Talk:Oklahoma City bombing: Difference between revisions
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (→Conspiracy theories: new section) |
imported>Todd Coles (→Article title: new section) |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
When the issues were not addressed, there still may be counterarguments with decent sourcing. Both sides need to be present, or it's no more useful than a "trivia" section. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 19:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC) | When the issues were not addressed, there still may be counterarguments with decent sourcing. Both sides need to be present, or it's no more useful than a "trivia" section. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 19:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
== Article title == | |||
Is there a reason 1995 is included in the title? It's not as if there are bombs going off all the time in OKC that we'd need to differentiate.. --[[User:Todd Coles|Todd Coles]] 19:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:47, 8 March 2009
Conspiracy theories
I dislike using the term as a heading, as it's emotionally loaded. Nevertheless, CZ: Neutrality Policy certainly calls for alternate views. Here's what I removed, with references below:
- ==Conspiracy theories==
- As with many major national incidents, a number of conspiracy theories have come into existence regarding the attack and the FBI investiagion that followed. These include accusations of a link between McVeigh and the Elohim City white nationalist compound, and accusations that the federal authorities knew of McVeigh's plans and pulled out FBI and ATF agents, leaving only civilian workers.[1]
- ↑ Thirty Oklahoma City Bombing Questions That Demand An Answer Now! and Steven Yates, The Oklahoma City Bombing: A Morass of Unanswered Questions on LewRockwell.com.
My problem is that the theories are coming from clearly non-neutral sources. To me, neutrality policy is not just putting up the views of some advocacy sites against the mainstream position, but showing rebuttals to the allegations. In some cases, there may be no rebuttal, partially because the allegations are not terribly specific -- it's hard to respond to innuendoes. In the particular case, I believe that some of the allegations were addressed specifically in the trial, and, whether or not one agrees with the information, neutrality calls for comparing and contrasting the allegations with things established under rules of evidence in a public trial.
For that matter, some of the allegations need at least redlinks. I have never heard of Elohim City before. I would note, however, that there was a substantial amount of circumstantial connection with the Branch Davidians, possibly Ruby Ridge and with the Turner Diaries. Should these not be addressed? McVeigh never really gave his reasons.
When the issues were not addressed, there still may be counterarguments with decent sourcing. Both sides need to be present, or it's no more useful than a "trivia" section. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Article title
Is there a reason 1995 is included in the title? It's not as if there are bombs going off all the time in OKC that we'd need to differentiate.. --Todd Coles 19:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)