Talk:Timothy McVeigh/Archive 1

Need for context
"McVeigh's first trial attorney, Stephen Jones (attorney), also suggested in his book on the case that Terry Nichols had crossed paths with suspected Islamic terrorists during his frequent visits to the Philippines before the attacks. Nichols' father-in-law at the time was a Philippine police officer who owned an apartment building often rented to Arabic-speaking students with alleged terrorist connections." - citations needed, and context must be provided. Exactly what is being alleged here? This information is irrelevant if nothing is being alleged, and if something is being alleged, far more proof and context are needed.


 * Very right. That and the passage at the top, both are irrelavent, baseless speculations, there are no connections between him and any Muslim group or individual.
 * "Some investigators contend that Timothy McVeigh and his accomplice Terry Nichols had ties to Islamic terrorism through Ramzi Yousef, a militant who planned the 1993 WTC Bombing, and through a series of meetings with Islamic terror group Abu Sayyaf members in the Philippines. Others suggest he had ties to a radical Christian Identity group called Elohim City near Muldrow, Oklahoma."


 * CNN.com's profile of Timothy McVeigh doesn't have the word "Islamic" or "Muslim". I'm removing both the paragraphs. Waqas.usman 05:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Refining Details
There is little pleasure to be found in refining these details, but there is more to this subject. Other principal actors, especially Terry Nichols, need a place, as does the citizens petition presented by Rep. Charles Key for a grand jury which led to Nichols' indictmentin Oklahoma state court. Back in the OKBomb page, the brig. gens'. detonation analysis was perhaps outdated by revelations that nitromethane was the primary hydrocarbon component of the bomb, rather than far less volatile deisel oil. The "Reichstag fire" theory is popular, but several other theories are worth noting, including those involving and not involving gov complicity. There is evidence the gov knew (check Carol Howe, Andrew Strasmeyer) something was afoot, there is evidence infiltrators of right wing groups might have gone rogue on thier handlers (The Midwest Bank Robbers, Secret Service gained release of robbery suspect from GA jail), and some of the geographic locations involveed (elohim city especially) deserve mention. There are reliable witness accounts reported in several sources (which I verified with the original witnesses and/or investigators) of a group of surly men at the KS lake where the gov says the bomb was assembled, and that there were was another Ryder truck and a stakeside truck involved in transfering or staging the bomb components.

None of the evidence anomylous to the gov case needs outweight the popular theory advanced by McVeigh himself before his death that he acted alone, but it needs room in the account, IMHO. More details of his life, military career and pre-bombing affiliations can all go here, too.


 * I rounded this out some. If the account of the main details is strong, it might be easier to balance anomolous evidence. Not sure how soon I'll work on this - I just noticed it and it needed some work. I have an eye on the Oklahoma City Bombing page, too - some of this can link out to other articles as it develops, maybe.

JRT7 08:37, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Militia and Patriot Movement
it would be usseful for the article to go into some details (or even mention) his relationship with these movements.
 * and to be fair, mention that nearly every person in the militia movement would have happily hung McVeigh themselves, if given the chance to do so.
 * I think it is a bunch of government/leftist bull to associate him as 'right-wing, militia/patriot movement, etc. It's been pointed out his heros/mentors in anti-establishment thinking were people like Louis Brandeis, the Rosenberg spies, Abbie Hoffman, Martin luther King, and Karl Marx. The publication of McVeigh's "manifesto" against the United States - on March 30, 2001 - marked the fiftieth anniversary of the conviction for treason of communists Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, and the fact he called it a 'manifesto' indicates alliegance to Marx. I believe most people in the militia/patriot movement would consider him a communist or anarchist. Lightningstrikes 18:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the McVeigh called it a 'manifesto' indicates - nothing. Try reading this: Manifesto. And don't tell us now that the "Fascist Manifesto" indicates alliegance to Marx.

The truth is very easy and obvious: McVeigh's hero was Earl Turner from militia's beloved The Turner Diaries and McVeigh was a right-winger. And like all right-wingers he liked to blame the goverment and the liberals for his own miserable life. And like all right-wingers he enjoyed killing innocent people. And that's that.

--172.177.247.183 20:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Unless you personally knew him i don't think you make that statement and pass it as a fact.

Conspiracy theories and attribution
Before his execution, some speculated McVeigh was framed, or that others were involved.

 Various analysts have suggested the government had a role in a conspiracy behind the bombing, or even planned the attack, so as to have grounds for persecuting right-wing organizations in a manner similar to Nazi prosecution of legislators after the Reichstag fire.

I think that Wikipedia should be above using such non-specific attributions as "some" or "various analysts". If Wikipedia is going to include conspiracy theories, we need to be a little more specific about the people or groups advancing them. In this case, I suspect that "various analysts" gives more credibility to the claim than would be the case if proper attribution was made.

Couldn't agree more. The site now reads (Apr 7, 06) that it's religious extremist groups (Islamic and Christian) that he's had contact with. What next? He communed with the devil?

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

First execution?
It was the first execution of a convicted criminal by the federal government of the United States since the execution of Victor Feguer in Iowa on March 15, 1963. Uh - really? I could have sworn that there were some other executions between 1963 and 2001. Captainmax 01:02, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe the point is that he was executed by the Federal government, rather than by a state government, but I don't know whether even that limited claim is accurate. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:54, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Dante is correct; the limited claim is accurate. Neutralitytalk 03:04, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism
(Protected Page) [Revised: Unprotected])--NYScholar 02:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe calling McVeigh a terrorist wholesale is incorrect. Terrorist is a highly POV term and that is why even the media refuse to use that word. He was, however, convincted of terrorist charges, which is correctly defined in the article as it is. Please see Words_to_avoid

If we are to allowed to use such POV terms, then such POV terms can also apply to Sharon and Bush and even Mandela. We can not call Mandela a terrorist wholesale just because he was convincted of terrorist acts by the aparthied government. 66.194.152.87 11:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Words to avoid does not say to not use the term, it says that some people don't like it for certain situations. This particular situation is the clearest example of a terrorist that anyone could come up with. He was legally convicted and executed for killing hundreds of people to try get his message across. The fact that you constantly point to a page that contradicts what you claim yet claim it supports you is not too wise. Editors have consistently reverted your highly POV change to try to whitewash the fact that he was a terrorist. Consensus has been reached, accept that and move on. DreamGuy 11:42, May 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * It does say that if you use the term you should qualify it with stating who thinks he is a terrorist. Over 1 billion people believe Sharon is a terrorist for the acts he did in the early 1980s and there are UN resolutions stating so.  Does that mean we can then call Sharon a terrorist wholesale?  Sharon has killed a heck of a lot more people than McVeigh did.  And McVeigh did it as revenge against the FBI for what happened in Waco.  It is fine the way it is right now without your constant reverts.  Nobody else has been reverted since it was reworded to say he was simply convincted of terrorist activities rather than simply saying he was a terrorist.  66.194.152.87 11:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

From RfC
Well, after thinking a bit, I do agree that the word "terrorist" can be a loaded phrase (that's why Reuters banned it -- stupid if you ask me, though the discussion isn't). One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. That isn't to say, though, that it shouldn't be used -- but I think it should be used judiciously. It seems to me that most people would consider McVeigh a terrorist. The FBI certainly did: On August 14, McVeigh was sentenced to death for carrying out the most deadly act of terrorism in U.S. history.   I think that's good enough for me. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:03, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

I thought wikipedia is supposed to describe what people say, write and think, not make value judgements of its own. McVeigh is a hero to many people for blowing up the FBI secret police of an oppressive government that killed children in Waco, Texas. --Spaz 03:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a valid point -- we're here to summarize pertinent and valid information into an NPOV article. But that doesn't mean that we have to give equal time to views that are not the mainstream (as an example, pseudoscience).  They deserve an airing, but sometimes that's it.  To the point, though, I don't necessarily think it's POV to say that he was considered a terrorist, particularly since the FBI did, and I think that's probably the majority view.  If someone else wants to craft a paragraph saying he's considered a "freedom fighter" and can point to something verifiable, I suppose that could be considered for inclusion too. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 03:12, May 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * There was a reaction from the militia-type groups on the acts McVeigh did. Some did consider him a hero and some distanced themselves from him. Many of these type groups disbanded, since a huge stain was put on militia groups. So something related to militia groups should be included in here, but in a NPOV way. Zscout370 (talk) 11:28, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * How about, "Like any mass murderer, Timothy McVeigh has supporters." --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:02, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * My idea: "Dispite the wide-spread condemnation of his actions, McVeigh had a small group of supporters." We could talk about the type of groups that supported him. Zscout370 (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the fact that the FBI considered him a domestic terrorist needs to be mentioned somewhere. Particularly if we're going to be giving time to his fans. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:17, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

[Note: Moved the above comments by User Katefan0 to this section from a separate section (RFC, originally below) because it relates to this discussion topically and chronologically). --NYScholar 04:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)]


 * People, people, let's try to work harder on this. Judgement has been served, he's dead. That I cannot agree with more. Having said that, doesn't anyone think that using the word "terrorist" doesn't really add any more info? "He killed a grand total of 167, was found guilty, sentenced to death, and executed by lethal injection. Also, he was a terrorist." All it seems to be adding, though not in so many words, is that we hate him and we want him to burn in hell for all eternity, no? If so, I'm all for it then, but I wouldn't employ "terrorist" as it's kinda weak and overused already. 12.210.55.12 10:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I just opened this page for the first time, and definitely think that the opening line declaring McVeigh a 'terrorist' is POV and used to vilify any resistance to the established system. Certainly all forms and expressions of resistance terrorizes the power structure, some more than others.  Madison was terrorized by democracy, fearing it would threaten the estates of the landlords, and so he drafted the constitution to prevent democracy.  The Decider we are currently saddled with has not masked his desire to vilify and stigmatize anyone who dares express any non-conformists views.  Today, our guaranteed free speech is only to be tolerated in remote, monitored "Free Speech Zone" cages.  Look at the big picture.  Qureus1 00:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the page, I'm not sure how you're going to settle this, does being convicted as a terrorist, I would lean on the side of yes.--nixie 11:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not understand what you mean. Do you mean the article should simply state he was convincted of terrorism in the US court or do you mean that he should be called a terrorist wholesale because he was convicted of terrorism in the US court? 66.194.152.87 11:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Was he convicted or the crime of "terrorism"? There is no doubt he was convicted, but of what charges?  The 'terrorist' label is broadly overused by the propagandists and the pundits who support imperial power structures.  Anyone who resists imperialism's tentacles is quick to be pejoratively labeled a 'terrorist' to end the discussion of perhaps legitimate grievances and neutralize the voice of those who speak out against authoritarian abuses. Qureus1 00:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Basically we need a vote, I think, to demonstrate that terrorist is an accurate description in the consensus view, as edit comments by numerous editors have already shown but anon user refuses to accept. If he's clearly shown that his side has no support then he will n ot be able to say anything about it. DreamGuy 12:04, May 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Strange how even Osama_bin_Laden is not directly called a terrorist straight out either. Have a look at the discussion page where they debate if he is a freedom fighter or a terrorist. 66.194.152.87 12:18, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I have yet to process the rest of the disputes on this page, but to the anon's point above about "the media" not using the word terrorist &mdash; as a member of the national print media, I can tell you that we do use the word terrorist. As far as I know, Reuters is the only organization that has stopped using the word.  It's accurate to say that Reuters has stopped using the word terrorist, but "the media" has not.  &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 02:46, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

I have yet to decide on the issue of using the word 'terrorist' to describe McVeigh, but I would like to hear 66.194.152.87's opinion on why the 9-11 hijackers should not be called terrorists. The [9-11 Attacks] page describes these attacks as 'terrorist'. Should the article instead read, "The September 11, 2001 attacks were a series of coordinated terrorist airplane attacks..."? --Monkeyman 15:59, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * After further reading, might I direct everyone to read the top of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September_11%2C_2001_attacks] and the referenced page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Use_of_the_word_terrorism_%28policy_development%29]? It looks like this ground has been well covered before. --Monkeyman 16:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

McVeigh should not be called a terrorist for these reasons:  FBI Definition of Terrorism is: Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.. But, of course, by social objectives they cannot mean simple hatred or revenge. Otherwise the Columbine murderers/misfit teens would be included as terrorists. McVeigh and Nichols were possibly anarchists, or government haters, but they did not imagine that they would be making a change. Instead, this was a violent protest act. McVeigh expressed revenge motives. While terrorists are not immune to revenge motives, this is more typically the motives for ordinary murderers, serial murderers and mass murderers. FBI and others also feel that terrorism is a group activity (and by group they do not mean 2 or 3 people). Finally, he was not charged, indicted, convicted, sentenced or executed for terrorism, but rather, most predomenantly, for murder. Granted that murder is used in terrorism, but terrorism is a separate charge and it was available to law enforcement at the time but was not used.

Not sure why it is popular to call this terrorism or why it is important to some people to call it terrorism, but it really is more of a hate crime perpetuated on a large scale. When someone sits in a tower and shoots people out of pure hatred or walks in a McDonalds and does the same ... again out of pure hatred, it is not terrorism. McVeigh's crime was similar though much larger.

Having said that, the fact that many people view his act as a terrorist act should be included.---Blue Tie 18:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

See note 2 in the article on Oklahoma City bombing. Need WP:Reliable sources for support of "many people" as used above and "some" used in note 2 in that article. Comments here seem involved in making semantic distinctions, not always legal distinctions; as demonstrated above, omitting the adjective domestic in the phrase domestic terrorism alters both the term and the concept to terrorism; there are differences in the semantic and legal meanings of domestic terrorism and terrorism (FBI definition) that need research and reliable sources; see, as note 2 refers to, the article on terrorism for more information and perspectives. See the section Terrorism and List of terrorist incidents cited in it. --NYScholar 02:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that "some" and "many people" is not as desirable as specific instances. On the other hand, where do you find specific instances of some authority NOT calling it domestic terrorism?  Its sort of like proving a negative.  I think that the wikipedia notion of "words to avoid" is reasonable here.  I think its NPOV.  I also happen to think that it is not particularly a good word because many people we might consider as heros would be called terrorists by others.  Its a POV sort of thing.  --Blue Tie 05:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

See also this July 2005 comment from Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Myers, hosted on the US Government Department of State website in an interview: QUESTION: It [death toll of Iraqi police and civilians] [is] definitely running higher than it was in 2003 and most part of 2004, if the Iraqi numbers are correct. My question is very clear and simple: Why is the American military not able to quell the insurgents in that country? GENERAL MYERS: I think my answer will be clear and simple, too. The single greatest indigenous act of terror in the United States that I can recall was the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. How many people were involved? Two people. Killed 160 -- 168. Two people.

What if you had a country the size of Iraq, but you had not just two people but maybe 200, and maybe not 200 but 2,000, who, unlike the Murrah bombing, were willing to commit suicide in Iraq as well? This is a situation that the military can have an effect on, and I can guarantee you the coalition in there is having an effect. It would be worse, much worse, if the coalition forces weren't there, and if Iraqi forces weren't there to provide security.

But if you think back to the Murrah Building, two people that cobbled together their own explosives, their own conveyance and had that kind of effect, and you take it times 10 or times 100 or whatever you want to take it times, that's why I go back and why I responded to, I think, one of the previous questions: Success in Iraq will depend on two things. One is political progress. But political progress with all parts of the population feeling as if they have a stake in the new Iraq -- and support for these people will dry up. And that's how you win insurgencies. You don't win them just with military force. The second thing it's going to take is a strong Iraqi security force with both police and border patrol and army. And that is, in fact, happening. So you're right. They are picking on the soft and easy targets. That's what they do. They're not picking on the hard targets. (Italics added)

I include the context with the question and the full reply, which deals only in part with comparisons between Oklahoma City bombing and the insurgency in Iraq. From General Myers' pov, the Oklahoma City bombing was an act of "indigenous" or native-born/domestic terrorism and, from that pov, Timothy McVeigh was both an "indigenous terrorist" and a "domestic terrorist," and in his view, a "terrorist" as well; engaged in an "act of terror" (terroristic act); he was not a "foreign-born" or "foreign" terrorist; but he was a "terrorist" of the kind that "indigenous" and "domestic" qualify the term terrorist to mean, in terms of who he was [where he was born] and where [on his native soil, in the US, "domestic" territory] he perpetrated violent acts of bombing a federal building resulting in apparently-indiscriminate deaths of and injuries to fellow Americans and others, regardless of their ages, national and ethnic identities, gender, and so on.


 * That General Myers holds this opinion does not mean that it is correct in fact. It is an opinion.  I agree that many people have this opinion.  I am not sure that they have thought about it very deeply.   --Blue Tie 05:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

There are differences between semantic quibbling over general meanings of words and their specialized meanings as defined by legislation, courts of law, government policy (including the US Departments of State and Defense), and so on. Words have different kinds of usages; general usage by everyday people is not the same as the specialized kinds. People engaged in semantic quibbles and other kinds of arguments about the meanings of words and their applications and usages need to keep in mind that dictionaries define different kinds of meanings and priortize them by numbering them according to which are most frequently used in the English language and also indicate specialized meanings. If people are going to argue about the applicability and the meanings of words, they need to consult published (peer-reviewed) dictionaries compiled by experts in language, not online sources like Wikipedia, in which words often may seem to mean what (non-peer-reviewed) users want them to mean.


 * Are you arguing for a compromise of wikipedia quality?  --Blue Tie 05:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes the applicability of a word when dealing with the subject of a legal case (the Oklahoma City bombing indictments and trials) is simply not debatable. It is a matter of public record. The applicability of a word is a moot issue. In what Wikipedia terms reliable sources, the Oklahoma City bombing is generally described just as General Myers describes it, as the the worst occurrence of "domestic terrorism" in the history of the United States thus far; whereas 9/11 is considered the worst occurrence of domestic "foreign terrorism" (that is, committed on "domestic soil" or in the US). So far that is general consensus (not among Wikipedia users--who are not reliable authorities) but among sources that Wikipedia policy considers WP:Reliable sources: published and peer-reviewed sources. Such matters of fact presented in reliable sources are not open to votes!


 * Uh... that you can find instances where people say it is domestic terrorism does not make it a "general" thing. That would require a poll that has not been conducted and a definition of what percentage of uses constitutes "general".  It is a vague word.    A reasonable approach is to say that the FBI and General Myers and so and so consider it Domestic Terrorism.  Then add some other people who do not agree.  That is per NPOV.   --Blue Tie 05:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If a person has been indicted, tried, convicted, and put to death for crimes that come under the rubric (of United States law, FBI policy) as a "domestic terrorist" for "murders" that he committed (breaking specific laws), it seems rather absurd to try to argue that he was not the particular kind of criminal that the FBI, the State department, the Defense department, U.S. federal prosecutors, and the U.S. court system (verdict and punishment phases of the trial) (followed by the public) state that he was in court records and in legislation (and according to general consensus). Those who attempt to argue differently appear to have idiosyncratic political or personal agenda led by biases, and not Neutral point of view.


 * Terrorism (and specifically DOMESTIC Terrorism) is a specific crime described in Title 18 of the US Code. McVeigh was not tried, convicted or put to death for terrorism in any way, which he could have been.  You are arguing a fact that does not exist .   --Blue Tie 05:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if McVeigh himself did not "intend" to commit a "terroristic" act; what he did can still be legitimately called a "terroristic" act due to its results. Sometimes criminals intend to engage in one kind of act (or crime) and, in the course of doing so, engage and find themselves tried with something else (a different crime)--that's their own "bad luck." If he really did not intend a "terroristic" act, it doesn't really matter (anymore); because, as a consequence of his own actions, he engaged in federal crimes that the federal government (its laws) legally considers "terrorism," he got caught doing that, he got indicted for those federal crimes, he got convicted for those federal crimes, and he was executed for those federal crimes, according to federal law in a federal court. No matter what he may or may not have "intended" and no matter what his "motives" may or may not have been, that is the outcome of his trial. He was tried and convicted of "intentionally" committing crimes which the FBI then and now defines as acts of domestic terrorism.


 * I agree that it can be called a terroristic act. That it can be called that, does not mean that it was, in fact, a terrorist act.  The Federal Government did and does have laws about terrorism, but apparently decided not to charge, indict, try, convict, sentence or execute him for that crime.  Perhaps they did not have a good case.  The statute does require a motive and perhaps it could not be proven.  If you notice, that is the core of my contention.  You seem to be arguing what is called "form over substance", which is considered improper argumentation.  It in essence says "the look of something is more important than what it really is".   --Blue Tie 05:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

In other words, the consequences of his actions were not an "accident"; they were planned in a pre-mediated way ("pre-mediated" acts of murder and harm), and, indeed, he succeeded in what he intended (tried) to do. He did not claim that the results of the Oklahoma City bombing were an "accident." He did not accidentally drive a truck loaded with explosive fuel oil into a federal building; he planned the incident, hand-picked the particular federal building, drove the truck himself, and left the truck where it could cause optimal damage, fleeing the scene, then getting apprehended (getting caught was really the only unplanned event, or accident; he should have checked his tail-lights, and was careless in his choice of getaway vehicle!). That is what the government proved in its case against him.


 * I agree that was not an accident and that it was planned and pre-meditated. This is irrelevant to whether it was terrorism. --Blue Tie 05:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: his so-called actual political "motives" or "intentions": whatever they were, no one can really know for sure. The definition of those motives comes largely from what he himself said, wrote, and told others--a kind of hearsay; he didn't testify in his trial and was not required to do so, in fact, was protected against doing so. Motives are useful in establishing "reasonable doubt" after someone is convicted of crimes during his or her trial. The prosecution convicted McVeigh "beyond a reasonable doubt," convincing a jury that he intended to commit murder and harm against human bodies and federal property. Why he intended to do so (his "motives"--hate, personal animus against the government's prior actions, etc.) are really not relevant. The prosecution convinced a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he did what he was indicted for doing.


 * It is true that no one can know for SURE what his motives were, but we do know what HE SAID they were. It was an act of revenge.  His words can be reported.   I cannot tell for sure, but somehow you seem to be of the opinion that I might consider him innocent of something.  I do not.  I consider him evil, guilty, and deserving of death.  --Blue Tie 05:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

In terms of intention, no one who uses that amount of explosives against a building which housed federal offices and people (including children) in those offices (and day care center) who was not insane (and he did not use an insanity defense) would expect anything other than what resulted: death, destruction of human life and property, and general mayhem. It is patently absurd for anyone (in their right mind) to argue that he did not intend for people to die or that the acts of murder and harm to human bodies and federal property that occurred were not "pre-meditated" based on the evidence at trial (which prevailed with the jury) and the verdict, which was upheld. He allowed himself to be defended; the defense lost the case. If it had gone the other way, he would not be called a "domestic terrorist." Given a presumption of innocence throughout the case, the federal government proved to a jury of his peers that he guilty of the crimes with which he was charged "beyond a reasonable doubt," and the federal government prevailed in its case against him. It is the federal government (the FBI) that designates him a "domestic terrorist" via its own definitions of terrorism and domestic terrorism, not Wikipedia users. Wikipedia editors are supposed to cite reliable sources, not make up what they wish. If controversies exist about uses of terminology pertaining to describing Timothy McVeigh in an article about who he was and what he did during his lifetime, then editors can cite reliable sources summarizing what the controversies are. But that does not change the FBI and other federal designations of the acts that McVeigh was convicted of committing and executed for committing as a "domestic" kind of "terrorism." The terms may be debated, but they are still terms in current usage (specialized usages of terms) used to describe him and what he did.


 * I agree. I think it would be silly to have that discussion in an article, but if you want to do it, we could have a separate section on the different views of whether this is domestic terrorism or not.  That seems like an unprofessional approach.  Why is it so important to you that this label MUST be in there?  I can tell you why I do not think it should be:  It is inherently POV and wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV.  That's all.  That is why wikipedia has suggested it is a word to avoid.  It is POV.  --Blue Tie 05:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

In summary: Timothy McVeigh is (generally) viewed as a "domestic terrorist" (or an "indigenous terrorist") who committed an act of "terrorism" in and against the United States of America. (His motives--whatever reasons he had or may have had, including those which he himself defined prior to, during, and after his trial and his conviction and post-conviction; in retrospect, reasons for his crimes speculated about by others after his execution in punishment for the crimes of which he was convicted; his "initial" motives--stated and re-stated by him, speculated about by others--his motives and such interpretations of his motives or his "alleged" motives are not really as important as the nature of the crimes that he engaged in and their consequences, in terms of case law and the crime that he was committed of.


 * The word "generally" cannot be verified. The notion that he committed an act of terrorism is an opinion, not an objective fact. But motives ARE important to one method of objective determination:  The Legal Definition. Why do you consider the law to be so trivial? --Blue Tie 05:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

When he was charged with his (at the time) alleged crimes and then indicted for having committed such (at the time) alleged crimes as charged, those charges were multiple, and they involved acts of violence including murder; at the time, he was not charged with being a "terrorist" per se (the indictment, obviously, was prior to 9/11 changes in the law and the Patriot Act). But the actual terms of an indictment at the time does not mean that he was not also a "terrorist" or "domestic terrorist" as well as a "murderer" etc.


 * The statute on Terrorism was enacted in 1990. It is known as the Anti-terrorism Act of 1990.  That was before the bombing.  The law was in effect, and McVeigh was charged with violations of Title 18, but not of any of the sections relating to terrorism. --Blue Tie 05:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that various people (of various backgrounds and reliability as "sources") question (or doubt) whether or not he was a "terrorist" or a "domestic terrorist" may be noteworthy (or not); but the mere fact of the questioning or the doubting of the applicability of the labels does not render those (descriptive) labels by government and legal outcomes any less reliable in sources that can be used on Wikipedia. The terms have specific definitions in specific contexts; personal connotations for the words are not relevant. The terms have legal definitions specified by government criminal investigative agencies (e.g., the FBI). McVeigh was charged with federal crimes, federal jurisdiction applies, and federal legal criminal definitions apply.


 * That is true. These sources may be quoted.  But alternative sources should also be quoted.  The article could include a debate by proxy over whether the term "terrorist" is correct.  Does that seem like a good idea?  Why is this so important to you? --Blue Tie 05:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Because Timothy McVeigh is dead, Blp does not apply; but Accuracy and Neutral point of view and WP:Reliable sources still do.


 * That is true. And so, both points of view, that terrorist applies and that terrorist does not apply should be presented I guess.  Is that the direction you want things to go? I would rather not muddy the article that way, but if it is insisted that he MUST be labeled a terrorist then it is reasonable to put forward the other side per NPOV. --Blue Tie 05:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

One can define controversies (citing reliable sources), but that does not change factual designations of the man or his crimes in legal decisions (court records),


 * That is true. No court records condemn him of terrorism. --Blue Tie 05:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

legislation (See the Congressional Record), or general public opinion (general consensus).


 * General Public Opinion is not a source for wikipedia. --Blue Tie 05:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Unidentified and unpublished and non-peer-reviewed people's opinions posted in this talk page do not constitute such citable sources. See also Domestic terrorism in the United States and Definitions of terrorism, and various sections of related articles on definitions of terrorism, citing the US FBI definition of terrorism and domestic terrorism. Whether or not one agrees with the FBI's definition or the current US government's definitions of terrorism and/or domestic terrorism seems a moot point to me in relation to the convicted and executed (and thus dead) Timothy McVeigh, still widely cited in reliable sources (not unreliable sources) as a "terrorist" and a "domestic terrorist"; those are the current definitions, even if they are controversial retrospectively (espec. post-9/11). Until most reliable sources convincingly argue that McVeigh was not a "terrorist" or a "domestic terrorist" that is what he was and remains (in a Wikipedia article defining who and what he was). --NYScholar 02:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure. So should I find "reliable sources" that say he was not a terrorist but a hero?  I would rather not do that.  But that is what NPOV says should happen.  Instead of that, why not just keep the perjorative labels out of the article.  NPOV gives an EXCELLENT example of Hitler.  Do not describe him with an adjective.  Just list his acts and let others decide.  That is how McVeigh should be handled.  If Hitler can be handled in such a cool manner, then McVeigh certainly can be.  And if that sort of treatment is recommended by wikipedia policy, why not follow it? --Blue Tie 05:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories
This needs to get added to the web page: http://www.jaynadavis.com/story090502-wsj1.html

There is a theory that John Doe #2 was an arab with connections to Iraq and Al Qaeda. This is definitely a conspiracy theory, but it has gotten widespread media coverage and ought to be mentioned.

thats likly propagandist hogwash, drummed up by government people on order to cash in on the fear. i know i sound odd for saying that in that way, but thats a distinct possiblllity, and if it is true then al queda shouldnt be mentioned here.

btw, sign your posts. Gabrielsimon 07:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Protection? Status?
[Update: Unprotected; see "Terrorism" sec. above.] --NYScholar 02:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)]

I just stopped by, and have no intention of getting involved in an edit war. My comments as an outsider: It seems this page is protected but there's no discussion going on. It's not even immediately clear what the dispute is. (I haven't waded through the history.) Perhaps protection should be lifted. JamesMLane 02:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It was protected essentially over an edit war about whether McVeigh should be called a domestic terrorist or not. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:35, May 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid the solitary anonymous user is back now forcing his idea that McVeigh was not a terrorist onto this encyclopedia despite the clear agreement that has been reached. For crying out loud, McVeigh's own autobiography calls himself a terrorist, this is not an issue. It's just one solitary editor (who has been caught posting with sockpuppet accounts and banned for it in the past) trying to slip in language to hide an accurate use of the term on someone whose activities he apparently supports, as he's tried to go through and change refereces to these terrorists to "martyrs" and now has backed off that slightly for this article yet still tries to lie about what the actual policy here is to try to trick people into getting rid of an accurate description. This page should not be held hostage by a single anon user with an obvious (and disgusting) agenda. DreamGuy 21:40, May 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Since the concensus is to have DreamGuys version, I suggest that changes by the anon to the domestic terrorist statement be reverted. --nixie 00:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't believe a consensus has ever been reached. Can I first request DreamGuy and Anon User read [this] link regarding the use of the word Terrorism?  If they cannot come to an agreement among themselves then we should adhere to the rules listed in the preceding link.  Monkeyman 14:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I changed the first paragraph to say basically that the FBI considered him a domestic terrorist, which they did. It's proper and sourceable.  I think that may be the best way out of the conflict. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:25, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no conflict, except for the complaining and maneuvering of one anonymous user who supports domestic terrorism and wants it to have a good name. What, do we have to go into every article here and get rid of harsh words calling other people murderers when they were convicted of murder, thieves when they were convicted of theft, and so forth just because a criminal element (ore wannabe/cheerleader faction) finds the truth inconvenient? Timothy McVeigh called HIMSELF a terrorist. We don't need weasel words or attribution for something so incredibly clear. The fact that you are confused into thinking there is a REAL conflict when it's just a POV vandal who is trying to twist policies and confuse people (like his every edit claims I was blocked but fails to note he was blocked himself and that I was only blocked because of his incessant whining about "fairness" -- when he just jumped ionto a new IP address the moment he wsa blocked and doesn't care about being fair at all -- and confusing an admin into what really happened)}. If we let a perfectly truthful and completely agreed upon (even by the subject himself) term become fought over like this there's nothing stopping the POV warriors of fringe and criminal elements from overrunning the entire encyclopedia. It's about time some of you got some balls and stood up against the people trying to ruin this website. They don't play by the rules, they don;t care, so why are you bending backwards to be "fair" to someone who wishes that McVeigh had bombed whatever city you were in because he was a "martyr" and a good guy? DreamGuy 23:39, May 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * i do not agree with what mcveigh did, and i absolutely protest calling him a terrorist in the article, regardless of what he called himself (as if what he called himself is relevant to what an NPOV encyclopedia calls him). so please consider the count of the opposition to your view to have doubled in the last minute. i also find the argument in the preceding paragraph to be more fallacious than not. SaltyPig 04:53, 2005 May 28 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that if the person involved has no objection to calling himself by a a certain label, why should anyone else object on his behalf?--Enigmatick 18:07, 2005, August 21 (UTC)

dont wnat to call hoim a terrorist because hes an american huh? well the FBI called him one, so change it back.

Gabrielsimon 06:33, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Look, here's the problem with just calling the guy a "terrorist." Some people could argue that that is loaded lanugage, and indeed that word is on wikipedia's words to avoid.  One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter -- personally I find the whole objection detestable and a little silly, but that's just my opinion and others are also entitled to theirs.  Back to the problem:  by, ourselves, using the word "terrorist" as an adjective to describe McVeigh we are weighing in with a point of view on the side of those who considered him a terrorist (as opposed to a freedom fighter).  But if we quote the FBI, saying they considered him a terrorist, that is a proper way to introduce the concept into the article in an NPOV way without having Wikipedia appearing to take a side either way. · Katefan0(scribble) 06:43, May 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * while i don't agree that the objection is detestable or silly, i do agree that there's no problem quoting the FBI on the subject as long as it's attributed explicitly, correctly, and proportionally. wikipedia should remain neutral -- even more so in cases such as this. no reason for the argument on this page to extend anywhere beyond that. fighting to call mcveigh a terrorist is blatant POV and agenda pushing. let the FBI call him a terrorist, then call it a day. SaltyPig 10:15, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. · Katefan0(scribble) 15:01, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * I also agree. This is in accordance with [Wikipedia policy development].  Monkeyman 13:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Militia Movement/Turner Diaries
As noted previously on this page, this article seems to be missing basic information. McVeigh was associated in the press and by the FBI with the militia movement and was reading the Turner Diaries. These seem like significant and well-known issues. Is there a reason these are not included? -Willmcw 17:55, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * I only came here because of the RfC on using the word terrorist, which seems to have been resolved -- so I'm not sure about the earlier debate. But it seems eminently reasonable that an article on McVeigh should treat those items in some fashion. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 17:59, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Image Use
A more NPOV image should be used as the introduction, police mugshots belong further down in an article :) Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 03:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * How is the mugshot non-NPOV? It's not as if he has any claim to fame outside his crimes. Nor is there any doubt about his guilt. Now I'd agree that say, the well-known Bill Gates mugshot would be unsuitable as the first image on the Bill Gates article, because that would easily give the first impression that he was a criminal, which is not what Bill Gates is noted as. McVeigh is noted as a criminal and nothing else, so there's nothing wrong with giving that impression. --BluePlatypus 20:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That said, it is a pretty lousy scan. A better quality image is needed. --BluePlatypus 20:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Alternative POV: McVeigh was a Jeffersonian Patriot
I think that it's important to include, next to the line about him being a domestic terrorist, that some people consider him to be a Jeffersonian patriot. He was arrested whilst wearing a T-shirt with a Jeffersonian quote emblazoned on it and some still maintain that he was a classic American patriot rising up against the "evil" federal government; he fervently believed in the Constitution, the Eighth Amendment, states' rights and the importance of the military, for example. This reference would ensure a fair, balanced POV. Evidence of this viewpoint is present in the impartial book American Terrorist by Lou Michel and Dan Herbeck. Richardbooth 15:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This might warrant a mention in the last paragraph of the Biography section. It currently reads:
 * In the wake of the standoff between federal officials and militiamen at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in 1992, McVeigh said he was further influenced by the 1993 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms raid on the Waco headquarters of the Branch Davidians. He visited Waco during the standoff, where he spoke to a news reporter about his anger over what was happening there.
 * This paragraph could be improved to reveal his motive. It says "he was further influenced ..." but it doesn't go into detail on how/why he was influenced (that he was angry over his belief that the feds were overstepping their authority, etc.).  But, I'd be cautious about adding too much about his "patriotism" since I think there are very few people who hold this view.  [[Image:Monkeyman.png]]Monkeyman(talk) 20:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Libertarian?
I am uncomfortable with the categorisation of McVeigh as a libertarian. No libertarian commentator that I know of has ever praised McVeigh's terrorist actions (though if anyone knows otherwise I'd genuinely be interested to know about it). But more than that, one of the central tenets of libertarianism is that the deliberate initiation of force against innocent people is unacceptable. So, despite the fact that McVeigh thought of himself as a libertarian, his actions indicate otherwise. Any thoughts? --Matthew Humphreys 22:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The third paragraph states, "McVeigh was a self described Libertarian," and it is sourced so I don't think this is a problem. If he had called himself a space alien and it was sourced, it would be acceptable (although a bit weird and irrelevant).  [[Image:Monkeyman.png]]Monkeyman(talk) 23:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the speedy response but I'm not objecting to stating in the article that he considered himself a libertarian. I'm questioning whether he ought to be listed in the Wikipedia Libertarians category. If he had described himself as a space alien (to use your example), we might want to mention that in the article, but we wouldn't actually put him in a Space aliens category when he obviously isn't one. --Matthew Humphreys 01:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, I guess the question is: When is someone considered a Libertarian? Do they just have to say they are one?  Or do they have to  display the characteristics of one?  I suppose that if we could show that McVeigh did not adhere to the beliefs of a Libertarian, we could exclude him from the category.  But what happens if he has all the beliefs except one (or two)?  I'm sure there are some self-described Democrats and Republicans who don't believe in everything their party stands for.  It's an interesting issue.  [[Image:Monkeyman.png]]Monkeyman(talk) 02:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

A man is not a libertarian based on the vote of others, he is one based on his ascribed beliefs. As it is documented by Timothy McVeigh himself, that he ascribed to the libertarian beliefs, he was one, however much other libertarians disliked his beliefs/actions on other topics. There is no citation to dispute that Timothy McVeigh was a libertarian as he claimed to be, so I have re-added the category. It is as verified as the fact that he was a Roman Catholic. pat8722 02:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC) I will further add that it is a central tenet to all civilized human beings that the deliberate initiation of force against innocent people is unacceptable, and therefore it is not a defining "central tenet" of libertarism, i.e. not what defines it. And, remember, McVeigh didn't consider himself as initiating force against innocent people, he was targeting those he considered enemies in a war against the American people (FBI, BATF), considering the innocent who were killed/harmed as "collateral damage". pat8722 03:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Pat8722. I don't dispute that McVeigh CLAIMED to hold libertarian beliefs. But that doesn't make him a libertarian, anymore than a (hypothetical) cult leader claiming to be God makes him a God. Nor do McVeigh's delusions about targetting "the enemies of the American people" or whatever equate to the reality of what ocurred. He killed innocent people, it was entirely predictable that bombing that building would lead to such deaths and McVeigh made no effort whatsoever to avoid those deaths. As for the non-initiation of force stuff, of course all civilised societies accept that on some level, but that doctrine has a particular place within libertarian philosophy. Libertarians above all believe in protecting individual rights, and using force against innocents is (with one or two very debatable exceptions) always a violation of rights.


 * On a seperate issue, I'm aware that another user has been unilaterally removing the Libertarians category without (so far) taking any part in this discussion. I myself reverted the most recent edit as we should of course reach consensus here before any edit is made (or not). --Matthew Humphreys 12:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As a libertarian socialist, I have no anti-libertarian POV or inclination to tar the word "libertarian", but I think McVeigh's beliefs were clearly and legitimately libertarian. Most political philosophies reject murder in one way or another - the mere fact that an adherent commits murder does not mean that that person is no longer an adherent.  Further, not all strains of libertarianism follow the logic you lay out, in terms of rights/violence.  McVeigh belonged to one of those strains. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 15:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Just because a man may have made a mistake about what constitutes a war, does not mean he is not a libertarian. Timothy McVeigh ascribed to the libertarian doctrine wholesale. Those doctrines played a major role in his actions against the FBI and BATF. Libertarism does not prohibit participation in war activities, which Timothy McVeigh had concluded was the case with the FBI and BATF.pat8722 14:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC) I will further add that "collateral damage" is an accepted part of war. Because of the deliberate decision of the U.S. Government to intentionally design government buildings to use babies as human shields, McVeigh had no choice but to accept their deaths, if he was to accomplish his act of war against the headquarters of those who had planned and executed the atrocities at Waco. pat8722 14:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * McVeigh did NOT "acribe to the libertarian doctrine wholesale". His actions reputiate key elements of libertarian doctrine. And yes I know not all libertarians would embrace the arguement I set out about rights, but no libertarian theorist that I've read has argued that mass murder is a legitimate action. Check out |this Libertarian Party press relaease published shortly after McVeigh claimed to be a libertarian (which ironically also gets into the Libertarian/libertarian issue that others here have raised). McVeigh was an anti-government nutjob. He had some points of commonality with libertarians (as do conservatives and liberals), but despite his own claims he wasn't one. --Matthew Humphreys 19:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Very few political philosphies, and very few political theorists, argue that mass murder is a legitimate action. This doesn't mean that mass murderers have no political philosophy, or do not believe in the basic tenets of the political philosophies to which they claim to subscribe.  For instance, Stalin was a mass murderer, and mass murder was not seen as legitimate by Marx - does this mean that I can remove a Category:Marxists tag from the Stalin article?  Are all mass murderers to be reassigned political philosophies that explicitly endorse mass murder?  Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 15:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If the Joseph Stalin article was in Category: Marxists (it actually isn't)then yes you would be right to remove it. Stalin in practice rejected major tenets of Marxism, therefore was not a Marxist. --Matthew Humphreys 19:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The purpose of creating terms is to allow us to speak about concepts, hence marxism and libertarianism define political theories. We would lose constructive use of the english language if we needed separate definitions to allow for every variation on the implementation of a basic political theory.  How a theory is implemented does not change what distinguishes it from other political theories in its essential characteristics.  The definitions you are hoping for would mean the destruction of the usefulness of the english language.  Of course Stalin was a marxist. How he implemented those beliefs does not change what he was in political theory.pat8722 21:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I entirely agree that "The purpose of creating terms is to allow us to speak about concepts, hence marxism and libertarianism define political theories." You have the rest of it backwards. A Marxist might disagree with Marx on some issues, but must agree with Marx on all the fundamentals of the philosophy. Stalin rejected Marxism's theory of government, thus a seperate term is used to describe Stalin's ideology. NOT to use a seperate term is what would destry the usefulness of the language! --Matthew Humphreys 16:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Timothy McVeigh would also have argued that mass murder is not a legitimate action, consistent with what you claim is a "tenet" of libertarianism ( which it is not, as it does not properly not "define" libertarianism, as it applies to ALL civilized people). Defense of that position is why he did what he did. He considered Waco a mass-murder sitation, in essence a declaration of war on the American people by the American government, and he responded with an act of war directed specifically at the headquarters responsible for Waco, in which some innocents where necessarily also killed as unavoidable collateral damage. Acts of war are not correctly termed "mass murder", they are called "acts of war", which is what it was to Timothy McVeigh. You have identified no doctrine of McVeigh that would not be consistent with libertarianism. pat8722 22:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * A discussion of the libertarian view on force appears on Wikipedia under the entry on Non-aggression principle (I believe this is in fact the terminology used by most libertarian philosophers, though it is not the phrasing I have thus far used here). That article makes clear the doctrine's crucial place within the wider libertarian framework, and it is this doctrine that McVeigh most obviously violated by his terrorist actions. He clearly did not think that mass murder was illegitimate - he in fact engaged in mass murder. If he genuinely believed himself to be at war with the US government then quite frankly he was insane. What he did is so contrary to libertarianism that the Libertarian Party (in the press release cited above) actually expressed shock that he considered himself a libertarian. --Matthew Humphreys 00:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * He did believe himself to be at legitimate war with the US government. Of course he was nuts, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a libertarian.  There are libertarians who are nuts, after all.  Being nuts or having a skewed view of reality does not mean you are no longer a libertarian. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 15:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Using violence against innoncents in an effort to force change on society means you are not a libertarian. McVeigh could easily have given some warning so that the building would be evacuated. He didn't do so. --Matthew Humphreys 19:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You keep missing the point, libertarians sanction acts of war, and that is what it was to Timothy McVeigh (collateral damage). He was entirely internally consistent within the libertarian doctrine.  That you, or anyone else, dispute his conclusions about what constitutes a war is POV, and can never be used to claim he was not a libertarian in his beliefs, which is where libertarianism resides, as it is a theory.pat8722 21:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You are basing your argument on McVeigh's POV. On what basis did he conclude that he was at war? A war in the sense that is relevant here usually involve two (or more) governments or other recognised "higher authorities", to whom the soldiers and other agents are utimately answerable. McVeigh did not operate on behalf of any such higher authority. A "one man war" is not a war in the truest sense. McVegh was not at war with the US, any more than the IRA were at war with the British government in the 1980s and 90s. They were terrorists pure and simple, attemting to force their own ideals on others rather than persuade them rationally. --Matthew Humphreys 16:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * An additional point - this Wikipedia article on Timothy McVeigh documents his associations with various groups linked to White nationalism. Many if not most tenests of that ideology run wholly contrary to libertarianism. --Matthew Humphreys 01:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The wikipedia article no where establishes that McVeigh was in league with, or sympathetic with, white nationalism, and there is no reason to believe that he was. The Non-aggression principle article you cite states specifically "the principle does not preclude retaliation against aggression". There is everywhere reason to believe McVeigh considered his attack on the FBI and BATF at the Murrah Federal Building to be an act of war in response to Waco. And no psychiatrist would agree with you that he would have to be insane to hold such a belief. You are so outraged by what he did that you want no connection to him whatsoever, and you feel his inclusion as a libertarian gives you such a connection. But he held to the same fundamental beliefs you do regarding libertarian principles, he just came to a different conclusion as to what Waco meant, and responded thereupon consistently with libertarian principles based on that conclusion. An act of war is not murder, and that's how he viewed it. pat8722 03:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I am not a psychiatrist and thus cannot speak to his mental state. I must say though that this is becoming tiresome. The article clearly indicates that McVeigh was known to have affiliated with the MidWest Bank Robbers, an Aryan group that apparently has links to Aryan Nations, just as the LP press release clearly indicates that other libertarians reject his self-categorisation. As to your bizarre criticism of my motivations, I have nowhere expressed any sympathy for libertarianism. Any such sympathy would be utterly irrelevant to this discussion. The only question is whether McVeigh was a libertarian. I in fact restored the libertarians category to this article after it was removed by another user. I have tried to debate this in good faith, and I would like to be able to discuss it without having to deal with senseless personal criticisms. You earlier stated that no source had been provided disputing McVeigh's discription of himself as a libertarian. I then provided one such source, on which you have not commented. Libertarianism has many faults but I honestly don't see how, on the basis of the philosophy, McVeigh could have thought he was at war and that the bombing was therefore a legitimate act. It seems to me that he followed another ideology entirely, and simply latched on to the term libertarian because of some superficial similarity with his anti-government views. --Matthew Humphreys 08:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed some of the unsubstantiated pov about the MidWest Bank Robbers from the article. It has never been established that McVeigh was affiliated with them in any way. I have read the letter to the editor at |this regarding the Libertarian Party press release published shortly after McVeigh claimed to be a libertarian, which is really irrelevant, as McVeigh claimed to be a "libertarian" not a "Libertarian". But, we could also check out the pledge required by the relatively small "Libertarian Party", said to be a pledge against the initiation of force. Probably the actions of McVeigh would have been consistent even within the terms of the pledge of that small subset of the "libertarian movement", as it was McVeigh's position that he did not "initiate" force, but that he was responding to force which had been initiated at Waco. So, thus far, not only was McVeigh consistent within the doctrine of "libertarianism", it also appears he was consistent within the doctrine of "Libertarianism", too. That Steve Dasbach, Libertarian Party national director, considered McVeigh a murderer, is irrelevant. pat8722 15:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The point of course isn't simply that Dasbach considered McVeigh a murderer. The point is that he (on behalf of the LP) didn't consider McVeigh to be a genuine libertarian because of his engagment in mass murder. Don't take this the wrong way but did you genuinely not get that? --Matthew Humphreys 19:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * But that was just the POV of Dasbach. Whether McVeigh was a "murderer" is known only to God. But there is every evidence McVeigh wasn't a "murderer" - because "murder" requires murderous intent and there is every reason to believe that McVeigh considered his act an act of war - which is something neither you nor Dasbach want to study, making your viewpoints prejudiced/worthless.  pat8722 21:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That McVeigh was a murderer is known to anyone with a rational mind who has examined the evidence. That includes the jury at his trial and the judge who sentenced him to death for his crime. --Matthew Humphreys 16:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * McVeigh didn't believe he was at war on the basis of that philosophy. He just believed he was at war.  The fact that he believed this means that he wasn't out of sync with libertarian views on the legitimacy of violence - he thought he was at war, and he used violence in what he thought was a war.  The fact that he was wrong about that doesn't mean he wasn't a libertarian.  A big-L Libertarian he clearly wasn't, but a small-l libertarian he probably was.  Your last sentence is the area we need to explore, I think: he may not have been a real libertarian; we should look into it more.  However, I simply don't think that the mere fact of his horrible violence disqualifies him from being a libertarian.  Like I said above, being a mass murderer does not mean you automatically have to be reassigned to a new political philosophy that explicitly advocates mass murder.  Stalin violated many basic talents of communism, for instance, and his murderous actions are out of line with anything in his political philosophy, but he is still tagged in Category:Russian Communists, and I have no problem with that. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 15:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Stalin violated many basic tenets of Marxist communism. That's why Stalin's philosophy of government is usually distinguished as Stalinism or some variant. His actions in government disqualify him from being a Marxist, thus he must be classed under a different philosophy, even if he continued to claim to be a Marxist (I don't know whether he did or not). This is getting off track a bit, though some of the analogies are probably useful--Matthew Humphreys 19:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Stalinism is just Stalin's version of Marxism. And you seem to be failing to recognize that Marxism and libertarianism are just THEORIES.  If you ascribe to the distinguishing characteristics of the THEORIES, then you are rightly said to be one. pat8722 22:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I covered this above, I think. --Matthew Humphreys 16:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

pat8722, you say that "Timothy McVeigh ascribed to the libertarian doctrine wholesale." Can you explain this and cite sources? I am not saying you're wrong, but I would like to see some sources. Was he in favor of drug legalization, for example (one of the signature issues for libertarians)? Mirror Vax 22:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Mirror Vax, It's really moot to the argument, as evidence would have to be presented that he was NOT a libertarian, given his statement that he was. The burden remains on the opposing side to prove he was lying. But I made the statement based on the fact that everything I've read about him, and seen about him (he sat in front of me at a "guns/libertarian/God" type rally, a little over a year before the bombing) bespeaks that he was a MOST committed libertarian - his committment to the civil liberties of the people at Waco, his views on the availablity of guns and explosives, the procedural nature of his appeals, his insistance that he had a right to have his death broadcast, the type of people he associated with (none of whom were known to be white supremecists or Islamists or any other freakish group), his willingness to sacrifice his life for others, and even the t-shirt he was wearing when he was captured. There's nothing in what we know about him to suggest that he was anything other than what he said he was. And only a libertarian could have done what he did in attacking the Murrah Federal Building.pat8722 00:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The entire paragraph above is your personal POV. The last sentence is just unbelievable. Only a libertarian could have attacked a federal building? How about al-Quaeda? I wouldn't put it past anarchists or white supremacists to attempt such an atrocity either. --Matthew Humphreys 16:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't you think most the people at what you call a "guns/libertarian/God rally" would more accurately be described as conservatives? There are some issues that tend to distinguish libertarians from conservatives (and for that matter liberals); I mentioned drug legalization. Being willing to sacrifice yourself is not one of them. Being willing to blow up buildings is not one of them. Mirror Vax 01:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No, "conservatism" has changed its meaning over time. It used to tend more towards libertarianism than it now does. What is termed "conservatism" these days sometimes recommends violating even the most fundamental constitutional rights, which would have been abhorrent to the largely libertarian "conservatives" of old, and aborrent to McVeigh (the Patriot Act, etc). (The Libertarian Party was well-represented at the rally - a Party speaker, literature, stumping...) Being willing to sacrifice yourself for others is a trait commonly found among libertarians, even though it is not a "defining" characteristic. Being willing to blow up buildings in defense of libertarianism is not at all at odds with being a libertarian when it's "war", which McVeigh believed it was. As you keep bringing up the drug issue, I will add that it would be possible to be a libertarian and agree that an exeption to the rule should exist regarding certain issues. As long as the libertarian philosopy is the overriding philosophy, conclusions as to particular exceptions, such as regarding drugs, are permitted, though most modern libertarians would agree that recreational drugs should not be illegal. The failure to form an opinion on certain topics is permitted, too. pat8722 02:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "Being willing to sacrifice yourself for others is a trait commonly found among libertarians"? Ever read Ayn Rand? Not that all libertarians are Randians, but self-sacrifice is not a noted characteristic of libertarians, much less libertarian doctrine. Good grief. Mirror Vax 03:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess it depends on the libertarian crowd you hang out with. Self-sacrifice is a trait characteristic of many libertarians. But I was careful to note that it is NOT a defining characteristic, i.e. not a doctrinal matter. So take it easy. pat8722 04:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

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

libertarianism v Libertarianism
Most people, when they say "libertarian", mean "Libertarian", and visa versa; the same is true for the use of "democrat vs Democrat". A distinction would need to be identified by the speaker, to make one. So the point is moot. pat8722 16:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, regardless of any of this, there's a subtle distinction being missed here. He didn't say he's a "Libertarian", he said he's a "libertarian". It's like the difference between a democrat and a Democrat. (Most Republicans would describe themselves as democrats.) So I've changed that part. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's not at all moot. Most people don't know there's any reason for a distinction between big-L and small-l; but why should we promote ignorance? On the other hand, most people (at least in the US) know the difference between Democrat and democrat, or at least should know. However, I'll let the promotion and display of that ignorance to continue for the moment, if it makes Pat8722 happy. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * On second thought, baloney. It's an exact quote from a letter. The quote used lower case, hence so do we. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You state "Most people don't know there's any reason for a distinction between big-L and small-l" -that's exactly why it's moot. It only becomes an issue when the speaker makes it one, otherwise the usages are interchangeable. It's perfectly ok with me either way it appears in this article. pat8722 22:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, you've got a point. I have reverted back to little "l". In the presence of any confusion, we should use the variation McVeigh used. And I notice the article explicity states "self-described", so that really mandates it. pat8722 03:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion as libertarian: "people who subscribe to the political philosophy of libertarianism as the word is used in the United States." In other words, they must "subscribe" to a "Political" philosophy (not a general philosophy) of libertarianism.

Evidence regarding McVeigh: In one letter (which significantly is not about libertarianism but something else), McVeigh describes himself as libertarian in a parenthetical comment. He did not clarify whether this was a political philosophy or a personal philosophy or some other kind of philosophy.

What is a "political philosophy"?: "Political philosophy is the study of the fundamental questions about the state, government, politics, property, law and the enforcement of a legal code by authority: what they are, why they are needed, what makes a government legitimate, what rights and freedoms it should protect and why, what form it should take and why, what the law is, and what duties citizens owe to a legitimate government, if any, and when it may be legitimately overthrown - if ever." (wikipedia) In other words, political philosophy deals with forms, methods and ideals of governance, not personal behavior.

McVeigh's parenthetical comment makes it clear that he ascribed to a sort of personal libertarianism, but this is not the same as the political philosophy of libertarianism. His political views were certainly anti-American and may have been somewhat anarchist. Anarchy may be strongly related to personal libertarianism but less so to political libertarianism. (Note that I do not connect political libertarianism with the Libertarian Party in this discussion - they may not be the same thing in every case so I have avoided that.)

It is pretty clear that McVeigh at least claimed to be a libertarian (it is harder to detect whether he really ascribed to that philosophy), but the bulk of the evidence is that he did NOT subscribe the political philosophy of libertarianism as is the criteria for that category. Furthermore, a single parenthetical reference in a letter written on a separate subject is not really "proof" that he subscribed to ANY philosophy of libertarianism. He may have been parroting someone he admired, when he really ascribed to some other philosophy. At best, the only thing that can be said is that he claimed to be a libertarian in one instance. I do not think that such a flimsy thing is encyclopedic. --Blue Tie 22:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Small change in the oppening paragraph
I changed
 * "Hundreds were injured and 167 men, women and children died...

to
 * "Hundreds were injured and 167 people died..."

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

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

I have removed the part considered by the FBI. --172.178.6.140 20:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * He's not even a "convicted terrorist" -- he's a convicted multiple murderer. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

the entirety of the execution's witnesses at the prequiem?
This article claims that the entirety of the next morning's witnesses was listening to the prequiem performed at the virgil service for McVeigh. That would include the journalists and the 10 survivors or victims relatives. Most survivors or relatives were pissed about Woodward because he praised the mass murderer as a comedian. So I really doubt that the survivors or relatives would go to church to hear the prequiem or to pray for the murderer.

I'd like to see some sources for that statement, so far I have only found it on the homepage of Woodward.

--172.177.247.183 19:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Unaware of the day-care center
This article claims: there is no evidence that McVeigh knew about it or purposely targeted children

On this CNN page FBI special agent Danny Defenbaugh states:

No matter what ... if you look at the building, you're going to see all the little cutout hands, all the little apples and flowers showing that there's a kindergarten there -- that there are children in that building.

So anyone knows it better?

--172.177.247.183 19:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * In what way is that evidence of what he knew? It's evidence he could easily have known, but that's quite different. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

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

First Paragraph
[altered the heading somewhat so that people can post comments about the first paragraph as a subject that deal with other matters too. --NYScholar 02:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)]

comments for NYScholar
I first thought your edits were pretty good, but I have changed my mind. It is really too awkward for an initial opening paragraph. I think it contains too much detail for an opening paragraph and it runs on too long. I ran it through MS Word and MS Word just threw up all over it. I think the list of specific convictions should be put in the body, not in the opening paragraph. Here is what I think is a better paragraph:

Timothy James McVeigh (April 23, 1968 – June 11, 2001) was an American executed for bombing the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995. 167 people died and hundreds more were injured when McVeigh detonated a truck loaded with improvised explosives just two minutes after federal offices opened for the day. A 168th victim, a rescue worker, died after the initial blast, when a large piece of concrete crushed him.

According to MS Word this has a readability of 41 and a grade level of 13. This is contrasted to the current version with a readability of 27 and a grade level of 18. (Scores for both were calculated without dates in the paragraph) In addition, though I edited it without any POV (just seeking to simplify) it seems more like a cool neutral paragraph that would be found to summarize an encyclopedic article. The only label is the "American" which is good per wikipedia guidelines. Word suggests that I should not have removed the phrase "his role in the", but to me it reads better this way.

The deletions from the paragraph would suggest that the following should be added to the body of the document if they are not already there:


 * Decorated Army Vet
 * List of Convictions
 * Act described as domestic terrorism by the FBI. (Of course this might be countered by some source saying it was not terrorism).

What do you you think? --Blue Tie 04:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts; unfortunately, however, there are problems with the changes that you have already made. While the sentence that you changed in the opening paragraph was a long sentence, it was not a "run-on sentence," as you state. You removed one phrase and placed it in an additional sentence. That's okay, but the paragraph reads in a choppy manner now; if I have time, I may work on that problem later.

The paragraph that you suggest restores material objected to in previous comments made on this talk page by other editors. (Please read the earlier parts of this talk page.) People have already observed that he was convicted of and then executed for specific crimes in the indictment deriving from the Oklahoma City bombing (see the link to it in external links). One needs to be precise in order to avoid the kinds of lack of Neutral point of view discussed by a lot of people earlier. The sentences can be more concise, but the material in them is accurate. I may restore them to an earlier version that did not incorporate the details. The details (specific charges) are in the body of the article already.


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

Another paragraph
I have removed a paragraph that you [(user Blue Tie)] changed, without giving any source at all, making claims that you cannot support [without providing sources]. The changes that you (or others) made [to what was there earlier] completely alter the claims and make them even more specific and certain than they were before, but you do that without a reference to any source that anyone can verify. Not only is no "reliable source" there, but no source at all is there. [I added a few phrases in brackets for greater clarity, I hope. --NYScholar 05:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)]

<< "In prison interviews, McVeigh denied that he knew about the day care center, that it was not visible from the street, that had he known he would have chosen another target. Nevertheless, he also stated that he felt no remorse for those deaths and described them as necessary collateral damage." >>

Without actual sources of the so-called "prison interviews" one cannot state that "McVeigh denied" x, y, z, or what he "also stated." You give no verifiable source(s) to substantiate any of that paragraph. Where are transcripts of the "interviews" (not hearsay about them)? Where is a published account of the "interviews?" As this paragraph stands, the material does not meet WP:Cite, Reliable sources requirements.


 * The whole article is full of your added "needs citations". Why did you ONLY remove this one?  I might be able to support the sentence.  Please return it and I will seek to do so.  But really, do not discriminate just against me.  You have about a hundred "needs cites" and you did not remove any other sentences. --Blue Tie 04:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't follow this comment; you haven't looked at all of my changes. [I've put all this under another heading because it doesn't deal with the "first paragraph" of the article; it deals with a later paragraph in the article.--NYScholar 05:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)] All of the references to "needs citations" still need citation.  I'm not "discriminat[ing]" against you or anyone else.  I personally do not have time to correct all the instances of plagiarism that exist in this article.  Other people are going to have to do the work of providing the sources.  (Read my other comments below.) Since I wrote most of those comments, I did a few hours of work on this article, adding many source citations and leaving in "needs citations" in most of those places where sources to support claims ("facts") still need reliable sources; often one source is not enough due to the need to achieve Neutral point of view.  [Apparently Blue Tie just looked at the changes relating to the paragraph that he wrote and that I deleted because it had no citations still.  See Verifiability and WP:NOR.  It These policies and Cite and WP:Reliable sources apply to this whole article, just as they do to any other Wikipedia article. --NYScholar 06:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)] At the time I wrote the comment about the one paragraph that I deleted, it was the only one I had worked on.  Later I worked on more.  And, also later, I provided a source with a quotation that indicates that your paragraph was misleadingly worded.  (See the time date stamps of my comments; they matter.)--NYScholar 05:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Since writing the above and deleting the paragraph that was unsourced, I've added a note to what appears to be its source (Michel and Herbeck) and to a secondary source that comments quotes from and comments on it; people are free to read the primary source in context and to see what they think of it. The commentary by Walsh presents one perspective on the quoted materal.  One can see the inaccuracies presented in the deleted paragraph if one reads McVeigh's actual interview comments as quoted by Walsh and in the source that he cites (Michel and Herbeck). --NYScholar 02:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[I've added this section because it discusses another paragraph in the article (not the first paragraph). --NYScholar 05:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)]


 * I've added a direct quotation from the book that does not jive with the passage that you wrote earlier. (Indeed, the paragraph that I deleted does not seem to be correct.  Compare it with the exact quotation by Walsh, now in the article notes.)  I think you are "confused" but I can't tell from what you write just above what exactly is confusing you.  Please re-read the quotation (by Walsh) more carefully.  The quotation is preferable to what you posted earlier, which was totally unsourced.  This version (see the article) is sourced. If you want to find the passage quoted by Walsh in the book by Michell and Herbeck and to substitute that primary source for the quotation, you are free to do that additional work.  But reliable sources are necessary.  You can't just state what someone "says" without giving a source for the statement(s).  See WP:Verifiability. --NYScholar 05:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Citations to multiple (not just one or two) reliable sources still needed in this article. --NYScholar 01:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I just don't have the time to fix all the problems in this article and/or to provide all the missing sources for the plagiarized sections of it. It still needs sourcing (See all my comments about this problem above.) --NYScholar 05:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The places where I've already supplied citations in notes are just examples of how to do that and of what other editors still need to do to correct remaining problems of lack of sourcing and plagiarism in this article. I do not have time to do all that work myself. --NYScholar 06:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's the longer passage from Walsh from which I quote a portion in a note that I added as a citation: McVeigh's cold-blooded act horrified millions in the US and around the world. But a recently published book, American Terrorist: Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing by two Buffalo News reporters, Lou Michel and Dan Herbeck, reports that McVeigh has no regrets about his act. He openly acknowledged having set off the bomb to the authors and claims sole responsibility for the mass killing. During an appearance on ABC News's “Prime Time Thursday” March 29, Herbeck commented, “He [McVeigh] never expressed one ounce of remorse for the Oklahoma City bombing.” Michel described McVeigh's reaction to the explosion's aftermath: “Damn, I didn't knock the building down. I didn't take it down.” According to Michel and Herbeck, McVeigh claimed not to have known that a day-care center was located in the Murrah Building, and that if he had known it, in his own words, “it might have given me pause to switch targets. That's a large amount of collateral damage.” Michel and Herbeck quote McVeigh, with whom they spoke for some 75 hours, on his attitude to the victims: “To these people in Oklahoma who have lost a loved one, I'm sorry but it happens every day. You're not the first mother to lose a kid, or the first grandparent to lose a grandson or a granddaughter. It happens every day, somewhere in the world. I'm not going to go into that courtroom, curl into a fetal ball, and cry just because the victims want me to do that.” McVeigh's lack of remorse for the deaths of 19 children, as well as secretaries, clerks, administrators and others employed by the federal government, and the dozens of people who were merely visiting the building, should serve as a warning about the character of elements promoted by the ultra-right in the US. They are brutal, cowardly and ruthless. While American Terrorist contains some valuable material, it provides little insight into the social source of McVeigh's act. Indeed Michel and Herbeck end their work on the following note: “The same imponderable question haunts those who lost sons, daughters, spouses, friends, and other loved ones when America's long-simmering tensions over gun rights and big government exploded in Oklahoma City. Why?” This amounts to an admission of failure on the part of authors who, by all rights, should have dedicated their 388-page book to answering that very question.

Walsh goes on to add his own interpretation (from a socialist socio-economic pov) of why McVeigh bombed the Murrah Building. It would be interesting to compare this pov with other interpretations from other perspectives and to cite such sources too, if the article is to raise issues of McVeigh's purported motivations (those which McVeigh himself claims to have acted from, in interviews; those which others speculate about in court testimony, articles, and books, e.g.). One cannot simply cite interviews with McVeigh as "evidence" of why he did what he did; those interviews have contexts, such as the court case going on at the time; McVeigh's motives in giving the interviews; McVeigh's relative truth or falsity; the circumstances of the interviews and the interviewers; the motives of the interviewers and the venues in which they were broadcast or published; and so on). The goal of the article should be to achieve Neutral point of view.

People who wrote earlier versions of this article relied heavily on Michel and Herbeck and only one or two other sources (without citing the sources after the points taken from any of those sources). The whole article needs clean up still. --NYScholar 07:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Green Beret episode in Biography section
See the article for this other example which needs sourcing: what I supplied comes from the following passage in Hoffman's online chapter "'The Face of Terror'":

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

[Numbers in brackets refer to notes provided by Hoffman.]

If one reads the whole passage as quoted above, one can see that taking little bits out of context is highly problematic and also that the above passage is the interpretation of its author David Hoffman and that interpretation needs to be checked against a variety of other sources too, since Hoffman appears rather sympathetic to McVeigh and is attempting to "set the record straight" from Hoffman's own particular point of view on the subject. With such highly-controversial subjects, one really does need to make an extra effort to avoid repeating biases and to make clear what they are when one encounters them in sources used. --NYScholar 08:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned in an editing summary that three years are omitted from this article's account of McVeigh's biography. Hoffman fills in that gap, but that single source needs to be checked against other published biographical sources too. Hoffman presents his own theories about various aspects of McVeigh's personality and behavior, in one place suggesting that he may have been trained as part of psychological experiments in the manner of The Manchurian Candidate (novel, movie). Some of that seems quite far-fetched to me and highly speculative on Hoffman's part. --NYScholar 08:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Article still needs more work
I made some structural changes. Except as noted in the edit summaries, I tried VERY HARD not to remove or change any thoughts or ideas. I just made the structure a more in keeping with wikipedia policies and I removed some redundancies. I promise there was no attempt at any other agenda.

There are some things that still need work:


 * Terry Nichols is ignored almost throughout the article. His involvement in the bombmaking and the trial do not need substantial additions, but they should not be ignored in those sections.


 * The "very ethnically diverse Catholic family" needs a source citation and probably the word "very" needs to be removed.


 * His religious beliefs may deserve a separate section. They seem awkwardly placed.


 * This statement: "but dropped out after the second day of an early phase due to a lack of physical fitness ("blisters" from new boots acquired on a five-mile march); after this "failure," for reasons not fully established, ..." is weird. It gives a reason but then says it is not fully established.  This is really unclear.


 * His transient nature after 1992 needs more detail. It is not really covered well but it is alluded to.


 * Wasn't it a video that showed him strolling away from the truck? If so, that should be said and cited rather than referring to the indirect source of "prosecutors said".


 * I think the parenthetical statement: (Later, McVeigh did not express remorse for these "collateral damage" deaths, but he said he might have chosen a different target if he had known the day care center was there.) should be removed or relegated to a footnote. I left it because it was there before and has some meaning to people.


 * More details of the investigation detective work might be interesting.


 * That McVeigh actually asked to die and petitioned the court to kill him in 120 days is never mentioned. This should be in the article.


 * The motivations section is a bit jumbled. It could be improved.


 * There is no conclusion to the bit about the investigation into the MidWest Bank Robbers conducted by the FBI. The result of that investigation should be included.


 * The article refers to "some" or "other" people or authorities as believing of saying certain things in a few places. This is a type of weasel wording and it all needs to be cleaned up, referenced and improved.

Thats all I can see for now

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

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

He referred to Desert Storm. The First Gulf War was the 1980-88 Iraq-Iran war. The second is Desert Storm, the third is Operation Iraqi Freedom since 2003.

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

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

He referred to Desert Storm. The First Gulf War was the 1980-88 Iraq-Iran war. The second is Desert Storm, the third is Operation Iraqi Freedom since 2003.

"graduated from" vs "was graduated from"
The anon is citing the American Heritage Dictionary. Here's what they say, in full: ''The verb graduate has denoted the action of conferring an academic degree or diploma since at least 1421. Accordingly, the action of receiving a degree should be expressed in the passive, as in She was graduated from Yale in 1998. This use is still current, if old-fashioned, and is acceptable to 78 percent of the Usage Panel. In general usage, however, it has largely yielded to the much more recent active pattern (first attested in 1807): She graduated from Yale in 1998. Eighty-nine percent of the Panel accepts this use. It has the advantage of ascribing the accomplishment to the student, rather than to the institution, which is usually appropriate in discussions of individual students. When the institution's responsibility is emphasized, however, the older pattern may still be recommended. A sentence such as The university graduated more computer science majors in 1997 than in the entire previous decade stresses the university's accomplishment, say, of its computer science program. On the other hand, the sentence More computer science majors graduated in 1997 than in the entire previous decade implies that the class of 1997 was in some way a remarkable group. •The Usage Panel feels quite differently about the use of graduate to mean “to receive a degree from,” as in She graduated Yale in 1998. Seventy-seven percent object to this usage.'' In other words, "graduated" is more appropriate usage nowadays. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Read what youo've actually cited:
 * This use is still current, if old-fashioned, and is acceptable to 78 percent of the Usage Panel.
 * You are still ignoring evidence that perfectly refutes you. Now, before that sentence read “He was graduated from Starpoint High School in Lockport, New York.”, it was the quite ungrammatic “He graduated from (Starpoint High School).”  The change to “He graduated from Starpoint High School in Lockport, New York.” is even at best a violation of Wikipedia policy. —75.18.113.152 03:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And read the next sentence:  In general usage, however, it has largely yielded to the much more recent active pattern (first attested in 1807): She graduated from Yale in 1998. Eighty-nine percent of the Panel accepts this use. And continue reading: It has the advantage of ascribing the accomplishment to the student, rather than to the institution, which is usually appropriate in discussions of individual students. Oh, and the next sentence: When the institution's responsibility is emphasized, however, the older pattern may still be recommended, which is not the case in this article. I have no idea what Wikipedia policy you are claiming is being violated. Anyway, the third party edit does the best thing: makes the whole problem go away (until, of course, you are going to change the other ten thousand or so instances of "he graduated from".) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The question is whether “is graduated” is a proper (American) usage. And it is.  Waving the shiny object of mere popularity around won't change the fact that it was you who were plainly, perfectly wrong.
 * Wikipedia policy opposes bald stylistic edits from a proper form to another form (be that form also proper or not). Your awareness of that policy was why you were citing a (quite bogus) distinction between proper American and proper British use.
 * Wikipedia does not seek to read as if written by a single editor. Further, it would be wrong of anyone to change all the intransitive uses of “graduate” to transitive passives.  Again, “fixing” wording that isn't broken is wrong.  That's why I noted that when “was graduated” was introduced, it was in the course of fixing an otherwise broken sentence.
 * —75.18.113.152 03:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I just did a google search on the two terms. "was graduated from" achieved "about 480,000 hits".  Very impressive.  Until compared with a search for "graduated from" -"was graduated from", which achieves about 53,000,000 hits.  In other words, "was graduated from" is found in less than 1% of the cases when the two forms are found by Google.  It's not the same as a scientific analysis, but 1% is a pretty small number and if the error is 500% for that number it still means that more than 95% of the time, "graduated from" is found and "was graduated from" is not found.  However, the current version, "received" probably does a good job of avoiding the issue while providing the same information and I praise the user who gave it.  --Blue Tie 04:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I accept your praise with thanks. 13:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That Google poll is not uninteresting, but it is irrelevant. We wouldn't insist that amongst “faucet”, “spigot”, and “tap”, only the most popular term should be used. —75.18.113.152 05:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I kinda would. But that would be in context.  If I was talking about a beer keg, I suspect "tap" would be used more often than faucet.  On the other hand, I think if I were referring to a kitchen sink, it is probably faucet I would see most often.  And spigot may be more common than either faucet or tap when used to discuss the mechanism for obtaining water from a well.  In each case, I would probably support the most popular useage. --Blue Tie 05:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's often perfectly fine for you to make your own word choices based on popularity. What happened here, however, is that someone baldly “fixed” something based on an ignorance of English.  Doing this is exactly analogous to going through an article and changing only the date formats from “dd Mmmm yyyy” to “Mmmm dd, yyyy[,]”, claiming the former to be wrong.  Such change would violate a more general policy, and has been specifically discussed and particularly declared to be unacceptable.   And a poll of popularity would likewise be irrelevant. —75.18.113.152 05:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) There are some factual errors in your statement. They are:
 * The "fix" was not based on an ignorance of English.
 * Doing fixes like this is NOT exactly analogous to changing date formats and declaring one wrong.
 * Polls of popularity are not irrelevant and they become increasingly relevant as the results become lopsided in one direction.

But excluding these issues, you made a good point. Unfortunately it is all overcome by a superior edit that is now in the article. --Blue Tie 06:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm…
 * 1. “The "fix’ was not based on an ignorance of English.”
 * The fix was defended by a declaration that “was graduated” was “abnormal”, distinctly British, and plainly wrong as American.
 * 2. “Doing fixes like this is NOT exactly analogous to changing date formats and declaring one wrong.”
 * Bald contradiction isn't decent argument. It is exactly analogous because
 * Just as neither hypothetical date format is wrong, neither use of “graduate” (transitive or intransitive) is wrong.
 * The use of “graduate” as a transitive was, however, claimed to be wrong (qua American English).
 * 3. “Polls of popularity are not irrelevant and they become increasingly relevant as the results become lopsided in one direction.”
 * No one claimed that polls never had any relevance. The claim was that your poll had no relevance.  And the explanation of its lack of relevance was that, if it held then iot would hold in evey analogous case.  Formats, word choice, and grammar would be made perfectly uniform and mindlessly democratic.  There would be a Wikipedia English rather analogous to Basic English (and every bit as repulsive).
 * —75.18.113.152 11:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist
While many many many people (including me) consider McVeigh a terrorist, the word terrorist is loaded and subjective. We should definitely say that he is widely considered a terrorist, or that the FBI said he was a terrorist, I don't think we should define him as a terrorist in the very first sentence (this is being rehashed on the talk page to avoid WP:3RR). --Daniel Olsen 06:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps he should also be classified as a “militant”, the way Islamist terrorists are.


 * Terrorism is at least deliberate attacking of the civilians. McVeigh attack federal building BECAUSE same ATF nbranch who do Waco operate from and headquarter there. PLausible that armed agency was his target which is not terrorism. In trial against him, one evidence true or not was, other inmate said when he found out the childdren in day care center (not supposed to be in a federal building!) he was upset and say he didnt know that. Plausible and used against him in trial. McVeigh was subversive who try to attack armed government agents not military but not quite civilian either. Others were collateral damage - not justifying BUT we dont usually call this terrorism.


 * This article very NOT neutral starting with terrorist and his convictions. Not knowmn for convictions or for being 'terrorist' actually but blowing up federal building so start with that. Start with judgmeent only then get to detail make no sense. Instead start with what he did and why he did it, then say what happen to him (executed).Opiner 09:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right, it is not neutral. McVeigh was not even convicted of terrorism. HOWEVER, his actions are generally CONSIDERED terrorism and his actions are listed as terrorist acts in FBI literature (even literature that pre-dates 9-11). I will edit to improve NPOV of that area.  However, I consider this to be the only obvious area of strong POV. --Blue Tie 11:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

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

He may not have been a libertarian. His discription is not precise. However, I think I recall somewhere that he was connected with the Patriot Movement. However, unless it is from a reliable and verifiable source, it probably should not be added at this point unless you have really good reason to believe it is so and citations would come later. --Blue Tie 13:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Infowars video link
This text keeps appearing in the lead section. It's inappropriate there &mdash; if it belongs in the article at all, it should be in the Conspiracy theories section. Personally, I don't think it belongs anywhere. I think it's link spam, or maybe we need a new category of conspiracy spam. Anyhow, infowars is not a credible source, and the video is nonsense (yes I actually viewed it, please don't repeat my mistake – the soldier's face appears for about two frames, and he doesn't resemble McVeigh at all).

My instinct is to just keep reverting this as vandalism, but some people may not consider it blatant enough for that, and I don't want to run afoul of WP:3RR, so I'm following procedure by opening a discussion here on the talk page. Does anyone care to present an argument for keeping these links? Cheers, Eleuther 13:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

History of insertion and reversion so far:


 * 18-Dec 23:14 81.233.252.100 rv 23:16 by Antandrus.
 * 19-Dec 22:17 80.60.245.232 rv 20-Dec 23:45 by Njmike.
 * 22-Dec 10:28 90.228.255.123 rv 11:03 by Eleuther.
 * 22-Dec 16:46 90.228.255.123 rv 17:54 by Frymaster.
 * 23-Dec 07:40 90.228.255.123 rv 08:08 by Eleuther (2).
 * 23-Dec 08:30 90.228.255.123 rv 224-Dec 02:46 by Eleuther (3).
 * 24-Dec 04:53 Hepheastos rv 04:53 by VoABotII.
 * 24-Dec 04:55 Hepheastos rv 06:59 by Eleuther (4).
 * 24-Dec 18:41 81.233.185.213 rv 25-Dec 06:32 by Nicwright.
 * 25-Dec 09:00 81.233.185.213 rv 17:21 by Skyring.
 * 25-Dec 22:26 Viridian4 rv 22:26 by VoABotII (2).
 * 25-Dec 22:27 Viridian4 rv 22:27 by VoABotII (3).
 * 25-Dec 22:28 9-11 Veritate rv 22:55 by Eleuther (5).
 * 25-Dec 23:48 81.233.185.213 rv 26-Dec 00:14 by Skyring (2).
 * 26-Dec 01:26 EverLastingFire rv 01:26 by VoABotII (4).
 * 26-Dec 01:28 EverLastingFire rv 01:30 by VoABotII (5).
 * 26-Dec 01:33 EverLastingFire rv 01:33 by VoABotII (6).
 * 26-Dec 01:47 9-11 Veritate rv 01:33 by VoABotII (7).
 * 26-Dec 01:48 9-11 Veritate rv 01:49 by VoABotII (8).
 * 26-Dec 01:54 89.110.149.90 rv 02:10 by Jpgordon.

The anonymous IPs all resolve to talia.net in Sweden except: I think it's reasonable to assume they're all the same person, except perhaps the Jena one, which may be a friend who was asked to come in and un-revert some edits (here and to Alex Jones (radio). The person ignores invitations to discuss thing on the talk page.  I'm not sure how to proceed from here, suggestions are welcome &mdash; Thanks!  Eleuther 16:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 80.60.245.232, which is planet.nl.
 * 141.35.14.130, University of Jena.
 * 89.110.149.09, netclusive.de.

(Note: I will continue to update the above list without necessarily signing every change. Eleuther 17:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC))
 * The most recent account - User:66.177.158.245, is from Orange Park, Florida. And User:80.171.134.6 is from Germany.  User:Zoe|(talk) 18:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I consider the continued insertion of this material as plain vandalism. The video has no credible source, so we can't use it. Merely putting a video up on the web doesn't mean that it is then a source - we need someone to make the link, and we need that someone to be a credible souirce, otherwise it's all original research. Even if it were valid, it doesn't belong in the lead section, and its continued reinsertion is more vandalism. Finally, whjo (other than the anon editor) is going to complain about 3RR? He's not prepared to defend his insertion here or otherwise use established wikiprocedure, so I can't see any reason to keep on AGFing. --Pete 18:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there any reason I shouldn't semi-protect the article? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that may be necessary. I've just blocked the latest edit warring anon who keeps using weird edit summaries.  User:Zoe|(talk) 18:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've sprotected. I have also sprotected the Talk page, since the anon was putting his link here.  User:Zoe|(talk) 18:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Army discharge dates?
In the section Military career in this Wikipedia article it says that he was discharged on December 31, 1991 - this is correct. I have added in the fact that he joined the Army reserve and was honourable discharged from the army for the final time in May 1992 - this the FBI agrees with - never to be in the Army again.

However, and this is a big however, I have recently found out that their is video footage of him in the Army (Camp Grafton specifically, in uniform, learning explosives and demolition) as late as August 3 1993! article and www.infowarscom/articles/us/okc_bombing_tim_mcveigh_on_august_3_1993.htm Bill Bean article] FK0071a 13:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please look at it again, the video has no provenance, the soldier does not look like McVeigh. The whole thing seems to be just another infowars.com tempest-in-a-teapot, not worthy of attention here. Eleuther 16:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

McVeighs authorised book
This article doesn't mention the only book that McVeigh authorised himself, American Terrorist? I think something needs to be said. Read/listen to the interview with the author on the books pages external links. FK0071a 15:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed the book should be mentioned, but one should be very careful about citing it as a source for factual material. Eleuther 16:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Religious Beliefs
I'm not sure why this is the top of the article anyway, but I didn't like the way the section originally started out saying (without cites) that McVeigh was a devoted Roman Catholic, and then said (with cite) that he 'believed in God'. I didn't like this because, in the Time Magazine interview cited, McVeigh specifically disclaims any Catholic faith, saying 'he had lost touch' and 'never really picked up' the religion. Leaving this uncited while mentioning the faith earlier makes it sound like he was still Catholic.

This also explains an implied difference between the Guardian and Time articles... there wasn't any, really.

Dnjscott 22:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)