This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
A note on edit 20:52, 11 March 2010 Enric Naval (restore 50 caliber rifles, they are in the source and they are important for some claims about davidians having weapons of that caliber).
In short, there is evidence the Davidians had .50 caliber rifles; there is no evidence they fired those rifles. Naaman Brown ( talk) 15:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't say there is "no evidence" that a .50 was fired. Several agents testified to hearing what they thought was the fifty. One agent claimed to be able to identify the sound of the fifty from his military experience. It was an issue the prosecution tried to establish but there was no physical evidence entered such as a discharged case with firing pin indention. The only physical evidence entered was the fact that the two fifty cal. rifles were recovered. One of those had a cooked off round chambered (Discharged, no firing pin mark). The defense established that. I would say the evidence hinges on the credibility of those witnesses. From my reading of the testimony, I believe it is likely that at least one fifty cal. was used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.224.113 ( talk) 11:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I came to this article for reference purposes... I am active in other parts of Wikipedia and not familiar with the ways you do things in this sort of article.
However, I am a bit taken aback by the side bar which lays out some bare facts as if it were a Military Action - with "Belligerents", "Commanders", "Casualties and losses" side by side as if they have objective equal status... "Belligerents" is a war-word... [See "bellum" Latin for war in Wiktionary...]
I am fully aware that Police/Law officers often lapse into war-speak... But that sort of metaphorical/imagistic language is serving their particular purposes... Purposes that should NOT be imported uncritically into Wikipedia, if it is going to maintain its credibility.
Perhaps I just don't know the conventions being used in this part of Wikipedia... This is the first time I've seen this set-up in the sidebar... Perhaps I can find others if I try... [OK...I've looked and this seems to be the Standard Layout for outlining Civil Wars at least... And I find no other Police Actions to have this set-up...] But at this point, I have the gut feeling that it is set up that way by people with an un-Wikipedian agenda...
Please, someone else who knows better than I, comment on this and settle my mind... Thanks Emyth ( talk) 14:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Col Thomas R. Lujan, JAG, "
Legal Aspects of Domestic Employment of the Army", Parameters US Army War College Quarterly, Autumn 1997, Vol. XXVII, No. 3.
Naaman Brown (
talk)
18:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
One edit inserted this: "two by fire from ATF agents, and two athe the hands of the Davidians themselves (ref)"No Heroes" Danny O Coulson & Elaine Shannon ISBN: 0-671-02062-5(/ref)". At first I thought that maybe the Davidians shot each other by accident (
friendly fire), but the No Heroes book seems to be a conspiracy book. Is this some crackpot theory about FBI agents infiltrated among the Davidians?
It was written by a former FBI member with very good credentials [1], but I still would like to know the details of how they killed each other. Does the book explain how it happened? -- Enric Naval ( talk) 09:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Danny Coulson was founder of the FBI HRT and was a top official within the FBI in both the Ruby Ridge and Waco affairs. I read the book over ten years ago. As I recall, he was pretty critical of government handling of both cases. Coulson was also criticised by DOJ OPR over his role in approval of the Ruby Ridge Rule of Engagement.
British Davidian Winston Blake was shot within his bedroom next to the outside vinyl water tanks which were shot up in the raid. The surviving Davidians claim he was hit when the ATF shot up the water tanks (see Waco: The Rules of Engagement); ATF claimed he was shot by another Davidian; the medical examiner who autopsied his body when it was returned to UK contested the US autopsy: there was no peppering of his face with GSR and the bullet hit sideways, which is consistent with the Davidian explanation, inconsistent with him being shot in a small room by a fellow Davidian. (But it is consistent with a stray bullet from either side.)
Perry Jones (Koresh's father-in-law) was wounded in the stomach by ATF in the raid; ATF and FBI would not allow the Davidian dead and wounded to be evacuated without a total surrender by the group, so it is believed Perry Jones may have shot himself to end his misery. The dead were buried by the Davidians on the grounds which is why Blake's body survived the fire for autopsy in UK.
When claims "the Davidians shot their own" come up, Blake and Jones are usually named. Naaman Brown ( talk) 21:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
In the Ruby Ridge standoff, a tank-and-gas attack was planned. According to the DoJ OPR Ruby Ridge Task Force Report 10 Jun 1994, the 22 Aug 1922 operation plan submitted from the site to FBI HQ included the following:
5. The following day the APCs will return and again order the suspects to surrender. 6. If no compliance, the APCs will begin dismantling the outlying buildings by ramming them. 7. If no compliance, tear gas will be deployed into the main house.[567] 567. Crisis Center Log, August 22, 1992, entering at 4:50 p.m. (EDT). The Log also stated that weather was a major factor and that the plan was scheduled to commence late that afternoon but might be pushed back because of weather conditions. Concern was raised about the deployment of gas into the residence because of the high degree of risk to small children and the possibility that a one year old baby was inside.
The first announcement to the Weavers by HRT Commander Dick Rogers (who was also HRT Commander ar Waco) was a threat to push the Weaver cabin off the cliff with an armored personnel carrier (a threat that appalled FBI chief negotiator Fred Lanceley). The armored vehicle and gas attack plan was rejected by FBI HQ in part because introduction of gas into the residence was an unacceptable risk to the children (ages 16 years, 10 years and 10 months old). Naaman Brown ( talk) 10:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The siege was directed by William S. Sessions, Director of the FBI, and his two top subordinates, Larry Potts and Floyd Clarke. Sessions was later fired by President Bill Clinton on July 19, 1993 after Sessions refused to resign in the wake of a scathing investigation report by the Justice Department on several ethics violations, which were unrelated to the Waco siege. (ref) http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Business-general/FBI-Director-Sessions-fired-over-ethics-charges-AIDS-co-discoverer-faces-new-charges.html(/ref) Sessions was eventually replaced as FBI Director by Bush-appointed judge Louis Freeh.
I removed this from the lede as Undue Emphasis on the "ethics violations" of William Sessions "unrelated to the Waco siege." Sounds more like a hatchet job on Sessions with emphasis on mentioning "Clinton" and "Bush" as much as possible than as an apropriate item for a lede.
A lede in a Wikipedia entry should be like the abstract of an academic article: very short intro, summary and conclusions, and should reflect the overall gist of the article, without undue emphasis on side issues.
Previously dropped from the lede (by reinstating the above) was a similar political statement that the raid was ordered by Bill Clinton as detailed on pages 497-499 of Bill Clinton, My Life (Random House, Knopf, Vintage, 2004, 2005). This article covers the raid of 28 Feb, siege of 1 Mar to 18 Apr, and final attack of 19 Apr. Clinton claims he ordered the final gas and tank attack 19 Apr. Any of these issues belong in the detail of the raid, siege or attack; the Sessions material and appointment of Freeh to replace Sessions in the aftermath. In the lede they constitute undue emphasis. Naaman Brown ( talk) 10:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
You have to realize reading the various government whitewashes and anti-government conspiracy theories that "wrong doing" is a legal term that like "libel" requires a showing of actual malice aforethought to stick in court. A lot of things were done wrong at Waco and policies and training were changed in response. ATF training now emphasises "dynamic entry raid" as a last resort; after a near-mutiny among Special Forces at Ft Hood and Ft Bragg over requests by ATF for Waco, the Army War College published guidelines for military commanders receiving requests for assistance from law enforcement agencies (JAG Col Lujan advised commanders to do their own investigation before blindly granting requests because ATF lied about Koresh operating a meth lab); the 1995 GOA "Use of Force" report noted the standardization of Deadly Force policy among all federal agencies (before 1995 you could have a multi-agency task force where under the same situation agents from one agency would hold fire and agents from another agency could open fire) and in 1995 ATF SRTs were not allowed to use full automatic weapons; the HRT was reorganized under the CIRG, with the tactical commander and the head negotiator reporting as equals to the crisis trained CIRG head as site commander (at Waco and Ruby Ridge, the head negotiator reported to the HRT Commander and the local SAC was technically site commander but deferred to the HRT Commander since most SACs did not have crisis training); at Waco both Blue and Gold HRT teams were sent to the same site leaving no HRT resources if a prison riot or bank hostage situation came up, which created an artificial pressure to solve the situation tactically (today resources are kept in reserve); at Waco HRT tactical hung a bra on negotiator Fred Lanceley's car and otherwise disrespected the negotiators (including Bryon Sage and Peter Smerick) and acted to punish the Davidians after they made concessions to the negotiators. But none of the mis-steps at Waco arise to the level of the legal definition of "wrong doing", nothing to see here folks, move along, move along. Naaman Brown ( talk) 11:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I made two edits to this section. First, I removed the statement, Interviews with Koresh's surviving followers reveal that he was intimately versed in the Bible and "knew it like he wrote it." This has a clear bias (either in favor of Koresh or against Christian scripture) and has nothing to do with the context it was placed in.
After rereading the section, I decided to remove the whole paragraph, On August 5, 1989, Koresh (at that point still legally named Vernon Howell) released the "new light" audiotape in which Koresh stated he'd been told by God to procreate with the women in the group to establish a "House of David" of his "Special People." This involved married couples in the group dissolving their marriages and agreeing that only Koresh could have sexual relations with the wives. [1]. I am not sure what this has to do with weapons charges.
— Cappadocian330. Talk— 02:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Those factoids were not relevent to the weapons charge but were relevent to the history and the overall story and should have been moved rather than removed. One, the ATF raid and the FBI siege followed strategies developed from dealing with drug houses, prison riots and bank robbery hostage standoffs (where the subjects knew they were guilty): in dealing with politically or religiously motivated subjects, those tactics antagonize the situation; the religious motivations of the standoff are part of the story. Two, government expert Henry Ruth who reviewed the Waco report for the Treasury Dept., stated part of the motivation at the ATF was to enforce the morals of our society, the psyche of right thinking, by retaliating against these odd people. One of the things that made them odd and was contrary to the morals of society and the psyche of right thinking was the "New Light" revelation preached by Vernon Howell (later known as David Koresh). Naaman Brown ( talk) 11:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I notice Category:Conspiracy theory has been added; where is the Category:Cover-up and Category:Whitewash? Naaman Brown ( talk) 10:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The following excerpt needs citations:
Before the raid, Rick Ross advised the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) that arresting Koresh at Mt. Carmel in the presence of his followers would likely provoke a violent response. Joyce Sparks, an investigator from the Texas agency responsible for child protective services also advised ATF against such action.
This edit said that "[they] wished to "outdo" tragic events like the 1992 Los Angeles riots, the siege in Waco, and the Oklahoma City bombing." [2] The nearest reference I could find is: "They had originally planned their attack for April 19, the anniversary of the Oklahoma City Bombing. They said in their writings that they intended to 'top the body count' of McVeigh's bombing in their attack to their school.". The Psychology of Terrorism: Clinical aspects and responses (pages 159-160) I can't find any secondary source mentioning that the columbine killers mentioned Waco, or giving any relevance to a possible relationship or inspiration. Columbine was inspired in the Oklahoma bombings, which in turn were inspired by Waco, but I can't find a source making a direct connection from Waco to Columbine.
A 946 pages PDF file was also presented as a source, but no page number was provided, see Talk:Waco_Siege/Archive_3#cite_64_jefferson_county_sheriff.27s_office_columbin_documents. For the IP that keeps inserting the statement, please provide a secondary source or point to a specific page inside the pdf. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 15:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Re-reading the Texas Rangers, Investigative Report Branch Davidian Evidence September 1999 and Investigative Report #2 Branch Davidian Evidence January 2000.
While the Texas Rangers had custody of the Branch Davidian evidence, they found three Olympic Arms CAR-AR carbines with silencer tubes attached; no tests were made by the Texas Rangers to see if the silencers were functional or dummies or if the arms themselves had been modified to full automatic. An AR 9mm barrel was also found with a silencer tube installed. The bulk of the evidence labelled as silencers were metal tubes or wire mesh: raw material "believed to be used to make a silencer/suppressor".
Of some Branch Davidian evidence bagged by the FBI and labelled as "silencer" or "suppressor", the Texas Rangers found instead flash bang grenades in EXHNUMs 001037, 001383, 001525, 001892. EXHNUMs 000728, 002247 and 002248 (also labeled Q267, Q268 and Q269) are also mis-ID'd as silencers. EXNUM 001742 was a flash bang ID'd as a "smoke grenade". Most of the flash bang grenades appeared to be DEF TEC 25 distraction devices by DEF-TEC Corp., Rock Creek, Ohio, made for law enforcement and evidently discharged by the ATF in the raid on 28 Feb 1993. Not all of the evidence collected in the Branch Davidian case were things that belonged to the Branch Davidians. Also several items of evidence were given upto four different identification numbers refrencin the same item. Naaman Brown ( talk) 02:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
waco
Hi
Unfortunately the sources you give as refs are not the texas rangers or the DOJ reports. I have reverted the edits and hope you can correct the refs, I know it would have been easy for me to do them but think that it is best that you do it as I prefer to copy edit and maintian factual accuracy and wish to remain neutral on such things as the weapons and their use
The refs should be to the/those original documents not really Wikisource docs which could be altered from the original (I know its not going to happen probably)
[3] is the original DOJ document
I would point out though that the document does not itself contain references and there are other sources which state that these were ".50 cal barrels over 5 feet long" which would imply they were probably just barrels from larger .50 cal machine guns
To be honest after the lies in that DOJ document, concerning things such as stating there were no incendiary rounds used, it is hard to believe anything other than an original Texas Ranger document that showed what they actually found and the purposes of their use.
It is easy to assume that .50 cal is snipers rifle but this is not backed up anywhere else as far as i know
thanks
Chaosdruid ( talk) 03:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
It is based in the press release of the Treasury Dept. [15]. Indeed, it doesn't specifically list .50 caliber rifles, but it does list "6 assorted rifles". The linked press release doesn't make any mention of a discordance between the Treasury report and other reports. Note:
The conclusion that there is a discrepancy is an unsourced analysis, and it's thus original research. Please find a secondary reliable source that explicitly says that there is a discrepancy. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 17:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Referencing the Texas Rangers, Investigative Report Branch Davidian Evidence September 1999 and Investigative Report #2 Branch Davidian Evidence January 2000. released online September 1999 and January 2000. (I included links to the individual PDFs at the Texas Rangers website in the Waco Siege page years ago; they were removed, but there is still a link to the index that can be used to navigate to the documents: "Texas Department of Public Safety, Texas Rangers Branch Davidian Evidence Reports")
Texas Ranger Branch Davidian Evidence Report September 1999 concludes with the letter from AUSA Bill Johnston to USAG Janet Reno advising her that contrary to FBI reports beginning 1993, there was evidence that the FBI HRT had used incendiary rounds 19 Apr 1993. The federal government publicly denied for years using incendiary devices, then in 1999 only admitted to using the ones found by the Texas Rangers.
Branch Davidian Evidence included 40mm grenades as fired from military grenade launchers. Exhibits labelled Q279 and Q280 were identified by the Texas Rangers as metal 40mm Sound & Flash grenades by NICO Pyrotechnik (Germany); rifling marks indicated they had been fired from grenade launchers. NICO claims the 40mm S&F rounds were shipped to a distributor who claims he sold fifty to the FBI HRT. Tests by NICO found the 40mm S&F will ignite gasoline vapor. The S&F while possibly incendiary is not a tear gas round.
Branch Davidian Evidence labelled Q1237 (shell casing) was identified by the Texas Rangers as from an M651 incendiary military CS gas cartridge identical to a metal 40mm tear gas grenade shown in a photograph taken 19 Apr 1993 by the Rangers. (The FBI siezed the Rangers' photographs and when they were returned several film rolls were missing.) Ranger Sgt. George Turner was advised by FBI agent Rick Crum that the M651 had been fired 19 Apr 1993 "in an attempt to knock a door down so gas could be dispensed." The military manual acquired by the Texas Rangers warned that the M651 may malunction and explode on impact and is a known firestarter. M651 burns at ~700 degrees F for ~30 seconds and in tests will ignite paper and cloth, as well as kerosene or gasoline vapors. It was described to the Texas Rangers by an FBI agent as a "thumper road" used to knock down doors. (One later FBI account was that three incendiary tear gas rounds (presumably all M651) were used 19 Apr 1993.)
Branch Davidian Evidence included numerous plastic 40mm CS "Ferret" tear gas shell casings, expended grenades and trashbags filled with empty boxes for the Ferret Liquid CS SGA-400 barricade penetrating cartridge (some estimates are that 400+ Ferret rounds of 37mm police and 40mm military varieties were fired 19 Apr 1993). Although plastic, the Ferret round will penetrate plywood residential doors, but unlike the M651 it does not use an explosive or burning compound to disperse gas.
These 40mm grenade rounds (the NICO S&F, the M651 and the Ferret) may cause death or greivous bodily harm to individuals in the line of flight, but they do not constitute "small arms fire" directed from the FBI toward thr Davidians as defined in the Danforth Report. The S&F and M651 can ignite flammable vapors (the M651 can set fire to an ordinary sofa). While they were found in the collected Branch Davidian Evidence they were not property of the Davidians, but had been fired by the FBI on 19 Apr 1993.
For further reading, in Appendix G of the Treasury Report on Waco the chief historian for federal law enforcement details federal sieges with political/religious groups that ended in fire. Naaman Brown ( talk) 12:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I cited the Texas Rangers (Texas Dept of Public Safety) website; I am not familiar with CESNUR or apfn.com. My research started with writing an op-ed in 1994 so a lot of my sources were pre-Internet, either print or VHS tape (eg. the CBS piece on M651 that included Bryon Sage). Naaman Brown ( talk) 11:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The article currently states:
Koresh said during the siege that he could destroy the Bradleys, so they were supplemented with two M1A1 Abrams tanks and five M728 Combat Engineer Vehicles.
There is reason to believe that Vernon Howell (VH aka "David Koresh") believed the threat that would destroy the Bradley fighting vehicles was Biblical or supernatural, not a physical means of destruction.
In the Book of Revelations, Chapters 5 and 6, at the end of the world the Lamb of God would be given a book sealed with seven seals and would open the seals one by one to bring about the Apocalypse:
Before VH even joined much less led the group, the Branch Davidian (BD) had taught that the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse represented Adolph Hitler and WWII (white), Joseph Stalin and the Cold War (red), the One World government under the UN (black) and various plagues and disasters of the latter half of the 20th century (pale). In BD theology, the Apocalypse was already underway and the first four seals were already broken: the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse had already ridden forth.
To VH, the ATF raid on Mount Carmel Center (MCC) 28 Feb 1993 was the fulfillment of the Fifth Seal, the deaths of the martyrs. (About 500 apocalyptic millennial cults existed in America as 1999-2000-2001 approached, and the US DOJ publication Operation Meggido
Project Megiddo illustrated that the federal government was actively preparing to respond.)
When VH spoke to the FBI negotiators about the Seven Seals, the negotiators were initially confused; they could not recall aquatic mammals in the Bible except maybe the whale that swallowed Jonah. Cult expert Rick Ross had advised the FBI to have a negotiator who understood the biblical context of the Davidian's beliefs; the FBI were contemptuous of what they called "bible babble."
When the angel opens the Sixth Seal, Revelations says there will be a great earthquake. According to BD prophesy, that earthquake would burst the dam at Lake Waco and reveal the original site of Mount Carmel taken from BD prophetess Florence Houteff by the state of Texas in the 1950s. VH predicted to the FBI negotiators that Lake Waco Dam would burst in the near future. The negotiators took that to mean BD supporters were plotting to blow up the dam and precautions were taken (much like the reaction to VH's threat against the Bradley fighting vehicles). Naaman Brown ( talk) 09:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC) correction see strike-thru. At the time of the Waco raid, it was pointed out several times that federal law enforcement was gearing up to respond to apocalyptic groups at the millenium. The preparations preceded the formal report. Naaman Brown ( talk) 12:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
This article is missing one, i can remember dozens of tv series referencing to this! -- 85.146.181.187 ( talk) 21:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
This article had a "In Popular Culture" section that degenerated into a list of trivia (much of which on close examination was related more to incidents like Jim Jones and Jonestown than to the Waco Siege). Popular TV shows like "X-Files" or "Criminal Minds" have mentioned Waco (even the "Simpsons" have parodied this tragedy) in a plotline. Beyond the "In the Line of Duty: Ambush at Waco" TV movie (which was later disowned by the screenwriter Phil Penningroth) there have been few truly notable pop culture references and hundreds of useless ones. Even though I contributed to the old pop culture section, I am not particularly sad to see it gone. Naaman Brown ( talk) 22:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Enric
I am a little concerned that the text you removed "(However, the conversations about spreading fuel are timed hours before the fire.)" and the entry you put in the timeline show a MASSIVE difference in times as well as different context. The timeline entry now shows the FBI saying that the "fire" comments are less than half an hour before fire breaks out instead of the previous text which says "spreading fuel" and "hours".
I think you must restore this text and add a {{cn}} tag. It may be that the ref "Fuentes" contains that information and as such should not hav been removed. Also there is the problem that the two events are not the same event, one spreading fuel and one starting the fire. diff [28]
Chaosdruid ( talk) 08:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
As Alan Stone pointed out, understanding the minds of the besiegers was just as important as understanding the minds of the besieged at Waco. During the FBI siege, the HRT tactical team treated these religiously motivated people as they had treated common criminals in prison riot or bank robbery situations. In particular the FBI HRT tactical team actions backfired and even HRT Commander Dick Rogers admitted at later Congressional hearings that instead of forcing the BDs out, his confrontational tactics drove them together.
In the Waco trial: "the jury heard comments made by Clinton Van Zandt, a behavioral science specialist for the FBI, when he was asked for his assessment of Rogers. "I think he believed very strongly in himself," Van Zandt said, "in his ability in the use of force. He saw negotiations as getting in the way. He is a strong proponent and advocate of tactical resolutions to situations." Houston Chronicle 6/27/00 Jim Henderson."
At the time the Ruby Ridge Siege (21-31 Aug 1992) was reported, VH openly speculated that it was a dress rehearsal for a federal raid on MCC. With BATF's 30 July 1992 rejection of his offer to come out and inspect his guns and paperwork, the treatment of the Weaver family one month later confirmed VH's suspicions about the federal government being Victor Houteff's antitype of Satanic Babylon. FBI behaviour during the siege fit the BD suspicions.
BD Clive Doyle has stated: "Everytime we thought we were cooperating, people were coming out, or we were doing what they'd asked, we'd be punished, almost right after complying. The electricity being cut off, the music being played, all that kind of stuff just gave us the attitude they certainly did not mean what they were promising, that we couldn't trust them. Of course we're listening to their morning briefings on the radio. They were supposedly showing great concern for the childrens' welfare, that they were supposed to be the innocent parties, but ... the noises, the lights, all the things that went on for the next 50-odd days just confirmed in our minds they had no concern for our children at all, other than to get them away from us. Whatever they did to us the children were having to put up with as well. If they'd been concerned with the children, they wouldn't have done the raid [28 Feb 93].... There was one day when they buzzed the building with one of these jet helicopters, ... really noisy, ... really fast. They would buzz the building and everyone was kind of instinctively ducking. The next day, we hear this helicopter coming again and everyone starts ducking, just a reflex, and it went on for a little while, we began to wake up: there is no helicopter.... They'd recorded the thing, and were just playing it to us the next day.... Towards the end of the siege, I'd say the last week before the fire, anybody that came out of the building either legitimately or just to get fresh air had flashbangs lobbed at him, including Steve Schneider, who came out the front door on a negotiated rendezvous with a tank to pick up supplies. He picked up the stuff from the people in the tank, turned around and they threw two flashbangs at him at the front door. Scared the daylights out of him." Naaman Brown ( talk) 09:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Edward321 removed this as spam:
Economist and crisis consultant Randall Bell writes in his book Strategy 360, "Koresh was on amicable terms with the local sheriff. He could have been easily arrested or questioned during one of his frequent visits to town. Many people believe that, even if a simple phone call had been allowed between the sheriff and Koresh, the FBI's raid might not have occurred at all." (ref)Bell, Randall, Strategy 360, Owners Manual Press, 2008, isbn 9781933969169, page 223 (/ref)
The sheriff and the prosecutor for McClennan County felt Koresh would have responded to a call to come to the courthouse to discuss questions/problems (he had done so in the pass), but the raid was conducted by the ATF not the FBI who were called in only after the raid failed. I don't know if the quote qualifies as spam or not; the point could be better sourced to the sheriff or prosecutor, than to a consultant with limited knowledge of the case. Naaman Brown ( talk) 16:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I replaced this in prelude to the raid (28 Feb 93):
At least a week before the assault, the FBI had considered employing snipers to "eliminate" David Koresh, and other "key" Davidians(ref)((cite book|last=Churchill|first=Ward|coauthors=Jim Vander Wall|title=The COINTELPRO papers: documents from the FBI's secret wars against dissent in the United States|publisher=South End Press|date=2002|isbn=9780896086487|page=lxxix))(/ref).
with this in the siege section before the final assault:
One week prior to the 19 Apr 1993 assault, FBI planners considered using snipers to eliminate David Koresh and possibly other key Davidians.(ref)Lee Hancock, "No Easy Answers: Law Authorities Puzzle over Methods to End Branch Davidians Siege", Dallas Morning News, 15 Apr 1993.(/ref)
for reasons that should be obvious. Naaman Brown ( talk)
The article text uses the current ATF acronym and (mostly) the current name Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. At the time, the agency and most contempraneous commentators used the BATF acronym and the name Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. BATF should be retained in all titles and quotes from contemporaneous documents. Naaman Brown ( talk) 01:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I replaced the purported quote from Ramsey Clark because the included citation pointed to an LA Times article that contained no mention of Ramsey Clark at all, and certainly did not give the quote that was included in the article. Furthermore, the purported quote does not criticize or even mention the Danforth report. Rather, it criticizes the government's handling of the Branch Davidian crisis. (The bad reference is: [2])
I replaced with a quote from Ramsey Clark specifically referencing the Danforth report from a CNN report.
I deleted the paragraph beginning "The introduction to the Danforth Report notes..." because the included citation did not refer to a document that criticized the Danforth report. Rather, it referred to a Texas Ranger report that predates the Danforth reports. The Ranger report does not bear on the issue of "small arms fire". Therefore, this appears to be an inappropriate editorial comment.
I deleted a paragraph referring to a "sharp contrast" in a paper by Lujans in Parameters http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/parameters/Articles/97autumn/lujan.htm because (1) the paper is dated 1997, 3 years before the Danforth report and (2) it is not a "sharp contrast" to the Danforth report. Rather, it states that a Posse Comitatus violation could have occurred, but did not because the Army officers were sufficiently vigilant. Incidentally, the previous ref is broken.
I deleted the previous topic sentence for this section because it suggested more criticisms than are justified by the two remaining citation.
Jeffrw ( talk) 12:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
"12:06, 28 August 2010 Leszek Jańczuk (talk | contribs) m (128,970 bytes) (Reverted 2 edits by Jeffrw identified as vandalism to last revision by 76.94.42.224. (TW)) (undo)"
In [30] it was stated that there were flamethrower tanks, with considerable evidence. We know YouTube isn't regarded as reliable, but the whole internet isn't completely reliable, and that doesn't mean everything displayed on it isn't reliable. Similarly, some things on YouTube can be reliable while others arn't. And besides, doesn't the amount of evidence matter more than the website it is written on? We want good information from all sources, not all information from good sources. 173.183.69.134 ( talk) 04:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
It would be nice if people would locate and read the cited sources before editing in their opinions. 26 Oct 2010 IP editor 131.6.84.110 changed "ATF personnel" to "the Branch Davidians" which does not match the cited source, Albert K. Bates, "Showtime at Waco", Communities Magazine, Summer 1995, which states: "As the assault team climbed to the roof, the lead agent on one ladder reached for his pistol and accidentally discharged it while still in the holster, wounding himself in the leg. The shot may have sounded to agents and reporters in the front of the building as if it had come from within the compound." I changed this to match the cited source. http://www.thefarm.org/lifestyle/albertbates/akbwaco.html
There are several reasons to suspect that the first shot may have come from the ATF. The first four ATF agents interviewed by Texas Rangers believed the first shots were the dog team shooting the dogs. ATF Ballestros heard a gun shot off to the side before shots either entered or exited the front door. After the shooting there was found a hole in the radiator of the second ATF truck facing the rear of the first ATF horse trailer used to transport the raid force. The written raid plans included diversionary gun fire from the helicopters. The possibility of a first shot by ATF causing panicked firing by the ATF and/or the Davidians cannot be discounted by editing a cited statement to contradict the cited source. Naaman Brown ( talk) 14:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
As always someone has to correct the media. This event never happened in the city of Waco Texas. Instead, as listed, it was Mount Carmel. Do not confuse the two. I have lived here all my life and in no way did this nor anything like this ever happened here. The article should be changed to say The Mount Carmel Siege 15 miles from Waco. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leeme 1958 ( talk • contribs) 19:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
During the cource of the siege members of the US and UK special forces were sent to Mount Carmel to 'observe and advise' the FBI and to help bring about an end to the situation. The 12 special forces men, 2 British SAS and 10 US Delta (Combat Applications Group, 1stSFOD-D) were part of Task Force 88, a top secret counter-terror unit. On the last day of the siege senior government officals approved the use of TF88 in storming the compound instead of using the FBI HRT unit with was 'fatigued and under strength' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.255.196.165 ( talk) 18:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Editor IP 76.186.27.145 added the last two paragraphs 23:53 6 Feb 2011. Ckatz excised the addition 07:50 7 Feb 2011 with comment (Uncited). The paragraph left standing was also uncited.
The applied standard appears to be that incriminatory accusations against the Davidians can stand uncited, but exculpatory evidence requires citations and all the rules on verifiable sources considered reliable.
The Waco siege article should be kept factual to avoid becoming either a whitewash or a conspiracy theory. If you add to the article, please cite a verifiable, reliable source; if you believe an addition to the article requires citation, use the citation needed flag and allow reasonable time for the addition to be properly cited. Adding without citation and deleting without noting citation needed are equally discourteous. Naaman Brown ( talk) 12:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Move to Waco siege per consensus and guidelines, no consensus to change title beyond capitalization. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 01:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Waco Siege → Waco siege — Page title is not a proper noun and should be changed per WP:CAPS. Also interested in discussing whether this is the best title per WP:COMMONNAME. Woodshed ( talk) 06:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
This page should be moved to Waco siege per WP:CAPS, as "Waco Siege" is not a proper name.
But I'd also like to bring this before editors to discuss if there's a better name for the page. There was a non-robust move discussion in 2006 — see Talk:Waco Siege/Archive 1.
I'm wondering if there's really one "common name" phrase in the public consciousness that describes this event.
Terms like Ruby Ridge, Heaven's Gate and Jonestown all became synonymous with the government/private conflicts that made national headlines. I don't think, in this case, Mount Carmel (the compound location — not in Waco) really did. Nor Branch Davidians, though I'd guess more people could recall the latter if asked. Most probably refer to it colloquially as "Waco" (or maybe Waco incident).
The problems with the article title, to me, are:
Googling combinations of Waco / Mount Carmel / Branch Davidians, and words like "siege," "standoff" and "raid" (probably the three top contenders), I'm not overwhelmed — or even whelmed — by any clear trend.
I have no strong opinions, I hope it's clear. Article titles to consider might be Montana Freemen, YFZ Ranch, as well as the aforementioned Ruby Ridge, Heaven's Gate and Jonestown. If I had my druthers, I would vote for Branch Davidian standoff or Mount Carmel standoff for consistency (using either the name of the group or the location of the incident in the title).
Ultimately, it may be, as WP:TITLE says, "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." Woodshed ( talk) 05:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Waco TX is not alone in unwanted notoriety. The Lillelid murders usually link to Greeneville TN simply because Greeneville was the nearest large city and was the location of the trial (even though the murders occurred in a rural area off Highway 81 when a Goth cult from Pikesville KY carjacked a family from Knoxville TN in transit). The Lillelid murders have become commonly associated with Greeneville. The raid on Mt. Carmel Center has become commonly associated with Waco.
The article has been entitled "Waco Siege" since it became an article 12 Feb 2006 and the events (ATF raid 28 Feb 1993, FBI standoff 1 Mar--18 Apr, FBI gas-and-tank assault 19 Apr) have been referred to as as a "siege" and as the "Waco Siege" in other media.
PBS - "chronology of the siege" ABC News - "the Waco Siege" TIME "The Waco Siege"
Changing a WP name long established, esp. if the name is commonly used in reference to the event elsewhere (Waco Siege, Colfax Massacre, Hindenburg Disaster, Reichstag Fire), ought not be done lightly.
A valid conflict could be the fact WP style is Capital Location lowercase event regardless of usage in other media. The events in the WP article "Colfax massacre" created 28 Mar 2004 are referred to as "Colfax Massacre" in other media (such as discussion at a lawyer blog of a recent book Charles Lane "The Day Freedom Died" 2008). Same with the WP article on "Reichstag fire" usually referred to in other media as the "Reichstag Fire". Similar WP "Hindenburg disaster" or Hindenburg disaster is commonly referred to as the "Hindenburg Disaster" elsewhere. Naaman Brown ( talk) 14:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I am restoring cause of death of Dayland Gent to stabbing, the official government COD, from the edit of 23:53 25 Feb 2011 by Moparchris with comment (Autopsies: changed stabbed to shot in relation to shootings.)
"Autopsy records indicate that at least 20 Davidians were shot, including five children under the age of 14, and three-year-old Dayland Gent was stabbed in the chest." Kristina King, "The Waco Incident", investigative documentary.
"Dayland Gent, Mt. Carmel Does 33 and 47 B: The Autopsy Report for Mt. Carmel Doe 33, identified as three year old Dayland Gent, tells us nothing about the conditions under which the remains were recovered. "The body is presented to the county morgue secured in a blue body bag . . ." Dayland is said to have died of a stab wound to the left chest. .... According to official recovery map (Remains Recovered from the Concrete Room), the first set of Dayland's remains was picked up on April 22, and given the number Mt. Carmel Doe 33. Then, according to the same map, more of Dayland Gent's remains were picked up with Mt. Carmel Doe 47: the Identification Matrix lists Mt. Carmel Doe 47 B as Dayland Gent (though there is no autopsy for 47 B)." Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum: Dismemberment and Agglutination
Since 1993-1994, COD of Dayland Gent has been listed as stabbing from sources citing the original autopsy report; there is no evidence to change it to shooting now. If there is evidence that Dayland Gent was shot rather than stabbed, one should present citable reliable sources. Naaman Brown ( talk) 12:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
David Koresh is mentioned in the inroducion only as Koresh, but it makes no menton of him prior to this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.186.215 ( talk) 04:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
The introductory paragraph states that 76 people died in the fire. The section "The Final Assault" states that 75 died. Could someone find which is correct and rectify this? Peng1pete ( talk) 01:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
There were 74 dead identified by name. Some accounts count the two pregnant women as four deaths. Some accounts count the unnamed foetus miscarried in the fire as a death, but not the unborn foetus. 74, 75, 76. Depends on definition of human life. Naaman Brown ( talk) 17:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
An edit to the info box Strength of the belligerents added to the Branch Davidian side (revision 9 Jan 2012, comment (Since when has 6+4+74+9=75?!))
Those are total numbers from Casualties and Losses 6 dead in the raid 28 Feb 93 4 surrendered 28 Feb 93 74 dead final assault 19 Apr 93 9 surrendered 19 Apr 93
On the four surrendered 28 Feb 93 my notes show: 1993 Feb 28 "A tape was sent out of MCC with two old ladies, Catherine Matteson and Magaret Lawson, and two young boys." The 4 surrendered include 2 children.
The 74 dead includes the children who died that day. Eighteen were age 12 or younger. Four were 1 year old. Four were 2 year old.
Since we are adding children and infants to the strength of belligerents in the info box, there were nineteen additional children surrendered during the siege in Mar 1993, which would make the belligerents present at the 28 Feb 93 raid 6+4+19+74+9 on the Davidian side. -- Naaman Brown ( talk) 17:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
According to the article, "ATF made a false claim that David Koresh was operating a methamphetamine lab, in order a drug nexus and obtain military assets under the 'War on Drugs'."
First, the period should go inside the quotation marks. This point, however, is moot--why is this phrase set inside quotation marks?
More importantly, the citation given is a report that discusses the required circumstances to use military force inside of the US. The report says that "Under more recent legislation, the Army can provide equipment, training, and expert military advice to civilian law enforcement agencies as part of the total effort in the war on drugs....The principle example of the contentious nature of such support can be found in ... the support provided to the ATF by the Army under the operational control of JTF 6, during the siege and assault of David Koresh's Branch Davidian compound."
I don't know how to insert a "citation needed" tag. The referenced Army report does not mention anything about ATF making a false claim. Can someone please insert the tag?-- Lacarids ( talk) 17:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Like the presence of Delta Force personnel (not just vague "Special Forces"). -- Niemti ( talk) 22:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Could someone try to make a comprehensive summary of the entire article for the lead section? -- Niemti ( talk) 15:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Also, the article lacks an explaination of the group's beliefs of the imminent end of the world and Koresh prophecy of an apocalyptic final battle: http://www.religioustolerance.org/dc_branc2.htm#evbd which is quite essential. -- Niemti ( talk) 20:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Can amendments be made to the article changing statements about accidental fires being started, changing them to the fires started by the flame throwers on the Bradly assault vehicles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.165.98 ( talk) 03:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Bradley assault vehicles can't be fitted with flamethrowers. This volatile charge has long been refuted. 70.113.67.75 ( talk) 03:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
What's the point of having that on there?
-- Madocgwynedd ( talk) 07:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I've removed an edit which added "Waco massacre" to the lede as an alternate name. The relevant guidelines here are, I believe, that the alternative name should be "significant", per Wikipedia:Article titles#Treatment of alternative names (and, in a title context, the principle for this sort of thing is that a term should have "prevalence" before being considered, per WP:POVNAME).
It feels a little POV-pushy to me, especially since the editor added five references for the term: [3]
Breault and King
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Of the three references available online — which are all books about the incident — two of them only use the phrase "Waco massacre" once. The other uses it six times. An Amazon book search shows that the first ref, titled "Massacre at Waco", does not use the phrase at all. [42] The second reference uses it in the title, at least.
In an earlier move discussion, another user presented these figures:
which don't suggest to me that "Waco massacre" is a clear alternate title, at least not to the exclusion of several others. I would welcome any discussion on these points. Woodshed ( talk) 06:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Term | Google Books | Google Scholar |
---|---|---|
Waco siege | 3,420 | 401 |
Waco massacre | 732 | 114 |
Waco standoff | 934 | 168 |
Waco tragedy | 1,860 | 335 |
Waco incident | 2,380 | 283 |
Waco murders | 89 | 11 |
The Posse Comitatus Act rquires the president to sign a waiver allowing Federal troops and their equipment to be used in any law enforcement operation. Since the tanks and troops showed up on the first day of the raid, President Clinton must have signed the waiver sometime beforehand. It's reasonable to believe that he was briefed by federal agents on the reason that they were requesting the military personnel and eqpt and the dangers that would be associated with the raid. At this point, some background is needed to give context. In 1973, the American Indian Movement took over the town of Wounded Knee South Dakota, setting the stage for the longest siege in US history. Like Waco, the FBI showed up in force to break the occupation. It resulted in a shoot out. The number of dead and wounded was not nearly so great as Waco. Afterwards, Federal law enforcement came up with a doctrine for handling hold out situations involving persons who are not criminals in the usual sense but motivated by religious and or political beliefs. The doctrine is called "decapitation." By taking out the leader of the group first, the followers are left confused and uncertain what to do next. They are then easier to deal with. Someone involved with planning the raid on the Branch Davidian compound had to give the order to ignore established safety protocols by not arresting Koresh when he was alone and then moving in on the followers. To date, not one person associated with the planning stage has ever been identified, let alone come forward to make a public statement. Not one person has ever been publicly punished for ignoring safety protocols that were there for the benefit of the officers and the Branch Davidians. Retired Senator John C Danforth was appointed Special Counsel to investigate the incident. The so-called "Danforth Report" did not address the planning stages of the operation. Given the context of the situation, it appears that 1) Clinton knew what was going on and 2) approved it, knowing that it was putting the lives of all those children at risk. This is the one part of the incident that had to have happened and is not discussed by anyone. JPZingher ( talk) 03:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps User:Niemti can explain here why they are removing referenced material. Zambelo; talk 10:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Unrevelantly random (a whole lot of stupid crap about what some guy allegedly did or said during the siege but placed into the section discussing the events that led to the ADF raid), undue weight, distracting, unedited copypasta (totally evident, most of all by this circular link to "Waco siege"). But I'll admit you've got some nerve to push it like that and then try to deny the obvious. -- Niemti ( talk) 12:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Some guy who was in the media, a notable anti-cult guy who was part of the largest anti-cult group of the time, and who gave advice to the FBI and the ATF, while giving multiple interviews in the news, and all of this notable enough to appear in reputable academic sources about the siege as well as in a US department of Justice report to to the Deputy Attorney General? You keep on talking about copypasta - This is a draft page where I put together the material, some of it (a paragraph) was later copied from the Rick Ross article. Undoubtedly there are still some linking errors in it. You seem a little aggravated, maybe you should have a glass of water. Meanwhile, if other editors who are able to critique the material beyond "a whole lot of stupid crap", then we can continue onto more productive things. Zambelo; talk 13:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Enric Naval, what I'm trying to do is introduce valid and important events related to the WACO siege. If it makes the article unbalanced, then ok - it can be whittled down. Nonetheless the material belongs in the article, as it is consequential to the events. Rick Ross and the Cult Awareness Network are mentioned in government reports and in academic works relating to the siege. Both had appeared on numerous high profile News programs as "experts" leading up to the siege. Zambelo; talk 00:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
The material is relevant to the siege though. Zambelo; talk 01:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
How is it not relevant? It is clearly within the scope of the article. Also, I have cut it down a lot, responding to the issue of undue weight. Zambelo; talk 04:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
"Several writers have documented the pivotal role the Cult Awareness Network had upon the government's decision making concerning Waco". Sources include an official report to the depatment of Justice, academic sources, and numerous books specifically about the Waco siege. I think relevance is shown here. We aren' talking about a new hat here - this is how the CAN actively portrayed the Branch Davidians and Koresh to the government and to the media - this is documented not only through the primary media sources, and through a government report but also by "Several writers(who) have documented the pivotal role the Cult Awareness Network had upon the government's decision making concerning Waco". Relevance is clearly demonstrated. Zambelo; talk 21:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
What's your beef with that dude? Must be something personal. I don't think I as much as even ever heard of him despite reading quite a lot on the subject. Also, PROTIP: there was no 'siege' before the raid, and no significant (if any) FBI involvement at the time. -- Niemti ( talk) 02:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
There is no beef. Have you read the new content? It focuses on CAN, of which Rick Ross is a part, and which played an important and demonstrated part in the events leading up to the siege. Please refrain from removing referenced and relevant content. If you haven't heard of CAN, you must not know as much as you think about the subject - you should have a read through the numerous sources I provided, you may learn something new. Zambelo; talk 02:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Your repeated removal of the content without discussion is unproductive, and rude. Please stop and discuss changes or I will need to involve mediation. Zambelo; talk 02:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Are you now playing games with us or what? Do you think we'red stupid or something?Did you even read this crap you're pasting in here?
"In the weeks preceding the raid, self-described cult expert Rick Ross, a Cult Awareness Network affiliated deprogrammer appeared on major network programs such as the NBC [1] and the CBS which had hired Ross as an on-scene analyst for their coverage of the Waco siege. [2] Ross described his role in advertising authorities about the Davidians and Koresh, and what actions should be take to end the siege [3]. He was quoted as saying that he was consulted by the BATF [4] and he contacted the FBI on the March 4, 1993, requesting "that he be interviewed
And so forth, for several paragraphs of unrelared crap. Involve any mediation you want. -- Niemti ( talk) 02:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I have indeed involved mediation. You appear to be assuming a lot of bad faith, and have yet to demonstrate that any of it is "crap". Also, see Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing Zambelo; talk 02:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Haha, oh wow. I don't have patience for you, but hey, go and try and convince the other people here about how so important and totally relevant all this is to what led to the ATF raid. -- Niemti ( talk) 03:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Neither of you commented on any of the material I posted, beyond calling it "unrelated crap" and "copypasta" (in the case of Niemti). Neither of you have explained why the material doesn't belong in the article beyond a rather cryptic Justin Bieber reference. It is clear that you have no interest in any new material being added to the article beyond the edits you yourselves have added. I have outlined 1) Why the material is in the scope of the article 2) Which authors write about the importance CAN had in the events leading up to the raid 3) Provided referenced material (that Niemti has called "crap copypasta"). Neither of you have had the courtesy to discuss the content, or even comment on the changes I later made reflecting the discussion here. So clearly, if anyone isn't listening, it isn't me.
I have made my case for inclusion pretty clear, and the material speaks for itself. I shouldn't need to cite policy, because all I've done is add relevant content that is in the scope of the article. Zambelo; talk 03:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
So are you both refusing mediation? Zambelo; talk 04:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
feel free to add your name. Zambelo; talk 04:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
In reference to this edit. It removes these sources:
And introduces these sources:
I think this edit goes against WP:FRINGE. It removes the mainstream position and it introduces a fringe position from fringe sources and from sources of unknown reliability. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 17:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm, I don’t see the need for all the personal attacks based on one editor’s poorly sourced comment. Even as of 1995, reliable sources reported on allegations of shooting from helicopters. Doubtless more have since then, including referring to various primary sources below. Listed below, in order of occurrence in chapter 5 of the book, are excerpted quotes and some summaries about evidence of firing from helicopters. As copyright holder I approve my use of quotes from the book on this talk page.
So people who want to research all this further and enter the info should feel free to. I don't have time or energy myself. User:Carolmooredc 01:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
This article mentions shootings and killings from helicopters http://www.thefarm.org/lifestyle/albertbates/akbwaco.html it's already used as a source in the article altough for another issue. 195.49.42.250 ( talk) 12:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
A NPOV article would state the rationale for the seige, the consequences of the seige, and the cause of those consequences (a fire, which the evidence indicates was started by the Davidians). Instead, we have an article ruled by fringe/ideological sources intended to portray the USG negatively, which makes blatantly biased statements like the idea that "child abuse" (read: mass (statutory) rape) charges against the Davidians were "unsubstantiated." Steeletrap ( talk) 22:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
At present the last paragraph of the lead includes "a government investigation falsely concluded in 2000 that sect members themselves had started the fire".
Which government investigation? I saw that both a Texas Rangers and the Danforth Report were in 2000 but neither of them have a conclusion on the origins of the fire.
Who claims the investigation's conclusion is false and what evidence do they have of this?
Ideally, the WP:LEAD summarizes what's in the body of the article in such a way that readers can find extra material or support for statements made in the lead. The use of "falsely" in the lead also appears to violate WP:NPOV as mentioned in WP:LEAD. -- Marc Kupper| talk 04:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
zulaika
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite report}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
A note on edit 20:52, 11 March 2010 Enric Naval (restore 50 caliber rifles, they are in the source and they are important for some claims about davidians having weapons of that caliber).
In short, there is evidence the Davidians had .50 caliber rifles; there is no evidence they fired those rifles. Naaman Brown ( talk) 15:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't say there is "no evidence" that a .50 was fired. Several agents testified to hearing what they thought was the fifty. One agent claimed to be able to identify the sound of the fifty from his military experience. It was an issue the prosecution tried to establish but there was no physical evidence entered such as a discharged case with firing pin indention. The only physical evidence entered was the fact that the two fifty cal. rifles were recovered. One of those had a cooked off round chambered (Discharged, no firing pin mark). The defense established that. I would say the evidence hinges on the credibility of those witnesses. From my reading of the testimony, I believe it is likely that at least one fifty cal. was used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.224.113 ( talk) 11:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I came to this article for reference purposes... I am active in other parts of Wikipedia and not familiar with the ways you do things in this sort of article.
However, I am a bit taken aback by the side bar which lays out some bare facts as if it were a Military Action - with "Belligerents", "Commanders", "Casualties and losses" side by side as if they have objective equal status... "Belligerents" is a war-word... [See "bellum" Latin for war in Wiktionary...]
I am fully aware that Police/Law officers often lapse into war-speak... But that sort of metaphorical/imagistic language is serving their particular purposes... Purposes that should NOT be imported uncritically into Wikipedia, if it is going to maintain its credibility.
Perhaps I just don't know the conventions being used in this part of Wikipedia... This is the first time I've seen this set-up in the sidebar... Perhaps I can find others if I try... [OK...I've looked and this seems to be the Standard Layout for outlining Civil Wars at least... And I find no other Police Actions to have this set-up...] But at this point, I have the gut feeling that it is set up that way by people with an un-Wikipedian agenda...
Please, someone else who knows better than I, comment on this and settle my mind... Thanks Emyth ( talk) 14:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Col Thomas R. Lujan, JAG, "
Legal Aspects of Domestic Employment of the Army", Parameters US Army War College Quarterly, Autumn 1997, Vol. XXVII, No. 3.
Naaman Brown (
talk)
18:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
One edit inserted this: "two by fire from ATF agents, and two athe the hands of the Davidians themselves (ref)"No Heroes" Danny O Coulson & Elaine Shannon ISBN: 0-671-02062-5(/ref)". At first I thought that maybe the Davidians shot each other by accident (
friendly fire), but the No Heroes book seems to be a conspiracy book. Is this some crackpot theory about FBI agents infiltrated among the Davidians?
It was written by a former FBI member with very good credentials [1], but I still would like to know the details of how they killed each other. Does the book explain how it happened? -- Enric Naval ( talk) 09:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Danny Coulson was founder of the FBI HRT and was a top official within the FBI in both the Ruby Ridge and Waco affairs. I read the book over ten years ago. As I recall, he was pretty critical of government handling of both cases. Coulson was also criticised by DOJ OPR over his role in approval of the Ruby Ridge Rule of Engagement.
British Davidian Winston Blake was shot within his bedroom next to the outside vinyl water tanks which were shot up in the raid. The surviving Davidians claim he was hit when the ATF shot up the water tanks (see Waco: The Rules of Engagement); ATF claimed he was shot by another Davidian; the medical examiner who autopsied his body when it was returned to UK contested the US autopsy: there was no peppering of his face with GSR and the bullet hit sideways, which is consistent with the Davidian explanation, inconsistent with him being shot in a small room by a fellow Davidian. (But it is consistent with a stray bullet from either side.)
Perry Jones (Koresh's father-in-law) was wounded in the stomach by ATF in the raid; ATF and FBI would not allow the Davidian dead and wounded to be evacuated without a total surrender by the group, so it is believed Perry Jones may have shot himself to end his misery. The dead were buried by the Davidians on the grounds which is why Blake's body survived the fire for autopsy in UK.
When claims "the Davidians shot their own" come up, Blake and Jones are usually named. Naaman Brown ( talk) 21:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
In the Ruby Ridge standoff, a tank-and-gas attack was planned. According to the DoJ OPR Ruby Ridge Task Force Report 10 Jun 1994, the 22 Aug 1922 operation plan submitted from the site to FBI HQ included the following:
5. The following day the APCs will return and again order the suspects to surrender. 6. If no compliance, the APCs will begin dismantling the outlying buildings by ramming them. 7. If no compliance, tear gas will be deployed into the main house.[567] 567. Crisis Center Log, August 22, 1992, entering at 4:50 p.m. (EDT). The Log also stated that weather was a major factor and that the plan was scheduled to commence late that afternoon but might be pushed back because of weather conditions. Concern was raised about the deployment of gas into the residence because of the high degree of risk to small children and the possibility that a one year old baby was inside.
The first announcement to the Weavers by HRT Commander Dick Rogers (who was also HRT Commander ar Waco) was a threat to push the Weaver cabin off the cliff with an armored personnel carrier (a threat that appalled FBI chief negotiator Fred Lanceley). The armored vehicle and gas attack plan was rejected by FBI HQ in part because introduction of gas into the residence was an unacceptable risk to the children (ages 16 years, 10 years and 10 months old). Naaman Brown ( talk) 10:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The siege was directed by William S. Sessions, Director of the FBI, and his two top subordinates, Larry Potts and Floyd Clarke. Sessions was later fired by President Bill Clinton on July 19, 1993 after Sessions refused to resign in the wake of a scathing investigation report by the Justice Department on several ethics violations, which were unrelated to the Waco siege. (ref) http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Business-general/FBI-Director-Sessions-fired-over-ethics-charges-AIDS-co-discoverer-faces-new-charges.html(/ref) Sessions was eventually replaced as FBI Director by Bush-appointed judge Louis Freeh.
I removed this from the lede as Undue Emphasis on the "ethics violations" of William Sessions "unrelated to the Waco siege." Sounds more like a hatchet job on Sessions with emphasis on mentioning "Clinton" and "Bush" as much as possible than as an apropriate item for a lede.
A lede in a Wikipedia entry should be like the abstract of an academic article: very short intro, summary and conclusions, and should reflect the overall gist of the article, without undue emphasis on side issues.
Previously dropped from the lede (by reinstating the above) was a similar political statement that the raid was ordered by Bill Clinton as detailed on pages 497-499 of Bill Clinton, My Life (Random House, Knopf, Vintage, 2004, 2005). This article covers the raid of 28 Feb, siege of 1 Mar to 18 Apr, and final attack of 19 Apr. Clinton claims he ordered the final gas and tank attack 19 Apr. Any of these issues belong in the detail of the raid, siege or attack; the Sessions material and appointment of Freeh to replace Sessions in the aftermath. In the lede they constitute undue emphasis. Naaman Brown ( talk) 10:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
You have to realize reading the various government whitewashes and anti-government conspiracy theories that "wrong doing" is a legal term that like "libel" requires a showing of actual malice aforethought to stick in court. A lot of things were done wrong at Waco and policies and training were changed in response. ATF training now emphasises "dynamic entry raid" as a last resort; after a near-mutiny among Special Forces at Ft Hood and Ft Bragg over requests by ATF for Waco, the Army War College published guidelines for military commanders receiving requests for assistance from law enforcement agencies (JAG Col Lujan advised commanders to do their own investigation before blindly granting requests because ATF lied about Koresh operating a meth lab); the 1995 GOA "Use of Force" report noted the standardization of Deadly Force policy among all federal agencies (before 1995 you could have a multi-agency task force where under the same situation agents from one agency would hold fire and agents from another agency could open fire) and in 1995 ATF SRTs were not allowed to use full automatic weapons; the HRT was reorganized under the CIRG, with the tactical commander and the head negotiator reporting as equals to the crisis trained CIRG head as site commander (at Waco and Ruby Ridge, the head negotiator reported to the HRT Commander and the local SAC was technically site commander but deferred to the HRT Commander since most SACs did not have crisis training); at Waco both Blue and Gold HRT teams were sent to the same site leaving no HRT resources if a prison riot or bank hostage situation came up, which created an artificial pressure to solve the situation tactically (today resources are kept in reserve); at Waco HRT tactical hung a bra on negotiator Fred Lanceley's car and otherwise disrespected the negotiators (including Bryon Sage and Peter Smerick) and acted to punish the Davidians after they made concessions to the negotiators. But none of the mis-steps at Waco arise to the level of the legal definition of "wrong doing", nothing to see here folks, move along, move along. Naaman Brown ( talk) 11:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I made two edits to this section. First, I removed the statement, Interviews with Koresh's surviving followers reveal that he was intimately versed in the Bible and "knew it like he wrote it." This has a clear bias (either in favor of Koresh or against Christian scripture) and has nothing to do with the context it was placed in.
After rereading the section, I decided to remove the whole paragraph, On August 5, 1989, Koresh (at that point still legally named Vernon Howell) released the "new light" audiotape in which Koresh stated he'd been told by God to procreate with the women in the group to establish a "House of David" of his "Special People." This involved married couples in the group dissolving their marriages and agreeing that only Koresh could have sexual relations with the wives. [1]. I am not sure what this has to do with weapons charges.
— Cappadocian330. Talk— 02:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Those factoids were not relevent to the weapons charge but were relevent to the history and the overall story and should have been moved rather than removed. One, the ATF raid and the FBI siege followed strategies developed from dealing with drug houses, prison riots and bank robbery hostage standoffs (where the subjects knew they were guilty): in dealing with politically or religiously motivated subjects, those tactics antagonize the situation; the religious motivations of the standoff are part of the story. Two, government expert Henry Ruth who reviewed the Waco report for the Treasury Dept., stated part of the motivation at the ATF was to enforce the morals of our society, the psyche of right thinking, by retaliating against these odd people. One of the things that made them odd and was contrary to the morals of society and the psyche of right thinking was the "New Light" revelation preached by Vernon Howell (later known as David Koresh). Naaman Brown ( talk) 11:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I notice Category:Conspiracy theory has been added; where is the Category:Cover-up and Category:Whitewash? Naaman Brown ( talk) 10:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The following excerpt needs citations:
Before the raid, Rick Ross advised the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) that arresting Koresh at Mt. Carmel in the presence of his followers would likely provoke a violent response. Joyce Sparks, an investigator from the Texas agency responsible for child protective services also advised ATF against such action.
This edit said that "[they] wished to "outdo" tragic events like the 1992 Los Angeles riots, the siege in Waco, and the Oklahoma City bombing." [2] The nearest reference I could find is: "They had originally planned their attack for April 19, the anniversary of the Oklahoma City Bombing. They said in their writings that they intended to 'top the body count' of McVeigh's bombing in their attack to their school.". The Psychology of Terrorism: Clinical aspects and responses (pages 159-160) I can't find any secondary source mentioning that the columbine killers mentioned Waco, or giving any relevance to a possible relationship or inspiration. Columbine was inspired in the Oklahoma bombings, which in turn were inspired by Waco, but I can't find a source making a direct connection from Waco to Columbine.
A 946 pages PDF file was also presented as a source, but no page number was provided, see Talk:Waco_Siege/Archive_3#cite_64_jefferson_county_sheriff.27s_office_columbin_documents. For the IP that keeps inserting the statement, please provide a secondary source or point to a specific page inside the pdf. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 15:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Re-reading the Texas Rangers, Investigative Report Branch Davidian Evidence September 1999 and Investigative Report #2 Branch Davidian Evidence January 2000.
While the Texas Rangers had custody of the Branch Davidian evidence, they found three Olympic Arms CAR-AR carbines with silencer tubes attached; no tests were made by the Texas Rangers to see if the silencers were functional or dummies or if the arms themselves had been modified to full automatic. An AR 9mm barrel was also found with a silencer tube installed. The bulk of the evidence labelled as silencers were metal tubes or wire mesh: raw material "believed to be used to make a silencer/suppressor".
Of some Branch Davidian evidence bagged by the FBI and labelled as "silencer" or "suppressor", the Texas Rangers found instead flash bang grenades in EXHNUMs 001037, 001383, 001525, 001892. EXHNUMs 000728, 002247 and 002248 (also labeled Q267, Q268 and Q269) are also mis-ID'd as silencers. EXNUM 001742 was a flash bang ID'd as a "smoke grenade". Most of the flash bang grenades appeared to be DEF TEC 25 distraction devices by DEF-TEC Corp., Rock Creek, Ohio, made for law enforcement and evidently discharged by the ATF in the raid on 28 Feb 1993. Not all of the evidence collected in the Branch Davidian case were things that belonged to the Branch Davidians. Also several items of evidence were given upto four different identification numbers refrencin the same item. Naaman Brown ( talk) 02:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
waco
Hi
Unfortunately the sources you give as refs are not the texas rangers or the DOJ reports. I have reverted the edits and hope you can correct the refs, I know it would have been easy for me to do them but think that it is best that you do it as I prefer to copy edit and maintian factual accuracy and wish to remain neutral on such things as the weapons and their use
The refs should be to the/those original documents not really Wikisource docs which could be altered from the original (I know its not going to happen probably)
[3] is the original DOJ document
I would point out though that the document does not itself contain references and there are other sources which state that these were ".50 cal barrels over 5 feet long" which would imply they were probably just barrels from larger .50 cal machine guns
To be honest after the lies in that DOJ document, concerning things such as stating there were no incendiary rounds used, it is hard to believe anything other than an original Texas Ranger document that showed what they actually found and the purposes of their use.
It is easy to assume that .50 cal is snipers rifle but this is not backed up anywhere else as far as i know
thanks
Chaosdruid ( talk) 03:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
It is based in the press release of the Treasury Dept. [15]. Indeed, it doesn't specifically list .50 caliber rifles, but it does list "6 assorted rifles". The linked press release doesn't make any mention of a discordance between the Treasury report and other reports. Note:
The conclusion that there is a discrepancy is an unsourced analysis, and it's thus original research. Please find a secondary reliable source that explicitly says that there is a discrepancy. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 17:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Referencing the Texas Rangers, Investigative Report Branch Davidian Evidence September 1999 and Investigative Report #2 Branch Davidian Evidence January 2000. released online September 1999 and January 2000. (I included links to the individual PDFs at the Texas Rangers website in the Waco Siege page years ago; they were removed, but there is still a link to the index that can be used to navigate to the documents: "Texas Department of Public Safety, Texas Rangers Branch Davidian Evidence Reports")
Texas Ranger Branch Davidian Evidence Report September 1999 concludes with the letter from AUSA Bill Johnston to USAG Janet Reno advising her that contrary to FBI reports beginning 1993, there was evidence that the FBI HRT had used incendiary rounds 19 Apr 1993. The federal government publicly denied for years using incendiary devices, then in 1999 only admitted to using the ones found by the Texas Rangers.
Branch Davidian Evidence included 40mm grenades as fired from military grenade launchers. Exhibits labelled Q279 and Q280 were identified by the Texas Rangers as metal 40mm Sound & Flash grenades by NICO Pyrotechnik (Germany); rifling marks indicated they had been fired from grenade launchers. NICO claims the 40mm S&F rounds were shipped to a distributor who claims he sold fifty to the FBI HRT. Tests by NICO found the 40mm S&F will ignite gasoline vapor. The S&F while possibly incendiary is not a tear gas round.
Branch Davidian Evidence labelled Q1237 (shell casing) was identified by the Texas Rangers as from an M651 incendiary military CS gas cartridge identical to a metal 40mm tear gas grenade shown in a photograph taken 19 Apr 1993 by the Rangers. (The FBI siezed the Rangers' photographs and when they were returned several film rolls were missing.) Ranger Sgt. George Turner was advised by FBI agent Rick Crum that the M651 had been fired 19 Apr 1993 "in an attempt to knock a door down so gas could be dispensed." The military manual acquired by the Texas Rangers warned that the M651 may malunction and explode on impact and is a known firestarter. M651 burns at ~700 degrees F for ~30 seconds and in tests will ignite paper and cloth, as well as kerosene or gasoline vapors. It was described to the Texas Rangers by an FBI agent as a "thumper road" used to knock down doors. (One later FBI account was that three incendiary tear gas rounds (presumably all M651) were used 19 Apr 1993.)
Branch Davidian Evidence included numerous plastic 40mm CS "Ferret" tear gas shell casings, expended grenades and trashbags filled with empty boxes for the Ferret Liquid CS SGA-400 barricade penetrating cartridge (some estimates are that 400+ Ferret rounds of 37mm police and 40mm military varieties were fired 19 Apr 1993). Although plastic, the Ferret round will penetrate plywood residential doors, but unlike the M651 it does not use an explosive or burning compound to disperse gas.
These 40mm grenade rounds (the NICO S&F, the M651 and the Ferret) may cause death or greivous bodily harm to individuals in the line of flight, but they do not constitute "small arms fire" directed from the FBI toward thr Davidians as defined in the Danforth Report. The S&F and M651 can ignite flammable vapors (the M651 can set fire to an ordinary sofa). While they were found in the collected Branch Davidian Evidence they were not property of the Davidians, but had been fired by the FBI on 19 Apr 1993.
For further reading, in Appendix G of the Treasury Report on Waco the chief historian for federal law enforcement details federal sieges with political/religious groups that ended in fire. Naaman Brown ( talk) 12:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I cited the Texas Rangers (Texas Dept of Public Safety) website; I am not familiar with CESNUR or apfn.com. My research started with writing an op-ed in 1994 so a lot of my sources were pre-Internet, either print or VHS tape (eg. the CBS piece on M651 that included Bryon Sage). Naaman Brown ( talk) 11:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The article currently states:
Koresh said during the siege that he could destroy the Bradleys, so they were supplemented with two M1A1 Abrams tanks and five M728 Combat Engineer Vehicles.
There is reason to believe that Vernon Howell (VH aka "David Koresh") believed the threat that would destroy the Bradley fighting vehicles was Biblical or supernatural, not a physical means of destruction.
In the Book of Revelations, Chapters 5 and 6, at the end of the world the Lamb of God would be given a book sealed with seven seals and would open the seals one by one to bring about the Apocalypse:
Before VH even joined much less led the group, the Branch Davidian (BD) had taught that the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse represented Adolph Hitler and WWII (white), Joseph Stalin and the Cold War (red), the One World government under the UN (black) and various plagues and disasters of the latter half of the 20th century (pale). In BD theology, the Apocalypse was already underway and the first four seals were already broken: the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse had already ridden forth.
To VH, the ATF raid on Mount Carmel Center (MCC) 28 Feb 1993 was the fulfillment of the Fifth Seal, the deaths of the martyrs. (About 500 apocalyptic millennial cults existed in America as 1999-2000-2001 approached, and the US DOJ publication Operation Meggido
Project Megiddo illustrated that the federal government was actively preparing to respond.)
When VH spoke to the FBI negotiators about the Seven Seals, the negotiators were initially confused; they could not recall aquatic mammals in the Bible except maybe the whale that swallowed Jonah. Cult expert Rick Ross had advised the FBI to have a negotiator who understood the biblical context of the Davidian's beliefs; the FBI were contemptuous of what they called "bible babble."
When the angel opens the Sixth Seal, Revelations says there will be a great earthquake. According to BD prophesy, that earthquake would burst the dam at Lake Waco and reveal the original site of Mount Carmel taken from BD prophetess Florence Houteff by the state of Texas in the 1950s. VH predicted to the FBI negotiators that Lake Waco Dam would burst in the near future. The negotiators took that to mean BD supporters were plotting to blow up the dam and precautions were taken (much like the reaction to VH's threat against the Bradley fighting vehicles). Naaman Brown ( talk) 09:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC) correction see strike-thru. At the time of the Waco raid, it was pointed out several times that federal law enforcement was gearing up to respond to apocalyptic groups at the millenium. The preparations preceded the formal report. Naaman Brown ( talk) 12:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
This article is missing one, i can remember dozens of tv series referencing to this! -- 85.146.181.187 ( talk) 21:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
This article had a "In Popular Culture" section that degenerated into a list of trivia (much of which on close examination was related more to incidents like Jim Jones and Jonestown than to the Waco Siege). Popular TV shows like "X-Files" or "Criminal Minds" have mentioned Waco (even the "Simpsons" have parodied this tragedy) in a plotline. Beyond the "In the Line of Duty: Ambush at Waco" TV movie (which was later disowned by the screenwriter Phil Penningroth) there have been few truly notable pop culture references and hundreds of useless ones. Even though I contributed to the old pop culture section, I am not particularly sad to see it gone. Naaman Brown ( talk) 22:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Enric
I am a little concerned that the text you removed "(However, the conversations about spreading fuel are timed hours before the fire.)" and the entry you put in the timeline show a MASSIVE difference in times as well as different context. The timeline entry now shows the FBI saying that the "fire" comments are less than half an hour before fire breaks out instead of the previous text which says "spreading fuel" and "hours".
I think you must restore this text and add a {{cn}} tag. It may be that the ref "Fuentes" contains that information and as such should not hav been removed. Also there is the problem that the two events are not the same event, one spreading fuel and one starting the fire. diff [28]
Chaosdruid ( talk) 08:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
As Alan Stone pointed out, understanding the minds of the besiegers was just as important as understanding the minds of the besieged at Waco. During the FBI siege, the HRT tactical team treated these religiously motivated people as they had treated common criminals in prison riot or bank robbery situations. In particular the FBI HRT tactical team actions backfired and even HRT Commander Dick Rogers admitted at later Congressional hearings that instead of forcing the BDs out, his confrontational tactics drove them together.
In the Waco trial: "the jury heard comments made by Clinton Van Zandt, a behavioral science specialist for the FBI, when he was asked for his assessment of Rogers. "I think he believed very strongly in himself," Van Zandt said, "in his ability in the use of force. He saw negotiations as getting in the way. He is a strong proponent and advocate of tactical resolutions to situations." Houston Chronicle 6/27/00 Jim Henderson."
At the time the Ruby Ridge Siege (21-31 Aug 1992) was reported, VH openly speculated that it was a dress rehearsal for a federal raid on MCC. With BATF's 30 July 1992 rejection of his offer to come out and inspect his guns and paperwork, the treatment of the Weaver family one month later confirmed VH's suspicions about the federal government being Victor Houteff's antitype of Satanic Babylon. FBI behaviour during the siege fit the BD suspicions.
BD Clive Doyle has stated: "Everytime we thought we were cooperating, people were coming out, or we were doing what they'd asked, we'd be punished, almost right after complying. The electricity being cut off, the music being played, all that kind of stuff just gave us the attitude they certainly did not mean what they were promising, that we couldn't trust them. Of course we're listening to their morning briefings on the radio. They were supposedly showing great concern for the childrens' welfare, that they were supposed to be the innocent parties, but ... the noises, the lights, all the things that went on for the next 50-odd days just confirmed in our minds they had no concern for our children at all, other than to get them away from us. Whatever they did to us the children were having to put up with as well. If they'd been concerned with the children, they wouldn't have done the raid [28 Feb 93].... There was one day when they buzzed the building with one of these jet helicopters, ... really noisy, ... really fast. They would buzz the building and everyone was kind of instinctively ducking. The next day, we hear this helicopter coming again and everyone starts ducking, just a reflex, and it went on for a little while, we began to wake up: there is no helicopter.... They'd recorded the thing, and were just playing it to us the next day.... Towards the end of the siege, I'd say the last week before the fire, anybody that came out of the building either legitimately or just to get fresh air had flashbangs lobbed at him, including Steve Schneider, who came out the front door on a negotiated rendezvous with a tank to pick up supplies. He picked up the stuff from the people in the tank, turned around and they threw two flashbangs at him at the front door. Scared the daylights out of him." Naaman Brown ( talk) 09:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Edward321 removed this as spam:
Economist and crisis consultant Randall Bell writes in his book Strategy 360, "Koresh was on amicable terms with the local sheriff. He could have been easily arrested or questioned during one of his frequent visits to town. Many people believe that, even if a simple phone call had been allowed between the sheriff and Koresh, the FBI's raid might not have occurred at all." (ref)Bell, Randall, Strategy 360, Owners Manual Press, 2008, isbn 9781933969169, page 223 (/ref)
The sheriff and the prosecutor for McClennan County felt Koresh would have responded to a call to come to the courthouse to discuss questions/problems (he had done so in the pass), but the raid was conducted by the ATF not the FBI who were called in only after the raid failed. I don't know if the quote qualifies as spam or not; the point could be better sourced to the sheriff or prosecutor, than to a consultant with limited knowledge of the case. Naaman Brown ( talk) 16:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I replaced this in prelude to the raid (28 Feb 93):
At least a week before the assault, the FBI had considered employing snipers to "eliminate" David Koresh, and other "key" Davidians(ref)((cite book|last=Churchill|first=Ward|coauthors=Jim Vander Wall|title=The COINTELPRO papers: documents from the FBI's secret wars against dissent in the United States|publisher=South End Press|date=2002|isbn=9780896086487|page=lxxix))(/ref).
with this in the siege section before the final assault:
One week prior to the 19 Apr 1993 assault, FBI planners considered using snipers to eliminate David Koresh and possibly other key Davidians.(ref)Lee Hancock, "No Easy Answers: Law Authorities Puzzle over Methods to End Branch Davidians Siege", Dallas Morning News, 15 Apr 1993.(/ref)
for reasons that should be obvious. Naaman Brown ( talk)
The article text uses the current ATF acronym and (mostly) the current name Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. At the time, the agency and most contempraneous commentators used the BATF acronym and the name Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. BATF should be retained in all titles and quotes from contemporaneous documents. Naaman Brown ( talk) 01:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I replaced the purported quote from Ramsey Clark because the included citation pointed to an LA Times article that contained no mention of Ramsey Clark at all, and certainly did not give the quote that was included in the article. Furthermore, the purported quote does not criticize or even mention the Danforth report. Rather, it criticizes the government's handling of the Branch Davidian crisis. (The bad reference is: [2])
I replaced with a quote from Ramsey Clark specifically referencing the Danforth report from a CNN report.
I deleted the paragraph beginning "The introduction to the Danforth Report notes..." because the included citation did not refer to a document that criticized the Danforth report. Rather, it referred to a Texas Ranger report that predates the Danforth reports. The Ranger report does not bear on the issue of "small arms fire". Therefore, this appears to be an inappropriate editorial comment.
I deleted a paragraph referring to a "sharp contrast" in a paper by Lujans in Parameters http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/parameters/Articles/97autumn/lujan.htm because (1) the paper is dated 1997, 3 years before the Danforth report and (2) it is not a "sharp contrast" to the Danforth report. Rather, it states that a Posse Comitatus violation could have occurred, but did not because the Army officers were sufficiently vigilant. Incidentally, the previous ref is broken.
I deleted the previous topic sentence for this section because it suggested more criticisms than are justified by the two remaining citation.
Jeffrw ( talk) 12:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
"12:06, 28 August 2010 Leszek Jańczuk (talk | contribs) m (128,970 bytes) (Reverted 2 edits by Jeffrw identified as vandalism to last revision by 76.94.42.224. (TW)) (undo)"
In [30] it was stated that there were flamethrower tanks, with considerable evidence. We know YouTube isn't regarded as reliable, but the whole internet isn't completely reliable, and that doesn't mean everything displayed on it isn't reliable. Similarly, some things on YouTube can be reliable while others arn't. And besides, doesn't the amount of evidence matter more than the website it is written on? We want good information from all sources, not all information from good sources. 173.183.69.134 ( talk) 04:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
It would be nice if people would locate and read the cited sources before editing in their opinions. 26 Oct 2010 IP editor 131.6.84.110 changed "ATF personnel" to "the Branch Davidians" which does not match the cited source, Albert K. Bates, "Showtime at Waco", Communities Magazine, Summer 1995, which states: "As the assault team climbed to the roof, the lead agent on one ladder reached for his pistol and accidentally discharged it while still in the holster, wounding himself in the leg. The shot may have sounded to agents and reporters in the front of the building as if it had come from within the compound." I changed this to match the cited source. http://www.thefarm.org/lifestyle/albertbates/akbwaco.html
There are several reasons to suspect that the first shot may have come from the ATF. The first four ATF agents interviewed by Texas Rangers believed the first shots were the dog team shooting the dogs. ATF Ballestros heard a gun shot off to the side before shots either entered or exited the front door. After the shooting there was found a hole in the radiator of the second ATF truck facing the rear of the first ATF horse trailer used to transport the raid force. The written raid plans included diversionary gun fire from the helicopters. The possibility of a first shot by ATF causing panicked firing by the ATF and/or the Davidians cannot be discounted by editing a cited statement to contradict the cited source. Naaman Brown ( talk) 14:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
As always someone has to correct the media. This event never happened in the city of Waco Texas. Instead, as listed, it was Mount Carmel. Do not confuse the two. I have lived here all my life and in no way did this nor anything like this ever happened here. The article should be changed to say The Mount Carmel Siege 15 miles from Waco. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leeme 1958 ( talk • contribs) 19:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
During the cource of the siege members of the US and UK special forces were sent to Mount Carmel to 'observe and advise' the FBI and to help bring about an end to the situation. The 12 special forces men, 2 British SAS and 10 US Delta (Combat Applications Group, 1stSFOD-D) were part of Task Force 88, a top secret counter-terror unit. On the last day of the siege senior government officals approved the use of TF88 in storming the compound instead of using the FBI HRT unit with was 'fatigued and under strength' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.255.196.165 ( talk) 18:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Editor IP 76.186.27.145 added the last two paragraphs 23:53 6 Feb 2011. Ckatz excised the addition 07:50 7 Feb 2011 with comment (Uncited). The paragraph left standing was also uncited.
The applied standard appears to be that incriminatory accusations against the Davidians can stand uncited, but exculpatory evidence requires citations and all the rules on verifiable sources considered reliable.
The Waco siege article should be kept factual to avoid becoming either a whitewash or a conspiracy theory. If you add to the article, please cite a verifiable, reliable source; if you believe an addition to the article requires citation, use the citation needed flag and allow reasonable time for the addition to be properly cited. Adding without citation and deleting without noting citation needed are equally discourteous. Naaman Brown ( talk) 12:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Move to Waco siege per consensus and guidelines, no consensus to change title beyond capitalization. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 01:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Waco Siege → Waco siege — Page title is not a proper noun and should be changed per WP:CAPS. Also interested in discussing whether this is the best title per WP:COMMONNAME. Woodshed ( talk) 06:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
This page should be moved to Waco siege per WP:CAPS, as "Waco Siege" is not a proper name.
But I'd also like to bring this before editors to discuss if there's a better name for the page. There was a non-robust move discussion in 2006 — see Talk:Waco Siege/Archive 1.
I'm wondering if there's really one "common name" phrase in the public consciousness that describes this event.
Terms like Ruby Ridge, Heaven's Gate and Jonestown all became synonymous with the government/private conflicts that made national headlines. I don't think, in this case, Mount Carmel (the compound location — not in Waco) really did. Nor Branch Davidians, though I'd guess more people could recall the latter if asked. Most probably refer to it colloquially as "Waco" (or maybe Waco incident).
The problems with the article title, to me, are:
Googling combinations of Waco / Mount Carmel / Branch Davidians, and words like "siege," "standoff" and "raid" (probably the three top contenders), I'm not overwhelmed — or even whelmed — by any clear trend.
I have no strong opinions, I hope it's clear. Article titles to consider might be Montana Freemen, YFZ Ranch, as well as the aforementioned Ruby Ridge, Heaven's Gate and Jonestown. If I had my druthers, I would vote for Branch Davidian standoff or Mount Carmel standoff for consistency (using either the name of the group or the location of the incident in the title).
Ultimately, it may be, as WP:TITLE says, "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." Woodshed ( talk) 05:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Waco TX is not alone in unwanted notoriety. The Lillelid murders usually link to Greeneville TN simply because Greeneville was the nearest large city and was the location of the trial (even though the murders occurred in a rural area off Highway 81 when a Goth cult from Pikesville KY carjacked a family from Knoxville TN in transit). The Lillelid murders have become commonly associated with Greeneville. The raid on Mt. Carmel Center has become commonly associated with Waco.
The article has been entitled "Waco Siege" since it became an article 12 Feb 2006 and the events (ATF raid 28 Feb 1993, FBI standoff 1 Mar--18 Apr, FBI gas-and-tank assault 19 Apr) have been referred to as as a "siege" and as the "Waco Siege" in other media.
PBS - "chronology of the siege" ABC News - "the Waco Siege" TIME "The Waco Siege"
Changing a WP name long established, esp. if the name is commonly used in reference to the event elsewhere (Waco Siege, Colfax Massacre, Hindenburg Disaster, Reichstag Fire), ought not be done lightly.
A valid conflict could be the fact WP style is Capital Location lowercase event regardless of usage in other media. The events in the WP article "Colfax massacre" created 28 Mar 2004 are referred to as "Colfax Massacre" in other media (such as discussion at a lawyer blog of a recent book Charles Lane "The Day Freedom Died" 2008). Same with the WP article on "Reichstag fire" usually referred to in other media as the "Reichstag Fire". Similar WP "Hindenburg disaster" or Hindenburg disaster is commonly referred to as the "Hindenburg Disaster" elsewhere. Naaman Brown ( talk) 14:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I am restoring cause of death of Dayland Gent to stabbing, the official government COD, from the edit of 23:53 25 Feb 2011 by Moparchris with comment (Autopsies: changed stabbed to shot in relation to shootings.)
"Autopsy records indicate that at least 20 Davidians were shot, including five children under the age of 14, and three-year-old Dayland Gent was stabbed in the chest." Kristina King, "The Waco Incident", investigative documentary.
"Dayland Gent, Mt. Carmel Does 33 and 47 B: The Autopsy Report for Mt. Carmel Doe 33, identified as three year old Dayland Gent, tells us nothing about the conditions under which the remains were recovered. "The body is presented to the county morgue secured in a blue body bag . . ." Dayland is said to have died of a stab wound to the left chest. .... According to official recovery map (Remains Recovered from the Concrete Room), the first set of Dayland's remains was picked up on April 22, and given the number Mt. Carmel Doe 33. Then, according to the same map, more of Dayland Gent's remains were picked up with Mt. Carmel Doe 47: the Identification Matrix lists Mt. Carmel Doe 47 B as Dayland Gent (though there is no autopsy for 47 B)." Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum: Dismemberment and Agglutination
Since 1993-1994, COD of Dayland Gent has been listed as stabbing from sources citing the original autopsy report; there is no evidence to change it to shooting now. If there is evidence that Dayland Gent was shot rather than stabbed, one should present citable reliable sources. Naaman Brown ( talk) 12:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
David Koresh is mentioned in the inroducion only as Koresh, but it makes no menton of him prior to this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.186.215 ( talk) 04:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
The introductory paragraph states that 76 people died in the fire. The section "The Final Assault" states that 75 died. Could someone find which is correct and rectify this? Peng1pete ( talk) 01:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
There were 74 dead identified by name. Some accounts count the two pregnant women as four deaths. Some accounts count the unnamed foetus miscarried in the fire as a death, but not the unborn foetus. 74, 75, 76. Depends on definition of human life. Naaman Brown ( talk) 17:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
An edit to the info box Strength of the belligerents added to the Branch Davidian side (revision 9 Jan 2012, comment (Since when has 6+4+74+9=75?!))
Those are total numbers from Casualties and Losses 6 dead in the raid 28 Feb 93 4 surrendered 28 Feb 93 74 dead final assault 19 Apr 93 9 surrendered 19 Apr 93
On the four surrendered 28 Feb 93 my notes show: 1993 Feb 28 "A tape was sent out of MCC with two old ladies, Catherine Matteson and Magaret Lawson, and two young boys." The 4 surrendered include 2 children.
The 74 dead includes the children who died that day. Eighteen were age 12 or younger. Four were 1 year old. Four were 2 year old.
Since we are adding children and infants to the strength of belligerents in the info box, there were nineteen additional children surrendered during the siege in Mar 1993, which would make the belligerents present at the 28 Feb 93 raid 6+4+19+74+9 on the Davidian side. -- Naaman Brown ( talk) 17:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
According to the article, "ATF made a false claim that David Koresh was operating a methamphetamine lab, in order a drug nexus and obtain military assets under the 'War on Drugs'."
First, the period should go inside the quotation marks. This point, however, is moot--why is this phrase set inside quotation marks?
More importantly, the citation given is a report that discusses the required circumstances to use military force inside of the US. The report says that "Under more recent legislation, the Army can provide equipment, training, and expert military advice to civilian law enforcement agencies as part of the total effort in the war on drugs....The principle example of the contentious nature of such support can be found in ... the support provided to the ATF by the Army under the operational control of JTF 6, during the siege and assault of David Koresh's Branch Davidian compound."
I don't know how to insert a "citation needed" tag. The referenced Army report does not mention anything about ATF making a false claim. Can someone please insert the tag?-- Lacarids ( talk) 17:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Like the presence of Delta Force personnel (not just vague "Special Forces"). -- Niemti ( talk) 22:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Could someone try to make a comprehensive summary of the entire article for the lead section? -- Niemti ( talk) 15:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Also, the article lacks an explaination of the group's beliefs of the imminent end of the world and Koresh prophecy of an apocalyptic final battle: http://www.religioustolerance.org/dc_branc2.htm#evbd which is quite essential. -- Niemti ( talk) 20:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Can amendments be made to the article changing statements about accidental fires being started, changing them to the fires started by the flame throwers on the Bradly assault vehicles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.165.98 ( talk) 03:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Bradley assault vehicles can't be fitted with flamethrowers. This volatile charge has long been refuted. 70.113.67.75 ( talk) 03:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
What's the point of having that on there?
-- Madocgwynedd ( talk) 07:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I've removed an edit which added "Waco massacre" to the lede as an alternate name. The relevant guidelines here are, I believe, that the alternative name should be "significant", per Wikipedia:Article titles#Treatment of alternative names (and, in a title context, the principle for this sort of thing is that a term should have "prevalence" before being considered, per WP:POVNAME).
It feels a little POV-pushy to me, especially since the editor added five references for the term: [3]
Breault and King
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Of the three references available online — which are all books about the incident — two of them only use the phrase "Waco massacre" once. The other uses it six times. An Amazon book search shows that the first ref, titled "Massacre at Waco", does not use the phrase at all. [42] The second reference uses it in the title, at least.
In an earlier move discussion, another user presented these figures:
which don't suggest to me that "Waco massacre" is a clear alternate title, at least not to the exclusion of several others. I would welcome any discussion on these points. Woodshed ( talk) 06:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Term | Google Books | Google Scholar |
---|---|---|
Waco siege | 3,420 | 401 |
Waco massacre | 732 | 114 |
Waco standoff | 934 | 168 |
Waco tragedy | 1,860 | 335 |
Waco incident | 2,380 | 283 |
Waco murders | 89 | 11 |
The Posse Comitatus Act rquires the president to sign a waiver allowing Federal troops and their equipment to be used in any law enforcement operation. Since the tanks and troops showed up on the first day of the raid, President Clinton must have signed the waiver sometime beforehand. It's reasonable to believe that he was briefed by federal agents on the reason that they were requesting the military personnel and eqpt and the dangers that would be associated with the raid. At this point, some background is needed to give context. In 1973, the American Indian Movement took over the town of Wounded Knee South Dakota, setting the stage for the longest siege in US history. Like Waco, the FBI showed up in force to break the occupation. It resulted in a shoot out. The number of dead and wounded was not nearly so great as Waco. Afterwards, Federal law enforcement came up with a doctrine for handling hold out situations involving persons who are not criminals in the usual sense but motivated by religious and or political beliefs. The doctrine is called "decapitation." By taking out the leader of the group first, the followers are left confused and uncertain what to do next. They are then easier to deal with. Someone involved with planning the raid on the Branch Davidian compound had to give the order to ignore established safety protocols by not arresting Koresh when he was alone and then moving in on the followers. To date, not one person associated with the planning stage has ever been identified, let alone come forward to make a public statement. Not one person has ever been publicly punished for ignoring safety protocols that were there for the benefit of the officers and the Branch Davidians. Retired Senator John C Danforth was appointed Special Counsel to investigate the incident. The so-called "Danforth Report" did not address the planning stages of the operation. Given the context of the situation, it appears that 1) Clinton knew what was going on and 2) approved it, knowing that it was putting the lives of all those children at risk. This is the one part of the incident that had to have happened and is not discussed by anyone. JPZingher ( talk) 03:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps User:Niemti can explain here why they are removing referenced material. Zambelo; talk 10:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Unrevelantly random (a whole lot of stupid crap about what some guy allegedly did or said during the siege but placed into the section discussing the events that led to the ADF raid), undue weight, distracting, unedited copypasta (totally evident, most of all by this circular link to "Waco siege"). But I'll admit you've got some nerve to push it like that and then try to deny the obvious. -- Niemti ( talk) 12:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Some guy who was in the media, a notable anti-cult guy who was part of the largest anti-cult group of the time, and who gave advice to the FBI and the ATF, while giving multiple interviews in the news, and all of this notable enough to appear in reputable academic sources about the siege as well as in a US department of Justice report to to the Deputy Attorney General? You keep on talking about copypasta - This is a draft page where I put together the material, some of it (a paragraph) was later copied from the Rick Ross article. Undoubtedly there are still some linking errors in it. You seem a little aggravated, maybe you should have a glass of water. Meanwhile, if other editors who are able to critique the material beyond "a whole lot of stupid crap", then we can continue onto more productive things. Zambelo; talk 13:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Enric Naval, what I'm trying to do is introduce valid and important events related to the WACO siege. If it makes the article unbalanced, then ok - it can be whittled down. Nonetheless the material belongs in the article, as it is consequential to the events. Rick Ross and the Cult Awareness Network are mentioned in government reports and in academic works relating to the siege. Both had appeared on numerous high profile News programs as "experts" leading up to the siege. Zambelo; talk 00:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
The material is relevant to the siege though. Zambelo; talk 01:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
How is it not relevant? It is clearly within the scope of the article. Also, I have cut it down a lot, responding to the issue of undue weight. Zambelo; talk 04:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
"Several writers have documented the pivotal role the Cult Awareness Network had upon the government's decision making concerning Waco". Sources include an official report to the depatment of Justice, academic sources, and numerous books specifically about the Waco siege. I think relevance is shown here. We aren' talking about a new hat here - this is how the CAN actively portrayed the Branch Davidians and Koresh to the government and to the media - this is documented not only through the primary media sources, and through a government report but also by "Several writers(who) have documented the pivotal role the Cult Awareness Network had upon the government's decision making concerning Waco". Relevance is clearly demonstrated. Zambelo; talk 21:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
What's your beef with that dude? Must be something personal. I don't think I as much as even ever heard of him despite reading quite a lot on the subject. Also, PROTIP: there was no 'siege' before the raid, and no significant (if any) FBI involvement at the time. -- Niemti ( talk) 02:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
There is no beef. Have you read the new content? It focuses on CAN, of which Rick Ross is a part, and which played an important and demonstrated part in the events leading up to the siege. Please refrain from removing referenced and relevant content. If you haven't heard of CAN, you must not know as much as you think about the subject - you should have a read through the numerous sources I provided, you may learn something new. Zambelo; talk 02:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Your repeated removal of the content without discussion is unproductive, and rude. Please stop and discuss changes or I will need to involve mediation. Zambelo; talk 02:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Are you now playing games with us or what? Do you think we'red stupid or something?Did you even read this crap you're pasting in here?
"In the weeks preceding the raid, self-described cult expert Rick Ross, a Cult Awareness Network affiliated deprogrammer appeared on major network programs such as the NBC [1] and the CBS which had hired Ross as an on-scene analyst for their coverage of the Waco siege. [2] Ross described his role in advertising authorities about the Davidians and Koresh, and what actions should be take to end the siege [3]. He was quoted as saying that he was consulted by the BATF [4] and he contacted the FBI on the March 4, 1993, requesting "that he be interviewed
And so forth, for several paragraphs of unrelared crap. Involve any mediation you want. -- Niemti ( talk) 02:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I have indeed involved mediation. You appear to be assuming a lot of bad faith, and have yet to demonstrate that any of it is "crap". Also, see Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing Zambelo; talk 02:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Haha, oh wow. I don't have patience for you, but hey, go and try and convince the other people here about how so important and totally relevant all this is to what led to the ATF raid. -- Niemti ( talk) 03:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Neither of you commented on any of the material I posted, beyond calling it "unrelated crap" and "copypasta" (in the case of Niemti). Neither of you have explained why the material doesn't belong in the article beyond a rather cryptic Justin Bieber reference. It is clear that you have no interest in any new material being added to the article beyond the edits you yourselves have added. I have outlined 1) Why the material is in the scope of the article 2) Which authors write about the importance CAN had in the events leading up to the raid 3) Provided referenced material (that Niemti has called "crap copypasta"). Neither of you have had the courtesy to discuss the content, or even comment on the changes I later made reflecting the discussion here. So clearly, if anyone isn't listening, it isn't me.
I have made my case for inclusion pretty clear, and the material speaks for itself. I shouldn't need to cite policy, because all I've done is add relevant content that is in the scope of the article. Zambelo; talk 03:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
So are you both refusing mediation? Zambelo; talk 04:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
feel free to add your name. Zambelo; talk 04:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
In reference to this edit. It removes these sources:
And introduces these sources:
I think this edit goes against WP:FRINGE. It removes the mainstream position and it introduces a fringe position from fringe sources and from sources of unknown reliability. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 17:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm, I don’t see the need for all the personal attacks based on one editor’s poorly sourced comment. Even as of 1995, reliable sources reported on allegations of shooting from helicopters. Doubtless more have since then, including referring to various primary sources below. Listed below, in order of occurrence in chapter 5 of the book, are excerpted quotes and some summaries about evidence of firing from helicopters. As copyright holder I approve my use of quotes from the book on this talk page.
So people who want to research all this further and enter the info should feel free to. I don't have time or energy myself. User:Carolmooredc 01:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
This article mentions shootings and killings from helicopters http://www.thefarm.org/lifestyle/albertbates/akbwaco.html it's already used as a source in the article altough for another issue. 195.49.42.250 ( talk) 12:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
A NPOV article would state the rationale for the seige, the consequences of the seige, and the cause of those consequences (a fire, which the evidence indicates was started by the Davidians). Instead, we have an article ruled by fringe/ideological sources intended to portray the USG negatively, which makes blatantly biased statements like the idea that "child abuse" (read: mass (statutory) rape) charges against the Davidians were "unsubstantiated." Steeletrap ( talk) 22:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
At present the last paragraph of the lead includes "a government investigation falsely concluded in 2000 that sect members themselves had started the fire".
Which government investigation? I saw that both a Texas Rangers and the Danforth Report were in 2000 but neither of them have a conclusion on the origins of the fire.
Who claims the investigation's conclusion is false and what evidence do they have of this?
Ideally, the WP:LEAD summarizes what's in the body of the article in such a way that readers can find extra material or support for statements made in the lead. The use of "falsely" in the lead also appears to violate WP:NPOV as mentioned in WP:LEAD. -- Marc Kupper| talk 04:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
zulaika
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite report}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)