Talk:Centennial Olympic Park bombing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This needs fixing?[edit]

"....down. We will see that they a [4]""

it just ends? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Securite Mesurs[edit]

I removed the following subsection added today because I can't figure out what the author was trying to say. (maybe missing words or perhaps a whole sentence)

The IOC tightened security as a result of incident. However, it would not be until the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City when security was very stringent at the Olympics, since they were the first since September 11, 2001.

If you can make this more understandable, add it back. AUTiger ʃ talk/work 06:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number killed[edit]

Is the number of people killed one or two? The first paragraph says two, but the body and other pieces on Wikipedia about the bombing state only one.

I made the same mistake myself. I'm not sure why we both missed it, but the article specifically mentions two people. Broadfootp 17:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a problem, because some people don't think the cameraman should be included (not just on Wikipedia). I've never actually sat down and addressed it in the article(s). I personally apply the 9/11 rule, i.e. you don't draw the line at the people killed by the crash, or by the fire, or by the smoke, or by the collapse. You would count a firefighter who had a heart attack fighting a fire, so somebody dying doing his job in the middle of a disaster seems to be a victim of the disaster. On the other hand you can just never summarize the total, but then you always have to explain the cameraman with the approximate same text. I prefer to do that in the body of the article. --Dhartung | Talk 20:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is this 2nd WTC attack rule you speak of? Is this a formal Wiki policy? Seems to me that there is a single death to be counted here. Unless there's a citation that this heart attack was a result of the bombing (shock, fright, etc.), and not something that had been building up gradually and was going to happen soon one way or another, it's not encyclopedic to attribute that death to this bombing. Alvis 05:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the reasoning would be more of an emotional connection to the disaster than anything else. After all, anyone at the park that night could be considered a "victim" of the bombing. I myself would draw the line at the person who was actually killed as a direct result of the blast, either by the blast itself or the debris or shockwave. But there is the emotional connection thing too, I suppose. Here in Guam, we had an 8.1 earthquake in 1993. After the quake, someone was driving a friend to the hospital for a non-quake related infirmity, crashed the car, and the friend died (resulting from the infirmity, not the crash). For a time, that person was listed as a "quake fatality". Later on, however, that inaccuracy was corrected. It's all a matter of wanting to be identified with a newsworty item, in some cases.Jlujan69 21:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I actually considered deleting the camera man from the text out-right (but wisely decided to check the talk page first: as an explanation for a common, incorrect, death count, his inclusion is valid). My reasoning would have been that he was neither killed by the bomb, nor "caused to be killed" by the bomb, but died due to his own voluntary physical activity. By analogy, someone who had a fatal heart attack after running to reach his TV to see a news cast concerning the bombing would have an equal right to be included; someone who died due to emotional upset from the same news cast would have a greater right. The camera man's physical proximity is of litte or no relevance.

(In contrast, the above mentioning of including hypothetical firemen could still be justifiable, because their involvement would be a direct and non-negotiable attempt at miminizing the effects of the bomb; the camera man, in contrast, could have chosen not to run, with an effect only on news coverage.) (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions "The blast claimed 2 lives and injured 111 people, while another person died of a heart attack". This would indicate 2 people died from the bombing and 1 additional person died from a resulting heart attack. Should it be changed to "including a person who died of a heart attack"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I have broken the "investigation" section into two sections because it's very unfair to have an investigation section with two headings -- "Richard Jewell" and "Eric Rudolph" -- when Jewell was cleared. I changed the headings so that the reader will immediately see that there was "the wrong man" and then "the right man." If you think there's a better way to present it, that's fine, but please do not simply revert to "The Investigation" with just the two men's names as sub-sections. Jewell does not deserve that. CoramVobis 04:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This "cheesecake" Person[edit]

Would someone please warn or do the appropriate action to This user has now vandalized the "Reaction" section of this article, particularly references to Bill Clinton, three times now, and three times someone has had to go back and undo it. It's a shame we have such idiots on the web who have nothing better to do with their time, but we do, and need to deal with them. Webmacster87 03:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor can warn a vandal using the standard user talk messages. Start with a good-faith notice and escalate. If you've reached level 3, take the issue to WP:AIV. --Dhartung | Talk 03:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right-Wing Extremism[edit]

"The problem of right-wing extremism"? That is definitely POV, so I am going to remove it. It doesn't even have a cite. Entbark 13:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed: Shaped charge[edit]

I have removed the reference to the steel plate being a shaped charge. Shaped charges typically are voids placed within the explosive material itself in order to direct the expansion of gasses within the explosive material itself. Directing the explosion using amother materials isn't typically refered to as a shapped charge.-- (talk) 01:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And who is Cleere?[edit]

Poooooooor writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more info about the investigation.[edit]

One thing I can think of is the battery purchased at Sewell hardware on Dixie Highway in Lake Worth. Rudolph also purchased nails and a small spool of wire there. I wont be adding all that info as I was there at the hardware store the same time as Rudolph was but not all this info was made public. It is just that it seems to me they were not interested in pursuing any info at first that did not tie Jewell to the bombing, until other bombings appeared to be linked. In other words -a botched investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright infringement[edit]

Large portions of the "Richard Jewell" section seems directly cut and paste from this url: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:4105:3D00:55F3:BD7F:3A97:C919 (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, good catch. I redacted and rewrote the material to end the copyright violation. Herostratus (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Centennial Olympic Park bombing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attendance, Stadium & Events after bombing[edit]

Neither this article nor the one on the 1996 Olympics say anything about the effect on attendance or the games. Looking at the calendar it doesn't look like any events were cancelled. Whether or not these were affected, it's relevant. Were people still allowed into the park? What additional security (if any, and I assume there was) was imposed? Ileanadu (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

who died[edit]

could not find more information on who died. only on who killed and didnt. (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the Olympic park bombing wasn't a Christian terrorist attack, then 9/11 wasn't an Islamic terrorist attack[edit]

There are no less than six reliable sources in Eric Rudolph which definitively peg him as a Christian terrorist. I'm sorry, but to pretend otherwise is to bury ones head in the sand. Groupthink (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you present the sources here so we can evaluate their quality and weight? Given that most sources describe this as domestic terrorism, not Christian terrorism it may be a hard case to make for the lead. However, it might be good content for the body. Springee (talk) 11:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]