Talk:Waco siege

FBI Sniper Plan

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)

ATF acronym and name

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)

Criticisms of Danforth report

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: )

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)

The quote was in the third page of the LA Times link. There are links at the bottom of the article to reach pages 2 and 3. -Enric Naval (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

If the link FBI chief hails new Waco report, CNN, July 21, 2000 to the quote from Clark becomes broken in the future, due to CNN rearranging their archives, I think it would be inappropriate to remove the material.

Remove of material cited by author, title, publication, date and link, just because the link has been moved, is bad editing: the new link was easily found: http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/parameters/Articles/97autumn/lujan.htm Lujan, Thomas R. "Legal Aspects of Domestic Employment of the Army." US Army War College, Parameters, Autumn 1997. pp. 82-97.

Lujan is described not as "sharply critical" but as a "sharp contrast" on the Posse Commitatus issue. Lujan pre-dates Danforth. Lujan is a source on criticism of the treatment of the Posse Commitatus issue in Danforth precisely because it is a US Army lawyer describing Posse Comitatus issues in relation to Waco before Danforth. Also, Lujan reads like an independent investigation, Danforth reads like a prosecutor's brief.

Links change frequently. Here the Army War College moved lujan.htm from parameters/97autumn to parameters/Articles/97autumn. When I find broken links, especially if the source is cited by Author, Title, Publication, Date and Page, I try to check to see if the source has been relinked (or to see if the source is temporarily down and unavailable, or some such glitch) and update others links accordingly; I don't delete their material. Deletion of material that others may have spendt time on just because a link doesn't work today would remove a lot of content from Wikipedia, Britannica and World Book. There are more sources than the Internet, including hard copy of Parameters in reference libraries.

It is also a Wikipedia custom to propose extensive changes to an article in Talk, in order to reach concensus with the other editors. Naaman Brown (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I should have fixed the link rather than simply deleting. That was bad of me. Nevertheless, the original vaguely worded paragraph simply cannot stand. You cannot imply that Lujan was responding to the treatment of Posse Commitatus in Danforth. He hadn't even seen it. All you can say is "The Danforth report contradicts an earlier paper by Lujan".

But you can't even say that. Having read it, Lujan's paper does not sharply contradict the claim that no Posse Commitatus violation occurred. Quite the opposite. If you wish to rewrite the paragraph to specifically quote what he says, that's fine. Or you might say something along the lines of "Lujan sharply criticizes the attempt of BATF to involve the military, but states that the Army officers involved wisely avoided a violation of Posse Commitatus". In any case, he doesn't belong in a section titled "Criticisms of the Danforth Report", a title which implies specific responses to the report.

Regarding Wikipedia customs: (1) Wikipedia encourages "bold editing". (2) I did not believe this to be an extensive change. (3) I believe that classifying an edit as "vandalism" is generally precluded when the editor includes an explanation in the talk section.

I realize Waco is a touchy subject, that's why the article should be as well-written and accurate as possible.

Jeffrw (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Jeffrw

Your quote "vandalism"; my quote "Remove of material ... just because the link has been moved, is bad editing...." Please do not put in quotes words I did not use, even if used in scare quotes rather than direct quotes. I have seen edits proposed in Talk sections on other touchy subject pages weeks or months before they were done, allowing time for comment.

Since the Danforth Report states it was looking at the two big questions about the 19 Apr 1993 FBI HRT gas and tank assault (a) did FBI use small arms fire (bullets) and (b) did FBI cause the fire and Danforth addresses Posse Commitatus concerns seconardily, and since Lujan discusses Posse Comitatus concerns in the build up to the 28 Feb 1993 ATF raid directly, I would accept removal on the grounds Lujan discusses Posse Comitatus relevant to the ATF Feb Raid, and does not discuss the FBI Apr Assualt which is the focus of the Danforth Report. But not on the grounds an ephemeral link flitted away, because a link can be like a Mayfly.

BTW, do not save links alone for research purposes. I have learned to download the file and tag it with the original link, in case the link disappears. Naaman Brown (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

If you change an original comment in response to a following comment, it is customary to strike-thru the old and insert the new matter. Naaman Brown (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The word "vandalism" is used in the page edit history, to which I was referring.

"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)"

I apologize to Naaman Brown for implying that this entry was due to him.

Jeffrw (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This never happened "in" Waco

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 confused to two. I have live here all my life and in no way did this nor anything like this ever happened here. The article should changed to say The Mount Carmel Siege 15 miles from Waco.