Talk:Branch Davidian/Siege Archive

message: The fifth paragraph of the prelude is in serious need of some cited sources for the alleged facts presented.
Salty Kid |  talk 06:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New Issues 11/5/05

message: This article needs a lot of work and much of it is highly non-NPOV.  e.g, "The Coverup" section.  Second bullet isn't using complete sentences.  "Legal Aftermath" section looks like a laundry list.  Governement statements are described as "lies" on two occasions--this is a highly charged term.  Could they have been misstatements?  Errors in communications?  etc.?  Scrutchfield
I agree.  I find the section labeled "Government Lies" particularly non-NPOV.  I don't know enough about the subject to edit this site, but it needs doing. Dana Huff
I agree with the previous posters, especially when stated as 'lies'. --64.82.252.43 07:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not the purpose of Wikipedia, nor does Wikipedia solely serve American readers. Some guy 22:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This is non-NPOV and needs editing

message: Some of this was unbelievably POV.  Changed to NPOV as much as possible.  Removed information about alleged involvement of government informers in the Oklahoma City Bombing because that rightly belongs in the Oklahoma City Bombing article.  It really has nothing to do with this one.  Also added government reasons given for the raid and gave government side of cause of fire controversy.  Also added government side of alleged weapon fire at survivors.Ark30inf 05:33, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: My first thought was, "HUH?" Then I realized, I'd just moved the topics that were creating the most POV problems to Waco Siege. I guess that now that I've also toned down the Doug Mitchell perspective, that what's left is reasonably close to NPOV. In fact, maybe even the "factual accuracy is disputed" warning should be taken down. The one thing I'm dubious about is the notion that anyone would call themselves "Davidivian Branch Davidians," but now that that has been reduced from an outright statement to a claim by one of the parties, there are no grounds for disputing the accuracy of the article on that account. --WacoKid 02:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: This article shows the product of some work. I added a lot and didn't remove much. It could all use more precise detail, such as who was head of FBI, ATF, what agencies investigated, what was the actual number of prosecutions and acquitals, how many escaped at what point during incident, and a list of all victims. It certainly needs sections now, and well, I know more about Waco than I know about Wiki code for making sections. And i type fast and probably won't spell check till latr.
If anyone can find a way to break it out into another article, it might help. The history of the Davidians, as commentator said above, needs better precision and detail. I'm watching the OKbomb article with an eye to including a balanced look at other theories - especially the role of informants who at least advised gov something was afoot. But this is old stuff and I deleted, for example, the McVeigh trial transcript last time I cleaned the hard drive. Other books of mine on the subject are in boxes, but the article really needs at least mention of where some of the major books can be found at markets or libraries.
This article is clearly biased. Whoever wrote it clearly sympathized with the Davidians. The author completely ignored the forensic evidence that proved that almost a third of the victims of the fire died from close-range gunshot wounds to the head, which is indicative of either a suicide or an execution-styl murder. The author also completely ignored infrared evidence that proved that all three fires started at exactly the same time--which strikes a blow to the theory that the FBI accidentally started the fires. The author also ignores the statements of the children who escaped from Mt. Carmel. The children spoke of sexual abuse (Howell enjoyed relations with a ten year old girl), physical abuse, and of being denied meals. This is, quite frankly, a terrible article. The FBI DID fire flammable gas canisters, but they fired them at an underground bunker some forty yards away from the main compound. The canisters bounced off the bunker and fell harmlessly into a field; they did not even open. This is a truly terrible article.
I agree
Fyi, the FLIR shows that the fire DID NOT start in all  locations at "exactly the same time".  The fire in the front, 2nd floor corner started first, likely sparking the second fire in the kitchen/dining room shortly thereafter.  The third fire started afterwards in the rear of the bldg after what Allard argues is the detonation of a flash-bang device.  Indisputable is the fact that the third fire started with two flashes at the window.  I find the mass suicide theory implausible, especially since the tanks had just penetrated  the walls to fire CS, and immediately high tailed it out of there just seconds before fire.  Rewatch the FLIR before you judge the article and write factually inaccurate criticisms.
Go check out PBS.org if you want sources. Rickross.com has a multitude of resources concerning the Waco tragedy. This article has been horrible for...well, as long as I can remember. I've tried to fix it, and many others have made brave attempts as well, but somebody with ALOT of free time on their hands keeps editing it. Probably just some pissed-off Davidian trying to spread propaganda. The article also ignores the official government investigation that occurred in the late 90's which absolved the government of all blame. Of course, I don't expect many people to believe that, even when presented with overwhelming evidence that the government did nothing wrong, although they certainly could have handled the situation better. In the end...people believe what they want to believe.
:Since there is already an entire article on the siege, it would probably be better to focus on other aspects of the group here and provide a link.  Just a thought. Salty Kid |  talk 18:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs more detail

message: Removed:
:"At the time, new Brady Bill regulations had prohibited the manufacture or importing of certain semi-automatic weapons. The ban drove a profitable market for the newly regulated semi-automatic rifles, commonly called assault rifles already in the US. Gun dealers could assemble guns from parts and sell rifles with more assault or military-style features than could be obtained from manufacturers. The same rifles could be converted to automatic rifles if sold under the license of an approved gun dealer."
The timing of this is all wrong - the raid occurred in February 1993: the Brady Bill was not passed until the very end of the 1993 session of Congress, in December. The "assault weapons" ban was not even part of the Brady Bill - it was enacted as part of the the 1994 omnibus crime control legislation. 
209.149.235.254 16:25, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Brady bill

message: Removing the "http://www.serendipity.li/waco.html" link. It's very non-government POV and doesn't contribute anything to the understanding of the incident.
http://www.rickross.com/reference/waco/waco260.html / http://www.rickross.com/groups/waco.html
:So we only allow pro-government links, or only mild anti-government links?  Are there any disputed facts in that link?  There's a lot of information in that link, which is not reflected in the article here.
:~ender 2005-04-23 07:43:MST
::This is the kind of bias that causes the article to continue to bear a nonNPOV warning.  Salty Kid |  talk 18:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: links

message: It would be great if this article included information about how people responded to the events at Waco. As I remember, it was part of McVeigh's stated motivation, and it has become part mythology of anti-government groups. AdamRetchless 03:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath 

message: The article mentions who is sentenced for how many years, but not for what (and how well-supported those charges might be). Telling someone is in prison but not what for it was - well, let's call it unusual.
* The reason no one seems to know what the surviving Davidians were sentenced for is simple - they were found innocent by a jury of their peers.  The judge, Walter Smith, threw out the verdict and sentenced them as though they had been found guilty.  It should also be noted that upon appeal the sentences were reduced to 14 years for most.  Unfortunately, like so much of this twisted saga, explaning the details is nearly impossible without POV *sigh.*
:* There is no such thing in the American judicial system as being found "innocent". The verdict is "not guilty". This is not a matter of semantics; "not guilty" simply means that guilt was not proven. It does not mean that the court is declaring that the defendant never did anything wrong. 68.47.234.131 05:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  40 years for what charges? 

message: WTF?  The list of the dead lists people as if the ATF agents aren't Americans... DoomBringer 07:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That has always struck me as unusual, but that is how it is recorded in the DOJ report on the incident.  For whatever reason, the government felt it necessary to make a distinction between its agents and American citizens. That's part of the problem with editing this article... even typically npov sources - the government files - are pov in this case. Salty Kid |  talk 18:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of dead 

message: This entire article is bad.  After a close reading, I have begun to doubt it is anywhere near being fair or objective.  The whole thing lacks sources, while almost pointing the finger at the government for the fire.  Who started the fire?  We'll probably never know for sure; we should blame both sides really.  DoomBringer 06:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feh 

message: I just finished some heavy editing to the Prelude and Raid sections of the article...whew, I'm beat! I tried to make it as fair and none point of view as possible. I included thoughts from both sides, and tried to state the facts as much as possible. When I did include speculation or opinions, I made sure to include them from both sides. Does anybody have issues with the Prelude and Raid sections of the article? I'll get to the others later. Let's try and make this article decent. It was a very important event in United States history, and although it is very controversial, I think that a fair article is possible. Let's just try to stick to the facts as much as possible. Here are my sources:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/waco/waco11.html
http://www.rickross.com/reference/waco/waco5.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/waco/
Now, before anyone points it out to me, let me say, I am aware that rickross.com is an anti-cult website. HOWEVER, the links I provided are not his, or his writers, thoughts or opinions. The two articles I listed there are from Time Magazine and the Washington Post. PBS has excellent resources on what happened at Waco, and I encourage anybody seeking to edit this article, or just looking for futher information to check it out.
:From the Raid section - "Before the raid occurred, the Davidians were tipped off as to what the BATF was planning. The BATF drew heavy criticism following the siege for proceeding with the raid, despite the knowledge that the Davidians knew they were coming. However, an article run in the Washington Post (http://www.rickross.com/reference/waco/waco5.html) suggests that the Davidian's actions, namely, taking up arms and fortifying themselves in defensive positions, were very questionable, considering they did indeed know that the BATF was planning a raid. If they were, as they claimed, law-abiding citizens, should they not have laid down their arms, and let the BATF legally search their compound? After all, the BATF did obtain search and arrest warrants, despite the trivial reasons that they obtained them for. Knowing that the BATF was going to raid their compound, why did the Davidians take up arms? This seems to indicate that perhaps the wished for a confrontation to take place, or, at the very least, that they were not the peaceful, law-abiding citizens that they claimed to be."
:It is not the place of Wikipedia to ask questions (rhetorical questions, at that).  It's not NPOV.  Also, you're inferring that they wished for combat and stating what their categorization is, instead of adding all sides.  The prelude, raid, and aftermath need A LOT of work to remove this stuff.  Also, the rickross stuff is POV links that can otherwise be obtained from less radical sources.  If they can't be obtained from less radical sources as to recalling factual events, then they don't belong there.  RegBarc 13:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prelude and Raid 

message: I know this is contrary to everything Wikipedia stands for, but this topic might be impossible to do without POV.  What we have here is a very horrific incident that was caused by religious fanaticism, distrust of the government, militancy against American citizens, an inept approach to cult activities, and gun play.  After reading through this article very carefully I cannot discern why this tragedy occured, or even how it happened.  The simple question 'who shot who' is unanswered.  If Wikipedia admits that the article MUST by its very nature include POV, will that be like a believer doubting the existence of God?  Even if it is, it might be necessary, because this article is truly a mess.
:I disagree.  This article has made significant strides from where I started editing it.  It used to be much, much worse.  If anything, the article swung from pro-Koreshians to in favor of the government, but, as most evidence indicates, the BDs did start the fire, and were being extremely belligerent.  Of course, the government did completely drop the ball here... the standoff was a mess, as negotiations were being done separate from the actions of the besieging FBI units.  DoomBringer 07:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said DoomBringer.  I can not think of any article that can not be written with a NPOV.  (Hmm, how many negatives can you get into one sentence?!).  I mean that, I think it is possible to write any article from a NPOV, if given sufficient attention.  All of the evidence (and official independent enquiries) point to the fact that the Davidians started the fire.  However, as stated above, the situation probably could have been handled better.  All in all, I don't think we're too far away from a NPOV at the moment.  Robotmannick 09:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Inevitable

message: An absolutely wonderful articel, very balanced, in as much as it could hope to be. Criticisms of it are like criticising an article on Nazism for being too negative and unfair to the Nazi's. Thank you very much to the author for a sensitive article on the very delicate matter of Government genocide.
:You're welcome. On behalf of the other editors, many more involved than I, let me say that we're glad to provide the best, most NPOV information available. If you find an error or omission, please feel contribute with a correction. Cheers, -Willmcw 11:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very informative article. 

message: Television crews, who had learned of the raid due to a tip from a source in the local EMS
What does EMS refer to? Is it Emergency Medical Services? (I'm guessing it is, but that's an uncommon abbreviation outside of the US) Perhaps it's electromagnetic spectrum as in "the reporters heard it on the radio" ;-) mordemur 14:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: Personally I think this article spends too much time talking about the Waco siege. There's an entirely separate article just for that, there is no need to restate everything here. This should focus more on the founding of and the beliefs of Branch Davidians. Of course there should be a mention of Waco, but simply a short synopsis with a link to the full article for those who want to learn more about the actual siege.
spikethehawk 19:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no separate article. As far as I can see, Waco Siege and other pages are a redirect to this article. mordemur 08:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, my bad. But still, wouldn't make more sense to have one article, maybe Waco Siege, dedicated to the actual siege and its aftermath, while this talks about the Branch Davidians as a 'religious group,' with a short explanation of and link to the main article for the siege?Spikethehawk 01:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I DEFINITELY support your suggestion to move the section on the standoff to the Waco Siege page, freeing this page to delve deeper into the history and teachings of the Branch Davidians. The obsession with the siege has turned into the tail that is wagging the dog.  (The only downside is that there doesn't seem to be a way to transfer the edit history of the sections being moved, but that just has to be accepted.) If nobody pipes up with some decent objections, go ahead. I'll let you, as the person who suggested it first, "do the honors," but I will do it myself if I see no one else doing it. --WacoKid 04:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Content

message: This article makes a lot of bold statements without any sources, especially in the siege portion. There are no sources given for the bit about the claims of psychologists evalutation of children from the compound, or about the videos that were released later, or the entire section about the assault which has only one source! The entire article only uses 3 inline sources. This article needs serious improvement. (Narkstraws 17:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added reference and dispute tags 

message: I noted earlier (#Content) that I agreed with the suggestion that the siege stuff be moved to the Waco_Siege article, currently a redirect to this page, and would do it myself if no one else did. I've heard no objections, but on the other hand, no reassuring words of agreement, either. Unless I hear some solid objections in the NEXT FEW DAYS, I'm going ahead. If you don't want it to happen, speak now!!! --WacoKid 21:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I wasn't paying enough attention. Go for it. This article, in my opinion, is ridiculous in its lack of information of the BD's as a group and the obsession over the siege. So yeah, move it over there. Spikethehawk 01:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving to WACO_SIEGE Soon