Talk:Timothy McVeigh

Footnote 23

Pardon me, but there are certain turns of phrases that seem inapporpriate to an encyclopedia entry and overly informalize the note. To wit: "Well, if that's the standard....." and "The truth is...."

When people say, "The truth is..." my ears perk up and my brain goes into skeptic mode, as Socrates taught me. There are many Forms of Truth, as his student Plato well knew.

As far as "standards" go, well, take your pick. Ah....the old relative v absolute dialectic. Some fun. Luciusmichael 02:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luciusmichael (talk • contribs) 02:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Party Affiliation

On April 26th, the biography section of this article was changed to state that McVeigh was a "registered member of the Democrat Party." Previously it had claimed him to be a Republican. At the bottom of the CNN article here, he is stated to have been a registered Republican. Additionally, a reference to that CNN article was removed. I recommend that these changes be reverted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.21.126.124 (talk) 05:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Jose Padilla

The section of Jose Padilla needs a reference. Did they live in Planation, Florida the same year? Or is the possible meeting mere speculation? McVeigh is bad enough and doesn't need a claim to have met Padilla or Hitler in order to be a criminal. JonnyLate 21:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

homosexual?

It has been suggested that Timothy McVeigh was a homosexual. This should be put in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.206.99 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? Sounds like speculation to me, which doesn't belong in an article. Many things have been suggested about many people, but without solid reliable sources, it shouldn't be put in their articles. If you can find a good source, though, feel free to add it. --clpo13 05:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

In an interview with Authors Lou Michel and Dan Herbeck Timothy McVeigh admitted to being Agnostic (not Christian) he did not believe there was a God but if, when he gets to the other side he finds something he will "adapt, improvise, and overcome." Michel and Herbeck are authors of "American Terrorists: Timoghy McVeigh"

McVeigh video

Should there be mention of the supposed McVeigh video shot in a Military Camp in North Dakota during 1993 after it was mentioned he was honorably discharged and supposedly being corrupted by right-wing lunatics? Link. --BlueGlowGuardian 16:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Is McVeigh not a terrorist???

The article says McVeigh is a terrorist. I agree. However, Mir Aimal Kasi did not have any ties to any organization (like McVeigh) and he was determined not to be a terrorist as a result. Furthermore, the mass murder at the access road to the CIA was determined not to be a terrorist act because of this.

Shouldn't we call the 1993 CIA shootings an act of terrorism, like McVeigh? Or say that McVeigh merely committed mass murder and not terrorism? Mrs.EasterBunny 22:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

He WAS a TERRORIST. End of story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.14.243 (talk) 12:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Terrorists have a political agenda to proclaim when they kill people. You don't have to be part of an organization. He had anti-US Government sentiments and wanted to kill people in protest of the US handling in Waco, Texas. McVeigh is a terrorist as well as a mass murderer. Azn Clayjar (talk) 13:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

American patriot and freedom fighter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.231.71 (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is he being called a terrorist? Personally I'd say he is, but most other articles avoid the term. Why is there an exception for Mcveigh?Ticklemygrits (talk) 08:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily have a problem with calling him a terrorist; here is the definition of domestic terrorism under the US Code:[1]

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that— (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

Thus, being a terrorist could be a good thing, if you are trying to achieve good objectives (i.e. restoration of freedom) that cannot be accomplished through the political system due to a tyrannical majority (note that nazism and many other tyrannies were implemented through democratic processes, and had to be overturned by force). It is no different than an act of war, really, under those circumstances. See [2] However, if we want to be really unbiased, we might simply call him a "bomber" or something. EVCM (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

calling him a terrorist is POV (one man terrorist is a nother man's freedom fighter) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.231.68 (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Birth Place

In the short bio section on the right Timothy McVeigh is said to have been born in Pendleton, NY, but in the text it says he was born in Lockport and "grew up" in Pendleton. I didn't want to change it until someone can find out which one is correct. (BlueLily91 01:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC))

No evidence of "Survivalist" categorization

I removed:

"McVeigh was considered by many as someone with a long background in the survivalist movement."

Who thought this and what is the evidence? There was a request for citation for 3 months sitting there and no one responded. McVeigh was an agnostic, socialist, with a hatred for the U.S. govt. much like the Weathermen in the 1960's. Jtpaladin (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Readability

I have made some changes to the article to improve readability. It is not my intention to aggravate the families of the victims in any way. Please feel free to approach me about my edits if this is the case. The changes include:

1. Addition of "federally" indicted, to explain why he was only charged with 8 murders.
2. Reduction of run on sentences such as one regarding Rebecca Anderson's death.
3. Changing fachist to fascist, including a link to fascism.
4. Minor grammar fixes.
5. Sentence arrangements conducive to easy reading.

I encourage discussion on edits I have made, and edits you have made to improve readability, below. Thank you.

BETA 18:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Prison writings

The section on his arrest, sentencing, etc. opens with information regarding his prison writings, particularly the deaths of both Iraqi and American civilians. Why is this information placed here, rather than somewhere more chronologically and topically appropriate? It's placement here makes it feel less encyclopedic and more like the lead-in to a biography chapter, or perhaps a rumination on his motivations. 24.3.216.99 (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AmericanTerroristBook.jpg

Image:AmericanTerroristBook.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What about the evidence that McVeigh couldn't do it?

There is a strong evidence that McVeigh didn't blow up the building. Even if he wanted to, the laws of physics wouldn't allow him. The famous report of Brigadier General Partin (USAF, Air Force Armament Technology Laboratory, ret.) makes it clear. Unless of course there was a divine intervention involved in the case, and the laws of physics have been suspended for a while. But is it right to execute a person only on a suspicion (even a very stong one) of divine intervention? And even if many people think that it is right (and especially then) shouldn't it be reported in a objective description of the case which I hope is the purpose of Wikipedia? Jim (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There are days of magic at large in the USA the past few years. Farm fertilizer that becomes superbombs, kerosene that melts steel and collapses huge buildings ( heck even one across the street - ie an innocent bystanding building no less ) - but we still believe because we are patriot Ameericanns. 159.105.80.141 (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC) Of course anyone who can read knows it is all BS but then what can be done with freedom, liberty, truth and only a popgun.

When you include "[f]arm fertilizer that becomes superbombs" in the past few years, are you talking back to 1985, when the same compound was used by the military in the Minor Scale test that was the largest human-made non-nuclear explosion ever? Or back to 1947, when the farm fertilizer unmixed with diesel killed 581 in the Texas City Disaster? I guess the Oppau explosion in 1921 was in Germany, so Germany got its own days of magic.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

One doesn't have to resist magic with a popgun (or any other gun). In a democracy it might be enough to use the freedom of speech. Even if one is a patriot American who can read he might have never heard of Genaral Partin's evidence that the massive destruction was primarily the result of four demolition charges placed at critical structural points at the third floor level and so he might think that the building was blown up by McVeigh. Luckily General Partin's report is a matter of congrssional record and therefore documented well enough to be placed in wikipedia. Jim (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It was and is listed; see the section labeled Conspiracy Theories. WP:NPOV means we don't put emphasis on fringe viewpoints, no matter what the truth of the matter is. So long as the mainstream belief is that Timothy McVeigh's bomb was the cause of the building falling, that is what we report.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

And how do you decide what is the mainstream belief? If experts believe that McVeigh didn't blow the building and it is proven by documents it should be reported by wikipedia even if it is not true (since wikipedia is not to write the truth but only the documented expert opinion). No? Jim (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

We decide what the mainstream belief is by simple observation. The concise online Encyclopedia Brittanica article on the Oklahoma City bombing states as uncontested fact that the bombing was caused by a truck bomb. Time Magazine, when describing his execution, does not mention any doubt that he was guilty, no dispute that he was guilty. Even his attorneys, when fighting for his life, argued there could be others, not that he was not guilty.[http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,129507,00.html You don't have experts who believe that McVeigh didn't blow up the building; you have an expert. Even then, it is reported, right where I said it was.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that wikipedia should support the execution of an innocent person by removing a documented information about the expert opinion about his innocence? Jim (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It didn't remove anything; it's still there under conspiracy theories. McVeigh is not innocent; he confessed and refused his last appeals. Those are the acts of a guilty man. Even if the building was blown from within, he still drove the truck loaded with explosives there, which makes him guilty of conspiracy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess there really is a conspiracy theory about everything. At any rate, as Prosfilaes said, the mainstream view is what has the biggest focus in an article. Fringe views have their own sections (or articles, in the case of 9/11). --clpo13_(talk) 05:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

A conspiracy theory is something that popular culture identifies as a folklore similar to urban legend. It is dismissed as improbable by the majority. By labeling the documented facts as a "conspiracy theory" or "fringe views" wikipedia is shielding the majority of readers from the objective truth. It doesn't have to do it, despite that it is not obliged to write the truth if mainstream chooses to believe in fiction. Of course, those who can think won't be shielded from the truth, they will be just kept as minority. Which in democracy is enough not to change the status quo.

In my opinion it shouldn't be wikipedia's purpose since except reporting on mainstream prejudices, as it clams it's its only purpose ("no matter what the truth of the matter is" --Prosfilaes) it shouldn't give up its educational role. It is rather sad when a high school student turns to wikipedia for information and she is lied to even when wikipedia is aware of the truth but the truth happens not to be a prejudice held by the majority. Jim (talk) 08:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV, V and OR. The one major point of this is because mainstream is easier to discuss and verify than objective truth.

Frankly, I find this very conspiracy theory. One person took some looks at the collapsed building and comes to a conclusion that it would have taken internal explosions. One person doing an visual uncomputer-aided examination is a bit sketchy, but is not inherently invalid, at least when taken as one person's opinion. The conclusion that McVeigh was innocent, however, is an absurd extrapolation; you have to explain his behavior and all the evidence raised against him, like proof that he rented the truck and bought the bomb-making supplies (and again never offered an explanation). That's unsupported by your sources, and since it involves a conspiracy, is a conspiracy theory. Even accepting your source as gospel truth, all we can conclude is that party or parties unknown laid the explosives in the building, which doesn't make McVeigh innocent.

You ranted above about objective truth instead of dealing with the points I made about why I see your theory as a little off in the truth department; that's not a way to convince people that don't already see your way.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Prosfilaes: My purpose was not to convince you about anything just to turn your attention to the facts, and to try with your help to understand them myself. In my opinion the facts point to different people, who did rather losy job, but who might have made this job lousy on purpose. To scare the minority who can think without alarming the majority who can't. In this sense it might have been a terrorist act and the purpose might have been to prompt Congress to suspend the democracy. McVeigh might have been an innocent bystander at the wrong place at the wrong time, thinking even that it was him who blew up the building (while according to General Partin he couldn't be). The fact that govenment didn't want to test the case against the use of dynamite supports General's conclusions.

McVeigh was accused and executed for something he couldn't physically do. It is true that it is only according to General Partin's data, but relying on his data is probably much safer than relaying on opinions of laymen. If you think otherwise you would have to point to an error in the data.

You might recall that McVeigh's was the fate of millions of witches. Many of them made impression that they did what they were accused of, many cofessed that they did, and many of them even believed themselves that they did. That's why in civilized societies it is the job of a prosecutor to prove the guilt regadless of the confession of the accused. And that's why it is important to present all the relavant facts and not under a label of "consiracy theory". Of course to place them under "conspiracy theory" is better then to remove them alltogether as some editors do, when it comes to exposing sillyness of their pet theories (e.g. promoting Newton's theory over Einsteins, which for some reason is allowed). Jim (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You have one fact; that a man who has degrees in chemical engineering, aeronautical engineering, and who is in the process of getting a degree in operations research is holding an opinion about a question of civil engineering, a field in which he is unqualified. Contrary to your insinuations, his opinion is going against the opinion of more qualified engineers employed by the FBI.

Furthermore, and more relevant to this article, General Partin's report says "Although the truck bomb had insufficient power to destroy columns, the bomb was clearly responsible for ripping out some floors at the second and third floor levels." Which means that according to your source, McVeigh is guilty as sin. He was part of a conspiracy to blow up the building that killed a lot of people and is therefore guilty of murder. I will delete any claim of McVeigh's innocence added to this article unless we actually have a WP:RS that claims that McVeigh is innocent, which Partin's report does not.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"[...]the truck bomb [...] was clearly responsible for ripping out some floors at the second and third floor levels" [General Benton K. Partin].

Prosfilaes: "Which means that according to [Partin], McVeigh is guilty as sin." [...] "I will delete any claim of McVeigh's innocence added to this article unless we actually have a WP:RS that claims that McVeigh is innocent, [...]"

Jim: Your thesis (correct me if I'm wrong) hangs on an assumption that McVeigh blew up the truck. It hasn't been proved beyond any reasonable doubt though. Therefore with a different choice of jourors (e.g. ones who understood their duties as jurors, duties that I learned when I was a juror in a murder case myself) there wouldn't be even a wikipedia article about McVeigh (atually one juror in McVeigh case understood his duties but he was fired by the judge after he expressed his doubts in a letter to the judge).

If you demand a proof of McVeigh's innocence, which is impossible for epistemological reasons, then we can't discuss McVeigh's case among ourselves, since when it comes to an opinion that you don't share, your inclusionism changes into deletionism. As is the case with many other inclusionists in wikipedia. E.g. those who prefer Newton gravitation over Einstein's. And I expect that you are also an deletionist when it comes to Einstein. A non believer like myself, so he probably wouldn't believe in McVeigh guilt neither. Jim (talk) 12:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't demand proof; I demand, as per Wikipedia standards, a reliable source. Every reliable source I seen declares him guilty, and that was the verdict of a court of law. That you don't agree with the jury--which, by the way, did not have a juror dismissed; that was the grand jury--does not acceptability to Wikipedia make.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"Reliable source" according to whom? I consider Einstein a reliable source since I undrstand his theory and what is behind it. The contemporary cosmologists don't consider Einstein a reliable source and insist that contrary to Einstein's physics the energy can be created out of nothing. They are also supported by the Pope (how otherwise the universe could be created?). I don't believe them until I see a proof (which they are yet to produce). So I'm in minority. I may be in minority also regarding McVeigh. And wikipedia editors are just representing the majority opinion. Which is OK as long as one doesn't take it too seriously (one doesn't take it for the truth). And I don't know anyone who does, so no real harm seems to be done. Except for fooling young people who look to wikipedia for knowledge.

You're right about Hoppy Heidelberg. He was dismissed from the grand jury. Thanks for reminding me and sorry for not remembering all the details of the case. I'm trying just to remember the key issues. Like selection of people on the basis of their opinions about the case. Jim (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Necessity defense

I thought that McVeigh ended up not using the necessity defense? See [3], [4], [5] Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"Islamist" and Neo-Nazi conspiracy theories

Needs to be changed in this title. "Islamist" is a positive denotation and connotation of Islam and the revival of Islamic culture and values. The problem is, in this article, the word "Islamist" is being used wrongly and is being associated with "Fundamental" or "Extremist" Islam. There should be a distinction between a cultural revival and terrorist threats -- these are two very different ideas trying to be lumped together and is quite misleading, please come up with a more definitive word. Straightliner (talk) 09:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Overlap between this article and Oklahoma City Bombing

What material should go in this article, and what material should go in Oklahoma City Bombing? I suppose the latter should include most of the details of methodology? What about the arrest, trial, etc.? Obviously we want to avoid excessive overlap. EVCM (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with categorization

I disagree with this diff; for one thing, we do not need both the "terrorists" category and the category for the more specific type of terrorist; the latter will suffice. Second, I don't think it's appropriate to call him a mass murderer, since he was basically a soldier trying to win a war, much like Paul Tibbets, John Brown, etc. EVCM (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Utilitarian category?

Should we add him to Category:Utilitarians? I notice that he said, "I have great respect for human life. My decision to take human life at the Murrah Building – I did not do it for personal gain. I ease my mind in that...I did it for the larger good." That seems consistent with utilitarian ideology and possibly even consequentalist libertarianism. What do you think? EVCM (talk) 07:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Libertarian terrorist

I am going to reclassify him from right-wing terrorist to libertarian terrorist. He was pro-choice and held other views more closely associated with libertarianism than conservatism; furthermore, he called himself a libertarian, voted Libertarian, read "Atlas Shrugged," etc. EVCM (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

not a terrorist but a freedom fighter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.231.68 (talk) 12:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If you think he's a freedom fighter, why haven't you followed in his footsteps? EVCM (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)