Wikipedia

Talk:Timothy McVeigh/Archive 3

< Talk:Timothy McVeigh
Latest comment: 1 year ago by 72.85.172.91 in topic Info Box : Partner(s)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Timothy McVeigh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

"Terrorist"

Latest comment: 8 years ago21 comments11 people in discussion

I'm very disappointed to see that the term "terrorist" has found its way into this article. It's a term which is too ambiguous to be used to describe McVeigh. According to the definition of terrorist (and "homegrown terrorist"), many of the most powerful people in the U.S. government, past and present, qualify as terrorists. Please choose a different term to describe McVeigh. --Kimyohan (talk)

(talk) While terrorist is certainly a poor choice of word so is freedom fighter.Both are very loaded one way or the other. A more neutral term is needed, as he thought himself a revolutionary not a terrorist. He also did not target say a market place or a football game he attacked a goverment building. If this was a enemy nation it would be an act of war not terrorism. — Preceding undated comment added 12:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it should stay the way it is. It's neutral and still shows the views of the goverment and the majority. Removing the term from the first line will also reduce vandalism change it from terrorist to freedom fighter or related words. It is properly covered in the next line. --Youngdrake (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

He attacked a civilian government building. Even if he attacked a military installation, I think he would still count as an unlawful combatant because he was not wearing the uniform of a recognized combatant military force.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

That does not make it a terrorist action. Terrorist has more connotations than simply an unlawful combatant. That could be used for French WW2 partisans as well. The current writing is good enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.82.243.87 (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thats the very definition of a terrorist action from the viewpoint of the targeted party. He might have perceived himself as some kind of revolutionary but that isnt relevant to the viewpoint of the country he attacked. Yes, the nazis most likely did perceive the french resistance fighters as terrorists too since they were the ones targeted by them, just like Mc Veigh targeted a US federal building. --84.160.243.7 (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


I disagree with almost all of you and I believe the use of the word terrorist is only being used for political reasons much like its use when referring to the Weatherman Underground. This man was a mass murderer and not a terrorist and I will point out why. First off, we have to distinguish between terrorists and mass murderers since clearly not all mass murders are terrorist acts and, in theory, not all terrorist acts incorporate mass murder. While both acts may share similar similar characteristics, there are fundamental differences between terrorism and mass murder and they boil down to the motives, the victims, and the intended outcome.

Motives: a murderer's motives are to seek revenge, or, in their mind, justice, for a perceived wrongdoing done against themselves, or against others they care about, by the party they slaughter. A terrorist, on the other hand, commits an act purely to cause a reaction that favors their desired goals. The terrorist's desired reaction to the attack is thus essential for a terrorist attack and must be shaped by the attack. This is why the victims of terrorist attacks tend to have zero responsibility for the very things that the terrorists want to change or the parties the terrorists want to destroy.

Victims: A terrorist has little interest in launching an attack directly against the very party(s) they wish to influence. To put it another way, a terrorist's ideal victims are those who's suffering can maximize the terrorist's desired response and aren't necessarily the party with which the terrorist intends to disrupt the most. This is why terrorists target innocent civilians. For instance, a terrorist might murder aid workers or construction workers in order to put pressure on the countries from which those individuals are from rather than out of spite for the individuals or to instill terror in them. When it comes to a murderer's choice of victim(s), its always intended to be the party or parties which the murderer directly opposes and holds a grievance against. This is even the case, instance, when a murderer kills another individual for harming a family member, friend, or a community valued by the murderer. It would be wrong to characterize, for instance, a brother who killed the abusive spouse of his sister as a terrorist since the dead body belongs to the very party which the murderer is attacking and thus the act clearly isn't carried out to use emotion as a weapon since the final target is already dead.

Intended outcomes: A murderer wants revenge because of something they feel their target did that they couldn't tolerate. The outcome they desire is thus one where their act is justified in their mind as a means of punishing a guilty party that otherwise would've gotten away with something. A murderer may try to get others to sympathize with their actions especially when their actions are taken against a party that didn't directly do anything to them. A terrorist, on the other hand, doesn't attack targets that are guilty of any perceived wrongdoing(even if that is argued as justification). The outcome of the attack is to instead shape the reaction to the clearly unjustified attack in order to achieve the terrorist's real objective. Since the terrorist attack is intentionally against innocent parties, the reaction to that attack may be impaired by emotions such as fear or anger which can be used to the terrorist's benefit. Essentially, terrorists rely on using the fear and anger of others to their benefit.

Here are some example illustrating what I mean:
1) Daesh's very pubic terrorist attacks on civilians in 2014 were very likely intended cause public outrage in America and prompt another military occupation of Iraq. This could help the terrorists by giving them the opportunity to incite violence between American soldiers and either Iranians, Iraqis, or even Syrians and thus give Daesh a stronger position in Iraq and Syria. The civilians were clearly innocent and the grievance had by Daesh against Shiite governments and groups was far greater than any against Yazidis or other civilians.
2) The Columbine massacre was clearly a mass murder since the individuals involved held grievances against their victims, used fear mainly against their targets, and clearly didn't intend merely to kill a large number of people. Also, their shooting had no greater motive.
3) Adam Lanza was clearly a terrorist. His attack was against innocent civilians who clearly couldn't have wronged him even in his own mind. His anti-gun political views, the weapons he used, and the fact that his shooting occurred right after the 2012 election all point to an intent to achieve a political goal as the result of the emotional reaction to his actions. Clearly lawmakers understood this judging by the lackluster enthusiasm to take advantage of the event.
4) Anders Brevik is clearly a mass murderer and not a terrorist. This is due to the fact that his actions were directed against not only the family members of politicians he despised but also the next generation of politicians who would've otherwise entered politics if they weren't killed. While his attack was against easy targets, he didn't utilize the reaction to his attack to achieve his ends but rather the attack itself. His belief that the families he attacked were themselves guilty of attacking his nation also backs up the idea that his actions, while political in nature, were clearly acts of murder rather than terrorism.
5) The 9/11 terrorist attack was a terrorist attack likely even more so than often realized. The victims of the attack were clearly innocent civilians but its very likely that the attack suffered from far more miscalculations than most realize and thus backfired. When looking at Osama Bin Laden's life, its very plausible that his ambitions were far more typical than assumed. He very likely wanted to replace the usurp the Saudi monarchy and his actions reflect that. What was likely his first attempt during the Gulf war failed when the Monarchy didn't want his military assistance and his calls for them to be overthrown merely resulted in his exile. It is thus very likely that his terrorist attacks leading upto and including 9/11 were intended to put pressure on Saudi Arabia by America and thus allow an Iranian-style revolution. When you consider how even today many doubt the WTC could have been brought down by planes, its quite obvious that they likely didn't believe that would happen either and thus the attack was likely far more deadly than was planned and, with the last plane not hitting its target, seen as being far more provocative since the only targets assumed include the Capital and White House with all other potential targets ignored(CIA hq, State Department hq, etc). Had everything went as planned, its very likely like less than one-third as many people would've died and, without most deaths occuring durring the collapses when everyone was watching, the impact on the American people would've been nowhere near as great and could've instead resulted in pressure being put on Saudi Arabia instead of the more costly invasion of Afghanistan. This could've led to a revolution in Saudi Arabia putting Osama Bin Laden on the throne as his people already had a massive network of allies.

When it comes to Mcveigh, his attack was clearly not an act of terrorism. His target was the Federal Government which he believed was guilty of serious crime and his desire for his interpretation of justice clearly didn't benefit from collateral damage in the form of a day care. Like terrorists captured who were involved in the 9/11 attack plan who agreed with, and pushed, the narrative that it was intended to be worse, its far more likely that his partner in the attack told people what they wanted to hear about him wanting to kill kids. This attack had no means of utilizing public outrage and was targeted at the Federal Government at a time when it wasn't seen as a purely innocent organization(see Waco). He clearly targeted the very organization he had a grievance with and his actions clearly didn't rely on, or benefit from, the use of fear. It was just another Columbine massacre except with with a big bomb rather than guns and little bombs and the government as the target instead of jocks. 71.217.222.96 (talk) 05:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

WALL OF TEXT, Soapboxing, Forum, etc. - Administrators! Please "hat" the above anon IP post? Thank you. HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

The word terrorism should not be in the article. In fact, a fair-minded editor would call this man a dissident. Either way, labeling terms should be removed and avoided going forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.86.243 (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I also came here because I was curious why the article uses the word terrorist (despite WP:TERRORIST). Based on that guideline, not even Osama bin Laden or Mohamed Atta are described as terrorists.--Pudeo' 06:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Britannica calls him a "militant" [1], which also fits with the Militia movement. I'm changing the description to that based on the guideline. --Pudeo' 06:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you have an incorrect reading of WP:TERRORIST. You are leaving out an operative phrase in the guideline: unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. Even a quick reading of the mere titles of the source articles show that this is the case. To say that there is no such thing is an objective terrorist is absolutely absurd on its face and the term "militant" is so vague as to be utterly meaningless. I'd rather nothing at all over "militant". What Britannica does or doesn't do is completely and utterly irrelevant and has no basis here. That is effectively a non-argument. Additionally, your claim that OBL is not referred to as a terrorist is quite incorrect. He's referred to as a terrorist, directly or indirectly, no less than 18 times in that article at the time of this writing. 98.247.52.79 (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I want to further clarify that WP:TERRORIST is borne out of the basic tenets of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. Using value-laden terms when not supported by reliable sources should absolutely be avoided. However, when the label is widely used by verifiable, reliable sources, then opting of our own accord to not use the term (or worse, opting for an invented label not widely supported by reliable sources such as "militant") is, in fact, adding our own POV to the article rather than the mere reporting of verifiable, reliable sources. This is why the phrase "unless widely used by reliable sources" is not an after-thought but a core feature of the guideline and must not be ignored. In summary, if the mass of reliable sources call him a "terrorist", then he can and should be labeled as such. If the mass of reliable sources do not call him a "militant", then he should not be labeled as such as it isn't verifiable, not supported by reliable sources, and arguably POV and OR. 98.247.52.79 (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
So Mohammed Atta, the man who flew the airplane to the WTC, isn't classified as a terrorist by most sources, or does WP:TERRORIST apply there incorrectly? (I'm not trying "WP:other crap exists", just asking whether we need to bring this issue up at the guideline's talk page). McVeigh wasn't directly implicated to be a terrorist by his convictions (use of a weapon of mass destruction, destruction by explosives and eight counts of first-degree murder) so it isn't any different. Literally no one from Weather Underground (the FBI classified it as a terrorist organization, just a while ago the consencus was to avoid calling them terrorists because of WP:TERRORIST) or FALN are called terrorists. Al-Qaeda militants aren't called terrorists either in Wikipedia's voice, although I could find some exceptions in less well-known articles. What is the difference here, or is it just that WP:TERRORIST is almost always mis-used? I do feel rather unpleasant about doing an edit which can feel pro-McVeigh, but if WP:TERRORIST is applied to all left-wing and al-Qaeda bombers, it is implicit those terrorists somehow have more legitimate reasons than right-wing terrorists which is a neutrality issue. As long as the guideline is interpreted like this, I think we should be consistent. --Pudeo' 00:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Re Talk:Osama_bin_Laden/FAQ. That article had a lot of debate and they agreed not to call him a terrorist but instead say he is on FBI's most wanted terrorists list. If we want to apply that here, we should not call McVeigh a terrorist but instead use a sentence like "the FBI classified him as a domestic terrorist" later in the lede. And let me clarify that you are right about the literal content of the guideline about verifiable sources, but the de facto interpretation of the guideline on a wide-scale by the community is that "terrorist" should not be used. --Pudeo' 00:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I do feel rather unpleasant about doing an edit which can feel pro-McVeigh. I think this right here is enough to show the POV issue with how WP:TERRORIST is applied in many cases. If you are just leveraging reliable secondary sources objectively (as we are supposed to do) rather than re-interpreting or second-guessing them, this shouldn't ever be an issue. I don't want to beat a dead horse here, so I'll just leave it at that. 98.247.52.79 (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we could omit "terrorist" "extremist" "militant" (etc) from the article without losing any impact. In fact, the article would probably be more effective without it because it allows the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. Bomber and/or mass-murderer would work because that is what he did. The other words (explicitly discouraged by our Manual of Style) could be used in other people's characterizations of McVeigh because those words would represent their thoughts. However, we should not use them to represent Wikipedia's neutral presentation. We don't need those words anyway, because the facts in the case are even more damning. Rklawton (talk) 14:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

To me, there's little difference between 'bomber', 'terrorist', or 'mass-murderer'. So, my stance is the same: If it's supported by the mass of reliable sources, then it works. (I think it would be easy to find RS's that refer to him as 'bomber') I certainly don't mind using the term terrorist as part of a quote or an assertion from a notable third party. 98.247.52.79 (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Given what I just said, I think we should think very carefully about the implications of what we are discussing here. The bombing itself is ubiquitously referred to as a terrorist act on Wikipedia, including in this very article. I think you would be hard pressed to find a reliable source that did NOT refer to the bombing as a terrorist act. To say that we can call the act terrorism but we can't call the perpetrator of said act a terrorist is logically inconsistent and arguably more UN-neutral than sticking with the reliable sources on the matter. To be consistent, if calling McVeigh a terrorist is 'value-laden', then calling the act he committed is also 'value-laden' and we need to remove the term 'terrorist' and 'terrorism' from everything referring to the Oklahoma City bombing and arguably every other act of terrorism in Wikipedia. This is why applying this guideline here is NOT a good idea. Applying this guideline here actually amounts to editorializing and applying our own value judgement above the reliable sources. Also, WP:TERRORIST is a guideline. WP:V, WP:RS, and RP:NPOV are policy and override the guidelines every single time. To me, overriding the mass of reliable sources for our own editorial guidelines amounts of a violation of those policies. 98.247.52.79 (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't see much difference between those words in terms of NPOV, either. They all represent the majority's point of view. However, if we are going to pick a phase, then "American terrorist" is the one that is most accurate and balanced. To wit: I own guns. I favor the 2nd amendment. I have military training. Therefore I'm a "militant", but McVeigh went much farther than that. "Bomber" is closer to accurate, but very few bombers achieved McVeigh's level of infamy. "American terrorist" works better for the reasons noted above, and at least one more. It's the same phrase used as the title of his authorized biography. Thus, "American terrorist" represents the popular point of view and the view his own authorized biographer. Personally, I'd like to see the same level of neutrality in this article as we see in 1983 Beirut barracks bombing. But if we're going to pick a word, "militant" ain't it. Rklawton (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I think many of you seem to be engaged in WP:ILIKEIT arguments as opposed to arguments based in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. WP:TERRORIST is very clear: value-laden labels should be avoided "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." (emphasis added) Rklawton restored "terrorist" with a source but without in-text attribution. Sorry, but it needs the attribution. 107.10.236.42 (talk) 06:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

As noted above, I'm all in favor of avoiding labels. Rklawton (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Fine. Knock yourself out. 98.247.52.79 (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Timothy's birthplace?

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

While loads of sources say he was born in Lockport, N.Y., just as much sources say he was born in Pendleton, N.Y.? Is there any confirmation? Depthburg (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

First line and use of 'terrorist' to describe McVeigh

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Personally, I don't have a problem with the use of the word 'terrorist' to describe McVeigh. However,if you look through Wikipedia you will find many characters know primarily for the atrocities they committed or encourage as being labeled by their jobs in their societies. People like Hitler, Pol Pot, and others are identified innocently in the openings to their page. And this is true especially of living dictators and known human-rights abusers. Wikipedia should set a standard across the site by either labeling the discussed innocent human self or his true fame or infamy. What's going on here is not fair to the individual or those who suffered due to them.203.131.210.82 (talk) 06:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)203.131.210.82 (talk) 06:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Terrorist is usually reserved for someone who committed individual terrorist acts, like McVeigh did——whereas leaders of State, like Adolph Hitler and Pol Pot, were behind millions of deaths, atrocities not only encompassing the concept of State terror, but much more crucially, genocide. El_C 07:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Timothy McVeigh's Religious beliefs

Timothy McVeigh was born Roman Catholic, abandoned his religion but one day before his death he accepted confess to a priest and became again Roman Catholic. He didn't die as an agnostic. (Roltz)

See also: Militia organizations in the United States

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The link in the "See Also" section to "Militia organizations in the United States" seems out of place. The term militia does not appear in the main article at all, and appropriately so. McVeigh's interactions with militias were limited to at most three meetings attended by McVeigh of the Michigan Militia (McVeigh denies attending any meetings). Reportedly, the ideologies of McVeigh and the Michigan Militia were not in alignment. The Michigan Militia says it banned McVeigh for "hyperbolic language", and McVeigh reportedly thought the Michigan Militia was not militant enough for his tastes. Militias did not appear in McVeigh's trial. I suggest removing the link to Militia Organizations in the United States link since McVeigh was never a militia member. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C5A0:A800:15BB:8903:F013:4C3F (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Timothy McVeigh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Assocations section

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The "Associations" section is pretty bad. Sloppily written and go into a lot of tangential analysis that has not so much to do with the facts of McVeigh's life. I've tidied it a little but if someone wants to give it a better clean, it might be a good idea. David (talk) 07:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Changed line 265.129.168.157 (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC) to read: "...ammonium nitrate fertilizer and nitromethane.." rather than: "..nitromethasne fertilizer..". . Nitromethane is a race and rocket fuel, not fertilizer.

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Timothy McVeigh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Childhood section

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Why does it matter that McVeigh's parents were Irish American? If he were African American, would the article state that "His African-American parents divorced ?" This just seems silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:200:10:F8E9:30C0:F87D:5362 (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I have moved the Irish American information, to avoid the implication that McVeigh's parents' status as Irish Americans was a factor in the divorce. I have not removed the information, however, as detail on ethnicity and background is usually included. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
To answer the IP's question: yes, information on the ethnic or racial background of a article's subject is almost always included in our articles, and, no, it has no relevance to his actions, nor does the article in any way claim that it does, any more than does the month of his birth, which is also included. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Short description

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Beyond My Ken, what is the reasoning for the revert? You did not leave an edit summary. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't really a revert, per se, I just used the "undo" button to get quick access to the material. I kept you addition but restored the word you took out. I think both are appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I overlooked that, as the highlighted addition was the term I replaced and the edit summary was a standard revert ES, mea culpa. I'm not sure it is needed as the short description is just a simple identifier (the reader is unlikely to think "'Timothy McVeigh, American domestic terrorist' Who? / 'Timothy McVeigh, American domestic anti-government terrorist' Oh, that guy"), but I suppose it does not make much difference either way. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not certain either, as I really think people should remember who McVeigh is. I suppose we could take out "anti-government" but add "who blew up a Federal building in Oklahoma City", that would certainly refresh some memories. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

McVeigh's white supremacist views and their significance

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

My edit categorizing this page under the category American white supremacists was initially reverted, but I think this is significant enough to be worth bringing up. Should this page be categorized under American white supremacists? The article itself not only states that "McVeigh frequently quoted and alluded to the white supremacist novel The Turner Diaries", but that "McVeigh was reprimanded by the military for purchasing a "White Power" T-shirt at a Ku Klux Klan protest against black servicemen who wore "Black Power" T-shirts around a military installation (primarily Army)." and that "After being promoted to sergeant, McVeigh earned a reputation of assigning undesirable work to black servicemen and frequently used racial slurs against them.". Given all of this information alone, I would say that Timothy McVeigh was undoubtedly a white supremacist. Despite this, I'm not exactly certain if he was a Neo-Nazi. Despite many of his racist, far-right views being very much in line with what Neo-Nazis believe in and his clear support for white supremacist ideology and sentiment, I think McVeigh may narrowly avoid that specific categorization due to a lack of explicitly clear Nazi-derived views. However, I stand by my statement that at the very least Timothy McVeigh was definitely a white supremacist with no doubt about it. How significant his white supremacist views were relating to the crimes he committed, I am not exactly sure, however. The violence of the beliefs could have played a role, but the attacks on governmental facilities definitely didn't seem particularly racially motivated, they felt more like an attack on the government out of radical far-right anti-government beliefs. At most McVeigh's white supremacist views may have played into and been related to his more explicit and clear far right and anti-government views. Feel free to discuss this further and correct any error or mis-categorization on my part. Thank you. Titanoboa Constrictor (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I think both claims are WP:SYNTH. Did he do some racially-biased stuff? Sure, but if no one says he's a neo-Nazi or a White Supremacist, then I think it's too much of a stretch for us to say so. Let the reader decide. Besides, categories used for navigation should include actually specimens of the category, not folks who lived in a ideologically liminal space. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

"Irish Americans"

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The first sentence of 'Early life' mentions that his parents were 'Irish Americans' and links to the page for Irish Americans. Why? In what way is his parents (or his) ancestry relevant? I've read thousands of pages about people on wikipedia, and it's rare for a person's ancestry to be mentioned, and then only when it has some specific relevance to the person's life/legacy. That said, it's a minor quibble, but I question the notability of that aspect when the broader article makes no mention of it being relevant to his history...Anastrophe (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Right-wing terrorist

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why isn't this mentioned? -- Valjean (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Info box: Convictions

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The convictions section of the Infobox lists 160 state counts of first-degree murder of the others but from my reading about it and the Arrest and Trial section Oklahoma State didn't pursue those convictions and the federal court couldn't as it was the state's jurisdiction. I looked for court cases for Timothy McVeigh,[1] but only found the one misdemeanor case from one he was arrested on different charges prior to the bombing trial and civil cases (tort and negligence). I also looked for news articles to see if he was convicted and couldn't find any articles. I think the district attorney, Bob Macy, was originally going to pursue the case against Terry Nichols and McVeigh, but was disqualified [2] and the replacement attorney[3] was appointed after McVeigh's capital punishment was carried out, so I think the conviction for the 160 deaths never happened. I read through the reference 72[4] for the arrest and trial section that I thought was the reference that Oklahoma wasn't pursuing charges, but didn't find anything there, so I'm not sure what that reference is for. I couldn't find a reference for the court case happening or a news article confirming a state conviction of McVeigh, but I think the lack of court case records in Oklahoma should be enough to argue for the removal. So, I would move the 160 state counts wording be removed, I would edit it, but this is my first contribution and I wanted some confirmation first, also I'm not sure I could do it with out messing it up. -Dave (I don't have a Wikipedia account yet, so this would be an unofficial signature) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.185.99.152 (talk) 01:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.oscn.net/dockets/Results.aspx?db=all&number=&lname=mcveigh&fname=Timothy&mname=&DoBMin=&DoBMax=&partytype=&apct=&dcct=&FiledDateL=&FiledDateH=&ClosedDateL=&ClosedDateH=&iLC=&iLCType=&iYear=&iNumber=&citation=
  2. ^ https://tulsaworld.com/news/da-disqualified-in-nichols-case/article_cffb86bc-0e89-5b45-9850-92b2d7725cf5.html
  3. ^ https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2001-sep-06-mn-42699-story.html
  4. ^ http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0106/09/pitn.00.html

Which side?

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

In 1993, McVeigh drove to Waco, Texas, during the Waco siege to show his support.

Not clear which side he wanted to support. From the current wording, it could be either. Can you define his mission more fully? Valetude (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Do you think he drove to Waco to support the FBI and ATF? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Quite possible, as it could have made him feel important. I can see no immediate motive for his supporting a religious cult. Either way, his mission does need defining. Valetude (talk) 23:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
<redacted>
"Not clear which side he wanted to support" Uh? You are in doubt? Amazing... 31.125.76.2 (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Tulsa Riots

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I understand that the zeitgeist right now is compelling. There is significant support for it among this community. But if we are going to alter wikipedia across the board to suggest that the Tulsa Massacre was the "deadliest act of domestic terrorism," we need some solid sources, not a single NYTimes article which gives a broad and speculative casualty range. If this is an actual statistic, then it should be stated continually. But it has to be vetted like everything else. Diewelt (talk) 13:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, should not be changed without definitive evidence from reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs) 22:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Its a tough one. I think the evidence is pretty strong that there may well have been at least 150 dead. The problem is, with the way race was structured in America at the time, they just where not counting. And thats a problem for an encyclopedic source like wikipedia. Which has me wondering if theres a way to acknowledge thats a possibility without engaging in original research or unsuitable sources. Duckmonster (talk) 08:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Info Box : Partner(s)

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Might I suggest changing “Partner(s)” to “Co-Conspirator(s)”? I know I’ve had a drink or two, but I read “Partner(s)”, then read the names Michael and Terry, and thought “huh, didn’t know he was gay.” 72.85.172.91 (talk) 03:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timothy_McVeigh/Archive_3&oldid=1225146008"