Talk:Eric Rudolph

Under the Bombing section
Does anyone have the TIME / DURATION between when the call was made to police and when the bomb/bombs detonated? Not that it mitigates or changes anything but maybe this example might illustrate where why I'm asking. A call placed minutes before vs. a call placed an hour, or two hours, or a day before the bomb(s) exploded speaks to intentions and the thought process of E. Rudolph. (EDIT: Found this on Richard Jewell's Page "He discovered the bag and alerted Georgia Bureau of Investigation officers. This discovery was nine minutes before Rudolph called 9-1-1 to deliver a warning. Jewell and other security guards began clearing the immediate area so that a bomb squad could investigate the suspicious package. The bomb exploded 13 minutes later, killing Alice Hawthorne and injuring over one hundred others. A cameraman also died of a heart attack while running to cover the incident." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.238.145 (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Does labelling the subject of this article a Christian terrorist violate NPOV, NOR or SYN?

 * Looking back I think Christian Terrorist is WP:Obvious. ERR was acting under an extremest view (killing doctors to protect the life of the unborn) in defense of what has traditionally been seen as the Christian side of the abortion issue. Furthermore he was religiously devout, has made sourced statements attesting to his beliefs, and has been identified by other extremest organizations (army of god) as a hero of the 'cause'. The 'terrorist' question is actually the more tricky one. If he had only targeted individual doctors or clinics then he would be a lone crazy guy, but the use of bombs and the targeting of the Olympics answer that one for us Lastly, if the statements come from mainstream media and the wording matches those statements BLP has little to do with it. Especially since he pled guilty to the charges. --AdultSwim (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is all OR and the source to back it up aren't there. -- neon white talk 15:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No it was all there. The edit history does not lie. --AdultSwim (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You are basing your view it on what you personally consider to be 'christian' motivations. We cannot make claims about his motivations or speculate about them without decent sources. Please read WP:NOR. We can report what theories have been published but not make up new theories or draw our own personal conclusions based on them. -- neon white talk 19:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's specious reasoning. By that logic, Charles Manson could never be called a "psychopathic mass murderer."  "Gee, he's been called psychotic, he was a murderer, and he had a number of victims, but to put all of that together and call him a psychopathic mass murderer is OR and synthesis."  NONSENSE! Groupthink (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

NOTICE: I have sent friendly notices to the following users who have previously posted to this talk page and have expressed interest in this topic: User:Ud terrorist, User:Lordkazan, User:BrandonYusufToropov, User:Coelacan, and User:Hoary. Groupthink (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I find the formulation "Christian terrorist" to be NPOV and I refute the analogy to calling Charles Manson a "psychopathic mass murderer". Groupthink's argument is sophistic. Groupthink is concealing the fact that the single word "Christian" itself has a multitude of connotations. Groupthink is also disregarding (possibly in part out of genuine ignorance) some facts of semantics (the science of meaning): (1) a phrase (a conjunction of two or more words) may possibly have multiple meanings; (2) any one meaning of a phrase is not necessarily *compositional* (simply the compound of the meanings of the phrase's constitutents); (3) the term "meaning" encompasses *denotations* and *connotations*. Connotations are associations contingent and relatively unstable in space or time; they are "extra meanings". These associations can be held by an individual, a demographic subgroup, or by society at large. In this case, the meaning "person who has committed terrorist acts and is also a Christian" is only one meaning of the phrase "Christian terrorist" -- and not necessarily the one that would first come to mind. In contrast, the phrase "psychopathic mass murderer" either has only a single narrowly defined meaning or a narrow range of meaning, with probably no connotations at the subcultural or society wide level. The most natural interpretation of "Christian terrorist" is "terrorist whose terrorism is motivated by their Christian beliefs". "Christian terrorist" is NOT analogous to, say, "French terrorist", which does not (except in the mind of very few persons) *connote* "terrorist whose terrorist acts were motivated by their life experience of being French". At a morphosyntactic level, the '-ist' in "French terrorist" has (usually) logical scope only over the word 'terror', but the '-ist' in "Christian terrorist" usually has logical scope of the phrase "Christian terror".

Now, I am not claiming the impossibility of a terrorist being motivated by Christian beliefs, the impossibility that "Christian terror" in some time and place there has existed (or could come into existence); not at all. There are at least two objections: (1) "Christianity" is not a *narrowly* defined set of beliefs; (2) people often are motivated by misunderstandings. To elaborate. Christianity is a vast range of rival sets of doctrines. It is true they all have a common core, I think it is inflammatory and false to claim that the core Christian beliefs alone are enough to have motivated Rudolph to commit his specific acts. By definition, all Christians share certain beliefs, but only a few would commit the bombings he committed. So to allude to his religious motivations, "Christian" is not specific enough, plus the question of whether Rudolph understands the Christian subtenets he justifies himself by is a major one. Hurmata (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Possibly in part out of genuine ignorance"? That's very clever, couching an ad hominem attack in weasel terminology. Setting aside that patronizing recap of College English 101 for the moment, I will retort that the above editor's definition of semantics as "the science of meaning" illustrates some woeful ignorance on her/his part in turn. Semantics is not a science, it is a study and an art. He/she is sophomorically conflating semantics and syntactics.
 * Now as for that screed on connotations: I conceal nothing. Unlike the above editor, I credit our readership with sufficient intelligence to distinguish the correct prima facie meaning of a simple phrase like "Christian terrorist." I am not willing to engage in paralysis by analysis – I leave it to the philosophers, rhetoricians and politicians to engage in exercises like wrangling over what the meaning of the word "is" is. Groupthink (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Now as for that screed on connotations: I conceal nothing. Unlike the above editor, I credit our readership with sufficient intelligence to distinguish the correct prima facie meaning of a simple phrase like "Christian terrorist." I am not willing to engage in paralysis by analysis – I leave it to the philosophers, rhetoricians and politicians to engage in exercises like wrangling over what the meaning of the word "is" is. Groupthink (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no such word as "syntactics". This person wields words like "sophomoric" and "screed", but now we see they are a hick. I wish to move on to reinforce my previous point of the absurdity of the claiming you are getting at the prima facie meaning. If one really were to stipulate that "Christian terrorist" means "person is coincidentally both a Christian and a terrorist, and is not claiming justification for his terrorism from Christian doctrine", then it would be improper to mention them together in an encyclopedic setting, just as improper as "green eyed terrorist", "black haired terrorist", "vegetarian terrorist", "bird watcher terrorist". If indeed the one doesn't influence the other in a given person, then these descriptions are unacceptable in an objective, nonliterary genre. Hurmata (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2008
 * "There is no such word as 'syntactics'."I hate to say it, but the "hicks" who edit the Random House and American Heritage dictionaries disagree with you: . :-P Groupthink (talk) 13:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of the victims of the KKK were Christians as well. However the KKK is listed in the Christian Terrorism article as a Christian Terrorist group.  Are we heading to a place where that article will eventually be deleted?  If Eric Rudolph is NOT a Christian Terrorist - who is?  Seriously, does anyone know of any articles that describes anyone as a "Christian Terrorist"?  Rudolph is mentioned in the Christian Terrorism article.  It seems Colbert is correct and when enough people/admins said they no longer wanted Rudolph referred to as Christian Terrorist - he no longer is.  This is too bad.  The tyranny of the majority should be guarded against.  Rudolph was described corrrectly as a Christian Terrorist in this article for years.  I am disappointed that a vocal and influential group of editors was able to decide (all of a sudden) that this label no longer applies.  Wikipedia should be better than that.  72.94.69.45 (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Why the epithet "Christian terrorist" is wrong for this article
Groupthink, thanks for the cogent, well-reasoned post; it merits a thoughtful reply. Here’s why referring to ERR as a “Christian terrorist is wrong.


 * It violates WP:OR. Last time I checked, the sources being used in the lead did not refer to him as a “Christian terrorist.” Is he Christian? Yeah… kinda sort of (if we take him at his word). Terrorist? I think so, definitely. So why can’t we just slap those words together? Because it implies that his terrorist was specifically in the service of Christianity (violating WP:SYNTH), as ERR saw it. I don’t know if that’s true. There’s been speculation that he was religiously motivated, but, for example, Christian Identity is mostly about white supremacy, not Christianity. So already we’d be nearer the mark referring to him as a white supremacist terrorist. Except ERR has disparaged CI, and distanced himself from them. We could call him a "male terrorist" or a "Floridian terrorist" -- why aren't we? Because those things aren't germane to his terrorism. Is Christianity? Well, the accuracy of the epithet “Christian terrorist” is not supported by the sources we have. Which brings me to:


 * It violates WP:V. There just aren’t enough sources to support the specific phrase you want to use. I notice that you don’t keep trying to insert the phrase “Roman Catholic warrior,” in the lead, even though that’s how he described himself. Instead, you interpret that phrase as meaning he is a Christian terrorist. I, and many others, would disagree with that interpretation. There might be room to discuss it later in the article, if the sources support it, but putting it in the first paragraph violates:


 * WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE. You’re sticking in a controversial description of ERR that is not often made in the lead, which should be a précis of the article, not the place to present controversial claims as fact.


 * Insisting that ERR is a “Christian” terrorist, in the absence of sources that ‘’clearly’’ label him as such, becomes a violation of WP:NPOV. It smears Christianity in general with the acts of one man. I’m not saying that’s your intention, BTW, just the end result. And we have to be very careful in matters of faith – especially when they intersect with politics and violence.


 * Given the above, this becomes a clearcut violation of WP:BLP. Unsourced, or poorly sourced, assertions about living person can be removed, without having to obey a three revert limit.

Hope that makes my position clearer. IronDuke 16:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, in turn, for being civil. Your thoughtful reply to my thoughtful reply also merits a thoughtful reply:  When I have some time to think ;), I'll make one. Groupthink (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to add some points. His sister in law has stated that she believes his motives for the abortion clinic bombing where based on white supremacy. "He felt like if women continued to abort their White babies that eventually the White race would become a minority." John Walsh has said he believes him to be a psychopath. "now, let's not forget that this guy in my opinion is a psychopath, violent, dangerous person that killed two people" These are all alledged motivations that we should represent with equality. The fact remains that we have no evidence that definitively says what his motivations where and, judging from his contradictory statements, i suspect even he isn't sure. So the only thing we can do in the article is report the opinions and speculations. -- neon white talk 22:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

We should not believe that Groupthink means to characterize Rudolph as someone who is both a terrorist and a Christian. The reason not to believe this is that the vast majority of the population of Europe and its offspring nations (USA, Canada, Australia, Latin America) -- 2/3 to 3/4 -- is Christian. (In the USA, only 3% are ethnic Jews, some of whom are atheists, and only about 1% are Muslim. Some Americans are agnostics of Christian family background, and some are atheist.) The vast majority of American architects are Christian architects, the vast majority of American plumbers are Christian plumbers. To call Rudolph a Christian terrorist *in this sense* would be stupid and not notable. So users like Groupthink are just playing a game, wanting to insinutate one thing yet claiming to want to report something different. In a *second* sense, of Christian as a *demographic* group, there are no Christian terrorists in America. In the Lebanese civil war, you did have Muslim terrorists and Christian terrorists. In Northern Ireland you did have Protestant terrorists and Catholic terrorists -- again, sociopolitically, not ideologically. Men in one group in Northern Ireland weren't killing people in the other group justifying themselves by Bible verses and Christian sectarian dogma. In a *third* sense, that there might be terrorists in America who commit terrorism out of Christian belief, Rudolph is one of 17 or so such people out of about 300 million American Christians, so it would be POV to call him a Christian terrorist in *that* sense, plus it is plain that Christian terrorism in an *ideological* sense doesn't even exist in America. In this regard, note that statistically, nearly all the victims of people like Rudolph would be Christians, per my first point. So for *that* reason it wouldn't make sense to call Rudolph an *ideologically* C.T. Hurmata (talk) 05:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Most of the victims of the KKK were Christians as well. However the KKK is listed in the Christian Terrorism article as a Christian Terrorist group.  Are we heading to a place where that article will eventually be deleted?  If Eric Rudolph is NOT a Christian Terrorist - who is?  Seriously, does anyone know of any articles that describes anyone as a "Christian Terrorist"?  Rudolph is mentioned in the Christian Terrorism article.  It seems Colbert is correct and when enough people/admins said they no longer wanted Rudolph referred to as Christian Terrorist - he no longer is.  This is too bad.  The tyranny of the majority should be guarded against.  Rudolph was described corrrectly as a Christian Terrorist in this article for years.  I am disappointed that a vocal and influential group of editors was able to decide (all of a sudden) that this label no longer applies.  Wikipedia should be better than that.  72.94.69.45 (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As has been pointed out many times his motivations are not clear and there is no official view on the matter. We have to represent all views with equality and base them on reliable sources, we cannot make our own speculations or decided that one is correct. --neon white talk 05:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What is an "official view"? Most criminals are convicted on circumstantial evidence - not direct evidence.  How can you possibly "represent all views with equality"?  This is not possible nor is it the goal of an encylopedia.  He either is or is not a Christian Terrorist and the preponderance of the evidenece is that he is.  If a member of the KKK hanged a black man - would you call him a CT?  Or would you need actual proof that he was feeling particulary Christian on that specific day?  So again I ask - is ANYONE on Wiki referred to as a CT?  Wiki has an excellent article on Christian Terrorism - WHO does it apply to?  Take a stand.  72.94.69.45 (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Official' meaning that no judgement has been made by any government person or organisation as to potential motives. It is wikipedia policy to represent all views with equality. see WP:NPOV. It is very possible and is done in every article. You are missing the whole point, editors do not decide facts, the encyclopedia is based on sources not our opinions. --neon white talk 21:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with Wiki policies and also know that there were sources next to the label of CT in this article for years - what changed? I also know that Wiki does not treat all views equally as is correct - 9/11 conspircy theorists are not treated the same as mainstream thought on that subject.  You've ignored my other questions above.  (There are many Christians who reject the label of CT - I have a sneaking feeling that is what we are dealing with here.) 72.94.69.45 (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What sources specifically used that term? IronDuke  04:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There were several sources listed next to the term for years - they have been removed.72.94.69.45 (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The history is here ... maybe you can locate them? IronDuke  23:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point. They were deemed sufficient for several years - and then evidently Wikiality took over and the term was removed. This sort of thing diminishes Wikipedia. 72.94.69.45 (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think, if I understand that term, it means something like "together we can create a reality that we all agree on—the reality we just agreed on." In other words, sourceless assertions, which is what you are making. IronDuke  03:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your side won. Isn't that all you really care about?  You know the sources were there or it wouldn't have stood for several years - there was a string of footnotes after the term CT - I remember it clearly.  Then those with their own agenda decided (all of a sudden) that these sources were not good enough (this is all in the history - YOU look it up).  We both know this guy is a CT.   If not him, who?  Who IS described as a CT on Wikipedia?  Again, if a KKK member strung up a black man - would Wiki describe HIM as a CT - or would you require proof that he was feeling particularly Christian on that particular day.  Wiki has an excellent article on Christian Terrorism in which Rudolph is mentioned.  But you want to dance around the fact that he is one.  Some people want to deny Christian terrorism; others still deny the Holocaust.  I prefer to embrace reality, not Wikiality.  72.94.69.45 (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would I look it up? I'm happy with it the way it is. You want change, you've got to do a little work. You don't want to? It's up to you. ER denies he is Christian, and the KKK could be called "White terrorists" far more easily. I think we use the religious designation when there's some notion of spreading that religion through terror, generally speaking. I wouldn't call members of the Euskadi Ta Askatasuna "Catholic terrorists" though I suppose that's technically accurate. You see why? Oh, and in that section you link to, a Professor indicates: "I would prefer to say that Rudolph is a religiously inspired terrorist." IronDuke  23:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would not endeavor to change that which is obviously not changeable. Of course you are "happy with the way it is."  This is clear. And of course if Rudolph denies that he is a Christian - then that really should be the end of it, because obviously he is an honorable man.  And now you say that the KKK does not belong in the CT article?  If you work hard enough at that, I'm sure you will get your way.  Then we can remove the Christians from the history of the Crusades.  There is no limit to what the pro-Christian movement can do with history and "facts."  (And I was born Catholic.)  How objective is the professor you site?  Who knows.  If you want to pretend that no terrorism is ever committed in the name of Christianity - I will never be able to convince you otherwise.  The abortion clinic bombers are probably all Jewish.  72.94.69.45 (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the sources were removed because they did not cite the statements made and were being synthesised to back up certian editors' anti-christian agenda. I'll repeat what has been said many times. Wikipedia is not a blog, it is not the place for personal views on a subject. IronDuke is correct. We cannot simply add any adjective to the word whether accurate or not. --neon white talk 01:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't consider myself anti-Christian but pro-truth. Wikipedia in this case is leaning toward being a pro-Christian blog.  Anyone can accept or reject any source that either supports their POV or does not.   It's like statistics.  These sources were accepted for several years and then a group of pro-Christian editors decided the sources were not good enough - this is the very definition of Wikiality.  As opposed to reality.  This is not important enough for me to spend anymore time on.  I've seen too many of these causes go down in flames.  The side with the most editors/admins wins - period. 72.94.69.45 (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that this appears to have been a waste of your time. IronDuke  00:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I realized it was purely an academic exercise going in. Every source has bias just as every human has a bias.  There is no such thing as a purely objective POV.  It is naive to think otherwise.  I said my piece. 72.94.69.45 (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Is the April 13, 2005 Statement Correct?
Is there a source for the April 13, 2005 statement listed on this article? The quote on the Centennial Olympic Park bombing page is considerably different than the version listed on this page. The full quote according to that article is "In the summer of 1996, the world converged upon Atlanta for the Olympic Games. Under the protection and auspices of the regime in Washington millions of people came to celebrate the ideals of global socialism. Multinational corporations spent billions of dollars, and Washington organized an army of security to protect these best of all games. Even though the conception and purpose of the so-called Olympic movement is to promote the values of global socialism, as perfectly expressed in the song Imagine by John Lennon, which was the theme of the 1996 Games even though the purpose of the Olympics is to promote these despicable ideals, the purpose of the attack on July 27 was to confound, anger and embarrass the Washington government in the eyes of the world for its abominable sanctioning of abortion on demand. The plan was to force the cancellation of the Games, or at least create a state of insecurity to empty the streets around the venues and thereby eat into the vast amounts of money invested."

However the quote in this article paraphrases this without giving an indication portions of the text have been removed. Should these edits be indicated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrProsser (talk • contribs) 01:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Being a terrorist / being considered a terrorist
Stating that Rudolph "is a terrorist" in the first sentence, and that the FBI "considers him a terrorist" in the next sentence is a bit contradictory, I think. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved to Eric Rudolph. Favonian (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Eric Robert Rudolph → Eric Rudolph – WP:UCN: It appears to me that he is most commonly referred to as "Eric Rudolph". I get around 10 times as many g-hits from "Eric Rudolph" as compared to "Eric Robert Rudolph". Eric Rudolph already redirects here, so there is no disambiguation issue that the middle name is dealing with. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. There are four books with "Eric Rudolph" in the title. I get 3,700 post-2000 English-language Google Book hits for "Eric Rudolph", 730 for "Eric Robert Rudolph". Kauffner (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Yep, definitely looks like the proposed title is the common name and I can't see any reason why the middle name would be required for disambiguation. Jenks24 (talk) 04:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Writings from prison
What is the point of the last section of this article? It seems to be very out of place and strongly under an agenda of denying prisoner's rights to write letters. It really has no place in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCEE:CD90:6CF3:7FFB:9B65:4AFE (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

John Walsh
John Walsh considers him a "psychopath"? Of what relevance is this? John Walsh is a media personality and anti-crime activist, but he has no professional or academic qualifications to diagnose/profile someone with psychopathy. It should be deleted-- it's just a random famous person's personal opinion, doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.87.129 (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

motivations section -- extraneous passage
The final paragraph of the "Motivations" section is out of place, in its current form. It describes the article subject's opinion of evangelists and his opinion of reading the Bible vs Nietzsche:

In a letter to his mother from prison, Rudolph has written, "Many good people continue to send me money and books. Most of them have, of course, an agenda; mostly born-again Christians looking to save my soul. I suppose the assumption is made that because I'm in here I must be a 'sinner' in need of salvation, and they would be glad to sell me a ticket to heaven, hawking this salvation like peanuts at a ballgame. I do appreciate their charity, but I could really do without the condescension. They have been so nice I would hate to break it to them that I really prefer Nietzsche to the Bible."

Perhaps someone was so taken with the quote they thought it had to be included somewhere (wikiquotes works). What does this have to do with his motivations? Is it trying to say that he isn't particularly Christian, so those religious motives shouldn't be imputed to his attacks? Well that is quite a leap from saying he prefers Nietzsche. And in any event, such an argument needs to be made explicit (and shouldn't of course be original research). I think just a long random quote from one of his letters with no prefatory remarks stands to be edited.Snarfblaat (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Eric Rudolph. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061124235649/http://www.adl.org/PresRele/Teror_92/4264_72.htm to http://www.adl.org/PresRele/Teror_92/4264_72.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051023225608/http://www.gazette.com/display.php?id=1310494&secid=1 to http://www.gazette.com/display.php?id=1310494&secid=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070516044017/http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007May14/0,4670,EricRudolph,00.html to http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007May14/0,4670,EricRudolph,00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131222202947/http://www.armyofgod.com/Eric_RudolphBetweenTheLines_pdf_page1.html to http://www.armyofgod.com/Eric_RudolphBetweenTheLines_pdf_page1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031016001413/http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASUS_12/4264_72.htm to http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASUS_12/4264_72.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050908210233/http://www.crimelibrary.com/terrorists_spies/terrorists/eric_rudolph/ to http://www.crimelibrary.com/terrorists_spies/terrorists/eric_rudolph/
 * Added tag to http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/eric_rudolph.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071017201518/http://emilylyons.com/ to http://www.emilylyons.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Olympic Park bombing in intro
Hello - what's with the revert of the inclusion of the Centennial Olympic Park bombing in the introduction? That's his only action that has its own article, and the one bombing specifically cited in nearly every published source about Rudolph, while the other bombings are not always cited. In the lead, emphasis is to be "given to material [that] should reflect its relative importance to the subject" (MOS:LEADREL). Thanks Infoman99 (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I read it wrong - it didn't read correctly to me in the review pane. I'll revert myself.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Infoman99 (talk) 04:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

was he really anti-abortion?
Just watched the series manhunt and it's based on a book and it definitely nixed that he was anti-abortion as the abortion clinic bombings were set up to kill first responders which it did. he took up the anti-abortion so as to gain help. it didn't really make a case that he was anti-gay either but again trying to kill first responders. in the motivation section there is a lot said but it seems to slant that he was a christian fundamentalist and white supremacist which does not appear to be true. thoughts? SailedtheSeas (talk) 06:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Take a look at his own statement. Most of the motivation section comes from his own statement or other reliable sources. --Meanderingbartender (talk) 10:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm not saying that he didn't make claims to do it as part of anti-abortion and anti-Christian motivations (and he made statements saying he did not intend to kill anyone), but the reason he did that was to gain supporters especially when he went into the NC woods. He needed support to hide out as he did which he received from the militia group The NC Regulators (an interesting group that I wish wp had more info on btw) and he won them over by claiming he was trying to save unborn babies and that he didn't mean to kill anyone. But the way he designed his explosives and his techniques were 100% designed to kill and in particular by having two bombs timed such that the 2nd one would explode at the response time of first responders that he was trying to kill. So his statements aren't truly relevant without some comments about how they were untrue unless you want to also add his statements saying that he never meant to kill anyone. Sorry if I wasn't clear that yes he had made such statements but that they weren't truthful. So perhaps what is more appropriate would be to make the notations that his claim to be antiabortion and antigay were false statements made to garner support. Incidentally the page also associates him with white supremacists, but I'm not aware of anything that he's said that assoc with them although I've not made an extensive look for such statements. SailedtheSeas (talk) 05:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I fixed the WaPo link. Unless you have a reliable source that suggests that Rudolph was lying or giving false information, then there's absolutely no reason to discount the section. Most of his statements were made after he was captured. --Meanderingbartender (talk) 09:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I actually do have a source. It is Maryanne Vollers researched book Lone Wolf. Or at least I should say primarily. There are other sources that support what she said. And if you read lower in the article you cited, ty btw, it casts doubt on the statements that are included. i'll add the info when i have time.SailedtheSeas (talk) 13:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , per WP:BLPPRIMARY such a source would not be usable in this article. Elizium23 (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Eric Rudolph (cropped).png

Eric Rudolph is, by any objective standard, a Christian terrorist
There are no less than six reliable sources in the Motivations section which definitively peg Rudolph as a Christian terrorist. I'm sorry, but to pretend otherwise is to bury ones head in the sand. There is nothing nuanced or complicated here, and if you disagree, I would kindly request that you apply your own standards to Osama bin Laden and remove all references to Islamic terrorism from his article in turn. Groupthink (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The same I my concerns here, please layout the sourcing. I would note that I don't think most source would describe him as a "Christian terrorist" even if some of his motives may be tied to some distortion of Christian beliefs. Springee (talk) 11:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)