Talk:Centennial Olympic Park bombing

---

This needs fixing?

"....down. We will see that they a [4]""

it just ends? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.240.30 (talk) 11:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Securite Mesurs

I removed the following subsection added today because I can't figure out what the author was trying to say. (maybe missing words or perhaps a whole sentence)

The IOC tightened security as a result of incident. However, it would not be until the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City when security was very stringent at the Olympics, since they were the first since September 11, 2001.

If you can make this more understandable, add it back. AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 06:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Number killed

Is the number of people killed one or two? The first paragraph says two, but the body and other pieces on Wikipedia about the bombing state only one. 12.36.152.153

I made the same mistake myself. I'm not sure why we both missed it, but the article specifically mentions two people. Broadfootp 17:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a problem, because some people don't think the cameraman should be included (not just on Wikipedia). I've never actually sat down and addressed it in the article(s). I personally apply the 9/11 rule, i.e. you don't draw the line at the people killed by the crash, or by the fire, or by the smoke, or by the collapse. You would count a firefighter who had a heart attack fighting a fire, so somebody dying doing his job in the middle of a disaster seems to be a victim of the disaster. On the other hand you can just never summarize the total, but then you always have to explain the cameraman with the approximate same text. I prefer to do that in the body of the article. --Dhartung | Talk 20:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

What is this 2nd WTC attack rule you speak of? Is this a formal Wiki policy? Seems to me that there is a single death to be counted here. Unless there's a citation that this heart attack was a result of the bombing (shock, fright, etc.), and not something that had been building up gradually and was going to happen soon one way or another, it's not encyclopedic to attribute that death to this bombing. Alvis 05:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess the reasoning would be more of an emotional connection to the disaster than anything else. After all, anyone at the park that night could be considered a "victim" of the bombing. I myself would draw the line at the person who was actually killed as a direct result of the blast, either by the blast itself or the debris or shockwave. But there is the emotional connection thing too, I suppose. Here in Guam, we had an 8.1 earthquake in 1993. After the quake, someone was driving a friend to the hospital for a non-quake related infirmity, crashed the car, and the friend died (resulting from the infirmity, not the crash). For a time, that person was listed as a "quake fatality". Later on, however, that inaccuracy was corrected. It's all a matter of wanting to be identified with a newsworty item, in some cases.Jlujan69 21:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I actually considered deleting the camera man from the text out-right (but wisely decided to check the talk page first: as an explanation for a common, incorrect, death count, his inclusion is valid). My reasoning would have been that he was neither killed by the bomb, nor "caused to be killed" by the bomb, but died due to his own voluntary physical activity. By analogy, someone who had a fatal heart attack after running to reach his TV to see a news cast concerning the bombing would have an equal right to be included; someone who died due to emotional upset from the same news cast would have a greater right. The camera man's physical proximity is of litte or no relevance.

(In contrast, the above mentioning of including hypothetical firemen could still be justifiable, because their involvement would be a direct and non-negotiable attempt at miminizing the effects of the bomb; the camera man, in contrast, could have chosen not to run, with an effect only on news coverage.) 88.77.135.6 (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Format

I have broken the "investigation" section into two sections because it's very unfair to have an investigation section with two headings -- "Richard Jewell" and "Eric Rudolph" -- when Jewell was cleared. I changed the headings so that the reader will immediately see that there was "the wrong man" and then "the right man." If you think there's a better way to present it, that's fine, but please do not simply revert to "The Investigation" with just the two men's names as sub-sections. Jewell does not deserve that. CoramVobis 04:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This "cheesecake" Person

Would someone please warn or do the appropriate action to 207.69.18.16? This user has now vandalized the "Reaction" section of this article, particularly references to Bill Clinton, three times now, and three times someone has had to go back and undo it. It's a shame we have such idiots on the web who have nothing better to do with their time, but we do, and need to deal with them. Webmacster87 03:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Any editor can warn a vandal using the standard user talk messages. Start with a good-faith notice and escalate. If you've reached level 3, take the issue to WP:AIV. --Dhartung | Talk 03:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Right-Wing Extremism

"The problem of right-wing extremism"? That is definitely POV, so I am going to remove it. It doesn't even have a cite. Entbark 13:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed: Shaped charge

I have removed the reference to the steel plate being a shaped charge. Shaped charges typically are voids placed within the explosive material itself in order to direct the expansion of gasses within the explosive material itself. Directing the explosion using amother materials isn't typically refered to as a shapped charge.--69.176.17.46 (talk) 01:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

And who is Cleere?

Poooooooor writing.