Talk:Mount Carmel Center

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Beorhtwulf in topic Ownership of the site

Untitled edit

The photo that is currently at the top right of the article page is listed as being the entrance to Mount Carmel; however this image is actually a photo of the entrance to the drive of Mount Carmel as you are looking OUT of the drive across to the house across the street from the Mount Carmel property. That house was demolished around 2004 and was the one used by government agents during the siege.--Createatrace (talk) 07:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Photo edit

I have a more current version of the photo, if nobody objects by Saturday, I will replace the existing one with an image that actually shows the current Mount Carmel Center. Dpalme (talk)

Citations edit

This source doesn't have any citations, but much of the information is already on Wikipedia. Perhaps this article could be merged into Waco Siege, because I suspect that this entire article is based on information from the other. --AK1591 16:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Fair use rationale for Image:Waco4.jpg edit

 

Image:Waco4.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

WS:COTW edit

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

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

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

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

Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 21:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Davidian/Branch Davidian confusion. edit

I made some corrections to the article where Davidians and Branch Davidians were being confused. Please note these were completely separate organizations and it is important to make a distinction between them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbunds (talkcontribs) 15:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Source for constitutionality of ATF actions edit

Here is the addition in question:

"The raid was an unconstitutional act by the ATF. A quick reading of the First and Second amendment of the United States Constitution will prove that, as the group was gathering peacefully to practice their religion. They had guns, but that right is also protected by the Constitution."

However, I can't find any WP:RS arguing this. I do find reports stating that the search warrant was valid and that the US 5th circuit found that the ATF's actions were reasonable. Iwilsonp (talk) 04:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ownership of the site edit

Who now owns the land? Beorhtwulf (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Reply