Talk:Timothy McVeigh/Archive 1

message: "McVeigh's first trial attorney, Stephen Jones (attorney), also suggested in his book on the case that Terry Nichols had crossed paths with suspected Islamic terrorists during his frequent visits to the Philippines before the attacks. Nichols' father-in-law at the time was a Philippine police officer who owned an apartment building often rented to Arabic-speaking students with alleged terrorist connections." - citations needed, and context must be provided.  Exactly what is being alleged here?  This information is irrelevant if nothing is being alleged, and if something is being alleged, far more proof and context are needed.
: Very right. That and the passage at the top, both are irrelavent, baseless speculations, there are no connections between him and any Muslim group or individual. 
:"Some investigators contend that Timothy McVeigh and his accomplice Terry Nichols had ties to Islamic terrorism through Ramzi Yousef, a militant who planned the 1993 WTC Bombing, and through a series of meetings with Islamic terror group Abu Sayyaf members in the Philippines. Others suggest he had ties to a radical Christian Identity group called Elohim City near Muldrow, Oklahoma."
:CNN.com's profile of Timothy McVeigh doesn't have the word "Islamic" or "Muslim". I'm removing both the paragraphs. Waqas.usman 05:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Need for context

message: There is little pleasure to be found in refining these details, but there is more to this subject. Other principal actors, especially Terry Nichols, need a place, as does the citizens petition presented by Rep. Charles Key for a grand jury which led to Nichols' indictmentin Oklahoma state court. Back in the OKBomb page, the brig. gens'. detonation analysis was perhaps outdated by revelations that nitromethane was the primary hydrocarbon component of the bomb, rather than far less volatile deisel oil. The "Reichstag fire" theory is popular, but several other theories are worth noting, including those involving and not involving gov complicity . There is evidence the gov knew (check Carol Howe, Andrew Strasmeyer) something was afoot, there is evidence infiltrators of right wing groups might have gone rogue on thier handlers (The Midwest Bank Robbers, Secret Service gained release of robbery suspect from GA jail), and some of the geographic locations involveed (elohim city especially) deserve mention. There are reliable witness accounts reported in several sources (which I verified with the original witnesses and/or investigators) of a group of surly men at the KS lake where the gov says the bomb was assembled, and that there were was another Ryder truck and a stakeside truck involved in transfering or staging the bomb components. 
None of the evidence anomylous to the gov case needs outweight the popular theory advanced by McVeigh himself before his death that he acted alone, but it needs room in the account, IMHO. More details of his life, military career and pre-bombing affiliations can all go here, too. 
:I rounded this out some. If the account of the main details is strong, it might be easier to balance anomolous evidence. Not sure how soon I'll work on this - I just noticed it and it needed some work. I have an eye on the Oklahoma City Bombing page, too - some of this can link out to other articles as it develops, maybe. 
JRT7 08:37, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refining Details 

message: What happened to the links? Why have they all turned red? --Euniana 09:26, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: This needs to get added to the web page: http://www.jaynadavis.com/story090502-wsj1.html
There is a theory that John Doe #2 was an arab with connections to Iraq and Al Qaeda.  This is definitely a conspiracy theory, but it has gotten widespread media coverage and ought to be mentioned.
thats likly propagandist hogwash, drummed up by government people on order to cash in on the fear .  i know i sound odd for saying that in that way, but thats a distinct possiblllity, and if it is true then al queda shouldnt be mentioned here.
btw, sign your posts.
Gabrielsimon 07:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Conspiracy Theories

message: A more NPOV image should be used as the introduction, police mugshots belong further down in an article :) Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 03:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is the mugshot non-NPOV? It's not as if he has any claim to fame outside his crimes. Nor is there any doubt about his guilt. Now I'd agree that say, the well-known Bill Gates mugshot would be unsuitable as the first image on the Bill Gates article, because that would easily give the first impression that he was a criminal, which is not what Bill Gates is noted as. McVeigh is noted as a criminal and nothing else, so there's nothing wrong with giving that impression. --BluePlatypus 20:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That said, it is a pretty lousy scan. A better quality image is needed. --BluePlatypus 20:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image Use

message: The point of dispute seems to rest on whether one's conclusions about whether Waco was an act of war, and whether the bombing of the federal building was a legitimate war act in response to it, can be used as a "litmus test" to "define" whether one is a libertarian or not.  To suggest so is absurd.  The definition of libertarian is "one who advocates the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property as long it allows others the same liberty."  As long as a man ascribes to that fundamental belief, he is libertarian, no matter whether those beliefs lead him to believe that there is a war going on against those beliefs, and that he must fight in it, or not. History is just as likely to vindicate McVeigh as present society has condemned him, but none of that will change whether he was a libertarian in his beliefs.  He says he was libertarian in his beliefs, there is every reason to believe he knew the definition when he spoke, and nothing in his actions indicate he was a mental incompetent or that he acted based on anything other than those beliefs, however wrong his conclusions about what Waco meant may have been. And there are, of course, a significant number of libertarians who agree with McVeigh.   Would you want to exclude them from the definition of "libertarian", as well?  pat8722 17:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: narrowing down the point of dispute

message: *Well, regardless of any of this, there's a subtle distinction being missed here. He didn't say he's a "Libertarian", he said he's a "libertarian". It's like the difference between a democrat and a Democrat. (Most Republicans would describe themselves as democrats.) So I've changed that part. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: libertarianism v Libertarianism

message: We don't accept the claim that one is a rightful king as sufficient grounds to place one into the category of those who are rightful kings.  If there is use for a Category:Self-Professed Messiahs, then by all means let's load it up.  And, likewise, if there use for a Category:Self-Professed Libertarians then let's fill that up as well.  But let's not confuse the former with Category:Messiahs, nor the latter with Category:Libertarians. —12.72.69.54 00:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki>[[Category:Self-Professed Messiahs]]</nowiki> 

message: I changed
: "Hundreds were injured and 167 men, women and children died...
to 
: "Hundreds were injured and 167 people died..."
The original sounded a little populist to me (like some background news story trying to emphasise the horribleness of the crime for cheap dramatic effect). I changed it to the more neutral version. Since this is probably a controversial article, I figured I should mention it on the talk page. I realize that the fact that men, women and children died during the bombings is information that is now removed, but it's not something that belongs in the opening paragraph. If it's important it should be mentioned further down in the article (or rather, in the article for the bombings themselves) with proper citation and maybe some numbers while we're at it. risk 22:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small change in the oppening paragraph 

message: Does only the FBI consider him a domestic terriorist?  Does, for example, the Judical branch of government having convincted hm disagree?  I don't think we have any POV problems simply calling him a domestic terriorist, that woudl be better that the weaseling about in the first sentence right now.  At the minimum he was a convicted terriorist. Dalf | Talk 16:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''considered by the FBI'' strikes me as somewhat dishonest and POV 

message: This article claims that the entirety of the next morning's witnesses was listening to the prequiem performed at the virgil service for McVeigh. That would include the journalists and the 10 survivors or victims relatives. Most survivors or relatives were pissed about Woodward because he praised the mass murderer as a comedian. So I really doubt that the survivors or relatives would go to church to hear the prequiem or to pray for the murderer.
I'd like to see some sources for that statement, so far I have only found it on the homepage of Woodward.
--172.177.247.183 19:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the entirety of the execution's witnesses at the prequiem? 

message: This article claims: there is no evidence that McVeigh knew about it or purposely targeted children
On this CNN page FBI special agent Danny Defenbaugh states:
No matter what ... if you look at the building, you're going to see all the little cutout hands, all the little apples and flowers showing that there's a kindergarten there -- that there are children in that building .
So anyone knows it better?
--172.177.247.183 19:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unaware of the day-care center 

message: This article needs sourcing throughout; see the tag.  I've introduced the "Notes" section.  The article is plagiarized from mainly two sources.  It needs citations throughout.  I leave it up to the editor who first took the material from the two sources (if still here) to provide these citations in an adequate manner to document the many statements taken from these sources.  The sources were not accurately identified; see the current Notes section.  Most of the external links were misidentified or poorly described; see those changes as well (made earlier).  This article still needs a lot of work and introduction of W:Citation and WP:Reliable sources.  --NYScholar 06:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced statements; lack of citations throughout

message: [altered the heading somewhat so that people can post comments about the first paragraph as a subject that deal with other matters too. --NYScholar 02:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not understand what you are saying at all.  To me, every sentence in the paragraph above is wrong or I am confused about what you are saying.  It does not make sense to me --Blue Tie 04:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what you are "confused" about.  As many people state in earlier comments, the indictment (and the subsequent conviction and execution) of Timothy McVeigh was not "for" the Oklahoma City bombing, but for crimes relating to it (eleven federal charges)--see the rest of the article and the recent changes that I made.  I think the first paragraph is currently clear.  Your version (first sentence) had a problem that people pointed out already in earlier comments on this talk page.  Please see all the earlier comments. --NYScholar 05:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Paragraph

message: I first thought your edits were pretty good, but I have changed my mind. It is really too awkward for an initial opening paragraph.  I think it contains too much detail for an opening paragraph and it runs on too long.  I ran it through MS Word and MS Word just threw up all over it.  I think the list of specific convictions should be put in the body, not in the opening paragraph.  Here is what I think is a better paragraph:
 Timothy James McVeigh (April 23, 1968 – June 11, 2001) was an American executed 
 for bombing the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995. 
 167 people died and hundreds more were injured when McVeigh detonated a truck loaded with 
 improvised explosives just two minutes after federal offices opened for the day.  
 A 168th victim, a rescue worker, died after the initial blast, when a large piece of concrete 
 crushed him.
According to MS Word this has a readability of 41 and a grade level of 13.  This is contrasted to the current version with a readability of 27 and a grade level of 18. (Scores for both were calculated without dates in the paragraph)  In addition, though I edited it without any POV (just seeking to simplify) it seems more like a cool neutral paragraph that would be found to summarize an encyclopedic article. The only label is the "American" which is good per wikipedia guidelines.  Word suggests that I should not have removed the phrase "his role in the", but to me it reads better this way.
The deletions from the paragraph would suggest that the following should be added to the body of the document if they are not already there:
*Decorated Army Vet
*List of Convictions
*Act described as domestic terrorism by the FBI. (Of course this might be countered by some source saying it was not terrorism).
What do you you think? --Blue Tie 04:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not understand what you are saying at all.  To me, every sentence in the paragraph above is wrong or I am confused about what you are saying.  It does not make sense to me --Blue Tie 04:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what you are "confused" about.  As many people state in earlier comments, the indictment (and the subsequent conviction and execution) of Timothy McVeigh was not "for" the Oklahoma City bombing, but for crimes relating to it (eleven federal charges)--see the rest of the article and the recent changes that I made.  I think the first paragraph is currently clear.  Your version (first sentence) had a problem that people pointed out already in earlier comments on this talk page.  Please see all the earlier comments. --NYScholar 05:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: comments for NYScholar

message: I have removed a paragraph that you [(user Blue Tie)] changed, without giving any source at all, making claims that you cannot support [without providing sources].  The changes that you (or others) made [to what was there earlier] completely alter the claims and make them even more specific and certain than they were before, but you do that without a reference to any source that anyone can verify.  Not only is no "reliable source" there, but no source at all is there.  [I added a few phrases in brackets for greater clarity, I hope. --NYScholar 05:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole article is full of your added "needs citations".  Why did you ONLY remove this one?  I might be able to support the sentence.  Please return it and I will seek to do so.  But really, do not discriminate just against me.  You have about a hundred "needs cites" and you did not remove any other sentences. --Blue Tie 04:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't follow this comment; you haven't looked at all of my changes. [I've put all this under another heading because it doesn't deal with the "first paragraph" of the article; it deals with a later paragraph in the article.--NYScholar 05:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Since writing the above and deleting the paragraph that was unsourced, I've added a note to what appears to be its source (Michel and Herbeck) and to a secondary source that comments quotes from and comments on it; people are free to read the primary source in context and to see what they think of it.  The commentary by Walsh presents one perspective on the quoted materal.  One can see the inaccuracies presented in the deleted paragraph if one reads McVeigh's actual interview comments as quoted by Walsh and in the source that he cites (Michel and Herbeck). --NYScholar 02:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a direct quotation from the book that does not jive with the passage that you wrote earlier.  (Indeed, the paragraph that I deleted does not seem to be correct.  Compare it with the exact quotation by Walsh, now in the article notes.)  I think you are "confused" but I can't tell from what you write just above what exactly is confusing you.  Please re-read the quotation (by Walsh) more carefully.  The quotation is preferable to what you posted earlier, which was totally unsourced.  This version (see the article) is sourced. If you want to find the passage quoted by Walsh in the book by Michell and Herbeck and to substitute that primary source for the quotation, you are free to do that additional work.  But reliable sources are necessary.  You can't just state what someone "says" without giving a source for the statement(s).  See WP:Verifiability. --NYScholar 05:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another paragraph

message: See the article for this other example which needs sourcing: what I supplied comes from the following passage in Hoffman's online chapter "'The Face of Terror'":
In April of 1991, McVeigh put his heart and soul into his long-awaited dream of becoming a Green Beret. On March 28 he reported to Camp McCall, the Special Forces Assessment and Selection (SFAS) training facility west of Fort Bragg, for the grueling 21-day assessment course. But McVeigh, who had kept himself in top shape by doing 400 push-ups a day and marching around the post with a 100 pound pack was now out of shape and he knew it. The Bradley gunner who had served in the Persian Gulf for four months was also drained from the stress of combat.
As the recruits stood at attention, the instructor asked several of the recently returned war veterans if they wanted to return to their unit to get back in shape. One of the soldiers yelled that they were ready, so out of a sense of gung-ho pride, nobody backed out.
The first day of testing was devoted to psychological screening. McVeigh claims he had no problem with the psychological tests, which included the Adult Personality Inventory, the Minnesota Multiple Phase Personality Test, and a sentence completion exam designed by Army psychologists.
The second day of tests began with an obstacle course which McVeigh passed with ease. After lunch, the recruits were led on a high-speed march with 50 pound rucksacks. Yet new boots tore into McVeigh's feet during the five mile march, and with the worst yet to come, he and another recruit, David Whitmyer, decided to drop out. McVeigh signed a Voluntary/Involuntary Withdrawal from the SFAS school. His single sentence explanation read: "I am not physically ready, and the rucksack march hurt more than it should."[172]
The mainstream press jumped on his initial failure to make the Special Forces. He was "unable to face the failure" stated the New York Times. "He washed out on the second day."[173]
"There were no second chances," claimed the Washington Post. "His spirit was broken."[174]
These reports suggested that McVeigh had failed the psychological screening tests. "Military officials said that preliminary psychological screening had shown him to be unfit," lauded the ever-wise voice of the New York Times. "[He] saw his cherished hope of becoming a Green Beret shattered by psychological tests."[175] "It was apparently a blow so crushing that he quit the Army and went into a psychic tailspin."[176]
Media pundits quickly backed up their armchair analyses' with statements from several of McVeigh's former buddies.
"Anyone who puts all that effort into something and doesn't get it would be mentally crushed," said Roger Barnett, the driver of McVeigh's Bradley. "He wasn't the same McVeigh. He didn't go at things the way he normally did…. He didn't have the same drive. He didn't have his heart in the military anymore."[177]
"He always wanted to do better than everyone," said Captain Terry Guild, "and that (Green Berets) was his way of trying to do it. He took a lot of flak. He was really down on himself."[178]
McVeigh claimed "That's a bunch of bunk," in response to the allegations. "Any realist knows that if you develop blisters on the second day… you're not going to make it."[179] [Still, the self-styled psychoanalysts of the mainstream press made much of his disappointment, asserting knowingly that it was the crux of McVeigh's "burgeoning torment."]
[Apparently, the "psychojournalists" at the Times had never bothered to check with officials at the SFAS school. "McVeigh dropped out of the course on the second day," said Colonel Ken McGraw, Information Officer at the Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg. "His psychological test work would not have even been graded yet."]
According to McVeigh's attorney Stephen Jones, his Army records indicate that his SFAS psychological tests weren't graded until April of 1995. The "military official" who leaked the story about McVeigh's "psychological test failure" turned out to be none other than FBI Agent John R. Hersley, who testified to this repeatedly during the Federal Grand Jury hearings. Apparently, Hersley never told the grand jurors that he was moonlighting as an Army psychologist.
Although McVeigh may have been genuinely disappointed by his initial failure, he added that the school's commander had invited the decorated war veteran to try out again whenever he felt he was ready. It seems McVeigh was not too disappointed to score a perfect 1,000 points during a Bradley gunner competition six months later at Fort Riley, earning him another Army commendation and the honor of the division's "Top Gun," a rare achievement. An Army evaluation also rated him "among the best" in leadership potential and an "inspiration to young soldiers."[180]
Yet in spite of McVeigh's achievements, "a bit of doubt started to surface" in his mind about a potential for a career in the military.[181] Although a friend said "I swear to God he could have been Sergeant Major of the Army — he was that good of a soldier," McVeigh apparently was having second thoughts. Most of these, his Army buddies said, stemmed from the military's downsizing then in progress. He also confided to his friend Dave Dilly that without being a Green Beret, the Army wouldn't be worth the effort. "I think he felt he got a raw deal, and wanted out," said Littleton.
Given McVeigh's achievements — his quick rise to sergeant, his medals of commendation, the distinction of being "Top Gun," and the extremely high praise of his superiors, one has to wonder what his real motives were. It seems highly unlikely that given the massive effort he put into his military career, he would take an early out on such presumptive pretenses. McVeigh was a spit and polish soldier with a top notch record. He was totally devoted to the military. He had served in combat, earning several medals. If anything he was due for his next promotion. The commander of the Special Forces school had even invited him to try out again in a few months. As Sheffield Anderson said, "He seemed destined for a brilliant career in the military."
These observations were backed up by McVeigh's sister Jennifer. "I thought it was going to be his career. He was definitely a career military type. That was his life, you know. His life revolved around that."
It hardly seems likely that the ambitious soldier who had recently signed on for another four year hitch would opt out so easily. Yet, on December 31, 1991, Sergeant McVeigh took an early discharge from the Army, and went back to his home town of Pendleton, NY.
[Numbers in brackets refer to notes provided by Hoffman.]
If one reads the whole passage as quoted above, one can see that taking little bits out of context is highly problematic and also that the above passage is the interpretation of its author David Hoffman and that interpretation needs to be checked against a variety of other sources too, since Hoffman appears rather sympathetic to McVeigh and is attempting to "set the record straight" from Hoffman's own particular point of view on the subject.  With such highly-controversial subjects, one really does need to make an extra effort to avoid repeating biases and to make clear what they are when one encounters them in sources used.  --NYScholar 08:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Green Beret episode in Biography section

message: The intro is edited to exclude this utterly inaccurate piece. McVeigh did not protest the Iraq War, beginning 1991. His entire Gulf War participation and post-Gulf Green Beret pursuits explicitly cut against and undermine any such bias. The reference provided only dates from 1998 and does not answer the latter observations.AOluwatoyin 20:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq war protester 

message: Someone should include something about PETA's letter to McVeigh, requesting that his last meal be a vegetarian one; it's pretty interesting. --MosheA 01:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vegetarian? 

message: The motivations section contains the sentence:  "McVeigh confirmed his anti-American views in a commentary on the second Iraq War (1991–2003)"  .  How can a man who died in 2001  have a commentary on a war that started in 2003?   This sentence should be clarified, but I'm not entire sure what it means.  Was he talking about a hypothetical future Iraq war?  About hte weapons inspections issues that happened in the 90s?  Something else? --Alecmconroy 04:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine that it's a reference to Operation Desert Fox. Regardless, I concur that McVeigh was far too dead to comment on what most of us would consider the  "second Iraq War" and have edited the article to avoid confusion. JGardner 23:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Iraq War

message: This section is completely unreferenced and uses weasel words instead of name attributions.  Unless someone sources this it should probably be deleted per WP:V and WP:RS. Durova 23:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government Persecution Conspiracy 

message: In the section Motivations for the bombing, McVeigh supposedly gives comments on the "second" Iraq war. Is the writer implying the 1991 Gulf War (of which McVeigh is a veteran) is the "first" Iraq war? Then is the 2002 war in Iraq the "second"? McVeigh did not live to see the "second" war (executed three months prior to 9/11).
Polihale 00:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  McVeigh's comments on Iraq 

message: I noticed from the discussion that Timothy McVeigh was a self-described libertarian.  Would it be fair to say that he was a member of an extreme right anti-government group, the Patriot Movement?  Because that's exactly what the French Wikipedia says:  Il était membre d'un groupe d'extrême droite anti-gouvernemental, le Patriot Movement.  Your opinions would be appreciated. 64.154.26.251 06:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: removed the government persecution theory section. loaded with weasel words, no citations, references to an fbi 'crackdown on the far right' with no evidence of such a crackdown... frymaster 18:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government Persecution Theory section 

message: In the section Military career in this Wikipedia article it says that he was discharged on December 31, 1991 - this is correct. I have added in the fact that he joined the Army reserve and was honourable discharged from the army for the final time in May 1992 - this the FBI agrees with - never to be in the Army again.
However, and this is a big however, I have recently found out that their is video footage of him in the Army (Camp Grafton specifically, in uniform, learning explosives and demolition) as late as August 3 1993! article and www.infowarscom/articles/us/okc_bombing_tim_mcveigh_on_august_3_1993.htm  Bill Bean article] FK0071a 13:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Army discharge dates?

message: This article doesn't mention the only book that McVeigh authorised himself, American Terrorist? I think something needs to be said. Read/listen to the interview with the author on the books pages external links. FK0071a 15:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: McVeighs authorised book

message: I'm not sure why this is the top of the article anyway, but I didn't like the way the section originally started out saying (without cites) that McVeigh was a devoted Roman Catholic, and then said (with cite) that he 'believed in God'. I didn't like this because, in the Time Magazine interview cited, McVeigh specifically disclaims any Catholic faith, saying 'he had lost touch' and 'never really picked up' the religion. Leaving this uncited while mentioning the faith earlier makes it sound like he was still Catholic. 
This also explains an implied difference between the Guardian and Time articles... there wasn't any, really.
 
Dnjscott 22:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Religious Beliefs