Talk:Oklahoma City bombing/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

automatically revert

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)

Events

The subject of this article is included in April 19 Events—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mav (talk • contribs) 20:17, 5 March 2004

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?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fvdham (talk • contribs) 08:08, 6 October 2004 errorism has a goal, it is war using fear as weapon. What war is fought here? It seems to may that the autor has been confused by pro-Penalty Act propaganda.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fvdham (talk • contribs) 08:18, 6 October 2004

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).

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)

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)

One conspiracy I added that was removed very quickly was that of Captain Button. As far as I know of, no other fully armed Air Force aircraft has had a pilot decide to "defect" or just take off on his own, and for such an act to occur during McVeigh's trial is highly suspicious. His craft was armed with 4 500-pound bombs and more than 1000 rounds of 30mm ammunition. The bombs were live:

During the trial of McVeigh, Captain Craig Button, broke off from a training flight in Arizona, and flew his fully loaded A-10 towards Denver.[1] [2] He later crashed into the side of Gold Dust Peak. Official explanations claim that he was despondant over a love affair broken off, and used his aircraft to commit suicide.[3] [4] Unofficial explanations revolve around competing theories: Button was going to free McVeigh by attacking the prison or courthouse; or that Button wanted to kill McVeigh. The crash site was less than 120 miles away from the courthouse McVeigh was being tried in. Tangurena (talk) 22:56, 29 November 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)

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? plattopusis 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! plattopusis 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 {{Fact}} notes. -Aude (talk | contribs) 05:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
This should not be labeled as conspiracy there were 3 defused bombs directly mentioned by local media the day of the bombing. This is not heresy or conspiracy but FACT and should be part of the article. The link is here http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/ok_city1.wmv -stormkrow (talk) 10:50 2 November 2007 (CST)
In the confusion of a crisis situation, inaccurate or incorrect reports are often made, especially to news media. During the Sago Mine disaster, the on-site Fox News Channel reported live on the air that a dozen survivors had been rescued, when in fact there was only one. During the first Gulf War, a CNN journalist in Israel said on live television that one of the Al Hussein missiles to hit that county was loaded with chemical weapons, however later analysis showed the warhead was actually a conventional weapon. Since the official OKC bombing investigation -as well as analysis by outside organizations like the National Geographic Society- determined that the initial report of defused bombs was wrong, I see little point in adding it to the article. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2007 (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. Tex 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.

re Additional explosives

In follow-up of: #info removed

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

— 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.

Sorry for being monothematic, If you would seem I'm a CT freak, since all exept one my comments concern CT's, but that's simply the area I happen to have some expertise that is rare. I strongly suggest the separation of the site and creating the site with alternative theories as well as to keep it as cleen and sourced as possible. Maybe it will be first one I will try to create here while I will have extra time? This wiki thing seems to have some power to suck in... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mik1984 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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
  • 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)
"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
"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 ([5]) 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)

Notes

  1. ^ {{cite web - | url = http://edition.cnn.com/US/9704/21/missing.plane.update/index.html - | title = Weather hinders search of likely A-10 crash site - | accessdate = 2007-11-27 - | date= April 21, 1997 - | work = CNN - }}
  2. ^ {{cite web - | url = http://www.af.mil/news/airman/1097/crash.htm - | title = A Puzzle on Gold Dust Peak - | accessdate = 2007-11-27 - | date= October 1997 - | work = Airman - }}
  3. ^ {{cite web - | url = http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D02E3DD1F3CF936A15751C1A96E958260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/B/Button,%20Craig%20David - | title = Airman's Flight to His Death Is Laid to Mental Anguish - | accessdate = 2007-11-27 - | date= December 25, 1998 - | work = New York Times - }}
  4. ^ {{cite web - | url = http://www.slate.com/id/2669/ - | title = Suicide Watch - The strange case of Air Force Capt. Craig Button - | accessdate = 2007-11-27 - | date= November 22, 1998 - | work = Slate - }}
  5. ^ Example: Please do not put factual claims or other claims or interpretations in Wikipedia articles BEFORE you can provide the sources for them. AFTER you have the sources to document the information, THEN put the information in the article WITH reliable sources as citations. Thanks.

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

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:

(*): 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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oklahoma_City_bombing/Archive_1&oldid=1137055947"