![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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).
This relates to something I wish to address.Its footnotes 70 and 71.I knew I wanted this before it happened. I knew my objective was state-assisted suicide and when it happens, it's in your face. You just did something you're trying to say should be illegal for medical personnel.[70] McVeigh dropped his remaining appeals, giving no reason for doing so.[71] All I ask is does mcvieghs quote not answer something that footnote 71 tries to leave as a mystery?If the man is resigned to die I have the feeling that explains his lack of appeals.I feel as though the footnote for 71 should stay[as it remains important that he stopped asking for reviews] but, it should be noted it is clear why the appeals stopped.We must be careful as the eyes and ears of many that things flow together and make sense. Wikimakesmart ( talk) 05:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
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).
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)
Timothy McVeigh was a registered REPUBLICAN. re: March 2001, CNN article:
Although both Arizona and Michigan are host to militant anti-tax, anti-government, survivalist and racist groups, there is no evidence that he ever belonged to any extremist groups. He advertised to sell a weapon in what is described as a virulently anti-Semitic publication. After renting a Ryder truck that has been linked to the Oklahoma City bombing, McVeigh telephoned a religious community that preaches white supremacy, but no one there can remember knowing him or talking to him. His only known affiliations are as a registered Republican in his New York days, and as a member of the National Rifle Association while he was in the Army.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by RJKruger ( talk • contribs) 13:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
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
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"
This article comes off sounding like if only he'd found a girl (or guy?), McVeigh wouldn't have become a mass murderer - this sounds rather silly. maybe being a nutcase was the reason he was having trouble finding one (or the other?) in the first place. Jmdeur ( talk) 18:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
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? www.prisonplanetcom/articles/december2006/181206mcveighvideo.htm unreliable fringe source? Link]. -- BlueGlowGuardian 16:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
He was a TRUE AMERICAN HERO and then the HOMELESS VETERAN was framed by the crooked government. 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)
McVeigh was a non-state actor who committed acts of violence deliberately directed at civilians. He was a terrorist, whatever your preposterous POV FrFintonStack ( talk) 00:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Terrorism is in the eye of the beholder. Do you think the people of Gaza view Hamaas as terrorists? Or how about this, the underground resitance movements of World War II. Were they terrorists? Or how about the 'sons of liberty', who threw a whole ship load of the King's tea into Boston Harbor. Were they terrorist? How about evey single man who signed the Declaration of Independence? - Blindmage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.228.96.138 ( talk) 16:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
If McVeigh is considered a terrorist, shouldn't the US government and the FBI also be considered terrorists for their attack and mass murder in Waco? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.206.187 ( talk) 01:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Why is it that any time a non-Muslim is up for designation as a terrorist there is such an outcry, but any Muslim who kills a bunch of people is easily designated as a terrorist? McVeigh blew up a building with people in them. Christ, is there any other succinct way to describe the guy? Shabeki ( talk) 17:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
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))
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)
It sounds proper to remove an Un-cited reference to him being in the Survivalist ranks, Just because the subject & the other group both read the same literature Doesn't make them the same thing, so thats ok until better citations. But calling McVeigh a "Socialist" Is - well, Just dumb. He was a former Republican who then moved to extreme libertarianism, with many citations. (In fact he was also a 'Good' U.S. Soldier & was awarded the Bronze Star) It's just the way it went. I will assume good faith & the heat of the moment - AND that the user Didn't read the whole entry. ---mbd--- 71.6.81.62 ( talk) 06:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
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:
I encourage discussion on edits I have made, and edits you have made to improve readability, below. Thank you.
BE TA 18:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
(In other words, if 10,000 people say 2 + 2 = 26 and one person say it equals 4 the 10,000 win; INSANE!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.147.169 ( talk) 20:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
What about the evidence presented by David Paul Hammer and Jeffery William Paul in the book, "Secrets worth dying for"? It meets Wikipedia standards as a reliable source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS.
What about the NPR article and show about attorney Jesse Trentadue and the death of his brother and how it relates to McVeigh?
Jesse’s brother Kenny Trentadue was murdered, or rather, “suicided” in a federal penitentiary under alarmingly mysterious circumstances, after he was mistaken for Richard Guthrie, a member of the Aryan Republican Army and Midwest Bank Robbers, whose exact role in the Oklahoma City bombing is still fully unknown. On September 25, 2008 Trentadue won a ruling, which he had sought for over a year and a half to depose, on video, federal inmates David Paul Hammer and Terry Nichols. Nichols, who was convicted and sentenced to life in prison for his still unknown role in the bombing, says he is ready to tell all. Yet, the DOJ, FBI and BOP have made this task almost impossible, claiming that such as deposition would be detrimental to prison security.
Hammer, who is currently on Death Row in Terre Haute, Indiana, was housed in a cell next to the elusive and mysterious Timothy McVeigh for the last couple years of McVeigh’s life. Hammer, who wrote the book Secrets Worth Dying For, was the recipient of some of McVeigh’s “final” confessions. These include his corroborated claims of being an agent of the government during the planning and execution of the bombing. Secrets Worth Dying for is one of the most chilling books on OKC and one which is worth reading for anyone with an interest in this case.
On October 10, 2008, Trentadue, an unbelievably brave man, filed a complaint with the US district court of Utah, against the CIA, claiming that since December of 2006, the CIA has continuously withheld information which they were compelled by law, via the FOIA, to release to Trentadue. Information which was requested but which has to this date, been withheld concern the CIA’s investigation and/or involvement in OKC, information regarding German National Andreas Strassmier’s role as an informant/ agent in the bombing, and the nature of his exact relationship with McVeigh and the Aryan Republican Army/ Midwest bank robbers. The difficulty in attaining this protected information was also previously encountered by several others, including McVeigh and Nichols own defense attorneys. Yet, Trentadue is not trying to defend these men or their actions. He is trying to find out the truth of his brothers gruesome murder. Trentadue has demanded in his filing that all information concerning “all investigations into the CIA’s role, involvement with or connection to the Murrah Building Bombing whether through employees, informants, operatives or other means” be turned over ASAP. He also has been fighting to obtain similar records from the FBI, and ATF. His last letter, written to officials at the CIA, written March 2008 concluded with the line “I hope there will be no need for me to sue in order to obtain these records.” This should be interesting, to say the least.
Finally, on October 12, 2008 Trentadue filed another Freedom of Information Act to obtain records from the FBI. He has now requested copies of all surveillance video tapes which are related to OKC, including all surveillance tapes from in and around the Murrah building from the dates of April 15- April 19, which include the interior and exterior cameras of the Regency Apartments, located across from the Murrah, security camera on the west side of the Murrah and one on the south of the Journal Records building. (Anyone having 9/11 Pentagon déjà vous?) Included in these OKC surveillance video tapes is one which is mentioned in a Secret Service memo. It is stated in this memo that one of these videos contained:security video tapes from the area [that] show the [Ryder] truck detonation 3 minutes and 6 seconds after the SUSPECTS exited the truck.” Unless the Secret Service is ill informed on the use of grammar, the word SUSPECTS clearly implies a massive cover-up or worse. Trentadue is also requesting all reports which reference the FBI’s seizure of these tapes and the chain of possession with which they were handled in their eventual disappearance from the FBI’s (and others) files. Furthermore, Trentadue is asking for all video tape and records which can illuminate the truck, known to be at the site of the bombing, which was traveling behind McVeigh when he was arrested by Trooper Charlie Hangar in Perry, Oklahoma, an hour after the blast. Hangar had dashboard video equipment in his patrol car, but somehow this was mysteriously turned off until after Hangar had actually arrested McVeigh. IckeDavid ( talk) 04:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
All this stuff about McVeigh not doing it is just goofy talk. Before his execution he complained that he wished his bomb had been more efficient- to take down the whole structure! He even said "Against all those conspiracy theorists who will talk about this..." & He was RIGHT! There was an 8 FOOT DEEP crater Where the truck was sitting- & a circular Pie -bite chunk missing from the building radiating outward from where the blast originated. It wasn't some mythical "four demolition charges " that thoroughly damaged around 300 surrounding buildings & blew out windows in a quarter mile radius... The truck contained some of the same material that a stick of Dynamite contains... Only they had mixed up "7,000 POUNDS" of the stuff!! sitting in a container roughly less than 20x8x8 Feet. I would not want to be anywhere within TEN city blocks of a bomb like that. The rear axle of the truck smashed into the pavement- rebounded- & then landed - what- around 3 or 4 blocks away? I've watched films of smaller amounts of dynamite destroy whole mountain sides... A freestanding building like this is nothing when you use 7,000 pounds of "KaBOOM" against . I mean- C'Mon. Get real. ---mbd--- 71.6.81.62 ( talk) 06:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
There seems little doubt McVeigh was at the scene of the bombing and took an active part in this horendoius atrocity. However there is compelling witness reconstruction of events immeidiately before the Bombing to suggest the Bomb exploded premeturely (probably while it was being 'set' (i.e. all wires connected). Johnwrd ( talk) 03:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I thought that McVeigh ended up not using the necessity defense? See [3], [4], [5] Aldrich Hanssen ( talk) 21:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Bearing in mind that this section now takes up almost 1/4 of the total article, I'd suggest it gives undue weight to fringe theories. I'd suggesting cutting it down to a paragraph at most. FrFintonStack ( talk) 00:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
The first topic in the article states that, "He was picked on by bullies at school, and took refuge in a fantasy world in which he retaliated against them..." Obviously when reading this, the first thought to come into mind is, "Whoa, this guy was a real loser who couldn't come to terms with real life."
Now seriously, who here hasn't been picked on by bullies at least once in his life? Who here hasn't had thoughts about retaliating against his enemies? This is ridiculous. The above mentioned statement is simply a low blow aimed to hurt McVeigh's credibility. If you want to attack him, then do so by critiquing his actions against the government. You have testimony where he admits his bomb killed children of all things! Try using that instead of, "He was picked on at school." Perhaps next Wiki will suggest he had an electra complex spurred by penis envy which caused him to take out his rage on the government.
I suggest that character assassination attempts such as these be removed for the sake of relevance. It may or may not be true that he was picked on, but the context under which the fact is presented makes it appear McVeigh was a murderous psycho, not an individual who knew exactly what he was doing. 22:32 19 November 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.212.37.201 ( talk)
As entertaining as these conspiracy theories are, they have no part in this bio. It is not like there is one, but a Juggernaut of random thought as to what happened that goes against the core of the article. This random thought progression uses fringe articles as a basis for inclusion and makes up over 25% of the narrative (once reverted, again.) As profitable as it may be to write books about the murder of so many, these sources are baseless and are only there to sell copies. They do not add to the article and lend no credence. Conspiracy theories are fun, but not encyclopedic. 66.186.173.180 ( talk) 03:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
First, there is a definite bias displayed in this section. While certainly there are people of McVeigh's mindset at gun shows (Hey, it's a free country), they are certainly NOT the standard or even common. They're generally laughed at and sent packing.
Second, of what relevance is this commentary, or his position on firearms, when he used a bomb to commit his act? If he were a Boy Scout, it would not be deemed relevant, I hope. So what is the relevance of this other info? It feels to me like "Watch out for those gun nuts, they might blow off a bomb," which is demonstrably not true in general, and an unfair characterization.
As for "Anti-government sentiment," it all depends on which party is in power on which group of people are anti-government. Can we be specific as to WHICH government and policies he was anti? Mzmadmike ( talk) 14:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Is there a copy of McVeeigh's Bronze Star commendation anywhere? Lowellt ( talk) 21:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
p. 31: "Christian Identity ideas were most likely part of the thinking of Timothy McVeigh, the convicted bomber of the Oklahoma City federal building. 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, on the Oklahoma-Arkansas border. Although there is no evidence that McVeigh was ever affiliated with the commune, phone calls he made to Elohim City in the months before the bombing are a matter of record, including one made two weeks before the bombing. McVeigh once received a citation for a minor traffic offense ten miles from the commune on the only access road to it. McVeigh also imbibed Identity ideas, or concepts similar to them, through such publications as The Patriot Report, an Arkansas- based Christian Identity newsletter that McVeigh received, and perhaps most of all from the book The Turner Diaries. According to McVeigh's friends, this was "his favorite book"; it was "his bible," some said. According to one gun collector who saw McVeigh frequently at gun shows, he hawked the book at bargain prices to anyone interested in buying it, and never let it leave his side. More to the point, McVeigh's telephone records indicate that despite his denials, he talked several times directly with the author of the novel [William Pierce], including a conversation shortly before the Oklahoma City attack."
Terror in the mind of God: the global rise of religious violence By Mark Juergensmeyer Edition: 3, illustrated, revised Published by University of California Press, 2003 ISBN 0520240111
Why the above is nowhere in the Tim McVeigh entry, I have no idea Haberstr ( talk) 22:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that this article has been heavily slandered by people with an agenda to remove any trace of McVeigh's association with extremist christian groups. -- 70.181.91.238 ( talk) 02:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
does anyone else find it creepy that he was executed exactly 3 months before 9/11? 75.107.254.11 ( talk) 04:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Reading this section, is it really encyclopedic?
I'm certainly no vegan by any means (love red meat!), but the objectivity of this particular portion is rather questionable. A subject that is titled "Death" ("Execution") seems to unduly focus on the subject of McVeigh's dining preferences.
Anyone else kinda feel the same way? Vordabois ( talk) 08:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Could you rephrase this in a coherent sentence or two? VanitasStation ( talk) 20:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
It should be much shorter, of course. It has a lot of excellent sources and informtion, but, wow, the tone. Haberstr ( talk) 22:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
The tone seems pretty neutral to me. Excellent sources and information are exactly what an encyclopedia should offer. Keep in mind that this is a biographical article on a person's life, and not just an article on a single event. While a person needs to be notable to have a biographical article in the first place, such an article is supposed to cover the person's entire life, and not just the notable parts of that life. Warren Dew ( talk) 15:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I am removing the citations tag on the article, as practically every sentence in all but two sections has a citation, which is plenty. I am leaving the tag on the two sections that do seem to lack citations. If you want to put a citations tag back on the whole article, please mention your reasons here. Warren Dew ( talk) 16:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The article says "he did not express remorse for the deaths of the children", but in this interview, he at least says that he thought the bombing was a "tragic event", and that it was "terrible" that children died. I don't know whether or not he was sincere, but that was still an expression of remorse. 174.18.8.101 ( talk) 05:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
"McVeigh said he was often bullied at school, and that he took refuge in a fantasy world in which he retaliated against them." Against whom? Bullies (noun) haven't been mentioned. This could use rephrasing. 86.164.188.106 ( talk) 19:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
In an article found on the site of the New York Times there is an excerpt of an interview with McVeigh whilst he was in jail in which he states the following just before the bomb exploded;
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/19/arts/television/19mcveigh.html
“I lit the two-minute fuse at the stoplight, and I swear to God that was the longest stoplight I’ve ever sat at in my life.”
This is a direct contradiction to the Wikipedia article which alleges that the force of the bomb exploding supposedly lifted McVeigh off the ground as he was running away from the building after lighting the fuse. The article must be incorrect then based on McVeigh himself stating that he was sat in his car after directly after lighting the 2 minute fuse waiting for the stoplight to change.
Djemalts ( talk) 00:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
My reasons for this is that a large amount of referenced work was removed and scaled down to nothing. Some of the edits in one section almost looked like an unformatted list. The section that the edit summary said moved to, I just didn't see that, but maybe I missed something but I don't think so. I just felt that the new edits didn't improve the article at all. -- CrohnieGal Talk 13:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
In the "military career" section, the article says he went to sapper school "where he did go on to tab". What does that mean? Articles should be written in understandable English. Perhaps "tab" is jargon of some sort, but I'm not sure. Eastcote ( talk) 23:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
From what I recall the Sapper tab was not actually authorized until '94, him being in and out before then probably explains it. Also as I recall his signature was clearly written across a picture for his platoon when he went through, as he was the top of his class.
Not enough backgrounds in to McVeigh's religious motivations for his crimes is provided. There is enough extant research in to his religious motives that the brief and somewhat fragmented commentary about his theism isn't enough to accurately describe his primary motivations of what drove him. Fredric Rice ( talk) 15:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
re the person who wrote the hero comment - what a sad individual!
Under the political/religious views section they mention that he was a member of the NRA. I find that to be an assault on the NRA as some form of right wing conspiracy group, and has absolutely nothing to do with politics or religion. Could someone please remove that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.67.89.42 ( talk) 18:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
What? The fact that you associate the NRA with right wing conspiracies doesn't mean that it is one. It's a political lobbying organization. Thus, it goes under political views. 92.78.143.24 ( talk) 09:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Should Ronald Griesacker and David Wayne Hull be in the See Also section? I don't see any connection between them and McVeigh that warrants it. Blaylockjam10 ( talk) 04:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The article says that McVeigh received the sacrament of Annointing of the Sick before his execution. That can't be right: he wasn't sick. I assume he received Penance and Communion. Pdevine1 ( talk) 00:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Briefly in the military life section it states that McVeigh was deemed by the special forces school to have a "very unsuitable psychological profile." The source listed is a book by a former Navy Seal, with no online link provided or page number from the book. This comment seems very contradictory to what a long msnbc documentary reported about McVeigh either in 2002 or 2003. It said that McVeigh was a top-notch soldier within his crew and that they even had to stop doing their 'soldier-of-the-day' competitions because McVeigh kept winning them all. In addition, it reported that McVeigh had served a long term in Iraq and was shipped off directly from there to Army Special Forces command for training (Rangers, I believe), and that by time he arrived for spec-ops training he was beat tired from his Iraq tour, causing him to suffer from pure physical exhaustion and eventually quit on his own. I don't know but how does a soldier go from being 'top-notch' in the field to 'unsuitable' in training? The msnbc implication - that he dropped out because of bad timing, making him tired with lack of rest - seems a lot more believable, whereas the 'very unsuitable' comment seems quite after-the-fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.74.195.78 ( talk) 04:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Reading about the Toulouse (France) shootings and that the culprit was raised in a single parent family, I remembered that the parents of Breivik (Norway shooter) had also gone their separate ways - so I checked McVeigh, not even aware that he had been executed. There is a common pattern here. That should be noticed. If only a handful of people think twice before having children in a questionable relationship, that could probably be called progress. This goes beyond the bio but where would you put it?
The similarities between the American, the Frenchman, and the Norwegian are chilling. 144.136.192.5 ( talk) 04:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
John Doe #2 is still out there. Michel and Herbeck's "book" simply types McVeigh's "confession" as he told it on tape. There is no investigation on their part. Therefore, JD#2 goes free. What happened to investigative journalism? Too expensive? Brandon Stickney was the first reporter from the Buffalo area to actually attend McVeigh's trial. Where were Michel and Herback? Stickny's book was not a sensationalized HarperCollins pulp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckjohn ( talk • contribs) 04:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
This Wikipedia article claims: "McVeigh frequently quoted and alluded to the novel The Turner Diaries", but the included citations offer no support for that claim.
This Wikipedia article claims: "Photocopies of pages sixty-one and sixty-two of The Turner Diaries were found in an envelope inside McVeigh's car", but the included citations offer no support for that claim.
Esquire (a Hearst Communications, Inc publication) claims that McVeigh wrote: "Also noted some basic errors of known fact in grand jury report--copy of Turner Diaries in car (not!)". http://www.esquire.com/features/ESQ0501-MAY_MCVEIGH
150.135.161.68 ( talk) 00:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I am deleting this because it is completely unsupported by everyone except Ms. Davis herself and does not warrant a reference here. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Shabeki ( talk) 20:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Unbelievable. Not a shred of mention about McVeigh's military service in the Gulf war, it is my belief he did serve in that war. It was also one of the reasons as to why he carried out the bombing, American being "the ultimate bully". I read most of the article by the way and I skimmed the couple of bits that I knew at that time were not related to any military service. No mention of his service in the Gulf war though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.214.63 ( talk) 19:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Seriously? We know who he voted for? How? Elections are confidential. We can know what party he was registered as and we can know when and where he voted but in the end we only have his word for who he voted for and how reliable is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.195.148.178 ( talk) 08:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
"[McVeigh] said that six particular guns were essential:" but only five are listed. Either way, the second sentence of the second paragraph of Arizona with Fortier contains an inaccuracy. I don't know which is correct. Does anyone else? Leveretth ( talk) 20:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
the link which is supposed to be to article by SMU reporter quoting McVeigh is to an apparently dead link that may or may not be spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denverjsmith ( talk • contribs) 02:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
In this section of the article, there is a sentence which states:
But then it goes on to quote him about the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence. Is this an error? Xenophrenic ( talk) 15:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
The article states that:
"with the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) of a rear axle found in the wreckage, the FBI identified the vehicle as a Ryder Rental"
- VIN numbers are always located on the body of vehicles, NEVER on rear axles.
According to the official story, the only identifiable part of the truck that could be found was its rear axle housing. From a serial number on the housing, the FBI (allegedly) determined that the truck was registered to a Ryder Truck Rental.
1) The numbers that are cast, or stamped into axle housings, are ‘casting numbers‘ they are not serialized numbers.
2) Casting numbers will indicate the axles weight rating, its type, year, month and day (or the shift) of its manufacture. Casting numbers can NOT be used to uniquely identify an axle housing, all of the units of its type which were made during the same time period will have the exact same numbers.
3) Because of these factors, it would have only been possible to identify a wide range of truck models which may have been equipped with that particular run of axle housing. - this could provide several hundred, or thousand possible vehicles.
It is not clear how the FBI actually managed to identify the truck.
209.204.186.48 ( talk) 15:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
The FBI identified the truck by lying. This was known at the time. The Elgin Blast Effects Study shows they lied about the bomb. Being able to read and use a search engine can quickly demonstrate the necessary components/equipment to make an ANFO bomb - none of which McVeight could have obtained much less the knowledge. ( I love the FBIs story of a lone man mixing up farm fertilizer in the fog of the early morning by the lake - this story confirms that Americans have dropped to high-grade moron status.)
159.105.81.107 (
talk)
19:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand the above (I know the far right/libertarian tradition of ascribing everything to sinister conspiracies by the govt) - is claiming the FBI lied implying that someone else did it? McVeigh admitted it - or was he supposedly some kind of pre-programmed tool of the FBI. The post also says that anyone using the internet can find out how to make an ANFO bomb and then says McVeigh though couldn't have done that?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.89.234 ( talk) 16:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
The Elgin study shows that even if McVeigh built an ANFO bomb it wouldn't have caused the damage seen at OKC. The damage would require a bomb placed inside the building - incidentally right over ( or next to) the day care - bigger emotional impact.
Mcveigh may have admitted to a bomb but it needed a little enhancement to work so well ie building damage. Personally I doubt McVeigh had much to do with anything ( particularly anything that envolved building a bomb in the back of a truck near a lake. Just another confessing nut ( prepicked I suspect).
159.105.80.64 (
talk)
18:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Why did you remove the two AmericanCatholic.org links that mention Timothy McVeigh and both his and Julie Welch's fathers and forgiveness? As a Catholic, I believe that execution and vengeance are not the solution, and you still act as if people execute criminals like McVeigh for "justice, peace, and closure, and not revenge"! This truly makes me sick! Why?!-- Angeldeb82 ( talk) 03:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
We have laws. By choosing to be born we agree to obey those laws. The law that prohibits killing people, particularly innocent people is a just law. The only laws we have a right to disobey are unjust laws. By murdering 168 innocent people he forfeited his right to remain alive. This isn't about rehabilitation. We are not obligated to financially support his remaining alive in a relative degree of comfort. We are obligated to give justice to the victims. Justice = vengence and that is what we as a people must do for those who cannot do it for themselves. So we put them to death. If you murder innocents you no longer have the right to call yourself a human being. You are nothing but an animal, a dangerous animal and we must make absolutely sure you can never harm anyone again and do so without expending money keeping you alive. If you murder you must die period. If you don't want to pay the price don't commit the crime. And don't go on about how he might not have done it. He did, he was convicted. His guilt has been proven beyond any doubt. Even if he had help that does not mitigate his guiilt. If someday we found he had help from somebody else then they need to die too. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
72.195.148.178 (
talk)
08:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
McVeigh wasn't an adherent of Christian identity. The source used to pin it on him doesn't stick. If there is no better evidence, please remove from article. -- 41.151.4.30 ( talk) 12:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
McVeigh clearly believes that a 'god' exists, as he takes "last rites" before execution. Agnostics neither believe or disbelieve in 'god'. This is often confused with deism or atheism; however, atheism is the belief that there is no god (a-theism; inverse of theism), and deism is the general appreciation of 'god'. McVeigh never claimed agnosticism; but his rhetoric clearly shows reverence to 'god'.
Therefore, his "religion" should be a "religious" affiliation and not a irreligious disconnection, like agnosticism - the atheist religion is out, as he still believes in god but has disavowed an organization (Catholicism). Xan81 ( talk) 18:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
In the section titled "Oklahoma City bombing" it stated:
" The explosion killed 168 people, including nineteen children in the day care center on the second floor, and injured 450 others." This is incorrect
The first reference was to: http://209.232.239.37/gtd1/ViewIncident.aspx?id=6621 which is a broken link to the "Global Terrorism Database". The correct link to the database is: http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/IncidentSummary.aspx?gtdid=199504190004. The number of injured is listed as 650, not 450.
The second reference was to: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/oklahoma/stories/ok042597.htm which leads to a Washinton Post article about the prosecutor at McVeigh's trail. The article states that "over 500" people were injured, not 450.
The correct figure can be found in the report by the Oklahoma Department of Health entitled "Oklahoma City Bombing Injuries". The figures in this report are that "447 persons were treated in area hospitals...237 persons were treated in a private physician's office" which means a total of 684 people sought treatment. It is reasonable to speculate that many others were also injured but did not seek treatment either in hospital or by private physicians. Therefore, the most accurate statement about the number of people injured would be: "over 684 people where inured." However, I corrected the number to just 684 since the additional injures can only be presumed but not verified by a credible source.
I also removed the existing links and replaced them with one that leads to the Oklahoma Department of Health report. Pearl2525 ( talk) 02:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.
The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.
Please help us determine consensus on this issue. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
How could that photo of him being led out of the courthouse have possibly been taken 2 days after the bombing? -- Captain Infinity ( talk) 20:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
More info, in his own words, about what him getting selected for Special Forces training: http://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/01/us/excerpts-from-timothy-mcveigh-letter.html Yadojado ( talk) 22:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Another source: Gore Vidal on his three year correspondence with McVeigh: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2001/09/mcveigh200109 Yadojado ( talk) 22:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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).
This relates to something I wish to address.Its footnotes 70 and 71.I knew I wanted this before it happened. I knew my objective was state-assisted suicide and when it happens, it's in your face. You just did something you're trying to say should be illegal for medical personnel.[70] McVeigh dropped his remaining appeals, giving no reason for doing so.[71] All I ask is does mcvieghs quote not answer something that footnote 71 tries to leave as a mystery?If the man is resigned to die I have the feeling that explains his lack of appeals.I feel as though the footnote for 71 should stay[as it remains important that he stopped asking for reviews] but, it should be noted it is clear why the appeals stopped.We must be careful as the eyes and ears of many that things flow together and make sense. Wikimakesmart ( talk) 05:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
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).
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)
Timothy McVeigh was a registered REPUBLICAN. re: March 2001, CNN article:
Although both Arizona and Michigan are host to militant anti-tax, anti-government, survivalist and racist groups, there is no evidence that he ever belonged to any extremist groups. He advertised to sell a weapon in what is described as a virulently anti-Semitic publication. After renting a Ryder truck that has been linked to the Oklahoma City bombing, McVeigh telephoned a religious community that preaches white supremacy, but no one there can remember knowing him or talking to him. His only known affiliations are as a registered Republican in his New York days, and as a member of the National Rifle Association while he was in the Army.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by RJKruger ( talk • contribs) 13:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
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
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"
This article comes off sounding like if only he'd found a girl (or guy?), McVeigh wouldn't have become a mass murderer - this sounds rather silly. maybe being a nutcase was the reason he was having trouble finding one (or the other?) in the first place. Jmdeur ( talk) 18:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
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? www.prisonplanetcom/articles/december2006/181206mcveighvideo.htm unreliable fringe source? Link]. -- BlueGlowGuardian 16:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
He was a TRUE AMERICAN HERO and then the HOMELESS VETERAN was framed by the crooked government. 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)
McVeigh was a non-state actor who committed acts of violence deliberately directed at civilians. He was a terrorist, whatever your preposterous POV FrFintonStack ( talk) 00:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Terrorism is in the eye of the beholder. Do you think the people of Gaza view Hamaas as terrorists? Or how about this, the underground resitance movements of World War II. Were they terrorists? Or how about the 'sons of liberty', who threw a whole ship load of the King's tea into Boston Harbor. Were they terrorist? How about evey single man who signed the Declaration of Independence? - Blindmage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.228.96.138 ( talk) 16:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
If McVeigh is considered a terrorist, shouldn't the US government and the FBI also be considered terrorists for their attack and mass murder in Waco? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.206.187 ( talk) 01:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Why is it that any time a non-Muslim is up for designation as a terrorist there is such an outcry, but any Muslim who kills a bunch of people is easily designated as a terrorist? McVeigh blew up a building with people in them. Christ, is there any other succinct way to describe the guy? Shabeki ( talk) 17:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
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))
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)
It sounds proper to remove an Un-cited reference to him being in the Survivalist ranks, Just because the subject & the other group both read the same literature Doesn't make them the same thing, so thats ok until better citations. But calling McVeigh a "Socialist" Is - well, Just dumb. He was a former Republican who then moved to extreme libertarianism, with many citations. (In fact he was also a 'Good' U.S. Soldier & was awarded the Bronze Star) It's just the way it went. I will assume good faith & the heat of the moment - AND that the user Didn't read the whole entry. ---mbd--- 71.6.81.62 ( talk) 06:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
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:
I encourage discussion on edits I have made, and edits you have made to improve readability, below. Thank you.
BE TA 18:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
(In other words, if 10,000 people say 2 + 2 = 26 and one person say it equals 4 the 10,000 win; INSANE!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.147.169 ( talk) 20:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
What about the evidence presented by David Paul Hammer and Jeffery William Paul in the book, "Secrets worth dying for"? It meets Wikipedia standards as a reliable source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS.
What about the NPR article and show about attorney Jesse Trentadue and the death of his brother and how it relates to McVeigh?
Jesse’s brother Kenny Trentadue was murdered, or rather, “suicided” in a federal penitentiary under alarmingly mysterious circumstances, after he was mistaken for Richard Guthrie, a member of the Aryan Republican Army and Midwest Bank Robbers, whose exact role in the Oklahoma City bombing is still fully unknown. On September 25, 2008 Trentadue won a ruling, which he had sought for over a year and a half to depose, on video, federal inmates David Paul Hammer and Terry Nichols. Nichols, who was convicted and sentenced to life in prison for his still unknown role in the bombing, says he is ready to tell all. Yet, the DOJ, FBI and BOP have made this task almost impossible, claiming that such as deposition would be detrimental to prison security.
Hammer, who is currently on Death Row in Terre Haute, Indiana, was housed in a cell next to the elusive and mysterious Timothy McVeigh for the last couple years of McVeigh’s life. Hammer, who wrote the book Secrets Worth Dying For, was the recipient of some of McVeigh’s “final” confessions. These include his corroborated claims of being an agent of the government during the planning and execution of the bombing. Secrets Worth Dying for is one of the most chilling books on OKC and one which is worth reading for anyone with an interest in this case.
On October 10, 2008, Trentadue, an unbelievably brave man, filed a complaint with the US district court of Utah, against the CIA, claiming that since December of 2006, the CIA has continuously withheld information which they were compelled by law, via the FOIA, to release to Trentadue. Information which was requested but which has to this date, been withheld concern the CIA’s investigation and/or involvement in OKC, information regarding German National Andreas Strassmier’s role as an informant/ agent in the bombing, and the nature of his exact relationship with McVeigh and the Aryan Republican Army/ Midwest bank robbers. The difficulty in attaining this protected information was also previously encountered by several others, including McVeigh and Nichols own defense attorneys. Yet, Trentadue is not trying to defend these men or their actions. He is trying to find out the truth of his brothers gruesome murder. Trentadue has demanded in his filing that all information concerning “all investigations into the CIA’s role, involvement with or connection to the Murrah Building Bombing whether through employees, informants, operatives or other means” be turned over ASAP. He also has been fighting to obtain similar records from the FBI, and ATF. His last letter, written to officials at the CIA, written March 2008 concluded with the line “I hope there will be no need for me to sue in order to obtain these records.” This should be interesting, to say the least.
Finally, on October 12, 2008 Trentadue filed another Freedom of Information Act to obtain records from the FBI. He has now requested copies of all surveillance video tapes which are related to OKC, including all surveillance tapes from in and around the Murrah building from the dates of April 15- April 19, which include the interior and exterior cameras of the Regency Apartments, located across from the Murrah, security camera on the west side of the Murrah and one on the south of the Journal Records building. (Anyone having 9/11 Pentagon déjà vous?) Included in these OKC surveillance video tapes is one which is mentioned in a Secret Service memo. It is stated in this memo that one of these videos contained:security video tapes from the area [that] show the [Ryder] truck detonation 3 minutes and 6 seconds after the SUSPECTS exited the truck.” Unless the Secret Service is ill informed on the use of grammar, the word SUSPECTS clearly implies a massive cover-up or worse. Trentadue is also requesting all reports which reference the FBI’s seizure of these tapes and the chain of possession with which they were handled in their eventual disappearance from the FBI’s (and others) files. Furthermore, Trentadue is asking for all video tape and records which can illuminate the truck, known to be at the site of the bombing, which was traveling behind McVeigh when he was arrested by Trooper Charlie Hangar in Perry, Oklahoma, an hour after the blast. Hangar had dashboard video equipment in his patrol car, but somehow this was mysteriously turned off until after Hangar had actually arrested McVeigh. IckeDavid ( talk) 04:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
All this stuff about McVeigh not doing it is just goofy talk. Before his execution he complained that he wished his bomb had been more efficient- to take down the whole structure! He even said "Against all those conspiracy theorists who will talk about this..." & He was RIGHT! There was an 8 FOOT DEEP crater Where the truck was sitting- & a circular Pie -bite chunk missing from the building radiating outward from where the blast originated. It wasn't some mythical "four demolition charges " that thoroughly damaged around 300 surrounding buildings & blew out windows in a quarter mile radius... The truck contained some of the same material that a stick of Dynamite contains... Only they had mixed up "7,000 POUNDS" of the stuff!! sitting in a container roughly less than 20x8x8 Feet. I would not want to be anywhere within TEN city blocks of a bomb like that. The rear axle of the truck smashed into the pavement- rebounded- & then landed - what- around 3 or 4 blocks away? I've watched films of smaller amounts of dynamite destroy whole mountain sides... A freestanding building like this is nothing when you use 7,000 pounds of "KaBOOM" against . I mean- C'Mon. Get real. ---mbd--- 71.6.81.62 ( talk) 06:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
There seems little doubt McVeigh was at the scene of the bombing and took an active part in this horendoius atrocity. However there is compelling witness reconstruction of events immeidiately before the Bombing to suggest the Bomb exploded premeturely (probably while it was being 'set' (i.e. all wires connected). Johnwrd ( talk) 03:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I thought that McVeigh ended up not using the necessity defense? See [3], [4], [5] Aldrich Hanssen ( talk) 21:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Bearing in mind that this section now takes up almost 1/4 of the total article, I'd suggest it gives undue weight to fringe theories. I'd suggesting cutting it down to a paragraph at most. FrFintonStack ( talk) 00:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
The first topic in the article states that, "He was picked on by bullies at school, and took refuge in a fantasy world in which he retaliated against them..." Obviously when reading this, the first thought to come into mind is, "Whoa, this guy was a real loser who couldn't come to terms with real life."
Now seriously, who here hasn't been picked on by bullies at least once in his life? Who here hasn't had thoughts about retaliating against his enemies? This is ridiculous. The above mentioned statement is simply a low blow aimed to hurt McVeigh's credibility. If you want to attack him, then do so by critiquing his actions against the government. You have testimony where he admits his bomb killed children of all things! Try using that instead of, "He was picked on at school." Perhaps next Wiki will suggest he had an electra complex spurred by penis envy which caused him to take out his rage on the government.
I suggest that character assassination attempts such as these be removed for the sake of relevance. It may or may not be true that he was picked on, but the context under which the fact is presented makes it appear McVeigh was a murderous psycho, not an individual who knew exactly what he was doing. 22:32 19 November 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.212.37.201 ( talk)
As entertaining as these conspiracy theories are, they have no part in this bio. It is not like there is one, but a Juggernaut of random thought as to what happened that goes against the core of the article. This random thought progression uses fringe articles as a basis for inclusion and makes up over 25% of the narrative (once reverted, again.) As profitable as it may be to write books about the murder of so many, these sources are baseless and are only there to sell copies. They do not add to the article and lend no credence. Conspiracy theories are fun, but not encyclopedic. 66.186.173.180 ( talk) 03:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
First, there is a definite bias displayed in this section. While certainly there are people of McVeigh's mindset at gun shows (Hey, it's a free country), they are certainly NOT the standard or even common. They're generally laughed at and sent packing.
Second, of what relevance is this commentary, or his position on firearms, when he used a bomb to commit his act? If he were a Boy Scout, it would not be deemed relevant, I hope. So what is the relevance of this other info? It feels to me like "Watch out for those gun nuts, they might blow off a bomb," which is demonstrably not true in general, and an unfair characterization.
As for "Anti-government sentiment," it all depends on which party is in power on which group of people are anti-government. Can we be specific as to WHICH government and policies he was anti? Mzmadmike ( talk) 14:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Is there a copy of McVeeigh's Bronze Star commendation anywhere? Lowellt ( talk) 21:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
p. 31: "Christian Identity ideas were most likely part of the thinking of Timothy McVeigh, the convicted bomber of the Oklahoma City federal building. 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, on the Oklahoma-Arkansas border. Although there is no evidence that McVeigh was ever affiliated with the commune, phone calls he made to Elohim City in the months before the bombing are a matter of record, including one made two weeks before the bombing. McVeigh once received a citation for a minor traffic offense ten miles from the commune on the only access road to it. McVeigh also imbibed Identity ideas, or concepts similar to them, through such publications as The Patriot Report, an Arkansas- based Christian Identity newsletter that McVeigh received, and perhaps most of all from the book The Turner Diaries. According to McVeigh's friends, this was "his favorite book"; it was "his bible," some said. According to one gun collector who saw McVeigh frequently at gun shows, he hawked the book at bargain prices to anyone interested in buying it, and never let it leave his side. More to the point, McVeigh's telephone records indicate that despite his denials, he talked several times directly with the author of the novel [William Pierce], including a conversation shortly before the Oklahoma City attack."
Terror in the mind of God: the global rise of religious violence By Mark Juergensmeyer Edition: 3, illustrated, revised Published by University of California Press, 2003 ISBN 0520240111
Why the above is nowhere in the Tim McVeigh entry, I have no idea Haberstr ( talk) 22:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that this article has been heavily slandered by people with an agenda to remove any trace of McVeigh's association with extremist christian groups. -- 70.181.91.238 ( talk) 02:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
does anyone else find it creepy that he was executed exactly 3 months before 9/11? 75.107.254.11 ( talk) 04:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Reading this section, is it really encyclopedic?
I'm certainly no vegan by any means (love red meat!), but the objectivity of this particular portion is rather questionable. A subject that is titled "Death" ("Execution") seems to unduly focus on the subject of McVeigh's dining preferences.
Anyone else kinda feel the same way? Vordabois ( talk) 08:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Could you rephrase this in a coherent sentence or two? VanitasStation ( talk) 20:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
It should be much shorter, of course. It has a lot of excellent sources and informtion, but, wow, the tone. Haberstr ( talk) 22:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
The tone seems pretty neutral to me. Excellent sources and information are exactly what an encyclopedia should offer. Keep in mind that this is a biographical article on a person's life, and not just an article on a single event. While a person needs to be notable to have a biographical article in the first place, such an article is supposed to cover the person's entire life, and not just the notable parts of that life. Warren Dew ( talk) 15:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I am removing the citations tag on the article, as practically every sentence in all but two sections has a citation, which is plenty. I am leaving the tag on the two sections that do seem to lack citations. If you want to put a citations tag back on the whole article, please mention your reasons here. Warren Dew ( talk) 16:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The article says "he did not express remorse for the deaths of the children", but in this interview, he at least says that he thought the bombing was a "tragic event", and that it was "terrible" that children died. I don't know whether or not he was sincere, but that was still an expression of remorse. 174.18.8.101 ( talk) 05:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
"McVeigh said he was often bullied at school, and that he took refuge in a fantasy world in which he retaliated against them." Against whom? Bullies (noun) haven't been mentioned. This could use rephrasing. 86.164.188.106 ( talk) 19:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
In an article found on the site of the New York Times there is an excerpt of an interview with McVeigh whilst he was in jail in which he states the following just before the bomb exploded;
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/19/arts/television/19mcveigh.html
“I lit the two-minute fuse at the stoplight, and I swear to God that was the longest stoplight I’ve ever sat at in my life.”
This is a direct contradiction to the Wikipedia article which alleges that the force of the bomb exploding supposedly lifted McVeigh off the ground as he was running away from the building after lighting the fuse. The article must be incorrect then based on McVeigh himself stating that he was sat in his car after directly after lighting the 2 minute fuse waiting for the stoplight to change.
Djemalts ( talk) 00:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
My reasons for this is that a large amount of referenced work was removed and scaled down to nothing. Some of the edits in one section almost looked like an unformatted list. The section that the edit summary said moved to, I just didn't see that, but maybe I missed something but I don't think so. I just felt that the new edits didn't improve the article at all. -- CrohnieGal Talk 13:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
In the "military career" section, the article says he went to sapper school "where he did go on to tab". What does that mean? Articles should be written in understandable English. Perhaps "tab" is jargon of some sort, but I'm not sure. Eastcote ( talk) 23:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
From what I recall the Sapper tab was not actually authorized until '94, him being in and out before then probably explains it. Also as I recall his signature was clearly written across a picture for his platoon when he went through, as he was the top of his class.
Not enough backgrounds in to McVeigh's religious motivations for his crimes is provided. There is enough extant research in to his religious motives that the brief and somewhat fragmented commentary about his theism isn't enough to accurately describe his primary motivations of what drove him. Fredric Rice ( talk) 15:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
re the person who wrote the hero comment - what a sad individual!
Under the political/religious views section they mention that he was a member of the NRA. I find that to be an assault on the NRA as some form of right wing conspiracy group, and has absolutely nothing to do with politics or religion. Could someone please remove that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.67.89.42 ( talk) 18:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
What? The fact that you associate the NRA with right wing conspiracies doesn't mean that it is one. It's a political lobbying organization. Thus, it goes under political views. 92.78.143.24 ( talk) 09:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Should Ronald Griesacker and David Wayne Hull be in the See Also section? I don't see any connection between them and McVeigh that warrants it. Blaylockjam10 ( talk) 04:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The article says that McVeigh received the sacrament of Annointing of the Sick before his execution. That can't be right: he wasn't sick. I assume he received Penance and Communion. Pdevine1 ( talk) 00:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Briefly in the military life section it states that McVeigh was deemed by the special forces school to have a "very unsuitable psychological profile." The source listed is a book by a former Navy Seal, with no online link provided or page number from the book. This comment seems very contradictory to what a long msnbc documentary reported about McVeigh either in 2002 or 2003. It said that McVeigh was a top-notch soldier within his crew and that they even had to stop doing their 'soldier-of-the-day' competitions because McVeigh kept winning them all. In addition, it reported that McVeigh had served a long term in Iraq and was shipped off directly from there to Army Special Forces command for training (Rangers, I believe), and that by time he arrived for spec-ops training he was beat tired from his Iraq tour, causing him to suffer from pure physical exhaustion and eventually quit on his own. I don't know but how does a soldier go from being 'top-notch' in the field to 'unsuitable' in training? The msnbc implication - that he dropped out because of bad timing, making him tired with lack of rest - seems a lot more believable, whereas the 'very unsuitable' comment seems quite after-the-fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.74.195.78 ( talk) 04:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Reading about the Toulouse (France) shootings and that the culprit was raised in a single parent family, I remembered that the parents of Breivik (Norway shooter) had also gone their separate ways - so I checked McVeigh, not even aware that he had been executed. There is a common pattern here. That should be noticed. If only a handful of people think twice before having children in a questionable relationship, that could probably be called progress. This goes beyond the bio but where would you put it?
The similarities between the American, the Frenchman, and the Norwegian are chilling. 144.136.192.5 ( talk) 04:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
John Doe #2 is still out there. Michel and Herbeck's "book" simply types McVeigh's "confession" as he told it on tape. There is no investigation on their part. Therefore, JD#2 goes free. What happened to investigative journalism? Too expensive? Brandon Stickney was the first reporter from the Buffalo area to actually attend McVeigh's trial. Where were Michel and Herback? Stickny's book was not a sensationalized HarperCollins pulp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckjohn ( talk • contribs) 04:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
This Wikipedia article claims: "McVeigh frequently quoted and alluded to the novel The Turner Diaries", but the included citations offer no support for that claim.
This Wikipedia article claims: "Photocopies of pages sixty-one and sixty-two of The Turner Diaries were found in an envelope inside McVeigh's car", but the included citations offer no support for that claim.
Esquire (a Hearst Communications, Inc publication) claims that McVeigh wrote: "Also noted some basic errors of known fact in grand jury report--copy of Turner Diaries in car (not!)". http://www.esquire.com/features/ESQ0501-MAY_MCVEIGH
150.135.161.68 ( talk) 00:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I am deleting this because it is completely unsupported by everyone except Ms. Davis herself and does not warrant a reference here. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Shabeki ( talk) 20:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Unbelievable. Not a shred of mention about McVeigh's military service in the Gulf war, it is my belief he did serve in that war. It was also one of the reasons as to why he carried out the bombing, American being "the ultimate bully". I read most of the article by the way and I skimmed the couple of bits that I knew at that time were not related to any military service. No mention of his service in the Gulf war though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.214.63 ( talk) 19:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Seriously? We know who he voted for? How? Elections are confidential. We can know what party he was registered as and we can know when and where he voted but in the end we only have his word for who he voted for and how reliable is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.195.148.178 ( talk) 08:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
"[McVeigh] said that six particular guns were essential:" but only five are listed. Either way, the second sentence of the second paragraph of Arizona with Fortier contains an inaccuracy. I don't know which is correct. Does anyone else? Leveretth ( talk) 20:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
the link which is supposed to be to article by SMU reporter quoting McVeigh is to an apparently dead link that may or may not be spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denverjsmith ( talk • contribs) 02:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
In this section of the article, there is a sentence which states:
But then it goes on to quote him about the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence. Is this an error? Xenophrenic ( talk) 15:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
The article states that:
"with the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) of a rear axle found in the wreckage, the FBI identified the vehicle as a Ryder Rental"
- VIN numbers are always located on the body of vehicles, NEVER on rear axles.
According to the official story, the only identifiable part of the truck that could be found was its rear axle housing. From a serial number on the housing, the FBI (allegedly) determined that the truck was registered to a Ryder Truck Rental.
1) The numbers that are cast, or stamped into axle housings, are ‘casting numbers‘ they are not serialized numbers.
2) Casting numbers will indicate the axles weight rating, its type, year, month and day (or the shift) of its manufacture. Casting numbers can NOT be used to uniquely identify an axle housing, all of the units of its type which were made during the same time period will have the exact same numbers.
3) Because of these factors, it would have only been possible to identify a wide range of truck models which may have been equipped with that particular run of axle housing. - this could provide several hundred, or thousand possible vehicles.
It is not clear how the FBI actually managed to identify the truck.
209.204.186.48 ( talk) 15:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
The FBI identified the truck by lying. This was known at the time. The Elgin Blast Effects Study shows they lied about the bomb. Being able to read and use a search engine can quickly demonstrate the necessary components/equipment to make an ANFO bomb - none of which McVeight could have obtained much less the knowledge. ( I love the FBIs story of a lone man mixing up farm fertilizer in the fog of the early morning by the lake - this story confirms that Americans have dropped to high-grade moron status.)
159.105.81.107 (
talk)
19:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand the above (I know the far right/libertarian tradition of ascribing everything to sinister conspiracies by the govt) - is claiming the FBI lied implying that someone else did it? McVeigh admitted it - or was he supposedly some kind of pre-programmed tool of the FBI. The post also says that anyone using the internet can find out how to make an ANFO bomb and then says McVeigh though couldn't have done that?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.89.234 ( talk) 16:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
The Elgin study shows that even if McVeigh built an ANFO bomb it wouldn't have caused the damage seen at OKC. The damage would require a bomb placed inside the building - incidentally right over ( or next to) the day care - bigger emotional impact.
Mcveigh may have admitted to a bomb but it needed a little enhancement to work so well ie building damage. Personally I doubt McVeigh had much to do with anything ( particularly anything that envolved building a bomb in the back of a truck near a lake. Just another confessing nut ( prepicked I suspect).
159.105.80.64 (
talk)
18:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Why did you remove the two AmericanCatholic.org links that mention Timothy McVeigh and both his and Julie Welch's fathers and forgiveness? As a Catholic, I believe that execution and vengeance are not the solution, and you still act as if people execute criminals like McVeigh for "justice, peace, and closure, and not revenge"! This truly makes me sick! Why?!-- Angeldeb82 ( talk) 03:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
We have laws. By choosing to be born we agree to obey those laws. The law that prohibits killing people, particularly innocent people is a just law. The only laws we have a right to disobey are unjust laws. By murdering 168 innocent people he forfeited his right to remain alive. This isn't about rehabilitation. We are not obligated to financially support his remaining alive in a relative degree of comfort. We are obligated to give justice to the victims. Justice = vengence and that is what we as a people must do for those who cannot do it for themselves. So we put them to death. If you murder innocents you no longer have the right to call yourself a human being. You are nothing but an animal, a dangerous animal and we must make absolutely sure you can never harm anyone again and do so without expending money keeping you alive. If you murder you must die period. If you don't want to pay the price don't commit the crime. And don't go on about how he might not have done it. He did, he was convicted. His guilt has been proven beyond any doubt. Even if he had help that does not mitigate his guiilt. If someday we found he had help from somebody else then they need to die too. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
72.195.148.178 (
talk)
08:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
McVeigh wasn't an adherent of Christian identity. The source used to pin it on him doesn't stick. If there is no better evidence, please remove from article. -- 41.151.4.30 ( talk) 12:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
McVeigh clearly believes that a 'god' exists, as he takes "last rites" before execution. Agnostics neither believe or disbelieve in 'god'. This is often confused with deism or atheism; however, atheism is the belief that there is no god (a-theism; inverse of theism), and deism is the general appreciation of 'god'. McVeigh never claimed agnosticism; but his rhetoric clearly shows reverence to 'god'.
Therefore, his "religion" should be a "religious" affiliation and not a irreligious disconnection, like agnosticism - the atheist religion is out, as he still believes in god but has disavowed an organization (Catholicism). Xan81 ( talk) 18:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
In the section titled "Oklahoma City bombing" it stated:
" The explosion killed 168 people, including nineteen children in the day care center on the second floor, and injured 450 others." This is incorrect
The first reference was to: http://209.232.239.37/gtd1/ViewIncident.aspx?id=6621 which is a broken link to the "Global Terrorism Database". The correct link to the database is: http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/IncidentSummary.aspx?gtdid=199504190004. The number of injured is listed as 650, not 450.
The second reference was to: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/oklahoma/stories/ok042597.htm which leads to a Washinton Post article about the prosecutor at McVeigh's trail. The article states that "over 500" people were injured, not 450.
The correct figure can be found in the report by the Oklahoma Department of Health entitled "Oklahoma City Bombing Injuries". The figures in this report are that "447 persons were treated in area hospitals...237 persons were treated in a private physician's office" which means a total of 684 people sought treatment. It is reasonable to speculate that many others were also injured but did not seek treatment either in hospital or by private physicians. Therefore, the most accurate statement about the number of people injured would be: "over 684 people where inured." However, I corrected the number to just 684 since the additional injures can only be presumed but not verified by a credible source.
I also removed the existing links and replaced them with one that leads to the Oklahoma Department of Health report. Pearl2525 ( talk) 02:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.
The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.
Please help us determine consensus on this issue. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
How could that photo of him being led out of the courthouse have possibly been taken 2 days after the bombing? -- Captain Infinity ( talk) 20:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
More info, in his own words, about what him getting selected for Special Forces training: http://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/01/us/excerpts-from-timothy-mcveigh-letter.html Yadojado ( talk) 22:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Another source: Gore Vidal on his three year correspondence with McVeigh: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2001/09/mcveigh200109 Yadojado ( talk) 22:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)