Talk:Waco siege/Archive 3

confused

I came here looking for what Waco was and why and how and all that info, and I can barely get past the first few paragraphs without being confused. why did the fbi want to raid waco? was it a cult? what were they accused of? why were the police so heavy handed? what did the people at waco do? I feel like this is VERY US-centric and that you need to know stuff beforehand before reading the article, which is very unencyclopedic if you ask me 81.149.170.242 (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't blame you for being confused. An excellent way to understand this event is to view a documentary produced in 1997 that was nominated for an Academy Award, "Waco: The Rules of Engagement". Netflix has it, and it is also available for sale.

For more information please use the Wikipedia link, then go to the offical website by using the associated external link. Apostle12 (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Briefly, the original raid was by the ATF ( Alcohol,Tobacco, and Firearms ) , who alleged the Branch-Davidians were making illegal full-automatic weapons, something which has never been fully-established, BTW. While other aspects are much disputed, the primary purpose of the raid is generally-thought to be public relations for the agency, religious fanatics with guns being easy to demonize. Which is why the media was tipped off and how the Branch Davidians had warning. The FBI was only called in after the original ATF raid resulted in an armed confrontation and a standoff, which the FBI is much better equiped to deal with than the ATF.Drjem3 (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There were three distinct phases in the Waco Siege: (1) the 28 Feb 1993 Raid by the ATF (which should include the lead-up to the raid); (2) the 1 Mar -- 18 Apr FBI Siege by FBI HRT Tactical and FBI HRT Negotiations; and (3) the 19 Apr FBI HRT Gas and Tank attack. Naaman Brown (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

1 gun?

I highly doubt the police had 25 casualties against 1 machine gun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.41.21 (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

WS:COTW

This is a note to inform all interested watchers of this article that Wikisource has chosen the Branch Davidians and Waco Siege as their Collaboration of the Week.

This means that we are spending this week collecting, copying and formatting Public Domain documents related to the church and its 1993 siege. This includes speeches by David Koresh, Federal documents in the aftermath of the siege, the charges against Lon Horiuchi and the surviving church members, and early church documents whose copyright have expired.

We would encourage you all to come help us, if you have any questions, feel free to leave a question on my talk page - either on Wikisource or Wikipedia!

I hope to see some of you there, helping us document the primary sources for future research and historical analysis!

Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Administration Bush / Clinton

There is no reference that the this was started under Bush seniors presidency and concluded under the Clinton administration. There is no mention of Hillary's possible influence and also Vince Foster close connections to Hillary and Waco. As I understand there were also FBI power struggles going on because of the switch in administration. All these facts might help further explain the disastrous handling of this situation, and the ongoing cover-up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.211.130 (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

So... anyone has a source for that information? Some report on the siege that talks about that circumstance? We need to have a verifiable source for that, or there will be an edit war about it --Enric Naval (talk) 03:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It was a "compound"

References I found to "Davidian Branch Compound", "Mt. Carmel's compound" and similar wordings of "compound": Time Magazine, Tribune-Herald Although many followers have fled, Howell remains with about 75 faithful in a compound they built to await the end of the world. Former cult members and authorities say it is heavily armed. Guards reportedly walked the grounds at night. Perched above the compound is a tower with lookout windows facing all directions, touristic website for the compound (photos of underground tunnels and bunker), Frontline report, US Department of Justice Evaluation of the Handling of the Branch Davidian Stand-off in Waco, Texas, cnn.com, transcripts of Terry Nichols trial at cnn.com.

For all this I'm re-adding "compound" to the article, which was replaced by "complex" and "building", which look like a POV wording for people believing that it was a deliberate massacre. Like here [1] where they call it "village complex" when talking about fleeing mother and children, even altought the header calls it compound. As an aside it's also used on newspapers, like on St Louis Dispath [2] [3], and the fire investigation [4], and used interchangeably on some places.

To sum it up, I infer from my searches that "compound" is a WP:NPOV description of the place and ws used on the trial to describe it, while "complex" appears to have a POV bias for its use on POV websites, and "building" is probably plain incorrect, so I'll add it back in short time. I'll wait a pair of days for comments from other editors --Enric Naval (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a matter of accuracy here that we need to keep in mind. The "compound" or "complex" included multiple buildings and extensive land holdings surrounding the buildings. It is therefore inaccurate to state that the "compound" was burned to the ground, being that it included the large expanse of real estate itself. The ground didn't all burn up :-) And, on the other hand, stating that the tanks pushed into the "compound" means something entirely different than saying the tanks pushed into the "building", possibly starting fires inside the building. Compound vs. building is a difference that is needed for article accuracy.

"Compound" is also considered a very heavily POV term among many, equating to the Government's description of any private property that is the alleged hold-out of any "criminals". The use of the word "compound" is clearly done to influence and sway juries, as opposed to calling a "compound" by the term "private property". Clearly, the use of "Compound" in the title of the Government report cited as a reference should remain (and has) in the article. On the other hand, calling the private church building of a private organization a "compound" is POV pushing, pure and simple. That said, I advocate we use "compound" for the titles of Government reports, where it was called a compound, and "building" where the article is talking about tanks pushing down walls, and "complex" for the entire buildings/land holdings except for direct quotes where it was called a "compound". This avoids contributing to any subtle POV pushes in calling a church building or a private home by the evil-sounding term "compound". Does this make sense? Yaf (talk) 01:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: actual quotes must always use the original words, even if we don't agree with them.

(to sum my comment up: I only disagree with Yaf on the use of "complex" to describe the set of buildings, and on "compound" having a POV weight)

No, "compound" being a POV term does not make sense. You see, the "private church building of a private organization" was built around a church and was not a church itself and it wasn't either a private home. It had underground tunnels to connect the buildings, a subterranean "vault" made of cinder block, a gun cache, hand grenades, gas masks, guards, the Texas Rangers found the remains of a "small machine shop [...] with a methal lathe and mill [...] and firearms, ammunition, and devices resembling explosive ordinance", and Koresh said that "they built to await the end of the world" so I assume they had food reserves too. The description of the buildings on the arson report made by Texas Rangers uses the word "compound" and indicates that the davidians were restricted to one multi-storied building with a tunnel system that connected to a subterrean cinder block room (the vault) and an unfinished concrete-walled building. Looking at Compound (enclosure) and Compound (fortification), I fail to see how "compound" not a neutral description of it.

The main building was a wooden frame with crappy materials so it wasn't actually fortified, but it was connected by a tunnel to an unfinished concrete building on construction, (I'm going to risk a guess that it was a fortificated building for the purpose of resisting the end of the world).

The word "compound" was also used extensively by the media reporting the event, including Associated Press, and by the government on places where there was no jury to sway, like on the report by the Comittee on Government Reform and oversight to the House of Representatives (that also uses complex on some places) [5], Report to the Justice and Treasury Departments regarding law enforcement interaction with the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas [6], Remarks to Federal Law Enforcement by Bill Clinton [7], Evaluation of the Handling of the Branch Davidian Stand-off in Waco, Texas [8].

The compound definition does not include the terrains about it, so you can technically say that the tanks pounded in the compound walls, since the buildings were joined together with tunnels and there was no enclosure or fence that delimited a terrain outside of the buildings that could be called "compound walls" and cause a confusion. (Mind you, I don't oppose the word of "tanks used bombs to puncture holes in the walls of buildings" altought it should be "the walls of parts of the building", since there was only one actual building being assaulted, and the compound was unfinished)

P.D.:Actually looking to this aerial video of assault you can see several joined roofs, so the compound would sort of have more than one "building" and fit the description of compound "formed by the buildings themselves, when they are built around an open area or joined together.".

P.D.D.: Diagram of the damned thing. This page discuss it [9] but it maintains obvious false statements as the tanks having flamethrowers, so it's probably not reliable. anither view another actual photo

So, "compound" is a descriptive word that matches roughly the buildings at Waco, and that was used by at least the US Department of Justice, several media like Associated Press, Frontline and New York Times, also by Bill Clinton, the Texas Rangers and by a comitee from the House of Representatives. Using "complex" instead would be taking out the military significance of the buildings (designed to resist the end of the world, provisioned with weapons and a bunker, with its inhabitants receiving paramilitary training) and wouldn't match the mainstream media denomination during or after the siege. Using "building", and not "buildings", is adequate for talking about the tank's actions since there was only one building being assaulted for the compound was unfinished (I didn't find any reference to the unfinished building being assaulted) --Enric Naval (talk) 12:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

P.D.D.D.: As for military significance, Koresh believed that he was related to Cyrus_the_Great named korush or similar, who was a conqueror king (or that he was Cyrus himself, can't bother to find the source right now), and the day that the AFT presented the search warrant the cult members were saying the "the assyrians are coming" [10], the assyrians had a empire on persa empire territory before it existed, and it's probably also some reference to the bible. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

"the day that the AFT presented the search warrant"??? Clearly someone would make such a statement demonstrates a gross ignorance of these events. You should refrain editing this article in any manner shape or form.

Rick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.148.166.41 (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

you're right, it would be more correct like this "the day that the AFT claims to have gone there to present a search warrant". I believe that this identificates unambiguosly and more neutrally what day I am talking about. If you are really convinced that I shouldn't be editing this article then you should go to an admin or to some place like village pump and explain your reasons and then ask that I am banned from editing this article. Btw, I intend to do the change to the compound word this sunday. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain what in your mind makes you qualified to edit this article? What is your motivation? I don't expect an answer but this is something you should ask yourself if you intend to be accurate. Rick

If you look to the WP:PILLARS 5 pillars that sustain wikipedia, you will see that the third pillar says "Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit.(...) Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual controls any specific article; therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community. (...)", so please stop saying that someone is not qualified to edit any article, since *everyone* can edit it. I also provided secondary sources supporting my edits and discussed them on the talk page of the article in order to avoid edit wars. If you think that I shouldn't be editing the article, then please go to Wikipedia:Village_pump and post about you thinking that I shouldn't edit this article (I think this request probably would belong to the miscellaneous part, so I advice you to post it there), but be aware that people there will probably ask you for some proof of that inadequacy, apart from your personal opinion. Every day there are users that get blocked or prevented from editing at certain articles because of "disruptive editing" and "abusing of editing privileges", so it wouldn't be a new thing. Btw, if you just post that I shouldn't be editing and then apport no reasons for this, then there is a chance that your comment gets deleted right away, so make sure to prepare a good case.--Enric Naval (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty clear. You made an inaccurate statement of fact about one of the key issues central to this event. I don't know your intentions but the situation is binary, you are either ignorant or a propagandist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.148.166.41 (talk) 09:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I answered on your talk page --Enric Naval (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The US department of Justice also says the same as the AFT: (...) the agents who arrived on February 28 with a valid search and arrest warrant. [11]. I think that I'll have to ask for some RS source of why this claim is incorrect --Enric Naval (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You made a statment of fact "the AFT presented the search warrant". It never happened. This is incontovertable. However, one cannot argue that there was no search warrant or that it was not valid on it's face, but that is not the point. There is however considerable doubt as to the question as to fact of if the ATF even bothered to BRING the search warrant (refer to the trial transcripts as no agent that testified had seen the warrant much less much less did they have it in their possesion during the assault). Presenting the warrant was contingient upon the completion of the "Dynamic Entry". This is why the the term "Execute a Warrant" as used in the opening paragraph is generally correct. It's a simple algorithim, assault>subdue>present. Rick

The US Department of Justice says that they brought the warrant and so says the report to the Deputty Attorney General, and I think that the report qualifies as a reliable source (the indictment was an appendix to it, and was a separate document from other source, not an actual part of the report). That a few agents on the trial said that they hadn't *seen* the warrant themselves doesn't mean that the agent on charge of the operation didn't bring the warrant on a folder on his hand, and I would like to see the testimonial where any agent says that he is totally sure that they didn't actually bring the warrant, as opposed to not being sure if they brought it because they never got to see it (hey, maybe they had an actual warrant and the idiot on charge neglected to bring it with him. If you please present some sources like pages from the trial transcript where there is actually proof that they didn't bring the warrant, then we can add it to the article). --Enric Naval (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

P.D.D.D.D.: From indictement [12], statements supporting that the Waco buildings had militar significance

“ 5. It was a part of the conspiracy that Vernon K. Howell, also known as David Koresh, would and did advocate and encourage an armed confrontation, which he described as a "war," between his followers and representatives of the United States government. Vernon K. Howell, also known as David Koresh, originally predicted that this "war" would occur in the Nation of Israel and later changed the location to Mt. Carmel Compound, near Waco, Texas. ”

I suppose it would be obvious to most that an indictement is clearly a POV source. Then again, I suppose it's not just a trivial matter that the fact finders, the Jury, specifically rejected this count would be mentioned from a NPOV source.

Rick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.148.166.41 (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, you're right, an indictment is POV and should only be used to show the statements of the accusers. I'll cite a WP:RS source to support my statement that Koresh was preparing for a war against the government, and that's why he was converting the buildings had a military purpose. The report to the Deputty Atorney General says about Koresh's followers: "They also believed the end of the world was near, that the world would end in a cataclysmic confrontation between themselves and the government"[13].

Enric it needs to be pointed out that this "report" you keep refering to is very POV and is not reliable. Alan A. Stone, Touroff-Glueck Professor of Law and Psychiatry at Harvard University and a former president of the American Psychiatric Association has shared some thoughts on it here http://bostonreview.net/BR22.5/stone.html. "Reno had ordered the Justice Department to investigate itself and the FBI. The supposedly independent investigator, Edward Dennis, an assistant attorney general during the Reagan administration, based his report on that less than searching self-examination. The result was a total whitewash". Now keep in mind that he was one of the "experts" the DAG paid for their opinions and he refused add his name to it because it was structurally flawed. Rick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.148.166.41 (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Rick, if you have a problem with the DOJ report then go to Wikipedia:RSN and ask them if it is a reliable source for my statements. Btw, Stone did sign his report [14]. I'm sure that you can find points on it that can go into the article (please open a new section using = signs, this section is getting very long and we are disgressing from the "compound" topic) --Enric Naval (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, can you find a RS source for the jury rejecting this point? It could be added to the trial section on the article, which is lacking on references and could do with a link to the jury's final decision --Enric Naval (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

refer to page 7403 if you have the trial trancripts

THE COURT: Mrs. Flowers, would you publish the

 verdict, please, and make sure your mike is working?
       MRS. FLOWERS: Yes, sir. Is it working?
       "We, the Jury, unanimously find each of the following
 Defendants guilty or not guilty of the offense of Conspiracy to
 Murder Federal Officers, as alleged in Count One of the
 Indictment:
       "Brad Eugene Branch, not guilty.
       "Kevin A. Whitecliff, not guilty.
       "Clive J. Doyle, not guilty.
       "Jaime Castillo, not quilty.
       "Livingston Fagan, not guilty.
       "Paul Gordon Fatta, not guilty.
       "Woodrow Kendrick, not guilty.
       "Norman Washington Allison, not guilty.
       "Graeme Leonard Craddock, not guilty.
       "Renos Avraam, not guilty.
       "Ruth Ottman Riddle, not guilty.
       "Question 2. Wer the Jury, unanimously find each of
  the following Defendants guilty or not guilty of the offense of
  Aiding and Abetting Unknown Principals and Each Other in the
  Murder of Federal Officers, as alleged in Count Two of the
  Indictment:
       "Brad Eugene Branch, not guilty.
       "Kevin A. Whitecliff, not guilty.
       "Clive J..Doyle, not guilty.
       "Jaime Castillo, not guilty.'
       "Livingston Fagan, not guilty.
       "Paul Gordon Fatta, not guilty.
       "Woodrow Kendrick, @ot guilty.
       "Norman Washington Allison, not guilty.
       "Graeme Leonard Craddock, not guilty.
       "Renos Avraam, not guilty.
       "Ruth Ottman Riddle, not guilty.
       "For each of the Defendants, if any, that you found
 not guilty in Question 2, or for each of the Defendants, if any,
 you were unable to reach a verdict in Question 2, answer this
 question. For each of the Defendants, if any, that you found
 guilty in Question 2, do not answer this question with regard to
 that Defendant.�
        "Question 3. We, the Jury, unanimously find each of
 the following Defendants guilty or not guilty of the offense of
 Aiding and Abetting Unknown Principals and Each Other in the
 lesser included offense of Volunt@ Manalaughter of Federal
 officers, as described in the instructions:
       "Brad Eugene Branch, guilty.
       "Kevin A. Whitecliff, guilty.
       "Clive J. Doyle, not guilty.     
       "Jaime Castillo, guilty.
       "Livingston Fagan, guilty.
       "Paul Gordon Fatta, not guilty.
       "Woodrow Kendrickt not guilty.
       "Norman Washington Allison, not guilty.
       "Graeme Leonard Craddock, not guilty.
       "Renos Avraam, guilty.
       "Ruth Ottman Riddle, not guilty.

I added a reference to that page on the part of the article that talks about the jury decision. I see that this does not say wether Koresh himself was preaching for a war and wether Koresh believed that he was going to have a war. I remind you that on wikipedia it's important to have verifiable WP:RS reliable sources supporting the statements on the article. I have found the indictment (which is POV but it's another source supporting this), the US Department Justice, and also the Koresh article links this [15] "At the start of Desert Shield in 1990, he thought the place of his martyrdom might be in Israel but finally at the start of Desert Storm in 1991 he was convinced that his martyrdom would be here in the US. He started to build and to arm himself for the coming confrontation. Instead of Israel, David said the prophecies of Daniel would be fulfilled in Waco and that the Mt. Carmel Center was the Davidic kingdom. ", to support that Koresh was preparing Mt. Carmel for a militar confrontation. Now, see, he also bought lots of weapons, (which are listed on the article, btw) and lots of ammo. I think that the trial for child abuse also talked about the kids being given paramilitary courses and teached a military song "We are the children of the Lord, we will fight and stand our ground" that they sang while marching in a military fashion after playing war games and trying to engange the FBI agents on discussion about weapons [16]. It also appears on Time magazine [17]. This is all consistent with Koresh preparing for a war. If you think that he wasn't then please provide RS sources for that. Otherwise, discussing is pointless because we couldn't include it anyways on the article because of lack of sources for the statement.

The Davidians (and many outside supporters) considered it to be a church with buildings; govt/media propaganda called it a "compound". The answer is to simply make that distinction clear. Couple quotes supporting that:

• The old structure, part of a chain of buildings federal agents called "the compound," was reduced to ashes at the end of a 51-day standoff nearly seven years ago. REF: Dick J. Reavis, Staff Writer, "Rising from the ashes:Volunteers rebuilding Koresh chapel," San Antonio Express-News, Thursday, Feb 3, 2000.
• Not a WP:RS) Davidian Trial Reveals ATF Planned Lethal Military Assault, From a July 1994 e-mail post by court observer Egon Richard Tauschshares opinion Prosecution witnesses avoided using the prejudicial words "cult" and "compound" -- the latter a military-sounding term never used by the inhabitants of Mt. Carmel -- for almost half of the trial.
• Tausch also shares: Dan Cogdell gave the most memorable closing arguments, reminded the jury that the Davidians were attacked in their home and their church, not a "compound."
• Google search of "church not a compound" finds phrase used frequently by supporters.

Carol Moore 15:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Carol, Egon's statements can actually be verified by cheking the trial transcripts, which unfortunately appear to be 7,500 pages long + 1,500 pages of documents.

A google search with quotes gives only two hits [18]... The words "church compound" waco, for example, give 338 hits[19].

The statements from the davidian's lawyers are, of course, totally parcial and are constructed to try to save their clients from going to jail.

The statements from Egon are totally subjective with statements like "Mike DeGuerin gave a rousing patriotic speech", "what could most charitably be described" (while refering to AFT attorney), etc, and appears to be totally partial against the AFT, so he probably cut references that he didn't like and remarked the ones he liked. He also says that it was proved that there was no warrant on the day of the raid, but the indictment mentions it, and there is even an affidavit for it [20]. He also says that witnesses avoid the use of the word "compound", but neglects to mention that the judge used "compound" on the trial indictment and also mentioned the warrant: "agents of the FBI who were authorized to execute search warrants under the authority of the United States from February 28, 1993, until each of them emerged from the Mt. Carmel Compound."[21]. Seeing all of this, he looks like a totally POV source. Also, he is a attorney who wrote a page about the trial, but he didn't take part on it.

The church was the main building and the davidians lived there, but calling it "a church and its buildings" would be a misrepresentation of the underground bunkers, tunnels, small machine shop for weapons, guns, hand grenades, gas masks, etc. I agree with remarking on the article that the davidians did not call it a compound and that they considered it a church, but only if there an actual source for that, and not an argument by their attorney. Otherwise, it should be included as "Dan Cogdell, on the Waco Siege trial, reminded the jury that the Davidians were attacked in their home and their church, not a "compound."" or similar wording. It's not a statement that supports calling the buildings a church, but an attorney defence on the trial. Also, using his arguments would give WP:UNDUE undue weight on one of the side's arguments if the AFT lawyers' statements about why they called it a compound are not also included). --Enric Naval (talk) 17:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

There was an underground cellar that was there for 30-40 years; there was a buried bus that was used as a tunnel to an under-construction tornado shelter big enough for 120 0dd people; there was a machine shop that a few guys evidently used to mess with a few weapons. The bottom line remains, it's ok to say that the govt/media called it a compound (and Reavis should be quoted) but not to say davidians called it that without a ref. I think Koresh calls it home and church on video and else where. But don't have time to research my copies on minor point. Carol Moore 19:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I don't know how davidians called the place (probably "church" or something, and I'll be happy to cite it on the article if I stumple on the info while searching), I was trying to discuss how we should call it on the article from a NPOV --Enric Naval (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, if you don't know why don't you keep your hands off?? There were around 140 People in that place the day of the assault. Four, perhaps five generations living there. Mt. Carmel Center was their home. It was their ranch and farm. There was a chapel, a gym, kitchen and common dining area. Like most farm houses on the Texas prairie of that period, it was little more than a plywood shack. The whole place could have been demolished and pushed into piles in just a few hours with a 35hp tractor. Really, it's incumbent upon you to show that the use of the word "compound" to describe that place was in common usage prior to the arrival of the paramilitary on the scene. Rick

If you know how exactly the davidians called the place, and provide RS sources for it, thn I will be happy that it gets included on the article, properly sourced and attributed as what the davidians called it. Then we can explain how the AFT called it, how it appeared on the media, how it appeared on the trial, etc. All points of view except the most fringe have to be included on the article, per WP:NPV the neutral point of view of wikipedia, but if they are disputed then they have to be sourced, and, since this is a very disputed article, it's better to source as much as we can when adding stuff. Feel free to find a source for how the davidians called the place and include it in the article.

Rick, the fact that you think that it shouldn't be called a compound is a personal opinion that you have. Wikipedia articles are based on verifiable reliable sources talking about notable facts, and on an encyclopaedic tone. I can't put someone's opinion on it when I have adequate sources that say otherwise, even if I think that he is right. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

complex attacked on the day of the raid?

On February 28, the day of the raid, when the ATF says that they were only going to present a search and arrest warrant, they though that they would encounter no resistance and weren't prepared for a fight. Some of the agents thought that there would be problems and asked to be allowed to bring their rifles, and their request was denied. The ATF was not preparing an attack, so saying that it attacked the complex is an accuracy. See [22]. It was also a raid too, not an assault. I changed the infobox to say "shoout". The attack at April 19, however, does qualify as a full assault with intention of getting control of the buildings with force. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding?? I don't know what you are using for sources but I can assure you this was an "assault with intention of getting control of the buildings with force". Hell, they wrote their blood type on thier bodies if I recall correctly, maybe it was dog tags. You've made reference to the trial transcripts, have you attempted to read them? I would point out that it is progress not to speak of the ATF agents as having one mind. THeir were eighty individuals on the outside and ~140 in the building. They were not of one mind on either side Rick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.148.166.41 (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Reference Davidian Criminal Trial Transcripts 2054-2055

Richardson - Cross (Mr. Rentz) 2054-2055
25  Q  When you left the staging area, did you by chance put your
1  blood type on your arm?
2  A   No, sir, not on the arm.
3 Q   Where did you put it?
4  A   The blood type was -- was placed on the side of the neck.
5  Q   Why did you do that?
6  A   I didn't place it on there, that's what was some -- one of
7  the other agents came by and he placed it on the side of the
8  neck.
9  Q   Why did you do it, do you know?
10  A   I assumed that in case there was any injury or anything,
11  that you would be able to know what the person's blood type was.
12  Q   Had you ever done that on a raid before?
13  A   No, sir.
14  Q   So, you anticipated possibly or somebody anticipated the
15  need for knowing your blood type, then?
16  A   Someone apparently did, sir.
17  Q   Okay.
18  MR. RENTZ: No further questions.

99.148.166.41 (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)rick

I added the ref to the article. I read it somewhere, but it's just the underlings antipating trouble, with their boss (the agent in charge of the operation) appearing to think that Davidians would give no resistance for whatever silly reason (and that's one of the decisions criticized on the DOJ reports, I think, they should have anticipated that there would be armed resistance) --Enric Naval (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Enric it's impossible to know the state of mind of the comanders who decided to assault that place. You should understand that this is by design. The DOJ interviened and told the ATF to stop their shooting review because they were creating evidence that might tend to show the innocence of the Davidians. Johnston is the Assistant United States Attorney

Similarly, the September 17, 1993 memorandum on "ATF Statements
and Issues concerning ATF Knowledge of the Loss of the Element of
Surprise," prepared for the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury
for Enforcement contains this summary:

    March 1, 1993                      Troy WAR Interview 
    ATF initiates a shooting review. David Troy and Bill Wood
interview Rodriguez and Mastin (3/1), Chojnacki (3/3), Cavanaugh
(3/3), Sarabyn (3/2). Troy tells Review they immediately
determined that these stories did not add up. They communicated
information to both Hartnett and Conroy on the day or day after
each interview. Conroy gave Troy's handwritten notes to Hartnett.
(Note -- Johnston at this point advised Hartnett to stop the ATF
Shooting review because ATF was creating Brady Material. Because
Chojnacki had not yet been interviewed, Johnston authorized that
interview but no notes were created.)

Now compare this to the Treasury Review version of why the shooting review was halted

After the interviews, the shooting review team was concerned because Sarabyn's urgency and his statements at the staging area about Koresh's knowledge that ATF and the National Guard were coming were inconsistent with his lack of any recollection that Rodriguez had told him that Koresh had been tipped about the raid. As a result, the team was prepared to conduct additional interviews. However, after being told by Hartnett that the local U.S. Attorney's office had directed ATF to stop the shooting review because it was needlessly duplicating the pending leak and murder investigations, the team concluded its efforts.

This is why this subject is a bear trap. It's why I maintain the sources you are using are POV. Someone has "sanitized" the information for the official report. "Brady Material" if you don't know is exculpatory material that the prosecution discovers during an investigation and must disclose to the defense. 76.203.230.246 (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC) Rick

I'm afraid that this demonstrates nothing about what actually happened or not at the staging area. It just shows that the ATF didn't want to give "free" material for the defence to use against them. Totally coherent with the ATF simply trying to cover their incompetence, and the fact that they didn't take into account Koresh's awareness of their arrival. The two reports don't fit exactly but they don't contradict each other (mind you, I'm a bit tired right now, so I'm probably missing stuff) --Enric Naval (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Enric, my point was to illistrate why you need to use caution about these sources you keep quoting. They are not netrual. In fact, in many instances, as I have shown here, they are fraudulent. The key differences should be obvious. The official report states "needlessly duplicating the pending leak and murder investigations" but the reality is, if Troy's notes are accurate, that the ASUA was obstructing justice. The Brady rule is where the rubber meets the road in the due process clause. 76.203.230.246 (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Rick

You are right in that they are not neutral, but showing that they are fraudulent would take a bit of effort and would fall outside the scope of wikipedia's goals. We are supossed to use verifiable secondary reliable sources. Until such a source is provided about the reports being fraudulent, it's difficult to add that to the article. At most, I can attribute some of the statements as, for example, changing "the agents prepared" to "the DOJ report claims that the agents prepared". Actually, you could attempt to find some of those places on the article and attribute them yourself, or add the tag {{ww}} (aka Weasel Words) on the sentences so me and other editors can check them and change them. I am currently a bit busy on other places to do this myself.

'At most, I can attribute some of the statements as, for example, changing "the agents prepared" to "the DOJ report claims that the agents prepared".' Excacty! I would say such a presentation is a step in the right direction. 76.203.230.246 (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Rick

Now, if you could make that change yourself.... I am a bit busy with other stuff, and can't do it myself --Enric Naval (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

About the request for military advice, it's not cleared on the report why exactly they decided that they needed it. I took out the statement about the agents deciding that there was risks of injuries because I noticed that it was a belief of me based on reading the trial testomony of one agent incorrectly. The Davidian's attorney is weasely wording the questions to avoid asking the agent whether he personally anticipated problems. I'm afraid that I would need to see all the pages of the trial where the agent is giving testimonial, to see what the ATF/FBI/DOJ/whatever attorneys asked them, and what the judge said, if he made some statement, in case that the testimonials have been cherry picked to include only the questions from Davidians attorneys, and that parts favoring the ATF version have been ignored. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

P.D.: the staging area is where plans for the raid are told to the agents to prepare them. It appears that, after hearing the explanations from the ATF commander, the agents decided that there would gravely injured agents at the end of the raid needing transfusions. I think that the DOJ report also says that the agents requested to bring their rifles with them, and that the petition was denied by the same ATF commander. Let's see if I can find that again --Enric Naval (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit I got a chuckle out of that one. And then I consider the date on your post... and the the thought of the snipers in their gilli suits that were deployed in the pre-dawn hours asking for permission to take their rifles with them.... I suppose it might provide a clue why some agents were armed with sawed-off shotguns and others submachineguns...."give me that rifle takes these instead"....You're joking right??? 76.203.230.246 (talk) 10:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Rick

Hum, I think that you are confusing the raid on february 28 where the ATF agents were totally unprepared with no rifles and transported to the compound in cattle wagons, with 3 helicopters for distraction, and the assault on April 19 that had fully armed agents with sniper support driving National Guards vehicles into the buildings for pouring CS gas inside and force the Davidians outside. The raid just plain had no snipers, and the ATF was actually very critiziced by DOJ and others for being underprepared for an armed confrontation. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I guess I can safely assume your original statment was not some April fools prank. And after thinking about it some more I do recall your statement somewhat mirrors some of the propaganda injected into the discourse about these events. It's another trap an honest person could fall into if they fail to research these events properly. Please do try to find your original source as the propaganda and the way public opinion was and has been manipulated is central this story. I don't have time to source it this morning but I can assure you that it is not me who is confused about these particular facts. The version you have posted is directly counter to sworn testimony by the ATF agents who testified at the trial. 76.203.230.246 (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC) Rick

Got this from [23], unfortunately, I can't find the rifle thing again, but I think it was on one of the reports I linked.

"Earlier Wednesday, an ATF agent said ATF medics received first aid training from their military counterparts two days before the raid. The agent, Gerald Petrilli, said he expected fistfights with cult members when agents raided the compound, not a shootout."

"Under cross-examination, Petrilli said some agents were taught by personnel at Fort Hood, a nearby Army post, how to administer intravenous lines and treat shock and gunfire wounds a few days before the raid. He also said his blood type was written on his neck and leg before the raid."

"Former ATF agent Robert White testified last week that writing an agent's blood type on their body was recommended by the military and not standard procedure."

On light of this, it looks the agent didn't really anticipate the need for transfusions, and took that down from the article.

That's a bit of a leap of logic. The training provided by the military was based on requests by the ATF, not the other way around. The information needs to be taken in contex. Individual agents may or may not have expected violence, but the assault planners certainly did. "By December 1992 (almost 3 months before the raid), ATF agents were requesting Close Quarters Combat/Close Quarters Battle [63] (CQB) training by U.S. Army Special Forces soldiers for ATF agents.[64]"http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Activities_of_Federal_Law_Enforcement_Agencies_Toward_the_Branch_Davidians/Section_5#b._Chronology_of_ATF.27s_request 76.203.230.246 (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Rick

For the sawed-off shotguns, I think you are getting confused with another incident, see [24], and I have no idea of ATF agents bringing submachineguns to a raid. You should find a source for that. I have no say, I found nowhere a place where it was specified what actual weapons the agents were wearing when going to the compound the day of the raid :( --Enric Naval (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no list of weapons nor is there an inventory of how many rounds the ATF fired. That list would have been generated from a "Shooting review" or and "After action review". It's a proceedure or policy virtually all law enforcement agencies in the US have to insure that any use of deadly force is reasonable and lawful. It was ATF policy at the time and they violated it. As I've already pointed out, the DOJ killed that review as it was just starting. 76.203.230.246 (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Rick

Germane to some of the issues raised anove: Chuck Hustmyre was one of the ATF agents on the raid. Hustmyre's Trojan Horse: Inside the ATF Raid at Waco, Texas, 2003, was posted at the Court TV website. According to Hustmyre, he was armed with an AR15 rifle. Lowell Sprague had an MP5 carbine. David Sullivan had a .308 sniper rifle. Hustmyre did not inventory all the arms of the 75 raiding party, but there were long guns present.

Quote Hustmyre on the meth lab claim:

  ATF had managed to persuade the Texas National Guard and the 
  governor that the compound might contain a methamphetamine lab. 
  All the agents knew the lab story was bullshit, but someone at 
  ATF [HQ] decided to spin the tale to the Texas authorities so 
  that we could get access to their equipment and personnel.

Quote Hustmyre on the presence of ATF snipers:

  Special Agent David Sullivan started the ATF sniper program just 
  a year before the raid on the Branch Davidian compound. Sullivan, 
  a former Marine infantry officer, sat at a breakfast table in the 
  undercover house across the road from the compound, sipping 
  coffee and firing his .308-caliber scoped rifle at cult gunmen in 
  the upper windows of the compound almost 300 yards away. 

Quote Hustmyre on ATF ceasefire:

  About 45 minutes into the shootout, the volume of gunfire finally 
  started to slacken. We were running out of ammunition. The 
  Davidians, however, had plenty. Later, the number of rounds 
  stored inside the compound was estimated in the hundreds of 
  thousands.

Naaman Brown (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes clearly there were a variety of long guns in the ATF deployment. Sniper rifles, MP5 sub machine guns, AR15s and sawed off shotguns are noted in testimony by the ATF at the criminal trial. Unfortunatly, just a few of the ~75 personell the ATF deployed actually testified. 99.180.126.45 (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Rick

inflamatory

"The bunker is later found to have held only the remaining women and children in the compound. They were trapped in the concrete bunker as it filled with CS gas; all were either gassed to death or burned to death." while this is flagged as citation needed, I think it should be removed if not sourced. First, it should easily be verifiable if true. Second, it contradicts the notion that CS gas is generally recognized as non-lethal (see wikipedia entry). Third, it is inflamatory/reflects bias - while it is possible the women and children were burned to death, absent a cause of death determination, claiming they were "gassed to death" is not only scaremongering, but seems biased against federal agents. It could have a short statement that the gas may have contributed to an inability to exit or such, but again, absent a source, this speculation does nothing good for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.99.4 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 17 April 2008

I corrected and sourced the statements [25], and then I moved them to its own section under controversies section [26]. The placement was suggesting that the persons on the bunker were dead because of that agent firing two shells --Enric Naval (talk) 10:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• For photos of the so-called "bunker" see the Texas Rangers Branch Davidian Evidence. This was a concrete storage building above ground that formed the base or foundation of the "watchtower." Most of the women and children were found in the storage building and are believed to have asphyxiated when the FBI tank drove into the building and sprayed CS tear gas in the door. (Use of CS gas was vetoed at Ruby Ridge Aug 1992 as too dangerous to use against the Weaver children indoors; somehow, it became OK to use against children indoors at Waco Apr 1993.) There was another "bunker" a defunct school bus buried as a tornado shelter and storage area with a trapdoor and stairs. The concrete basement of the new construction was labeled a "bunker" also. Contrary to government claims, there were no tunnels connecting these "bunkers". My father built real bunkers in New Guinea nad the Phillipines in WWII and a real bunker has viewports and gun ports. The Waco "bunkers" were windowless structures -- a storage building, a tornado shelter and a basement -- each with one opening: a door.Naaman Brown (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

that "bunker" was full of ammunitions. The intended purpose was preparing for the war and violence when the system would collapse as predicted by Koresh (mind you, we are just calling them the same way as WP:RS sources call them). And why do you say that there were no tunnels? Did you see the instalation yourself before it was brought down? This report of fire scene investigaton mentions a tunnel system[27], and we're supposed to base the articles on what sources say, not on our personal knowledge.

Also check this and point 6 of this. Check this for a detailed analysis of deaths, quote: "The interior of the concrete-bunker was used as storage for ammunition, weapons, explosive devices, and water. (...) The entire interior was approximately three feet deep in expended and non-expended rounds of various caliber ammunition" --Enric Naval (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The Texas Rangers website http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/director_staff/public_information/branch_davidian/indexfirst.htm has downloadable photographic evidence. Please bother to look up the "concrete bunker"--it was an above-ground square concrete room that was not connected by tunnels to anything: it had one door opening at ground level.

I also recommend Col. Thomas Lujan's article on domestic employment of the military particularly the section on how the ATF got Special Forces training at Ft. Hood by lying about a meth lab at Mt Carmel Center. (PARAMETERS, US Army War College Quarterly - Autumn 1997) http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/97autumn/lujan.htm Naaman Brown (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You are totally right about the ATF forces lying about a meth lab in order to get training, and that they asked for training on military assaults, but they didn't get all the requested training, this report says that they got no "wartime task" training, altough they got a lot of other training (this could be added to the article):

A Special Forces Rapid Support Unit, assigned to Operation Alliance, trained ATF on 25-27 February 1993, in company-level tactical C2, Medical Evacuation training, IV ABC's,[106] and assistance with Range and MOUT sites.[107] According to military documents and military witnesses who appeared before the subcommittees, no non-Mission Essential Task List (wartime tasks) training, involvement in actual planning occurred.[108] House of Representatives report. Pre-raid military assistance requested by ATF and assistance actually received.

About the "bunker". From that website

That a "shape charge" may have been placed on the concrete roof of the "bunker" at the bottom of the tower, and that a bedroll found in the "bunker," [28] (page 12)

That same quote appears on page 13 of the 36 megabytes full report. Could you kindly look at the diagram and the aerial photography and point out where can you see that door opening at ground level? Please compare with diagrams[29][30][31][32] I couldn't find any photo of the bunker apart from the aerial one. On my message above I already linked to other sources mentioning a bunker.

About the tunnels, as I said above, they appear on the reliable sources mentioned above. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Texas Rangers Investigative Report Branch Davidian Evidence September 1999. Attachment A, page 21 of 127, shows the search zone map of Mt. Carmel Center. Page 22 shows an aerial photograph (pre-fire) corresponding to the search zone map. The "bunker" where the women and children were found is in the middle of the main building (the base of the square tower), whereas the basement under construction in an open pit and the buried school bus/tornado shelter are seperate. No women or children were found in the basement or bus "underground bunkers."

Texas Rangers Investigative Report #2 Branch Davidian Evidence January 2000. Photographs of the bunker area are in Attachment G.

Attachment G, Photograph 1, page 54 of 85, shows the "bunker" where the women and children took shelter. It was also a storage area for food, guns and ammunition. It is clearly above ground with one opening--a door. There are no tunnels visible in that photograph. On 19 Apr 1993 an M60 CEV drove up to that door and saturated that windowless concrete room with CS gas suspended in methylene chloride.

Attachment G, Photographs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, pages 54 thru 57 of 85, show the hole in the roof of the "bunker" that may have been caused by the explosion of a LP gas tank inside the square wooden tower that stood over the concrete "bunker" before the fire (although there are conspiracy theories that it was a satchel charge as was actually used in the siege at the MOVE house in Philadelphia.)

Attachment G, Photograph 16, page 62 of 85, shows what has been described as a "underground room" or partially constructed basement for a new building. This is the construction area where the Davidian men were expected to be if the ATF raid had been carried out Monday 1 Mar 1993 as planned, instead of Sunday 28 Feb 1993. This is in a different area from the above ground "bunker" in Attachment G Photograph 1.

Attachment J, Photographs 1 and 2, page 73 of 85, show full, stand-alone views of the above ground "bunker" where the women and children took shelter. Attachment G, Photograph 1, was a close up of the door and sidewall. The following pages show photos of a ruptured LP gas tank found nearby. This "bunker" like the buried school bus and the concrete basement of the new construction, also called "bunkers" by the ATF and FBI, were intended as tornado shelters and storage areas. There were no connecting tunnels between this "bunker" and the other "bunkers."

The "underground room" in an open pit may have been connected by an open trench to the buried school bus/tornado shelter, and the buried bus/shelter had a stairwell to the surface. The "intelligence" about this supposedly intricate network of tunnels may charitibly be described as "incomplete": Two Houston agents, David DiBetta and Wade Brown, had gone into the hole trying to make entry into the compound, but instead of finding the door they'd been told was there during the briefings, they'd found an opening the size of a small window.--former ATF agent Chuck Hustmyre (one of the ATF raid party on 28 Feb 1993). There were rumors or speculation by ATF and FBI that there were tunnels all over Mt. Carmel Center. The Danforth Report reflects that "tunnels" were part of the FBI assault plans 19 Apr 1993 but that does not mean that an elaborate system of interlinked tunnels actually existed. 76.7.179.74 (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC) Naaman Brown (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Go to the Texas Rangers website and view the photos of the Davidian "bunkers" then go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunker for photos of real bunkers (see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunker_(disambiguation) for other uses of "bunker." In the police siege on the MOVE house at 6221 Ossage Ave in Phildelphia the government spoke of tunnels that did not exist. In the siege on the Weaver cabin at Ruby Ridge, the government spoke of tunnels that did not exist and labelled a fruit cellar and a natural rock formation as "bunkers" and a plywood shack as a fortified compound. By the standards used in describing the Davidian Mt. Carmel Center as a "compound" with "bunkers" any farmstead with a tornado shelter and/or fruit celler is a "compound". The use of military terminology and military tactics in sieges at the MOVE house, the Weaver cabin and Mt Carmel center worsened those situations by confirming the apocalyptic religious views of John Africa, Vicki Weaver and David Koresh. This represented a militarization of law enforcement in anticipation of Y2K: ATF Director Higgins wrote in a newspaper op-ed attempting to justify Waco that the time was past that the government could ignore the danger imposed by those who put the laws of their god before the laws of the government. Thankfully cooler heads have prevailed (CIRG) and there was a step-down in the federal approach to end-of-the-world cults after Waco, but as Henry Ruth pointed out that took the needless loss of over a hundred lives at the MOVE, Ruby Ridge and Waco before the lesson was learned: talk is cheaper than tanks. Before the promulgation of SWAT tactics as a response to race riots and war protests in the 1960s, the USA had tolerated end-of-the-world cults like the Koreshian Unity (1870-1908) even the Seventh Day Adventists had started with a prediction of the apocalypse in 1844. At Ruby Ridge and Waco, FBI HRT Commander Dick Rogers showed contempt for the negotiators and this seeped down into the tactical units. FBI negotiators Fred Lancely, Bryon Sage and Peter Smerick will only criticize FBI HRT internally, not in public. The federal government refuses to admit publicly to mistakes, the news media parrot government press releases, federal judges and federal prosecutors refuse to second guess federal law enforcement and none of that is helpful if you want either the facts or the truth behind the facts. If Waco was handled properly, why have sieges against fringe groups like the Freemen or the Texas Republic or the Puerto Rican firing range sit-in been handled differently? Naaman Brown (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Here you read this statement:

   CS gas is generally recognized as non-lethal (see wikipedia entry)

but if you go to the Wikipedia CS gas entry you find this:

  Although described as a non-lethal weapon for crowd control, many studies 
  have raised doubts about this classification. As well as creating severe 
  pulmonary damage, CS can also significantly damage the heart and liver.(AMA) 
  
  On September 28, 2000, Prof. Dr. Uwe Heinrich released a study commissioned 
  by John C. Danforth, of 'The Office of Special Counsel', to investigate the 
  use of CS by the FBI at the Branch Davidians' Mount Carmel compound. He 
  concluded that the lethality of CS used would have been determined mainly 
  by two factors: whether gas masks were used and whether the occupants were 
  trapped in a room. He suggests that if no gas masks were used and the 
  occupants were trapped, then, "...there is a distinct possibility that this 
  kind of CS exposure can significantly contribute to or even cause lethal 
  effects."(Heinrich)
  
  Many reports have associated CS exposure with miscarriages.(AMA) This is 
  consistent with its reported clastogenic effect (abnormal chromosome change) 
  on mammalian cells. 
  
  When CS is metabolized, cyanide can be detected in human tissue.(AMA) 
  According to the United States Army Center for Health Promotion and 
  Preventive Medicine, CS emits "very toxic fumes" when heated to 
  decomposition, and at specified concentrations CS gas is an immediate 
  danger to life and health. They also state that those exposed to CS gas 
  should seek medical attention immediately.(USArmy)
  . . . . .
  Use of CS in war is prohibited under the terms of the 1997 Chemical 
  Weapons Convention, signed by most nations in 1993 with all but five 
  other nations signing between the years of 1994 through 1997.
  -----------------------------
  Heinrich, U. "Possible lethal effects of CS tear gas on Branch Davidians 
  during the FBI raid on the Mount Carmel compound near Waco, Texas." 
  www.veritagiustizia.it. September 2000. 
  
  Williams, Kenneth E. "Detailed Facts About Tear Agent O-Chlorobenzylidene 
  Malononitrile (CS)." U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive 
  Medicine. 
  
  Howard Hu, MD, MPH; Jonathan Fine, MD; Paul Epstein, MD, MPH; Karl Kelsey, 
  MD, MOH; Preston Reynolds, MD, PhD; Bailus Walker, PhD, MPH. "Tear Gas: 
  Harassing Agent or Toxic Chemical Weapon?" Journal of the American Medical 
  Association. August 4, 1989.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.102.180 (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC) 

"war in waco"

I reverted this edit[33] adding "war on waco" as a name to refer to Waco Siege. I looked up "war in waco"[34]. Altough google claims 11200 results, if you try to reach the end of the list it stops at the third page (23 results that are not repetitions). I could only find one real usage of the term on an editorial here. There was also a reference on a opinion column on New York Times that is not using it a noun[35], as well as several references to completely unrelated events that also get called "war in waco", like a judicial dispute [36] a Scrabble competition [37], a dispute about where to diposit cow manure[38], a war on gas prizes on Waco[39], etc. There is nothing indicating a regular use of that term to refer to Waco Siege. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. A few months back there was some similar phrase stuck in there with no WP:RS that I removed. Carol Moore 03:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Videos of tanks shooting flames / leveling compound? (WHERE?)

According to the late comedian Bill Hicks, he saw videos of tanks leveling the compound and/or setting the place on fire, on purpose. This was apparently on "public access" TV and not on any main network. So: if such a video exists, is it perhaps on the interweb somewhere? I can't even find anything about a RUMOUR that such tapes exist. So is it an uber conspiracy or do I just suck at searching Google? 74.14.122.167 (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• • I did a search for "waco tank" on google video and the interview you are talking about came up. Also there is testimony out there that has an FBI agent testifying about a tank being used to shoot tear gas into the building. I supposed someone could find a good source for both of these? Thelegendofvix (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It's already discussed on the article, see Waco_Siege#Documentary_films_and_related_issues --Enric Naval (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, the claim in the article about the US military not having flame projectors is technically untrue- see [40]. Doesn't make the claim that any Federal actions that set fire to the compound were deliberate any less laughable. Nevard (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Those are not flamethrowers that can be attached to a tank, those are mines and rockets. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

New Photo for Info Box/Changing Box

• This is an FBI photo so no problem using. Just uploaded and waiting til connects

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FBIphoto04-19-93.JPG

• Two sections have have been created noting this was NOT a military conflict and this box is inappropriate. So I'm fooling around with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_News_event to create a better one, something like I described above. Will preview it here. Carol Moore 13:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

OK, I did a rough draft of how I think the box should look (without notes for now). All other information should be integrated into the text. I'll get help making the box this time, so please comment now. Note again this was not a military conflict but a police action with some military advice and equipmetn used. It is factually inaccurate WP:Original Research to portray it as such.

An alternative would be a separate new box for police actions under History_and_events_infobox_templates. Maybe that's what should be created, including boxes for "charges," "verdicts/sentences," "lawsuits," etc. as relevant.

Infobox News event (Waco Siege)

• image=FBIphoto04-19-93.JPG|250px
• caption=The Mount Carmel Center in flames on April 19, 1993.
• date=February 28, 1993 to April 19, 1993
• time= [remove n/a]
• place=Branch Davidian church and home outside of Waco, Texas
• suspects=David Koresh suspected of producing and holding illegal weapons
• casualties1=February 28: 3 Davidians killed, 3 or more wounded; 4 BATF agents killed, 16 wounded
• casualties2=April 19: 78 men, women and children
• casualties3=
• notes=February 28 BATF conducted military-style assault to serve a search warrant. 51 day siege followed by April 19 FBI assault with tanks, tear gas, destroying parts of the building, followed by a fire that killed most inhabitants.

Carol MooreCarolmooredc {talk}

It looks good to me and it looks like a very good idea. Maybe "Infobox standoff"? :) Or rather a more generic name like "Infobox police action" to cover school shootings and similar that don't involve standoffs.

An infobox specific for police action will need extra fields for the police type, like "involved police forces" or "police jurisdiction", specially for events out of the US. (altought this ought to be discussed throughly on the talk page of the template once it's created, and not here, to avoid filling this page).

I agree with integrating stuff from the infobox into the article. Infobox is too large right now (mainly because of my fault) --Enric Naval (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The only reason I didn't do it (besides lack of time) was I got confused on process of getting OK for a new box. Anyone else know how to do it?? Go for it. Carol Moore 01:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

College Students

The article mentions "The ATF began surveillance from a house across the road from the compound, but their cover was noticeably poor (the "college students" were in their 30s, not registered at the local schools, and they did not keep a schedule which would have fit any legitimate employment or classes)", however, there is no mention of the college students in question before this section, and there is no indication as to which "college students" it is referring to. Perhaps the people who were filming? --Smackdat (talk) 06:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it most probably means that the ATF agents presented themselves as "college students". It's just not worded very clearly. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The ATF agents at the surveillance house presented themselves as college students. Koresh's lawyer Wayne Martin checked with the college they were supposed to be attending and no students by their names were registered as attendees. Naaman Brown (talk) 01:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the charge? Could do with cleanup

What's the charge? What actually provoked the ATFs or the FBI to produce the warrant and for what cause?

I'm having difficulty of sifting through with this heavy texts.

Could do with {{cleanup}}.

88.105.32.45 (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Categories as Opinion

I put in Category: Police brutality because Category: Religiously motivated violence in the United States is in there, and I'm assuming they were NOT talking about mainstream Christianity attacking a small dissident sect. In fact even that is up for interpretative opinion, one way or the other. Since neither accusation has a reliable source in the article I'd say both should be gone until such time. Carol Moore 17:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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:

“ The perpetrators of the Columbine high school massacre were inspired by the Waco Siege.[41] ”

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)

Google link

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)

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)

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. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

Umm... actually, it has everything to do with copyright. Why would you presume differently? --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Wikipedia suggests) 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--this averages about 2 guns per person; the Texas average is over 3. 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)

who started the fire

see the arson report[42] and the analysis of the arson report by the Deputy Attorney General[43]. 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)

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)

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)

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"[44]. 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) [45] --Enric Naval (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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) 68.231.188.151 (talk) 17:22, 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. David Koresh, although he badly strayed, was in a Mormon splinter cult; so guns were there also. 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 not anti-war and 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)

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)

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

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

• Support - For all the reasons above: more common, less PoV. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 20:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

ATF has conducted raids on its own; US Marshals Service is the law enforcement arm of the federal court system and does track and arrest fugitives from justice: marshals do not initiate raids like Waco. Naaman Brown (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

I'm thinking it's time to start the 2009 archives up to this point. Hearing no objections will do so in a couple days. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

TANKS: The CEVs (Combat Engineering Vehicles) used to ram the walls of Mt. Carmel Center and introduce gas were M60 tanks with the guns removed. Since they were "unarmed" and borrowed from the military, USAG Janet Reno considered them the equivalent of "good rent-a-cars" according to her Congressional testimony. Treaded armored vehicles, CEVs (ex-M60 tanks) and Bradley fighting vehicles, were present at the Waco Siege (see authenticated news video in "Waco: Rules of Engagement" (ROE)); they had neither cannon nor machineguns. Although they did have 40mm grenade launchers used to fire literally hundreds of Ferret CS gas grenades, they were unarmed not tanks. That was not an assault and hundreds of 40mm gas grenades were not gunfire by FBI. FLAME THROWER: Although the mix of methelene chloride and CS powder was considered flammable, the armored vehicles had no source of ignition, although McNulty (ROE) claimed the Texas Rangers found a 40mm Flash-Bang grenade at one of the points of ignition of the fire. Naaman Brown (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Adding to a comment above, an actual tank has a turret, otherwise it is an armored vehicle or a tankette.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Paul Fatti vs: "mg possession"?

I am glad some appealled bogus charges of "possession of a machine gun", and won. 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)

Verification for Koresh jogging and eating locally.

"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 every week."

I'm going to remove the above sentence unless someone can provide verification. In fact the whole NPOV of this section seems highly suspect.

I'll also remove this: "Some believe the media hype influenced both the FBI and the ATF and the strategies they employed during the siege." for similar reasons, not to mention WP:AWW.

SolomonTrim (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

??????? "Karesh" ??????

I don't think I have ever deleted something just because it was unsourced and I did not want to believe it, lacking any evidence to believe it to be false. I do know I have found things that seemed unclear and posted so in Talk, or did some research and edited to clarify the presentation or add a source. There is a WP guide line "Be bold". However.....

It is one thing to flag material as source needed or please clarify or mention the issue in Talk-- it is quite another to delete it with the comment "unsourced and dubious" with the comment in Talk that basicly it is dubious because you don't want to believe it. That someone would delete parts of an article and spell the name wrong as "Karesh" more than once says something about the quality of their edits.

That Koresh tried to talk to ATF seven months before the raid is documented in Congressional Hearings on Waco that were broadcast on CSPAN, which testimony has been repeated in so many books (and included the documentary "Waco: The Rules of Engagement") that it is not believable that anyone who has studied this subject could not find it believable.

From the 1995 Congressional hearings (including Waco ROE):

Stuart H. Wright, Editor, Armageddon at Waco:

   Why was a warrant sought in the first place since David Koresh, on
   learning that he was being investigated by the ATF, invited the
   agents on July 30th, 1992, through his gun dealer, Henry McMahon,
   to come to his residence and inspect his firearms?

and later when the former ATF Deputy Director Robert Sanders testified:

John B. Shadegg, US Congress, Arizona (R):

   They never once followed up on that offer. Never even tried to
   follow up on that offer . . .

Robert Sanders, former ATF Deputy Director:

   I can't imagine any circumstances when I would not take up such 
   an offer. It indicates a mind-set. Perhaps it was non willful.
   Perhaps what the ATF thought were violations of the law were really
   things that Mr. Koresh thought were legal.

John B. Shadegg:

   It suggests that what they really wanted to do was conduct a raid,
   not make an arrest or conduct a search.

Robert Sanders:

   In the opinion of the agents, you know, the planning for Waco and
   the manner in which it was done was done for the purpose of
   publicity.

Cato Institute, Policy Analysis No. 395 April 9, 2001, posted by Timothy Lynch, Cato Institute's Project on Criminal Justice, from the timeline:

 o July 30, 1992: ATF agents interview Texas firearms dealer
Henry McMahon about his business dealings with Branch Davidian
leader David Koresh. During the interview, McMahon telephones
Koresh. Koresh tells McMahon that if the ATF agents perceive any
legal problem, they can come to Mt. Carmel and check his
inventory and paperwork. ATF agents decline the invitation.[5]

5. Henry McMahon, Testimony, 1995 Congressional Hearings, part 1,
pp. 162-63.

Seperately Henry McHahon and ATF Agent Davy Aguilera have stated repeatedly (a) Aguilera interviewed McMahon 30 July 1992 (b) on the phone Koresh asked to speak to Aguilera (c) McMahon told Aguilera that Koresh was wanting to talk to Aguilera and offering to let ATF come and inspect his guns and paperwork and (d) Aguilera refused to touch the telephone.

After the ATF refused the 30 July 1992 inspection offer, the federal siege of the Weaver family went down at Ruby Ridge ID 21-31 Aug 1992. The Ruby Ridge Siege is well documented and occurred after 30 July 1992. It was a nation-wide sensation for weeks. Koresh was very much aware of it and told dozens of people about it. David Thibodeau in his book on life with the Davidians recounted Koresh being upset by Ruby Ridge, and that Koresh connected the ATF refusal to talk to him with the treatment of the Weavers.

I have a thick envelope of 1993-1994 newspaper and magazine clippings as part of my research for an article I wrote for the local Mensa group newsletter on Waco in 1994: in the aftermath of the raid the ATF told the newspapers repeatedly that they had to raid because Koresh never left the compound and could not caught off the grounds be arrested. Also interviews with the townspeople recounted seeing Koresh in Waco during the period the ATF claimed he was holed-up and they could not serve an arrest warrant.

And if you think I am being snarky, you should have been around when I made my first sloppy edits. Naaman Brown (talk) 03:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting getting the facts in. Do you have electronic copy of the Hearings? I posted links to them I found but could not get them to work at the time. Haven't been able to get to the PDF links, but maybe it's my connections fault. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have had to rely on a posted transcript of Waco ROE for snippets of the House Hearing testimony. Naaman Brown (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a reason why Aguilera refused to do a compliance inspection. You have to read the Treasury Dept report on Waco. Aguilera did not go to McMahon's business to check for compliance with gun law regulations: although he presented himself to McMahon as a compliance inspector, that was just a ruse to gain access to McMahon's records of gun transactions with Koresh. Aguilera was there as a criminal investigator to build evidence of violations of gun laws to justify a search and siezure raid. When Koresh offered to let Aguilera check his guns and paperwork to show compliance with the gun laws (even though Ex-Deputy Director of BATF Robert Sanders testified he would have accepted this offer to do a compliance inspection 30 Jul 1992 and avoid doing a raid), Aguilera was an enforcement agent doing a criminal investigation even though he was posing as a compliance inspector. Aguilera's job was to build evidence to justify a search and siezure for a criminal case and present an affadavit for warrant to justify a raid. (In a similar manner in the Ruby Ridge case, ATF agents Herb Byerly and Steve Gunderson posed as Forest Service when they went to the Weaver cabin 12 Jun 1990 to attempt to recruit Randy Weaver as an informant. They were there as ATF enforcement agents, and even though they were driving a Forest Service truck, they were under no legal obligation to perform any Forest Service functions.) Even if the raid could have been avoided by opting for a compliance inspection, that was not Aguilera's job. Naaman Brown (talk) 12:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Second the above and further deletion

I second the above recommendation and I am going to go ahead and remove that material. There is no source, and it is definitely not material that should just be taken at face value without need of evidence. It reads like one of the many anti-government blogs on the subject. Did the ATF want to serve a search warrant on Karesh outside of the compound? I don't know why they would since a search warrant is typically served at the premises being searched. Did the ATF claim that they could not? Was Karesh seen jogging around and eating and was thus able to be served at any time? None of this is verified and every last point needs to be or else I am sorry but it's not believable.

The second part I am deleting is this:

"Despite being personally invited by Koresh as early as July 30, 1992 to inspect the Davidians' weapons and paperwork (eight months before the raid), and refusing, the ATF pursued a strongly confrontational policy. McClennan County Sheriff Harwell was convinced that if ATF had simply called Koresh, he would have shown at the county courthouse with his lawyer, Wayne Martin. Koresh told people that the Ruby Ridge Standoff of 21–31 August 1992 convinced him that the reason ATF refused his request was they were planning a raid regardless of what he did. Between July 1992 and Feb 1993, Koresh's sermons became increasingly apocalyptic."

Again, no source is given for any of it. It again is argumentitive, clearly POV pushing as the language demonstrates an obvious condemnation of the ATF (I'm not taking a side on that one, but neither should the article) and makes great pains to paint Koresh as a martyr. I don't know what happened to be honest and maybe everything said here did happen. Maybe he did invite the ATF to view the compound and maybe the Sherrif was convinced that if they had called Koresh, he would have shown up to the courthouse. I don't know because this passage gives me no reason to know outside of the fact that the editor is convinced that it's true. That's not good enough. It makes me think this was read on a blog and since that would obviously not be seen as a reliable source, the author simply inserted the material unsourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlund (talk • contribs) 20:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The source of the Sheriff's statements are a videotaped interview with the Sheriff made after the fact. This video is included as a segment in the "Waco - The rules of engagement ["WROL"]. WROL is WIDELY available on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Borders, P2P, etc. The hearings held after the massacre also documented the fact that Koresh offered to allow ATF to inspect on more than one occasion. There are several excerpts of these hearings on WROL. Measl talk

Nix the Above and deletions by the ignorant

Report of the Department of the Treasury 
on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms 
Investigation of Vernon Wayne Howell 
Also Known as David Koresh September 1993
Part 2 ("Analysis") - as posted in Wikisource: 

 2 Section Two: Analysis of the Tactical Planning Effort 

 2.3 The Decision to Pursue a Raid Option and Develop a Raid Plan 

. . . .

Having understandably decided not to rely solely on Koresh's voluntary 
compliance with the warrants, ATF tactical planners initially focused their 
attention on arresting Koresh while he was away from the Compound, either by 
luring him off or by waiting until he had left it on his own accord.

. . . .

Had more attention been paid to determining whether Koresh ever left the 
Compound, ATF's planners might have learned that he did in fact leave the 
Compound on at least two occasions while the undercover house was in
operation and on several other occasions in late 1992 and early January
1993. This is not to say that he could have been intercepted on any of 
these trips or that ATF could have devised a plan that would have succeeded
in luring Koresh away. But, given the planners' reasonable expectation 
that arresting Koresh away from the Compound would vastly reduce the risks
attending any law enforcement action at that location, far more effort
should have been made in this area. And ATF's failure to make such an 
effort must be attributed to management's failure to establish an effective
intelligence operation.

SO, the US Government Treasury Department Report already cited at Wikipedia Source reads like one of the many anti-government blogs on the subject. I am getting frustrated with people who do not read the cited sources on this subject but delete stuff they don't want to believe based on their own unsourced surmises and gut feelings.

If you think something needs a specific cited reference, the polite thing to do is post a source needed tag not delete it: read the instructions on editing Wikipedia. Often a cite at the end of a paragraph is the source for the paragraph. The idea that every sentence and or even phrase needs a reference is absurd. Naaman Brown (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Naaman Brown above. Also note that the question about why didn't they get him when he was jogging also was brought up by various media sources. Also we didn't have blogs back in the 1993 era... CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Popular Culture References

None of the "popular culture" examples are properly cited. The Waco Siege wasn't the first religious group to have government troubles, so television shows and movies which appear similar may actually be based on a different event. Even if these pop-culture references bear an undeniably strong resemblance to the actual historical events, they are meaningless without a cited quote from the originators (otherwise it is Original Research). Regardless, none of these references help us understand either the historical account nor the public's perception of these events. ∅BRIT 21:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point, however I do think it is useful to include these "popular culture" references, because they point up the extent to which the Waco events affected our collective psyche. Unless the authors of the various episodes were to write specifically that they were influenced by events at Waco, we will never truly know the inspiration behinde their writing. Nevertheless, a strong circumstantial case can be made that the Waco events penetrated the national psyche in a unique way and likely influenced the authors. After all there were untold numbers of charismatic, authoritarian dictators before Hitler, yet when we see the portrayal of such a dictator in theater or film there is little doubt we are witnessing a Hitler-inspired production. How about if I soften the connection to eliminate any confusion.

If you continue to have doubts about the appropriateness of including this info, might a suggest a tag asking for sourcing? That way you will not have destroyed a valuable collection of apparent Waco references in popular culture, which references undoubtedly took various editors a great deal of time to assemble. Thanks. Apostle12 (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Within a day or two I'll add sourcing for the Updike note, which I happen to know is correct. Out of time right now.Apostle12 (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

What you've said above illustrates the problem with this section. We need to have referenced material, and much of this is not. It is unfortunate that people have put time into collecting the material, but if we cannot find reliable proof that the reference is intended as a reference, we cannot leave in text claiming that it is. Even if we add "appears to" and similar wording, we still have the problem of using speculation instead of fact. We cannot be making circumstantial cases for inclusion; we can only use what we can prove. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have now sourced the Updike entry, using an expansive review of Updikes work written by Gore Vidal. (If you read it, please be patient, as it discusses much of Updike's other work before arriving at the relevant mention of Waco.) I favor tagging and patience (months, perhaps) rather than wholesale deletion. I notice that you left the South Park episode untagged in an apparent nod to the episode's obvious relationship to Waco. Apostle12 (talk) 01:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a deletion war, so I'll leave your edits for now, but you've missed a major point. It is not simply that the information is unsourced (though this is a major problem), it's that the information itself offers no valuable insight into the Waco Siege. That the television show Lie to Me mentioned the Siege is unremarkable. The show has also mentioned Sarah Palin's CBS interview, the belief in Big Foot, and the Manson murders, but none of these articles on Wikipedia mention Lie to Me as a valid metric of cultural saturation, nor should they. This is as true for "police procedural television shows," obscure books of fiction, independent music, and satirical comedy shows. In fact, you could also find references in each of these to snow plows, multiple sclerosis, chemotherapy, and pigeons, but what does that tell us?

Unfortunately, these sections become a dumping ground for every pop-culture reference witnessed by overzealous Wikipedia editors. Without context, none of these mentions add any value to the article. ∅BRIT 14:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I take exception to your opinion that references to a major event like Waco can be likened to references to snow plows, multiple sclerois, et al. I also disagree with your conclusion that mention of references to Waco in popular culture adds nothing of value. The events at Waco occurred more than 16 years ago, yet Waco continues to resonate in our collective consciousness; an entire generation has come of age since then that has no memory of the actual event. You may find all this "unremarkable," however I don't think that is necessarily the case.Apostle12 (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not that I find Waco unremarkable; it was a historically significant event (and was just as fascinated as everyone else while the events unfolded on the news). But this is exactly my point. That Waco was mentioned on South Park is unremarkable and is an invalid metric for measuring cultural resonance. On the other hand, that Timothy McVeigh used Waco as inspiration for his terrorist activity is undeniably remarkable. I definitely believe that it's important to note the cultural significance of the Waco Seige, but this isn't accomplished by simply listing each and every media reference to the event. We can't simply say that something is mentioned, we need to say why. For example, if the cultural effect has been studied (especially in relation to domestic terrorism), we can (and should) quote the study. Otherwise, a simple list of unrelated and unsourced material trivializes an important event. ∅BRIT 19:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Per Wiki:Trivia, Wiki:Pop-Culture and Wiki:Handling Trivia, I moved relevant references (specifically the books) and deleted unrelated material. After a fairly exhaustive search, I couldn't find any references by the shows' authors or producers which indicate them being directly influenced by the Waco Siege. Even the needlessly detailed description of the South Park episode Two Guys Naked in a Hot Tub does not mention Waco by name (in fact, the cult itself seems based more on Heaven's Gate), not that Wikipedia is allowed to be self-referential. Either way, the cultural effects of Waco are already addressed in this article without adding random media facts. This is not to say that these fictional portrayals aren't, in fact, based on Waco; only that secondary sources cannot confirm their inspiration (per Wiki:Pop-Culture) ∅BRIT 18:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

A close look at many of the popular culture references to Waco-like cults or Koresh-like leaders in fictional dramas will often show more parallels with the historical Heaven's Gate (religious group), or Jim Jones and the People's Temple than to the historical Branch Davidian and David Koresh. Such pop cult trivializations obscure understanding of what happened, why and how a tragedy like the Waco Siege could be avoided. They fog the subject rather than shed light on it. Naaman Brown (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually in the Southpark episode "Two Guys Naked in a Hot Tub", Waco is mentioned explicitly more than once. First by a member of the ATF to Officer Barbrady when he says "This is what we did in Waco, play really bad music, really loud, until it drives them nuts and makes them want to come out. Then again when a member of the ATF says "we know what we're doing, we did this all before in Waco", and the reporter says, "Yes, but you totally screwed up Waco, you killed a bunch of innocent people and tried to say they killed themselves." If that doesn't confirm that the episode was inspired by these events, I don't know what will. 216.26.100.28 (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

One of the fictional TV crime shows had a FBI behavioral analyst character state that a suspect who feels they have been wronged is not going to react rationally (which could explain why HRT tactics that worked with bank robbery/prison riot hostage takers back-fired at Ruby Ridge and Waco, because what works with criminally motivated people won't work with religiously or politically motivated people). Another episode had a sniper situation and two of the lead FBI characters had a long dialogue about Ruby Ridge. Another episode had parallels with Waco. An X-Files had a cult siege, etc. etc. Waco and Ruby Ridge have become intertwined in popular culture. Again, unless the mention is notable and important, it is trivia. Naaman Brown (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

source of the fire

That the source of the fire is contested should be an uncontested fact about this incident.

• Waco: The Rules of Engagement, 1997 film directed by William Gazecki, produced by Michael McNulty. The Congressional testimony and interviews of Davidian survivors David Thibodeau, Clive Doyle and Derek Lovelock actually support unknown origin including accidental ignition (although the filmmakers lean toward FBI started the fire).

The origin of the fire at Waco 19 Apr 1993 is not neatly settled. Davidian survivors David Thibodeau, Derek Lovelock and Clive Doyle in Congressional testimony and interviews denied any plan by Davidians to start a fire; the descriptions by Thibodeau and Doyle describe the fires as unknown origin, could be accidental, or deliberate by the Davidians or the FBI. The FBI had turned off the electricity the first week of the siege. For weeks, the Davidians were using Coleman lanterns for lighting; the Davidians' discussions at 7:00 am the morning of 19 Apr 1993 of how much fuel was available and how it was distributed had an innocent explanation; the fact that the Davidian's bought diesel fuel can be explained by the fact they were running a ranch. You drive tanks through a building lighted and heated with lanterns and stoves that run off gasoline or fuel oil and the potential for accidental fire should be obvious. Of course to beat tort suits the government is going to declare the Davidians guilty case closed.

Appendix G of the Treasury Dept Waco Report, written by the Historian of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Dr. Frederick S. Calhoun, puts the siege on the Branch Davidians at Waco in the context of the sieges on the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA) at Los Angeles, Gordon Kahl at Smithville Arkansas, Bob Mathews at Whideby Island, and the Covenent Sword and Arm of the Lord (CSA) in Arkansas (US Government Printing Office: 1993-358-365). All these sieges but the CSA siege ended in FBI tear gas attacks followed by fire. At Waco, the Texas Rangers found metallic 40mm grenades of the type fired from M79 military grenade launchers: M651 tear gas grenades and flash bang grenades by NICO Pyrotechnik; the manufacturers told the Texas Rangers these incendiary devices had been sold to the FBI. It is amazing the number of "cults" that have ended sieges with suicide by fire after a tear gas attack: MOVE, SLA, Posse Comitatus, the Order, the Branch Davidians. The only major "cult" siege listed by Calhoun that did not end in suicide by fire after a gas attack was CSA. In the context of discussing the Waco Siege on page 498 of his biography "My Life" (Vintage Books, 2005), Bill Clinton claims that as Gov. of Arkansas in 1985, he called off the planned FBI raid on the CSA and insisted on a negotiated surrender no matter how long it might take. Clinton claimed he regreted not following his gut instinct to handle the Davidians like the CSA. Since Waco the CIRG has handled political/religious sieges like the CSA siege was handled: negotiate til hell freezes over. Naaman Brown (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization

Capitalisation in this article is a mess, especially in the information box. I cleaned up a little in the article, but it needs to be thoroughly line edited.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Why delete Koresh's legal name?

Couple people keep removing "then-Davidian leader Vernon Wayne Howell, better known as David Koresh." Please explain the rationale for deleting it, especially when it is needed to identify him in a later quote from a government document? His name is also part of the title of the Treasury Dept report. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Why include more than is necessary to convey to the reader that he changed his name? As it is now, it seems to be pretty well handled, with a few key mentions of the name change and then editing to address your VERY VERY VERY minor concerns about clarity and consistency. Explain why anything more is necessary.

The challenge above posted by anonymous IP 68.204.29.215 is unanswerable. ""This IP address, 68.204.29.215, is registered to Road Runner HoldCo LLC, an Internet service provider through which numerous individual users may connect to the Internet via proxy.""

---

Koresh did not "change his name" in the classic sense of going into a court and actually changing it. He used the alias, while his legal name remained Howell. It is perfectly legal to go by alias provided the alias is not being used as a means to defraud, and many thousands of actors, comedians, etc., do it every hour. Measl talk

Clifford L. Linedecker, Masscre at Waco, Texas, St. Martin's Press, 1993. "In 1990 Vernon Howell became David Koresh. He filed a petition in California State Superior Court in Pomona on May 15 to legally change his name, and on August 28 the petition was granted by Judge Robert Martinez. The cult leader stated on the legal documents that he was an entertainer and desired the name change for publicity and business purposes."

The historical record up to 28 Aug 1993 lists the man's name as Vernon Howell; after that date, both names were used legally, so it is not a minor point. Many people still refer to him as Vernon Howell. Naaman Brown (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

autopsy on the atf?

There are many articles stating that the only 4 atf agents were former bodyguards for Bill Clinton when he was governor and campaigning. Also their autopsies showed that all were executed during the initial raid. Why isn't this in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.61.3.207 (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

law enforcement poorly trained at best

comment (click "edit" above to see it)

The previous message was not relevant and appears to be misplaced here. I have hidden it.Chaosdruid (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Speak thru walls?

The section Accusations claims that:

During the siege, the deprogrammer Rick Ross said, "[Koresh is] your stock cult leader. ... They're all the same. Meet one and you've met them all..." [etc].

Now, this is mystifying. Was the deprogrammer Rick Ross among the koreshians when they were besieged? (Then: how did he get in?) Or did he speak from outside through walls or by telepathy or by maybe a loudspeaker? Or did he speak to outsiders or to koreshians that weren't besieged? In that case, what was the meaning with such a statement? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Rick Ross was the head of Cult Awareness Network (CAN). He was a cult deprogrammer and outside cult expert who was consulted by the government and the news media before the raid, during the siege and after the 19 Apr fire. Besides the usually cult buster attitude that "they" are all Jim-Jones-and-the-People's-Temple, which was not helpful in dealing with the Davidians who were a different group with a different ideology, Ross did advise the ATF that arresting Koresh in front of his followers on the group's sacred grounds was likely to spark a violent reaction. After it was over, ATF tried to distance themselves from Ross. Naaman Brown (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

.50 Caliber Weapons?

The National Firearms Museum in Northern Virginia has a heavily charred M82 , a semi-automatic .50 BMG caliber anti-material rifle, that is listed as being recovered from the Waco compound... isn't this proof positive that they possessed such weapons? Or, for the conspiracy minded, that the National Firearms Museum are a bunch of liars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.155.185.64 (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The ATF affidavit for search warrant to justify the raid mentions the claims that the Davidians had (legally) purchased two .50 caliber rifles; however, ATF agent David Aguilera affirmed to the federal magistrate the witnesses were wrong, he knew they were (illegal) .51 British Boys antitank guns. No .51 Boys antitank guns were found, but several federal inventories of Davidian evidence do not mention the .50 rifles bought legally by the Davidians either. Nothing feeds conspiracy theories better than the government misrepresenting evidence. Instead of denouncing the "conspiracy minded" and thowing about accusations, why not post some verifiable, reliably sourced documentation of the National Firearms Museum exhibit? Naaman Brown (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Article tidy up and restoration

Hi all

I am a neutral party and editing the article in compliance with Wiki guidelines to try and restore NPOV as well as factual accuracy.

I appreciate there may be a lot of discussion forthcoming in trying to restore the article to a level it deserves on such a major event.

I have started by tidying the first few sections and the infobox.

I have moved the details of "equipment" from the info box to the relevant section in the article body. The info box was difficult to read and made the page extremely untidy. I trust that opinion will be that it is better in the section than in the box. If I am worng in that assumption I am sure you will let me know :¬)

thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I will give you kudos for hiding and commenting questioned points without summary deletion as some others have done. Lord knows it needs a neutral and tidy hand.

Lois Roden considered their son, George, unfit to assume the position of prophet and groomed Vernon Howell, later known as David Koresh, as her chosen successor. The main article says "on the death of Benjamin Lois Roden considered George unfit so took control herself" Yes Lois followed Ben in sucession, but Lois wanted Vernon not George to follow her. The fact that Lois groomed Vernon not George as her sucessor irked George and divided the group.

After George Roden was jailed for murder, the Howell faction paid the back taxes on Mt. Carmel and took control. THis is not mentioned anywhere in main article - George Roden does not appear to have been jailed for murder at this point but Vernon was for attempted murder I have supplied dates and sources on this (which I should have made clear in the first place was way after the Rodenville Eight trial). There are sources other than the Wiki main Branch Davidian article. However the added details get into the "too much detail" problem much like the infobox clutter. The article has been redited and reedited into incoherence at points. Naaman Brown (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

There seem to have been quite a few attempted take overs including Adair and Marc Breault.

The reason for my commenting out that sentence was that it said "after the death of Lois" instead of "after the death of Benjamin".

THe reason for the second was simply that there was reference to a court case for murder and I believed the confusion had arisen over the "attempted murder" case of Howell on Roden rather than the "murder" trial of Roden on Adair which at that point had not taken place.

Thanks for the observation on my commenting out rather than deletion. It seems important to me that changes need to be explained and, rather than on the discussion page, it is easier to leave them insitu so that other editors can read the reasoning before taking any perjorative action

Chaosdruid (talk) 08:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The Raid

The article states "An ATF agent was killed as he approached the door.". This statement is not correct. One agent on the "door team" was wounded (Rodriguez, wound to his finger I believe) but none killed. I suggest a source for this statement should be provided or the sentence deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.226.130 (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the false statement from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.224.113 (talk) 11:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)