Jump to content

Talk:Waco siege

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.231.188.151 (talk) at 17:16, 4 September 2009 (→‎POV). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

warning of inaccuracy

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)[reply]

Agreed. The article, as is, is crap. - 98.204.38.204 (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving this in while archiving til issues resolved. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

prelude

Concerning the prelude to the 28 Feb 1993 Raid, several significant facts which can be traced to multiple sources get overlooked in most recaps of this subject:

  • When the McClennan County court or sheriff's department had questions, they could call Koresh and he would show up with his lawyer Wayne Martin.
  • 30 July 1992 Koresh tried to speak to the ATF Investigator David Aguilera and offer to let the ATF inspect his guns and paperwork. Aguilera refused to take the phone.
  • 22 Aug 1992 the FBI HRT siege on the Weaver family began in Ruby Ridge Idaho. Koresh told several people the reason the ATF would not talk to him was ATF were planning to do to the Davidians what was done to the Weavers.
  • The ATF planning was for a raid on Monday 1 Mar 1993, when the children would be in school, the younger adults would be away at work, and the older adult men would be with Koresh at the construction site away from the main building where the guns were stored.
  • The judge approved a search warrant that expired Sunday 28 Feb 1993 10:00pm.
  • The raid was moved up to Sunday, when everyone would be in the chapel next door to the storage area where the guns were kept. The raid plans for a Monday were executed on Sunday as though nothing had changed.

Sources I have used include published accounts by David Thibodeau who lived in Mt. Carmel Center and by Chuck Hustmyre one of the ATF raid party, among many others. Naaman Brown (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute this statement: 

  However, the raid was moved up a day in response to the Waco Tribune-Herald 
  "Sinful Messiah" article (which the ATF had tried to prevent from being published).

One, the raid was moved to 28 Feb 1993 because the plain text of the search warrant said it expired 28 Feb 1993 10:00pm. Two, the Waco Herald Tribune had held off publishing "Sinful Messiah" at the request of the ATF for a month. When the Herald Tribune informed ATF they were going to start publishing the series that weekend, the ATF did not request an extension of the delay or raise an objection to the publication. Naaman Brown (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have questions about this statement: 

  The children had been physically and sexually abused long before the standoff

Janet Reno herself admitted that there was no evidence the children had been physically or sexually abused during the standoff and that the intelligence such had happened during the standoff was false. Janet Reno claimed she had been told that babies were being beaten, that Koresh was slapping babies around, and she later admitted that was not true.

Allegations of physical abuse of the children before the standoff came largely from dissident members who left the group in 1989 and moved to Australia, testifying to what they believed was happening a continent away in 1992. Phil Penningroth who wrote the "In the Line of Duty: Ambush at Waco" docu-drama screenplay found the dissident members to be unreliable sources of information: they contradicted each others' stories. The child abuse allegation was that the children were beaten black and blue with wooden paddles. The FBI and US Congressmen who were approached with those original allegations told the dissident members that the federal government had no jurisdiction over spanking children. Three investigations by Texas authorities with jurisdiction over child abuse found no evidence of such beatings, although they were uneasy with the Davidian's beliefs and lifestyle.

Previous leaders of the Branch Davidian (George Roden and before him his mother Bishop Lois Roden who tutored Koresh) openly advocated polygamy. Koresh was a polygamist and believed that any woman who had her menses was eligible for "marriage": his one legal wife was Rachel Jones married at fourteen with her parents' approval. As to the sexual abuse claim, McClennan County Sheriff Harwell pointed out that until one of Koresh's "brides" or their parent or guardian filed a formal complaint with the proper authorities, it had to be treated as consensual sex (Harwell considered it was tantamount to statutory rape even if no complaints were filed but there was nothing he could do legally). Richard Jewell did use the Michigan court system to get custody of his daughter Keri from his wife Sheri and Koresh.

The ATF had no jurisdiction over child discipline, polygamy or consensual sex even if it rose to the level of statutory rape. Children were physically disciplined and Koresh was a polygamist with multiple "wives" from fourteen to fifty-four years of age, but the image of Koresh torturing and raping children is as false and inflamatory as the claim he was running a meth lab. Naaman Brown (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The prelude page refers to "8,000" rounds of ammunition. This is almost certainly too low a figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipeaches (talk • contribs) 13:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First Shots

The first four ATF agents interviewed by the Texas Rangers (before the Rangers were ordered to halt the interviews because they were producing exculpatory evidence that could aid the defense at trial) told the Rangers that they believed that the first shots fired were the dog team neutralizing the Davidians' dogs: five dogs inside a kennel were shot to death. Davidian Renos Lenny Avraam has stated the first shots he heard were from the direction of the dog kennel. The raid rehearsal at Ft. Hood included "neutralizing" the dogs. Personnel were added to the raid team after the training at Ft. Hood who apparently were not aware of the dog team plans. As in the Ruby Ridge incident, there is evidence that the first shot could have been a shot by law enforcement at a dog on the subject's property, prompting other agents to "return" fire at the suspects. Naaman Brown (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cite 64 jefferson county sheriff's office columbin documents

This cite to have any validity needs pages listed. It is nearly 1000 pages long (946) and alot of it is hand written which means ctrl+f cannot be used to find what it is supposed to be confirming. There is no way a resonable person could take the time to read 1000 pages of information to confirm somthing and therefore it is almost worthless to as a citation. 69.123.106.132 (talk) 04:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC) 69.123.106.132[reply]

I agree. Some months ago, when it was added, I asked the poster to please tell me which was the correct page [[User_talk:RanEagle#need_more_exact_citation|here], but he didn't answer. I am taking it out until someone can find the correct page. The text and the link were these:
Feel free to check it out yourself (it's a 32 MB pdf document with 946 pages). --Enric Naval (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tanks

About midway through the category "The Siege", the article states that it is unconstitutional to employ armored vehicles in civil situations. But don't SWAT teams do that all the time? Its not like it was a real tank with a turret; all it is is a huge piece of armor that moves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.61.213.15 (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this seems like a strange point to make. I feel it is quite obvious that the constitution doesnt make references to tanks so it should be clarified. The citation isn't something that can be easily confirmed like a book or website. I feel this should be removed unless some one can clarify the interpretation that says that the deployments of tanks is unconstitutional. 69.123.106.132 (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)69.123.106.132[reply]
Trying to second guess the original poster: under the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA), it is unlawful to employ the federal military in law enforcement without a declaration of martial law. This might be the source of the belief it is unconstitutional to use the military in law enforcement period. (The normal exception is that the Coast Guard is considered as much a federal law enforcement agency as it is a branch of the military.) Other exceptions are made on claims of War on Drugs or War on Terror, but even there strict constitutionalists have a skeptical eye. Use of military in law enforcement has usually been subject to constitutional constraint. The use of Bradleys and M60 CEVs at Waco may have been within the law, but according to the Branch Davidian survivors, it was counterproductive: it reinforced the siege mentality and loss of hope that led to the final stand. Naaman Brown (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fair to call an armored vehicle that hoses the target with a flamethrower a "tank". I was watching the live coverage on CNN. (I am unable to locate a tape of this anywhere. Miraculously I conceal my astonishment. Ted Turner was a big Clinton contributor.)4.246.3.91 (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

68.231.188.151 (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC) The only difference is a Tank has steel treads on it rather than tires. Otherwise, technically, it's an armored car (trivial point--people still die from them. Like the Irish civilians from the Brits...?)68.231.188.151 (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

68.231.188.151 (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV

Some of the text sounds like original research or completely irrelevant to the actual topic of the Siege. For instance, "Although ATF claimed that Koresh stayed inside the compound and could not be served with a warrant, Koresh was regularly seen jogging along the Waco roads and ate at local restaurants on a weekly basis." -- no citation. "the ATF pursued a strongly confrontational approach" "Trading in legal firearms is by no means unusual in many US states. One of the largest sources of funds for the Mormon Church in its early days, for example, came from the Browning family's sales of shotguns and rifles in the Frontier days of the 19th Century, then later machine guns and other arms in the First World War."

This is a bit concerning really. 128.174.161.61 (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


68.231.188.151 (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)What is so "concerning"? Mormons (LDS) are a very American faith; we are raised with guns. Guns put food on the table and defended us. John Browning was a good Mormon; he did his mission work, and when the Gov't. asked him for a new pistol and machine guns, he did his American duty and developed some. LDS is one of the few faiths not anti-gun--it isn't Encouraged to carry a gun for self-defense, but we have nothing written against it if you feel you have a legitimate need. Joseph Smith was not criticised for trying to defend himself in Carthage Jail before his murder.68.231.188.151 (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Necessity of the raid(s)

The article does not make clear why the government felt it was necessary to conduct the initial raid. Were they trying to arrest Koresh? If so, why 6 dozen federal agents unable to arrest an unarmed man, when he actually came out and talked to them?

Also, is there any truth to reports that Koresh routinely left the compound? If was every week, couldn't they have arrested him at a local restaurant?

Secondly, what was the seige for? I mean, is it routine policy that when government agents have trouble serving a warrant that they force an evacuation of the premises in question?

We have a lot of information on what happened but not enough on why it happened. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

68.231.188.151 (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)I really think it isn't in the ATF's power to directly raid. I think they technically need US marshals, who are much more experienced, to handle it. Does anyone know?68.231.188.151 (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a link removed from the article with the justification that google might not authorize it. I don't understand how that can be a problem. We are dealing with the passing of a public link. I believe it is of the interest of google.video that the google is passed. There is nothing to suggest otherwise, so there is no basis for this decision. I understand the need to be cautious about this sort of things, but in this case I don't even see a suspicion. Also, we have to understand what we lose by not putting up this recognized useful information. We have to be cautious on both sides of the issue. Maziotis (talk) 13:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link would not be embedded in this website, so we would be taking a link to their website. There is even a “share” button on their page, so they want their link to be shared. This is absurd. There is simply no basis whatsoever to suggest that we are infringing on google rights, nor that we are even going against its “wishes”…

Ask yourselves if the issue here is really copyrights. wikipedia:iar wikipedia:DICK Maziotis (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link has been removed again. We are not talking about a "public link", or about Google's rights. We are considering whether or not the producers of the video actually authorized the documentary to be posted on Google. That is why I checked their web site; I could find no mention of the show being distributed in that manner. If they did not authorize the posting, then it is very likely that the post violates copyright regulations. Wikipedia does not link to such material, and this is no different from how we address torrents or YouTube links. --Ckatzchatspy 18:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know. But I don't think this has actually anything to do with copyrights. Hence, the links to wiki policies.
I didn't restore the link. I put the reference in the body of the text. You might want to delete the reference on the "waco: big lie" right above, since you are at it. Maziotis (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... actually, it has everything to do with copyright. Why would you presume differently? --Ckatzchatspy 18:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it was wrong of me to have such a hint. But if you are worried about copyright violation, you should check the source above. I believe it is the same violation. Maziotis (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the official website of the Rules of engagement video, they are selling DVD and tape versions, and they even have a movie trailer. It's obvious that they are comercializing the video, and they don't have any link to that google video. Without further proof, it appears that the google video is actually a copyright infringement, and that it's not sanctioned by the copyright holders (if would be different if they were one of those freedom-of-information lovers, who put a low-res online version of their whole work, and then they ask people to buy commercial copies to support them, but this does not appear to be the case). --Enric Naval (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was never in dispute. The problem now is that a different video on the article is in violation of copyright infringement. Someone who loves copyrights should do something about it. Maziotis (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]






Woah!This whole article appears to have been written by cultists. I think people who aren't need to have a look into this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.243.150 (talk) 13:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with this. From beginning to end, it sounds like it was written by people who are obviously sympathetic to the Davidians. Leuchars (talk) 10:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number of dead

There has been constant changes to the death toll. Some reports put the number at 74 including two pregnant women, some put it at 76 counting the unborn children as 2 deaths. Other reports have the number of deaths as more than 80, and one report listed in the article puts the death toll at 75. There needs to be a consistent number in the article and a reputable source attached to the number.

The source for the sentence is The Sunday Times. I have found the online version, and it puts the toll at "Seventy-six people, including Koresh, two pregnant women and more than 20 children"[2]. I changed the numbers on the article to fit this. It fits the number given in a 2003 book "Gun Violence in America" by Alexander Deconde (a diplomatic historian or something similar) [3] --Enric Naval (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Several conflicting numbers were reported by the news media and the government leading to citable sources neither verified nor reliable. Final figures appear to be: Six dead in ATF Raid 28 Feb 1993; no killings in FBI standoff between 1 Mar - 18 Apr; Seventy-six dead in FBI gas and tank attack 19 Apr. 6 + 76 = 82. Naaman Brown (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your numbers are correct. I have a list here from govt sources which I don't name there. At some point will ref in article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

trivialization

I feel that the video game references trivialize a very tragic event. We are dealing with the deaths of federal agents and civilians, issues of the paramilitarization of law enforcement, overreaching by the War on Drugs, reactions and preparations for Y2K Millinialism by religious sects and the overreaction by the federal government, and the mention of videogames is a travesty.

The 2003 video game Postal 2 features scene of a cult group being surrounded by ATF agents at "the compound". The place of this event is modeled almost exactly as the Mount Carmel Center.

There is a fictionalized account of the incident (taking many liberties with the facts) in John Updike's 1996 novel "In the Beauty of the Lilies."

The 1997 PC game Redneck Rampage features a level which is supposed to be the Mount Carmel Center complete with underground tunnels.It also has an audio of what is supposed to be attorney general Janet Reno saying words to the effect of burn them alive.

The Updike reference repeated points already made in a preceding comment on the Updike novel. Naaman Brown (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sure is a lot

There sure is a lot here--I hope most folks think as I do it was a gov't screw up and cover up. There is no restriction on how many guns (not "weapons" as Wikipeduia suggesrts) may be owned by a citizen of Texas. This is a state thing, anyway, not federal. 150 guns among all those people in the cult doesn't seem excessive. A package breaking open containing legally bought and shipped guns and black powder does not warrant a warrant. The fact that Koresh explained "automatic fire" accusations by showing his hell fire device explains a lot and shows his cooperation. Beside, fully auto guns are legal in Texas with a federal permit. This whole thing could have been taken care of peacefully with negotiators. There was no call for an armed "raid" at all.It became our own little Jonestown. Shame on the fed's.24.251.154.69 (talk) 04:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

who started the fire

see the arson report[4] and the analysis of the arson report by the Deputy Attorney General[5]. The article misses a lot of evidence. For example, it cites the testimony of one Davidian to a magazine, but it doesn't cite the testimony of four Davidians five Davidians including the one cited in the footnote, but it cites the testimony that one Davidian made years later to a magazine. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

{{movereq|Waco Siege}}

Waco Massacre → Waco Siege — It should be moved back to "Waco Siege". The sources call it that name in its majority, so it's the proper name per WP:COMMONNAMES. Only a few call it "Waco Massacre". --Enric Naval (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waco Siege is not only a more common name, it is closer to NPOV. Naaman Brown (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Waco Siege is both more common and less opinionated. Harksaw (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have reverted the move; given the obvious controversy it would generate, such an action should clearly have been discussed first. --Ckatzchatspy 20:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It was a massacre, but until enough people start calling it a massacre, "siege" will have to do.Apostle12 (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It Was a Massacre; but to remain objective and unbiased, "Siege" is proper68.231.188.151 (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving and BATF investigation section

  • First I want to archive, including straightening out the archives. Will leave 2009 entries.
  • Second, I'm merging "accusations" and "prelude" into a BATF investigation section which will be totally referenced. The accusations are only of interest because of their influence on the investigation and the government's rationales for BATF and FBI actions.
  • Third, I put up http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Mount_Carmel_fire with a bunch of FBI photos of destruction of building and fire. Couple more might go in here. Also going to put up some other stuff soon will alert you all. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring article proposal

After two years of refusing to deal with this article, I'm ready. This article really is a mess and makes very poor use of some of the best sources. (Including the 1993 Treasury Report which I've just uploaded to wikisource - still have to do appendices.) So here's an outline that better integrates existing material. More subsections probably will be added.

  • History (briefer)
  • ATF enforcement actions
    • Investigation (including relevant history, accusations)
    • Raid plan
    • February 28 Raid (including chronology)
    • List of victims
  • FBI enforcement actions
    • Media
    • Negotiations
    • Military equipment
    • Harassment tactics
    • April 19 assault (including chronology)
    • List of victims
  • Investigations
    • Dept of Treasury
    • Dept of Justice
    • Trial and civil litigation
    • Documentary films
    • 1995 Congressional hearings (include 1994 elections and McVeigh motivation)
    • Danforth report (and criticisms)
  • Controversies
    • Firing from helicopters
    • Gunfire at front door
    • Origin of fire
    • Mass suicide issues
    • Manner of death issues
  • Aftermath
    • Political and law enforcement impact
    • 2000 Supreme Court sentencing decision
    • Continuing interest (includes new books, popular culture references)

Needless to say this is a lot of work but luckily a lot of info still lingers in my brain from writing my book THE DAVIDIAN MASSACRE 16 years ago. Plus of course I've learned to write much more NPOV in last two years on wikipedia :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Law Enforcement Action" infobox

There have been various complaints about the use of the current Military info box. I realized we need one for use with articles like those in Category:Nonwar_armed_confrontations that combine Template:Infobox Military Conflict, Template:Infobox civilian attack, Template:Infobox Historical Event as part of Category:Law infobox templates. But I haven't figured out how to create the new template page. Before spend time doing so, if someone here's just itching to do it rather like below, do tell and we can discuss. Or tell me if you know someone else who loves doing them.
[REMOVED DRAFT PER BELOW] Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got around to creating Template:Infobox_Law_Enforcement_Action. Still in draft form. Going to get a few opinions here and elsewhere and then replace the Military Infobox, which is totally inappropriate, with the new Law Enforcement one. See comments on Template_talk:Infobox_Law_Enforcement_Action also.
{{Infobox Law Enforcement Action
| Action_name               = 
| Image_Name                = 
| Image_Caption             = 
| Also_known_ as            = 
| Date                      = 
| Location                  = 
| Coordinates               = 
| Purpose_of_Action         = 
| Agencies_involved         =
| Target                    =
| Coordinates               = 
| Weapons/equipment         = 
| Result                    = 
| Injuries                  = 
| Fatalities                = 
| Followup investigations   = 
| Notes                     =
}}

CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good to me. Please be bold and replace it yourself as I am busy with other stuff. Please move the list of personnel and military into a new section into the article, it's been stuck in the infobox for too long, and it needs to be converted into prose. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for encouragement. Have been meaning to and you just gave me a kick to do it! :-) <unsigned by Carolmooredc on July 27/28>
A week later have not because it's hard to figure out. Calls for help on a couple pages haven't worked out. So will try to figure it out via Help:Infobox. So far I've gotten as far as creating Template:Infobox_Law_Enforcement_Action and putting it up at Proposed info boxes. Maybe tomorrow. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waco Siege bias towards Westren ideology

If this incident had happened in a country like India, Wikipedia will be quick to point out that this is a terrorist attack by a government agency against identifiable religious groups. BUT since this had happened in the Great White West, no one is calling this a terrorist attack by ATF. This is clearly an indication of bias in western societies and educational system. This is not the only article on this website like this. The US terrorist army attacking a passenger jet(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 ) in Iraq-Iran war also downplayed. Why these events are not act of terrorism?

There is ample evidence and opinion that this was an incident of law enforcement/police brutality followed by police cover up of crimes committed that this article does not adequately reflect. Right now I'm bogged down getting some sources on line and restructuring my 30 boxes of Waco files in case I have to grab something physical. Then intend to make the article more accurately reflect sources - especially the many revelations in the trial and house hearings which are not in here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Structural Inadequacy of Proposition: "Who Fired First?"

"All Law is Anthropology." -Justice Holmes

"Who Fired First" is at best inadequate and more likely a disservice. It falls into the all too general pattern of Wikiwork as lacking any referencing of Law. This could be amended to ask "Who Fired Last". The section should point out that the Government is prohibited from prior restraint and force is always reactive and proportional. The articles in general lack this facet of a jurisprudential understanding. As it stands, the prior submission is most correct- the dogs were the first to die.

The article perforce needs be IMMEDIATELY amended. 24.72.179.175 (talk) 15:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually everything in the controversies section should be integrated into the relevant sections; then there is no need for questionable section titles. There are dozens of missing controversies as well, and too disorganized to try to make two sections. But I am way behind on doing that work... ON my list :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does YFZ Ranch deserve text mention???

A YFZ Ranch description was added to Waco_Siege#Related_incidents even though its only relation is that some media have made a comparision. I could easily rustle up 5 or 6 incidents similarly compared, both before and after like MOVE#1985_incident and some incidents in Category:Nonwar_armed_confrontations.

I don't have a problem with a See also reference but am opposed to text reference. Rationales for including it in text, and my replies, are:

  1. August 24, 2009 Bachcell (→Related incidents: YFZ Ranch, this time with sources); relevance more important in this case
  2. August 24, 2009 Carolmooredc Removal: deleted incident onlly compared to Waco, not related; dozens of things have been compared but can't include them all; irrelevant; ditto.
  3. August 26, 2009 Apostle12 (Revert. Actually this well-sourced addition describes a major event that parallels Waco in many respects. I think it should be included.); still not relevant.

Others thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Ruth who signed off on the Treasury report on Waco saw parallels with MOVE and Ruby Ridge. Several government and news media sources cite Jonestown as a parallel. A lot of us see parallels and differences with the YFZ raid. I would support a See also link and maybe one line for these. Including text summaries here on MOVE, Ruby Ridge, Jonestown, YFZ, and other incidents with which one might find a parallel to the Waco siege would clutter this article with inadequate summaries here of those events with maintenance problems when their main articles are updated. Naaman Brown (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As long as they are specified as "similar" and not "related" and are short I don't have a problem with it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Fatti vs: "mg possession"?

I am glad some appealled bogus charges of "possession of a machine gun", and won. Wikipedia, you are an English website, so you don't know: Machine Guns (Automatic weapons of Class 3 destructive Devices, National Firearms Act of 1934) are Legal for public possession/use in the US. Some individual states restrict them.( Not Texas.) So long as you have the federal licensing, registration, taxes, waiting period, etc, in order, you can possess as many M/Gs as you want/can afford in TX. This should not have been recorded as a "charge" against Fatti; it should have been in quotes, like some one's "opinion".You should know by now that peace officers can throw all kinds of "charges" against anyone; only what is the Law will hold up in court, and that's what counts.68.231.188.151 (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Waco_siege&oldid=311864323"