Talk:Oklahoma City bombing

“White supremacists”

There’s a claim in the lede that McVeigh and Nichols were “white supremacists”. It was removed because it was unsourced; User:Equivamp reverted the removal, pointing to a source in the body. But there are 3 problems with the source in the body: 1) the Southern Poverty Law Center is an activist organization and not a high-quality source; 2) the “article” linked is literally just two paragraphs and a 3 minute YouTube video with zero original sources or actual evidence; and 3) the “article” or whatever it is, doesn’t say that McVeigh or Nichols were “white supremacists”; it says that they were “radicalized by white supremacist and antigovernment propaganda”, meaning that even if this were a high quality source, the claim in the lede would still be imprecise and unsupported by it. Anti-ideologue (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

THe Southern Poverty Law Center is a WP:RS; see WP:SPLC. Also, please see the above discussion on how plenty of other sources support the claim. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:SPLC also says “As an advocacy group, the SPLC is a biased and opinionated source. The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION”, which is not happening in this article. The guide also says it’s important to avoid giving it undue weight. Also, the fact that the SLPC article itself is a few unsourced paragraphs demonstrates that it’s a low quality source, regardless of your opinion on the SPLC.

Also, you ignored the other points I raised, particularly the one about the claim in the lede not even being in the article. The previous discussion doesn’t make that point any less true.

Finally, it’s pretty telling that the only sources provided to support this claim are recent low-quality opinion pieces by activists who fundraise off of the perceived threat of white supremacy and thus have a financial interest in retconning the Oklahoma City bombing 25 years after the fact to tie it to their cash cow. Anti-ideologue (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

You're ignoring the discussion of The Turner Diaries clear and documented influence on McVeigh, which is also cited later in the article. Also, on the WP:SPLC, it says The decision to include should rather be decided on a case-by-case basis and the consensus here was for inclusion. You're unlikely to get traction on the idea that a bomber who committed a bombing with a copy of the The Turner Diaries in his possession was not a white supremacist. More and better sourcing should probably be added, but there is clear consensus to keep the label. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I would also recommend both Bring the War Home by Kathleen Belew and the recent Homegrown by Jeffrey Toobin. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Both of those authors fit the mold I described above. Toobin especially, who was a political talking head on CNN before he got fired for masturbating on a work Zoom call. Anti-ideologue (talk) 00:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, your personal opinions, while no doubt interesting, don't really mean anything on Wikipedia unless you can sway a consensus to see things your way. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, you’re the one recommending books to me. Cheers. Anti-ideologue (talk) 00:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Books, also known as "reliable sources". Dumuzid (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Are you being obtuse intentionally? You didn’t add those books as sources for the claim being debated. You recommended them, unsolicited, to another editor. That means that editor is free to give you his or her opinion on the authors of said books. Anti-ideologue (talk) 00:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I never implied you weren't. Dumuzid (talk) 00:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Then the article should attribute the claim to the SLPC, not state it as fact, per WP:SPLC. I’ll make the edit. Anti-ideologue (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Get consensus first. Dumuzid (talk) 00:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I don’t need consensus to comply with Wikipedia’s own guidelines. Feel free to read WP:SPLC yourself. Anti-ideologue (talk) 00:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll add the Belew site to hopefully address your issue. Dumuzid (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The line in WP:SPLC that says “The decision to include should rather be decided on a case-by-case basis” is clearly referring to hate labels on non-US entities. Anti-ideologue (talk) 01:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

There is extraordinarily little evidence to suggest that McVeigh was a white supremacist. The main target was the US Government, and the majority of the victims of the bombing were, afaik, white. McVeigh never made any statements either to suggest that white supremacy played a role.

The ADL also espouses the view that Timothy McVeigh was a ‘white supremacist.’ However, the ADL itself is a hate organisation that denied the Armenian Genocide for decades, and has supported the many terroristic actions of the Israeli government. How are they considered a ‘reliable’ source?

This whole retconning of the original motives of this event, to add in, over 20 years after this happened, to suddenly say that McVeigh was a white supremacist, is basically historical revisionism with almost zero proof. 71.25.29.66 (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

There is extraordinarily little evidence to suggest that McVeigh was a white supremacist is objectively false. He was arrested with a copy of the Turner Diaries, a white supremacist novel, with highlighted sections about a truck bombing that occurs in the novel. Basing your terrorist attack on an explicitly white supremacist novel that you carry with you to the attack is not "extraordinarily little evidence." I encourage you to read more about McVeigh if you legitimately think this because it is incorrect. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't know how much we can rely on the Turner diaries evidence for his supposed white supremacy - McVeigh was described by one of his fellow prisoners, Ted Kaczynski, as being on friendly terms with the African-Americans there and as having an apparent respect to other cultures. Moreover, it seems he only went down the white supremacist rabbit hole because of the themes of resistance to the government and I think this is reflected in his recreation of the bomb in the Turner diaries and his complete lack of interest in the race war element. He also subscribed to a trial membership for the KKK's mailing list without renewing it, and when asked about it he claimed "[they were] almost completely obsessed with racism" and he worried they were "being 'manipulative to young people'" as opposed to "the restoration of gun rights" he was hoping for. 212.5.158.35 (talk) 04:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you're entirely wrong here. But as far as WP:DUE weight and reliable sourcing, scholars of white supremacy writing about the connection are probably more reliable than Kaczynski or McVeigh.

Kaczynski was a friend of McVeigh's on "bomber's row," so his commentary might be worth discussion by scholars, but he's kinda bias by himself.

I'd also take McVeigh's later downplaying of his white supremacy with a grain of salt. He could want to be remembered as anti-government and not racist and have adjusted his rhetoric accordingly. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the use here is questionable. We do have some sources that show the link. However, per NPOV, if we are going to say he was a white supremacist in the lead we really need to show that is the generalize consensus in RSs, not just that we can find some that describe him this way. This is why I've been concerned with the use since the phrase. I recall when this happened and I don't recall news stories at the time emphasizing white supremacy vs anti-government. As a point of reference, neither of the articles about Nichols or McVeigh emphasize "white nationalism" in their leads. Instead they are focused on anti-government motives. A search for McVeigh's name quickly turns up two FBI pages[1][2]. Neither mention white supremacy. This 2007 CNN article doesn't say white supremacist but does make it clear he was racist in the body[3]. The same is true of this 1995 WP article[4]. While I wouldn't cite Britannica I do find it interesting to see what a professionally edited encyclopedia had to say on the subject [5][6]. Britannica clearly emphasizes the anti-government aspect. It doesn't mention racism or similar as a motivation. Even the one article I found that mentioned white supremacy made it clear that the motivation was anti-government, "No event did more to radicalize McVeigh than did the stand-off near Waco, Texas between members of the Branch Davidians".[7] For this reason I feel that putting white supremacist as a primary descriptor of the two people is misleading. Yes, McVeigh at least, was clearly a racist and source agree that some of his radicalization came from racist material. However, the sources are also clear that his motive was anti-government rather than racism or any kind of nationalism. Springee (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the motives are so easily disentangled, and the more one gets in to scholarly and/or longform work, I think the white supremacism becomes more clear. There is Bring the War Home by Kathleen Belew, as I mentioned, whose entire thesis is basically placing McVeigh and Nichols in a white supremacist context. Similarly, Jeffrey Toobin's new Homegrown (which the Texas Observer called the "the definitive book on Timothy McVeigh’s continuing legacy") depicts McVeigh as embodying "the anti-government, gun-obsessed, white supremacist rage evident on January 6—a politics of rage that has moved from the fringe to very near the center of conservative politics." In Professor Darren Mulloy's Years of Rage, McVeigh is described as having a "burgeoning interest" in white supremacy, and later "immersing himself deeper and deeper into the paramilitary and white supremacist underground." Leonard Zeskind, in his book Blood and Politics says that in court, "prosecutors . . . objectively proved that McVeigh was, in fact, more than just an ex-military man angry at government misdeeds at Waco. He was not simply an 'antigovernment' activist. He was a soldier who had switched enlistments from the United States Army to the white nationalist underground." Suffice it to say, I think the descriptor is appropriate in this instance. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this isn't a case of selective sourcing. Not done in bad faith but any stretch but when I just look up the name or the subject I don't see sources describing either as white nationalists, even the sources that make the racism clear. I'm also wary of putting to much weight into source that are looking at this as part of a bigger political movement vs just the event itself. Such sources have a proverbial hammer and often err on the side of identifying screws as nails. I'm convinced this should be in the body but not in the lead. Springee (talk) 11:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a reasonable stance that it should be in the body but not the lede. I'm not convinced we should make that change, but I'd be open to it. Pinging editors from the last discussion @Newimpartial @Kralizec! to see if they have input. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I still maintain it should be in the lead, but am obviously happy to follow consensus should it be against me here, and I agree that is a reasonable take. And there certainly is selective sourcing here, insofar as I definitely have a bias toward more recent and more in-depth approaches. Cheers to all whatever happens. Dumuzid (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I would outline the situation in this way: do we have multiple, high-quality reliable sources that characterize the actor in question as "white nationalist"? Yes. Do we have multiple, reliable sources that dispute this characterization? No. So is it reasonable (a) to use "white nationalists" in wikivoice and (b) to include this information in the lead section? Yes and yes.

Whether the article actually presents the information in this way is a matter for local consensus, but in my mind it is certainly policy-compliant to do so. And I would not be inclined to go back to more NEWS-type sources that were closer (temporally) to the event in determining DUE - I think the more recent, more in-depth sources are simply better. Newimpartial (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

When dealing with a topic that is covered by a large number of sources we need to start considering what, to use a rough analogy, the average source says. While the average source does point to racism etc in the background they generally don't call the two white nationalists or similar. They do call them anti government or similar. This is why I don't think we should be introducing them as white nationalists in a way that implies their motives were white nationalism/supremacy vs the very clear, widely agreed view that they were angry government based on things like Wako. Again, we need to look not to sources who's intent is to draw straight lines between this event and other groups. We should look at sources about this event and see what they say. Springee (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

When dealing with a topic that is covered by a large number of sources that vary in quality and in date of publication, policy compels us to consider the higher-quality and more recent sources with more weight, rather than constructing an average source where different levels of quality and distances of temporal remove are thrown together indescriminately. Newimpartial (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Not exactly. We should put more weight on higher quality sources and sources that summarize rather than drive into subtopics or intend to tie otherwise unrelated events together. More recent is also good if it's shown they have new/updated information. That they have a different perspective doesn't make it better despite being newer. Springee (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe the more generally held view is that recent, reliable, secondary sources are the gold standard for DUE, and that sources that summarize rather than drive into subtopics or intend to tie otherwise unrelated events together - AKA historical scholarship and the other sciences humaines - deserve more WEIGHT than NEWSORGS and similar coverage that is close to the original event. Newimpartial (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, sources that set out to tie A to B aren't inherently better than sources that intended to summarize/provide overall picture without pushing to a specific perspective. Also, we don't assume a later article is inherently better if it basically has the same available facts. The assumption with later=better is more the has allowed the collection of more information. Springee (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you will find that the comminity values sources that are at a greater distance from an event and that provide more in-depth analysis more than sources that are closer to an event and offer less analysis. But if you disagree, as you apparently do, I would encourage you to raise the question at a more appropriate forum (like WT:RS, for example). Newimpartial (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you are arguing something other than what I'm saying. First, I don't think just being newer is seen as better. It is generally assumed that newer means more available information with which to draw a conclusion but if that isn't shown then newer doesn't inherently mean better. For example, an older, widely cited work is likely given more weight than a newer, less cited work. In-depth does depend. If the depth is specifically researching the event then probably yes. However, if the writer's objective is to say A=B rather than just investigating A then we need to be more careful. This gets back to the old saying "If the only tool you have is a hammer, you will start treating all your problems like a nail.” If a source sets out to prove A=B then there is a risk they only looked for information that supports A=B (vs evidence that A!=B or A=C etc). Regardless, it seems that most sources don't refer to these two people as "white supremacists" including our own articles on the two people. Nicole's article really doesn't support the claim and as Nicole's is still living this could be a BLP issue. Springee (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Springee, are you suggesting that it is up to wikipedia editors to evaluate the evidence behind statements made in RS? Because I believe that view to represent an idiosyncrasy on your part, rather than enwiki policy.

Similarly, your reading that more recent sources are only better when they include more available information also seems idiosyncratic and lacks a discernable basis in P&Gs. Another reason that the content of RS shifts over time is that the perspectives of the writers shift - contemporary scholarship on transatlantic slavery differs from 1950s and 1960s scholarship for reasons that have nothing to do with "more available information". We follow the recent, reliable sources on enwiki, as far as I know, and the sources you are leaning into have for the most part, hit their 20-year sunset clause. Newimpartial (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

No, it is up to Wikipedia editors to establish the weight/BALASP any statement is given. I didn't say new is ONLY better when it includes "more available information". Rather I'm saying we presume newer is better because of this. Also, it's one thing when we are talking about say a history of the US Civil War written in 1901 vs 2001. It's another when we are talking about something written in say 2007 vs 2012 vs 2018. I wouldn't presume something written in 2018 is inherently better than something written in 2007 absent some other information to explain why. Your slaver example isn't a very strong one. First, there has been a large social perspective change between 1950s and 2023. It's also a 70 year gap. In both cases we would have to look at the sources and ask what they are trying to convey. You seem to be trying to say later always equals better but are ignoring the bigger concern of mine which is the difference between a work that studies the facts and maps out the conclusions they present vs a source that has a hypothesis and thus tries to convince readers that the hypothesis is true. The former doesn't have an overall objective beyond stating what happened. The latter does. While the latter might be good for a number of factual claims, we need to be careful when giving it more big picture/interpretive weight. Consider this. If "White supremacists" was an encyclopedic, high level description for these people, why did it take so long for it to be applied to them by RSs? Why wouldn't it be in the leads of the individual biographies? Was this only recently discovered information? Springee (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Its really amazing how modern white supremacists are trying to rewrite this history 24.128.188.103 (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree calling Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols white supremacists are a form of historical revisionism 2601:3C5:8200:97E0:5421:5A86:FAB7:7805 (talk) 05:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

"Fiery"

Dumuzid, that's what I initially thought, but the word "fiery" literally means "flame-ridden". I don't especially like the term but it is verifiable. Cessaune [talk] 15:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Cessaune, and thanks for including your reasoning. I don't dispute that it is either literally true or that it is verifiable, but that does not mean it must be included. As I said, it seems to me a bit much and that it makes the sentence read as less encyclopedic. All that said, if there is a consensus for inclusion, I certainly won't complain. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Gathering Materials subsection

McVeigh approached Fortier and asked him to assist with the bombing project, but he refused.[37][38]

This infuriates me. Who the fuck is Fortier. Shitty edit. No proper context. 75.175.67.175 (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

While context might be lacking in the beginning of that subsection Michael Fortier is introduced and discussed at several other points in the article. Do you have a suggestion as to how one might give the context you want? I am a bit unsure how to do so without just seeming redundant. Cheers and Happy Friday! Dumuzid (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Can we just blue link to another section where Fortier is discussed? Springee (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Right wing terrorism

This article is categorised as being a Right-wing terrorist attack and is mentioned as such in the infobox, yet not one mention of this being a right wing terrorist attack is given in the article. Furthermore despite being the main image for the right-wing terrorism page said article doesn't say the Oklahoma City bombing was a right-wing terrorist attack and the definition given in the lead contradicts it's inclusion.

I personally think after reading through the article the motivations are beyond simple left/right dichotomy but I do believe that there are probably reliable sources describing it as a right wing terrorist attack; however without any mention of it as such it's currently an unsourced claim that's been inserted by editors on their own opinion/belief about the incident. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree, as also for some apparent reason this is categorized as Neo Fascism despite the motive being: Anti-government sentiment, retaliation for the Ruby Ridge and Waco siege and retaliation for Federal Assault Weapons Ban. To assert this is a neofascist and a right wing terror attack based on these motives appear to be misleading. At most this could be considered an anarchist attack against the government for restrictions against 2nd amendment rights and government overreach. BarakHussan (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not unsourced; it's supported by sources already in the article for example by Brannan. Anti-government sentiment is a right wing position, and the subject isn't merely an example of right-wing terrorism: it's the premiere example of it. VQuakr (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the template, categories, and infobox parameters that are not supported by any actual prose. Original research claiming anti-government sentiment is right wing (which is just absurd and fringe) is not valid. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Would you call anarchism a right wing position? Traumnovelle (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Erm, as discussed above it is well-sourced. Your original synthesis about anarchism is irrelevant. Feel free to add more discussion to the prose based on the extant or additional sources. VQuakr (talk) 03:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

So the problem here is one of conflation I think. When Traumnovelle pointed out that right-wing doesn't appear in the article, I thought "fair enough." So I wanted to add a link to "White Nationalist Terrorism" which seems to me aptly supported in the text. The problem? "White Nationalist Terrorism" redirects to "Right Wing Terrorism." So, the issue here is certainly complex, as noted by scholars like Belew who tend to eschew a simple right/left binary. That said, it seems to me that "extreme right wing" is the closest thing we have to a description of McVeigh's views; he himself sort of endorsed this in his interviews for the book "American Terrorist." So where does that leave us? I am not entirely sure. For my money, it's probably best to include the descriptor given McVeigh and Nichols' extensive entanglement with the militia movement and the suffusion of that world with explicitly named right wing ideology. That said, I can see the contrary argument as well. As with so much of politics, I am not sure there's an easy answer. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I already mentioned Brannan above, who notes, ...McVeigh, like many on the radical fringes of the American Right at the time.... The SPLC also inextricably links the extreme Right with McVeigh, [8]. We could also cite basically any part of Homegrown (book). Certainly reality is more nuanced than a one-dimensional left-right scale, but the sources have ubiquitously put McVeigh on the right hand side of whatever scale exists. VQuakr (talk) 03:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. He's either described as "on the right" or "it's not that simple" (again, a la Belew). As I said, I think the article is better with the descriptor. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Then use that as a citation or put a line in the article with that citation. WP:V states 'Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed.' that applies here. The article was made FA without any mention of right-wing or white nationalist terrorism either. For FA quality it'd be best to omit anything from infobox and have prose discussing how it is described by some as right wing and not classifiable by others. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It's already cited with inline citations and WP:V is met, as discussed above. I don't see a great place to shoehorn in the exact words "right-wing" into the Motive section in amongst all the right-wing characteristics and extant sources that describe the attack as right-wing, but if anyone thinks there's improvement to be had by doing so, feel free. VQuakr (talk) 05:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Your synthesis of sources to conclude this isn't meeting WP:V. None of those things are exclusive to it. I do not have access to the sources/books so I can't just add it in myself and the onus is on you to cite it. There is no onus on me to add citations for an uncited claim. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced that adding those specific words to the prose would be an improvement from an editorial standpoint. WP:V isn't a concern here since the claim is sourced (and was sourced at the start of this discussion) already in the article. Please read WP:SYN since you've repeatedly exhibited a lack of understanding of what it says. I'm not clear on what you're trying to say regarding None of those things are exclusive to it. VQuakr (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

You can add citations to an infobox. The claim is not currently sourced, neither it nor the neo-fascism one. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@VQuakr it includes links to categories. You keep claiming sources exist but refuse to cite them. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I haven't "claimed" anything, I have pointed out sources already in the article. This is a WP:SKYISBLUE level of claim that doesn't need a cite in the infobox. VQuakr (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

This is an inherently subjective description. You've mentioned a source in this talk page but it is not referenced in the article for that statement.

Did you even bother to read the MOS:INFOBOXCITE you linked? 'but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere', it's not repeated in the article.

If you want to include this content then go add a citation for it. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• This is an inherently subjective description. I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
• You've mentioned a source in this talk page False, I've mentioned several.
• You truncated the relevant part of the MOS: ...or if the information is obvious. We already cite multiple RSs that describe the famously right-wing subject as such, but our summary in prose doesn't use those exact words. No big deal, and I don't know why you find it confusing. But I have no responsibility to WP:SATISFY you with the answer given. VQuakr (talk) 09:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  You don't need to satisfy me, you need to satisfy WP:V, which you haven't. Also the essay even states 'Since all material that is either challenged or likely to be challenged must be cited, if someone else is already challenging material as false or misleading, then it needs an inline citation.' So yes, you do need to satisfy the material with a citation. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, emphasis not mine. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  VQuakr--as I have said before, I support the inclusion of right-wing terrorism and/or white nationalist terrorism in the infobox, but I am less sure about neofascism. Subjectively, the term doesn't spring to mind for me, and I have not been able to find much in my initial scans of sources. Do you have particular citations in mind for this association? Dumuzid (talk) 14:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Dumuzid: a neo-fascist descriptor is not in the infobox, and I agree it should not be. The neo-fascism navbox is in the article because of the subject's relevance: the attack and McVeigh are idolized by neo-fascists. VQuakr (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  VQuakr -- yes, inartful phrasing on my part. I am cognizant of the difference, but still, can you point me to a source of some kind? Even another Wiki article? As I said, I wasn't able to turn much up (though it was only a cursory scan). Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  [9]. VQuakr (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for that. I guess I wasn't giving a capacious enough reading to our definition of Neo-fascism. Having looked at it a bit more and considering that White Nationalism falls under the Wikipedia umbrella, it strikes me as an appropriate navbox. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Okay so there are sources, why not cite them? This could all be solved if you added the sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  I can't think of a single other case where we've added a citation for a sidebar. It's just a collection of links; there's no claim to verify and nothing to "solve". BTW we've got two different topics sharing a common talk section and it's sort of confusing. VQuakr (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Media Coverage

The Media Coverage Section contains the following sentence: "Several witnesses claimed to have seen a second suspect, who did not resemble Nichols, with McVeigh." It is followed by two references, neither of which supports the "several" figure. Please change the word "several" to "numerous" (or multiple, or many?), and here is a source from The Washington Post to support it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/oklahoma/stories/nichols1204.htm

I would make the edit myself, but I don't know how to add a source. I'm not a conspiracy theorist and am not trying to make some point, but the fact of the matter is there were more than "several" who saw someone with McVeigh in the lead up to the bombing. What that means is up to others to decide. Our job is simply to provide the facts. Here are sources from CNN and Time which mention multiple different witnesses in total:

https://edition.cnn.com/2001/LAW/05/16/mcveigh.john.doe/

https://time.com/archive/6931756/searching-for-john-doe-no-2/

Here's an article from The New York Times which states that half a dozen people - which is more than "several" - saw someone else with McVeigh:

https://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/03/us/sightings-of-john-doe-no-2-in-blast-case-mystery-no-1.html FillsHerTease (talk) 09:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, now that I've mentioned I am not a conspiracy theorist, shouldn't the 'See Also' Section have a link to the Conspiracy Theories Page for the Oklahoma City Bombing??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FillsHerTease (talk • contribs) 09:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@FillsHerTease: No need to change "several" to "numerous" just because the source doesn't state the exact word, the source is just to back up the information found within the article. And as for a link to Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories it's located in the Trials and sentencing of the conspirators section.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 10:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

There IS a need, because there were more than "several" witnesses, as I showed with other sources. Yes, the source DOES need to state a word synonymous with the one in the article. That's irrelevant here though, because the existing sources don't state any number at all, which is why they are not suitable, unlike the sources I have provided, which do. "Several" is NOT the appropriate word and needs to be changed. I am not asking if it needs to be done, I am stating that it MUST be done, and asking for help because I don't know how to add a source. Sorry if that wasn't clear. FillsHerTease (talk) 07:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)