Talk:Waco siege/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

50 caliber rifles

A note on edit 20:52, 11 March 2010 Enric Naval (restore 50 caliber rifles, they are in the source and they are important for some claims about davidians having weapons of that caliber).

• A television news report showing a tour of the Branch Davidian evidence room with filmmaker Mike McNulty cleary shows two .50 caliber rifles.
• Texas Ranger evidence inventories include fifty caliber rounds that had "cooked off" in the fire, but no identified fired rounds (casings with firing pin indents).
• Sound recordings by the television crew that followed the ATF raiding party did not record the distinctive report of a fifty caliber.
• The ATF affidavit supporting the search warrant (mis)identfied the .50 rifles (legal) as .51 Boys antitank guns (illegal).
• In his memoir FBI sniper Chris Whitcomb stated the Davidians poked a .50 Barrett rifle muzzle out a window during the siege.

In short, there is evidence the Davidians had .50 caliber rifles; there is no evidence they fired those rifles. Naaman Brown (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Added: Aguilera's affidavit for the search warrant described the Davidians' legal and legally purchased .50 caliber Barrett rifle, but assured the judge in Aguilera's expert opinion that the witness actually saw an illegal .51 Boys anti-tank rifle. Documentation showed the Davidians legally purchased dummy inert handgrenades and legal AR15 rifles. Aguilera showed the non-expert witnesses (including a man who was legally blind) pictures of a live grenade and an M16 assault rifle (externally identical to an inert grenade and a AR15 semiauto rifle) and because the non-expert witnesses said that looked like what they had seen, Aguilera asserted that was what the Davidians had. There isd reason to be skeptical of anything the ATF asserts about the evidence. Naaman Brown (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say there is "no evidence" that a .50 was fired. Several agents testified to hearing what they thought was the fifty. One agent claimed to be able to identify the sound of the fifty from his military experience. It was an issue the prosecution tried to establish but there was no physical evidence entered such as a discharged case with firing pin indention. The only physical evidence entered was the fact that the two fifty cal. rifles were recovered. One of those had a cooked off round chambered (Discharged, no firing pin mark). The defense established that. I would say the evidence hinges on the credibility of those witnesses. From my reading of the testimony, I believe it is likely that at least one fifty cal. was used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.224.113 (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No evidence of a .50 bullet hole, no .50 bullet recovered from an ATF vehicle or any other possible target, no .50 casings with a firing pin indent. Naaman Brown (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Military vs. Police Action

I came to this article for reference purposes... I am active in other parts of Wikipedia and not familiar with the ways you do things in this sort of article.

However, I am a bit taken aback by the side bar which lays out some bare facts as if it were a Military Action - with "Belligerents", "Commanders", "Casualties and losses" side by side as if they have objective equal status... "Belligerents" is a war-word... [See "bellum" Latin for war in Wiktionary...]

I am fully aware that Police/Law officers often lapse into war-speak... But that sort of metaphorical/imagistic language is serving their particular purposes... Purposes that should NOT be imported uncritically into Wikipedia, if it is going to maintain its credibility.

Perhaps I just don't know the conventions being used in this part of Wikipedia... This is the first time I've seen this set-up in the sidebar... Perhaps I can find others if I try... [OK...I've looked and this seems to be the Standard Layout for outlining Civil Wars at least... And I find no other Police Actions to have this set-up...] But at this point, I have the gut feeling that it is set up that way by people with an un-Wikipedian agenda...

Please, someone else who knows better than I, comment on this and settle my mind... Thanks Emyth (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Col Thomas R. Lujan, JAG, "Legal Aspects of Domestic Employment of the Army", Parameters US Army War College Quarterly, Autumn 1997, Vol. XXVII, No. 3.
Naaman Brown (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

davidians killing other davidians in the raid?

One edit inserted this: "two by fire from ATF agents, and two athe the hands of the Davidians themselves (ref)"No Heroes" Danny O Coulson & Elaine Shannon ISBN: 0-671-02062-5(/ref)". At first I thought that maybe the Davidians shot each other by accident (friendly fire), but the No Heroes book seems to be a conspiracy book. Is this some crackpot theory about FBI agents infiltrated among the Davidians?

It was written by a former FBI member with very good credentials [1], but I still would like to know the details of how they killed each other. Does the book explain how it happened? --Enric Naval (talk) 09:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Danny Coulson was founder of the FBI HRT and was a top official within the FBI in both the Ruby Ridge and Waco affairs. I read the book over ten years ago. As I recall, he was pretty critical of government handling of both cases. Coulson was also criticised by DOJ OPR over his role in approval of the Ruby Ridge Rule of Engagement.

British Davidian Winston Blake was shot within his bedroom next to the outside vinyl water tanks which were shot up in the raid. The surviving Davidians claim he was hit when the ATF shot up the water tanks (see Waco: The Rules of Engagement); ATF claimed he was shot by another Davidian; the medical examiner who autopsied his body when it was returned to UK contested the US autopsy: there was no peppering of his face with GSR and the bullet hit sideways, which is consistent with the Davidian explanation, inconsistent with him being shot in a small room by a fellow Davidian. (But it is consistent with a stray bullet from either side.)

Perry Jones (Koresh's father-in-law) was wounded in the stomach by ATF in the raid; ATF and FBI would not allow the Davidian dead and wounded to be evacuated without a total surrender by the group, so it is believed Perry Jones may have shot himself to end his misery. The dead were buried by the Davidians on the grounds which is why Blake's body survived the fire for autopsy in UK.

When claims "the Davidians shot their own" come up, Blake and Jones are usually named. Naaman Brown (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hum, I don't have access to the sources, so I can't make the edits myself. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

prior armored vehicle and gas assualt proposal

In the Ruby Ridge standoff, a tank-and-gas attack was planned. According to the DoJ OPR Ruby Ridge Task Force Report 10 Jun 1994, the 22 Aug 1922 operation plan submitted from the site to FBI HQ included the following:

5. The following day the APCs will return and again order the suspects to surrender.
6. If no compliance, the APCs will begin dismantling the outlying buildings by ramming them.
7. If no compliance, tear gas will be deployed into the main house.[567]  

567. Crisis Center Log, August 22, 1992, entering at 4:50 p.m.
(EDT). The Log also stated that weather was a major factor and
that the plan was scheduled to commence late that afternoon but
might be pushed back because of weather conditions. Concern was
raised about the deployment of gas into the residence because of
the high degree of risk to small children and the possibility
that a one year old baby was inside.

The first announcement to the Weavers by HRT Commander Dick Rogers (who was also HRT Commander ar Waco) was a threat to push the Weaver cabin off the cliff with an armored personnel carrier (a threat that appalled FBI chief negotiator Fred Lanceley). The armored vehicle and gas attack plan was rejected by FBI HQ in part because introduction of gas into the residence was an unacceptable risk to the children (ages 16 years, 10 years and 10 months old). Naaman Brown (talk) 10:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

undue emphasis in lede

The siege was directed by William S. Sessions, Director of the FBI, and his two top subordinates, Larry Potts and Floyd Clarke. Sessions was later fired by President Bill Clinton on July 19, 1993 after Sessions refused to resign in the wake of a scathing investigation report by the Justice Department on several ethics violations, which were unrelated to the Waco siege. (ref)http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Business-general/FBI-Director-Sessions-fired-over-ethics-charges-AIDS-co-discoverer-faces-new-charges.html(/ref) Sessions was eventually replaced as FBI Director by Bush-appointed judge Louis Freeh.

I removed this from the lede as Undue Emphasis on the "ethics violations" of William Sessions "unrelated to the Waco siege." Sounds more like a hatchet job on Sessions with emphasis on mentioning "Clinton" and "Bush" as much as possible than as an apropriate item for a lede.

A lede in a Wikipedia entry should be like the abstract of an academic article: very short intro, summary and conclusions, and should reflect the overall gist of the article, without undue emphasis on side issues.

Previously dropped from the lede (by reinstating the above) was a similar political statement that the raid was ordered by Bill Clinton as detailed on pages 497-499 of Bill Clinton, My Life (Random House, Knopf, Vintage, 2004, 2005). This article covers the raid of 28 Feb, siege of 1 Mar to 18 Apr, and final attack of 19 Apr. Clinton claims he ordered the final gas and tank attack 19 Apr. Any of these issues belong in the detail of the raid, siege or attack; the Sessions material and appointment of Freeh to replace Sessions in the aftermath. In the lede they constitute undue emphasis. Naaman Brown (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your edit, and previous edits, which eliminated non-essential information from the lede. However I believe you should find a place for that information elsewhere in the article rather than just dropping it. Apostle12 (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

no "wrong doing" at waco

You have to realize reading the various government whitewashes and anti-government conspiracy theories that "wrong doing" is a legal term that like "libel" requires a showing of actual malice aforethought to stick in court. A lot of things were done wrong at Waco and policies and training were changed in response. ATF training now emphasises "dynamic entry raid" as a last resort; after a near-mutiny among Special Forces at Ft Hood and Ft Bragg over requests by ATF for Waco, the Army War College published guidelines for military commanders receiving requests for assistance from law enforcement agencies (JAG Col Lujan advised commanders to do their own investigation before blindly granting requests because ATF lied about Koresh operating a meth lab); the 1995 GOA "Use of Force" report noted the standardization of Deadly Force policy among all federal agencies (before 1995 you could have a multi-agency task force where under the same situation agents from one agency would hold fire and agents from another agency could open fire) and in 1995 ATF SRTs were not allowed to use full automatic weapons; the HRT was reorganized under the CIRG, with the tactical commander and the head negotiator reporting as equals to the crisis trained CIRG head as site commander (at Waco and Ruby Ridge, the head negotiator reported to the HRT Commander and the local SAC was technically site commander but deferred to the HRT Commander since most SACs did not have crisis training); at Waco both Blue and Gold HRT teams were sent to the same site leaving no HRT resources if a prison riot or bank hostage situation came up, which created an artificial pressure to solve the situation tactically (today resources are kept in reserve); at Waco HRT tactical hung a bra on negotiator Fred Lanceley's car and otherwise disrespected the negotiators (including Bryon Sage and Peter Smerick) and acted to punish the Davidians after they made concessions to the negotiators. But none of the mis-steps at Waco arise to the level of the legal definition of "wrong doing", nothing to see here folks, move along, move along. Naaman Brown (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Weapons section

I made two edits to this section. First, I removed the statement, Interviews with Koresh's surviving followers reveal that he was intimately versed in the Bible and "knew it like he wrote it." This has a clear bias (either in favor of Koresh or against Christian scripture) and has nothing to do with the context it was placed in.

After rereading the section, I decided to remove the whole paragraph, On August 5, 1989, Koresh (at that point still legally named Vernon Howell) released the "new light" audiotape in which Koresh stated he'd been told by God to procreate with the women in the group to establish a "House of David" of his "Special People." This involved married couples in the group dissolving their marriages and agreeing that only Koresh could have sexual relations with the wives.. I am not sure what this has to do with weapons charges.

—Cappadocian330.Talk— 02:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Those factoids were not relevent to the weapons charge but were relevent to the history and the overall story and should have been moved rather than removed. One, the ATF raid and the FBI siege followed strategies developed from dealing with drug houses, prison riots and bank robbery hostage standoffs (where the subjects knew they were guilty): in dealing with politically or religiously motivated subjects, those tactics antagonize the situation; the religious motivations of the standoff are part of the story. Two, government expert Henry Ruth who reviewed the Waco report for the Treasury Dept., stated part of the motivation at the ATF was to enforce the morals of our society, the psyche of right thinking, by retaliating against these odd people. One of the things that made them odd and was contrary to the morals of society and the psyche of right thinking was the "New Light" revelation preached by Vernon Howell (later known as David Koresh). Naaman Brown (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Category

I notice Category:Conspiracy theory has been added; where is the Category:Cover-up and Category:Whitewash? Naaman Brown (talk) 10:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

For the conspiracy theory category, there are sources like "Along with the siege at Waco, the Ruby Ridge incident has become one of the most prominent events for conspiracy-minded oponents of the government and the "New World Order""(p. 632) "Another conspiratorial explanation for the failure of the initial raid on the Branch Davidians (...)"(p. 144) "(...) the prosecution stressed that a major motivation for the bombing was McVeigh's conspiracy beliefs. Most significantly, McVeigh believed in a government conspiracy and cover-up in the 1993 destruction of the Branch Davidian compound (...) Timothy McVeigh, an avid consume of Waco conspiracy theories, became the exemplar for the dangerous results these beliefs could produce."(p.230) Conspiracy theories in American history: an encyclopedia, Volumen 1, Peter Knight, with a prologue by historian David Brion Davis.

You should provide (third-party independent non-partisan) reliable sources stating that an actual cover-up and/or whitewash have actually happened, and that they are not conspiracy theories. We can work from there. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Advice Against Serving Warrant in Presence of Followers

The following excerpt needs citations:

Before the raid, Rick Ross advised the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) that arresting Koresh at Mt. Carmel in the presence of his followers would likely provoke a violent response. Joyce Sparks, an investigator from the Texas agency responsible for child protective services also advised ATF against such action.

no sources for relationship to Columbine

This edit said that "[they] wished to "outdo" tragic events like the 1992 Los Angeles riots, the siege in Waco, and the Oklahoma City bombing."[2] The nearest reference I could find is: "They had originally planned their attack for April 19, the anniversary of the Oklahoma City Bombing. They said in their writings that they intended to 'top the body count' of McVeigh's bombing in their attack to their school.".The Psychology of Terrorism: Clinical aspects and responses (pages 159-160) I can't find any secondary source mentioning that the columbine killers mentioned Waco, or giving any relevance to a possible relationship or inspiration. Columbine was inspired in the Oklahoma bombings, which in turn were inspired by Waco, but I can't find a source making a direct connection from Waco to Columbine.

A 946 pages PDF file was also presented as a source, but no page number was provided, see Talk:Waco_Siege/Archive_3#cite_64_jefferson_county_sheriff.27s_office_columbin_documents. For the IP that keeps inserting the statement, please provide a secondary source or point to a specific page inside the pdf. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Texas Rangers evidence on silencers or sound suppressors

Re-reading the Texas Rangers, Investigative Report Branch Davidian Evidence September 1999 and Investigative Report #2 Branch Davidian Evidence January 2000.

While the Texas Rangers had custody of the Branch Davidian evidence, they found three Olympic Arms CAR-AR carbines with silencer tubes attached; no tests were made by the Texas Rangers to see if the silencers were functional or dummies or if the arms themselves had been modified to full automatic. An AR 9mm barrel was also found with a silencer tube installed. The bulk of the evidence labelled as silencers were metal tubes or wire mesh: raw material "believed to be used to make a silencer/suppressor".

Of some Branch Davidian evidence bagged by the FBI and labelled as "silencer" or "suppressor", the Texas Rangers found instead flash bang grenades in EXHNUMs 001037, 001383, 001525, 001892. EXHNUMs 000728, 002247 and 002248 (also labeled Q267, Q268 and Q269) are also mis-ID'd as silencers. EXNUM 001742 was a flash bang ID'd as a "smoke grenade". Most of the flash bang grenades appeared to be DEF TEC 25 distraction devices by DEF-TEC Corp., Rock Creek, Ohio, made for law enforcement and evidently discharged by the ATF in the raid on 28 Feb 1993. Not all of the evidence collected in the Branch Davidian case were things that belonged to the Branch Davidians. Also several items of evidence were given upto four different identification numbers refrencin the same item. Naaman Brown (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a link please to that document.

I have so many now (96 pdf's from the Rangers alone) I am starting to lose track of them lol

Chaosdruid (talk) 07:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

first part of January 2000 Investigative Report #2, linked from here. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thx - BD part 1 would have sufficed, those bloody things lock my internet up while they download lol.

I have them - all those from the links pages so BD 1 to 4 I have...

Chaosdruid (talk) 11:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Transcluded from Erics talk page

waco

Hi

Unfortunately the sources you give as refs are not the texas rangers or the DOJ reports. I have reverted the edits and hope you can correct the refs, I know it would have been easy for me to do them but think that it is best that you do it as I prefer to copy edit and maintian factual accuracy and wish to remain neutral on such things as the weapons and their use

The refs should be to the/those original documents not really Wikisource docs which could be altered from the original (I know its not going to happen probably)

[3] is the original DOJ document

I would point out though that the document does not itself contain references and there are other sources which state that these were ".50 cal barrels over 5 feet long" which would imply they were probably just barrels from larger .50 cal machine guns

To be honest after the lies in that DOJ document, concerning things such as stating there were no incendiary rounds used, it is hard to believe anything other than an original Texas Ranger document that showed what they actually found and the purposes of their use.

It is easy to assume that .50 cal is snipers rifle but this is not backed up anywhere else as far as i know

thanks

Chaosdruid (talk) 03:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The interim report to the DOJ[4] explained the difference between incendiary rounds and pyrotechnic rounds (pages 49 and 50), that they are usually confused, that the terms were usually interchangeabily, and that the FBi might have tried to cover the use of pyrotechnic rounds because they can start a round by accident.

The original Texas Rangers report is here A Texas Rangers report examining only the CS cartridges [5](I downloaded the 36 megabytes report), says several times that they found only pyrotechnic casings. They did find part of the parachute of a flare (which is "incendiary in nature", note that a flare is not a CS cartridge). According to this source, the DOJ report was not lying when it said that no incendiary CS cartridges were used.

About these sources that say ".50 cal barrels over 5 feet long", then please provide a source that are directly saying that there were not barrels or a .50 cal rifle. Reaching that conclusion oneself is original research. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The original report seems to be in appendix D of the DOJ report[6]. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

OK you are missing the point here - especially in accusing me of OR

THe main points are

1 Quote from original documents, not derived copies or ones from Wikisource - these are much less open to question. I gave you the link for that original DOJ document. Aside from actually putting the link in for you I did the leg work FOR your argument

2 CESNUR is not an originator of the reports or documentation

3 I know the difference between Incendiary and Pyrotechnics - do not try to cloud the issue. Calling a device a pyrothechnic device does not mean that it would not cause a fire. A flashbang is not designed as an incendiary device but the flash part could easily cause a fire if thrown into a room filled with flammable gas.

4 The DOJ was lying if it said no pyrotechnic rounds were used [7] [8] [9] and I quote from the Texas Rangers

"When fired, the projectile disperses CS into the atmosphere by the burning of a pyrotechnic mixture" the report then goes on to state:-

"No reference or fire hazard warning is provided in the manual, so I asked Investigator O’DONNELL to research what he could about tests conducted when the M651 was being developed to determine the realistic degree of hazards of starting a fire. On 08-531-99, Investigator O’DONNELL advised me that he had consulted Ray JOHNSON who is currently the DECON/MUNITIONS Team Leader for the Soldier’s Biological Chemicals Command at Rock Island Arsenal. JOHNSON advised that they had not explored the fire hazard of the M651 because it was known to cause fires. The projectile burns at 500 to 700 degrees Fahrenheit, and is capable of igniting flammable items. JOHNSON also advised that the military had no official definition of a pyrotechnic round but that the M651 was considered a pyrotechnic round by the military."

5 You have not provided a link to the original Rangers report on the weapons collected

6 You have accused me of WP:OR and ask that I "provide a source that are directly saying that there were not barrels or a .50 cal rifle." I stated

there are other sources which state that these were ".50 cal barrels over 5 feet long" and I also stated

It is easy to assume that .50 cal is snipers rifle but this is not backed up anywhere else as far as i know

Do not EVER accuse someone of OR when they are infact simply stating facts, especially when that person's statemen CLEARLY says that they WERE barrels and DID NOT SAY THERE WERE NO RIFLES but simply said that people jump to conclusions about a .50 automatically being a sniper rifle.

I suggest you apologise for the OR accusation before we continue any discussions

Chaosdruid (talk) 07:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for accusing you of original research. I address the points one by one:

1 you are right, thanks for the link

2 the Danforth report is no longer available in the DOJ website, so we are forced to rely on copies. Several websites have copies since it's a public domain document, and we even have a copy at commons. Unfortunately, I can't find the document in archive.org. (Note that the cernur copy is linked from the PBS website[10], and that it's the same pdf as the one hosted in rickross.com[11] and the one hosted in carolmoore's website[12].), and that the rest of files are linked here, all uploaded by Carol Moore. By WP:AGF, we should assume that the copies are correct until it can be show that they aren't, or until they are reasonable suspicions that they might have been altered. (anyways, I could always cite the reports without giving a link the online source I used, but I have always found that to be a bit silly....)

3 That's true, and the article needs to say that the pyrotechnic devices did have a risk of starting a fire. (it's currently inside of a reference, it should be instead in the text itself) and it should explain the difference between incendiary and pyrotechnic devices. The relevant source seems to be here and we should explain the difference between "incendiary" and "pyrotechnic" since many readers won't know the difference (there is a good explanation in page 25 of Danforth report, inside footnote 31[13])

4 yes, the Danforth report states that the DOJ indeed covered-up the use of pyrotechnic devices. This needs to go into the article if it's not already there (you said incendiary ones, which were not actually used, sorry for the confusion)

5 I can't find any evidence that the Texas Ranger actually published a public document, it seems to have been an internal non-public document. I'm afraid that no links exists. We can still cite them via the DOJ report and the Danforth report.

6 "there are other sources which state (...)" <-- I had a problem with this statement because you are not citing especific sources. The article does not say anything about sniper rifles so I am not going to comment on that matter.

(I have to go now, back in Sunday night or Monday) --Enric Naval (talk) 09:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted :¬)

There must be a respectable source for Danforth - I will dig around for a while this weekend...

I said incendiary as any pyrothecnic that can cause is known to cause fire is surely incendiary ? I know it is a problem as you will argue that "it was not intended to be an incendiary" and I would argue that "If you throw that into my wooden garage full of paper and cloth I would argue that you should have thought about it before you had to call the firebrigade and I had to take you to court for burning my house down" lol

The sources that state ".50 barrel 5 feet in legnth" are not what I would call reliable but they do exist. I mentioned the snipers rifle in reference to the agents (cannot remember if it was ATF or FBI) that said they saw them poke one (50 cal) out of a window which led to reports such as this [14] - its in chronological order near the bottom...

Nice comprehensive refs btw and I like the additions to the article, however, I still think we should not be stating that there were 2x .50 cal found and that there was "a question about them being used" etc until we have clear and undisputed proof from the Texas Rangers that that was indeed what they found. The only refs used in the article seem to be those based on the DOJ report and that, as we know, was prior to the TR further investigation and somewhat flawed and based on mis- and dis- information as well as some OR on their behalf (lol - I thought youd like that bit!!).

Chaosdruid (talk) 11:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

original research in "no .50 caliber rifles in the Treasury department report"

It is based in the press release of the Treasury Dept.[15]. Indeed, it doesn't specifically list .50 caliber rifles, but it does list "6 assorted rifles". The linked press release doesn't make any mention of a discordance between the Treasury report and other reports. Note:

• the full Treasury report is not of help because it doesn't list the specific weapons, it only has an "approximate recap" listing "249 firearms (over 60 % of military derivation)"[16].
• the Texas Rangers arson report said that they found at least .50 caliber rifles[17] ooops, it's a Texas Ranger report, but not the arson one. The Danforth quotes the Texas Ranger report for the same .50 caliber rifles[18] (page 133). It's quoted also in the DOJ report [19].
• the House of Representatives report[20] we have a) this statement "The affidavit misstated that Koresh possessed a British Boys anti-tank .52 caliber rifle, when in fact Koresh owned a Barret light .50 firearm" (page 23) b) a testimony of a neighboour who had heard .50 caliber fire (page 112) c) a testimony of a former Branch Davidian saying that they had .50 caliber rifles (end of page 112, start of page 113). It cites no discrepancies of firearm amounts between reports.
• the press release is hosted in the PBS website, but the PBS website does not mention anywhere any discrepancy between the press release and other reports (that I know of).

The conclusion that there is a discrepancy is an unsourced analysis, and it's thus original research. Please find a secondary reliable source that explicitly says that there is a discrepancy. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

More like synthesis from incomplete sources. For that matter there are discrepancies in the lists of guns bought by the Davidians and the lists of guns recovered after the fire (not surprising since Paul Fattta, Steve Schneider and David Koresh were running a gun business called the "Mag Bag" and also ran a "Koresh Survival Goods" gun show booth). As I recall, none of the various lists reported were billed as complete. For instance, one would expect a list of guns introduced as evidence at trial would be a subset of guns bought.

Everyone is missing a point: the .50 Barrett M82 is legally a rifle subject to Title I (1968 Gun Control Act) and can be legally owned by anyone who can legally own a rifle; the .52 Boys anti-tank rifle is legally a destructive device subject to Title II (1934 National Firearms Act) and can be legally owned only after payment of a special tax and entry in the National Firearms Registry. Although the Barrett rifles were described to ATF agent Davy Aguilera as .50 caliber rifles, Aguilera described them to Judge Green as unregistered (thus illegal) .52 Boys anti-tank rifles. A legal rifle was misrepresented as an illegal weapon to justify a raid. That is a more important fact than incomplete lists having discrepancies because they are, well, incomplete. Naaman Brown (talk) 03:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not missing the point. THe point is that the reports quoted to support the "at least 2x .50 cal" satement appear to be incorrect. I simply asked that someone find the correct ref source. It shouldn't be that hard

The link provided above does not appear to have the wording that these rifles were found there "the Texas Rangers arson report said that they found at least .50 caliber rifles[21]" please quote the text from that report

The evidence hinges on that Texas RAngers report, as it is used by others so many times, and we really need to get it right.

The fact about the misrepresentation used to get the warrant is certainly not more important - they are equally important.

Chaosdruid (talk) 07:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong report. It seems that the Texas Ranger made a report about the fire, and that it is quoted by both the DOJ report[22] and the Danforh report[23] (page 133). I can't find any link to the original Texas Ranger document. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

incendiary devices

Referencing the Texas Rangers, Investigative Report Branch Davidian Evidence September 1999 and Investigative Report #2 Branch Davidian Evidence January 2000. released online September 1999 and January 2000. (I included links to the individual PDFs at the Texas Rangers website in the Waco Siege page years ago; they were removed, but there is still a link to the index that can be used to navigate to the documents: "Texas Department of Public Safety, Texas Rangers Branch Davidian Evidence Reports")

Texas Ranger Branch Davidian Evidence Report September 1999 concludes with the letter from AUSA Bill Johnston to USAG Janet Reno advising her that contrary to FBI reports beginning 1993, there was evidence that the FBI HRT had used incendiary rounds 19 Apr 1993. The federal government publicly denied for years using incendiary devices, then in 1999 only admitted to using the ones found by the Texas Rangers.

Branch Davidian Evidence included 40mm grenades as fired from military grenade launchers. Exhibits labelled Q279 and Q280 were identified by the Texas Rangers as metal 40mm Sound & Flash grenades by NICO Pyrotechnik (Germany); rifling marks indicated they had been fired from grenade launchers. NICO claims the 40mm S&F rounds were shipped to a distributor who claims he sold fifty to the FBI HRT. Tests by NICO found the 40mm S&F will ignite gasoline vapor. The S&F while possibly incendiary is not a tear gas round.

Branch Davidian Evidence labelled Q1237 (shell casing) was identified by the Texas Rangers as from an M651 incendiary military CS gas cartridge identical to a metal 40mm tear gas grenade shown in a photograph taken 19 Apr 1993 by the Rangers. (The FBI siezed the Rangers' photographs and when they were returned several film rolls were missing.) Ranger Sgt. George Turner was advised by FBI agent Rick Crum that the M651 had been fired 19 Apr 1993 "in an attempt to knock a door down so gas could be dispensed." The military manual acquired by the Texas Rangers warned that the M651 may malunction and explode on impact and is a known firestarter. M651 burns at ~700 degrees F for ~30 seconds and in tests will ignite paper and cloth, as well as kerosene or gasoline vapors. It was described to the Texas Rangers by an FBI agent as a "thumper road" used to knock down doors. (One later FBI account was that three incendiary tear gas rounds (presumably all M651) were used 19 Apr 1993.)

Branch Davidian Evidence included numerous plastic 40mm CS "Ferret" tear gas shell casings, expended grenades and trashbags filled with empty boxes for the Ferret Liquid CS SGA-400 barricade penetrating cartridge (some estimates are that 400+ Ferret rounds of 37mm police and 40mm military varieties were fired 19 Apr 1993). Although plastic, the Ferret round will penetrate plywood residential doors, but unlike the M651 it does not use an explosive or burning compound to disperse gas.

These 40mm grenade rounds (the NICO S&F, the M651 and the Ferret) may cause death or greivous bodily harm to individuals in the line of flight, but they do not constitute "small arms fire" directed from the FBI toward thr Davidians as defined in the Danforth Report. The S&F and M651 can ignite flammable vapors (the M651 can set fire to an ordinary sofa). While they were found in the collected Branch Davidian Evidence they were not property of the Davidians, but had been fired by the FBI on 19 Apr 1993.

For further reading, in Appendix G of the Treasury Report on Waco the chief historian for federal law enforcement details federal sieges with political/religious groups that ended in fire. Naaman Brown (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

While a pyrotechnic tear gas grenade can be a firestarter, strictly speaking an incendiary device is designed as a firestarter and is used only as a firestarter. However, the notes that got AUSA Bill Johnston in trouble were from a colleague who attended an FBI briefing where the M651 was descrubed as "incind?". 67.232.92.215 (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately sites like CESNUR and apfn.com are dubious (as mentioned earlier) as refs - especially when apfn appears to misquote the date of the Dallas Morning News item as "("Dallas Morning News, October 19, 2000" )"

The DMN archive website [24] states

"1.) Panel faults Reno, Clinton on WacoJustice disputes public was misled

Author: Lee Hancock, Michelle Mittelstadt Staff Writer of The Dallas Morning News

Publish Date: October 20, 2000

Luckily we do have these [25] [26] and the most relevant which shows the "incind?" quote [27]

Chaosdruid (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I cited the Texas Rangers (Texas Dept of Public Safety) website; I am not familiar with CESNUR or apfn.com. My research started with writing an op-ed in 1994 so a lot of my sources were pre-Internet, either print or VHS tape (eg. the CBS piece on M651 that included Bryon Sage). Naaman Brown (talk) 11:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

FBI Literalism v Davidian Imagery

The article currently states:

Koresh said during the siege that he could destroy the Bradleys, so they were supplemented with two M1A1 Abrams tanks and five M728 Combat Engineer Vehicles.

There is reason to believe that Vernon Howell (VH aka "David Koresh") believed the threat that would destroy the Bradley fighting vehicles was Biblical or supernatural, not a physical means of destruction.

In the Book of Revelations, Chapters 5 and 6, at the end of the world the Lamb of God would be given a book sealed with seven seals and would open the seals one by one to bring about the Apocalypse:

• The first seal would unleash a conqueror on a white horse.
• The second seal would unleash a rider on a red horse to take away peace.
• The third seal would unleash a rider on a black horse carrying a balance scale.
• The fourth seal would unleash Death on a pale horse and Hell would follow with him.
• The fifth seal would unleash the deaths of the martyrs.
• The sixth seal would unleash earthquakes and eclipses.
• The seventh seal would unleash the end of the world.

Before VH even joined much less led the group, the Branch Davidian (BD) had taught that the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse represented Adolph Hitler and WWII (white), Joseph Stalin and the Cold War (red), the One World government under the UN (black) and various plagues and disasters of the latter half of the 20th century (pale). In BD theology, the Apocalypse was already underway and the first four seals were already broken: the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse had already ridden forth.

To VH, the ATF raid on Mount Carmel Center (MCC) 28 Feb 1993 was the fulfillment of the Fifth Seal, the deaths of the martyrs. (About 500 apocalyptic millennial cults existed in America as 1999-2000-2001 approached, and the US DOJ publication Operation Meggido Project Megiddo illustrated that the federal government was actively preparing to respond.)

When VH spoke to the FBI negotiators about the Seven Seals, the negotiators were initially confused; they could not recall aquatic mammals in the Bible except maybe the whale that swallowed Jonah. Cult expert Rick Ross had advised the FBI to have a negotiator who understood the biblical context of the Davidian's beliefs; the FBI were contemptuous of what they called "bible babble."

When the angel opens the Sixth Seal, Revelations says there will be a great earthquake. According to BD prophesy, that earthquake would burst the dam at Lake Waco and reveal the original site of Mount Carmel taken from BD prophetess Florence Houteff by the state of Texas in the 1950s. VH predicted to the FBI negotiators that Lake Waco Dam would burst in the near future. The negotiators took that to mean BD supporters were plotting to blow up the dam and precautions were taken (much like the reaction to VH's threat against the Bradley fighting vehicles). Naaman Brown (talk) 09:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC) correction see strike-thru. At the time of the Waco raid, it was pointed out several times that federal law enforcement was gearing up to respond to apocalyptic groups at the millenium. The preparations preceded the formal report. Naaman Brown (talk) 12:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

in popular culture section

This article is missing one, i can remember dozens of tv series referencing to this! --85.146.181.187 (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This article had a "In Popular Culture" section that degenerated into a list of trivia (much of which on close examination was related more to incidents like Jim Jones and Jonestown than to the Waco Siege). Popular TV shows like "X-Files" or "Criminal Minds" have mentioned Waco (even the "Simpsons" have parodied this tragedy) in a plotline. Beyond the "In the Line of Duty: Ambush at Waco" TV movie (which was later disowned by the screenwriter Phil Penningroth) there have been few truly notable pop culture references and hundreds of useless ones. Even though I contributed to the old pop culture section, I am not particularly sad to see it gone. Naaman Brown (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Timeline change and removal of text

Hi Enric

I am a little concerned that the text you removed "(However, the conversations about spreading fuel are timed hours before the fire.)" and the entry you put in the timeline show a MASSIVE difference in times as well as different context. The timeline entry now shows the FBI saying that the "fire" comments are less than half an hour before fire breaks out instead of the previous text which says "spreading fuel" and "hours".

I think you must restore this text and add a {{cn}} tag. It may be that the ref "Fuentes" contains that information and as such should not hav been removed. Also there is the problem that the two events are not the same event, one spreading fuel and one starting the fire. diff [28]

Chaosdruid (talk) 08:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The text was added a couple of days ago without providing a source[29], and, judging by the edit summary, the info had not been obtained by reading the Fuentes source, but by reading the table under Waco_Siege#Chronology_of_events_April_19. That table happened to miss crucial information about the tapes, which I added.

I have fixed further the table. Newport says that the process of setting the fire started approximately at 11:30 (page 287), not that the fires started exactly at 11:30 (that's my fault for reporting incorrectly what Newport said, sorry). According to Danforth report, the conversations didn't happen exactly at 11:30, but they were spread in tapes spanning 11:17 - 12:04. The sources report no significant gap between the taped statements and the fire start, and they find that the tapes are part of the conclusive proof that Davidians started the fires.

Additionally, also from Danforth report, the fire experts say that the Davidians started the fires, Newport first summarizes that statement of those fire experts, then he makes an independent analysis on his book and makes the same conclusion, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

HRT Tactics not appropriate for besieging a religious group

As Alan Stone pointed out, understanding the minds of the besiegers was just as important as understanding the minds of the besieged at Waco. During the FBI siege, the HRT tactical team treated these religiously motivated people as they had treated common criminals in prison riot or bank robbery situations. In particular the FBI HRT tactical team actions backfired and even HRT Commander Dick Rogers admitted at later Congressional hearings that instead of forcing the BDs out, his confrontational tactics drove them together.

In the Waco trial: "the jury heard comments made by Clinton Van Zandt, a behavioral science specialist for the FBI, when he was asked for his assessment of Rogers. "I think he believed very strongly in himself," Van Zandt said, "in his ability in the use of force. He saw negotiations as getting in the way. He is a strong proponent and advocate of tactical resolutions to situations." Houston Chronicle 6/27/00 Jim Henderson."

At the time the Ruby Ridge Siege (21-31 Aug 1992) was reported, VH openly speculated that it was a dress rehearsal for a federal raid on MCC. With BATF's 30 July 1992 rejection of his offer to come out and inspect his guns and paperwork, the treatment of the Weaver family one month later confirmed VH's suspicions about the federal government being Victor Houteff's antitype of Satanic Babylon. FBI behaviour during the siege fit the BD suspicions.

BD Clive Doyle has stated: "Everytime we thought we were cooperating, people were coming out, or we were doing what they'd asked, we'd be punished, almost right after complying. The electricity being cut off, the music being played, all that kind of stuff just gave us the attitude they certainly did not mean what they were promising, that we couldn't trust them. Of course we're listening to their morning briefings on the radio. They were supposedly showing great concern for the childrens' welfare, that they were supposed to be the innocent parties, but ... the noises, the lights, all the things that went on for the next 50-odd days just confirmed in our minds they had no concern for our children at all, other than to get them away from us. Whatever they did to us the children were having to put up with as well. If they'd been concerned with the children, they wouldn't have done the raid [28 Feb 93].... There was one day when they buzzed the building with one of these jet helicopters, ... really noisy, ... really fast. They would buzz the building and everyone was kind of instinctively ducking. The next day, we hear this helicopter coming again and everyone starts ducking, just a reflex, and it went on for a little while, we began to wake up: there is no helicopter.... They'd recorded the thing, and were just playing it to us the next day.... Towards the end of the siege, I'd say the last week before the fire, anybody that came out of the building either legitimately or just to get fresh air had flashbangs lobbed at him, including Steve Schneider, who came out the front door on a negotiated rendezvous with a tank to pick up supplies. He picked up the stuff from the people in the tank, turned around and they threw two flashbangs at him at the front door. Scared the daylights out of him." Naaman Brown (talk) 09:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Very similar to the infra-red footage at the rear when you can see flashes in the back of the gym as they are assaulting it with a vehicle of some kind - I think it was a bradley. I am not sure about how many of the claims about people shooting in the gym from beside the vehicle are available as most of those at the rear of the building seemed to get killed.

Chaosdruid (talk) 19:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The vehicle at the gym was a M60 tank demilitarized (no mounted cannon or machineguns) as a CEV Civil Engineering Vehicle. Officially no agents were killed by gunfire, although several Davidians in the kitchen area adjacent the gym were found dead from gunfire, either shot escaping or if surrounded by flames mercy-killed. One of the mainstream TV documentaries on Waco (shortly after the Waco:ROE film was released) included an analysis by an expert from the British Jane's publications who was very adament that Dr. Edward Allard's analysis in Waco:ROE (Dr. Allard held patents on FLIR technology) was correct: the FLIR flashes that Dr. Allard called gunfire outside the building were consistent with gunfire and the Jane's expert demonstrated shooting an AR on FLIR camera. The FBI Waco FLIR tapes not only show flashes consistent with gunfire from the ground toward the building (according to Dr. Allard's analysis), they also show flashes at the windows of the upper stories which could have beenDavidians firing. The cover story that the flashes were sunlight reflecting of puddles of water or broken glass on the ground not only does not explain how light would register on infrared, but how broken glass in front of the windows could be at the same angle as broken glass on the ground to reflect sunlight back to the FLIR camera (if reflected sunlight would register on infrared camera). The FBI Waco FLIR tapes also show personnel exiting armored vehicles black (relatively cool) then fading to grey as their clothing warmed to match the background temperature, so the absence of human outlines behind the flashes is not remarkable. Naaman Brown (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to insert that then ? Chaosdruid (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

removal as spam

Edward321 removed this as spam:

Economist and crisis consultant Randall Bell writes in his book Strategy 360, "Koresh was on amicable terms with the local sheriff. He could have been easily arrested or questioned during one of his frequent visits to town. Many people believe that, even if a simple phone call had been allowed between the sheriff and Koresh, the FBI's raid might not have occurred at all." (ref)Bell, Randall, Strategy 360, Owners Manual Press, 2008, isbn 9781933969169, page 223 (/ref)

The sheriff and the prosecutor for McClennan County felt Koresh would have responded to a call to come to the courthouse to discuss questions/problems (he had done so in the pass), but the raid was conducted by the ATF not the FBI who were called in only after the raid failed. I don't know if the quote qualifies as spam or not; the point could be better sourced to the sheriff or prosecutor, than to a consultant with limited knowledge of the case. Naaman Brown (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Bell is a real estate consultant specializing in marketing properties where something bad has happened. Bell is in no way an expert in the events of the Waco seige, as Naaman Brown shows by the gross inaccuracy in the brief quote. OTOH, it does very prominently mention Bell's non-notable book. Edward321 (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

FBI Sniper Plan

I replaced this in prelude to the raid (28 Feb 93):

At least a week before the assault, the FBI had considered employing snipers to "eliminate" David Koresh, and other "key" Davidians(ref)((cite book|last=Churchill|first=Ward|coauthors=Jim Vander Wall|title=The COINTELPRO papers: documents from the FBI's secret wars against dissent in the United States|publisher=South End Press|date=2002|isbn=9780896086487|page=lxxix))(/ref).

with this in the siege section before the final assault:

One week prior to the 19 Apr 1993 assault, FBI planners considered using snipers to eliminate David Koresh and possibly other key Davidians.(ref)Lee Hancock, "No Easy Answers: Law Authorities Puzzle over Methods to End Branch Davidians Siege", Dallas Morning News, 15 Apr 1993.(/ref)

for reasons that should be obvious. Naaman Brown (talk)

ATF acronym and name

The article text uses the current ATF acronym and (mostly) the current name Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. At the time, the agency and most contempraneous commentators used the BATF acronym and the name Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. BATF should be retained in all titles and quotes from contemporaneous documents. Naaman Brown (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms of Danforth report

I replaced the purported quote from Ramsey Clark because the included citation pointed to an LA Times article that contained no mention of Ramsey Clark at all, and certainly did not give the quote that was included in the article. Furthermore, the purported quote does not criticize or even mention the Danforth report. Rather, it criticizes the government's handling of the Branch Davidian crisis. (The bad reference is: )

I replaced with a quote from Ramsey Clark specifically referencing the Danforth report from a CNN report.

I deleted the paragraph beginning "The introduction to the Danforth Report notes..." because the included citation did not refer to a document that criticized the Danforth report. Rather, it referred to a Texas Ranger report that predates the Danforth reports. The Ranger report does not bear on the issue of "small arms fire". Therefore, this appears to be an inappropriate editorial comment.

I deleted a paragraph referring to a "sharp contrast" in a paper by Lujans in Parameters http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/parameters/Articles/97autumn/lujan.htm because (1) the paper is dated 1997, 3 years before the Danforth report and (2) it is not a "sharp contrast" to the Danforth report. Rather, it states that a Posse Comitatus violation could have occurred, but did not because the Army officers were sufficiently vigilant. Incidentally, the previous ref is broken.

I deleted the previous topic sentence for this section because it suggested more criticisms than are justified by the two remaining citation.

Jeffrw (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"12:06, 28 August 2010 Leszek Jańczuk (talk | contribs) m (128,970 bytes) (Reverted 2 edits by Jeffrw identified as vandalism to last revision by 76.94.42.224. (TW)) (undo)"

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

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

the fire

In [30] it was stated that there were flamethrower tanks, with considerable evidence. We know YouTube isn't regarded as reliable, but the whole internet isn't completely reliable, and that doesn't mean everything displayed on it isn't reliable. Similarly, some things on YouTube can be reliable while others arn't. And besides, doesn't the amount of evidence matter more than the website it is written on? We want good information from all sources, not all information from good sources. 173.183.69.134 (talk) 04:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually we need verifiable information from reliable sources. In a VHS copy of one of the FBI surveillance tapes (Beta format) taken Day 51 there is a flash as one of the tanks pulls out from the building after driving into the building. This is the footage circulated by Linda Thompson in her video Waco: the Big Lie. In the better quality Beta original of the surveillance tape the flash appears to be a falling broken wall panel possibly sheet rock catching the sun. This is the theory presented by Michael McNulty in the Feb 1994 Soldier of Fortune article on the subject based on the original and a digitised version of the original. The Soldier of Fortune coverage of Waco was very critical of both government cover-ups and conspiracy theories (much of their criticism of ATF on Day 1 was confirmed by the Treasury Dept "Blue Book" and US Army War College studies). I still have an AVI of part of the Thompson footage circulated years ago of admittedly very poor internet download quality. It appears to show one of the CEV tanks with the gas generation boom pointed out, apparently backing out of the building; the "flash" appears to occur at the rear of the tank which would be near the engine compartment and exhaust, hardly the place to mount weapons systems such as flame throwers.

This is a distraction from what the video shows: 19 Apr 1993 the FBI drove a tank into a building containing women, children and babies to deliver CS tear gas. When that same plan was proposed at Ruby Ridge 22 Aug 1992, it was vetoed by FBI HQ on the grounds that using tanks and CS gas to enter the Weaver cabin would panic the occupants and cause them to make irrational decisions, plus CS gas inside the cabin would harm children especially the baby Elisheba. The atrocity is that tanks and CS gas were used at all; the dispute over flamethrowers is a red herring. Naaman Brown (talk) 07:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Who knows if it is real or not? Why not just mention the supposed evidence(those areas were where the fire started) that supported the theory, and the altered videos that claim it was a reflection, just for the information to readers? When there is little idea whether or no it was real, why not show as much evidence&counter-evidence as possible from each theory? (sorry for too many questions marks, somehow I feel they are offensive)173.183.69.134 (talk) 22:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice....

It would be nice if people would locate and read the cited sources before editing in their opinions. 26 Oct 2010 IP editor 131.6.84.110 changed "ATF personnel" to "the Branch Davidians" which does not match the cited source, Albert K. Bates, "Showtime at Waco", Communities Magazine, Summer 1995, which states: "As the assault team climbed to the roof, the lead agent on one ladder reached for his pistol and accidentally discharged it while still in the holster, wounding himself in the leg. The shot may have sounded to agents and reporters in the front of the building as if it had come from within the compound." I changed this to match the cited source. http://www.thefarm.org/lifestyle/albertbates/akbwaco.html

There are several reasons to suspect that the first shot may have come from the ATF. The first four ATF agents interviewed by Texas Rangers believed the first shots were the dog team shooting the dogs. ATF Ballestros heard a gun shot off to the side before shots either entered or exited the front door. After the shooting there was found a hole in the radiator of the second ATF truck facing the rear of the first ATF horse trailer used to transport the raid force. The written raid plans included diversionary gun fire from the helicopters. The possibility of a first shot by ATF causing panicked firing by the ATF and/or the Davidians cannot be discounted by editing a cited statement to contradict the cited source. Naaman Brown (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This never happened "in" Waco

As always someone has to correct the media. This event never happened in the city of Waco Texas. Instead, as listed, it was Mount Carmel. Do not confuse the two. I have lived here all my life and in no way did this nor anything like this ever happened here. The article should be changed to say The Mount Carmel Siege 15 miles from Waco. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leeme 1958 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:COMMONNAME, articles use the most common name that appear in reliable English language sources. You could also read Talk:Waco_Siege/Archive_3#.22war_in_waco.22, an older discussion of names. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Task Force 88, Special Forces Assault

During the cource of the siege members of the US and UK special forces were sent to Mount Carmel to 'observe and advise' the FBI and to help bring about an end to the situation. The 12 special forces men, 2 British SAS and 10 US Delta (Combat Applications Group, 1stSFOD-D) were part of Task Force 88, a top secret counter-terror unit. On the last day of the siege senior government officals approved the use of TF88 in storming the compound instead of using the FBI HRT unit with was 'fatigued and under strength' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.255.196.165 (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

recent edits on Waco siege

Editor IP 76.186.27.145 added the last two paragraphs 23:53 6 Feb 2011. Ckatz excised the addition 07:50 7 Feb 2011 with comment (Uncited). The paragraph left standing was also uncited.

The applied standard appears to be that incriminatory accusations against the Davidians can stand uncited, but exculpatory evidence requires citations and all the rules on verifiable sources considered reliable.

===Child abuse allegations===

Reports from Joyce Sparks, an investigator from the Texas agency responsible for child protective services, stated she had found significant evidence that the allegations of child abuse were true in her visits to the Mount Carmel site over a period of months. However she said the investigation was difficult as she was not permitted to speak with the children alone, nor was she permitted to inspect all areas of the site.

California and Texas CPS had both conducted investigations into abuse charges and in both cases returned the children citiing a lack or no evidence of abuse. In both investigations Texas and California removed the children for interviews and examinations with cooperation of the Branch Davidians. It should be noted that the citation above is extracted from a largely discredited DOJ report on the aftermath of Waco and failed to note that Joyce Sparks statement was her's only and not offered on behalf of or in concurrance with the Texas CPS report. The Texas and California CPS investigation report findings were not included or cited in the DOJ report. ATF Special Agent David Aguilera used Sparks statement in obtaining the warrant granted by a federal judge that lead to the Waco incident but omitted the CPS reports and conclusion in his request for a warrant.

The warrant application repeated allegations of child sexual by Koresh. The State of Texas' child abuse investigation was featured prominently; but BATF failed to inform the federal magistrate that the child abuse investigation had been closed for lack of evidence April 30, 1992, nearly ten months before the assault on Mount Carmel Center.

The Waco siege article should be kept factual to avoid becoming either a whitewash or a conspiracy theory. If you add to the article, please cite a verifiable, reliable source; if you believe an addition to the article requires citation, use the flag and allow reasonable time for the addition to be properly cited. Adding without citation and deleting without noting citation needed are equally discourteous. Naaman Brown (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed move

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

The result of the move request was: Move to Waco siege per consensus and guidelines, no consensus to change title beyond capitalization. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Waco Siege → Waco siege — Page title is not a proper noun and should be changed per WP:CAPS. Also interested in discussing whether this is the best title per WP:COMMONNAME. Woodshed (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

This page should be moved to Waco siege per WP:CAPS, as "Waco Siege" is not a proper name.

But I'd also like to bring this before editors to discuss if there's a better name for the page. There was a non-robust move discussion in 2006 — see Talk:Waco Siege/Archive 1.

I'm wondering if there's really one "common name" phrase in the public consciousness that describes this event.

Terms like Ruby Ridge, Heaven's Gate and Jonestown all became synonymous with the government/private conflicts that made national headlines. I don't think, in this case, Mount Carmel (the compound location — not in Waco) really did. Nor Branch Davidians, though I'd guess more people could recall the latter if asked. Most probably refer to it colloquially as "Waco" (or maybe Waco incident).

The problems with the article title, to me, are:

• It wasn't in Waco, it was located in an unincorporated area well outside the city — Mount Carmel. (Full disclosure: I live in Waco.)
• It may not have been a siege (some have suggested that's NPOV), "a military blockade of a city or fortress with the intent of conquering by attrition or assault." Is standoff or something else a better word here?

Googling combinations of Waco / Mount Carmel / Branch Davidians, and words like "siege," "standoff" and "raid" (probably the three top contenders), I'm not overwhelmed — or even whelmed — by any clear trend.

I have no strong opinions, I hope it's clear. Article titles to consider might be Montana Freemen, YFZ Ranch, as well as the aforementioned Ruby Ridge, Heaven's Gate and Jonestown. If I had my druthers, I would vote for Branch Davidian standoff or Mount Carmel standoff for consistency (using either the name of the group or the location of the incident in the title).

Ultimately, it may be, as WP:TITLE says, "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." Woodshed (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• I would say keep it as it is. Here, in England, the most common name for it is Waco Seige.

A quick search for news items has these, BBC, Time magazine and The Independant being a mix from UK and US independant media news sources The Waco Siege Feb. 28: Sent into a Deathtrap?, World: Americas Koresh and the Waco siege, The Waco Siege: Cult suicide could damage Clinton: As the Branch Davidian stand-off ends in tragedy the authorities face questions about their handling of the cult and 1993: Waco cult siege ends with inferno for example give this title in the headlines.

• Unfortunately for you Waco residents it seems that the Waco part has stuck, even searching for Branch Davidians returns many links with Waco or outside Waco. An MSNBC search for branch davidian returned these results [31] with three out of the four calling it at Waco Remembering Waco and Okla. City bombing, Waco cult leader's mother killed, aunt charged and Waco and Oklahoma City remembered

As for the capitalisation of the header "Seige" - if the common name for it is in fact Waco Seige, in caps, then I suppose that would be as it is now. The problem is that the most commonly used name, in an internet search result, is in headlines which tend to all be capitalised. Maybe that is what people remember rather than the body of the text lowercase seige.

I look forwards to the discussion  :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 12:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't care to use headlines as a metric, what with "Waco" being conveniently only four letters. I think I lean toward "Branch Davidian standoff" or something similar, but if concrete evidence can be found that "Waco siege" is overwhelmingly more common, I'm not inherently opposed. Powers ^T 13:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support: I see little evidence of this being a commonly used proper noun for the event. I think probably a few media sources used the term "Waco Siege" simply because it grabs your attention more than the sentence-cased version. –CWenger (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Doing a search in Google books finds 7 to 1; 1,580 for "waco siege" and 227 for "branch davidian siege". It is normal, I believe, that the published sources be used for that sort of count, but here are general internet searches :-

searches in Google:

"branch davidian seige" 113,000 [32]

"waco siege" 109,000 [33]

"branch davidian conflict" 80,200 [34]

"davidian massacre" 52,700 [35]

"waco massacre" 39,200 [36]

"waco tragedy" 20,600 [37]

"mount carmel siege" 473 [38]

"waco conflict" 212

"mount carmel massacre" 100

Searches in bing:

"Waco Siege" 12,400,000

I stopped as this number seems to be wildly inaccurate compared to Google

From this I can only assume that it should be Waco (followed by something). The issue for me is that the book sources are far more heavily weighted towards Waco at 7:1.

As for the problem of using the word "siege" v. "conflict" v. "stand-off" I see it as two-fold.

First, conflict implies just that and there was no real conflict per se.

Second, stand-off implies two sides just waiting (as per Collins English dictionary "2. a deadlock or stalemate 3. any situation or disposition of forces that counterbalances or neutralizes) - there was no counterbalance as the authorities had armoured vehicles so 3. is out, but a deadlock is so vague that to say "Branch Davidian stand-off" (stalemate/deadlock) could mean anything, even their arguments with the Davidians.

I think that siege is still the best term of use as per the overwhelming reputable sources giving several answers with a more than adequate use of "surround and wait for surrender" or "prolonged attempt to gain something" :-

Definitions of siege:

MSNEncarta [39]

1. military operation: a military or police operation in which troops or the police surround a place and cut off all outside access to force surrender ( often used before a noun )

2. prolonged effort: a prolonged effort to gain or overcome something

3. tiresome period: a prolonged and tedious period

lay siege to something

1. to besiege a place

2. to make a persistent attempt to gain something

Macmillan [40]

2 a situation in which a group of people surround a building in order to protest about something or to force the people inside to come out

Police surrounded the house for a 12 hour siege.

state of siege:

The town was in a state of siege (=people could not leave or enter it).

Hundreds of students laid siege to the American embassy.

Collins English dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition

1.a. the offensive operations carried out to capture a fortified place by surrounding it, severing its communications and supply lines, and deploying weapons against it

b. ( as modifier ): siege warfare

2. a persistent attempt to gain something

3. a long tedious period, as of illness, etc

aside: Waco Siege or Waco siege

Waco TX is not alone in unwanted notoriety. The Lillelid murders usually link to Greeneville TN simply because Greeneville was the nearest large city and was the location of the trial (even though the murders occurred in a rural area off Highway 81 when a Goth cult from Pikesville KY carjacked a family from Knoxville TN in transit). The Lillelid murders have become commonly associated with Greeneville. The raid on Mt. Carmel Center has become commonly associated with Waco.

The article has been entitled "Waco Siege" since it became an article 12 Feb 2006 and the events (ATF raid 28 Feb 1993, FBI standoff 1 Mar--18 Apr, FBI gas-and-tank assault 19 Apr) have been referred to as as a "siege" and as the "Waco Siege" in other media.

PBS - "chronology of the siege" ABC News - "the Waco Siege" TIME "The Waco Siege"

Changing a WP name long established, esp. if the name is commonly used in reference to the event elsewhere (Waco Siege, Colfax Massacre, Hindenburg Disaster, Reichstag Fire), ought not be done lightly.

A valid conflict could be the fact WP style is Capital Location lowercase event regardless of usage in other media. The events in the WP article "Colfax massacre" created 28 Mar 2004 are referred to as "Colfax Massacre" in other media (such as discussion at a lawyer blog of a recent book Charles Lane "The Day Freedom Died" 2008). Same with the WP article on "Reichstag fire" usually referred to in other media as the "Reichstag Fire". Similar WP "Hindenburg disaster" or Hindenburg disaster is commonly referred to as the "Hindenburg Disaster" elsewhere. Naaman Brown (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we should use normal sentence casing as per Wikipedia convention unless there is near universal usage of another style in reliable sources. I don't think "Waco Siege" meets this threshold. Also, we should keep in mind that some of these sources might always use mostly-caps style in their headlines, so if they did refer to it by the same name in the text they might just use "Waco siege", but it's impossible to tell. –CWenger (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Well no it is more than possible, I have included those links above for just that purpose :¬)

I do not want to start giving numbers though - it will be clear to all who go and look that the WS and Ws are used in headline and in body of articles respectively. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see in any of those articles where the term "Waco siege" is used in a sentence, not a headline. They do refer to the "siege" (not preceded by Waco) with a lowercase s, but I'm not sure how informative that is. –CWenger (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking maybe you were clicking on the second set of links rather than the first set ("A quick search for news items has these" and "Unfortunately for you Waco residents"). Mostly they use "siege at Waco" in the body, although the BBC one [41] also uses "Waco siege" in the headline.

Yep, you're right. –CWenger (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

COD Dayland Gent

I am restoring cause of death of Dayland Gent to stabbing, the official government COD, from the edit of 23:53 25 Feb 2011 by Moparchris with comment (Autopsies: changed stabbed to shot in relation to shootings.)

"Autopsy records indicate that at least 20 Davidians were shot, including five children under the age of 14, and three-year-old Dayland Gent was stabbed in the chest." Kristina King, "The Waco Incident", investigative documentary.

"Dayland Gent, Mt. Carmel Does 33 and 47 B: The Autopsy Report for Mt. Carmel Doe 33, identified as three year old Dayland Gent, tells us nothing about the conditions under which the remains were recovered. "The body is presented to the county morgue secured in a blue body bag . . ." Dayland is said to have died of a stab wound to the left chest. .... According to official recovery map (Remains Recovered from the Concrete Room), the first set of Dayland's remains was picked up on April 22, and given the number Mt. Carmel Doe 33. Then, according to the same map, more of Dayland Gent's remains were picked up with Mt. Carmel Doe 47: the Identification Matrix lists Mt. Carmel Doe 47 B as Dayland Gent (though there is no autopsy for 47 B)." Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum: Dismemberment and Agglutination

Since 1993-1994, COD of Dayland Gent has been listed as stabbing from sources citing the original autopsy report; there is no evidence to change it to shooting now. If there is evidence that Dayland Gent was shot rather than stabbed, one should present citable reliable sources. Naaman Brown (talk) 12:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

David Koresh is mentioned in the inroducion only as Koresh, but it makes no menton of him prior to this

David Koresh is mentioned in the inroducion only as Koresh, but it makes no menton of him prior to this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.186.215 (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

apparently the first mention of David Koresh was deleted, leaving only a partial followup mention of "..Koresh himself". Added full name and linked to WP article. Naaman Brown (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Number of Deaths

The introductory paragraph states that 76 people died in the fire. The section "The Final Assault" states that 75 died. Could someone find which is correct and rectify this? Peng1pete (talk) 01:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

There were 74 dead identified by name. Some accounts count the two pregnant women as four deaths. Some accounts count the unnamed foetus miscarried in the fire as a death, but not the unborn foetus. 74, 75, 76. Depends on definition of human life. Naaman Brown (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Davidian Strength (Info Box)

An edit to the info box Strength of the belligerents added to the Branch Davidian side (revision 9 Jan 2012, comment (Since when has 6+4+74+9=75?!))

Those are total numbers from Casualties and Losses 6 dead in the raid 28 Feb 93 4 surrendered 28 Feb 93 74 dead final assault 19 Apr 93 9 surrendered 19 Apr 93

On the four surrendered 28 Feb 93 my notes show: 1993 Feb 28 "A tape was sent out of MCC with two old ladies, Catherine Matteson and Magaret Lawson, and two young boys." The 4 surrendered include 2 children.

The 74 dead includes the children who died that day. Eighteen were age 12 or younger. Four were 1 year old. Four were 2 year old.

Since we are adding children and infants to the strength of belligerents in the info box, there were nineteen additional children surrendered during the siege in Mar 1993, which would make the belligerents present at the 28 Feb 93 raid 6+4+19+74+9 on the Davidian side. --Naaman Brown (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

"ATF False claim"

According to the article, "ATF made a false claim that David Koresh was operating a methamphetamine lab, in order a drug nexus and obtain military assets under the 'War on Drugs'."

First, the period should go inside the quotation marks. This point, however, is moot--why is this phrase set inside quotation marks?

More importantly, the citation given is a report that discusses the required circumstances to use military force inside of the US. The report says that "Under more recent legislation, the Army can provide equipment, training, and expert military advice to civilian law enforcement agencies as part of the total effort in the war on drugs....The principle example of the contentious nature of such support can be found in ... the support provided to the ATF by the Army under the operational control of JTF 6, during the siege and assault of David Koresh's Branch Davidian compound."

I don't know how to insert a "citation needed" tag. The referenced Army report does not mention anything about ATF making a false claim. Can someone please insert the tag?--Lacarids (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Never mind! I found the template...but the issue still exists--need a reliable source that says that the ATF made a false claim in order to obtain US Army support. The cited document does not say that ATF made a false claim. The wiki editor that wrote this paragraph is taking the Army author's argument two or three steps further than he intended it to be taken. Is this because the editor is drawing from other (unreferenced) sources? Or is the "false claim" claim false itself? --Lacarids (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. Calling it a "false claim" without quoting somebody else saying those words is probably not a good idea. The "Civilian Law Enforcement" section of the cited source seems to indicate two things:

1. The BATF requested military support in an operation against a meth lab
2. The claim that Koresh was operating a drug lab appears to be ridiculous and unfounded

I think these two statements are backed up by the source. It would probably be safer to state those two things separately, instead of labeling something a "false claim" without letting the reader make the connection themselves. ~ Josh "Duff Man" (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I fixed it a bit with House of representatives report: alleged drug nexus. I haven't separated the claims, sorry. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The article lacks infor about the "battle against the Babylon" prophecy of Koresh, among other things

Like the presence of Delta Force personnel (not just vague "Special Forces"). --Niemti (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

A 20th anniversary is coming

Could someone try to make a comprehensive summary of the entire article for the lead section? --Niemti (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, the article lacks an explaination of the group's beliefs of the imminent end of the world and Koresh prophecy of an apocalyptic final battle: http://www.religioustolerance.org/dc_branc2.htm#evbd which is quite essential. --Niemti (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Amendment for historical accuracy

Can amendments be made to the article changing statements about accidental fires being started, changing them to the fires started by the flame throwers on the Bradly assault vehicles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.165.98 (talk) 03:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This already is debunked in text since original video clearly shows it was insulation being dragged away from the building. CarolMooreDC 09:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Bradley assault vehicles can't be fitted with flamethrowers. This volatile charge has long been refuted. 70.113.67.75 (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

City of God?

What's the point of having that on there?

--Madocgwynedd (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Apparently because it was a dramatization of the siege itself. ~ JoshDuffMan (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it needs to come out. It was probably written by one of Koresh's nutjob followers as a way to portray Koresh as christ. No need for this crap on wikipedia. Madocgwynedd (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

"Waco massacre" as alternate title

I've removed an edit which added "Waco massacre" to the lede as an alternate name. The relevant guidelines here are, I believe, that the alternative name should be "significant", per Wikipedia:Article titles#Treatment of alternative names (and, in a title context, the principle for this sort of thing is that a term should have "prevalence" before being considered, per WP:POVNAME).

It feels a little POV-pushy to me, especially since the editor added five references for the term:

Of the three references available online — which are all books about the incident — two of them only use the phrase "Waco massacre" once. The other uses it six times. An Amazon book search shows that the first ref, titled "Massacre at Waco", does not use the phrase at all.[42] The second reference uses it in the title, at least.

In an earlier move discussion, another user presented these figures:

"branch davidian seige" 113,000 [43]

"waco siege" 109,000 [44]

"branch davidian conflict" 80,200 [45]

"davidian massacre" 52,700 [46]

"waco massacre" 39,200 [47]

"waco tragedy" 20,600 [48]

"mount carmel siege" 473 [49]

"waco conflict" 212

"mount carmel massacre" 100

which don't suggest to me that "Waco massacre" is a clear alternate title, at least not to the exclusion of several others. I would welcome any discussion on these points. Woodshed (talk) 06:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Good call. I'd support it. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Since general internet returns overwhelmingly are not very WP:reliable sources, it's better to use news.google archive and books.google searches for a better idea of which phrase is used most by reliable sources. I don't know myself. User:Carolmooredc 12:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought the previous user said those were Google Books results. I misread.

Term	Google Books	Google Scholar
Waco siege	3,420	401
Waco massacre	732	114
Waco standoff	934	168
Waco tragedy	1,860	335
Waco incident	2,380	283
Waco murders	89	11

Based on this, to assert "Waco massacre" as essentially the second-most used title is problematic. Woodshed (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• I agree, "massacre" isn't a good choice. Even if it somehow "won" the numbers, it's so POV that it will be problematic. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I assume you searched with terms in quotes, "Waco siege" etc., since I got a similar search results for Waco Siege when did. Unfortunately, news google archive search doesn't give such definitive numbers (and I've found one can get different results if one narrows the years specified). On a twenty result per page basis I found:

• "Waco Seige": i stopped counting after 50x20 pages
• "Waco massacre": only 5x20 pages
• "Waco standoff": at least 10x20 pages, maybe more
• "Waco incident": at least 10X20 pages

&"Waco murders": only 2x20 pages, a lot about a triple homocide in Waco

Of course, the terms themselves could have POVs, though most of which can be interpreted as mean either "the govt was at fault" or "the Davidians were at fault." Though "Incident" is really neutral and practically meaningless so not worth mentioning. Standoff/murders might have a bit more law enforcement POV, and tragedy/massacre more a gun rights/civil liberties POV, but it would take a lot of research of sources to figure that out. It would be nice if some WP:RS had written something specifying the POVs of those using the terms, an perhaps one or two have. So more research is always an option. User:Carolmooredc 20:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Posse Comitatus Act

The Posse Comitatus Act rquires the president to sign a waiver allowing Federal troops and their equipment to be used in any law enforcement operation. Since the tanks and troops showed up on the first day of the raid, President Clinton must have signed the waiver sometime beforehand. It's reasonable to believe that he was briefed by federal agents on the reason that they were requesting the military personnel and eqpt and the dangers that would be associated with the raid. At this point, some background is needed to give context. In 1973, the American Indian Movement took over the town of Wounded Knee South Dakota, setting the stage for the longest siege in US history. Like Waco, the FBI showed up in force to break the occupation. It resulted in a shoot out. The number of dead and wounded was not nearly so great as Waco. Afterwards, Federal law enforcement came up with a doctrine for handling hold out situations involving persons who are not criminals in the usual sense but motivated by religious and or political beliefs. The doctrine is called "decapitation." By taking out the leader of the group first, the followers are left confused and uncertain what to do next. They are then easier to deal with. Someone involved with planning the raid on the Branch Davidian compound had to give the order to ignore established safety protocols by not arresting Koresh when he was alone and then moving in on the followers. To date, not one person associated with the planning stage has ever been identified, let alone come forward to make a public statement. Not one person has ever been publicly punished for ignoring safety protocols that were there for the benefit of the officers and the Branch Davidians. Retired Senator John C Danforth was appointed Special Counsel to investigate the incident. The so-called "Danforth Report" did not address the planning stages of the operation. Given the context of the situation, it appears that 1) Clinton knew what was going on and 2) approved it, knowing that it was putting the lives of all those children at risk. This is the one part of the incident that had to have happened and is not discussed by anyone. JPZingher (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Weren't the troops and equipment from the Texas National Guard? And I believe they were still acting under state control and were never Federalized for the raid. It is not a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act for a state governor to use his National Guard forces to maintain order during emergencies within the state. The Posse Comitatus Act only applies to the use of the active Army (and Air Force) in the enforcement of the law.Dworjan (talk) 09:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Removal of content

Perhaps User:Niemti can explain here why they are removing referenced material. Zambelo; talk 10:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Unrevelantly random (a whole lot of stupid crap about what some guy allegedly did or said during the siege but placed into the section discussing the events that led to the ADF raid), undue weight, distracting, unedited copypasta (totally evident, most of all by this circular link to "Waco siege"). But I'll admit you've got some nerve to push it like that and then try to deny the obvious. --Niemti (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Some guy who was in the media, a notable anti-cult guy who was part of the largest anti-cult group of the time, and who gave advice to the FBI and the ATF, while giving multiple interviews in the news, and all of this notable enough to appear in reputable academic sources about the siege as well as in a US department of Justice report to to the Deputy Attorney General? You keep on talking about copypasta - This is a draft page where I put together the material, some of it (a paragraph) was later copied from the Rick Ross article. Undoubtedly there are still some linking errors in it. You seem a little aggravated, maybe you should have a glass of water. Meanwhile, if other editors who are able to critique the material beyond "a whole lot of stupid crap", then we can continue onto more productive things. Zambelo; talk 13:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• You didn't get support for that material before. Now you're trying to force it in by edit warring. Enough. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• It gives lots and lots of attention to Rick Ross. It unbalances the article. It also places a lot of blame exclusively on Rick Ross, what about the other advisors and experts? --Enric Naval (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Enric Naval, what I'm trying to do is introduce valid and important events related to the WACO siege. If it makes the article unbalanced, then ok - it can be whittled down. Nonetheless the material belongs in the article, as it is consequential to the events. Rick Ross and the Cult Awareness Network are mentioned in government reports and in academic works relating to the siege. Both had appeared on numerous high profile News programs as "experts" leading up to the siege. Zambelo; talk 00:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the material. Maybe write a one-long-paragraph version and put it in Rick_Ross#Controversy? --Enric Naval (talk) 13:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The material is relevant to the siege though. Zambelo; talk 01:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• You haven't demonstrated the relevance. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

How is it not relevant? It is clearly within the scope of the article. Also, I have cut it down a lot, responding to the issue of undue weight. Zambelo; talk 04:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• If Justin Bieber buys a new hat or sleeps with a Brazilian hooker, it's "within the scope of the article" because it involves Bieber. that doesn't mean it merits inclusion. Just because something can be sourced doesn't mean it belong in an article. Further, I'd seen nothing from a reliable source that shows his input was given any more weight than that of some nameless mid-level staffer. The material has been challenged by more than one editor. You must show the relevance and just saying "how is it not relevant" doesn't accomplish that. Niteshift36 (talk)

"Several writers have documented the pivotal role the Cult Awareness Network had upon the government's decision making concerning Waco". Sources include an official report to the depatment of Justice, academic sources, and numerous books specifically about the Waco siege. I think relevance is shown here. We aren' talking about a new hat here - this is how the CAN actively portrayed the Branch Davidians and Koresh to the government and to the media - this is documented not only through the primary media sources, and through a government report but also by "Several writers(who) have documented the pivotal role the Cult Awareness Network had upon the government's decision making concerning Waco". Relevance is clearly demonstrated. Zambelo; talk 21:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

What's your beef with that dude? Must be something personal. I don't think I as much as even ever heard of him despite reading quite a lot on the subject. Also, PROTIP: there was no 'siege' before the raid, and no significant (if any) FBI involvement at the time. --Niemti (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no beef. Have you read the new content? It focuses on CAN, of which Rick Ross is a part, and which played an important and demonstrated part in the events leading up to the siege. Please refrain from removing referenced and relevant content. If you haven't heard of CAN, you must not know as much as you think about the subject - you should have a read through the numerous sources I provided, you may learn something new. Zambelo; talk 02:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Your repeated removal of the content without discussion is unproductive, and rude. Please stop and discuss changes or I will need to involve mediation. Zambelo; talk 02:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you now playing games with us or what? Do you think we'red stupid or something?Did you even read this crap you're pasting in here?

"In the weeks preceding the raid, self-described cult expert Rick Ross, a Cult Awareness Network affiliated deprogrammer appeared on major network programs such as the NBC and the CBS which had hired Ross as an on-scene analyst for their coverage of the Waco siege. Ross described his role in advertising authorities about the Davidians and Koresh, and what actions should be take to end the siege. He was quoted as saying that he was consulted by the BATF and he contacted the FBI on the March 4, 1993, requesting "that he be interviewed

And so forth, for several paragraphs of unrelared crap. Involve any mediation you want. --Niemti (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I have indeed involved mediation. You appear to be assuming a lot of bad faith, and have yet to demonstrate that any of it is "crap". Also, see Wikipedia:Tendentious_editingZambelo; talk 02:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• I will refuse mediation. Why? Because you haven't acted in good faith at all. You're not citing policy or making a case for inclusion, you're simply making a demand and suffering from a raging case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Haha, oh wow. I don't have patience for you, but hey, go and try and convince the other people here about how so important and totally relevant all this is to what led to the ATF raid. --Niemti (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Neither of you commented on any of the material I posted, beyond calling it "unrelated crap" and "copypasta" (in the case of Niemti). Neither of you have explained why the material doesn't belong in the article beyond a rather cryptic Justin Bieber reference. It is clear that you have no interest in any new material being added to the article beyond the edits you yourselves have added. I have outlined 1) Why the material is in the scope of the article 2) Which authors write about the importance CAN had in the events leading up to the raid 3) Provided referenced material (that Niemti has called "crap copypasta"). Neither of you have had the courtesy to discuss the content, or even comment on the changes I later made reflecting the discussion here. So clearly, if anyone isn't listening, it isn't me.

I have made my case for inclusion pretty clear, and the material speaks for itself. I shouldn't need to cite policy, because all I've done is add relevant content that is in the scope of the article. Zambelo; talk 03:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• You've made no case for inclusion. Yes, you do have to cite policy. And there was no Bieber reference. It's an illustration and there was nothing cryptic about it. Starting to wonder if you even know what the word means. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

So are you both refusing mediation? Zambelo; talk 04:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'll address the request when it's made. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

feel free to add your name. Zambelo; talk 04:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

sources for fire from helicopters

In reference to this edit. It removes these sources:

• House of Representatives report

• Rangers report, (reaches the same conclusion, according to the House of Representatives report)

• final version of Danforth report, pages 24–25 (footnote 26), 33, 42–43, 132, 134.

And introduces these sources:

• http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h2045.html According to their About Us page, the owner is Online Highways LLC., which seems to be a publisher of road guides?[50]

• http://www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/war/page/w_l.html a website by Carol a. Valentine, who endorses conspiracy theories, including the "no planes" theory in 9/11 [51]. She also endorses the theory that one of the tanks carrying a flamethrower[52], a theory that was debunked long time ago.

I think this edit goes against WP:FRINGE. It removes the mainstream position and it introduces a fringe position from fringe sources and from sources of unknown reliability. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

As of public-action.com - the "list of sponsors" (most long defunct) at Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum includes "Conspiracy Nation" ("Through the power of Melchizedek we shall defeat Cthulhu") and "Ukrainian Archive" (a former website dedicated to protection of Ukrainians accused of being Nazi collaborators and which is now under a VERY new management, see yourself). --Niemti (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Please put back properly ref'd material and remove the fringerino stuff. CarolMooreDC 22:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Why are we including "(author Carol Moore points out some evidence to the contrary)" as a caveat to the statement that National Guard helicopters did not return fire? I can see nothing that makes Carl Moore a reliable source that should be presented on such equal footing with the House of Representatives report on the raid. I can find no major reviews of the book, Davidian Massacre. It is very nearly self published, available on the author's personal website as well as a paperback from the Gun Owners Foundation and Legacy Communications. Having perused the book, the 'evidence' presented boils down to: helicopters flew over and there was gunfire, so the gunfire must have come from the helicopters. Fringe theories from unknown and essentially self published sources probably don't need to go into the article, and definitely not with anywhere near the same weight as the Congressional report. If some reliable or noteworthy source disputes the 'official' position, I fully support including it in the article, but this isn't it. Dworjan (talk) 10:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don’t see the need for all the personal attacks based on one editor’s poorly sourced comment. Even as of 1995, reliable sources reported on allegations of shooting from helicopters. Doubtless more have since then, including referring to various primary sources below. Listed below, in order of occurrence in chapter 5 of the book, are excerpted quotes and some summaries about evidence of firing from helicopters. As copyright holder I approve my use of quotes from the book on this talk page.

• Davidians allege that agents in one or more helicopters started unprovoked firing at them as they arrived at the north side of the building and continued to pass back and forth over the building, firing at will, for several minutes. They claim there were over 100 bullet holes from the agents in helicopters shooting into the walls and roofs. The three largest Davidian lawsuits, filed by the Cause Foundation, Ramsey Clark and Caddell & Conwell, all charge there was firing from helicopters.7/ Cause Foundation lawsuit (February 24, 19c94), p. 26; Clark lawsuit (February 25, 1995), p. 28; Caddell & Conwell lawsuit (July 26, 1994), p. 19.

• In late March, 1993 Rita Riddle told reporters there was "no question" agents fired from helicopters. "They say these helicopters were not armed? Bull puck. I heard them spraying the building when they went over."12/ J. Michael Kennedy and Louis Sahagun, "Sect member says helicopters shot at compound in gun battle," Los Angeles Times, March 30, 1993, A17.

• In the March 28, 1993 taped interview with attorney Dick DeGuerin, David Koresh denied that Davidians fired on helicopters before the cattle trailers arrived and challenged BATF's claim that BATF agents did not fire on Davidians from helicopters.13/ "Koresh defends actions in tape of interview," Dallas Morning News, May 28, 1993, 36A.

• The negotiation audio tapes reveal that both Steve Schneider and David Koresh informed negotiators of the firing.14/ Dr. Philip Arnold who described the tapes in 1995. The tapes are out there somewhere still; someone else may have verified.

• Psychologist Bruce D. Perry, who interviewed Davidian children who left Mount Carmel after the raid, described a child drawing a picture of a house beneath a rainbow. "When Perry asked, `Is there anything else?' the child calmly added bullet holes in the roof."15/ Sue Anne Pressley, "Waco Cult's Children Describe Beatings, Lectures, War Games: Experts Fail to Confirm Abuse of Cult's Children," Washington Post, May 5, 1993, A17.

• At trial Kathryn Schroeder said she saw a bullet holes in the ceiling and walls of the four story tower.16/ 1994 trial transcript, p. 4616, 4618.

• Fifteen minutes into the raid, in their second phone call to 9-1-1, Davidians complain frantically to Lieutenant Lynch about helicopters firing on them as nearly continuous gunfire can be heard in the background. (Several relevant quotes.) 1994 trial or other reliable source transcript.

• At trial both Judge Smith and the prosecutors tried to dismiss these statements as "self-serving," implying that panicky civilians would make up such a story for some nefarious purpose.20/ 1994 trial transcript, pgs. 6481-82, 6504.

• The frequently shown KWTX-TV video of an agent being shot at through the wall of the second story room displays clear evidence that at least four bullets were fired from above, even as the sounds of helicopters flying overhead can be heard. REF: Find one describing said video. While BATF agents alleged in court that Davidians were firing at them from the four story tower,21/ 1994 trial transcript, pgs. 2545, 2727.

• Davidian attorneys Dick DeGuerin and Jack Zimmermann, who visited Mount Carmel during the siege, insist that there was extensive evidence that BATF agents shot indiscriminately through Mount Carmel's front doors, walls and roof. They were very concerned with preserving this evidence of an out-of-control assault. In early April, 1993 the New York Times reported, "both lawyers clearly believed that helicopters flying over the compound during the raid had fired into upper floors of the main building from above." BATF Spokesperson Jerry Singer denied this. "The helicopters did not overfly the compound on Feb. 28 and I have no information that anyone fired from the helicopters." However, Jack Zimmermann stated, and Dick DeGuerin concurred, "an expert will be able to tell from the angle of the trajectory plus the pattern whether there are entry or exit holes. If it's in the ceiling and it's clearly an exit hole, it had to come from above. How else could it have come in?"23/ New York Times, April 5, 1993, A10. "Sect's Lawyers Dispute Gunfight Details," New York Times, April 5, 1993, A10;

• At trial Zimmermann, who is an army colonel and Vietnam veteran, described eight or nine bullet holes coming into the ceiling of David Koresh's bedroom in the top floor of the four story tower. "You could see the sky through the roof. They appeared to be exit holes, and the wood was splintered downward. My conclusion was that they came from the sky."24/ "Defense Rests Without Calling Cultists," New York Times, February 18, 1994.

• KWTX-TV video clearly shows the helicopters low on the horizon west of Mount Carmel several minutes into the raid, after agents are in place behind parked vehicles. In later KWTX-TV footage the cameraman or reporter clearly can be heard to say, "Two of them right over our heads," evidently a reference to aircraft which can be heard noisily flying above them.34/ FIND Video source and WP:Commetary on this

• Defense attorneys concentrated their questions on Jerry Seagraves who's the pilot of the Blackhawk helicopter which carried eight BATF agents, including the belligerent Royster and Aguilera. Seagraves recited the rules--"you cannot have any chambered rounds in the weapon while in the aircraft and no weapon will be discharged from the aircraft." However, he disclosed that the agents on board were armed.38/ 1994 trial transcript pgs. 3161, 3185.

• Seagraves asserted the cargo doors were closed during the whole flight but revealed that the "door gunners window" was opened because a BATF agent was shooting video out of it. (He said the purpose of that window was to carry an M-60 machinegun but there was no such machinegun.) Pilot Dickens testified that he saw one agent's head and shoulders hanging out of the window as he shot his video camera.39/ 1994 trial transcript pgs. 3164-65, 3295.

• The Treasury report alleges Winston Blake died of "craniocerebral trauma," and was shot from a distance of "two to three feet" by a "cult member" using a ".223" bullet. The Tarrant County Medical Examiners' official autopsy report on Winston Blake describes powder burns around the wound, as if Blake had been shot from a few feet away. However, an English pathologist conducted a second autopsy on Blake and concluded that Blake had died from a long-range, high-velocity gunshot wound and that the bullet had penetrated a wall before hitting him. This disturbing finding led to a full fledged, if inconclusive, investigation by Manchester, England, police in 1994 and 1995.48/ Treasury Department report, p. 104; "British Police Slam Davidian Siege," The Balance, newsletter of the Cause Foundation, March-April, 1995, p. 2.

• At trial attorney Jack Zimmermann, who visited Mount Carmel during the siege, said he saw bullet holes by the "upper bunk wall" going in the direction of a pool of blood on the bed. This suggests Wendell was shot from above as she lie in bed.55/ 1994 trial transcript, p. 6603.

So people who want to research all this further and enter the info should feel free to. I don't have time or energy myself. User:Carolmooredc 01:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I made no personal attacks whatsoever. I merely stated that what was being used in the article was not a reliable source and explained why it wasn't a reliable source so that no one thought I was removing it from the article because I simply didn't like what the source was saying. If we want to say something like "Branch Davidians have made claims that the compound was fired on by helicopters" and cite a news article, I'm fine with that. As you pointed out, allegations have been made since 1995 about firing from helicopters. However, allegations of something occurring is not the same thing as evidence that it occurred. So we can certainly include allegations by cult members, but those allegations do not equal evidence that the helicopters fired on the building. Dworjan (talk) 02:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• We should not be entertaining (or listing) every allegation made, regardless of what media source repeats that it was made. Notable ones can be mentioned, a source (or two) to show it and move on. Those sources should be very reputable ones, not user websites and advocacy groups. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. I agree with you on that. It just sounds to me (and I could be wrong here), that these allegations are widespread amongst former Davidians, and that the allegations have played a part in some of the civil suits? In that case, a brief mention would be acceptable. But material from fringe websites should remain on those fringe websites. Dworjan (talk) 03:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anyone promoting fringe websites in this discussion. If someone decides to do thorough research I think they'll find various WP:RS recounting the theory by Davidians, their attorneys who were physical witnesses, and others that because there was evidence of BATF shooting illegally that killed as many as four Davidians, if the building survived BATF agents might be prosecuted. But someone has to do that work and I'm pretty burned out on Wikipedia myself right now so only doing minimal maintenance/anti-vandalism on a few articles of interest. User:Carolmooredc 14:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The attorneys were witnesses? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

If you want to point us in the direction of those reliable sources, I'd take a look. I read through your website though, and considering it takes a different viewpoint on every significant event of the Siege from the mainstream, I think it meets wikipedia's definition of fringe. That's not really important though. What really matters is that there is very little evidence of this shooting from helicopters (and what does exist is ambiguous at best). What does exist are accusations by involved parties. If those accusations have received significant coverage in reliable sources, then they should be included.

It sounds like where we are at now is there are two editors that don't think the "helicopters fired on the compound" theory should be included, and one editor who doesn't care enough about it to find sources. So I think we're good with letting the article stand as it is now? Dworjan (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

This article mentions shootings and killings from helicopters http://www.thefarm.org/lifestyle/albertbates/akbwaco.html it's already used as a source in the article altough for another issue. 195.49.42.250 (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Biased article

A NPOV article would state the rationale for the seige, the consequences of the seige, and the cause of those consequences (a fire, which the evidence indicates was started by the Davidians). Instead, we have an article ruled by fringe/ideological sources intended to portray the USG negatively, which makes blatantly biased statements like the idea that "child abuse" (read: mass (statutory) rape) charges against the Davidians were "unsubstantiated." Steeletrap (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

You might want to actually study the official reports and testimonies surrounding the Waco events. Critical and negative portrayals of government action on Waco is anything but fringe. 72.95.102.200 (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

No, they are fringe for sure. Mainly they have been spread by some videos like Waco The Rules Of Engagement from the 1990s which were popular among the anti-Clinton militia crowd, and which have been debunked. 76.244.68.92 (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The FBI, who have a vested interest in smearing Koresh's reputation, may well have said that "Steve Schneider—Koresh's top aide, who "probably realized he was dealing with a fraud"—shot and killed Koresh and then committed suicide with the same gun". But this should not stated as if it is a fact. The two may well have been killed with the same gun, but both could have committed suicide or Koresh could have been the gunman. To kill your boss in such a situation is not a sign that you believe he is a fraud, so much as an act of mercy, loyalty or piety.101.98.175.68 (talk) 09:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Government investigation conclusion of 2000

At present the last paragraph of the lead includes "a government investigation falsely concluded in 2000 that sect members themselves had started the fire".

Which government investigation? I saw that both a Texas Rangers and the Danforth Report were in 2000 but neither of them have a conclusion on the origins of the fire.

Who claims the investigation's conclusion is false and what evidence do they have of this?

Ideally, the WP:LEAD summarizes what's in the body of the article in such a way that readers can find extra material or support for statements made in the lead. The use of "falsely" in the lead also appears to violate WP:NPOV as mentioned in WP:LEAD. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)