Talk:Oklahoma City bombing/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Andreas Strassmeir implication?

I was wondering if anyone could verify the claims made that Andreas "Andy the German" Strassmeir had a role in the bombing? There are some sites that paint a convincing image that implicate Strassmeir had a hand in the bombing along with McVeigh. I don't know if it's verifiable, however.

One site in particular: http://eyeonhate.com/mcveigh/mcveigh5.html 66.153.225.243 (talk) 02:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning this on the talk page. I wouldn't consider that site reliable (my opinion), but you could probably learn more about the claims about Strassmeir's alleged contributions to the bombing by searching Google news. I would be cautious reading some sites, as although they can be convincing, sometimes details are stretched or details are added (I'm not declaring that this is occurring here, but to always consider multiple sources on questionable issues). No official report or information from the trial stated that Strassmeir had a role in the bombing (similar to others that were mentioned as possible accomplices), though McVeigh's lawyer wrote a book on possible accomplices (and mentioned Strassmeir as a possibility). Since it has not been verified that Strassmeir had involvement in the bombing, it isn't mentioned in the article. Let me know if you have other questions or if you need further clarification. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the entire Elohim City angle should be further explored, especially since McVeigh visited there prior to the bombing. The article suffers from lack of this very relevant (and likely verifiable) information, and should be placed in the planning section of the article. As far as Mr. Strassmeir is concerned, perhaps he should be further developed in the conspiracy spin off article, unless better sources can be cited here. I don't think anyone would have any objection to adding to the verifiable cast of characters in the planning stages, as long as the Wiki standards are met. Unfortunately though, since Elhhim City may have been under investigation by federal authorities, secondary sources may be harder to locate due to the nature of such investigations. In my development of the Ubiquitous Roger Moore character, I shall seek more sources in order to develop the Elhoim City part of the narrative.

(68.226.82.209 (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)) peterbadgely

I would not say that this is very relevant for inclusion in the article. However, since it conflicts with the official theory, it would benefit with having its own section at Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories. In addition, reliable sources should be used in that article as well. --Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Mr Strassmeir was interviewed around 2005 on British Television where he explained why people could have suspected him. He said after Wako there was a lot of wild talk among Right Wing Groups in the U.S. where they spoke of 'getting the bas***ds back' and 'sticking it to them' (meaning the F.B.I.) He also said he may have said such things, but these were only comments made among people who were outraged at the 'attack' on Wako, he never played any part in any such attack.Johnwrd (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

News media reports three bombs had been placed

Would there be objections to placing information regarding these local television stations?

The information concerning other ordnance was confirmed by the State Department according to one report. If that confirmation is documented with the appropriate footage (and perhaps transcript), I believe the information would be very sound.

Furthermore, there are court documents which further develop the reasons why no license plate was on the vehicle of one of the perpetrators of the crime. I welcome input before adding the crucial information.

Also, as noted above, a contributor explained the existence of a "missle" and a "bomb" for dog training in the structure with inadequate sources for the proclaimation, and without answering the most important of questions: If the presence of such ordnance was known to be present, why were children allowed to be present (and in daycare) in a government structure where dangerous ordnance was stored? (Peterbadgely (talk) 12:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC))

In the confusion of a crisis situation, inaccurate or incorrect reports are often made, especially by news media. During the Sago Mine disaster, the on-site reporter from Fox News Channel stated live on the air that a dozen survivors had been rescued, when in fact there was only one. During the first Gulf War, a CNN journalist in Israel said on live television that one of the Al Hussein missiles to hit that country was loaded with chemical weapons, however later analysis showed the warhead was actually a conventional weapon. Since the official OKC bombing investigation -as well as analysis by outside organizations like the National Geographic Society- determined that the initial reports of multiple bombs were wrong, I do not see how the article would be benefited by adding these mistaken news reports to it. — Kralizec! (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the "initial stories" were confirmed by the State Department certainly adds to the story. Additionally, the fact that conventional weapons were purposefully stored in the vicinity of a child care center by the Untied States Government certainly would add crucial information to the story. These factors are factual and verifiable. The fact that stored ordnance was placed in a building routinely occupied by children is certainly an area that should be explored and written about here.Peterbadgely {68.14.146.78 (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC))

From the recent addition about the TOW missile, I cleaned up the details and added a citation template. Although it is listed as a third bomb, it is actually the second one that was initially mentioned in that section. I merged the details together. Indeed, it can be questioned why something like this would be stored in the same building as children as well as civilians, but we are not here to pass judgment. We need to mention the verifiable facts and let the readers come to their own conclusions. But like Kralizec mentions above, initial news reports detailed a lot of rumors that they thought were accurate, which was later deemed incorrect. News outlets seize on each opportunity of something that could be big related to the current news story, which may or may not be accurate. This recent addition provides more details about the inert missile and is a reliable source. Thanks for your addition. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I added some verifiable material, but I mistakenly messed up the format at the top of the page. Sorry! I have to do some reading to get better at the formatting, especially if I make a mistake. This is much different than the law school blue book method I am used to.(Peterbadgely (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC))peterbadgely

To what extent are court documents and other sworn statements and affidavits looked upon as verifiable? We could use such raw investigatory materials to really hone this story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterbadgely (talk • contribs) 21:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

As per WP:PRIMARY SOURCES, articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources. Also, primary sources (including video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews, etc.) may be used only to make descriptive claims. Additionally all interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims must be derived from secondary sources. — Kralizec! (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Just as a side note, I believe that many years from now, sociologists and historians will probably find the discussion sections to be more interesting that the actual articles. The content and discussions around what is to be placed into a story and the infamous banning and censoring by administrators is really a snap shot of human behavior at this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterbadgely (talk • contribs) 17:10, 22 April 2009

Actually, administrators just enforce the rules created by community consensus. — Kralizec! (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to add more about the Roger Moore character

I think I should begin an article about the Roger Moore character. There appears to be some pretty good secondary sources out there, in addition to sworn statements in court to add to the picture. The fellow is apparently currently running some gun training company out of Utah and Oregon. This is a major historic event which should be further developed. Any thoughts? (Peterbadgely (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC))

If there are no objections (or no angry protests), I'll begin the verification process and start writing for your editing pleasure. Trust me, my sources will meet the standards of Wiki. Peterbadgely

If the article meets Notability (people) and there are reliable sources, then feel free to create the article. Are you claiming that the gun training company is a major historic event? Or his person in general? --Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No. No. I'm claiming that he was thrust into a major historic event (the OKC Bombing), for allegedly being robbed by two of the convicted perpetrators, and that he supplied ordnance (at one time) to two of the convicted perpetrators of the OKC Bombing. (Peterbadgely (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC))peterbadgely

Comments

I know the peer review has already been archived, though happened to notice this is almost ready for FAC. So, here are some comments:

• In the intro sentence, the Murrah building is described as a "government office complex".
  • I think it was primarily a Federal government office building, but were there state government offices there too? If not, or if the building was predominantly occupied by the Federal government, then I would describe the building as a "Federal government office complex."

From what I can tell from various sources it was all federal offices. I would have thought that there were some local state offices there as well, but perhaps those existed in some other building. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Also, I believe the Murrah building was just that one building. What made it a "complex"? If not a "complex", then just say "Federal government office building".

Several different sources, as well as the GSA who owned the building, called it a complex. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • I'm removing that phrase. It's redundant, as "Federal Building" is already mentioned in the sentence, as part of the building's name. --Aude (talk) 03:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
• Provide a little more information about the Waco Siege and Ruby Ridge, so the reader doesn't have to click those links. Why were McVeigh and Nichols angered by the government's handling of those incidents?

I added a brief explanation for each in the planning section. Feel free to reword. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• In the target section, the article mentions "flee in the truck back to Kansas". By that, I assume they lived in Kansas but that's just a guess. The article should say where they lived, also to better understand why they considered targets in "Arkansas, Missouri, Arizona, and Texas".

After re-checking the sources, it appears that I read it wrong. I thought it had been referring to the possibility of them fleeing together after the bombing had occurred, but the source was referring to when they first dropped off the getaway vehicle a week before the bombing. I removed the statements, and merged the single statement about the date chose for the bombing into the prior paragraph. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Also, the article mentions Army training at Fort Benning, Georgia. With interest in survivalism, perhaps McVeigh and Nichols did not lead ordinary lives, but where somewhat nomadic going from place to place over the years between the Army training and 1995. Is that right? or what? Some more context about McVeigh and Nichols is needed - where they lived and lifestyle.

I believe this would be best mentioned in their respective articles. I don't believe that they were out living in the woods but that they were interested in the concepts of survivalism. McVeigh did move several times for various reasons while Nichols remained in Kansas. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• The last sentence of the "target selection" section needs a reference.

Removed per the first point mentioned above. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• I see overlinking throughout the article. Wikilinks to general terms like wheelbarrows, bottled water, and football helmets are probably unnecessary. Also, if something is wikilinked once in the article, it generally should not be wikilinked again.

I removed a lot of wikilinks, let me know if you think any others stand out. Some are duplicated since some readers may not read the entire article, and might skip to various sections when first visiting the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As I review more (might take a couple days), I can add more comments here. --Aude (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look and performing some copyedits. I had figured the peer review was over, but I'm glad you stopped by to help out. I'd welcome any other helpful suggestions, and let me know if you want further elaboration on the points above. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I am done for the moment. I will try to do some more tomorrow, and expect to have some time available during the weekend. --Aude (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

FAC

I have nominated this article at FAC. Thank you to everybody that has helped contribute to the article, it definitely has come a long way. Hopefully the article doesn't have too many issues, and I'll try to keep up with the nomination as much as possible. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Passenger seen with McVeigh

There is no mention of the man seen by at least 12 witnesses sat with McVeigh as he drove the Ryder Truck to the Murrah Building. The Oklahoma journalist who spent time investigating the witnesses who saw this man commented; 'if it was a question of a few attention seekers or unreliable witnesses you could lay these reports aside. But these are sensible, reliable witnesses who saw this man sat next to McVeigh'. (interviewed on British Television).Johnwrd (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

If you have any sources to give, that would be helpful in getting this into the article. --Golbez (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

John Doe 2 is mentioned several times in the article. If you have reliable sources, the conspiracy theories article currently has a section on other conspirators that would benefit from expansion. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Article photo incorrect slug

The article photo states that it displays the building as "shortly after" the bombing. This is clearly inaccurate—there is no smoke or other sign of the detonation being recent, and a crane is clearly visible attending to the scene. The crane would certainly have not been allowed near the building until the fires were out and the area had been deemed safe enough for workmen to approach. I think the word "shortly" should be removed, and the slug will then be accurate.75.66.145.31 (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it was incorrect (there are different interpretations for "shortly after"). However, I have changed the caption to prevent any confusion. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

why noone added that he was nazi ? hey , nazis all over world celebrate him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.94.106.246 (talk) 11:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Eglin Air Force study

There was discussion about where the reference to the Eglin Air Force study should be included. Now the entire reference has been dropped, evidently without any discussion. Does anyone have more information about this? 88.193.90.86 (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know at what point it was removed, but it was likely done so during the FAC process. Details can be added to the Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories article, which currently doesn't cover anything on it. If it's readded, make sure that reliable sources are used. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I had added that, and it was accepted as part of that section, where is stayed for a long time (over a year, I think). I will readd it with the same sources. 62.142.72.35 (talk) 10:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the addition, since the section in this article only provides a brief overview of each of the theories. Since the mention of several explosives is already mentioned, I'd recommend adding it to the separate conspiracy theories page where more it can go into more detail. As a side note, the blog should not be used as it is not a reliable source. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... Can't help feeling quite "unilaterally overridden" here, also because I acquired a copy of said report to of course read it, but also to prove its existence to some other editors who at the time refused to believe that such a report actually existed, despite numerous references to it and quotations from it on the Net.

And as I said, after that the reference remained in the relevant section for long. Aside from that, I assume I can link to a copy of the actual report? 62.142.72.35 (talk) 10:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That's why the information should go to the specific article on the conspiracy theories. It would allow for further coverage (to include those other references and quotations). There is already a single sentence that briefly talks about the possible use of multiple explosives, so if readers are interested in learning more about it, they can go to the article to see further clarification. The blog site shouldn't be used (this one), but the case study citation should be reliable for inclusion as a source for the conspiracy theories article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

A copy of the Eglin Air Force study - which in itself does not theorize, so I find its *complete* relegation to a conspiracy theories article problematic - can be read at http://11syyskuu.net/terrorismi/eglin%20study.PDF

I assume linking to a copy of the report itself in ok? 88.193.90.86 (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The report may not propose a theory, but it is used to support the theory that multiple explosives were used. Until that theory is proven, it should be used to further enhance the section that covers multiple explosives. If not for that section, then a new one can be added, as the article covers all other proposed reasons/events that conflict with the official story. There's no harm in linking to the report, just not the blog (which I think is a dead link anyway). If there are other reliable sources that mention the report, that would be beneficial to add. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

the bias and absoluite deliberate blindness of wikipedia

This needs to be a new discussion. There is such a thing as ignorance , but there is no excuse whatsoever for the degree of ignorance for simply coppying the federal government case for the prosecution and reporting it as straight facts, There is no mention of general partin the new american, the Mcmurtain dailey gazzette, the trial and testimoney of Carol Anne Howe, or the writings of Evans Pritchard, or Hoppy Heidleburg, or David Hoffman or Oklahoma State rep Keys or the the many other eye witnesses who have shot so many holes in the Fds Ok Bomb case, that it does not hang together at all .

Finally there is no dispute whatsoever by any expert that 4800 pounds of home made ANFO using fertilizer grade non dehydrated ammoinian ntirate and racing fuel even if perfectly mixed and primed could have never severed even one of the building collumns not to mention four on the third floor level and one 72 feet away in the middle row ( see the Partin report) the new American and the Partin testimoney Nichols trial) even if the truck had not been filled with anfo , even if it had been C4 the physics make it impossible by several orders of magnitude to have caused the damage that it did.

So the real discussion should be not what happened at Oklahoma city, that is undisputable The federal government arranged a murderous attack to discredit the militia movement . The real discussion is why does Wikipedia participate in a deliberate coverup to the extent of Ignoring everything and everyone but the official government line? Now I will leave this thread for comments by others 99.165.90.58 (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a chance to read the article. If all of the claims made above are true, then we would need reliable sources to support the information (Wikipedia is about verifiability). In my research for improving the article, I have looked at hundreds of articles, journals, and books and have included as much details as possible of the details leading up to the bombing as well as the bombing itself. What you see in the article is the generally accepted timeline from authorities, reporters, authors, etc. Now obviously for an event such as this, there are other theories to what happened. If you have not already, please view the conspiracy theories article which delves into some of the topics you mentioned above. That article could always use expanding, but again, only if properly sourced. I would only see this article changing if in the future details were revealed in reliable sources to support the above claims. For now, the article supports the current accepted series of events. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Motivated by

Lede had said McVeigh was motivated by Waco & Ruby Ridge - unless more is said, this gives a type of legitimacy to his motivations. [1] Consider a similar phrasing if it was applied to another terror incident, e.g. 911.

"Motivated by the US troops stationed near Mecca, the 911 terrorists destroyed the World Trade Centers."

See what I mean? Without saying, something like "motivated by Islamic jihad and hatred for the United States", the phrasing makes motivation sound acceptable and easily understandable. That is why I think the prior phrasing was insufficient, particularly in a lede.—209.44.123.1 (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The rewording sounds fine. Thank you for your other contributions to the article. I switched over the links to the university database to newspaper archive databases so readers can purchase the article if desired. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I was going to work on the dead links today, and will do a little additional searching to see if any can find other live links for a few of them. — 209.44.123.1 (talk) 11:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"Legacy"

I do not believe legacy is the correct term for the title of the section, and I have changed it to aftermath. Legacy means something positive - something good that a dead person or previous generation has left behind

Dictionary.com/Thesauraus.com gives these definitions and synonyms for legacy: "inheritance, heritage", "bequest, birthright, devise, endowment, estate, gift, heirloom, tradition"

Aftermath is defined as "something that results or follows from an event, esp. one of a disastrous or unfortunate nature; consequence: the aftermath of war; the aftermath of the flood."

I also looked up several other deadly incidents in Wikipedia and the articles all use the term "aftermath", and do not use the term "legacy" September 11 attacks, 2001 anthrax attacks, Moscow theater hostage crisis — 209.44.123.1 (talk) 11:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

At one point, it was named "aftermath". Not sure when it switched over. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems it was changed about 10 months ago - [2], not that it matters. Do you disagree with my re-naming? Aftermath seems to be the term used on Wikipedia to describe what follows from tragic events and terror attacks, and the basic definition fits. — 209.44.123.1 (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I prefer "aftermath". The article has gone through so many copyedits that I sometimes don't know when changes go through. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Photographs and movie

I added the following information to the "external links" section: (the edit)

• Coverup in Oklahoma - A documentary that explores a lot of the evidence and also much of the credible witness testimony that was videotaped during the day of the bombing. This evidence severely contradicts the Governments official story surrounding the Oklahoma City bombing and is critical to know while doing research into the conspiracy theory surrounding this event.

Photographs

• grahamphoto5ca.jpg - Taken shortly after the blast.

Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building demolition photos

This is a series of photos from Oklahoma State University showing the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building before and during its demolition.

• impl1_lg.jpg
• impl2_lg.jpg
• impl3_lg.jpg
• impl4_lg.jpg
• impl5_lg.jpg
• impl6_lg.jpg
• impl7_lg.jpg
• impl8_lg.jpg
• impl9_lg.jpg
• imp10_lg.jpg

My argument for keeping these photos and video linked in the article:

(Note: These photos only seem to be available through archive.org. The original page and the entire server where these photos were located is no longer available.)

Aside from the historical value of the images I linked, the images and movie provide strong and compelling evidence to support the conspiracy theory concerning this subject. Specifically, they provide evidence that severely contradicts the official story that says a single bomb caused the extreme amount of damage to the building through lack of a crater of sufficient size that would correlate to the explosive force required to do the damage to the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building.

As you can see from these photos from Oklahoma State University that I linked above, there seems to be a spot where the crater created by the vehicle bomb was located. The spot where the crater was has obviously been filled in, however, the outline of this spot can clearly be seen against the unbroken road surface. What makes these photos so important, is that the area of this crater spot is rather small compared to the size of the giant crater that was left by a known truck bomb. See this photo and this photo of the giant crater left after the Pakistan hotel truck bombing for comparison. Also, the size of the truck in the Pakistan bombing can clearly be seen from the hotel surveillance video camera. If you compare the size of the crater in these two photos of the pakistan hotel bombing to the outline of the crater from one of the first images of the demolition photographs, you can easily see the huge discrepancy in the size between the two.

Since Wikipedia is an reference encyclopedia, I strongly feel that these photographs and the link to the video should be included so that people doing research into the conspiracy theory surrounding this event will easily be able to find this information.

(Note: This information I provided above is not my original research, it is merely a summation of some of the evidence that I have seen in the movie that I linked and from other articles that I have read. Wisepiglet (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your addition, I haven't seen those images. I've been weighing this for the last few days, and want to ask what others think. Should the conspiracy theories section be split off to its own article, Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories? The article was deleted back in 2006 due to no reliable sources, but we now have several that covers multiple theories. I know that other theories could be covered or the ones in the article elaborated on, but I have tried to keep it brief due to the length of the article. By moving the information, it could be expanded on the other page, and leave a brief summary in this article. This article is getting very large, and would benefit from splitting off this section, similar to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. I would recommend still keeping a link to the Coverup in Oklahoma video in the external links in this article but move the images added by Wisepiglet to the new article. What do you guys think? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As long as its contents were properly sourced and cited, I would not object to the re-creation of the Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories article (a la the -IMO- nicely done 9/11 conspiracy theories article). — Kralizec! (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I cut down the size of the conspiracy theories section and re-created the article. Feel free to expand on that article since I'm sure it can benefit from additional sources or covering other theories since there is plenty of room. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Could I comment on text in small photo of demolition of building (with Ryder truck);Wording is clumsy and implies demolition of remains of building was done "using bomb in Ryder truck" . I'm sure this is not the intention of the text. The limited space for the caption may have led to clumsy text.The demolition of the building with Ryder truck in foreground is worthy of clarification, at least out of respect for the deceased and their loved ones. Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 10:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ern malleyscrub (talk • contribs) 10:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that you've never featured an article on the Waco massacre

I suppose what's even more interesting is the timing for this article to be featured. While this website attempts to maintain the illusion of egalitarianism, it's pretty obvious that many of the admins here are intelligence agents of some kind. --142.58.43.102 (talk) 00:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to comment here. Wikipedia's articles are developed by a variety of contributors (as a side note, administrators are a separate thing) and are developed by following the five pillars. Information should be cited to reliable sources and provide a neutral point of view. For an article to reach featured status, it must go through a lengthly approval process that is peer-reviewed by multiple editors. If you are interested in seeing the Waco Seige being improved to featured status, I invite you to contribute to the article by adding additional sources and improving the prose. Articles are improved on here with participation to those interested in the topics. If you have questions, we'd be happy to help you. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Please lock this article

Today this article was the featured article and it was vandalised at least thrice. Please check history to see. The article needs to be locked asap. Debangshu Mukherjee (talk) 11:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• — Kralizec! (talk) 13:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Adding back

Recently I added three sources to the lede, one was removed entirely, the other two were relocated to obscure regions of the article. diff

I am adding back two of these sources, one is a video of news report from April 19, 1995 which is very informative and highly interesting; the other us a report from April 21, 1995 which describes how McVeigh, Nichols and Fortier were found and arrested much more accurately than the lede itself.

I would have no problem with the sources being removed and relocated if it weren't for the fact that the most of the references in the lead inadequately verify the statements in the lead and some do not verify them at all. Please see the discussion below. 209.44.123.1 (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I initially moved the citations as we don't really need to have that many sources in the lead (as the lead is just a summary of the article and new sources should support the information within the article itself). The first video was removed as we don't need to cite the first statement of the article (I don't believer there is anything there that could be objected to). I will wait to move the video link, but which statement within the article would you think would best be supported by it? I also wouldn't say they're obscure spots in the article as the videos were for supporting the designated statements in the article discussed in the lead. As a side note, another reason why videos are usually not included here is that the links usually die more quickly then newspapers and websites (they also can rarely be rescued using the Internet Archive). It's great to use the videos for now as they do present a more helpful view, and I have no issues with keeping them in, but we should not remove other supporting sources in place of them. I do hope that the news site continues to host them, but for other video links that I've added in the past, they are usually gone in a few weeks/months after an anniversary. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

References in the lede

This is a politically-charged article, so references in the lede are used to verify potentially controversial statements.WP:Lede. The references that are now in the lede are deficient in many respects. Below is a paste of the first paragraph of the article as it now reads, and under that is my discussion of the references, and what I am planning to do.

The Oklahoma City bombing was the bomb attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, when American militia movement sympathizer Timothy McVeigh detonated a truck filled with explosives parked in front of the building.[1] McVeigh's co-conspirator, Terry Nichols, had assisted in the bomb preparation. It was the most destructive act of terrorism on American soil until the September 11, 2001 attacks, claiming 168 lives, including 19 children under the age of 6.[2] More than 680 people were injured.[3][4] The blast destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a sixteen-block radius,[5] destroyed or burned 86 cars, and shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings.[6] The bomb was estimated to have caused at least $652 million worth of damage.[7]

Reference 1 should directly and clearly support the first statement and it does not. It is a 1997 article that discusses a witness' plea bargained testimony. It not a straightforward description of the event, it does not mention the downtown location and does not support the controversial statement that McVeigh was a militia movement sympathizer. I will be looking for a better reference.

Ref. 2 is a listing of the dead, which does not does not show the totals. I will be looking for a better reference.

Ref. 3 does not mention the number of injured or injuries at all. It is irrelevant here, so I am removing it. However, this reference still appears later in the article.

Ref. 4 is an archived article that takes forever to load, even on a fast connection. It needs to be replaced. It also is a very roundabout way of supporting the simple statement that 680 were injured.

Ref. 5 does not support the statement that 324 buildings were damaged within a 16 block radius. It is irrelevant here, so I am removing it. However, this reference still appears later in the article.

Ref. 6 is a very long 58 page download 6.48 mb - however, it does it say that on page 6 that 324 bldgs were damaged and 86 cars were burned

The statement that glass was shattered glass in 258 buildings is not verified by Reference 6, and I could not locate any other source giving that statistic. It is also unclear in the lede here whether the 258 buildings are a subset of the 324 buildings damaged, or whether they are additional building for a total of 582 damaged. The OK City PD After Action report says that building glass was shattered in a 3 mile square area - so I am changing the text to reflect this.

As you can see, with this rather inferior and uninformative set of references, better ones are needed. That is why I am adding the news video that was removed earlier without explanation, and I moving the contemporaneous account of events leading to the arrest back into the lede. 209.44.123.1 (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC) 209.44.123.1 (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I just added an explanation on the above section detailing why video sources are not really used in this article. As said above, I'm for using them for now, but in the off chance that they are later removed by the hosting site, it will be beneficial to have sources that can support the statements relying on them. Regarding the other sources, per WP:LEAD, citations are for supporting the actual statements within the article itself. Citations in the lead can be helpful for those that may be questioned over verifiability for statistics or quotes by readers. For the points you've raised above, I'll look into each one as I work to restore elements of the article before the excessive vandalism of being featured on the main page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the first source from the lead as there doesn't seem to be anything controversial that should be sourced. The second source includes all of the victims, while simultaneously identifying the number of children, and totals 168. For the third source, it appears that the revision that was passed as FA it was used to cite the 168 victims. When the statement was split, the citation was not carried over. Ref 4 took less than a second for my connection to load (I think I'm on the second highest tier of my provider), maybe you could try again? The link also provides extensive details on the injuries, so it seems very helpful. The link for the 16-block radius mention doesn't cover the information, so I've removed it from the article. I'll look for a replacement source tomorrow after work. I have found the correct source for the 258 buildings and included that. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Reference 200 does not support the statement, "Others, such as former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers, were delighted with the results of McVeigh's efforts and felt that he was carrying on their work against the government started in the 1960's.[200]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyframe372 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Before picture of Murrah Building should appear in this article

I had included the picture earlier and it was removed. [3]

There is a very strong rationale for inclusion - the before picture is needed to really show the bomb's devastation. Sure, people can always search for other articles with the before picture, but few will.

Using the picture in Wikipedia and in this article meets All 10 of the policy criteria.

The minimal usage requirement does not apply here - that requirement says that multiple items, such as multiple pictures from a copyrighted work, should not be used if one item or portion will suffice. It does not say that a picture should only be used in one wikipedia article. In fact criteria #7: says"One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article." Therefore, the policy contemplates the use of the images in more than one article. Finally, WP:common sense dictates that the before picture is important to this article about a bombing. 209.44.123.1 (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed it again for several reasons, some of which I touched on in the edit summary in the diff provided above. As the image is non-free, it does need to meet the ten points above. Although it meets the majority, I don't believe it meets the first point of "no free equivalents". I have in the past asked several authors to allow us to use a free image of the building, but so far have been unsuccessful. However, this does not mean that it is impossible to get one, as there are many images available of the building prior to the bombing. We can't give up on looking for free alternatives because of the convenience of using a non-free image. Since the article itself doesn't really discuss the building extensively (it mentions height and that it has a glass front), we don't need a non-free image to show this. Readers can likely visualize a tall building with glass. The image was not removed for the "one-page minimum" requirement (there are many non-free images used in multiple articles). For the article on the building, more critical commentary goes into discussing the building itself, which allows for the use of the image (of course, until a free equivalent can be found). If readers are interested in seeing the building beforehand, they can read more on the article about the building. The only non-free image included in the article is File:Firefighterbabyocb.jpg, which is something that cannot be replicated and the author is likely not going to release it under a free license. In addition, the image lacks a fair use rationale for the article, which would be a requirement for inclusion. We are better off continuing to pursue a free image instead of falling back to this one. Unfortunately with these restrictions, I don't think that arguing the suggestion of common sense against non-free requirements works. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

We should use the picture, since it's the only one we have. You mention that free equivalents exists, but none are available to us on Wikipedia at the moment. Also making it harder to find a free image is that the building was torn down in 1995, before people had digital cameras. As for the image's description page lacking a rationale, it's easy to add and only takes about 30 seconds to do (less time than it took for you to write the above paragraph). ~DC _{Talk To Me} 04:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Just because we don't have one, doesn't mean we can't get one. If we include the non-free image, there is no incentive to pursue a free image, since we would already be content using the copyrighted image. We are fortunate to have images of buildings before more recent terrorism attacks with the advent of more accessible cameras. We shouldn't just add an image to the article because it is convenient when the side article already shows it. If there was no separate article on the building, then including the image would seem to have a more compelling case. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Although it may seem difficult to get a free image, I was fortunate to convince the authors of File:TimothyMcVeighPerryOKApr2195.jpg and File:MurrahBuildingInjuriesbyFloorOCB.jpg to release them under free licenses to be included in this article. If we can get an image of McVeigh shortly after the bombing and a helpful graphic used in a journal, I think that we can get an image of the building. Since it is a federal building, I believe that if a federal employee takes a picture of the building it is automatically released into the public domain. I will try again later this week to find an alternative. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Your second point is wrong. If a federal employee took a picture as part of his official duties, it is in the public domain. But if they snapped a picture for their own use, it's not, unless they release it into the public domain. Your misunderstanding of that simple rule undermines your prior arguments. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 06:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe that readding the image to the article was a bit premature, I apologize that I was away from the computer for a while today. It could be safe to assume that I would return to further discuss the image. I do apologize if you misinterpreted above on not specifying that the image would be public domain unless taken while part of an author's job, I am aware of that (I've worked plenty with images and do have a strong understanding of what licenses are acceptable). Could you please clarify that because of a perceived misunderstanding that would nullify all of the points that I've raised above? It seems to me that because you interpreted that I did not know how the license would work so all other raised points would be false. Instead of discussing these points but focusing on a technicality, the image was just readded. I would appreciate if you could focus on these and determine why the article should have the image to establish consensus. I'd prefer not to revert back and forth as that happens too much on here and is a waste of time. I have stated above that I will be searching for a free image, and as you also have an interest in the image and have understanding of licenses, I invite you to please help me find one. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I can help you (but I don't have much free time for the rest of the week). What's a good place to look? ~DC _{Talk To Me} 05:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I have already tried contacting the memorial museum in the past, but I may try that again (hopefully they are more helpful with the quality of the article and the timing of the request). We could also try searching through Flickr, government websites in case any were posted by federal employees, and contacting OKC offices that may have an image. There are also many personal websites of people who followed the bombing who may have had a personal image. There are images out there, the hardest part is usually getting a hold of someone that has the ability to release it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I just did a preliminary search and it looks like the best option is to contact the museum first (I'll most likely send them one in the next day or two). If I get no response or am turned down, I'll then move on to government offices as well as the architects of the building. Hopefully one of these sources will be able to provide a quality image. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Really really long!

Does anybody else feel this article is too long and should be broken up? -Etoile (talk) 01:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this need to be "broken up", but today were several addition to relevant material and copyedits, so this should be reviewd or maybe can lose its FA status. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 01:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

As described above, the length can be attributed to covering multiple areas about the topic. We did cut back on the conspiracy theories section by splitting that off into its own article. A large portion of the size of the article can be attributed to the formatting of the several hundred citations that are included in the article, which is common for FAs that depend on comprehensive requirements. Despite all of the revisions today, I doubt that the article would warrant delisting after one day of being heavily edited. I plan to comb through the article again to restore some content, rework and relocate some added content, and remove any overlooked vandalism. Unfortunately all TFAs go through this, but at least the process provides helpful feedback and points to areas that need work or additional focus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply it should be delisted as FA, only that it felt really long. And yes, there are quite a lot of citations, which of course they should stay. The article just feels really long to me. But if I'm the only one who feels that way, I'll live with it! -Etoile (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to Tbhotch's comments. Although the article is long it does cover all of the major topics of the bombing and touches on the conspiracy theories and memorial (which have their own pages). Surprisingly, this article isn't as long as some other FAs out there. It would be great if we could somehow setup citations in articles to be hosted on another page or use some other technique to reduce the length of the page. Maybe doing something like Oklahoma City bombing/references and then substing that page into the references section. I may play around with that on a smaller scale in my sandbox to see if it has any effect on size. If it does work (or if some of are more technical people can come up with an alternate method), it could possibly be used to reduce the loading time for many of Wikipedia's articles. As the years go by, articles' sources are going to continue to grow as more books, journal articles, and news articles are written. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is overly detailed

This isn't an article, it's a book. Even our lengthy tome on the planet Earth is shorter than this article. Do we really need to know that Timothy McVeigh chose his hotel alias because it "reminded him of the Klingon warriors of Star Trek"? If you expect people to actually read this article, you would do well to remove some of the trivia and extraneous details. Kaldari (talk) 02:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to look over the article. The article is long, but it does cover multiple elements of the topic. Although something may not be interesting to one reader, it may be helpful for another. Readers may not necessarily come here to read the entire article, but possibly just to view the sections that interest them. There are multiple FAs that are long in length, many of which are longer than this one. Unfortunately, a large portion of the page sizes can be attributed to the citation formatting, and if we can ever find a way to address that, it would probably make the pages easier to view for many readers. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there any point at which a detail is too trivial to include in a Wikipedia article? Kaldari (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course there is. But details in articles can be considered more trivial than others based on consensus. For the statement in question, readers may be curious as to how the alias was developed. The statement in the article is covered in one statement and doesn't go into excessive detail. One fact found superfluous by one, could be interesting or helpful to another. Including additional information in articles can make them more interesting to read while also helping to meet the comprehensive criterion for FAs. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, some people are interested in trivial details. To sacrifice the overall readability of an article in order to include every detail that may be of interest to someone is unfortunate, however. The article would still be just as interesting if it were more tightly focused, IMO. But of course it's impossible to please everyone. Kaldari (talk) 03:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That definitely could be said about many articles in terms of what would be considered trivial. Although the article may appear to be excessive in focus in some areas, there is definitely a lot more that was left out from the numerous sources that are available on the topic (as well as those that were not included). In addition, through several copyedits by multiple editors a lot of details that were considered trivial were removed. I remember at one point including details about booties that were donated for the rescue dogs to protect them from the glass. Fortunately, details such as that were removed to improve the focus of the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it's good the article isn't longer than it is in that case. Kaldari (talk) 03:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I came across the article as a general reader looking for a specific fact but because of its quality I ended up reading it all. This article is not too long or detailed. It's a consistently interesting, well written and stylistically coherent piece. I congratulate everyone who has had anything to do with it. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Date - under "Arrests" section

It is stated under the "Arrests" section that "Initially, the FBI had three hypotheses regarding who might have been responsible for the bombing. The first was international terrorists, possibly the same group that had carried out the World Trade Center bombing two years earlier."

I believe this is a mistake, as the World Trade Center bombing occurred in 2001 and the Oklahoma City bombing occurred in 1995, therefore two years prior to 1995 would be 1993, not 2001. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.59.184.189 (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The 1993 World Trade Center bombing is what's being referenced, not 9/11. The attacks were actually really similar as both involved rented trucks filled with explosives, and the and the suspects in both were found by tracing the VIN from the axles. The 1993 bombing only killed 6 people though. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 18:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thank you! You learn something new every day!66.59.184.189 (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia, it's what we do. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Car bomb?

There is a lively discussion about using car bomb all the time, even if the delivery of death was a truck. Since Wikipedia should be consistent, should the infobox be changed to car bomb? Or should the most accurate term be used, truck bomb if it was a truck and car if a car?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2010_Times_Square_car_bombing_attempt#continuation.2C_and_car_vs_truck_discussion

I seek guidance so I have worded this section in a neutral way, not advocating one way or the other.

If there is no response here, then for consistency, this infobox will be changed to car bomb for consistency in Wikipedia. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I changed the infobox to car bomb to be consistent with the terminology. Although it was a truck, the category of bomb that was used was a car bomb. The best option would be to have the car bomb article be named "vehicle bomb" as this would prevent any confusion when something like a box truck or SUV is used. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. It was a truck bomb. The news reports (RS) call it a truck bomb. A vehicle bomb would just be a Wikipedia-created term. Original research is prohibited. The Times Square bomb was technically a truck bomb. Some news reports call it so. More call it a car bomb. Some news reports did not want to call it a truck bomb for fear of being accused of sensationalism and distorting things and being anti-Muslim. So calling the Times Square bomb a car bomb is within the realm of acceptable. For Oklahoma City, sorry, no way. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought this was just a notification, but since there is preference for one way over the other I guess discussion would be best. A car bomb is a classification of bombing, so that wouldn't qualify as original research. If you visit the car bombing article, they have a diagram indicating several different types of car bombings, including a use of a car, van, or truck. It would be similar to listing something like an aircraft hijacking when it could include a private plane, a passenger jet, or a helicopter. If the car bombing article doesn't seem clear enough for the various types of terrorist attacks then that needs to be clarified at that article's page. I don't think listing the basic classification type in the infobox here is going to have any sensationalism issues either. I don't think we have to worry about including a citation. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The long standing version is "truck bomb". Wikipedia practice is that the long standing version is the version until consensus changes. Not the new version. There are many examples where I thought the new version is better, but people are very vocal about the long standing version being the consensus and the the new version has to prove it is the new consensus, not the other way around.

Also the use of WP as a deciding definition is not allowed. WP can't use WP as a reference. I once used WP as a WP reference and was warned not to. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Google hits show more hits to Oklahoma City truck bomb compared to Oklahoma City car bomb. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

After consulation with the Wikipedia help desk, the established version of "truck bomb" appears to be used until further consensus develops. This is because the bomb was a truck bomb, truck bomb is used by RS more than car bomb, and because truck bomb is the established usage in this article. This is a clear cut case, unlike the Faisal Shahdez Times Square truck bomb, where a small truck was used, more RS use car bomb but a minority of RS do use truck bomb. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AHelp_desk&action=historysubmit&diff=362643193&oldid=362635597 Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article was not being used as a citation to support the details, as it shouldn't be. I referred to the image within the article (an image published outside of the article) showing the different types of vehicles to illustrate how the term "car bomb" refers to more than just a Ford Focus. There is obviously going to be more hits as it was a truck used. I'm curious though as to why we would want to redirect away from the car bomb article which covers all details (well, for how developed it is) related to vehicles being used to house bombs. If there was an article solely devoted to truck bombs, then I would agree with you. The use of the category in the infobox should be helpful for readers to direct them to an article that refers to what the bombing type consists of as well as other examples. I would say the main issue again is dealing with either expanding/clarifying what differences there are between a car/truck bomb at the car bomb article and/or having separate articles devoted to the topics. For sources outside of Wikipedia, I found details on car/truck bomb being used interchangeably or one or the other being used. For me, it's not that big a deal for a basic infobox classification. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

"militia movement sympathizer"

Since it doesn't seem to be enough to be bold, would somebody kindly point me to the conclusive evidence? I have also read the McV article and couldn't find it either there. I think references are important in order for any of this to make sense. 85.76.96.57 (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in the article. Usually, it's great that there is a desire to have additional citations for the article. However, for the opening sentence about something that was commonly reported on in the media and trial, I don't think that needs to be cited in the lead. I have added the same wording to the motivation section, along with two new sources. As the lead is a summary of the article, the citations should be sufficient to cover the details mentioned in the lead (see WP:LEAD for guidelines). It's better to be bold in finding new citations to support statements that could be confusing, but thanks for pointing this out so that they could be found. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

60 terrorist plots foiled?

There is a statement in the article that "From 1995 to 2005, over 60 domestic terrorism plots were foiled due to preventive measures taken in response to the bombing." However, this is NOT what is described in the source listed - rather, 60 terrorist events were planned and/or successfully executed; many of them had nothing to do with "federal buildings." To take one example from the article cited: "Benjamin Nathaniel Smith kills two and wounds nine in a shooting spree." This hardly sounds like a "foiled" terrorist attempt. I recommend removing this line completely, or modifying the statement to reflect the source - namely, that right-wing domestic terrorist organizations are still active in the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdhulljr (talk • contribs) 19:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the statement stating that sixty "federal building" terrorism plots were foiled? The statement says domestic terrorism plots, with some related to federal buildings and other targets/people. Please see the first source included after the statement that states "foiled". --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Local TV news broadcasts

Has no one noticed the local TV coverage of the event?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWwrEEP8EBk

How do you account for the presence of 2 high explosive duds found in the basement of the building?

What about the Terry Nichols testimony

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/660197443/Nichols-says-bombing-was-FBI-op.html

corroborated by David Paul Hammer's account of his conversations with Timothy McVeigh:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Paul_Hammer#Timothy_McVeigh_and_the_Oklahoma_City_Bombing

And then there's OKC survivor and former HUD employee Jane Graham's account of seeing 3 men with blocks of black putty, "telephone wires" (which I guess means twisted pair) and blueprints of the building in the parking garage the day before the explosion?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGdtgotcZdw

Rwinkel (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If you haven't seen already, there is an article that details the conspiracy theories of the event. This article covers the accepted layout of events while the theories article touches on the many inconsistencies and additional views on what happened. The theories article could use with some expansion if the added details are cited to reliable sources (YouTube videos don't work, but that Desert News one would be a helpful addition). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I couldnt help but smirk at the mention of the waco shooting when it stated that the feds were shot first. lawl.208.3.91.194 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC).

Live TV coverage

Where are the videos of the live TV coverage? Obviously not on Youtube. --188.23.180.208 (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

You can probably find it within assorted documentaries which I've seen in the past available on YouTube and Google Videos. I don't know if there's some government archive that has all media footage stored somewhere, maybe the museum would be able to help you with that. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Oklahoma City Bombing RARE footage and don't miss General Ben Partin (ret.), explosives expert. If you're looking for video to support the official version it was never released by the Federal government. Interesting commentary [1][2] 207.119.116.241 (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Attack type: terrorism

Hi, I believe the box in the upper-right of the article should list "terrorism" as one of the "Attack types", in addition to "truck bomb" already there. The main September 11 attacks page lists terrorism as an attack type, so it seems like it should be here too. I realize terrorism is a word not thrown around lightly on Wikipedia, but this article already mentions derivates on the word "terror" four times in the summary, so it seems appropriate. Also, there is a less convincing case that "mass murder" should also be included as an attack type. Dtemp (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Bomb location

I was very surprised to find out that the government did a study on this case - the Elgin Blast Effects Study. It confirmed Partin - a truck bomb of any size could not have done the damage seen. The explosive had to be inside and on the piers. They concluded that McVeigh was a "useful idiot" but certainly not the main man. It is surprising how this story still lives on - the entire mess - when it was foolish from day one.159.105.80.220 (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

2nd and 3rd bombs

Why does the article not reference 2nd and 3rd bombs? Not only were there multiple media reports regarding this (and they can be found on youtube today) but also written documents. See:

• here and
• here and
• here

Actually you can find many many references to a 2nd bomb and a 3rd bomb that were found and removed by searching the historical record of news reports of that time. They did not refer to a "Tow missile" like the article currently states (and for which one of the references is a bad link). Any thoughts on this? SunSw0rd (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Please refer to the archives, I believe this has been touched on several times already. As we focus on verifiability, these sources are not reliable for covering any details about other bombs outside of the truck bomb and mock TOW missile. Looking through several of the various after action reports from different agencies, I haven't seen anything beyond the one bomb (as well as the other books/articles), so any information about other potential bombs would probably help to support the daughter conspiracy theories article (again, if reliable sources are available, which so far I haven't been able to find). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh please... any one with a half-a-brain knows at this point that your so-called "reliable sources" systematically construct a matrix of propaganda and lies. It is not too hard to figure out that the OKC bombing was staged by the US government either. 24.11.186.64 (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

1983 Plot to bomb the Murrah building

I moved the section on the 1983 Plot to bomb the Murrah building to the Target Selection section to show a history of white supremacists' (specifically the Covenant, the Sword, and the Arm of the Lord) targeting of the building. It was in the Arrests section following the claim that the FBI thought that "the bombing was done by Christian fascists acting on conspiracy theories." The actions of the CSA in 1983 are unrelated to any "Christian fascist" groups the FBI may have been concentrating on after the 1995 bombing. The CSA was effectively broken up after its leadership was sentenced to length federal prison sentences in 1985. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutchman57 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with the organization and their disbandment (our article on the organization is pretty terrible), so the FBI investigations must have been considering similar groups after learning of this prior plot. The current placement works, although I reworded the statement to remove the name of the justice who denied the appeal as it doesn't relate to this article. Readers can visit Snell's article for additional details related to the appeal. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

assertion that change in procedures resulting from OKC stopped 60 terrorist attacks

This statement was made in the first section of the article and two sources (SPLC, and a San Diego Paper) were cited. I thought wow - 60 foiled attacks?! So I read the references - but neither reference made the assertion that changes in procedure from the OKC bombing stopped 60 terrorist attacks. What the article simply states is that 60 alleged attacks were foiled or in fact DID occur after the OKC bombing. This is FAR different than the assertion. Why is my edit reverted - My agenda is to be truthful and factual - what agenda is the reverter pushing? Could you at least give me the courtesy of SHOWING me where the references articles make that assertion - I don't see it in either. If I am wrong, I'll apologize for the mistake. I am deleting that again. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.125.207 (talk) 07:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to the article. Usually when a statement is supported by citations, removing them without an initial discussion on the talk page may be considered vandalism and reverted (the editor who reverted you likely had no agenda). Anyway, looking over the sources, it appears you are correct. Those sources do not indicate the direct correlation, and further details are provided as to the prevention in the other sources within the aftermath section (the lead is just a summary of the rest of the article). In the future, if you find something believed to be incorrect, don't just delete the citations from the article, it's better to re-word the statement or bring it up on the talk page first. A discussion will help clarify if there is a reason something is included (sometimes you need to check the archives since the same discussion may have already occurred) and a few days may sometimes be necessary. Immediate changes aren't always required as some editors who watchlist an article aren't on here every day (also, constant reverts risk WP:3RR). I hope you continue to contribute to Wikipedia, and please let me know if you have any questions. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thank you that is a fair response - I have deleted it twice and it was reverted. Now we "talked" about it. Now I am going to delete it again and see what happens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.125.207 (talk) 07:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The removal of the statement in the lead makes sense as it indicated it was as a direct result of the bombing that the plots were foiled. Whether that may be true or not, the sources don't indicate that so that statement should be removed. However, within the aftermath section for the recent removal, it indicates that attacks were foiled during a time period (1995-2005). No assumptions are indicated. Since the sources do support the number of potential terrorism events and provide the dates, I've re-added the deleted material. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No, in fact the sources do not claim that 60 plots were 'foiled' they claim 60 plots were 'uncovered'. Quite a number of these 'plots' in fact were 'uncovered' AFTER their successful occurrence. Please don't just skim the article headline, read the 60 cases - all 60 were not 'foiled', and the article never implies that the ones that were foiled were foiled due to anything put in place by OKC experience (you recognize this). I won't even get into the fact that a significant number of these 'terrorist plots' if you fully read the article were run of the mill "hate crimes"... The important part is for people to understand that 60 'terrorist plots' were not 'foiled' - the article doesn't claim that and the aftermath section should be edited to clarify that - it is wholly misleading. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.125.207 (talk) 09:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I've reworded it to eliminate the notion that all sixty plots were foiled. The section now states that sixty plots were tracked during the time period and that it was a combination of plots that did succeed and some that were prevented. Even if you or I consider them hate crimes or other titles, it's going off of the source's classification of "terrorist plots". The reworded statements will avoid any confusion for readers that all sixty were foiled due to a result of the OCB and provide the citations for their own reference. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Ruby Ridge not "mishandled".

Motivated by his hatred of the federal government and angered by what he perceived as its mishandling of the Waco Siege (1993) and the Ruby Ridge incident (1992), McVeigh timed his attack to coincide with the second anniversary of the deadly fire that ended the siege at Waco.

I think it is inaccurate to describe McVeigh's motivation as being the result of his belief that the Ruby Ridge "incident" (in particular) was "mishandled". I won't go into great detail here, but the history of the Federal Government's role in the events that led up to OKC is a very long one, and wiki's attempt at boiling it all down to this one very feeble sentence feels extraordinarily biased. A government "mishandles" the processing of a parking ticket, and McVeigh believed what the Federal Government had done up to that point more closely resembled delibarate felonious crimes to include entrapment and murder.````Jonny Quick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonny Quick (talk • contribs) 15:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I identified both the OKC Bombers and provided evidence that led to their arrest

I own Pat's Pawn & Gun shop in Ogden, Kansas, on April 21,1995 around noon I was called on a gun trace from Agent Reeves of the ATF on a Glock pistol that I sold in 1991, I looked up the gun record and found that I had sold it to Timothy Mcveigh, I already knew Mcveigh was involved in the OKC bombing, I was shown composite drawings by military agents the day before on April 20, and told them I sold John Doe 1 several guns "Mcveigh", did not tell me what this was about, seen the composite drawings on TV later, starting searching my records and had a hunch ,found a bad check on a Michigan account he had wrote me on his last Purchase which led me to the gun transaction and positive identification. I notified the military agents at Ft. Riley who showed me the composite drawing earlier telling them it was Mcveigh, they told me that a Nichols might of been involved, I also called the Riley County Police Department and told the detective that Timothy Mcveigh was a suspect in the OKC Bombing, he ran him on his computer and the only record that he found was that he was in a bar fight in Aggieville in Manhattan, Ks and had no outstanding warrants. I had just identified the first terrorist involved in the OKC bombing and had evidence to prove it. On april 21,around noon was called on this gun trace on the Glock pistol Mcveigh was carrying when he was stopped by the Oklahoma Patrol, I gave ATF Agent all the information off the gun record and insisted the importance of this trace, faxed him this gun record, he caught on and said there would be Federal Agents in my store within the hour. Two Agents came charging into my store, an FBI and a ATF Agent, they showed me the composite drawing that I had seen the day before, I positively identified him as Timothy Mcveigh and gave them the gun record he filled out when he purchased the Glock pistol from me, I also gave them the gun record I had found the day before on the Tec-9 purchase and the bad check he wrote me. I also gave them a gun record on Terry Nichols that I had found earlier, They were on the phone in a panic, one running outside, I guess Mcveigh was on his way to post bail and be released, they didn't know that he was involved in the OKC bombing in Perry,Oklahoma. I positively identified both the OKC Bombers. I worked for months helping the FBI and ATF on the OKC bombing investigation . I asked for my documents and evidence back from the FBI , but could not get any satisfaction. I wrote President Bush telling him what I had done and asked for the return of my property , he instructed the FBI to return my documents and evidence that I had provided them on April 21,1995 since the case was over, On April 2, 2008 I was invited to go before the Kansas Legislature to receive recognition for identifying the OKC Bombers and providing evidence that led to their arrest and for working on the investigation for months, it was entered into the history of the Kansas House Journal on that day. I never ever got a thank you from the FBI or ATF or was called to testify ! Patrick J.E. Livingston Pat's Pawn & Gun Shop Inc Ogden,Kansas — Preceding unsigned comment added by HardnoseMP (talk • contribs) 12:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

orginal memorial statue

What ever happened to the original statue that was going to be part of the memorial? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.129.57 (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

the faults in the article on the Oklahoma bombing

There is no sense at all in deleting portions of your article on the Oklahoma Bombing. The entire article is but a reiteration of the official US government line, and presents no evidence whatsoever that it is true.It is in fact a compendium of citations from people who had no direct evidence and other with no expertise in the field of explosive destruction of buildings. IT IS IN FACT A TISSUE OF LIES You want citations? Fine. The Partin Report. Benjamin Partin Brigadier General USAF He was the head of the USAF bomb laboratory. If you need a citAtion to support this fact go to the USAF archives. I can copy paste it from Archives but then if you are going to delete this post you will just delete that. second the testimony of CAROL HOWE. She was a registered confidential informant for the United States Dept of the treasury , Bureau of ATF. This is the truth You know it I know it . Further I will site all the text concerning the subject in the Mc Murtain daily gazzette. furthermore there is the deposition of Grand Juror Hoppy Heidelberg. there are about forty other works and persons sworn testimony. i WITTINESS'S UNLIKE ANY YOU HAVE IN YOUR account I will cite THEM ALL AND THE SOURCES but not if you are just going to delete it

I am stating my intentions to reiterate and cite material and sources rather than taking the time to do so. If you are going to delete my work. Please state your intentions here and save me the trouble. If you wish me to continue please state that also.99.161.109.17 (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I would invite you to review the lengthy discussions found in the archives about the additions of the Partin report, which has been discussed multiple times. As multiple conspiracy theories exist about the event it would be undue weight to place so much emphasis on the Partin report in contrast to the current cited information. The article cites multiple reliable citations from independent news organizations, academic journals, and books by various authors, requirements of Wikipedia's verifiability, and reliable source focus. The recently re-created Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories article would benefit from further expansion in adding additional details. The burden is placed on the editor adding the material, especially for contentious material that is added. If you have reliable sources, the conspiracy theories article would benefit from further expansion and, if better developed, would be helpful for interested readers on the alternate thoughts to the details provided by the government, investigators, and media. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Pardon for my coming in late on this. There appears to be no mention of a Partin report, or a USAF Bomb laboratory on the Oklahoma City bombing page. To state that including any information from it at all is to give it undue weight is to say that you discredit it entirely. Has it officially been discredited? If not, does not the fact that it is (evidently) a product of a US government agency not give caché? Nehrams, you mention "look at the archives" several times. I see no explicit link to said archives. Are you speaking of simply going into the history list for this page and choosing some random edit point? If not, could you provide a link for me? I decline to edit in ignorance of the history of the page. --50.39.81.178 (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The Archives Nehrams is talking about is the talk page archives the link for which can be found at the top of this page.--Dcheagle 02:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

How can I find the archived talk discussion about the Partin report? I went to the "Dch" and the "eagle" link, but there was no discussion at either of those links. How can I access archived talk discussions that are removed from the talk page? Gauzeandchess (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

To Acroterion: In response to your justification for deleting the information I provided, “please provide an appropriate citation from a reliable source”, the following is information leading to the cited source. This information is intended to improve the Wikipedia Article about the Oklahoma City bombing. The Department of Defense Atlantic Command issued a memo at 0500l (I don’t know if ‘l’ means local time in Oklahoma City or some other time zone.) on 20April1995 in response to the Oklahoma City Bombing either to or from CDR (Commander) Mark Finch. The following is a duplication of that memo in its entirety: 20April1995 CDR Mark Finch J3323/4-5636 MSCA UPDATE Oklahoma City Bombing Relief Operation 1. Situation (As of 0500L, 20 April): - At 191015 local a major explosion occurred in the Federal Building in Oklahoma City -One bomb from a car parked in front of the building with an estimated 1200 pounds of explosive is believed to be the source. A second bomb was disarmed, a third bomb was evacuated. 2. Sequence of events last 24 hours: - Established a Defensive Coordinating Officer and element in Oklahoma City - Coordinated with DOMS and TRANSCOM to transport DOJ Crime Scene vans from Andrews AFB to Tinker AFB. - Coordinated with DOMS and TRANSCOM to move Urban Search & Rescue (US&R) Teams from Phoenix and Sacramento. Two more teams are scheduled to be transported this morning (Virginia Beach and New York City teams). - Sent EXORD for disaster relief operations establishing Tinker AFB as the Base Support Installation (BSI). - Provided two MEDEVAC helicopters and two dog teams for bomb threat support from Ft Sill. - Provided ambulances and rescue teams with dogs from Tinker AFB. 3. Summary of DoD support to date: -DCO and DCE - 2 MEDEVAC Helos -BSI - Dog Teams for bomb threat support - Ambulances - Rescue teams with dogs. 4. Anticipated tasking/events next 24 hours: - Complete transport of US&R teams. - Body Bags.

This Memo was then cited on the 2001 WorldNetDaily.com internet site on 23 April 2001 by Jon Dougherty, who “is an award winning American freelance investigative journalist” according to Wikipedia. Wikipedia also states that the “Subjects he has reported on include: the Keating Five scandal and the S&L crisis, Arizona Governor Five Symington III, the FLDS Church and its leader Warren Jeffs, and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio” and “In 2010, he ran as a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Arizona”. 1. I claim that the Department of Defense is “a reliable source” and that Jon Dougherty is “a reliable source” for citation. 2. I provided information on the source’s authority and date when I cited the Department of Defense on 20April1995 in the edit that you deleted. Should I have further clarified the source as the Atlanta Command or stated the time the memo was sent or received in order for you to consider the source as “an appropriate citation”? I provided a link of the memo to http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/Oklahoma%20City%20Cover-up/dod.jpg in my comments line. 3. This information was deleted by you and there was no citation for evidence that the information I provided was untrue while I did cite the information from the Department of Defense indicating that the information was true, was “appropriate”, and was “from a reliable source”. The OKC bombing rescue operation was suspended on two separate occasions due to explosives discovered attached to supporting columns and to support removal and disposal of those explosives. This is the only question of importance: Does this cited information help or hurt the Wikipedia Community? Answering this question is itself dependent upon who is being hurt and who is being helped. This information hurts people that are covering up the truth about the OKC bombing and this information helps people who want to know the truth was about the OKC bombing, especially who did it, where ‘it’ refers to who placed the explosives on the columns. And it is not off topic to cite evidence that the rescue operation was suspended to remove discovered explosives. That is what the OKC bombing article is about, the bombing. Neither would it be off topic to cite evidence that the bombing could not have done the damage without additional explosives. There is no reason to believe that the Department of Defense is an inappropriate source, that censoring this information is going to help the Wikipedia community, or that censoring this information is reasonable. The Wikipedia community includes the American people who are at risk from further and future false flag operations conducted by their own government and Israelis that kill them. This article is about the OKC bombing. Covering the facts of the issue is what, as I claim here, this article covers. Gauzeandchess (talk) 05:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily is not a reliable source: very much the opposite. It is most definitely not acceptable for use on Wikipedia by longstanding consensus in the community. jesus-is-savior.com doesn't seem to be a journalistic organization. Please find appropriate references in reputable major media outlets. If Dougherty is a reliable source the material should be available elsewhere in reviewed books or major media organizations. Please do not use talkpages as soapboxes for your views on the US government and Israel: there's already been enough of that here. Your commentary indicates that you wish to reveal a Truth: Wikipedia is a tertiary source that follows mainstream media and is not a means of publishing fringe material out of proportion to its coverage in mainstream media. Acroterion (talk) 13:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I am citing the memo that was sent by the Department of Defense Atlantic Command under Commander Mark Finch at 0500l on 20April1995. I reproduced the memo so that you could view it here in the event you would not be able to access Department of Defense memos through the Freedom of Information Act. I also cited the source I viewed the memo at, which was WorldNetDaily, so that you or any other Wikipedia editor could verify its authenticity. Is this memo produced by the Department of Defense allowed by you, by any other Wikipedia editor, or by Wikipedia's minimum criteria for source acceptance? If yes, then please acknowledge that the memo is acceptable. If not, then please help me understand what else I need to do to cite this memo in such a way that satisfies Wikipedia's criteria. It seems unreasonable to pay to access the Department of Defense's archives of memos if Jon Dougherty has made the memo accessible on WorldNetDaily. Who is responsible for the proving the memo exists? If I hypothetically acquire the memo or a copy of the memo from the Department of Defense, would this information be challenged by Wikipedia editors because I am unpublished or I am not considered a reliable source? 113.53.233.9 (talk) 09:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No, you aren't a reliable source, nor am I. Wikipedia doesn't accept original research from primary sources: it is a tertiary source, relying on published, reviewed secondary sources rather than individual government documents, court transcripts, research notes and the like. WND is not to be relied upon to establish that the sun rises in the east: it is emphatically not acceptable on Wikipedia. You'll have to find a reliable secondary source for this material. See WP:OR, WP:V and WP:RS for more. Acroterion (talk) 12:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Motivation is superficial

The second chapter of Gore Vidal's 2002 book 'Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace', is entitled 'How I became interested in Timothy McVeigh and vice versa.' Vidal makes a case, evidently drawing on the book by Joel Dyer, 'Harvest of Rage', that the hatred and rage of some of these American extremists may be rooted in the wrenching economic hardship that US family farmers were undergoing in the 1980s and 1990s, caught between dropping crop prices and rising interest rates. It does appear that there was an increase in suicides among middle-american farmers around this time, and a thesis that this economically-driven desperation could contribute to extremism has some plausibility--and merits mention, especially because peasant militancy as a result of economic change is a staple of history, and creates a much deeper and meaningful context than merely saying 'oh, they were gun nuts pissed off at Waco and Ruby Ridge, end of story.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.81.227.196 (talk) 06:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect usage of 'sympathetic detonation'

Article stated:

The blast destroyed or burned 86 cars around the site, causing sympathetic detonations from the vehicles' gas tanks and tires.

However, that is incorrect, and appears to be unsupported by the referenced sources. Being that they are filled with gasoline or diesel fuel, which both require an oxidizer, and that the fire, not shock, from the initial explosion was the cause of the secondary explosions, the vehicle fuel tanks were clearly examples of deflagration... not detonation. Tom (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

april fool ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.38.52 (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You're 3 days late. ZappaOMati 22:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Kansas Gun Dealer Identified OKC Bombers for ATF and FBI

To Acroterion= I was commended before the entire Kansas Legislature on March 14, 2008 and received commendations for positively identifying both the Oklahoma City bombing suspects and providing evidence that led to their arrest, this information has been researched and documented by the FBI 302 signed and dated by ATF and FBI Agents, on this date this information was entered into the Kansas House Journal as part of the history of the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma city, you can verify this information by going to "Pat's Pawn & Gun Shop, Oklahoma City Bombing" "Journal of the House" and read the entry or by going to U-tube and watching the entire ceremony before the Kansas Legislature "Kansas Gun Dealer identified Oklahoma City Bombers" I provided documents and gun records to both the Governors of Kansas and Oklahoma. The reason that it took so long was that the FBI would not give me back my gun records and evidence until 2008, I wrote to President Bush and he returned all my documents and evidence that I had provided The ATF and FBI on April 21, 1995 .HardnoseMP (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

We appreciate that, but it's not appropriate for you to insert material about yourself into the encyclopedia article: Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, and no editor should use Wikipedia to publish their own personal research or opinions, or to give themselves credit on a given subject. That keeps Wikipedia from becoming a battleground of individual opinion. I'm sure you'll understand how that policy is vital to maintaining a freely-editable resource in an at least nominally neutral voice. Acroterion (talk) 11:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Editing out paragraphs

There were 2 very inappropriate information parts that were possibly giving weapon building information ideas needed to be edited out and I did. Orgio89 (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

You took out huge swaths of referenced material, much of which had nothing to do with bomb construction. Wikipedia is not censored, and the material was germane to the topic and widely disseminated. "Possibly" is not sufficient reason. Acroterion (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

interesting the dissimilar Branch Davidian Adventist sectarian faith and McVeigh Catholic faith.75.120.185.200 (talk) 06:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Seismology

I know it's not necessarily of top importance however the article states the blast to being approximateley a magnitude 3 on the Richter scale. This raised two concerns firstly in the referenced article I see nothing that states the magnitude of earthquake (however I'm willing to admit I may have missed something so please feel free to point it out). Furthermore it seems very unlikely that the magnitude would we given as a Richter value as this scale generally fell out of use in the 1970s-1980s in favour of the Moment Magnitude Scale. Anyway I'll give it a week for anyone to respond with more info and then I will see if I can verify the existing statement or if need be dig around for a referenceable replacement. SamC1404 (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Elgin Blast Effects Study - commissioned by the government - proved that the building could not have been destroyed in the manner described here ( the governments only scenario). The final word on this article is redo it, it's all garbage propaganda and pretty poor propaganda at that. 159.105.81.107 (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

including 19 children under the age of 6

I don't think this needs to be said. Mainstream media emphasizes on children lives that are lost to feed on emotion, but it seems to hurt the neutrality when I read it. Why not list the number of adults as well? It's specifically children. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Ageism is one of the last mainstream acceptable isms. Fixed it to "14 adults and 6 children". If someone insists, "6 children and 14 adults" could work. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Confusion on the vehicles

I am confused about the types of vehicles used in this bombing.

The explosives were contained in a Ryder panel truck. The get away car was the 1977 Mercury Marquis. But the article mentions a rented Ford F-700 pickup truck that was also rented from Ryder and was left at the site prior to the bombing with the note attached. Is this Ford F-700 the same as the Ryder panel truck? If so, perhaps the paragraphs could be written to clarify this. A panel truck is not the same as a pickup truck If they were separate vehicles, than I would appreciate someone more knowlwedgable than I am to explain it further. Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes the Ford F-700 was the panel truck. The paragraph is a little confusing, I don't have time right now to rewrite it but I'll take a look at it later today. Hope that helps.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 17:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Number for Housing and Urban Development staff dead is incorrect

The article states that one person from HUD died. This is not correct. I believe the number is closer to 30. I personally supervised at least five. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.96.120.12 (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Lede - most destructive act of terror

The lede mentions the bombing as the most destructive act of terror until 9/11. Doesn't Pearl Harbor win here?--Gloriousglib (talk) 07:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The Pearl Harbor attack was an action by military forces against other military forces. While it happened before a formal declaration of war, and was therefore seen as reprehensible, no historians that I'm aware of would call it an act of terrorism. Acroterion (talk) 12:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, more on point, don't things like the behavior of whites (KKK, Tulsa race riot and so on) toward blacks, or the citizens in general toward Indians (think of the numerous broken promises and Trail of Tears) or Mexicans (think Mexican Repatriation) count as more terroristic in nature than 1 building getting bombed? I am sure there are many specific and graphic examples if we dig deeper. Just the Tulsa Race Riot alone left an estimated 10,000 blacks homeless, between 30-300 dead, and burned 35 city blocks (1,256 residences). If that isn't terrifying, I don't know what is. It seems better for this article to simply leave the hyperbole out, and call it a bad thing, as it was, but leave the hype out. -- Avanu (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps see Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/April 19#Vicennial (20th anniversary) of the Oklahoma City bombing

For those who are interested, the twentieth anniversary of the event will be in just a short while (April 19), and 20 being divisible by 10, this can be classified as a "major" anniversary and the most significant since 2005. Take a look at Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/April 19#Vicennial (20th anniversary) of the Oklahoma City bombing. Dustin (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Why doesn't the Oklahoma Bombing show on the "This Day in History" page for 19 April? It should show for 1995. But, if it is there, I can't find it! Can someone add it please? What guidelines are there for what shows on "This Day in History" pages? If no reply by 1200 on 18 April I will try to add it myself. To me the bombing was THE most important event in US history to occur on April 19 in any year.SgtPepper (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Simmons Tower

Can someone with more information add to the Simmons Tower what government agencies used to be housed there? (I've read American Terrorist, and IIRC it doesn't single out that building by name.) That article just lists its former names (consisting of major corporations) and I am highly skeptical that a government building would sell naming rights, but hey, I could be totally wrong. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources used to slant this article to be pro-McVeigh

I will be pruning out any primary source material from this article. Wikipedia articles are to be built from secondary sources. The jig is up. Abductive (reasoning) 10:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, but what has this got to do with their stance on McVeigh (pro or contra)? --154.69.49.179 (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

1 suspected death in the infobox

What's up with the 1 suspected death in the infobox & what's the source for it? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

There was an unidentified leg that was found which could belong to a 169th victim.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 19:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oklahoma City bombing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080315150945/www.cnn.com/US/9703/okc.trial/links.html to http://www.oklahomacitynationalmemorial.org/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Inclusion of Oklahoma City bombing in Ford Ford F-650 article

There is an RFC about a link to this article: 'Should the Ford Ford F-650 medium duty truck article include a mention in the body of the text or via a see also link the Oklahoma City bombing? See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Request for Comment: Inclusion of vehicle use in crimes as part of vehicle articles. Felsic2 (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

scary

The bomb sounds very scary.I hope nothing like that happens agian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C2:4100:2308:91D:2A97:5F55:989D (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Oklahoma City bombing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090324214032/http://nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/OKC_ForeignConnection.pdf to http://nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/OKC_ForeignConnection.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160420135829/https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/famous-cases/oklahoma-city-bombing to https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/famous-cases/oklahoma-city-bombing

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Oklahoma City bombing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19950511&slug=2120431
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,986240-1,00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,17500,00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,17501,00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/20/us/oklahoma-city-building-was-target-of-plot-as-early-as-83-official-says.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/21/us/white-supremacist-executed-for-murdering-2-in-arkansas.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/1997/04/30/us/for-first-time-woman-says-mcveigh-told-of-bomb-plan.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983291-1,00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0504170293apr17,0,6613315.story
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152211,00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,426564,00.html?sPage=fnc%2Fscitech%2Fnaturalscience
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131209172209/http://sulfn26.com/documents/Sulf-N_Fact_Sheet.pdf to http://www.sulfn26.com/documents/Sulf-N_Fact_Sheet.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oklahomacitynationalmemorial.org/secondary.php?section=2&catid=31
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19960416&slug=2324470
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.afge.org/Index.cfm?Page=PressReleases&PressReleaseID=431

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oklahoma City bombing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224100155/http://www.gsa.gov/graphics/pbs/Standards_Design_of_Buildings_to_Resist_Progressive_Collapse.pdf to http://www.gsa.gov/graphics/pbs/Standards_Design_of_Buildings_to_Resist_Progressive_Collapse.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Shock Tube

Had no one noticed that Tim (and other explosives users) were not doing hydrodynamics research when they purchased "Shock Tube"?

complete article to add, (including footnote and external reference not viewable):

Shock Tube Detonator is a small-diameter hollow plastic tubing used to transport an initiating signal to an explosive charge by means of a weak explosion, propagated inside the tube without bursting it, but powerful enough to initiate a blasting cap or other primary explosive placed at the end or at designated locations. The most common product is 3 mm od. and 1 mm id, with a tiny dusting of HMX/aluminum explosive powder on the tubing's inner surface, which detonates down the tube at a speed greater than 6500 feet per second. Other versions contained the explosive on an enclosed fiber, or as an explosive gas mixture. Being non-electrical and non-metallic, shock tubes are less sensitive to static electricity and radio frequency energy and thus have replaced many uses of electric detonators. The gas-mixture versions have the additional advantage of being entirely inert until the tubing is charged with the gas.

One manufacturer estimates that over 2 billion feet of shock tube are used each year worldwide, in commercial blasting, military demolition, theatrical special effects, automobile airbags, aircraft escape systems and professional fireworks.

• Shock Tube Systems Inc, (Sterling, CT)
• Daniel C. Rontey, SHOCK TUBE TECHNOLOGY: A REVIEW

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.171.250 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 19 April 2010

Cleaning McVeigh's Image

I noticed that some editors are attempting to clean McVeigh's image in the article.

Might be some sympathizer with him or his cause, attempting to reword the article in way to down play his actions.

Seem a little like they are paint him like a semi hero.

Just an observation.

-Yep. He is a hero to the right wing nuts, fascists, doomsday preprers and to the "sovereign citizens". With this detailed description, who needs to read "Anarchist Cookbook"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.222.210 (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Right wing extremism?

The sidebar claims that this is an instance of right wing extremism, is there a citation to support this claim? It does not seem to be supported by the article itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.252.164 (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Security Tape Footage

The following is from the Conspiracy page, however, the footage issues seems valuable to the main topic, and if its going to be in the conspiracy theory section, it should take precedence over the others listed, since it's relatively factual.

---

On September 28, 2009, Jesse Trentadue, a Salt Lake City attorney, released security tapes that he obtained from the FBI through the Freedom of Information Act that show the Murrah building before and after the blast from four security cameras. The tapes are blank at points before 9:02 am, the time of detonation. Trentadue said that the government's explanation for the missing footage is that the tape was being replaced at the time. Said Trentadue, "Four cameras in four different locations going blank at the same time on the morning of April 19, 1995. There ain't no such thing as a coincidence."[38][39] Trentadue became interested in the case when his brother, Kenneth Michael Trentadue, died in federal custody, during what Trentadue believes was an interrogation because Kenneth was mistaken for a possible conspirator in the Oklahoma City bombing.[40]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.53.25 (talk) 03:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Type of bomb

According to the Wikipedia page on ANFO, the bomb used was actually made up of ANNM. Personally, I don't know which was used but someone should resolve this conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.47.249.16 (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

What was the building made of

. 2603:8081:4504:17AD:80B2:F5D3:7069:5EC6 (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Reinforced concrete according to the building's article. Greyjoy ^talk 03:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Recommendation to remove the "Building the Bomb" topic

The topic of how they made the bomb would be somewhat counterproductive to preventing further events from happening as it gives just about all information needed to entirely re-make the bomb used in the bombing. Cayde-6d2 (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Right-wing terrorism and extremism tags

I noticed that these tags were recently removed then restored to the sidebar [4]. Looking at the talk page history there is almost no discussion of these tags and little discussion of "right-wing" in general. Looking at the article history it appears the tags were first added by TheSouthernIrishman almost a year back. Looking at a sampling of article dates before that it doesn't appear that right-wing or similar was used in the article sidebar. It looks like an IP editor added right-wing terrorist to the lead in Sept 2021 using an OpEd and an article about domestic terrorism in general [5]. These were added only to the lead and based on edit history they appear to be disputed. The body of the article doesn't appear to support these tags thought I'm sure some sources would support them. Given that these tags (and content in the lead) should follow from the body these should probably stay out. However, I also suspect finding sources to support these may not be hard. I would suggest they should be removed absent sourcing that specifically talks about this as a right-wing crime vs as a anti-government crime (well sourced in the body). Springee (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Absent any feedback I will remove the content in question per comments above. Springee (talk) 02:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Removed. Springee (talk) 13:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

"Larry Mackey" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Larry Mackey and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 25#Larry Mackey until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are not valid sources

I am writing this discussion because of a “ source “ sited in the summary specifically the lines “ Perpetrated by two anti-government extremists with white supremacist, right-wing terrorist sympathies,[2][3] “ The source I have an issue with is the [2] where it cites an opinion piece by the New York Times . I do not have any issue with the summary given to the perpetuators of the bombing but I do have an issue with an opinion piece being sited as a source . I suggest that specific source is removed to ensure the level of quality the other sources have 72.48.54.219 (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

The source appears to be this one: Since that summary is also supported by the article's body (with other sources such as Apocalypse in Oklahoma), even if that NYT source is indeed editorial opinion, it's not a WP:BLP issue, it is from a reputable journalist and publisher (not self-published). My impression is that it's acceptable to leave it in. If removed, the sentence can still remain as-is and it presumably could be added to the Further reading subsection... —PaleoNeonate – 13:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

the white supremacy accusation is completely out of place and seems fabricated. people had more important things to worry about back then than childish squabbles around identity politics and race. this attack, from what i've read, seemed like a serious attack on government, and a serious attempt to topple the establishment. reducing it to ethnic. school yard type squabble completely misses the point.

interviewing someone in jail, who probably, being white. has to be in white gangs to survive jail, and using that new identity and retrospectively applying it to this event is the most ridiculous thing i have read and sticks out like a sore thumb J-E-N-O-V-A (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I find it amazing that people are taking issue with the known white supremacist being labeled a white supremacist 25 years after the event. Shout out to conservatives everywhere for making this nonsense mainstream again. 24.128.188.103 (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

References

per WP:RSEDITORIAL opinion pieces shouldn't be taken as factual sources. it clearly states "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact" CharlesViBritannia (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi CharlesViBritannia, it appears that two editors (User:Girth Summit and User:Discospinster) continue to revert any edits that remove these unsubstantiated claims, completely disregarding WP:RSEDITORIAL. It's telling that the articles they rely on were either written by non-expert political pundits or are retroactive "analyses" 25+ years after the fact, written in an attempt to tie modern fringe political movements to the bombing. The editors provide no contemporaneous sources that prove that McVeigh and Nichols were motivated by white supremacy or right-wing politics in their bombing of the Murrah Building (which, oddly enough, was populated almost entirely by white people). This is politically motivated nonsense and is so obvious. Anamelesseditor (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The ABCNews article says that "The FBI has said McVeigh was motivated by a desire to topple the U.S. government, but in a media interview before he was executed in June 2001, McVeigh also described members of the white power movement as his 'brothers in arms.'" This is not retroactive, it's describing what McVeigh said about himself at the time. ... discospinster _talk 20:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the concerns Anamelesseditor / the anonymous editors have expressed on the 'white supremacy' label being added via "retroactive 'analyses' 25+ years after the fact" ... that is what you do with Historiography: question previous assumptions and look at things again through a modern lens. This re-analysis happens all the time with historical figures. For examples, see Thomas Jefferson#Historical reputation or Woodrow Wilson#Historical reputation. In the case of McVeigh specifically, it does not appear that experts are using anything more sophisticated than the WP:DUCK test. — Kralizec! (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

You're leaving out the part where the duck spoke english and said 'hey everybody, im a duck. See my tail and my beak? Quack Quack'

I think it's far more likely that modern day white supremacists dont like that the most famous american domestic terrorist is known to share the same political beliefs that they do. This seems like a pretty clear attempt to whitewash history in an attempt to make this current rise of white supremacist sentiment in america more palatable. 24.128.188.103 (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Having just carefully read the NYT opinion piece in question, I see its assertion that McVeigh was a member of the white power movement is actually directly sourced to, and quoted from a published book. Specifically, the NYT piece says,

“ But there’s no way to understand McVeigh or his accomplices without looking deeper. As the historian Kathleen Belew notes in “Bring the War Home: The White Power Movement and Paramilitary America,” “McVeigh, trained as a combatant by the state, belonged to the white power movement. He acted without orders from movement leaders, but in concert with movement objectives and supported by resistance cell organizing.” ”

Author: Kathleen Belew, Book: Bring the War Home, Publisher: Harvard University Press, link.

If the concern is truly about WP:RSEDITORIAL, perhaps we could just bypass the whole issue by changing the white supremacy citation to this scholarly published source? Alternatively, if this is actually more of a WP:POV warrior issue, perhaps we could instead point them to Conservapedia? — Kralizec! (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The problem with the current description in the lead is that it violates WP:UNDUE. It is not a widely held view among sources that this attack was motivated by any kind of 'White supremacy'. To put that description in the lead, indeed in the very first few sentences, is POV-pushing. In regards to McVeigh saying years later that the "white power movement" were "his 'brothers in arms", he also said "Science is my religion." Neither of these things is a direct motivation for the attack itself, and should at best be put in other sections of the article. DayTime99 (talk) 04:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

White supremacist and/or anti government?

There has been some recent edit warring over the lead calling the perpetrators white nationalist. This was recently added to the lead with no additional justification and has since resulted in some back and forth which, per BRD should have ended up here after the first challenge to the edit. As a discussion question to kick this off, which sources say the perpetrators were motivated by white nationalimt vs anti-government feelings? We do have sources that say they were radicalized by such groups but do any say that was their motive or they were heavily involved with such groups? I'll take a look at the sources when I have a bit more time but absent consensus among sources saying they are, we shouldn't say they are. Springee (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the sourcing it does seem they were influenced by some white supremacist idea but the number of references is limited and the associations are limited. I don't see any sources that outright state the perpetrators were white supremacists vs anti-government. Absent better sourcing I oppose adding this to the lead as I don't think it is clearly supported in the body. Springee (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by white supremacists vs anti-government? My reading of the sources is that those responsible were both. Newimpartial (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Other than the SPLC, a less than ideal source, I'm not seeing much that says these people were really white supremacists or that their motives were WS. It seems they were basically anti-government. Springee (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I looked at the SPLC article. It looks more like back door promotion for the SPLC itself. I also fine it concerning that it was added by a SPA [6]. Unless we have good sources saying these people were white supremacists I agree the claim should be removed from the lead as unsupported. I also think the SPLC reference should be removed. We have plenty of high quality sources for this crime, why use a self promotional one from 25 years after the fact? Springee (talk) 00:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Recent, reliable sources are generally preferred over then-contemporary ones, by policy. Newimpartial (talk) 00:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This strikes me as fairly obvious; aside from sources like The New York Times ("The widely accepted narrative of McVeigh, who blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, is that he was a loner Army veteran with a venomous disdain for the government. But it is not generally known how connected he was to the white supremacist movement"), The Guardian (McVeigh was "an anti-government, white supremacist army veteran"), Slate (Charlottesville was "one of the most high-profile examples of white extremist violence in the United States since Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people in Oklahoma City") and Yahoo! News (describing the attack as "the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City by white supremacists"), the most important thing for me is Kathleen Belew's book Bring the War Home, the last chapter of which is dedicated to this attack and describes it as "the culmination of decades of white power organizing." As I say, seems well represented to me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll take a look at those sources. A concern I have with some of these later sources is they are from a time when politicians were trying to hype concerns about white supremacists and thus trying to force anything remotely close into that category for political rather than historically actuate purposes. While I do agree with Newimpartial's view that sources that have a more distant perspective are often better, that doesn't apply if they have a contemporary agenda. Are these connections newly discovered or did sources closer to the time note the connections as significant? For example the sources that quote the AG, a political position, aren't as good as Garland has a clear political objective in linking anti-government feelings with white-supremacists. What pre-Trump erra sources say? That would be still proved plenty of hindsight but avoid the politics of the Trump erra. Also as the perps are described as having connections to rather than being active participants we should use similar language and put the supremacists links later in the lead. The anti-government motives were clearly front and center based on the article and should be kept that way. Springee (talk) 09:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Without getting too far into the weeds about the motives of public figures, the basis of the "white supremacist" label is found in FBI investigation of the attack itself, and there is high quality scholarship about how those motives were initially downplayed and later confirmed. This isn't a revisionist interpretation. Newimpartial (talk) 09:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide sources? Looking at the sources in the wiki article I'm not seeing this but I haven't read through all of them. Springee (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I would still recommend looking at the Belew book, which is indeed a popular work, but by an academic and published by a major university press. It came out in 2018 prior to Charlottesville. For me it is the most important data point, but reasonable minds may certainly differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The white supremacist ties are mentioned in earlier works too. Kenneth S. Stern 1996 book A Force Upon the Plain: The American Militia Movement and the Politics of Hate mentions McVeigh Promoted The Turner Diaries at gun shows. "He carried the book all the time" (pg 192) and during his time as a soldier McVeigh was known as a racist. He used the word "n*****" and said that he thought blacks were inferior (pg 188). Ch 26 of the book is entirely devoted to the connections between the bombing, the militia movement, and white supremacy. The scholarly discussion of white supremacy's role in the OKC bombing is definitely not new. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

This seems like a clear cut case of WP:POV warrior to me. I find it rather interesting that people are taking issue with sources [2] and [3] 15 and 20 years after publishing. With the rapid increase of right wing domestic terrorism and the views of McVeigh becoming more mainstream in America, I don't think it's a coincidence that 'concerned citizens' are coming out of the woodwork now to take issue with the label. 24.128.188.103 (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

My comment was based on skimming the academic sources, and given paywalls and such, I can't offer a definitive link or pull quote quite yet. I do agree with your intuition that the best sources available on this topic are not yet used in the wiki article. Newimpartial (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

If you find some good, overall history ones that would be helpful. I would be concerned about sources that set out to tie these events to other events. I think our best sources in this case are ones that are indepth but not trying to make a non-obvious claim about the event. Springee (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Looking in detail at the recent revert history, this looks more and more like a single person who uses a variety of methods to assert the truth that white nationalists were not involved. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

New Book Coming out; looks to be a reliable source

I just wanted to draw everyone's attention to this book, as I think it will be quite relevant. I'll certainly grab it and give it a read when time allows. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

A game has referenced this

In Emergency Fighters for Life (A game made in 1989) Features this as a bomb threat mission (mission 18) 75.159.128.240 (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, 1998, not 1989. Still not sure it merits any mention in the article, but thanks for the note, IP. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

IMDB as a source

The "Rescue efforts" subsection of Response and relief uses IMDB as reference. Trivia items on IMDB pages are user-generated content and surely should not be used? Wikipedia:Citing IMDb

"Several cast and crew members filming for the 1996 movie Twister paused filming to come help with recovery efforts." https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117998/trivia?item=tr2127273

2.101.209.235 (talk) 19:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Resolved

Thanks for pointing this out. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:SPLC and the SPLC as a source

Hey folks. WP:SPLC states, “As an advocacy group, the SPLC is a biased and opinionated source. The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION. Take care to ensure that content from the SPLC constitutes due weight…”

In keeping with Wikipedia’s guidelines, I attempted to add in-text attribution to the SPLC’s claim that Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were white supremacists. (Never mind the fact that the article is pretty low-quality and actually says they were “radicalized by white supremacist propaganda”, which is not the same thing.)

However, this change to comply with Wikipedia’s guidelines was reverted by both User:Dumuzid and User:TulsaPoliticsFan, despite the point being raised on the Talk page and being unaddressed by them.

I won’t revert or make the change again to avoid an edit war, but I find the contention by these editors that the current version is a “consensus” to be odd, considering the number of times the spurious claims in it have been called into question. I also find it odd that the burden of achieving consensus is with the editor complying with Wikipedia’s guidelines and not with those purposefully ignoring them.

At this point I think it’s worth having an uninvolved admin weigh in. Anti-ideologue (talk) 01:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I added another citation in hopes of addressing this issue. Dumuzid (talk) 01:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I’d still argue that you need in-line attribution per WP:RSOPINION. Would you mind sharing the text from p. 210 of the noon source you added? Anti-ideologue (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure, really, the entire chapter could pretty much be cited, but I was thinking of this text: The hell McVeigh described represented the culmination of decades of white power organizing. McVeigh, trained as a combatant by the state, belonged to the white power movement. Dumuzid (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I put a hold on the book from the library because I’m very curious to see the evidence for the claim that McVeigh “belonged to the white power movement”.

Regardless, are you willing to add in-text attribution to this claim per WP:RSOPINION? It would also be good to make the sentence more precise, as its current wording isn’t supported by the SPLC article and neither source describes Terry Nichols as a white supremacist from what I can see.

I know I’m belaboring the point, but this really feels like an effort to retcon the bombing to make the current perceived threat of white supremacy feel more ominous. Toobin’s attempt to connect the bombing to the Jan. 6 riot is a pretty obvious example. Anti-ideologue (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Am I willing to attribute? Certainly, if that is the consensus view, but I would still lean toward non-attribution because it strikes me as a widely held view, especially of sources at some remove from the event. As to Nichols, he certainly gets less attention, and you make a decent point there. Belew does say that he participated in "severation . . . a widely used white power and militia movement strategy" and that he "subscribed to several white power publications." She also notes that McVeigh circulated the book Armed and Dangerous: The Rise of the Survivalist Right to Nichols and Fortier when they "expressed doubt or reluctance." She concludes: "having read it and required its reading by his compatriots, McVeigh could not have been ignorant of the white power movement in which he now planned to participate." Dumuzid (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear: I am another editor who is in favor of the statement being made in wikivoice, rather than with in-text attribution. Also, contrary to the assertion above, RSOPINION does not apply to the added source. Newimpartial (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

the death toll of the Tulsa race massacre compared to McVeigh/Nichols bombing

The Tulsa race massacre occurred in Tulsa, Oklahoma, beginning on May 31, 1921, and lasting for two days. The massacre left somewhere between 30 and 300 people dead, mostly African Americans, and destroyed Tulsa's prosperous Black neighbourhood of Greenwood. The massacre was one of the most severe incidents of racial violence in U.S. history, but it was barely mentioned in history books until the late 1990s, when a state commission was formed to document the incident.... When the massacre ended on June 1, the official death toll was recorded at 10 whites and 26 African Americans, though many experts now believe at least 300 people were killed. The massacre destroyed Tulsa's prosperous Black neighbourhood of Greenwood, known as the “Black Wall Street.” More than 1,400 homes and businesses were burned, and nearly 10,000 people were left homeless. https://www.britannica.com/facts/Tulsa-race-massacre-of-1921 Caj27 (talk) 07:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Christian terrorism

I changed the type of terrorism in the lede from domestic to Christian, and added a reliable source supporting the assertion that the OKC bombing was an act of Christian terrorism due to the perpetrators' ties (possibly indirect and circumstantial, granted, but ties nonetheless) to Christian Identity. Those changes were reverted and I disagree with that decision. Groupthink (talk) 02:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could briefly summarize your case here -- ("based on sources X, Y, and Z, this appears to be a widely-held view" or the like). And I will not revert you again out of respect, but I would ask that you consider removing the tag until there has been some amount of conversation. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I mean a starting objection to just replacing the type of terrorism "domestic" with "Christian Identity" is that the two aren't mutually exclusive. Even if you're right, it'd be both domestic terrorism and Christian Identity terrorism. Also, just glancing at the edit, you were adding contentious labels to the lede and the lede summarizes the body content, so before doing that you should add some discussion of what you wanted added to the body of the article. Having a lede that focuses on Christian identity motivations and then not mentioning it in the body would violate WP:MOS. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 03:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Need to get some sleep y'all. Will expand more in the morning. Until then, I leave you with [7] the source I cited (which seems pretty self-evident to me) along with [8] ("For this right-wing extremist and Christian Identity follower, the Government’s handling of the siege was illustrative of the 'Zionist Occupied Government' which was intent on suppressing liberty and bringing about a New World Order.") and [9] pg. 31: "McVeigh was exposed to Identity thinking through

the militia culture with which he was associated and through his awareness of the Christian Identity encampment, Elohim City". Groupthink (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Most WP:RS including scholarly sources do not call it Christian Terrorism and call it as a Lone wolf attack as Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols acted alone there is no evidence and there is no WP:RS source that states Christian Identity was behind the attack. It is cherrypicking sources to call it so.This is featured article and do not the reviewers would have missed such a big issue.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The page may be missing on Wikipedia as the best fit for the ideology at work here is White Christian nationalism, a very much academically supported term at this point for the intersection of white nationalism and Christian nationalism. In 2022, Stephen M. Feldman stated it as having gone "mainstream". Iskandar323 (talk) 06:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

To change the lead to describe this as Christian terrorism you are going to need to show that the common description is Christian terrorism vs anti-government. Two of the three provided sources strike me as unreliable. The last one, if I'm not mistaken is a single sentence taken from a presumably reliable book. But that sentence only says he was exposed to the thinking. It doesn't say he was motivated by it or embraced it. We need much stronger sources to move from a association to motivation. Springee (talk) 11:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

We need much stronger sources to move from a association to motivation. - exactly!! I think the source of the issue is that there's an assumption (i.e. WP:SYNTH) being made based on the association for political reasons as opposed to religious. That's an important distinction. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Richard Snell

Also missing from the page is that the day of the attack also witnessed the execution of Christian Identity member Richard Snell, who earlier planned to blow up the same building, and whose own page has a whole section on it, along with a note on him requesting to watch CNN as his final request and "smiled and chuckled and nodded" upon seeing coverage of the bombing. All a coincidence? Maybe. A coincidence covered in WP:RS and due here? Very much so. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)