Talk:Waco siege

This entry also starts off with an upgrade to the "disputed facts" warning from the Branch Davidian page, since this article inherits the most contentious issues from that page. The transferred content is rife with inaccuracies and riddled by bias. Until the quality of this article is substantially improved, the warning should remain.--WacoKid 03:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Inflamatory and Prejudicial Language vs. NPOV

I think it's important that the article be written so that the truth about the siege is told. However it is important that citations are used. Not citations from third party conjecture but citations from primary sources like eyewitness interviews, news accounts and transcripts, and original government documents such as warrants affidavits and reports. Editors can use factual inaccuracies in government documents provided citations, including a link to the original source document as well as evidence of the stated error, are used. For instance my first edit to the document explained why the use of National Guard helicopters was illegal and I provided links including an Attorney's website, the wikipedia article on Posse Comitatus, and a United States Military fact card explaining the law (Used to explain the law to service men and women). I plan on revising the article fruther presenting evidence of how the FBI and ATF violated the law and botched the raid killing innocent women and children, but I do intend to cite my sources and research any claimed thoroughly before I save such edits, as well as goverment documents refuting any such findings. I welcome challenges to my research and findings as I think you will find that reliable and verifiable evidence that the ATF and FBI acted outside statutes and the Constitution and as a result the lives of innocent adults and children were lost.

First of all, you need to sign your comments, so we know who to play for a biased article. You come in on the pretense that you will be showing how the FBI broke the law, something which you could in no way ever really prove. You sound very self-righteous and now that you have found a few quotes and "an attorney's website" you think you have all the answers. You are blatantly biased and have no place editing in the wikipedia. Stop Me Now! 00:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If we only let unbiased users edit this would be an extremeley empty website. Everyones biased. It's a sad fact of life.

There was no child abuse? LOL!

Try asking someone who was actually there and not an outsider. I was one of the children who was taken away and placed in a home. The revisionist historians placing the Waco incident blame solely on the government is disgusting. If you knew anything about the way that **** Koresh operated. If you knew how he EMPLOYED CLASSIC CULT TACTICS. Ifsome of you conspiracy theory, tinfoil hat wearing people realized that the rest of my life is ruined and I WILL NEVER BE NORMAL. Then you would stop spouting off and sympathizing with CULT LEADERS. Some of you are always eager to blame the government for every little thing. Just because you sit comfortably from your home bedroom realize this is real life and hurt and killed many brainwashed, mentally messed up people!

I don't believe you. I have read a great deal of testimony by eye witnesses to various events and the way in which you typed your message (grammar, words, etc.) suggests to me that you were not one of the people at Waco. At least, not one of the people inside.

The way someone types has nothing to do with whether or not they were part of the Waco siege. Unless, of course, you frequently chat online with ALL surviving Waco victims. If you do, my apologies.

Two words to the origianl poster - Total Bullshit. The Kinslayer 14:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I really Don't see how people do sympathise with the davidians. The cult did follow a leader who raped kids old enough to be in middle school. Seriously, 12 years old is like 6th or 7th grade. But that isn't to say the BATF did a good job. Both parties really messed this event up. But that's my POV, and you all have yours. None of these arguments will make it into the article. Dboyz-x.etown 01:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

People here need to calm down. I mean first of all the originial post really has no place here. I am NOT agreeing with the people who keep just repeating "there was no child abuse", becuase personally my opinion is that that is complete bullshit fed to morons who can't think for themselves. However, the cost of having an encyclopedia like this is that all personal point of views must be left out of editing. In a situation like this, all possibly scenarios must be considered, no matter how much of one opinion is total BS. Oh yeah, and would you people please sign you comments. Stop Me Now! 00:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You are lying through your teeth. We need evidence to back up these upsubstantated claims of yours. What exactly were these "classic cult tactics?." Gothmog26 06:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Speculation, in the form of outrage, is speculation none the less. Ironicly, this is the same tactic that Reno used. If you want to explore this it would be best to find who told Reno about the abuse and fed her those classic lines.

-Atomical

Provide a source WK

You claim that the child abuse claim is false. Give a source about that, especially since you seem to have strong evidence. Otherwise, that whole sentence should be removed.

I didn't say the charges were false, I said the CPS investigation failed to substantiate them. The prior edit (not written by me) said that the charges were "unsubstantiated." You changed that to say "which some hold to be unsubstantiated," which I felt went too far in the other direction of carrying the implication, "which only some conspiracy nuts who believe David Koresh was a saint who did no wrong would hold to be unsubstantiated." I felt the CPS investigation was worth bringing up in this regard. I also carefully chose the language to not overstate the case. By not saying that the CPS "found the allegations to be unsubstantiated," but rather that they "failed to substantiate" the charges, I'm leaving it open whether that is because they were false and there was no substance to substantiate, or the investigation was incompetent, prematurely terminated, obstructed, Potemkined, or however one might choose to explain their lack of results. Sort of a "he wasn't found innocent, he was found not guilty" distinction. It also leaves it open for those who might want to believe that other evidence or investigations substantiate those allegations.

As for what the real truth about the child abuse accusations might be, that would be a rather involved topic. It would also depend on whether you were only talking about the claims of physical abuse, or including the issue of his adolescent brides. Certainly, I believe the stories of David's physical abuse, making it sound as if he was beating babies left and right, have been exaggerated. It saddens me that so many people who have never even met any of the Davidian children think they "know," based on seeing news reports written by reporters who themselves had not met any Davidian children, that there was abuse. --WacoKid 16:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

In the "Report to the Deputy Attorney General on the Events at Waco, Texas, February 28 to April 19, 1993" FBI Director Sessions stated that there was "no contemporary evidence" of child abuse. Reno later revised her statement to agree to this. Of course you raise a good point about whether child abuse in this case includes his adolescent brides or only physical abuse. I do believe, however, that the government in this case was referring to physical abuse since David Koresh admitted to having adolescent brides.

Reno's original justification for approving of the assault against Mt Carmel included her claim that Davidian "babies were being beaten". Even White House spokesman George Stephanopoulos claimed that there was "absolutely no question that there was overwhelming evidence of child abuse in the Waco compound." Under oath Reno admitted she had no evidence whatsoever of any Davidian children being beaten or physically abused. Mr Christopher 18:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy Removed

I agree we need references, but factually disputed is a bit strong. Unless glaring inaccuracies of date and time are quoted, then we're talking POV and NPOV, not facts.Daemon8666 21:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

As an example, the article currently says that 4 ATF agents were killed and 16 wounded, when the actual figure is 4 dead, TWENTY wounded. The only reason I haven't changed it already is that I consider the whole paragraph it's in to be POV garbage, and haven't found the time to rewrite the whole thing.

The negotiations in particular is a subject where a lot of things are wrong.

Of course, I have already corrected some of the errors I've found. I made a lot of corrections to the Prelude section a while back (not to mention corrections I made while this material was still at Branch Davidian).

I'm going to put the tag back up. I'm willing to take the tag down, just as I took the tag down at Branch Davidian, but the article's not there yet. And even if you think it's accurate, even you seem to agree that there are still NPOV issues, so downgrading to a POV tag might have been a better option for you to wiping it entirely. --WacoKid 14:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

My mistake gentlemen (or ladies, if that's the case), and I apologize. I was distracted and saved the page. It was intended to be changed to POV tag. I was also concerned given that the related Branch Davidian article has one tag, and this has another entirely; given that one spawned from the other I was a bit confused. Thanks for correcting me.Daemon8666 22:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I believe the figure IS supposed to be 4 agents killed and 16 wounded. Please see: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/waco/timeline.html

Scroll down to "SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1993"

No, the ATF stopped issuing updated numbers once the count reached sixteen wounded. Thus, that was the number reported in the media all during the siege. It wasn't until they issued their Treasury Report several months later, in September, that they revealed that the full total was twenty. Of course, by then Waco was getting much less press, so the number of articles with the correct count was swamped by the old articles. Thus someone doing a lookup on Lexis-Nexis would be more likely to run across the outdated figure and use that, perpetuating the error. A Google search will turn up more hits for "sixteen wounded" than "twenty wounded."

I'm surprised that the PBS site contains that mistake, though. While I am a fan of neither the Frontline episode nor its webpage, I thought that they had done enough research to avoid a basic mistake like that. I just checked the timeline page, and found the explanation: they based their chronology on the Justice Report! The ATF held the total count so close to the vest that even the writers of the Justice Report, which came out very shortly afterwards, were going by the previous public number! Since Frontline focused only on the FBI phase of the siege, they apparently didn't pay much attention to the Treasury Report. I should note that I recently looked at their Koresh bio page, since his Wikipedia entry cited it as one of its sources, and found errors in it also. --WacoKid 05:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Links

I removed the 3rd party link to a copy of the Cato Institute article:

• Timothy Lynch: No confidence — an unofficial account of the Waco incident by the Cato Institute

And replaced it with a link to the actual source article

• Cato Institute - "No Confidence:An Unofficial Account of the Waco Incident" by Timothy Lynch

The style of the link I added might benefit from better formatting but it seemed linking to the original article might be a more ideal source and hyperlink. Mr Christopher 05:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the militia link. That article defines a militia as A militia is a group of citizens organized to provide paramilitary service. Owning a bunch of guns does not make one a member of a militia, nor does having a shoot out with the FBI/BATF make one a militia and no one has ever accused the Branch Davidians of being a militia so I fail to see the relevance of the link. Mr Christopher 16:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the person who added it did not intend to imply that the Branch Davidians were a militia, but that the Waco incident was one of the key events in the rise of the militia movement of the 1990s. Probably, the link would have been better directed to Militia (United States). (And personally, I think the material on the 90s should be broken out into its own militia movement article, replacing the redirect that is there now. --WacoKid 16:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed Some Stuff

I removed this However, the Davidians knew that the people outside were federal officers with warrants, and used deadly force against the agents to prevent execution of the warrants

It is a wild, fantastic claim that defies logic and lacks any support. This article seems to have a surplus of similar unsupported assertions. Mr Christopher 01:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If the article is biased at all, it is in favor of the Davidians. It fails to realize that the Davidians WERE committing crimes and that they did use lethal force. People need to start writing from a netral standpoint. Stop Me Now! 00:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Uncited Speculation

This page is contentious enough without people inserting POV essays from any viewpoint. There is a mountain of reputable published material from a wide variety of viewpoints. If you want to cite from a book, cite the page numbers. Citing from speculative documentary films is dubious at best. There are a number of highly critical published works that can be cited without adding allegations from conspiracist videos.--Cberlet 21:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

So I see the great defender of civil liberties, critic of government repression, and former head of the NLG Civil Liberties Committee keeps reverting back to the dehumanizing term "compound", thereby promoting the POV of the FBI and BATF. What the FUCK? This is your last warning. "Compound" is a POV term and will not be used in this article. 70.108.57.95 02:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks.--Cberlet 03:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistent statement

I don't pretend to know anything more about the subject than I saw on a TV special, but this particular statement: After punching a hole through a wall, the ATF proceeded to saturate the complex with flammable gas and ignited it in the first paragraphseems to conflict directly with both the rest of this article and the main Branch Davidian article. This seems to be a pretty divisive subject, so I didn't want to just edit it, but one of you might want to. 64.121.55.220 00:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it was an alarming bit of speculation that did not belong in the lead.--Cberlet 03:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Question About the Siege

Some years back I became very interested in what happened at Waco and befriended Amy Somers, the co-producer of the academy award nominated documentary "Waco: Rules of Engagement." I sponsored its showing at a local theater because I was very concerned about FBI misconduct, especially the alleged shooting of those who were trying to flee the fire, as indicated by FLIR footage.

I've read a lot of what "Waco Kid" has said on this and related pages. You seem quite knowledgeable about matters associated with Waco. If you have seen the "Waco: Rules of Engagement" documentary, I would be interested in knowing what your current opinion is of the validity of its allegations. I talked to Amy a couple of weeks ago; she still stands by the film. Thanks. Founders4 06:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I keep hearing WACo or the Seige in Waco - the Tragedy in Waco, but the fact of the matter is that none of this happend in WACO, the Branch Davidians were located 10 miles outside of Waco, Waco just happend to be the only close larger city, so that the press and feds could have hotels, it was the press and/or the Feds who mis named all of this "Waco" when Waco had little to do with it, I had never even heard of the Branch Davidians before that wet cold morning in Feb.

The FBI did not fire on those attempting to flee. Stop Me Now! 00:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for this claim Stop Me Now?Gothmog26 07:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag removal plan?

OK, I just checked into this article today, after watching "Waco: Rules of Engagement". I see the NPOV tag, but I do not see a plan on this talk page of how to remove it. We cannot leave a page in NPOV limbo forever. The original tagger needs to outline what they wish to see corrected (either factually, with reputable sources, or in wording), or agreeing parties must outline specifics as to what needs to be removed or edited to bring the article into compliance. If that does not happen in about 72 hours (3 days), I'll remove the NPOV tag. Note that I am not objecting to the presence of the tag, per se, but the lack of substantive Neutrality objections in reference to the tag.

There are many remedies for neutrality problems. We can remove text, to be redacted or removed permanently, we can cite sources for statements, we can reword sections to conform with the understanding that citations reference, etc. Remember, it is not enough to just say "It's a Fact!" to justify inclusion here (see WP:NOR) - it is our job to reflect the state of knowledge provided by other reputable and verifiable sources. Thanks. --NightMonkey 05:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If that does not happen in about 72 hours (3 days), I'll remove the NPOV tag. is that Wikipedia policy? Just curious. Mr Christopher 04:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Not policy, per se, but here's the NPOV Usage guide: "Place {{POV}} at the top of the disputed article, then explain your reasons on the talk page of the disputed article. To specify the section of the talk page, use {{POV|talk page section name}} at the top of the disputed article." What apparently did not happen is the "explain your reasons" part. I'm not against adding the {{NPOV-check}} tag, or even the {{NPOV}} tag, but there have to be defined reasons. I want to encourage movement towards making this article better. --NightMonkey 06:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Mr Christopher 17:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, removed NPOV tag, and replaced it with "Not Verified", which is milder, but appears more appropriate. If there is still an editor that believes that this article is not reflecting a NPOV (which I don't dispute or endorse, at the moment), you are free to re-apply dispute tags, but it will be removed if there are not specific suggestions for fixing (or, better yet, just fix it yourself). Thanks. --NightMonkey 05:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that inline citations would make it easier to verify, at the moment it is hard to verify the material, in order to justify the removal of a "Not Verified" tag. Unless there are doubts about specific claims and their wording I definitely agree with the change. Ansell 05:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with these actions. I have removed several biased statements and uncited paragraphs, but this article is still biased against the federal government. I will be adding a "biased tag" if one is not already there. There is still a lot of work to be done.

Cultural references

I tend to dislike "Cultural references" and "Trivia" sections; they strike me as rather "unencyclopedic," tangential to the subject, and often arbitrary, as they typically single out a handful of movies or songs for mention, when vast numbers of references exist. The just-created section, citing a single example from the show "24", is a perfect illustration of why I think they're a bad idea.

I don't watch the show and I haven't seen the episode, but from the description, a passing remark is made about "another Waco." On this slim basis, a bullet entry with a half-dozen wikilinks is generated. This is ridiculous. I can think of shows, like "Walker, Texas Ranger" and "X-Files," where an entire episode has been inspired by the Waco situation. If we were to list every show where an offhand remark is made about "another Waco," it would be a very long list indeed.

I also don't see why we need such a section when this article currently features little discussion of Waco's role in spurring the rise of the militia and Patriot movements, its use by proponents of gun rights and gun control and in other political debates, its possible influence on the 1994 Republican sweep, and other topics I would find more germane.

I would encourage you to write something along these lines. How about calling it "Cultural Impact." Waco did indeed influence many people, including myself.Founders4 08:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

However, rather than immediately deleting this section, I'm going to solicit feedback. I see two courses. First, to go ahead and nuke the section. The second would be to get serious, and to add many more movies, books, and songs with references to Waco. In that case, I would still want to delete the "24" entry in favor of shows with a stronger claim than some minor allusion to Waco. However, those in favor of door number two could also argue for what criteria for inclusion they want to use.

Yeah, please nuke the "Cultural References" section and write something intelligent about "Cultural Impact."Founders4 08:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll hold off or at least a few days to give other editors a chance to weigh in. Discuss now, or it dies! --WacoKid 06:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll add that another reason I don't like Trivia sections is that they get used by fans to squeeze in some movie they like, or some band's song, which is what I think is happening here. This also often results in "original research" inferences, about what a song's lyrics "mean" or are "about," for example. --WacoKid 07:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Founders, I hope you saw that I finally finished commenting on WROE, at Talk:David Koresh. Sorry I wasn't more positive, despite all it's done to open some minds on Waco. --WacoKid 02:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought it prudent to add the whole Postal 2 Waco satire to the cultural refrences. - The Kinslayer

Prelude removal

It appears that 24.148.106.65 removed the entire section of the prelude. I think this is entirely too much for an anonymous editor and will put it back. If you want to work on a NPOV or update/cite facts please do, but wholesale deletion is not a solution. Please discuss here. Rearden9 16:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

In his prior edit, he changed a date to a clearly incorrect one, so he was a vandal. --WacoKid 18:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The prelude needs to be removed. It's a nothing but a dumping ground for BS. The prelude to the siege was when some Davidians were able to rebuke the ATF assault.

Please, do not remove it until you have come to agreement with other editors of this article. Kukini

I agree. Please edit the prelude and let's discuss it here instead of deleting. I also recommend signing your work. Rearden9 13:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't delete it. I simply removed all the sidebar. Clearly the prelude to the ATF assault would be the issuing of search and arrest warrants. And of course that was preceeded by an investigation. The current prelude is a mess, but the gist of it is that the cowboys who pushed the thing were somehow motiviated to act by the Waco Trib series wich began being published ONE day before the raid. Now I agree a proper prelude is needed but the issues leading up to the assault are fairly complex and have many facets. I would strip the current prelude down to the very basics untill such time that it can be done properly. Rick

Good, start composing and writing about those complex and many faceted issues. I agree that understanding what happened prior to the violence is important to the story. I recommend that any large scale changes be discussed here. Rearden9 13:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the prelude is important but also think that it needs cites. Also, I've read that the BATF was under pressure due to upcoming budget hearings and the debacle at Ruby Ridge. Anybody? ChristinaDunigan 21:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Disputed

I do not understand exactly why the NPOV tag was removed; I have included the disputed article tag because the problems here extend beyond simple NPOV. Many statements that need to be sourced are not, the tone is not what is expected of an encyclopedia, and the article appears to contradict itself at times. Lots of work is needed.

BATF versus ATF

The problem with using ATF in this article is that it causes several problems with subject/predicate agreement at various points in the article. The name of the agency is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, not Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Following standard acronym construction for other federal agencies (the Federal Bureau of Investigation, for example, becomes the FBI), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the BATF. Founders4 08:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I've always understood ATF to refer to the term "Allied Task Force" in standard UN usage, and I believe the Americans still use ATF to refer to the old Advanced Tactical Fighter project which resulted in the F-22. Until now I'd never heard of the BATF and thus I agree that the term BATF be used instead of ATF to reduce confusion for international readers. 72.138.217.234 19:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

For the above comment, I'm pretty sure they use JTF for that now (Joint Tactical Fighter) Dboyz-x.etown 01:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Considering that the Bureau refers to themselves as the ATF and not the BATF it should probably be changed. [1] Mikemill 01:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

"The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF or BATF or BATFE) is a federal agency within the United States Department of Justice."

The above quote is from the Wikipedia article. All three acronyms are used at various times. Which acronym one uses is an editorial choice, and the federal agency's decision to use the shortest acryonym (ATF) does not govern. Founders4 05:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

BATF was the usual term at the time of the Waco event, before which the agency was rather obscure in the eyes of the public. Those federal enforcement agencies with acronyms longer than three letters crave to be known by three only, as a sign that they've joined the big leagues up there with FBI and CIA. As a writer, I would correspondingly resist this propaganda until the three-letter usage becomes official or otherwise unavoidable.--Paul Emmons 23:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The clothes the agents were wearing (and do today) had ATF written on them. That's how most people know them. Dan100 (Talk) 16:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Location

I keep hearing WACO or the Seige in Waco - the Tragedy in Waco, but the fact of the matter is that none of this happend in WACO, the Branch Davidians were located 10 miles outside of Waco, Waco just happend to be the only close larger city, so that the press and feds could have hotels, it was the press and/or the Feds who mis named all of this "Waco" when Waco had little to do with it, I had never even heard of the Branch Davidians before that cold wet Sunday morning in Feb.

It is common to refer to rural locations by the nearest town of note. What town is used on their postal address? If you can establish that it happened in a place other than Waco then appropriately edit the article to mention it. As it stands if you said the "Federal Siege in Timbuktu" or the "Branch Davidian Tragedy at Timbuktu" then no one would know what you are talking about, so if even if it didn't happen there, the name has stuck. Rearden9 20:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Linda Thompson

Any reason not to remove the references to Linda Thompson?

The article is very long as it is, and two paragraphs about allegations that have apparently been debunked seems excessive. If her allegations are untrue, I don't see the point in including them. Thanks.

The Linda Thompson video is part of the history of events following the '93 Waco standoff. In particular, it is known to have influenced Timothy McVeigh in his decision to initiate the bombing of the Murrah Building on April 19, 1995. Other groups were radicalized as a result of Thompson's allegations, since her charges were not immediately known to be false. I think the section, as written, is not very good; it should be rewritten and included.Founders4 05:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Founders4. The Linda Thompson films albeit later discredited were an important part of the early public reaction to the incident. So they should at least have a mention as such. 70.108.97.172 00:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 00:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Waco Siege → Branch Davidian confrontation with BATF (1993) – 1)"Siege" is a loaded term (violates WP:NPOV; 2) The city itself was not under siege, as the Branch Davidian compound was several miles outside the city limits Bongolese 20:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Neutral. Nomination reasoning is good but "Branch Davidian confrontation with BATF (1993)" is pretty cumbersome and bland. Plus the BATF confronted the Branch Davidians, not vice versa. -  AjaxSmack  22:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Perhaps "BATF and FBI attack on Branch Davidians (1993)" would be more apropos. Founders4 05:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.<;/font> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion

Add any additional comments

• Comment as above the suggested name is clumsy. I don't believe that "siege" is actually POV, but a better word is probably "standoff", and then we can simplify it to either Branch Davidian standoff or 1993 Branch Davidian standoff. --Dhartung | Talk 04:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

1993 Branch Davidian standoff sounds good. Should we un-nominate the original name and "formally" nominate this one? Or just keep the discussion going?

Bongolese 06:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, the page about renaming articles says to wait at least 5 days:"After sufficient time has elapsed to generate consensus or silence (at least 5 days), you may perform the merger or request that someone else do so." So keep the suggestions/discussions/thoughts coming in...

Bongolese 06:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Still think it's a bad idea Bongolese. Founders4 21:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. "Waco" is the key word in world memory; Branch Davidian is much more obscure. As per Dhartung above, I think "Waco Standoff" would work. Founders4 21:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Or "1993 Waco Standoff" (Sorry to run on, folks.) Founders4 21:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that "Branch Davidian" is more obscure, indeed they leapt to prominence due to these events, whether as subjects of infamy or sympathy. It is really their history to which the events belong. Indeed, as this article is a spin-off branch of the "Branch Davidian" article, this page would benefit from a similarly related title. "Waco Standoff" has the same problem that "Waco Siege" has; such a label is inaccurate, as the standoff did not happen inside the city, nor was the city itself a party to either side of the standoff.

Bongolese 22:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• To suggest that the Dravidians didn't start the fire is ignoring the facts. The negotiators attached bugs inside milk cartons that were delivered to the compound, and you can clearly hear the Dravidians talking about starting the fire minutes before it erupts. I'd add this to the article but I can't remember what documentary I saw this in. All I remember is that it's available in full online. Anyone know what I'm referring to?

The initial gunfire

If I recall correctly from "Waco: Rules of Engagement" the initial gunfire was of federal agents shooting the Davidian's dog and her puppies in a kennel outside the home. This certainly would explain conflicting claims of who started the firefight. The Davidians, hearing the shots that killed the dogs, would almost certainly assume that the home, not the kennel, was the target and would return fire. The agents, knowing that the gunfire was aimed at the kennel and not at the house, would interpret the Davidians' answering gunfire as an act of aggression rather than of defense. ChristinaDunigan 20:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The initial source of the gunfire is still not known to this day. Probably will never be known.--Nytemunkey 01:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Minor edit. Automatic weapons are not illegal in Texas. While Section 46.05 of Texas law says machine guns are illegal, checking section 46.05 (c) reads "(c) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the actor's possession was pursuant to registration pursuant to the National Firearms Act, as amended.", which you'd have to be on the right side of to avoid federal prosecution. Granted, the Branch Dividian's guns were probably not federally registered, therefore were illegal under state and federal law. It's splitting hairs, but it's an important hair.Texas actually has the highest number of automatic weapons in civillian hands of any other state. (Citation: http://www.fff.org/comment/com0412g.asp) Nitrogen76 16:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

This article needs to be heavily edited. Currently it is written not in an NPOV manner but in an almost unreadable mess of claims and counterclaims with few attributions or sources. In other words it is POV from both sides simultaneaously. Rmhermen 16:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This article is a mess. POV partisans on both sides have wrecked it. 20% of it should be deleted as speculation. 80 percent needs to be rewritten. Flagging. --Cberlet 03:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. Much of the content is so equivical as to be useless and a lot of the remainder reads as very biased. A lot of sourcing and citation needs to take place -- that would probably be a good first step to establishing a NPOV. I'm also very doubtful the FBI would call this a "decisive victory." Indeed, I'm quite certain they'd call this a failure despite having killed, arrested or rescued the residents of the compound.croll 16:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Militia Movement

This raid, the one @ Ruby Ridge has been claimed as igniting the creation of the Militia Movement in the U.S. I've seen some tapes on TV stating that, "The SATANIC U.N. is comming to take out the U.S. Are YOU ready for Martial Law ?!", and Bumper stickers saying that "Is YOUR Church BATF Approved ?!" Martial Law 17:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Allegations such as those are unfairly made and just plain stupid, but what is the revelance of this to this article? Stop Me Now! 01:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all let me state this: I am a research assistant who works on the Oklahoma City Bombing. While I can't be sure (due to lack of research) that Waco created the milita movement, I can be sure that it enflamed the militias to a considerable degree. Consider this from the Houston Chronicle:

Early on Saturday, some Koresh sympathizers gathered north of the compound and talked about trying to enter it by crossing a pasture.

But as they began to mobilize, 20 armed agents took positions to block their path. A military helicopter landed in the field as a further warning.

The protesters backed down. One man, bellowing through a bullhorn, said, "How many people are you willing to shoot if we cross the fence? Are there any more churches on the hit list?'(April 4, 1993 Houston Chronicle)

Later, 15 people who are affiliated with the “Unorganized Militia of the United States” gathered in a field with unloaded guns and released this statement:

"We are letting the government know we are not going to stand for lawless government anymore, Thompson said.(April 4, 1993 Houston Chronicle)

-Atomical

Contributions from the Discovery Channel

Here's an idea: use that program that was aired on the Discovery Channel on September the 16th for points of reference. I have never seen a better documentary than this one that covers the event not only in colossal detail, but it includes both sides of the story to show no bias. mikecucuk 20:30, September 19 September 2006, (UTC)

I agree that the program was reasonably balanced, but not that it was particularly accurate. Just as an example, the show makes it appear that David Koresh made Robert Rodriguez, the "undercover" ATF agent, cool his heels on the morning of the raid, until he suddenly barges in the room, pointing his finger and yelling at Rodriguez that the ATF is coming. In fact, David did come and start giving him a Bible study, and rebuffed the first effort to call him out of the room to give him the news. After coming back, shaken, he tried to resume the study, but his Bible trembled in his hands. Finally, he stopped, and gave Rodriguez the "they're coming" remarks. So while the Discovery show makes it seem like Rodriguez got a brushoff, in fact David was very interested in talking to him that morning. Another example: in the program, the FBI negotiators find out that Steve Schneider's wife, Judy, has a daughter by David Koresh from a video that is sent out. In fact, the information about Judy and Mayanah should have already been known to them, from people who had left the group. And I think it also repeats a mistake I've seen elsewhere, of calling Waco the longest siege in US law enforcement history. In fact, the Wounded Knee siege of the 1970s lasted longer. Errors like these are sprinkled throughout the episode, though they don't seem to have been made to serve any agenda. --WacoKid 16:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Legally blind?

I removed the part about the witness who saw a girl leaving David's apartment being legally blind. There was no proof, and if he was blind, they wouldn't of talked to him, and he wouldn't of claimed seeing anything. This thing really needs protection. Too many half-assed conspiracy theorists are editing in bullshit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.130.138.12 (talk)

Actually, Marc Breault was legally blind. (That's not the same as being fully blind.) This article is edited by people who have more passion than knowledge of the subject (on both sides), so material tends to get added and removed not based on whether it is true, but whether it fits in with an editor's biases. --WacoKid 08:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

I'd like to propose this infobox be changed or removed. A military conflict infobox seems very out of place to me. This was fundamentally a law enforcement action that went terribly wrong, not a military conflict or "battle." The goal of law enforcement in any action, whether making a traffic stop or sending in a SWAT team, is to enforce laws while reducing the risk of loss of life -- whether that of the police or those they're arresting. I wager that most law enforcement officers would be aghast at being called a combatant and I seriously doubt the FBI would call this a "decisive victory." At best, it was a phyrric victory. croll 14:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, seems like a joke to me. "Military Conflict" implies armies, at least semi-professional; not law-enforcement agencies and religious cults. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.162.228.11 (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

The infobox doesn't mention on the displayed page that it was "military", that's just what the "military infobox" was called in the wiki code. The infobox uses the words "combat" and "casualties," which sound military but aren't exclusive to the military. I think it's a very concise way to give that kind of information for an article like this. In any case, the article should contain the information which was deleted from the infobox, including the number of deaths and injuries on both sides. On another note, the deleted infobox claimed that 82 Davidians died, and the current article gives a total of 80 when added up. Which was it?Harksaw 20:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Using the military infobox is crass. Forces? How can u reckon that up, when there were, eg 25 children inside? Do they count as combatants?? And "decisive ATF/FBI victory"...?? Surely you don't seriously see a tragic law enforcement operation in those terms? The mil infobox has no place in this article. As for casualties, there was a little guesswork going on - if you've seen the state of the bodies, eg the clump of at least 11 persons and a dog, fused together in the heat; and some count the 2 unborn babies. As far as I'm aware, the most reliable figure given is 54 adults, 25 children, 2 unborn infants. Devious Viper 21:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

While you may find it "crass", it is an accurate depiction and is key to understanding these events. The simple fact of the matter is what happened in Waco is the logical extentsion mixing two roles that are mutually exclusive, those of the soldier with that of the police officer. There is no doubt that the half dozen or so wannabe storm troopers responsible for the original assult had delusions of military conquest. These cowboys went to considerable machinations to secure military hardware and training for the so called "warrant service". These guys fabricated a methanphetamine lab along with deliveries of percurser chemicals in an attempt to get acess to Close Quarters Combat/Close Quarters Battle training from the U.S. Army Special Forces. These meetings with the DOD begain in November of 92. Months before the undercover operation even started. Hell, Texas National Guard depleted its fiscal year 1993 counterdrug funds during its assistance to ATF at Waco. As to whether they considered the children as "combatants" much less the other hundred or so folks who had no relation to the suspected offense, they didn't consider them at all. The infobox should remain.

Rick —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.251.13.53 (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Whether the ATF and FBI acted in a military manner or not, it WAS NOT A MILITARY CONFLICT!! Simple as that. Why don't you apply that flawed reasoning and replace the "Infobox terrorist attack" on the 9/11 article with a military conflict infobox? And then put in there something like "Decisive Al Queda victory" etc? I'm sure from Al Quedas POV thats the infobox it should have, but, just as your reasoning here is, they'd be wrong. Devious Viper 01:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is broken

This article is clearly broken and it cannot be asserted that it maintains an unbiased point of view. I do not have an opinion as to who was to "blame" for the outcome of the Waco Siege. Howevever, it appears that although most of the statements made in this article are presented with a neutral point of view, the preponderance of the information and citations presented tends to favour the Branch Davidians. I am familiar with the reporting and the literature related to the siege, and suffice it to say, the evidence is inconclusive as to several of the key incidents involved.

In short, it is obvious that there has been a significant amount of cherry-picking of articles/sources favourable to the Branch Davidians, such that it does not provide a clear picture as to the extent of the controversy surrounding the events of the siege. I therefore don't think its useful to argue about specific statements made in this article. This article as a whole holds that there was some sort of conspiracy by the authorities against the Branch Davidians, when in fact the evidence is, again, inconclusive. --Lonesome road 15:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This material has always been a magnet for POV-pushers of both sides. I agree with those who say that the article is really a mishmash of POV from both sides, though the proportion that is pro-government or pro-Davidian is constantly shifting as people from one side or the other edit it. Sadly, most of the editors have more bias than knowledge, so the article is highly inaccurate as well. --WacoKid 06:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Remember that the neutral point of view policy demands such a "mishmash" of PoVs, not a single "unbiased" view. Dan100 (Talk) 10:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ross

• The information on Rick Ross in the article is clearly biased towards the cult apologist point of view, highly unsourced, and POV. I will attempt to make some changes and add some balance. Smeelgova 11:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

NPOV Cleanup

I agree with the editors speaking on the NPOV violations here and did some minor cleaning up. First, I Deleted the time magazine cover with Koresh's laughing face superimposed over a fiery background. That can be considered propaganda to make Koresh appear to be something along the lines of a madman. We're not here to judge, but to enter factual information. Any picture here should be a photo of the seige itself. Second, I don't know who's idea it was to give this an info box stating this was a military conflict, with the FBI having a "decisive victory", but it's completely inappropriate. Removed the military conflict references. Any other good ideas to get this article into the realm of total neutrality, I'm all for it. Chairman Sharif 23:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit

When I came to this article I found a mess. It was incoherent, lacked narrative, was badly written and full of weasel words.

I have stripped out a lot of the cruft (including the wholly irrelevant "Culturual references" section, Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate facts), rewritten some parts, and moved others to more logical sections.

Hopefully the result is an article with a logical flow and structure, better writing, and minus a lot of the anti-government bias that was present.

I have also removed the NPOV dispute and unreferenced tags. If someone feels there still are NPOV state precisely what they are below before re-adding the tag. Dan100 (Talk) 18:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Bogus waco-tribune material

Most of the material supplied by them has been proven completely false through the trials and congressional hearings. I'd be very leary of using anything they have to say, as some evidence suggests they were "in bed with the feds". As a matter of fact, it looks like almost the entire first couple paragraphs are filled with about 5% fact, 90% faction, 5% exaggeration.. Ernham 01:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Cite sources. Dan100 (Talk) 14:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

I conducted a references re-write.

I removed the following under the terms of Wikipedia:Verifiability as it is unsourced and I dispute the veracity of the claims. It can be restored with a suitable reference is provided.

Several mothers sent their children out of the complex following promises by the FBI that they would be placed with family members. Unrelated senior citizens who had gone with the children were arrested and the children were taken into state custody and then placed in a religious children's home.

The mothers of these children voiced concern about them and the treatment they were receiving. In reply they received a video sent by the negotiators. The mothers were disturbed that their children were being fed things forbidden by their religious diet and (in their view harmfully) were being allowed to run wild with minimal supervision while watching television. This violation of the promises destroyed any possibility of further trust of the FBI, making the negotiators' job all but impossible.

On 6 March (day 7) Schneider mentions during recorded negotiations that he thinks the FBI will try to burn the building to destroy the evidence of exactly what happened during the initial raid.

Hi Dan, nice to see others taking an interest in this article. With an anniversary of the events approaching, I expect it to start receiving a lot of hits soon, and it would be good to be moving forward to a reliable, NPOV and informative version by the end of the month. The references are a bit slipshod still (not those you've added - although there is a heavy reliance on just one source, the Inside Waco documentary) and I was thinking just last night that I might take the current external links that are used throughout the article body and rewrite them instead as Harvard style. Of the three passages above, I have to fess up that I added one of them - Schneider's comment about evidence. I'll add the reference for that one; also, the other two you removed, although I didn't add them, I know that I have seen them reliably referenced elsewhere, so I'll see if I can find good sources for them, too. I think that one of the criticisms that could be levelled at the article at the moment is that it is still very much "Waco-lite", and perhaps there is too much material inclded that is amply covered in other articles, eg David Koresh and Branch Davidians; this article should concentrate more on what it says on the label - the siege. And for a 51 day siege, involving many complex factors and conflicting claims and conclusions, it is still very light on info. Devious Viper (talk · contribs) 15:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Without acess to negotiation tapes it's impossible to say what the FBI promised regarding placement of the children.

It's clear that thier mothers thought they would have input on where the children went because they placed notes in the childrens pockets instructing to turn them over to the care of relatives. "Ashes of Waco p.227" Same source, same page documents the concerns resulting from videos the FBI sent in. The children were turned over to TDCPS who in turn place 20 of the children in a Methodist group home http://www.rickross.com/reference/waco/waco311.html

Elderly people who left were arrested on conspiracy to commit murder charges and paraded out for the press cameras. "For example, two elderly women, Margaret Lawson and Catherine Mattson, were released from the compound on March 2, 1993. The next day, the United States Attorney's Office (after consulting with at least one FBI supervisor), charged the two women in a criminal complaint with conspiracy to commit murder." http://www.usdoj.gov/05publications/waco/wacofourteen.html

The Schneider "burn the evidence" reference is cited here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/waco/timeline.html

I believe these sources should resolve your dispute. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.251.12.226 (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Regards "psy ops"

I trimmed this section and made reference to the use of loud noise as part of the generally more aggressive techniques adopted later in the seige. Under the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy no one element should be given undue prominence over and above others. The use of loud sound is not particularly unusual being a common siege tactic, and does not warrant a unique section (a better idea would be to write an article on the subject, and then link to it).

I disagree - the psyops are a crucial element of the siege. (And there is a very good separate article on wiki about psyops in general.) The conduct of the FBI HRT and the negotiation teams, the use of the psyops against this particular group, bearing in mind their beliefs and world view, etc. - all of this is critical to understanding how the events progressed, and why they progressed as they did. You seem to not want the psyops mentioned, so I'm not going to just go and reinsert it - but I am going to go away and work on a rewrite of the siege section that references heavily the two conflicting tactical approaches that were being used, and how in the hearings, trials and investigations afterward, the conclusions were that they should never have used this, and that it served only to prolong the siege and undo the work of the negotiation team. Devious Viper (talk · contribs) 15:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If you disagree

If you disagree with changes I have made, you need to make verifiable statements using sources that you feel support your point of view (remember the neutral point of view aims to present all sides fairly). You cannot remove material that is referenced, instead, if you feel the statements are incorrect, you need to provide sources that present the alternate point of view.

Thanks for reading, Dan100 (Talk) 10:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Not aimed at me, I hope? ;) I like to try and reference wherever possible. As for NPoV, well, its difficult for me to inject much of my own POV as I actually think both sides were culpable :) Devious Viper 15:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Military Conflict infobox

As per discussions above, the military conflict infobox was removed as it was irrelevant and the fields have no bearing on a law enforcement incident. Devious Viper 19:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Military assets were used from the inception. Military personel were consulted before and attended the ATF planning sessions. ATF sought Close Quaters Combat/Close Quaters Battle traning for the SRTs leading the assault. The military accomponied and took an active role during the original assault. HRT was a LEO in name only. Their training, equipment and rules of engagment are DOD. There were LEOs at Waco. But their concerns were brushed aside. They were the victims of the military/paramilitary mindset entrenched in senior leadership positions. Rick —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.251.12.226 (talk) 09:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Please discuss changes like this, which have been discussed already, before implementing them. The military did not take an active role in the original assault; they did not take an "active" role at any stage thereafter - officially; and finally, look up the definition of Combatants. Describing this as a military conflict, with "combatants" and forces, and "victories" is misleading, inaccurate, crass, and just plain wrong. Devious Viper 01:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The use of Texas National Guard in the original assault was clearly an active role. I don’t think anyone seriously has contended it was not. When they were interviewed after the assault no written notes were created. Specifically, to avoid future "FOIA requests" (without information there is no civilian oversight and control). The training the AFT sought goes directly to the planner’s state of mind. That they were willing to use fraud to obtain it provides a pretty good indication of their thoughts on civilian oversight as well. Obviously they viewed the targets as "combatants". Otherwise there is no need for the Special Forces to provide a “Discriminating Fire Plan" or Close Quarters Combat training.

HRT was clearly not under civilian control. The rules of engagement from Ruby Ridge make this quite clear. And while the DOJ and all the "official" explainers might say otherwise, the constitution is definitive on the right of life and due process. That Dick Rodgers was running the show at Waco, under full knowledge and sanction of his prior actions, of those in leadership positions at the DOJ; quite clearly they were beyond civilian control.

The DOD provided over a million dollars in couterdrug funds in support and equipment. That’s mighty damn active no matter what all the "official" explainers have to say. The military mindset was so entrenched, that even the Fort Worth Medical Examiner was out there running around in cammo fatigues. If you don't think these guys viewed this as a "victory", why do you suppose they hoisted that flag over the smoldering corpses?

And one last thing, late in the morning on the 19th, the commanders were dismayed that the CS was not having the intended effect. They got intel that the children were in the concrete vault. So our illustrious commanders sent one of our modified tanks in there to dump a load. Do you have any idea what CS does to the lung tissue of children? Nobody in this country has that authority. Nobody, irregardless of what you’re "official" explainers have to say. It was an act of war and in a just world it would be considered a war crime. A crime against humanity. Crass indeed... Rick —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.251.13.10 (talk) 12:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

I don't disagree with some of that, but we have to save our POV for a pro/anti website - this is an encyclopaedia. I agree that the respective federal agencies were gung ho, that there was almost definitely a series of illegal actions with regard to Posse Commitatus, that Delta were probably shooting Davidians trying to escape from the rear of the compound, that a shaped charge was used on top of the "bunker" etc etc etc. BUT here we can only put the "facts" that are verifiable - not necessarily the "truth". And I still say that the mil info box is misleading, inaccurate, and an insult to the victims of the whole sorry affair Viper 19:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You've lost me. What are "facts" if not the "truth"? It is certainly not a fact that "the respective federal agencies were gung ho". But there were "individuals" in leadership positions who sought and lobbied for military solutions over those who advanced a law enforcement aggenda. That the former were "sucsessfull" is why there are/were so many victims. This happened over and over and is what drove the final outcome. It is "verifiable" and belongs in any encyclopedic content on the Waco Siege, contrary to so much of the nonsense propaganda reiterated in this article that was first used to dehumanise the victims. Rick