Talk:Oklahoma City bombing

Opinion pieces are not valid sources

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation to remove the "Building the Bomb" topic

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

Right-wing terrorism and extremism tags

I noticed that these tags were recently removed then restored to the sidebar [1]. Looking at the talk page history there is almost no discussion of these tags and little discussion of "right-wing" in general. Looking at the article history it appears the tags were first added by TheSouthernIrishman almost a year back. Looking at a sampling of article dates before that it doesn't appear that right-wing or similar was used in the article sidebar. It looks like an IP editor added right-wing terrorist to the lead in Sept 2021 using an OpEd and an article about domestic terrorism in general [2]. These were added only to the lead and based on edit history they appear to be disputed. The body of the article doesn't appear to support these tags thought I'm sure some sources would support them. Given that these tags (and content in the lead) should follow from the body these should probably stay out. However, I also suspect finding sources to support these may not be hard. I would suggest they should be removed absent sourcing that specifically talks about this as a right-wing crime vs as a anti-government crime (well sourced in the body). Springee (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

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

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

"Larry Mackey" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

White supremacist and/or anti government?

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

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

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

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

I looked at the SPLC article. It looks more like back door promotion for the SPLC itself. I also fine it concerning that it was added by a SPA [3]. Unless we have good sources saying these people were white supremacists I agree the claim should be removed from the lead as unsupported. I also think the SPLC reference should be removed. We have plenty of high quality sources for this crime, why use a self promotional one from 25 years after the fact? Springee (talk) 00:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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