he was in) is a weekly occurence for years. To give you guys some perspective, only in 2012 more than 200 rebels were killed in Dagestan (population only 2-3 million). --Niemti (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, let's just take a look.

Currently included:

According to media reports, Tamerlan was seen by Dagestan police, who were conducting surveillance, making six visits to a known Islamic militant in a Salafi mosque in Makhachkala. According to Russian liberal investigative newspaper Novaya Gazeta, quoting unnamed Russian security sources, Tamerlan was linked to 23-year-old William Plotnikov, an ethnic Russian Islamic militant and Canadian citizen, with whom he communicated via online social networking sites. Tamerlan also visited Toronto, where Plotnikov lived with his parents. Once in Dagestan, Tamerlan allegedly met on several occasions with Makhmud Mansur Nidal, a 19-year-old man of mixed Dagestani and Palestinian parentage who was under close surveillance for six months by Dagestan's anti-extremism unit as a suspected recruiter for Islamist insurgents. According to Novaya, Tamerlan had sought join the local insurgency and was put on a period of 'quarantine' (a clearance check by insurgents looking for infiltrating double agents, taking several months for a recruit to be verified), but after his contacts Plotnikov and Nidal were both killed, he "got frightened and fled".

Currently excluded:

Nidal, who had been accused of being a member of a group that organised the twin suicide car bomb attack that killed at least 13 and wounded about 130 at a traffic police checkpoint in Makhachkala on 4 May 2012, was killed shortly thereafter on May 19 after having been cornered in an apartment block in Makhachkala. Plotnikov, known among the rebels in Dagestan as "The Canadian", was a Russian émigré boxer who had converted to Islam and returned to Russia to join the insurgency in Dagestan. He was killed in combat in a forest in rural Dagestan on July 14, just two days before Tsarnaev returned to Moscow and flew back to the United States in an apparent hurry.

If I were a reader, I would definitely wanted to know right away what had happened with Nidal and Plotnikov. The fact that they were killed may or may not mean something, but we can spend a few sentences to tell this. This should be included in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 04:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Guilt by association attaches when discussing in detail the acts of two people whom it is not known that the subject of the biography ever met, much less participated or planned anything with. polarscribe (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Polarscribe: Your reckless editing removed ref used elsewhere () and distorted previously correct information (for some reason, you incorrectly wrote that it was Nidal's death that preceded Tamerlan's return by 2 days, after removing real info about Nidal's death and its real date). Did you checked the source material?? --Niemti (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I am sure Polarscribe does these edits in a good faith, but he is just in a hurry to revert something he does not like. You must always assume good faith. My very best wishes (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

[16] was not a revert, it was writing false info. --Niemti (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

William Plotnikov is up

Also, someone still needs to write here about the thousands of Internet fans of "Jahar". --Niemti (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The fans of Jahar are at best a fringe and unorganized collection of dumb asses. I hate to give them any coverage. At only 19, Jahar has decades of license plate manufacturing ahead of him, if he escapes the electric chair. Legacypac (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, due to the Americans/the World suddenly interested about the conflict in Dagestan (something that even Russians really didn't, unless something/someone exploded in Moscow), as previously few people even ever heard about Dagestan, much less about the rebellion, there are 2 possibly connected articles to write (I redlinked them already, but I'll repeated it here): 2012 Makhachkala bombing and Gadzhimurad Dolgatov. --Niemti (talk) 11:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Is he notable for something? Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 00:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Other than being notable for this one event I don't think so. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Dolgatov/Amir Abu Dujana? He was notable in Dagestan (as a local rebel sub-leader/Internet personality/terrorist/folk hero). In America/the West, few people even heard of Dagestan before last month. Now, he's suddenly famous worldwide because something happened in another continent five months after he died, and so he has lots of English language coverage. ([17][18][19] etc.) --Niemti (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

One article goes like that:

"Russian authorities considered Abu Dujana among the most dangerous. He took over as leader of the Kizilyurt cell last July, when the previous leader was killed. And he displayed the qualities of charisma — along with ruthlessness and a dark, macabre sense of humor — admired in guerrilla leaders in the North Caucasus. He rose to prominence after appearing in a mocking YouTube video holding bags of rubles that he said he had extracted from the police as protection money, setting the stage for an exchange of insults, attacks and killings that followed. But after being nicknamed by supporters as a Robin Hood-style rebel, Abu Dujana felt compelled to issue a second, angry video, when the authorities encouraged the formation of a pro-government militia calling itself the Robin Hood band, and working in the same town. The pro-government Robin Hood band appeared to consist of policemen who sought extrajudicial punishment for rebels by harassing, and threatening to kill, their family members, local leaders said. In his retort, Abu Dujana said rebels might also target wives and children of the police. The authorities closed this chapter in December when they killed Abu Dujana. But the fight between Sufis and Salafists and between rebels and the Russian authorities continues. On Tuesday, officials said they had killed two militant suspects in the village of Sogratl, 55 miles south of Makhachkala."

Notability in America before April 2013: "Gadz-who in Dag-where?" Now, a subject of interest, even as he's long dead. --Niemti (talk) 14:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Tried to kill himself

Can we remove this section, since he had no gun to kill himself with? USchick (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

How do we know that?--Epeefleche (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Have corrected this part, and added more info about the huge amount of gunfire at the boat scene, as well as new details about the carjacking. It's pretty clear from several of the latest news sources that Dzhokar was unarmed, the police got twitchy with their guns, and let loose a lot of gunfire when they saw him poking up at the tarp - see the reference where the Superintendent on the scene was screaming at his officers to stop shooting.

Added in the reference to the Anderson Cooper 360 segment with interview of the SWAT team that did the final capture; they saw the neck wound, and described this as NOT a gunshot wound at all to the neck, but a slicing injury, possibly from shrapnel. DarthRad (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

A first-hand account from a SWAT team member does not constitute a neutral point of view, when trying to determine if an injury was self-inflicted, inflicted by law enforcement (e.g., the SWAT team itself) or was accidental. --Crunch (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Every news source is now in agreement that Dzhokar was unarmed when captured. Therefore, it is unlikely that he tried to kill himself, at least not while in the boat. Did SWAT or any of the police try to kill him? Of course they did, earlier anyway, when they opened fire on the boat for "10 minutes" (according to the account referenced in the article) before the Superintendent was able to get them to stop firing. Did some of those shots hit him while in the boat? Probably, we don't know yet. Was one of those shots what caused the neck wound? We don't know. However, the video interview by Anderson Cooper of the SWAT team is the ONLY NEWS SOURCE where an eyewitness who has actually seen the neck wound describes the neck wound, in some detail, and provides information about it. This is far better than all the unsourced, anonymous stories that earlier said Dzhokar tried to kill himself. We still do not know who generated those incorrect stories.

In any case, it is highly unlikely, once the initial shooting stopped and the entire system had been put in place to carry out a live capture of Dzhokar that the MBTA SWAT team, which we now know was CEREMONIALLY and SPECIFICALLY selected (over the several hundred SWAT teams out there) for the HONOR of gaining the capture, that any of them were trying to kill him at that point of the game.

When the definitive investigative reports and books come out about this event, undoubtedly we will have far better sources to fully answer this question of how and when Dzhokar got the neck wound. Somebody will have to interview Dzhokar to get all of these answers. DarthRad (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Nobody said he tried to kill himself while he was in the boat. And nobody says he was definitely unarmed at prior points in time, before he entered the boat.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Since all sources agree that the resident saw a lot of blood in the boat BEFORE any cops showed up, he was evidently seriously injured before the final capture. We know he fled the gun battle driving. We know the police found a lot of blood in another backyard, leading to the lockdown and house to house search - the police correctly figuring with no buses, no trains, no taxis and no driving an injured guy is not going to go very far. There is a gap of most of the night and all of the day where no one but Johar knows exactly where he was and what he was doing. Legacypac (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You're still missing info about

• the Internet 'cults'/fanclubs of "Jahar" (Russian and international, and their media coverage)
• his mother, such as how she had fled from the USA due to shoplifting charges (no, really) and now's living in Moscow under police protection and giving conspiracy theory interviews to the media. --Niemti (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This is obviously a hot topic, but let's consider this simply a BLP page (one of them is still alive) about a highly notable person. Would one include notable conspiracy theories (as reflected in multiple RS) about the person, and especially his/her "fun clubs"? Yes, certainly. It is not uncommon that funs are crazy. Would you mention some important information about his parents? Yes, sure, but only as much as this relates to the person described in BLP. My very best wishes (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggested (reminded) someone else to update the article, it's not like I'll be doing everything everywhere (even in the currently hot topics where there are many others editing). --Niemti (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and also now Tam's "All-American" widow is a possible suspect (they just took DNA samples from her to compare with the female DNA traces from the bombs). And how his relative in Grozny said it was all a plot by "the Russian side" - actually even after discussing it with Kadyrov (so it's like Kadyrov spoke through him). And more. --Niemti (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not follow. Could you give any links about this? My very best wishes (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

[20] (Also [21], and of course "President Kadyrov" isn't a president, he's "head of the republic", "imam", "person of the year" every year, etc.) --Niemti (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

First link: this is just a claim, probably should not be included, unless there is published factual evidence to support the claim. 2nd link: this is interesting as a public reaction in Chechnya, I think this could be included as public reaction (in combination with first link), but others might object this is not notable enough for inclusion. 3rd link: yes, this is a personality cult, but it belongs to article about Kadyrov. My very best wishes (talk) 01:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

If it's Kadyrov attempting to blame "the Russian side", it won't be first time, for example, one of many (that was written back when he was still actually calling himself president). He just won't ever say anything but religiouslike praise about the "holy" Putin. But anyway agencies / analysts mostly just ignore the confusing (or just confused?) reactions in Chechnya, and even in Dagestan (like with Magomedov and his rather odd denials). The second part of my post was about the widow, and it's a thing that's discussed by people below. --Niemti (talk) 07:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Tamerlan's wife Katherine Russell Tsarnaev

Including the name of Tamerlan's wife doesn't improve the readers understanding of this article in any way. WP:BLPNAME states a) "When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories" b) "Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value" and c) "The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject" (emphasis mine). I see no good reason to display her name unless it is proven that she had any sort of direct connection to the event. Ryan Vesey 09:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

First, the portion of the policy quoted above is not applicable because it hinges on the preceding sentence "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. " The part quoted above explains reasons to consider not including a name IF the first sentence is true.

even if a person still thinks they need to go beyond the first sentence than

a) Katherine Russell's name has been VERY widely reported - not "brief appearance in news stories". A few editors on Wikipedia are the only ones trying to intentionally conceal her name-everyone else in the world is all over it.

b) This is a Biography page and Russell was involved in the subjects life from 2007 or 2008 through the present as his girlfriend/wife/mother of his child. She is heavily involved in the article's topic (Tam's life). She was married to a suspect in a terrorist attack, living with him, raising a daughter together. The guy said he had no American friends and became a radical follow of Islam yet he had a white American born raised Christian turned Muslim wife who he impregnated before marriage! How is she not critical to understanding this story?

c) says the names may be included if reliably sourced so the policy allows us to include the names. There is no dispute over sourcing, only editorial discretion.

Finally, this page is not about a single event, it is actually 2 bios, so connecting her to "the event" (bombing) is not necessary at all. She is very connected to both brothers lives which is what this article is about. It gets really awkward to read the text without her name because you end up with confusion between her and the other gf and just strange phrasing. Legacypac (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• the wife merits her own article. He life choices have made her a significant public figure in her own right, and newspapers are now publishing long portraits of her. "Katherine Russell Tsarnaev: From All-American Girl to Bomber's Wife"[22], "How doctor's daughter became the Muslim convert widow of Boston bomber: Terrorist husband 'brainwashed' her and she gave up her dreams of college to have his baby at 21

[23], Katherine Russell, wife of slain Boston bombings suspect Tamerlan ... [24] The Washington Post is covering her parents, choice of college [25] There is sufficient material to write a responsible article on the quesiton that people are interested in, i.e., how did a girl from a comfortable family in Rhode Island end up working long hours at low wages to support a husband who had taken this path? From another perspective, there is great and legitimate interest in Tamerlan's path from promising young man with many friends, to the sort of man willing to bomb the Boston marathon. The story of his wife and marriage is part of that. It has made Katherine a figure of public interest in her own right. When NPR and CNN devote long minutes to laying out a biography and interviewing childhood friends, relatives, and the details of a life - that person has become a public figure. The material that is reliable sourced to major publicaitons should appear on Wikipedia.Winfield22 (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Or maybe it should appear on Days of our Lives. In order to warrant an article, a person has to be notable on their own merit, not on their convoluted relationship to other people. USchick (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've read WP:BLPNAME carefully. I've read dozens of articles that reflect her name, and reflect her speaking, often through her attorney, to the media. I think it is appropriate, and well within our guidelines, to reflect her name.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is a biography of Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Including the name of his wife and the dates of his marriage are a significant part of his biography. It should be included. --22:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Per WP:BLP, no reason to include her name or any specific details of her life. She is a non-notable relative of a non-notable individual who allegedly committed a notable act, and nothing else. Apteva (talk) 05:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

How the heck do you consider Tam a non-notable individual and dismiss his wife as a "non-notable relative?" Sorry but every major news organization is covering her by name in great detail, so your statement is just your opinion. Sometimes I gotta wonder from your comments if you watch the news even? For example, here is CNN saying explosive residue found in her home. Boston Globe reporting FBI don't believe her and are pressuring her for information.. Like the 3 friends, she may face charges yet for not cooperating. Legacypac (talk) 05:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Katherine Russell Tsarnaev needs her own article

Heck, she's even had her mugshot (for a shoplifting charge in 2007) released by Boston PD and now published worldwide:

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/05/02/police-release-mugshot-of-tsarnaevs-widow-katherine-russell/

Interesting. Both Tamerlan's mother and his wife/widow are both shoplifters. Quis separabit? 21:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

All kinds of interesting new stuff coming out about her, giving DNA samples to the FBI (they found female DNA on the bomb fragments), the fact that she called her hubby after the FBI released the photos of the two men (how could she not recognize the two????) Etc.... DarthRad (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

No. Per WP:BLP1E, cover the event, not the person. Unless she is charged with a crime, there is no reason to mention her by name anywhere. Apteva (talk) 06:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• She might well qualify for her own article, under WP:BLP1E. I am undecided at the moment, but as coverage of her persists it would tilt my opinion towards it being appropriate to have an article on her. WP:BLP1E only leads us to generally avoid having an article on a person when the person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. And it does not lead us to avoid having an article on a person when the individual's role within the event is substantial and well-documented. The significance of the individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm leaning heavily toward an article for her. CNN saying explosive residue found in her home (names her again). Boston Globe reporting FBI don't believe her and are pressuring her for information and like the 3 friends, she may face charges yet for not cooperating. Legacypac (talk) 05:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

What's the rush? If two brothers can share an article, why can't a husband and wife share an article, if all of them are notable for the same thing? Details about the current state of investigation regarding her can be worked into the two existing articles without creating a new one. Also, CNN has been wrong big time on this story, so I don't think they should be considered a RS for this story.

If an article gets created about her, someone will immediately propose its being deleted. Hence, let's wait a while until if and when something definite emerges about her (possible) involvement. – Herzen (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Another lengthy profile of Katherine with a number of new detail I'd not seen before, this by the New York Times

I'm in Canada but saw her featured on the cover of National Enquirer and People print mags. So we will be looking at her name and face all month on the mag rack. Legacypac (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The best approach is creating a separate page about every person involved: every brother (separately), her, and everyone who satisfies notability criteria for inclusion, just like here. My very best wishes (talk) 03:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It's still too early for a separate article for the wife. Although there's some parallels with Marina Oswald Porter Tamerlan's wife is still a footnote in his bio. Besides, keeping the same group of editors working on the same page prevents POV forks and duplication of discussions. The mother may deserve an article before the wife from the coverage in the sources commenting on the mother's influence on the son's radicalization. Let's see how the story unfolds. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed New Sections to this Article-Related Individuals

SUGGESTION: In this bio article we create a section (same level as the brother's names) called "Related Individuals" with subsections (same level as the date ranges for the brothers) for Katherine and Mommy and (maybe) Father. Than we can populate these subsections with mini bios. People are already studying Katherine Russell to understand how an American girl could get herself connected to a terrorist, and mommy dearest sure hates America and warrants attention to properly understand the big questions - Why and How? Legacypac (talk) 06:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Where did Tamerlan live?

I've seen, I believe, differing accounts as to where Tamerlan lived in the last year. Is anyone clear on this? Did he and his wive live together with her parents? Did they live in Cambridge,[26] with just their child? Were they separated (I saw one article that said that, though only one I believe). If they were in Cambridge and his wife was away working during the bombings, who was tending to the child? Y'all may be clear on this, but its a bit murky to me.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Eh. Never mind. I guess she moved into the Cambridge home, and (per above refs) the two of them and the child were living there at the time of the event.Epeefleche (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Ya, they lived in the family home, but the sisters had moved out and married, the parents went back to Russia and the younger brother moved to the dorm so it was just the three of them really left in the Cambridge apartment. I just read that the bombs were built in that home. Makes you wonder what Katie thought Tam was cooking. Legacypac (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Or where the three-year-old was. I didn't notice her on the video, so I imagine Tam didn't take her to the bombing, even though the wife said she left Tam with the baby when she went to work that morning.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Or where the mother and child lived when Tam was in Russia for half a year. If the mother was working 70-80 hours a week (at that time), she needed someone (other than Tam, who performed the role more recently) to be around to care for the baby. --Epeefleche (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I found they were on welfare and food stamps the whole time Tam was in in Russia, so maybe she was not working while Hubby went off to Russia on the taxpayer dime. Another mystery is how the kid can be 3 now as reported in the media. Married while pregnant in July 2010 to April 2013=2 years 9 months minus balance of pregnancy period. Seems they actually have a 2-year-old (Baby conceived at least 2 years, 9 months ago would be maximum 2 years old today.) Legacypac (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Good point about the child. I've seen many more articles saying she quit school while pregnant, and then (months later) married ... than flatly saying she was pregnant at the date of marriage. So perhaps the child was born before the ceremony. But, clearly, something is off.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Dzokhar's defence

As prosecutors are named, I think that of the members of his defence team should be, too: Miriam Conrad, and "leading ‘anti-death penalty’ lawyer" Judy Clarke. Also, the fact that he is held in Segregated Housing Unit at FMC Devens. Laura Weintraub (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Burial information

Without referencing the role of the woman in finding a place for the burial, the reader is left with no explanation or frame of reference as to why Tamerlan's body ended up buried in a random place in Virginia. By all accounts, the woman was instrumental in breaking the impasse. It is not "tabloid sensationalism" to reference an interview granted to the Boston Globe, which is neither a tabloid nor prone to sensationalism, as the anon alleges. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Hearsay? Accuracy?

Just wanted to say that this article in general has a lot of potential accuracy issues. For example, "The Boston Globe has a signed statement from Jane Dyson that they didn’t shoot transit cop Richard Dononhue"

Also, from the same article Commissioner Ed Davis - "Tsarnaev was so heavily-medicated with opioids that claims of his “talking” and “writing out” a confession have been discredited, even by Davis who told the media the surviving brother was in “no condition” to talk".

And more from the same article - "An unidentified woman who allegedly witnessed the encounter between the cops and the brothers as they attempted to surrender claims it was Boston police who drove over Tamerlan’s body. The woman called into a radio station and said he was hit by a “police SUV” and then shot multiple times by Boston cops." - this is actually a named eyewitness, who's radio show account can be heard online.

Now, some of the articles speculations are unknown at this point, but however, in general, it does raise some very valid and concrete concerns over some of these news media alleged occurances. This wikipedia article, similarly, seems to rely not so much on secondary sources, but more so on unconfirmed media hearsay, who's rapid flurry of unverified anonymous sources, ultimately lacks credibility.

Another challenger article here talks about the information sourcing and fact checking of the related media reporting, the current level of media accuracy.

It raises again, beyond its speculative aspects, some very valid points, regarding the fact-checking, and information sourcing practices of the news media thus far.

In general, it would make seem prudent for source to be from a named official, verified video, pictures, FBI prosecution criminal complaints (and these are publicly available, quite detailed, and a lot more reliable than the news media), trial details, eyewitnesses, to make more certain or verified statements, rather than merely echoing the likely often inaccurate news media regarding these events, and this story.

At the least, if merely sourcing a media article, with unnamed sources, about unverified information is valid for this wiki entry, then room should be offered to other news media contradicting (as has often happened), or questioning those same assertions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.191.165.5 (talk) 08:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh and this:

"He also said he did not mourn his brother's death because now Tamerlan was a martyr in paradise".

Tamerlan died of his gunshot wounds (coroner says it was gunshots primarily, doctor in hospital says there was little evidence of being run over) from police fire primarily (eyewitness who said police SUV and police fire injured tamerlan, not dzhokhar as police initially claimed), _in the hospital_ (doctor from the hospital and media reports say that's where he died), after dhzokhar had fled (official reports).

So clearly something or everything is very wrong with this note, because dhzokhar would not have known tamerlan was dead, at all. You can't be a marytyr if your not dead, nor can you mourn for someone who is not dead.

Even if we took the initial police reports of it being dhzokhar that caused his death primarily by running him over and dragging him (contradicted by coroner, doctor at hospital, and eyewitnesses, so clearly inaccurate), then he still would not have known he was dead - because he died at the hospital.

We have to assume that dzhokhar did not travel to hopsital with tamerlan to witness his demise!

Plus, just writing a complex message, in total darkness, on a poor surface, and happening to have a suitable pen sounds a little bit sketchy on its own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.191.165.5 (talk) 06:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Triple murder 2 yrs ago+man shot and killed during FBI questioning

Can anyone make sense of this report: http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/05/22/fbi_agent_kills_friend_of_boston_marathon_bombings_suspect.html XOttawahitech (talk) 02:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Ibragim Todashev is about the man shot by FBI. It needs the proper categories of ethnicity etc. per this article. Perhaps someone here can add them? CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 01:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks User:Carolmooredc for the info. I added the article to Category:Boston Marathon bombings which I just created, but in my experience someone will soon delete it, so I am not going to great lengths to populate it yet... XOttawahitech (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Tabloid style for mother and wife?

The sections on the mother and wife seem to be in a tabloid style, and both seem to be treading water by vaguely implicating the two in the bombings. Do we really need to recant their lives on this page in such great detail? How much does it add to the subject? The bit about the mother certainly shows how she impacted the older brother's extremism, but the part on the wife doesn't seem to do much be talk about her personal life. The bit about a magazine with bomb making instructions seems to cross the line, in that it seems to be accusing her of participation in the bombings. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 07:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Order of names: title and contents

When this story first broke, there was discussion of which brother's name should be listed first in the title of the article. The arguments were, essentially, as follows. (A): Dzhokhar should be listed first because his name is first alphabetically; also, he will become the "more important" figure, since he is still alive. VERSUS (B): Tamerlan should be listed first because he is the older brother; also, he had the role of ring leader in this event (Boston bombing). Has this issue been decided for once and for all? I still think that Tamerlan has become (and continues to become) the "more important" and "more significant" figure in these events. It's really as if Dzhokhar was an after-thought to all of the events. I think that option "B" above is more appropriate and that Tamerlan's name should be listed first. If, however, consensus decides that Dzhokhar should be listed first ... why is it that, within the article itself, Tamerlan is detailed first and Dzhokhar second? Should this not be reversed? Thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The title should be reversed. The idea that Dzhokhar will become more important is pure WP:CRYSTALBALL.--MarsRover (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Vandalized

Who's running this article? It's been completely vandalized! Everything has been removed and someone typed a crude, anti-American post on it. --Matt723star (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Noone WP:OWNS or runs an article. Wikipedia is collaborative, which means anyone can edit. That also means anyone can vandalise, but that vandalism can also be reverted.Martin451 (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I wrote that when I clicked the article and saw literally all of whats there now gone, and all that was there was just two sentences written by someone who was clearly angry at America. I can't remember what it said but I just wanted to point that out when I typed that message. --Matt723star (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

"american government please suck my penis" and "boston bombing is as fake as your mummas b00bs". I doubt you really cared to remember, but just in case. On Wikipedia, anyone can view previous versions of any page with the Edit History tab. Now and then, something is so inappropriate it's deleted forever, but all the merely stupid stuff remains a part of the sum of human knowledge (but tucked away in a corner). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Two Pages

The information on the two has greatly grown since I started this article. I think it is time to move Dzhokar and Tamerlan onto their own separate pages. --Mick man34 ♣ (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Clarity

The last sentence of the overview currently reads

"Dzhokhar was a student at University of Massachusetts Dartmouth who became a naturalized U.S. citizen on September 11, 2012, seven months before the bombings."

Reading that sentence briefly made me wonder if the writer were referring to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Clearly, he wasn't, but simply changing "bombings" to "Boston Marathon Bombings" would increase clarity, I think.

24.197.8.22 (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Increase wordiness. Like you say, he clearly wasn't referring to the bombing (if you call a plane a bomb) that happened 11 years earlier. Or the bombing of Darmstadt in 1944, the Grand Central Terminal bomb of 1976 or the Father of All Bombs in 2007. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

And the article still fails to mention Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's fans in Russia and America

Despite the phenomenon being covered in various media. --Niemti (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly a Charles Manson following but whatever -- They do exist. †TE†Talk 15:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, are the wife and mother notable?

Article contains individual full biographies, tabloid style, on the wife and mother. Is this necessary? Does anyone need to where they grew up? There could be a section on family relations instead, which discuss the bombers' relationship to family members, covering the uncle's statements, etc. As it stands, the article seems to implicate these two family members, which is very dangerous on WP:BLP grounds. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 14:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Pictures of the rock star

Can we use the pics released by that cop in response to the the Rolling Stone glamshot? †TE†Talk 15:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I think its inappropriate to post bloody pictures here. Would you also want the picture of the older brother's corpse to be displayed here?--Jane955 (talk) 05:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

DEBKA file

I'm not sure where or if to write this in the article. In any case, it's important. The Israeli "DEBKAfile" wrote that the brothers (probably the older brother) worked as an agent;

“The conclusion reached by DEBKAfile’s counter-terrorism and intelligence sources is that the brothers were double agents, hired by US and Saudi intelligence to penetrate the Wahhabi jihadist networks which, helped by Saudi financial institutions, had spread across the restive Russian Caucasian." 1 2--Jane955 (talk) 04:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

IIRC, DEBKAfile is something of a rumor site. I do not believe it is considered a reliable source. GabrielF (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

DEBKAfile is very reliable. About DEBKA: "DEBKAfile was founded by a team of journalists in June 2000 as an independent Internet Web site, providing an intelligence and security news service." And they are not the only ones saying this.

The Russian newspaper Izvestia wrote this: Tamerlan Tsarnaev attended a workshop sponsored by the CIA-linked Jamestown Foundation. The Russian newspaper cites documents produced by the Counterintelligence Department Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia confirming that the NGO “Fund of Caucasus” held workshops in the summer of 2012 and Tsarnaev attended." Izvestia--Jane955 (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is a thread at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard regarding Debkafile: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_56#Debka.com. I am not familiar with the recent history of Izvestia, but during the Cold War it was an official mouthpiece of the Soviet state. I would not consider either source reliable until I see some significant third-party sources that attest to their adherence to journalistic standards.GabrielF (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you an editor here?--Jane955 (talk) 01:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I have over 11,000 edits on English Wikipedia over the course of nearly 9 years. I have also edited this article on a number of occasions. That does not mean that my opinion is definitive, but based on my experience working on sourcing issues, I would like to see additional information before considering either of these sources to be reliable. GabrielF (talk) 01:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Its interesting that you find Al Jazeera a reliable source and not DEBKAfiles. 'Reliable' seems to be very subjective. Al Jazeera says that Dzhokar had throats wounds, but recent images clearly show that he did not have throat wounds when he was arrested. Unless he was wounded after the arrest. Also, the aunt has confirmed that 'the naked man' being arrested (without any wounds) is Tamerlan. There are many inconsistencies with the story the American main stream media is telling.--Jane955 (talk) 03:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

"There is no truth in Izvestiya and there is no information in Pravda." --Niemti (talk) 09:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

That is your personal opinion. Wikipedia needs to present facts and different media sources.--Jane955 (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia needs to present reliable media sources. GabrielF (talk) 12:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why Al Jazeera would be considered anymore reliable then a Russian media source, especially when we are dealing with an event that involves their country. You are obviously looking for articles that match your personal views.--Jane955 (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Jane has a point; Al Jazeera is no more reliable.Atlos256 (talk) 02:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• http://www.aljazeera.com/pressoffice/2012/04/2012416161854868952.html --Niemti (talk) 07:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

And Obama won the Nobel peace prize while leading a regime that's working (and has been working) to take away citizens' rights and establish a totalitarian police state of complete subservience. What inconsequential nonsense are you going to spout next?Atlos256 (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTFORUM. Discussion on talk pages should be relevant to improving the article in question. Broader political commentary is not appropriate, nor is incivility. GabrielF (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Broader political commentary was not the point; it was relevant to the discussion and what Niemti produced pertaining to source validity. It doesn't matter what awards these sources have won; it means nothing. You only assume that your sources are accurate, and discount all other evidence, when the majority of them simply recite the official story given by authorities. Reliable why? "Because officials say so. Our officials are humane and care about our well-being--they would never lie to us or do us any wrong; power has never corrupted throughout history. So our country couldn't have ever come to be manipulated by corrupt powers at any point in its past, when money is power and the privately run (by the very wealthiest people) central bank controls all the money". The media lies, history books lie, law enforcement lies, politicians lie, because all of this is in these people's back pocket. Michael Hastings told the public about the media himself, as an insider, but it doesn't look like many of you listened. There's also former CIA chief Ted Gunderson's publicized disclosure that most if not all terrorist attacks in the U.S. have been government-orchestrated events, but still the ignorance persists. If people hear of this inside information and being presented with something concrete, still stubbornly won't acknowledge these things, then what is it going to take to open their minds? I implore anyone like this to take a step back and give the possibility that you are wrong fair consideration. You know what Wikipedia editors are reminding me a lot of? The Ministry of Truth and Newspeak from the novel 1984 - government pawns diligently working to silence the truth and suppress mankind according to their elaborate little system of dubious, nefarious rules, each person a cog in the machine that's been running for too long to shut down. Orwell wrote that prophetic book because of where he actually saw the world going, from the government corruption and propaganda he had already witnessed. Yes, all the way back then. The central bank/federal reserve was established in 1913, from the influence of big bankers. Atlos256 (talk) 08:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Two article

Would not it be better than Tsarnaev Tamerlan Dzhokhar and have their own article? and that it contains a brief history of their terrorist and parental information as accounting at the end of the article. Excuse my English but helped me a translator.--LocoWiki (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Rolling Stone picture, omitted Boston police dept. picture, and reference to New York Times picture.

I understand why the Rolling Stone picture is there, but don't see why the Wikipedia mentioned that the New York Times had run the picture. This is a pro-Rolling Stone argument the magazine used, and the Wikipedia doesn't mention the obvious counterarguments. The obvious counters are that the New York Times has run dozens of pictures of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, including the grimy ones from the surveillance cameras at the scene of the crime, and the pictures publicized in response (and against regulations) by a Boston Police Officer of a bloodied Tsarnaev coming out of his boat. Rolling Stone didn't have access to the latter pictures, but they did to the surveillance camera ones, and many others in the (also) countless news reports published by the Times.-- which is another point--that the Times has not only run many photos including unflattering ones, but many many news reports. While by contrast Rolling Stone ran just one story and just the one flattering photo, and even put it on their canonical cover. So arguably Rolling Stone's comparison of themselves with the Times in putting up that glamorous photo is ludicrous. Therefore the argument seems to me should not be noted without the obvious counterargument to it. James Adler P.S. I'm new (only one another time some years ago) to writing on the Wikipedia editing talk pages so apologies in advance for any procedural miscues-- thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.213.225 (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

"Tsarnaev brothers allegedly killed an MIT police officer"

Why are words like "allegedly" still being used in the lead and elsewhere in the article? Who killed the MIT police officer if not the brothers? --Mareklug ^talk 03:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Another wrinkle in the Tsarnaev story

Tamerlan reportedly owned literature that supported white supremacist beliefs. [27]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.99.104.234 (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Related individuals section

This section is subjectively selective and inconsistent with our intro that says: "As a result of the intense law enforcement and media investigation into the lives of the accused brothers, several family members have received considerable worldwide media attention." We mention 'several family members' yet just talk about Zubeidat Tsarnaeva (the Tsarnaevs' mother) and Katherine Russel (Tamerlan Tsarnaev's wife). This doesn't match up with assertion of several family members. Two is not several. One individual totally ignored by us is the father Anzor. I remember he had a significant role as well. Why single out only the mother as if the guys were fatherless? Another significant family member was the Tsarnaevs' uncle Ruslan Tsarni, who was instrumental in identifying the culprits to the media and talking to them while they were still on the run, so that they would surrender. Ruslan was the most quoted family member in the earlier days of the events. Ruslan was the one who collected Tamerlan's body for burial atrangements when tamerlan's own wife refused to have nothing to do with her husband's burial. Yet, this 'family member' is also being ignored werldwayd (talk) 10:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 10:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of topic

This and any posts regarding, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, should not be printed. Unless it is updates on court proceedings. This, like many articles are just another way of making these people feel like celebrities. "I'm all over the news and websites." These are not people who are heros, celebrities, or anybody that needs to be known by popularity. These are foreign killers who came to the United States to accomplish hurting the American people.People like this do not deserve many pages written about their bios,what they have/had accomplished in the life before committing a crime. They do not deserve the satisfation of becoming a popular subject.Get rid of this article, along with any others posted anywhere on the internet, that does not have anything to do with court proceedings, prosecution, and justice for those who have suffered greatly from these two individuals actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.100.157.218 (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

"Asswipe"

Is there any way to get rid of that? It looks like someone got rid of the bad edit, but it still shows up on the article.

70.117.83.68 (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Azamat Tazhayakov, Dias Kadyrbayev, Robel Phillipos

These individuals should be listed in the article under associated individuals. I came here looking for their names, I expected it to be here. 144.183.16.2 (talk) 10:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Judged guilty by wikipedia?

"Dzhokhar Anzorovich "Jahar" Tsarnaev .. and Tamerlan Anzorovich Tsarnaev .. are two Chechen brothers who planted bombs at the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013"

Allegedly shurly ? NewNumb4rFive (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

There are 262 sources cited in the article, four cited in the first sentence alone. Are you suggesting that the article has misrepresented these sources? Reach Out to the Truth 22:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

While Dzhokhar is still on trial for the bombing, his defense opened literally with the statement "He did it." The defense has admitted that he did the bombing, and thus there is no need for "alleged." This trial is about how strictly he will be sentenced, not whether or not he committed the act. It should be noted that the sources in the first sentence lead to that defense statement. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Before that defense statement, by the way, the article did treat them as "suspects" as opposed to having definitely done the act. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Regardless it is for the Court to pronounce guilt or innocence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewNumb4rFive (talk • contribs) 02:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

You are not following, he already has been labeled guilty by his own lawyers and defense team, as explained above the court is going to now decide if he is going to die or spend the rest of his life in prison. Right now his defense team is trying to keep him from getting the death sentence. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)