Talk:Oklahoma City bombing

The subject of this article is included in April 19 Events

April 19th 2007 article vandalism

Thanks to whomever just repaired the article by removing the 1.9MB of "derka derka derka..." (I was in the middle of trying to fix it when someone else beat me to it) Would it be a wise precaution to temporarily lock the article for edits in case the current anniversary tempts some other idiot? Throbert McGee 02:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hitler & The Bombing

Hitler's birthday was on April 20th, 1889. This bombing took place April 19th, 1995. Furthermore, McVeigh confirmed that the date was chosen with Waco in mind. I don't see how the two are connected. I'm tending towards deletion. Comments/corrections? Zenosparadox 03:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

the "effect on children" stuff

am I the only one who thinks some of this stuff is a little heavy handed? Specificly the bit about the bombing being specificly an attack on children and therefore the worst act of violence against children ever; couldn't that be said of any tragedy that has affected children, like the holocaust or the rwandan genocide? I think the section needs to be toned down or integrated into a broader discussion of effects of the bombing.--Tosei 09:45, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

VV:

You attempts to automatically revert every contribution by this new user and attack him as a "vandal" on as many pages as possible is getting annoying. I posted a compromise version, which links to the 9/11 article. If this edit war still continues, I'll have to protect this page as well. 172 00:34, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

why is this terrorism?

The text mentions that revenge is the motive. Revenge is criminal behaviour, but that does not make it terrorism. Is every criminal a terrorist?

I think it's because it's an attack on innocent people to prove a political point. Or something to that effect. In any case, the bombing is almost universally considered a terrorist act. -TheCoffee 11:23, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, the killing of innocents has NOTHING to do with terrorism. Terrorism is a motive, not an act. It's terrorism because it was intended to coerce the government. If he just really, really hated that building and wanted to blow it up, then that wouldn't be considered terrorism. Dave420 17:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism is not a motive. Terrorism is a tool. Terrorism is the instilling of fear in people (the general public, or a specific group) to coerce certain behavior in them, or to disrupt their way of life. Terrorism is not a motive, it is a tool to move toward a goal, which is driven be a motive. Fresheneesz 18:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

A brief statement of it taken from a US army manual: Terror is the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain political or religious ideological goals through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear. That’s terrorism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.208.38.164 (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

answer to above question

The OKC bombing was terrorism because it was an attack on strangers intended to make a political point; the FBI's definition of terrorism is "the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives". Obviously the Oklahoma City Bombing meets that definition.--Tosei 17:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There are many defintions of terrorism. The FBI is not the authority on the matter. On the Definition_of_terrorism page you'll find the following:

"Few words are as politically or emotionally charged as terrorism. One 1988 study by the US Army found that over 100 definitions of the word "terrorism" have been used. For this reason, many news sources avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers", "militants", etc."

I find that acts of aggression are often called terrorism without much thinking. A common sloppy use of the word doesn't make it OK. Refering to an encyclopedia should clarify its use.

I tried to be fair in my approach to this. Instead of removing the many instances of the word from the article, I added a note to make readers aware of the controversy. I wanted to avoid the unresolvable debate that would result. Unfortunatly, the note got quickly deleted. Repeatedly. I don't mind having the note reworded to make it better, but I don't think completely deleting it is the best solution. - Micro

Unfortunately, society collectively creates reality. So if the majority says "terrorism" that's what it is. However, a section on the controversy of the term would be relevant to the bigger picture of the ongoing debate. --Laikalynx 00:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Effect on children

The previous version made it out like the children's suffering depicted on-screen was unprecedented. That is of course nonsense from a historical and international perspective, if you care to consider, say, Rwandan children, or if you want an example of a modern technological society suffering this Israel comes to mind fairly quickly. --Robert Merkel 08:14, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Relevance of GWB's comments

The GWB comments added in recent revisions contribute nothing of substance and read like an advertisement as to how resolute Bush is in "opposing evil". Hence I've removed it.--Robert Merkel 07:23, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

More conspiracies?

Under Conspiracy Theories I see nothing related to the theory that BATF and other U.S. agencies were involved in the bombing, and that McVeigh was a "Lee Harvey Oswald-like" patsy. See, for example The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terror by David Hoffman. It raises interesting questions as to why numerous "inconvenient" facts or witnesses were not presented at McVeigh's rushed trial, but rather "lies and distortions," among hundreds of other footnoted and documented inconsistencies. 148.63.234.151 23:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

   B/c it's written by the same people who believe in things like the JFK conspiracy.

Yes, but a careful study of the claims made by both the authors of these articles as well as the refered to Waco incident (http://www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/), shows little or no evidence of wild claims, but rather simple analysis of the officially published material of Time Magazine and other newspapers.

Furthermore, in the rest of the world outside the US, these so called conspiracy views are commonly accepted by large numbers of people. Therefor they should be presented in the same way are the official US government version, which is presented on this page currently. : 196.41.30.38 01:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removed more Alex Jones (journalist) conspiracy info that is already contained in the Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories article. --Kralizec! 22:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the alternative theories should be included or linked-to on this page, the way many other articles do, to create a more comprehensive and inclusive article. --Laikalynx 00:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Why can't these goddamn conspiracy nuts keep it to themselves. Stay on your own page people. Stay in the conspiracy theories articles! Don't put his rubbish in with the facts! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.94.31.127 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

"However it should be noted that not everyone accepts this explanation and a variety of Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories exist" This is exactly the sort of POV "weasel words" that aren't supposed to be on Wikipedia-- This should definatly be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.253.249.190 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Several enumerated conspiracy theories were added to the article along with substianting links. Normally I would just move them to Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories, however since that article was deleted, I have no idea what to do with these. Several of the sources do not strike me as being questionable WP:V. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Largest or second largest?

This article says that Oklahoma was the second largest domestic terrorist attack in U.S. History, but the April 19 Selected Anniversaries template says it's the biggest. Which one is it, and why are they different? plattopus^{is this thing on?} 05:05, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

The April 19 Selected Anniversaries template is now rewritten to remove the inconsistency. But, anyway, if the Oklahoma City bombing is the second biggest, what is the biggest ? -- PFHLai 06:18, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

I would like to know that also! plattopus^{is this thing on?} 06:23, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

This article now says it's the largest. Good to know ... -- PFHLai 20:16, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

Worst act of terrorism

The article states that "the worst act of terrorism against the U.S. before 9/11 was Pan Am Flight 103". This may be so it terms of fatalities, but perhaps it is less clear when we look at other factors (injuries, financial cost etc). Perhaps this should be changed to state that it was the worst "in terms of death toll". Any thoughts on this? Cheers. TigerShark 19:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The bombing in Oklahoma City was the worst act of terrorism within U.S. borders before 9/11. The bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 was the worst act of terrorism against the United States in terms of death toll (168 Americans were killed in Oklahoma City, 189 on Flight 103). SNIyer12 23:15, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I have watched the local news videotapes from the OKC bombing. They specifically state that there were 2 unexploded bombs disarmed and removed from the federal building. Also, the Eye witness reports that state there was a middle-eastern man who got out of the passenger side of the ryder truck. The Feds say there was no second person but the tapes which would show him have not been released to the public....WHY? Why does this not show up in the national news?.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.188.158.166 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't the worst pre-9/11 terrrorist attack be the killing of 241 marines in Lebanon in 1982? Or is that considered a military action?IndieJones 21:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

If we are going to count the 241 American servicemen killed in the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, should we also consider the 2,403 American servicemen and 68 civilians killed in the Attack on Pearl Harbor? Neither occured during an official declaration of war. --Kralizec! 15:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The 1983 Beirut bombings were carried out by a terrrorist group (Hezbollah)for terrorist aims, Pearl Harbor was a ruthless attack officially backed by a foreign govenrment. So yes the Beirut bombing was the worst terrorest attack on the U.S. before 911. Pearl Harbor was an act of war by a foreign government. Oklahoma city is the worst incident of domestic terrorism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Solarteach (talk • contribs) 07:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleted bit about children

I've removed the following section because it doesn't really seem to add any significant information about the story. The focus seems more on what the media did which seems a little silly. "During news conferences in the first two days after the bombing, reporters asked President Bill Clinton about what to tell children who were shocked and horrified by television pictures of the bombing. Clinton and his wife, Hillary, also asked aides to talk to child-care experts about what to tell children about the bombing. On April 22, the Saturday after the bombing, the Clintons gathered 24 children of employees of agencies that had offices in the federal building in Oklahoma City in the Oval Office. In remarks broadcast live on television and radio, the Clintons talked to children about the bombing and answered their questions." --Lee Hunter 23:44, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's important to have information about the White House addressing concerns about children. Many children across the country were shocked and horrified by television coverage of the bombing. Child-care experts were also concerned about children seeing other children killed. -- SNIyer12 23:17, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV of Historic Viewpoint section

At 18:55, 30 September 2005, 67.2.4.137 added the following section to this article:

Historic Viewpoint

Many refer to the OK city bombing as domestic terrorism. That is just the spin, if McVeigh hadn't bombed it when babies were in day care, he might have been called a hero of the 2nd Amendment. That's what the 2nd Amendment is for, to give citizens the ultimate solution if their request for redress of grievances at the end of the 1st Amendment isn't met. Thomas Jefferson wrote that a revolution is needed every 20 years to keep the republic on track.

The bombing was intended to instill fear in the Government so they wouldn't do a Waco or Ruby Ridge again, not to instill fear into the American people as 9/11 was intended to do. Judging by the reaction, even BPA in Portland put up K-Rails to prevent driving close to their new HQ, so it did the job that was intended, instilling fear in the government. I also saw in a federal legal office they had a souvenir on the wall, a piece of the blown up federal building as a reminder.

In the conext of recent history, I think the OK bombing was necessary prior to 9/11 or the government would be engaged in many more events like of Waco and Ruby Ridge as a part of the "Homeland Security" package. So Timothy McVeigh while as guilty as the feds of killing innocents, is an unsung hero of the 2nd Amendment.

This strikes me as being questionable NPOV, so I moved it to this talk page pending a concensus. --Kralizec! 00:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Questionable? This passage is about as POV as you could get. It's my POV that McVeigh and the person who wrote this passage are gutterslime, but I wouldn't vandalize by putting it in the article. In any case, it is bizzare that this "person" claims that the bombing was not terrorism, but claims that it was intended to cause fear.--RLent 19:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Ancestors of Alfred P. Murrah

http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=kingharry&id=I08759

Ancestors of Alfred P. Murrah

Political response

The section on the Presidential repsonse is a little light on info. One of the political effects of the OK City bombing was the public's perception of the Republican Party. In a classic case of ideological overreach, many Republican members of Congress were all but defending the Act. Helen Chenoweth, Senator from Idaho, actually said on the floor of the Senate that the OK City bombing occurred because, "the government is pushing people too far!". Gingrich and many of this collegeus also made some similar comments. They were hoping to use the bombing as an excuse to radically downsize government.

The Democrats tried to exploit this. Bill Clinton mentioned the bombing (and the ideological lunacy that caused it) every chance he got. However, the Dems weren't able to harness the public's horror at the event into significant political victory.

However, the public's receptiveness toward the Republican's anti-government rhetoric changed quite a bit after the bombing. I don't have any references to back this up, but I bet there may be a policital histories out there to support it.

Anyway, the bombing not only marked the high point of the militia movement, but it also marked the end of the Republican Parties embrace of these lunatics as well. And that was significant. --24.24.227.102

Not sure how well that would work considering NPOV. --Kralizec! 00:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Pictures are unexplanably missing

pictures are gone, no explanation/justification --80.172.138.64 02:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps not so inexplicable ... it was vandalism by 4.245.71.218. I reverted the article back to the previous good version. --Kralizec! 12:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

info removed

Officials are reported by local news media to have defused two additional explosive devices inside the building, after the bombing. According to e.g. Alex Jones, there must have been a fourth device inside the building to have caused the building to collapse. In the course of time, these other bombs seem to have been forgotten about, and are referred to as "conspiracy theories".

The above 3 sentences were added by me, and removed by Kralizec(!). I object to the removing, for the following reasons:

• The conspiracy article does not make much sense as an article, it is merely a listing of assertions.
• The first and last sentence disputed, above, are facts, as far as I know, and not "conspiracy theories". Why not include these in the article?
• The middle sentence is indeed a theory, held by e.g. Jones; if there is strong objection to putting this sentence in the main artice, I am willing to transfer this sentence to the "conspiracy" article.

I think wikipedia should be objective in its presentation. Objective is not the same as not speaking about facts which are inconvenient. I therefor believe that the facts mentioned deserve mentioning in the article, to avoid it being a single POV. What do folks say to this?
—Xiutwel 22:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

---

As Kralizec does not respond, I will try a slightly modified wording. — Xiutwel (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

All those assertations are uncited and have been removed. And while the conspiracy needs to be cleaned-up, it is is the place for them (w/ citations). -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the Alex Jones bit was readded. Where is the citation? Without a reputable source for the information, this is unverifiable and can't be included. -Aude (talk | contribs) 05:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I've moved this bit to Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories, and added notes. -Aude (talk | contribs) 05:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Number of victims

This article repeats the official statistic seen so often in the press that 168 people died in the bombing. My understanding is that the true number must have been at least 169, to account for the discovery near the blast of a leg that could not have belonged to any of the 168 official victims. This leg has never been identified with an actual person, so it does not count toward the statistic. But surely 169 people died that day, even though only 168 were identified.

I was under the impression that 167 died in the blast, with one other survivor committing suicide afterwards. Or do I remember it wrong? - Hbdragon88 10:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The official number has always been 168, although I don't remember if that's how many died that day, or from injuries, or whatever. The memorial itself mentions 168 repeatedly. -- nae'blis _(talk) 05:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that 168 people were killed in the bombing of the Murrah building. Some sources list the number as 169 because they include Rebecca Anderson, the only rescue worker killed (she died of head injuries received while trying to help people). --Kralizec! | talk 13:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's a quote from the NY Times (24 April 2004)-"A leg found in rubble after the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 did not match any of the 168 victims and could be from an unidentified 169th victim, the state medical examiner testified at the state murder trial of Terry L. Nichols, a conspirator in the bombing. The examiner, Dr. Fred Jordan, said the leg might be that of a woman with an unknown identity." My point in raising this issue (sorry I did not sign the initial comment) is that 168 is the "official statistic," repeated countless times, including at the memorial, but any reasonable person would conclude that the leg represents a 169th victim. Should Wikipedia simply repeat this "official number" or should it say something like "while the official count of identified victims is 168, the discovery of leg indicates a likely 169th victim who is as-yet unidentified." --User:Ump 13:21, 2 March 2006

Mention 168, then later mention the leg. --Golbez 13:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I made the change in the Bombing section. -- Ump 15:00, 2 March 2006

Sentence removed

.....we won't forget you chase and colton....

Removed this sentence as irrelevant. Bobby1011 18:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for the bombing ?

Does anyone know what were the motives invoked by McVeigh ? I find it strange that nothing is mentioned in the article about possible reasons for the attack.

See the footnotes. See the article on McVeigh. And sign your edits with 4 tildes's. mdf 02:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Social Connectivity of the people in Oklahoma City

The article states: By some estimates, more than one-third of the nearly half-million residents of Oklahoma City knew someone who was killed or injured in the bombing. Now 500,000/3 ~= 150,000. At 1000 injuries, we have the unusual conclusion that people in Oklahoma City "know" about 150 other people. This is hard to believe. I suspect that someone just took the so-called Dunbar number and multiplied it by the victim count ... perhaps forgetting that the "150" is the size of the network, not the actual node-to-node connectivity. (At least if I understand this small world network stuff correctly.) So can someone document the claim made in the sentence by a reference more substantial than vague weaslish-words 'By some estimates'? mdf 02:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Assumption of Middle East involvement

The article doesn't mention the widespread belief in the immediate aftermath that the attack was undertaken by terrorist groups from the Middle East. I seem to remember that this was widely reported as a distinct possibility immediately after the event. I am not sure whether any Americans of Middle Eastern origin suffered as a result but I believe that this dark side of the response to the bombing should be mentioned in the article. An example reference: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2271

Wasn't there a knee jerk statement by Clinton blaming the Arabs or Muslims or bin Laden? I can't find a link to it on the Net. A Presidential statement is part of history and should be added here if someone can reference it.

Incomplete potential alternatives

Various government, mainstream media and officials, added to witnesses' accounts reported multiple blasts at the Oklahoma Federal Building, some saying as much as 3. Amongst the detailed analysis schematics of the disaster, outward bomb blasts were pinpointed and the credibility of these accounts confirmed. Construction engineers confirmed that the bomb-making material included in the Ryder truck being driven by Timothy McVeigh and the second rider could not include enough explosives to destroy the primary support beams and blow debris past the Ryder truck's location from an outward angle. Why is this information missing from this page?

I call in doubt the credibility of this article.

And can you cite a reputable source for any of this? --Golbez 14:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22874 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.188.158.166 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think so. --Golbez 16:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22874 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.188.158.166 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Federal Government Murder?

"in both of which instances innocent American civilians had been murdered by agents of the federal government"

This sure seems POV to me. Were the agents of the federal government convicted of murder? No. This part of the sentence shouldn't be in this article. Sgtraiderred 19:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Multiple blast sources

These links provide information on claims related to the Oklahoma City Bombing and are provided as a reference for the article. Please do not remove them.

• The Oklahoma City Bombing: Were there additional explosive charges and additional bombers?
• The Oklahoma City Investigation: A Sick $89 Million Joke
• The Opinions of General Partin and Other Bomb Experts
• Secret Pentagon Report on Oklahoma City Bombing--Evidence of an Inside Job?
• Letter from General Partin to U.S. Senator Trent Lott
• Oklahoma City Bombing
• Oklahoma city bombing: startling evidence proves government cover-up
• Bomb Damage Analysis Of Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building
• A Comparison of the Blasts: Official Scenarios Don't Add Up
• Cover-up information
• V.Z. Lawton claims
• Sgt. Terrance Yeakey murder
• 911 Precedents
• OKC TV News - 'Three Bombs In Murrah Building' video

re Additional explosives

In follow-up of: #info removed

• Oklahoma_City_bombing#Additional_explosives

I am referring to acclaimed video material of live news reports, presented by Alex Jones in: "The road to tyranny".

• http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6517776133137328105&q=the+road+to+tyranny (2:22'), starting at 0:17':00" approx. (through 0:25':00" approx.)

— Xiutwel (talk) 09:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I have seen this video. Alex Jones's video is not a reliable source. Where you say "Local news media", please cite specific local news media and not Alex Jones. -Aude (talk | contribs) 13:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I cannot myself recognize all the local news media purported, since I am a Dutchman, and not acquainted with these TV stations. However, some logo's are in the footage, so it should not be hard to track for any Oklahoma citizen. I therefore appeal to you and others to help out here.

I am not referring to Alex Jones as a source, but as a medium. I can agree that Jones is not a reliable source, he has been known to make mistakes, but until proven otherwise the news footage in the video appears authentic and reliable to me, and therefore I suggest we accept this as genuine until proven otherwise. This seems to me to be a fair approach. The burden of proof should be with those who believe these video's to be fake. (Please note it is impossible to prove beyond any doubt that the Earth is not flat. Any picture of it being round could be fake. There should be some balance here.) — Xiutwel (talk) 12:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC) (restoring my addition)

You can do better than Alex Jones. If "additional explosives" were reported on television, they were surely also reported in newspapers and other reliable sources. Alex Jones is just not acceptable as a source. We need reliable sources, which also explain why these reports never panned out. (on 9/11 there were also reports of explosions at the State Department that were untrue; these things happen during confusion). -Aude (talk contribs) 12:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me hard to imagine that during the confusion, several local TV stations would take to reporting live that bomb squads are detecting bombs and disarming them, when in truth there are no bombs. I therefore beg to differ with you, and suggest to let the information remain on wikipedia. Let our readers make up their own mind. If you believe that Jones faked the footage, you should give some reasonable doubt as to the veracity of the footage, other than that Alex Jones is presenting it. Alex Jones also alledges that George W. Bush is the current president of the U.S.A. Am I to question this assertion, because it comes from Jones? So please:

• prove that the featured TV-stations are non-existent
• call the reporters featured and ask them if these images are fake
• etc.

Cheers, — Xiutwel (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Please prove that invisible pink unicorns do not exist; the responsibility is on the person adding to source controversial edits, not on us to disprove you. -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

burden of proof

I've shown you footage of news stations bringing the facts that I describe in my edit. They happen to be included in a documentary by Alex Jones. What does that matter? The material is there, isn't it? If you claim that this footage is not real, you should point out why such is likely. If I see live reports, I must assume they are: live reports. My apologies for not being in Oklahoma myself in 1995 and videotaping them myself. Missed opportunity. — Xiutwel (talk) 09:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Quoting KMF164:

I have seen this video. Alex Jones's video is not a reliable source.

Can you please elaborate on that? Obviously, the assertion "Alex Jones's video is not a reliable source" is controversial also. So please, detail why this journalist's work is not a reliable source for the purpose at hand? — Xiutwel (talk) 09:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

As far aw what News channels, how about KFOR and KWTV. If Alex Jones isn't your cup of tea, try the video "In Plane Sight". You can google it for a download location. It shows too much video and interviews of local coverage of the OK bombing to allow for the spoofing argument. I looked at this because I am researching the more recent black op, 911.

Material lacking WP:CITE and WP:RS

The following was moved here from the article pending citations and references from reliable sources.

Additional explosives were used

Local news media reported on live television BATF officials defusing, after the bombing, two additional explosive devices in the interior of the building. In the course of time, these other bombs seem to have been forgotten about, and are now referred to as "conspiracy theories". According to some, e.g. Alex Jones, there must have been at least even a fourth explosive device which did explode inside the building, without which the building allegedly would not have collapsed.

Regardless of citing reputable sources before adding the above info to the article, much of this is already covered in Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories. --Kralizec! (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kralizec et.al.,

please respond to my request of explaining exactly WHY you feel this material does not meet "reliable sources standards". Simply referring to wikipedia guidelines in general does not help me. What do you think is wrong with the news footage as featured in minutes 17-25 of the above videolink? I just want the plain simple facts in the encyclopedia. Do you believe these facts to be false? If so, how do you explain the footage, then?

best wishes, — Xiutwel (talk) 12:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"Local news media reported on live television BATF officials defusing, after the bombing, two additional explosive devices in the interior of the building. In the course of time, these other bombs seem to have been forgotten about, and are now referred to as "conspiracy theories". Who says so? There is no citation for this. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Tom, you cite the first 2 of my 3 statements. 'Who says so?' Well,

1. I've provided a link above to video material, recorded of the local news media when "saying so".
2. Concerning the forgetting, and conspiracy theories: it seems self-evident from wikipedia itsself. Most people do not know (remember) that the local media reported as such, and most wikipedians refer to these accusations as conspiracy theories.

So: for which statement(s) of mine do you feel you require additional sources, and, why?

Regards, — Xiutwel (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is you don't have reliable citations for the reports of additional explosives. I vaguely remember some of those reports, but the Alex Jones video takes the reports out of context, puts POV spin on them, and is the one that makes them into these "conspiracy theories". We need (1) reliable citations so we can verify the facts (2) provide context; really, why were the "bombs forgotten about". -Aude (talk contribs) 13:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Alex Jones' video is not a reliable source for anything but what Alex Jones thinks. "...seem to have been forgotten about, and are now referred to as "conspiracy theories"" is not self-evident. We need a reliable source who mentions Jones' allegations. In any case, we already mention that there are conspiracy theories, and we link to Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories. I think that mention and link are due weight. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree, the link to Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories more than satisfies due weight. -Aude (talk contribs) 13:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

One Skinhead who was living in Oklahoma City at the time says that he heard 2 explosions but between the hours of 3:30 and 4:30 am and that they woke him up shaking the floor he was sleeping on. He says he is positive about the times because he looked out the window and it was still dark. He is willing to take a lie detector test to prove that he isn't lying about what he heard. He is also willing to testify to this fact. Also notes that on the morning of April 19,1995 they bought a Daily Oklahoman which read "FBI zero casualties". How can you have all agents accounted for then go to massive casualties? Where do you hide when the Federal Government are the real criminals? skinhead.superstar@yahoo.com

Proposal/apologies

Dear Tom, Kmf, Kralinec,

Well, as a first step, let's include into the article the first sentence:

Local news media reported on live television BATF officials defusing, after the bombing, two additional explosive devices in the interior of the building.

After we agree on that, we can discuss further about more complicated issues.
So: how would Jones have taken the reports out of context? What was the context, then? Does this context show there really were no bombs? Were these video's of 1975 in stead of 1995? Or were they not in Oklahoma City? I don't think I quite get your drift, yet. How do you feel about this proposal? — Xiutwel (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no citation for "Local news media reported..." so far, except for Jones' video. Jones' video is not a reliable source, except as a primary source for the views of Jones himself. We could conceivabley say, "According to Jones, local media reported..." but in this article that would give undue weight to the material, and to Jones' views. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Having read WP:HEC I feel I must apologize for reverting three times. It would have been wiser to first repeat and clarify my questions on Talk. Sorry! — Xiutwel (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

According to?

It is obvious to me you have a deep distrust of Jones. Such is your right.

However, it is not fair to demand from me that I go look for video-footage, independent of Jones, unless you can give some specifics on why you do not believe the footage to be genuine? Would you please respond to my earlier questions:

• how would Jones have taken the reports out of context?
• What was the context, then? (approximately or hypothetically, even)
• Does this context show there really were no bombs? (possibly)
• Were these video's of 1975 in stead of 1995? (par example)
• Or were they not in Oklahoma City? (par example)

If I present footage, after months of looking for it, I think you can do better than say: "According to Jones, this was on the media, but why take his word for it" — [my wording] when in fact, Jones has produces videotapes of the media reports?

---

...? — Xiutwel (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence;
• Jones has strong views which color his work;
• His material is self-published, and is not subject to separate editorial oversight and fact-checking;

I would prefer not to have video footage at all. I would rather have a report in an academic work or history book, or in a mainstream newspaper. If not that, then a transcript of the news report, from a reliable source. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

As would I !!! I wish I could have peer-reviewed scientific studies, saying there were additional bombs present back then.

(For my other two wishes, I would like World peace, and a couple of $1.0000.0000, haha). I have none of these three. In the meantime, can you please indicate in specifics why you think these 5 minutes of video is inadequate, regardless of all the vices of Jones. Your criticism of Jones is in general terms, but does not detail any suspicion about the video's. The claim is only extraordinary because it is generally perceived as untrue. If you look at it unbiased, it is not strange at all that there would have been 4 bombs in a place where we know there was at least 1 bomb. — Xiutwel (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Tom, Kralizec, Kmf164,

please indicate in what matter Jones would have altered the evidence he presents. I agree he also gives his POV opinion in the voice-over, but I am not referring to that. I am referring to the reporters who, all of them, report live that additional bombs were found and were being removed by the bomb squad. Please specify? — Xiutwel (talk) 08:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Jones altered them in the sense, he took short news clips out of context and put them together in a POV manner. Jones does not say why the reports of additional explosives were dismissed. In the chaos of such situations, false alarms such as "additional explosives" happen out of extreme caution by authorities. I'm sure there are rational explanations that need to be here (with reliable citations) if we're going to say anything about reports of additional explosives. Again, I think you can do better than Alex Jones and find reliable citations such as newspaper articles. -Aude (talk contribs) 13:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• It's "reliable sources", not "reliable statements." When I think about how to verify a ststement, I consider first the reliability of the source, not whether I think the statement is true or not. Reliability isn't something that goes with a particular statement, but with a particular speaker. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

---

• I see your point. It is indeed possible, from the images I've seen, that this would have been false alarms. For a single extra explosive device, this would indeed have been likely. However, a reporter even mentions a third explosive device. That would seem to indicate that the second device was confirmed at that moment. Pending more reliable sources, I propose we leave the section open. — Xiutwel (talk) 11:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Pending reliable sources, we need to leave it out. Surely some newspapers reported about this. Such sources would give a more complete, WP:NPOV picture of what was going on. -Aude (talk contribs) 19:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I don't agree on "we need to leave it out". If I were to find a newspaper article on additional explosives, one could as well argue: it is just a single newspaper article, surely this one was based on the TV reports which were transmitted in haste, and surely later it has been established that these were false alarms.

It is a known fact that in the trial of Mc Veigh, the additional bombs were not mentioned (I guess).

Therefore we can assume that either there were no bombs, or someone would like the bombs to be forgotten about. All this would belong in the conspiracy article that is coupled to this article. I agree, we cannot say there were additional bombs based on these sources. We can however say there were live reports, based on these sources. We don't know whether these were false. Yet.

It is not upto us (wikipedia commuity) to decide whether these bombs ever existed. It is not up to us to construct a coherent picture of reality, which may or may not be right despite its internal coherence. It is upto us to inform the readers of wikipedia as best we can. And then we must include the fact that there were live broadcasts that day, which in turn may or may not have been reliable. It is an interesting phenomenon anyhow, even if the reports were false.

Maybe you'd like some refrasing?What do people say to this proposal?— Xiutwel (talk) 12:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Article addition? Destruction of the Murrah Building, as per National Geographic

In light of the recent flurry of conspiracy theory additions to the article, I was reminded of the National Geographic special I recently watched. If group consensus does not object, I would like to add the following to the article:

---

The Oklahoma City bombing was the topic of a 2004 episode of National Geographic's documentary series Seconds From Disaster. During the 60 minute program, explosives and demolitions experts from around the world were interviewed, and the latest computer modeling software was used in order to determine how the Murrah Federal Building was really destroyed. As has been occasionally mentioned in the news media, and oft reported in various conspiracy theories, the detonation of a 5000 lbs ammonium nitrate/fuel oil truck bomb parked in front of the building should not have caused such total devastation. Specifically while the explosion was enough to destroy one of four reinforced concrete support columns in the north face of the building (the column the Ryder truck was parked in front of), the remaining three columns should have been more than sufficient to prevent the building from collapsing.

After extensive review of the building's original 1977 architectural plans and comprehensive computer simulations, National Geographic was able to determine that while the building's second floor was placed on the columns' supports, the floor was not actually bolted to the supports, so in effect, the weight of the floor itself is what kept it attached to the column support. When the truck bomb detonated, the resulting overpressure from the blast wave was enough to literally lift the second floor up off of its supports, then the floor's own titanic weight sent it crashing back down. The impact of the second floor immediately caused stress fractures in the remaining three columns, which then collapsed, bringing down the north side of the building.

Building codes for Federal buildings have since been amended to require that each floor be physically bolted to its support columns.

---

Thoughts? Opinions? --Kralizec! (talk) 01:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

---

• What would be your proposed insertion point?
• I would prefer to include this explanation in the conspiracy article, and not here, since I believe that National Geographic has strong CIA connections and therefore this hypothesis cannot solve the puzzle for us. Either intelligence officials were maliciously involved, or they weren't, and only after it is proven they were not can we begin to accept the National Geographic's theory as a reliable fact. — Xiutwel (talk) 12:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Rubble

It is a matter of public record that CDI did the demolition and cleanup anf that the rubble was taken to an isolated private landfill in the desert, buried, and surrounded by fencing and Wackenhut security guards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.60.112.15 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Question: why was this removed? If this is a fact, it should be in the article, if it is disputed, additional sources should be asked for. Why simply revert? — Xiutwel (talk) 12:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Article additions made by persistent vandals are inherently suspect, and the information listed above was one of 13 edits the individual in question made in about 90 minutes. Regardless, any information added to the article which supports any of the variety of conspiracy theories needs to be substantiated by well cited, reliable sources. Since it was not, I moved the info to Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories and reverted the main article. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

1. OK. I agree we need reliable sources on this one. But I would like to remind people to the 'duty' of explaining newcomers how to go about when in dispute, and not simply reverting without explanation. Making repetitive changes to an article, in order to "improve" it which do not meet consensus is not vandalism. Vandalism is destroying something beautiful willingly.
2. I think the info belongs in this article, as soon as reliable sources are found, since it is not a theory but a (potential) fact. — Xiutwel (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

re: According to?

Please respond to #According to?, about my proposal on including the known facts along with a dispute warning. — Xiutwel (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I am rather curious what the following newspaper article is about. However, the contents is for subscribers only, and not being US-based and not having a credit card, this is not an option for me.

headline: http://olive.newsok.com/Repository/getimage.dll?path=DOK/1995/04/20/18/Img/Ar01803S.png

— Xiutwel (talk) 09:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Search Google for "Get out of the way, there's a bomb" and look at the cached version. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks!

By Mick Hinton and Ellie Sutter - The Oklahoman 20-4-1995

... One bomb threat came at 10:30 a.m. and another around 2 p.m., forcing workers to move their first aid station. ...

• This does not resolve the issue, I'm afraid. — Xiutwel (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

---

• http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:ycdKqRfMYdsJ:www.newsok.com/bombing/article/1175332/%3Ftemplate%3Dbombing/main+%22another+bomb%22+site:newsok.com+%221995%22+%22April,20%22

"I jerked the door open against the ceiling tiles, hobbled down the hall where everybody was screaming and crying, and we made our way down the stairs.

"It took us only 1 1/2 to 2 minutes to get outside, and there were police cars already there - men in their heavy helmets," she said

• http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:k-xO6Uq2oeMJ:www.newsok.com/bombing/article/1175438/%3Ftemplate%3Dbombing/main+%22another+bomb%22+site:newsok.com+%221995%22+%22April,20%22&hl=nl&gl=nl&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a

"And I'll tell you what was really weird: When we got out, there were cop cars and ambulances everywhere and it took us only about 40 seconds to get out of there. " Then he thought about the day-care center on the second floor.

"I'll tell you what, it's bad news," he said, shaking his head.

Just then a firefighter ran toward the gathered crowd.

"You folks might want to move on west. They found another bomb," he said.

emphasis added, — Xiutwel (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

---

reverting is not the way forward

Tom, you removed:

Several local news media reported on live TV that additional explosives would have been found and/or even defused. It is disputed whether these reports were premature.

I think we could cooperate better on this article than just reverting without explanation. I do not claim to have established reputable sources that there were additional bombs, but I do claim to have reputable, verifiable sources that there were additional bomb scares. The video's presented in by Alex Jones are corroborated by the newspaper. This is a known fact. Not even you people are disputing it. You think, these reports might have been premature. Yes, they might. Therefore it should be in the article. If you think otherwise, let us know why. You cannot simply revert and ignore the discussion here on talk. — Xiutwel (talk) 08:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

"Additional bomb scares", using that specific wording along with the newspaper source, is acceptable and in compliance with WP:CITE, and WP:V. The wording you used "alleged additional explosives" is not acceptable. Such wording does not accurately describe what the newspaper source says. Furthermore, it's full of weasel words. And it does not need an entire section and subheading. A sentence will do that mentions the "bomb scares". -Aude (talk contribs) 09:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

"I do claim to have reputable, verifiable sources that there were additional bomb scares." (Xiutwel)--

To Xiutwel and all other Wikipedia users/editors: Please do not merely "claim" to have "sources"; please use the references and notes features () to give citations to verifiable and reliable sources throughout this article wherever such "claims" are being made. Wikipedia policy states that Wikipedia readers cannot simply be expected to "take the word of" editors; editors need to supply citations to sources that readers can verify (throughout the article). See the tag on the Timothy McVeigh article and explore material linked in WP:Verifiability and W:Reliable soruces. Please supply these citations in consistent format (see current format) when you edit. See my other comments re: related problems with Timothy McVeigh. Thank you. --NYScholar 06:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Additional research

Much of the discussion of OKBOMB centers upon additional explosives inside or outside the building, and the extensive damage that allegedly could not have been caused by the bomb authorities say was used. Based on what I have read and seen, the bomb used was especially strong for an ANFO device because of the racing fuel and also because of commercial explosives that were used as primers for each "barrel".

Also, some 25 years ago I recall seeing a 60 Minutes commercial about how some ferderal contractors were using substandard materials. The report cited the use of cheaper bolts in connecting steel beams, which would shear easier than the more expensive contract-required fasteners, but I don't recall if the Murrah building was specifically mentioned. I do recall someone saying that the upper floors of the Murrah building were so flimsy that they would bounce when anyone walked down the hallway too fast. Could a better than ANFO bomb and substandard construction explain the gap between what occured and what people are told?

Current event?

Kinda wondering why this is considered a current event since it happened 11 years ago. 209.83.10.203 10:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No clue, however it is fixed now. Thanks! --Kralizec! (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

re Additional bomb scares

It seems that the footage, with newsreporters speaking of bombs being defused, is interpreted by most wikipedians as being about bombs which likely were never even there. Such is your right. But then please make an effort to write this into the article, in stead of simply deleting whatever I write, as if there never were any bomb scares. Since these news reports have sparked so much controversy, they would merit some discussion in the article, wouldn't they? Thx — Xiutwel (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

transcript of video material

I've now made a partial transcript of Alex Jones' documentary, mentioned earlier on this talk page. The doc, "The road to tyranny", can easily be found via google

• http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6517776133137328105&q=the+road+to+tyranny (2:22'), starting at 0:17':00" approx. (through 0:25':00" approx.)

It contains video material of live news reports, starting at about 0:19':00".

Please everybody: check whether my transcripts are correct, and improve were appropriate.

In my opinion, it is theoretically conceivable that these live utterings will turn out to be consistent with bomb scares that later turned out to be nothing at all. But we are dealing with ´bombs´ that are reported to be "larger", "sophisticated" and even "confirmed defused" — all of which is a bit difficult to imagine to just be about e.g. a suspect parcel which turned out to be harmless, i.e. no bomb after all. Or is it me? — Xiutwel (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

partial transcript

Transcript of 4 minutes of live reports, which were preceded by 2 minutes of commentary by Alex Jones on the subject. Please correct where appropriate. — Xiutwel (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

18'56" VISUAL:	"LIVE" [station unknown]
Voiceover:	[...] station, that one explosion caused. Because here's now what we (er) are starting to learn about the succession, or what someone obviously hoped would be a succession of explosions. The first bomb, that was in the federal building did go off. It did the damage that you see right there. The second explosive was found and defused. The third explosive that was found, and they are working on right now as we speak, I understand; both the second and third explosives (if you can imagine this) were larger than the first. So try to imagine two- or threefold happening of what we've already seen there. It is just incredible to think that there was that much heavy artillary that was somehow moved in to the downtown Oklahoma Federal Building.
Voice 2:	Two other explosive devices were found, and were not detonated, and they were larger than the first [bomb].
19'45" VISUAL:	"LIVE BREAKING NEWS, 9, LIVE COVERAGE, KWTV OKLAHOMA CITY"
people:	I think he said 'another bomb'
people:	another bomb, move back
public:	oh my god another bomb
19'56"	We just saw, if you were watching there, there was a white pick-up truck backing a trailer into the scene here. They are trying to move people out of the way so they can get it in. It appears to be the Oklahoma County bomb squad. It's their bomb disposal unit, essentially that's what it is. And it is what they would use to - if - ...
20'08"	... If the report we just gave you turns out to be correct, that they have found a second explosive device of somekind within this building. They'll back that trailer down there. And the bomb squad folks will go in. And they will use that trailer (you see the bucket on the back there) sort of, this is how they would transport the explosive device away from this populated area to try to do something with it.
20'30" VISUAL:	"via phone: Mike Arnett, Attorney"
ancor:	Now the justice department is reporting that a second explosive device has been found in the AP Murray Building in downtown Oklahoma City. er Mike, you're still with us, aren't you?
Mike:	Yes I am, and I might tell you in addition to that, that in fact what we were told at the scene, a few minutes ago, was that in fact two different explosive devices were found in addition to the one that went off.
	A total of three, you say.
20'52" ancor:	Now confirmed through federal authorities that a second bomb has been found inside that federal building in Oklahoma City; It was an explosion at nine o'clock this morning that did that damage you're looking at, right there, blowing off the entire north face of that building. Again, you are looking at the North face there. A second bomb was found on the East side of that building. A bomb squad is on the scene. That second bomb has not exploded. We don't know quite the status yet, if they've managed to defuse it, but it has been confirmed that a second bomb has been found on the east side.
21'24"	"Voice of Governor Frank Keating"
	the reports I have is that one device was (er), was deactivated. Apparently there was another device, and obviously Whatever did the damage to the Murray building was a tremendous (er) very sophisticated explosive device.
21'37" host:	So President Clinton just called Frank (er) Keating, Governor Frank Keating, and He says that three FBI anti-terrorist teams are enroute to Oklahoma city. Right now they are saying that this is the work of a spohisticated group. This is [a] very sophisticated (er) device. And (er) it has to have been done by an explosives expert. Obviously with this type of explosion.
21'57" man:	The medical teams downtown are unable to get into the wrackage to retrieve more of the injured because of the presence of other (er) bombs in the area.
22'07"	I just took a look down the street at the Murray building again. I see another bomb truck going. So apperently they're going to try to get out that third bomb that has been talked about. Still a lot of activity around the Murray building. Security concerns are that another one [might?] still go off.
22'22"	Fortunately it didn't because the second device that they found we understand was even more powerful than the first. They then found a third device (and you can see the look on this woman's face [off the] fear that she might have to go through the same thing again.) They then found a third device which was also larger than the first. (Er) Hard to feel lucky at this point. But certainly, through some good work by some munitions experts and the (er) explosive-sniffing dogs, further tragedy has almost certainly been averted here.
22'50"	But it was a great stroke of luck that we actually have got defused bombs. It's through the bomb material that we'll be able to track down who committed this atrocity.
23'00" Alex Jones:	It would have been an incredible help to have been able to get a hold of these unexploded bombs. Unfortunately...

rm emty section?

history

23 August 2006 Tom harrison (Talk | contribs) (→Additional bomb scares - rm empty section)

Dear Tom et al.,

please explain? We seem to be in a deadlock on this issue. I've provided a complete transcript of the news reports, which clearly suggest the plausibility of additional bombs. Others would only say: bomb scares. How can we go about this?

I suggest we try and make a draft formulation here on this talk page, instead of directly on the article page. OK? — Xiutwel (talk)

I don't see anything new here. The sourcing is questionable, and even if accurate it's original research by picking factoids to present. The material might be appropriate for Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories, but not for this article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I interpret this a bit like a "no, let's not cooperate". I hope you did not mean that!? I would really appreciate any effort to come up with some kind of wording for the additional bombs/bomb scares. Your claim about this being original research (providing a transcript of video footage... factoids??^{can refer to a spurious (unverified, incorrect, or invented) "fact" intended to create or prolong public exposure or to manipulate public opinion}) needs some clarification! What exactly do you think could be incorrect about the notion that these reporters and officials on that day, then, actually thought there were additional bombs? Even if there were in reality no bombs at all, it is an interesting phenomenon: so many well-educated people debating something which is just a "misunderstanding" ... — Xiutwel (talk) 10:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

While I am not necessarily opposed to this information being in the article (as long as it is a properly cited and from a reliable source), I do not see what is gained by including people's mistakes. Errors are made and mistakes are misreported onair all the time (especially in the heat of a crisis), and I do not really see how their inclusion in a wikipedia article really improves the article. I recall watching CNN live during the (first) Gulf War when Iraqi scud missiles slammed into Israel and it was initially reported that the warheads had chemical and/or biological weapon payloads. It was later established that the scud warheads were indeed conventional, I see that the Gulf War article here does not mention those initial, mistaken news reports. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Krazilec. I remember those CNN reports. I found the mistake odd. It could, however, have been propaganda by some agency to claim the use of horrific weapons. Or, speculation on the payload might have been inadvertently mis-communicated.
Oklahoma: If these intitial reports were with certainty mistaken, I would agree that inclusion would not be necessary. However, I am not so sure these reports were mistaken. It is also possible that there have been additional bombs, and that the notion that there weren't any, is what's mistaken. As I see, at present, no way to decide which is true, I think the article should present these facts, so as to enable our readers to make up their own mind, do their own research, and maybe one day it will be possible to know what really happened. (For now, it seems not very plausible to me for anyone to report on the exact size of a bomb "being defused" when in truth there was no bomb at all.) Could you agree with inclusion in the article, and would you help find a neutral, unbiased wording? — Xiutwel (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

---

draft section:

---

Were there additional explosives present that day?

It is, now, generally assumed that the truck bomb was the only bomb. Paradoxically however, live news reports as well as Governor Frank Keating that day spoke of defusing 1 or 2 additional explosive devices. To the present day debate exists on whether there actually ever were in fact additional explosives inside the building, apart from the truck bomb.

References:

• transcript on talk page(*)

---

(*): link to be added

rm emty section -- continued

Hoping for your serious contribution on this issue, thanks, — Xiutwel (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You said "As I see, at present, no way to decide which is true". Wikipedia is not about finding "the truth", but instead is based on principles of verifiability and works with reliable sources. Find a reliable source that substantiates "here exists debate on whether there actually ever were in fact additional explosives inside the building" Among reliable sources, I can't find anything. --Aude (talk contribs) 19:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Aude, what you ask for you cannot logically have: since the debate is between mainstream and alternatives like Jones. Therefore, there cannot be a "reliable" mainstream source which takes this debate seriously. The whole point is there is no mainstream debate. I think you should give up this demand. Surely Alex Jones is a reliable source concerning his own opinion, and as such the existence of such a debate is beyond question. I think the debate is not marginal enough to exclude from wikipedia. Can we agree here? — Xiutwel (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

ready to insert?

I would like to go forward and insert the draft_section posted above. Please suggest some final changes soon, if deemed necessary. I feel something about the reporting of defusing deserves to be in the article, just to balance out the apparent quasi-certainty the article now breathes that the official story is flawless. — Xiutwel (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the inclusion, for reasons discussed at length above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is Alex Jones key to this discussion?

He is clearly what Wikipedians consider a "fringe" source. I suggest that instead of persisting with a draft that relies at all on the credibility of Alex Jones, you pursue the inclusion of a video collection of local news report excerpts, reports that cite verification of additional explosives -- not only being found but one being defused -- from authorities such as the Justice Department and Governor Keating. The video should be added on the main page not as "evidence of additional explosives", but as "local television reports of additional explosive devices", which is what they were. If others oppose their inclusion as such, please explain why. Here is the video, from the server of a "fringe" source but undeniably containing the actual TV news excerpts and nothing else, and therefore untainted:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/ok_city1.wmv

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wigglestrue (talk • contribs)

Thanks, that seems a better source. Do you agree with the draft section above? — Xiutwel (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

whatreallyhappened is another conspiracy site, which as with prisonplanet, is not a reliable source. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 21:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The "source" is the collection of local news station reports directly featured in the video, not the server on which the video is hosted. There is absolutely nothing in the video clip related to whatreallyhappened. Is it not OK to post, say, YouTube clips of TV news reports as sources? Does the video have to be hosted on a reliable mainstream news website? If so, what happens when those links are removed by the news website? If Wikipedia is supposed to be our generation's encyclopedia, then there has to be a place here for television and newspaper reports hosted on independent or "fringe" servers. Otherwise, Wikipedia is holding itself hostage to the whims of multimedia obsolescence, and possibly biased or negligent news editors. If a New York Times article is no longer hosted on the NYT website, but has been copied and is hosted by a "fringe" website, which one is the Wiki source -- the NYT or the "fringe" website? Common sense dictates that the source is the NYT, which is certifiably not "fringe". The NYT article would certainly still exist, and the only way it can remain available online is via an independent server. If such a NYT article is a unique source of information pertaining to an event, then referencing it is the only way for that information to be included in the main entry, and if Wikipedia disallows news reports hosted on independent servers, then the article and its information is forever off-limits to the world of Wiki knowledge. That would be unacceptable. If there are any questions regarding the authenticity of independently-hosted news reports, then perhaps have an editor review the material and verify that it hasn't been altered from the original host? To simply dismiss the mainstream, reliable news material out of hand because it's hosted on a non-mainstream site is quite un-Wiki, in my opinion. --Wigglestrue 09:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Aude, I think you may be confused. You already accepted these news reports as genuine. The debate is now on whether these actual reports deserve mentioning, or are just silly errors, too unimportant to deserve any mentioning in this article (let alone, some critical thought). ;) just kidding. — Xiutwel (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the news reports deserve inclusion in the main article as "Additional bomb scares", just like Aude suggested would be compliant with the guidelines. In your draft, I would mention the specific news stations from which the footage is taken, and the specific authorities quoted in the news reports, i.e., the Justice Department, Governor Keating, et. al. Include verbatim the words used to describe the bombs confirmed by the authorities. You could also title the entry as "reports of additional explosive devices", as you now have a reliable mainstream source (excerpts from several, actually) that quotes confirmation from federal and state authorities, and the fact that there were "reports of additional explosive devices" is unquestionable and uncontroversial. I'm not sure, but perhaps you could also mention what is depicted live on the video besides the confirmed reports from authorities, e.g., the announcements of additional bomb scares to the crowd and subsequently people in the area hurrying away. Basically, present the reports as dryly as possible. Excise anything speculative, anything "conspiracistic", anything related to Alex Jones's opinion. --Wigglestrue 09:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

3 months later

After (but for 5 days) 3 months of discussion, and consensus-building, I decided to insert the paragraph not as a seperate section, but at the point where the main bomb is described. That seems to be the best solution. I hope (with little hope) that you like the wording of the draft paragraph!!! (I added the word: marginalized; perhaps fringe would be better, I am no native-English speaker. Peace, — Xiutwel (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• continued at: #re: 3 months later

Partin

Looking up Partin - only referenced 1 time ( in the footnotes). The ANFO angle is a hoax per Partin - an expert in spades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs) on 20th November 2006 (UTC)

The Partin report is at the core of the additional explosives conspiracy theories but his assumptions have a fatal flaw easily exposed by some very basic math. I'll refer to one of the many copies of Parin's report available on the internet;

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/PARTIN/okm.htm

The maximum possible yield from 4800 pounds of ammonium nitrate would be obtained if it were in a compressed sphere and detonated from the center. That would produce a 4.4 foot diameter sphere of detonation products at about 500,000 pounds per square inch. By the time the blast wave hits the closest column, the pressure would have fallen off to about 375 pounds per square inch. That would be far below the 3500 pound compressive yield strength of the concrete. Any column or beam failure from the truck bomb would therefore have been from blast wave structural loading and not from any wave of deformation in the concrete.

The crux of Partin's argument is that an overpressure of 375 PSI on the closest column (G20) could not have failed it because 375 PSI is less than the concrete's compressive strength of 3500 PSI. The column would not fail in compression though - it would fail from tremendous side loads. Failure in compression would be like putting a one inch square of concrete in a hydraulic press, 3500PSI concrete would require 3500 PSI of pressure to fail in compression. But construct a column of concrete one inch square and say ten feet long. Support the ends and load the middle, will it take 3500 PSI to fail it in bending? Of course not. This illustrates the difference of failure in compression and failure because of side load. Column G20 was 36" x 20" and over 20 feet tall. Lets talk about the 20" side being exposed to 375 PSI overpressure. At 375 PSI overpressure each foot of column G20 would have a side loading of 90,000 pounds. This means a ten foot section of column G20 would have a side load of 900,000 pounds. That is an instant side loading of 450 tons on a ten foot section of column G20, now consider the column is over 20 feet long. Do you think it would collapse from this kind of side loading? What totally destroys Partin's analysis is using a 1457 PSI overpressure on column G20, something one of his own illustrations shows. This means the side loading on the same ten foot section of column G20 would be 3,540,000 pounds or 1770 tons of instant side loading.

There are other oversights in Partin's analysis like the fact the Murrah bomb was ANNM (ammonium nitrate / nitromathane) not ANFO (ammonium nitrate / fuel oil) plus it was shaped. Shaping the charge can radically change the blast effect because of converging shockwaves (Munroe effect).

For more reasonable and logical analysis of the Murrah building failure mode see this link;

Blast Loading and Response of the Murrah Building http://www.terrorisminfo.mipt.org/pdf/forensicengineering2.pdf

In conclusion seems clear that the truck bomb alone was easily capable of doing the damage done at the Murrah building.

JesseLackman 18:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

ANNM not ANFO - okay you get twice the power. Shaped - by McVeigh by himself with a canoe paddle, come on. AN bought with a receipt from the local grain store - okay. Still wouldn't work. Are they really going to keep Nichols in prison till he dies? ( By now, after this time in solitary, he may not ever be able to leave anyway. )159.105.80.141 19:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Rohrabacher

At the outset, members of Congress were met with a startling development. On March 31, 2005, the FBI was alerted that a second stash of explosives was missed by the FBI in their first search of Terry Nichols’ house after the Oklahoma City bombing. The tip-off included instructions on how to find the explosives which were, according to the tipster, still underneath the floorboards of Terry Nichols’ small wooden framed structure. Instead of immediately checking this lead, the FBI waited. It was not until members of Congress were alerted and began to investigate that the FBI rushed forward only to discover explosives that had eluded them in their first search. This episode was serious enough to precipitate an investigation to determine what else may have been missed or mis-analyzed in the original bombing probe.

• http://rohrabacher.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Chairman's%20Report.pdfgoogle cache

re: 3 months later

• See: #3 months later

14:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

On October 8th, User:Peephole removed this dispute tag, without any explanation (to my knowledge). I'm putting it back. I still think the article should mention the local TV news reports (which some believe to have been in error, in haste) regarding additional explosived being found and defused after the bombing. — Xiutwel (talk)

Dispute resolution

Personally, I do not feel this article would be benefited by the addition of any of the disputed news reports. However, I totally disagree with the arbitrary deletion of {{dispute}} tags. Perhaps we should follow the policy on dispute resolution (which -interestingly enough- says in bold on the first line, "Do not simply revert changes in a dispute") rather than just deleting them within ten minutes of their addition. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you Kralizec! (See also: User_talk:Tom_harrison#re:_Oklahoma_City_bombing — there *is* an explanation over there.) — Xiutwel (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

on flag removal

I will agree to leave the flag away for a few days: maybe in the meanwhile we can reach consensus on a balanced text! (see below.) However, I am not very happy with the removing of dispute flags without discussion FIRST on the talk page. It make sense to me that when a user puts up a dispute flag, and you think you have a solution for it, you discuss the solution instead of claiming there to be no dispute at all.

• dispute resolution

— Xiutwel (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

what is the nature of the dispute?

Update: the {{dispute}} tag was now deleted by User:Hipocrite. A general policy is not to revert, but to improve, so if anyone thinks I've selected the wrong flag, please put a better flag. No flag is not an option. — Xiutwel (talk)

• I vote for {{dispute}} as I believe that the fact that TV reported on additional explosives is:
  • relevant for the factual accuracy (completeness) of the article
  • unchallenged
  • never revoked

— Xiutwel (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC) (putting both flags up now, to suit everybody's needs)

---

• Sorry Hipocrite, I initially missed your simultaneous insertion of this section:

{{content}} There are a small number of conspiracy theorists, who, drawing from inaccurate early news reports as well as Governor Frank Keating's preliminary, inaccurate statements, believe there is a large conspiracy covering up the existence of additional, planted explosives.

• I am not very happy with this, because:
  • I admit there is a conspiracy theory in my head (as an option — parallel to the mainstream version), but I'm not trying to get the theory into the article. Just the facts.
  • Can you please provide us with reliable sources for the fact that the early statements were inaccurate? Since some gov't officials are suspect, I need not just a statement but also a credible explanation how these 'inaccurate' early statements have arisen. — Xiutwel E.g.: newspaper articles, videoclips, stating explicitly that the reports were wrong (not merely implying)(talk) 06:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

summary

There are now three proposed ways to indicate that there is a dispute; we could also try and resolve the dispute itsself. — Xiutwel (talk) 06:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you propose a substantiative, sourced, neutral section to the article. I doubt there is any dispute at all. Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hipocrite, good suggestion. As a matter of fact, I have made an attempt to do so at: #draft section:. I would now propose to include sourced info such as Weregerbil's. Anyone want to have a go? (It might be a few days till I have sufficient time.) — Xiutwel (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Your draft section is neither substantive, neutral nor sourced ("assumed that the truck bomb was the only bomb" - not neutral, "debate exists on whether there actually ever were in fact additional explosives inside the building" not sourced, and "Paradoxically however" not substantive). Including information about the refutation of absurd minority conspiracy nonsense is crufty. The article is fine. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

bomb scares explained

There were indeed two bomb scares after the explosion. They were caused by the discovery of a shoulder-mounted missile and what appeared to be bombs. The missile was not in operational order and the "bombs" were practice devices used for training dogs. All the devices belonged to law enforcement agencies whose offices occupied a part of the building. The longer of the bomb scares lasted nearly an hour. This would be what the local TV station reported. 11+ years and conspiracy theorists have not yet discovered this? Of course real knowledge makes it harder to sell Truther books so they need to keep quiet about it. [1][2][3] Weregerbil 15:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weregerbil, thank you very much for this contribution. I finally got time to look at it, interesting ! — Xiutwel (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • However, suppose, for the sake of argument, that there were real additional explosives that failed to go off: then it would be a piece of cake to come up with a story like this, wouldn't it? See also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWwrEEP8EBk — Xiutwel (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

additional bombs dispute

I would like to call for a "vote" on this: please vote:

• include
• leave out
• neutral
• link to another article

I feel strongly that

we should present all relevant facts.

1. Additional bomb scares have been reported.
2. Reports have appeared that explain the additional scares as "false alarms".
3. These reports are either not believed or ignored by some Americans, since they still claim there were multiple bombs.

Wikipedia should not take sides in this. We should just present the facts so that our readers can make their own judgements. Taking sides would be OR, since what could be a WP:RS when the government is accused of complicity? I remember seeing a witness who heard two explosions, which seems odd if there just was a single truck bomb. So I am still open for the possibility of multiple explosive devices. Please vote/discuss below, preferably giving arguments. — Xiutwel (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• include — Xiutwel (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• minimal include Whatever other relevant information you can find that is supported by several reliable sources, then I'm sure the information could be added to the conspiracy theories section. I don't think that we should have too much information on it, but enough to accurately represent what some witnesses heard/saw. --Nehrams2020 17:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

New evidence/government supported conspiracies emerge about OKC

Some new stuff came up making the government wishing they didn't kill McVeigh so soon or at all. 1) Did McVeigh meet a German white supremacist living in OKC? 2) They now think that islamism had a part in it (not saying McVeigh or Nichols were Islamists, but could be) Abu Sayyaf Group, some palestinian organizations, and even al-qaeda linked groups could have helped with the bombing (well duh! Nichols was in the Philipines!) 3)Some Palestine people were at OKC before bombing having a conference and some pro-palestine guys were miffed and said they'd target th AP Murrah building and other places in the near future. 4) there may have been other federal buildings McV could've targeted in Albuquerque, Omaha, and Dallas (if not more) 5) McVeigh didn't have much of a job, but always had lots of money on him (now where did he get that?)

Now the gov accepts the fact they shouldn't have rushed to kill McV.

What do you think? 131.158.237.205 15:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, they now believe John Doe #2 was real and they are looking to see if Jose Padilla was involved and if he was JD2 131.158.237.205 15:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

MSM source please? ( not Conspiracy Theorist Laurie Mylroie ) Thanks. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 23:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This issue is the topic of the documentary film "Terror From Within". I'd ask that someone familliar with the film add it's information to this page, as I think it's very well sourced and relatively new information. You can find the official site of the film here -

http://www.terrorfromwithin.com/film.html Punisher777 11:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not new. Nor is it really reliable.IvoShandor 12:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

IvoShandor, can you tell me what's been deemed unreliable about the documentary I mentioned above? I'm not disputing your claim, but I'd be interested to read information that disproves the link the movie makes between McVeigh and his connections to the CSA and Elohim City. Punisher777 13:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

First, there's nothing really there. I haven't seen the video, and I don't feel very compelled to buy it either. If you can find me a link of a review of the film or a synopsis of it, we can evaluate it then. But note: we don't have to give it anymore weight than it is due. WP:WEIGHT --Otheus 20:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The government is sad they didn't delay the execution? If they thought he was going to give out any info he wouldn't have gotten to trial.159.105.80.141 19:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Reactions and Conspiracy Theories

I'm sure that many people familar with the bombing are aware that some Americans, even politicians like Helen Chenoweth, rationalized or even defended the Oklahoma City Bombing, but were you aware that some even blamed the US Gov for a terrorist attack on its own people?

'Oklahoma City was an American Reichstag event'

"Oklahoma City was a masterfully (albeit atrocious and horrific) planned Riechstag that had the direct effect of resulting in the passage of draconian Anti-Terror legislation that had been, to that date, completely stalled in Congress." Claims that the US Gov 'did' OKC

I think we should include a summary of the notable reactions, and notable conspiracy theories - important but as-now ignored aspects (in this article) of this horrific terrorist attack. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 23:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Not sure...

1. when a "theory" is "notable", should it be in this article? Or should we link to another article?

2. I feel I would like to concentrate on portraying the facts, known and disputed, about the incident, in stead of speculating in this article...? — Xiutwel (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with FAAFA, we have all sorts of conspiracies; think that this one is notable and should be presented as such. Lovelight 20:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Good article potential

I believe that this article has the potential to reach Good Article status once proper citations are added with some cleanup. I'll start adding sources as I find them, and if anybody has any books that have information in the article, please properly source it. --Nehrams2020 02:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know if we can use the image from this site of the fireman holding the baby? It's mentioned in the article and I remember it to be one of the most important images of the aftermath of the bombing. If we are able to upload it what license would it fall under? --Nehrams2020 04:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I added the image and nominated the article for GA consideration. --Nehrams2020 07:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Good article review

I am conducting a good article review for Oklahoma City bombing. There are some issue I feel the primary editors can address so thus I am not going to fail the article, instead I will put it on hold and wait for the editors to address the issues.

• Lead: Doesn't really do the article justice as far size goes. See Wikipedia:Lead
• Grammar/Copy edit: There are several minor grammatical errors which were quite noticeable at first read through. Make sure this article gets a thorough copy edit.
• POV: Watch for unsourced clear POV such as: "Many of the 9/11 victims' families received hundreds of thousands of dollars or more of federal assistance (in exchange for the agreement not to hold airlines legally responsible for the security breech)." Statements of this ilk are definite POV. They make the article seem critical towards the government. State the facts and let the reader interpret them for themselves.
• Clarity: This is an example of something that is unclear: "The victims ranged in age from three months to seventy-three years old (including three unborn children of pregnant women)." Now I am confused, was there 168/169 victims or was their 171/172 victims. Who is a victim according to the official casualty count, no reason to ignite the abortion debate in this article.
• References: Though seemingly well-cited it is hard to tell how often individual sources are used because the refs aren't combined. Try giving the refs names like you did with some of them. The first seven or eight were from the same source, albeit different pages, but it was only a 30 page section of the book, I wouldn't call that too ambiguous to combine.
• Added minor note: So what ever happened with the whole John Doe #2 thing?

The "On Hold" status will be good for 7 days after which, if these concerns aren't met I will be forced to fail the GA nomination. Thanks for all your work so far. --A mcmurray 22:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have done some work on the lead and overall copy-editing. I'll try to get more done by tonight and upload a new version by tomorrow morning. --Otheus 11:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Woo! Article upgraded to GA status. Thanks everyone for the continuing excellent work!!

New information

Can someone please add information recently revealed by Terry Nichols? It can be found here. 69.182.79.53 19:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can find more sources with more credible newspapers/websites, I'll look it over to see if it should be added. --Nehrams2020 21:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Substantial Edits

I have made substantial edits i hopes of getting the article into "GA status". Please note, this was a fine article to begin with, but it had accumulated many minor problems, as noted above. My purpose was not to significantly change text, but to improve organization, sentence flow, fix up garden-path sentences and dangling modifiers, etc. Several things were left on the /cutting room floor, and if you note something missing in the article, please take a look at there and my rational for cutting it out. Often, pieces were cut out simply because they did not fit into the existing organizational structure, and there was not enough material to add to the structure. I made the edits all at once, and then divided them up into sections so that it was easier to see the diffs.

I am still not 100% happy with it. For instance, the Oklahoma City bombing#Tenth anniversary section needs, well, cutting. It was two years ago and is no longer very interesting. However, it's well written and a big cut to make unilaterally. Also, the Oklahoma City bombing#Media involvement section seems out of place; those details could be "redistributed". I suspect it would be better to have a small section on the reaction against the Arab-Muslim community, as well as an expanded section of the decline of American Militias.

Nevertheless, I addressed all of User:A_mcmurray's comments.

I welcome your comments. --Otheus 13:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Review comments

First of, great article on an important topic. As a native of Oklahoma, I'm glad to see this article getting the attention it deserves. The article is very thorough, well cited, and its layout is very well done. A couple issues I have is I do not like seeing one-to-two sentence paragraphs and one paragraph sections. Sentences like "Oklahoma City, being the first major American city to suffer a mass-casualty terrorist attack, and its response to the bombing have been carefully scrutinized for valuable lessons to security experts and law enforcement." could be combined with another paragraph and sections like Terry Nichols, Michael Fortier, and Others could be combined to one section. I'll allow for some more reviews before promoting to GA but this article is well on its way to FA.↔NMajdan•talk 18:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree on your comment about too-short paragraphs. The problem here is flow. I don't want to abut two unrelated sentences together, just to avert having two separate paragraphs. What we really need is some carefully selected, relevant material to augment these sentences. Or, conversely, to take them out altogether. However, I'm done making major edits for now, (my personal policy, via WP:OWN) --Otheus 19:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I propose to cut the 10th Anniversary section, seeing as we're close to the 12th. It is a pretty picture, however, (thanks to User:Kralizec!) and I don't mean to disparage his, or anyone else's work. But I think it's simply dated. Perhaps it can be updated every year. --Otheus 21:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken; I could not take a picture that good if my life depended on it! (The photo is a work of the Federal government that was uploaded by Darwinek (talk · contribs).) Given the perceived importance of anniversary dates divisible by five- and ten-year increments, I always presumed the Anniversary section would be completely replaced every five years regardless. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking it over Nmajdan, but A mcmurray is already reviewing the article for passing for GA, so we should defer to him unless he does not want to keep reviewing it for GA status. For the article, I mainly went through adding as many sources as I could find for much of the information within the article, rarely removing any information. If you want to remove the tenth anniversary section that's fine. Perhaps it should be renamed to memorial services, with a paragraph about the tenth anniversary along with common remembrance traditions and memorial services. I have just recently bought a few books on Amazon to contribute more information and continue to expand on parts of the article that may be limited. However, the one thing that I would really like to expand or mention somewhere is the international reaction or assistance to the U.S. for the bombing. I have not been able to find any information about this, so if somebody has something, that would be excellent to add to the article. --Nehrams2020 22:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I like your suggestion of renaming the section to "Remembrance" or something. I'd also like to see more information on the impact of the OK City bombing on US Militias and far-right groups. I remember that after Waco, people (including myself) were really not too happy with the US Govt and Reno. --Otheus 23:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

McVeigh trial unsourced information

I moved this information from the page that needs sources before it should be readded. --Nehrams2020 06:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

McVeigh wanted Jones to present a "necessity defense", that his bombing was intended to prevent future "crimes" by the government, such as the Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents. Jones, certain this approach would fail, refused to present it. He believed McVeigh was the self-sacrificial "fall guy" for a larger conspiracy. However, Judge Matsch ruled that the evidence supporting the larger conspiracy was insufficiently substantial to be admitted. Jones then attempted to raise reasonable doubt through arguing that no one had seen McVeigh near the scene of the crime; that the investigation into the bombing lasted a mere two weeks; and that the bombing could not have been accomplished by merely two men, but by a larger conspiracy of people that McVeigh was hiding.

To Nehrams2020 and NYScholar, starting from the following diff, it was claimed that these statements were "unsourced" or that the source is "self published". In fact, most of the statements came from the "self published" material (the "TMT reference, Douglas O. Linder, "The Oklahoma City Bombing & The Trial of Timothy McVeigh", [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mcveigh/mcveightrial.htmlonline Famous Trials) which is used extensively throughout the article, and appears to amount to a scholarly article on the McVeigh bombing. It is, after all, under the project portion of the UMKC Law School, and is dated and titled, unlike a running blog. It also lists its references, which are source materials. It appears to be a valid secondary source. NYScholar, what exactly is your beef with this source?

-Otheus 07:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a message should be left on his talk page, since he may not be watching this article. --Nehrams2020 08:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Otheus 10:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted his changes (minus the spelling correction). Second message left. --Otheus 20:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I was away from home when this reference to my change occurred and not able to respond to messages about this article due to other work. Previous editors to this article did not provide a Wikipedia:Citing sources "full citation" for the self-published source, and much material put directly into this article on the bombing relating to McVeigh particularly repeated the POV of this source, words from the source, without quotation marks, and without a full citation indicating the self-published nature of the source (there was also some apparent plagiarism from this source in the article that I noticed when I edited it out; I provided a full citation in a better format than had previously been provided). I added the full citation, and I deleted some of the POV phrasing. I explained my editing change in the editing history. There is no mystery about my reasons for making the change. Non-disclosure and insufficient attribution of a self-published source that injects its writer's own POV into the article is not in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV and Wikipedia:Citing sources. This article is a controversial article and Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles pertain. --NYScholar 20:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for responding and making your changes clear and updating the source with a better reference. Later, I will take time to review your comments concerning POV, plagarism and self-published sources. --Otheus 20:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Wack in general - the failure of the Wikipedia concept to manage controversial content

Was it terrorism?

The distinction between terrorism and aggresive war is unclear to nonexistent in wikipedia's "terorism" entry. The "right-wing / left-wing" distinction in the "terrorism" article is in itself a fairly substantial bias towards the american "two-party" system, and against most countries' form of governance. And for that matter, the whole "terrorism" article reads as though the only incidents that matter are directed towards Americans and sympathizers. The entire last century of South American history, for example, is rife with terrorism (torture, mainly) provided, funded, and trained by the US and corporations. No mention of that at all, and the article is written in a tone such that inserting any mention would seem grossly out of place.

So, the assertion that it was the "most deadly" depends highly on one's exact definiton of "terrorism".

You have a good point here. In fact, the definition of "terrorism" has been battled around in the UN long before 9/11. Further, I would argue that any personal crime, whether it be petty theft or serial murder, implicitly creates fear, and hence terror. Here in Austria, recent drug-related activities has sparked fear in the community -- despite being one of the safest countries in Europe, Austrians are now fearing to go into the streets (according to what a friend tells me is in the papers). So what we have to do is make a distinction on the one hand between terror and terrorism, and on the other, terrorism and war.

Out of this, I personally draw the conclusion that terrorism is an undeclared war between agitators (which may be an individual, group, sect, or country) and against targets under the governance of some legally recognized entity.

It could thus be claimed that the attack on Pearl Harbor was an act of terror. But historians note that Japan had in fact declared war, and though it was a sneak attack, was not a surprise attack.

Further, the footnote that I include makes it clear that "most deadly" is heavily caveated.

This article is about the Oklahoma city bombing, not about terrorism. So, it seems valid to exclude references such as allegations of US-sponsored terror that seems unrelated to this incident.

On to your next point. --Otheus 18:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories?

In general, [Conspiracy theories] is a smear term, with the subtext "this needn't be taken seriously, regardless of the evidence. Current authorities' ACCEPTANCE of evidence is the important criteria". The NSA spying on US citizens is a conspiracy theory. The dosing of American citizens with LSD, and the providing of it and other drugs to psychiatrists during the 1950's and 1960's in the USA is a conspiracy theory. The use of the HAARP apparatus to modify weather is a conspiracy theory. The infiltration of the 1970's feminist movement in America by agent provocateurs is a conspiracy theory. The notion that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone lunatic is a conspiracy theory, as is the notion that he was NOT acting alone, albiet conflicting ones.

And for some odd reason, the only "conspiracy theories" cited are ones which allege incorrectly or without evidence that other individuals were involved in the actual bombing. McVeigh's history of involvement in anti-government/survivalist/libertarian/gun advocacy groups goes without mention. Does anyone in their right mind imagine this would be the case if he had a long history with, say, Earth First!, Greenpeace, and other "leftist" American groups?

First, this article is not about conspiracy theories in general, or politics and conspiracy theories. If you think Green anarchy groups are not referred to, check out the Unabomber article. I will also add that to my "watchlist" and we can discuss these points there.

Second, when I did my "major recision" to the article last month, I left the "conspiracy section" alone. Why? Because it might have attracted too much attention and editorializing and might have resulted in decades before bringing the article to consensus.

Third, I partially agree with your assessment about the term conspiracy theory, since conspirators were charged and found guilty of the crimes. There was a conspiracy to destroy the building. I think the question is: did the government fully explore and prosecute it? There is suspicion that there was, but this is handled in the section labeled "Others". The judge was pretty definitive that there was no legally admissable evidence at the time to indict anyone else, and except for Padilla (which is a very spurious claim, imho), there has never been a reliable source to report on more evidence. If I am mistaken, please comment here so we can discuss it.

--Otheus 19:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Law Enforcement since the attack

Law enforcement has *foiled* over fifty domestic terrorism plots? Sounds more like an advertisement that a factual statement, and reading the reference does nothing to change this impression, it being a domestic newspaper opinion piece (hardly a reliable reference by most standards).

I remember this well. Originally, before my edits, this mentioning was loosely organized and poorly referenced. I think I searched for an hour to find a suitable source quotation. This is in the aftermath section, and in a sense, it is an advertisement: after the OK City bombing, our government did X Y and Z to make people feel safer, and the result from X, Y, and Z is that the government has foiled these attacks. I could have dropped it altogether, but I think it is relevant and notable that the government did do something after the attacks. (Though what they did and how they did it is not clear; how many attacks were foiled beforehand?) If you want to "balance" this "ad", perhaps you can find some citations from reliable sources that note that the government's efforts were really not that notable.

--Otheus 19:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"The attacks were prevented due to measures established by the local and federal government to increase security of high-priority targets and following-up on hate groups within the United States."

This statement is conjecture. While I don't doubt the Federal goverment actually broke up plots, I do doubt whether any would have succeeded otherwise. Indeed, it is not clear to me how many terrorist attempts are substaintial, let alone feasible, and how many were just chat room fantasies that never made it past the message board before the G stepped in.

At the very least, the statement should be removed until more solid, independent sources can be cited. Better still, it should be expanded into a substantial paragraph, so it isn't just some dangling idea. Perhaps linked to a seperate page analyzing domestic terrorism success rates and surrounding factors.

Woerkilt 13:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Extraneous citations

Cross-referencing "buckets" and "scale" appear transparently obvious attempts to make the article look more scholarly that it is, or just pathetically dumb, depending... Actually there are a LOT of unnecessary citings - "legislation" but not "government"? "Block"? Just saying "city block" would eliminate the need for a citation there.

*laugh* you're right. I removed the "buckets", "scale", "block" wikilinks. The US government is wikilinked in the first paragraph of the article, so no need to do it again. But you raise a good point here, because eventually, *every* word will have an entry. I need to re-read the guidelines about this kind of thing. Thanks for drawing my attention to it. --Otheus 19:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia manual of style and WP:CONTEXT speak to this. --Otheus 01:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Wording

"incidentally situated under the building's day-care center" - the word wanted is CO-incedentally, as in "irrelevant". If McVeigh was actively involved in the abortion/anti-abortion controversy and acting out of THOSE beliefs, it would be relevant. As is, it admittedly had nothing to do with his intentions or plans, and therefore seems emotionally inflammatory to no good end.

You are incidentally incorrect about that. :) incidentally refers to accidentally or not on purpose. coincidentally would refer to two things that are jointly incidental. If McVeigh had intended to park the truck there, it would be neither incidental nor coincidental. If he had parked the truck there and the day care center happened to be closed that day, then it would be coincidentall that the children were not killed. But as it is, McVeigh parked the truck there, incidentally where the Day care center happened to be. I may be splitting hairs here, but my point is that "co" is not needed here. --Otheus 19:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

children

"Unborn children" is a term exclusively used by anti-abortion activists. The medical terms are "embryo" or "fetus", and in any case are simply irrelevant. No one, as far as I know, (though I won't rule out conspiracy theorists) has asserted that he was targeting pregnant women or children, or had any reason to. The only reason for including the reference at all would be to support the fundamentalist assertion that "unborn" children are free of original sin, and therefore "better" or "more valuable" than the living, who are destined for hell anyway.

Alas, "unborn child" is also used by the state legislature of Oklahoma in relating to crimes in which the expectant mother is killed. This is the context in which it is used. See the reference/footnote which states:

In Terry Nichols state trial, he was charged with 162 counts of murder; this number includes one of the unborn.

-Otheus 19:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Likewise the inclusion of the business name "America's Kids Day Care", which just *coincidentally* sounds like a political slogan. Would it be included if it were a "The Learning Experience" franchise?

I kept it in because of the irony of the name juxtaposed to the situation. You are right; if it had been "The Learning Experience" franchise, I would not have kept it in that way -- maybe would have put it in the Aftermath section (playing on the word experience or learning). There's something to be said for good prose now and then.

--Otheus 19:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

And again later, a whole section about the "innocent children". The only way this would be true or relevant if it were also true that every adult working in the building was guilty of some crime that JUSTIFIED the bombing. Otherwise EVERYONE was innocent, equally.

Ugh, that's been suggested before, and no consensus has been reached. I really don't like that section either. It also feels like a campaign for Hillary for Prez. But at the same time, I don't feel compelled one way or the other. One of the rules is to Assume Good Faith about another editor's edits. There is a tension between that rule and the keeping an article concise and to-the-point. This one falls on the boundary, but it's on that boundary, not outside of it.

--Otheus 19:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

moved to conspiracy theories section

Conclusion

If this is a "good" article, it speaks little for the future of Wikipedia as a reference. It appears MUCH more biased in a "mob democracy" manner than traditional encyclopedias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.17.180.126 (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

I would like to respond to this, seeing as how I'm a major recent contributor to the article. I would point you to a response I wrote to a critic of Wikipedia, here: User:Otheus/Vaknin. For a collective response from the community, you should look here: Wikipedia:Responses.

I intend to respond to you point-by-point, but I have another crisis at some other pages, where I am suspected to be the dissident / voice of dissent. So I understand where you are coming from, and hope to reply soon. Feel free to remind me if I don't. --Otheus 14:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I trust you will consider all my above responses rationally and civilly.

--Otheus 19:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Tags

I added the talkheader and the "controversial article" tag. Scroll up to my other comment posted today. ---NYScholar 20:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Date of the bombing

[moved from embedded ed. comments in article due to typographical problems w/ it; it created problems of spacing; users who wrote the comments need to provide signatures below. --NYScholar 21:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)]

[--the following needs to be put back in --]

• The date of the bombing, April 19, might have been intentionally chosen as it coincides with the Patriot's Day marking the beginning of the American Revolutionary War and with the final attack on the Branch Davidians at Waco.

  [It's well established that it was chosen to coincide with the Waco attack, but also with Patriot's Day? I'd need a better reference. Also, this would really belong in the article's first section--]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Otheus (talk • contribs)

See Todo list at top of talk page

OK City bombing todo

[moved here from my talk page. --NYScholar 22:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)] I liked your idea of the TODO list! Did you get all my "todo" comments out of the article, or should I sweep throught it again? --Otheus 22:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I did not know who posted the "todo" comments in the article; please add your signature to the unsigned templates w/ the date and UTC that you originally posted them in the article (you can find them in editing history). In answer to your question: no, I didn't get them all out of the article; I suggest that you copy and paste your comments w/ appropriate section headings in this talk page and/or add to the todo list. (Usually todo lists post at the top of a talk page, but I didn't know how to do that w/o disrupting the contents posting. If you do, you may want to edit the todo list to include your other suggestions and to move the todo list to the header position (at end of tags) but in a way that doesn't disrupt the t of contents. Please don't post comments about editing this article on my user talk page; please post them in this talk page. Thanks. --NYScholar 22:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved the todo list up to the top of the talk page. Unfortunately, I don't know how to keep the table of contents of the talk page from posting as part of that box. There may be a needed additional code in the template: the "todo" message doesn't post completely either for some reason. Sorry for the typographical glitch; but it's clear enough to follow. --NYScholar 04:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Citations format needs cleanup throughout

I began, but I do not have the time to do more. Some ed. or editors reversed the titles of articles (and/or books) and the titles of the publications in which they are published (or left those out) throughout the use of citations templates in this article. There is also a group of references missing a source (posts only as multiple letters around [current] note 21); that and the reversed names in notes need fixing. In notes format, authors' names are posted in normal order. They are last name first in alphabetical lists like References lists. There is no need for reversal of last name, first name in Notes. In notes that read like sentences especially normal order is required for legibility. Dates of publications can follow the publisher in references. They do not have to follow APA format. The inconsistency comes from several editors inserting notes and references at different times in different formats. The format needs to be consistent throughout the article. Citations templates in Wikipedia tend to introduce odd punctuation in notes; commas are used, not periods in a note format. The periods are used in bibliographical format in References. All references and notes need to end with a period. (They function as a whole sentence.) --NYScholar 00:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[updated in bracket --NYScholar 01:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)] [Updated: I found and corrected the error re: note 21 on (actually note 20 on): someone had mistyped "INT" instead of "ITN" (In Their Name) in ref. coding. (The typo. corr. shows how often this source is actually being used in the article; if the book is an edited collection of essays, as it appears to be, then each author and each title of each essay used for information should be cited individually as a source and page numbers given throughout.)] --NYScholar 02:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)]

Ok, I'd call this nitpicking, but one man's nit is another man's ... er. What is a nit, anyway? Seriously, I'm really weak in this area. Do you know of a handy web reference or tutorial for making citations (I don't know what APA format means, for instance)? --Otheus 01:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If one doesn't know how to compose citations, please consult Wikipedia:Manual of Style, especially Wikipedia:Citations and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The format is extremely confusing in this article and some important parts of what Wikipedia calls "full citations" (Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles and Wikipedia:Citations) are omitted throughout. Beginning with note 21 there is a missing source. [Updated: I corrected this; see my first paragraph of this section above: "INT" should have been typed as "ITN" by editors throughout.] All sources used in the articles in Wikipedia need to be notable, reliable, verified, and checked for accuracy. Every reader needs to be able to verify them as such. [APA is American Psychological Association; MLA (which I am using) is Modern Language Association (MLA Style Manual); these formats are taught throughout the United States in college and university elementary composition courses and the websites of the organizations are references in Wikipedia:Citations. Citation templates in Wikipedia are based on them and other identifiable citation formats. See the linked pages. I do not have time to correct the rest of the errors in the article. The entire article needs source-checking in order to verify accuracy of the citations and to provide "full citations." --NYScholar 01:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links I will review them soon. I did source-check the article w.r.t. the online sources that were cited. I verified everything that was not in a book (because I'm no longer in the US, access to a library on such books is fairly impossible). Since my primary role was copy-editing and fact-checking, I generally left alone statements that came from a book. --Otheus 17:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

What happend to the conspiracy theories page?

What happend to the Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories page??????????? WHY WAS IT REMOVED???? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.42.84.172 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

See my reply to this question at Talk:Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories. --Kralizec! (talk) 05:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories — Xiutwel (talk) 09:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

All the discussions on the conspiracy page and even ANFO etc have been erased it appears. WHY WAS IT REMOVED - pretty obvious. The government and independent experts have updated/changed some of their ideas and probably hate to see this stuff hanging around, I would. It appears Terry Nischols etc were far more advanced explosive experts than we dared dream. They used exotic materials ( Terry's receipt for fertilizer has just been upgrade to some methane stuff - his local farm store must be surprised )and created shaped charges in the back of a truck on a cool lake front using a canoe paddle, all in a jiffy. The new official story has all the signs of being a winner too.159.105.80.141 18:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia to add to the article - Samuel Cohen ( the inventor of the neutron bomb ) concurred with General Partin that ANFO would not work . It seems that several other experts concurred - as a matter of fact it was very hard - impossible - to get an explosive expert to support the ANFO or any air blast scenario. Partin et al agreed that not only would an ANFO bomb not have done the job, no bomb relying on air blast would do it. Later efforts to rehabilitate the ANFO bomb by claiming it really was made of more powerful materials etc still don't produce the damage required to match what happened. It isn't the amount of damage it is what damage - hard concept for many in congress etc to grasp. One piece above has some merit - a weak bomb and lousy construction might work but the construction faults would have to be asymmetrical ( one bad pillar here, skip with two good pillars, another bad one, let's do all the ones on the right correct but not that one there - sounds farfetched but better than the government's story.159.105.80.141 19:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Nichols has recently said he and McVeigh didn't make the bomb, instead they got Tovex. Getting Tovex makes more sense seeing as how neither of them could make a bomb and they couldn't get all the materials anyway ( the prosecutor should use the fertilizer receipt for toilet paper ). The only problem is that some of the Tovex would have to be inside the building - which Nichols claims that someone - who he didn't know - must have done. No amount of Tovex, ANFO,ANNM, dynamite, atomic bomb,... would have done the damage produced ( you could do more, you could do less, but you couldn't recreate wjat actually happened from one spot from the street ). ANFO,ANNM, Tovex..... this argument goes nowhere - how did McVeigh get explosives inside the building al by himself ( in front of guards )- that's the trick. ( National Geographic will probably have an article out soon explaining it all to us.)159.105.80.141 19:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

A conspircy page was here: Oklahoma_City_bombing_conspiracy_theory. You can still view the history. Fvdham 19:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Victims

Is there a site, an article or a section of an article with information about the victims of the Oklahoma bombing?Maziotis 09:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Air Force report

Thank you for contacting The John Birch Society. We do have available the document you requested. It is available in PDF format for $25.00. If you make your request at csummers@jbs.org our customer service representative can take your order.

Anyone know how to get this report for free? Shouldn't an Air Force report be public domain? — Xiutwel (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there is no such report. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Until it can be shown to come directly from the government, Tom's is the only logical conclusion. --Golbez 22:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Tom and Golbez, may I suggest you continue the discussion on the existence of the report here: Non-existent report conspiracy theory. Update: the hardcopy is 25 dollars, the PDF file only 10 dollars. When you care to elaborate on your theories: here's a thought: maybe the Air Force is not advertising this report since it is so damaging to this other theory, namely that there was a single bomb? Just guessing, of course. — Xiutwel (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe The John Birch Society is nuts. Which could it be? Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding?!? The John Birch Society selling a report that exists in the public domain shows that they are the smartest human beings alive! Their business acumen staggers the imagination!! --Kralizec! (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

FAC

I'd like to take this article to FAC, but are there any major problems or things that need to be fixed before it is taken there? I would appreciate any help with people who work on this article, as I have little experience with FAC, and would like any assistance possible. I'm also going to initiate another peer review, although the last one didn't receive any feedback. --Nehrams2020 21:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)