Talk:Richard Jewell

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

Cause of Death[edit]

Article currently states cause of death as complications to diabetes and obesity. Authorities have said that Jewel's death does not appear suspicious and that he did have health issues, so that may end up being true, but an autopsy has not been performed nor cause of death determined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.107.42 (talk) 20:22, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Update-death now being reported as resulting from complications to heart disease. I don't remember my login, so somebody needs to get source link and fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.107.42 (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is appropriate to make mention of specific allegations, such as the Drudge Report linking the story as "The man the media killed." 75.3.225.38 00:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"88 days in Hell"[edit]

I'm not sure if this violates the neutral tone of the article or not. If it is a qoute, could someone please provide background?

put it in quotes cause it is a quote from Jewell http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/sports/jewell_10-28.html
I think it's as neutral as the topic merits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.77.244 (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New AP feature on 10 year anniversary[edit]

May be helpful if someone is inclined to improve this article:

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/07/23/ap2897783.html Woodshed 09:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bombing[edit]

Eric Rudolph is a "self-appointed" terrorist? I've never heard that term before. Are most terrorists appointed by others? Is the intent to say that he was acting alone? Vorenus 01:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How did his other lawsuits go?[edit]

This article needs updating by someone who knows. I wonder how much of the $500,000 he got and how much went to lawyers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.110.221.182 (talk) 08:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The rule of thumb is that lawyers take on civil lawsuits for a 1/3 cut of the proceeds. If the precise amount is not reported, there isn't anything we can report. There have nevertheless been some updates that are worth adding. -- Dhartung | Talk 21:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

God Bless Richard Jewell and his dear mother. An innocent man who stood for truth and courage, a true hero. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.151.212.98 (talk) 19:26, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

cause of death[edit]

The previous version said the cause of death was complications related to obesity and diabetes. This is very plausible. However, there was no citation. I provided a citation. It said kidney failure and that an autopsy was pending. Therefore, I've changed the cause of death to that cited in the news report. Archtrain 20:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last version said that he had end stage renal disease. It said the cause of death was unknown. A citation is given. Reading the citation, it says only that he had kidney problems. This could be cysts, infection, cancer, not necessarily end stage renal disease. The citation also doesn't say "unknown" cause. It said he died of natural causes. Therefore, I've changed the article to reflect what's stated in the article.

Usually, these differences are considered minor but this article is much more high profile this few days so complete accuracy and referencing statements is important. Archtrain 15:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fix this article please[edit]

Does someone want to fix the last sentence in the article? Does someone want to fix wikipedia? It's time to quit demeaning this humble man, who did a good job in trying circumstances, and got ruined for his trouble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.184.93.61 (talk) 21:19, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Removed the "death by explosive diarrhea" line. That's pretty uncool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamsorkin (talk • contribs) 23:21, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced accusations deleted[edit]

The following unsourced accusations were deleted:

"Despite this, in the searches of Jewell's residence, which he shared with his mother, the FBI confiscated his mother's tupperware collection and family photographs.[citation needed] When these items were returned, many pieces of the tupperware had been broken, and the photographs were ripped apart.[citation needed]"

They don't belong in the article. 

 The Tupperware was really taken by the FBI, at least that was what the media reported at the time.  70.134.229.18 12:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

missing info[edit]

The article doesn't seem to contain any pre-bombing background on Jewell right now. This is relevent, because so much of the investigation focused on how he fit the '"lone bomber" profile'. --W.marsh 18:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rest of His Life[edit]

I believe he worked as a Deputy Sherrif. I recall a few years ago he was in the media for saving somebody's life.--Purpleslog 12:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • These assertions need citations. Do any exist? Willhsmit 02:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above paragraph sounds like paranoid right-wing conspiracy theory to me. Why stop with the gays and the Clintonistas? Why not throw in the Rothschild's, extraterrestrials and the UN as well! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.7.84 (talk) 06:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced? Yes. Ridiculous? No.[edit]

Someone made an excision, asserting it was ridiculous and unsourced that the police would vandalize or damage evidence.

I'll agree, it was unsourced. But I do not believe it is ridiculous at all. Geo Swan (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent cartoon (S.F. Chronicle)[edit]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/23/MNASMUSSENSP.DTL -- AnonMoos (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the FBI tricked him into signing a confession[edit]

If I remember right the FBI told him they were so impressed with the way he carried himself that they invited him to play the roll of a bomber who was signing a confession in a training film they were making. Is that correct or am I thinking of someone else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Backlash (talk • contribs) 08:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Uni-Dufus"[edit]

Part of Jewel's suit against NBC included Jay Leno calling him the "Uni-Dufus" on the Tonight Show... an homage to the UNI-Bomber, sourced, amongst others: page 191 of the book "FROM SELMA TO SORROW" by Mary Stanton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.228.104 (talk) 01:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death[edit]

[as of 8-29-07 it is being reported by Atlanta websites that Richard Jewel is dead] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.28.159.23 (talk) 19:19, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced AJC Quotes Removed[edit]

Having found what looks like a compendium of Atlanta Journal-Constitution articles, none of which contain the quotes that are attributed reference-free to the paper in this article, I think these quotes should probably come out. If someone can find the quotes in Lexis-Nexis or somewhere, by all means put 'em back in with a nice, neat footnote! JimHarperDC (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really?[edit]

How is there no mention of the congressional inquiry into this matter or the result? Were there any changes in policy as a result?

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju52836.000/hju52836_0F.htm

Sephiroth storm (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ruling by Court of Appeals[edit]

As of April 24, 2017, 5:42PM (Alaska time), one section read, "Jewell's estate continued to press the case even after Jewell's death but in July 2011 all of its claims were ultimately rejected by the Georgia Court of Appeals. The Court concluded that "because the articles in their entirety were substantially true at the time they were published—even though the investigators' suspicions were ultimately deemed unfounded—they cannot form the basis of a defamation action."" That is not what the Georgia Court of Appeals ruled. Rather, It affirmed the trial court's rejection of all but one of the claims. Furthermore, the quote about being "substantially true" did not address all of the claims. Indeed, the trial court held that some of the quotes may have been false and defamatory, but because the trial court held Jewell to be "a limited-purpose public figure," Jewell had to also prove legal malice (i.e., that the statements were made knowing they were false, or made with a reckless disregard for the truth), and that Jewell did not meet that higher standard. Anyway, I am going to reword that section to be truthful. DavidForthoffer (talk) 01:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of RS-supported text[edit]

An editor deleted RS-supported text, that in large part added the second basis of the film (the first basis was already reflected). He also questioned whether it was an improvement to change "heart failure" to "heart failure." Because the editor was not him/her self clear that it was an improvement?

Edits are fine, as are deletions, but they must be reasonable. This one clearly was not.

Very odd, disruptive, and not an appropriate use of tools. --2604:2000:E010:1100:9C7C:CA0D:F601:680 (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit here has re-added the text be a Hero . (sic), "Fair and Accurate". Peoples was satisfied about those reporting and other unencyclopedic wording. Please be more careful. MPS1992 (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those edits were not edits I made initially, and I agree that they are not appropriate.

That said, I was just intending to revert your unexplained other improper Twinkle deletions, and apologize if the few improper edits - a minority of that whole edit - were swept up as well.

I wasn't using Twinkle, of course -- When we use Twinkle, we also have to be extra careful. Not an excuse. But a contrast. 2604:2000:E010:1100:15CB:342D:760B:C1C6 (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganizing[edit]

I've done some reorganizing, mainly to put things in more logical and chronological order, such as putting all the material re the investigation in one section. Feel free to revert if this is not desired. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What did Jewell discover exactly?[edit]

A suspicious backpack, which was later found out to contain pipe bombs (as shown in the film), or did he already determine that it contained pipe bombs? Thank you, Maikel (talk) 08:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Jewell&oldid=1207821694"