Talk:Waco siege/Archive 1

message: I think it's important that the article be written so that the truth about the siege is told. However it is important that citations are used. Not citations from third party conjecture but citations from primary sources like eyewitness interviews, news accounts and transcripts, and original government documents such as warrants affidavits and reports. Editors can use factual inaccuracies in government documents provided citations, including a link to the original source document as well as evidence of the stated error, are used. For instance my first edit to the document explained why the use of National Guard helicopters was illegal and I provided links including an Attorney's website, the wikipedia article on Posse Comitatus, and a United States Military fact card explaining the law (Used to explain the law to service men and women). I plan on revising the article fruther presenting evidence of how the FBI and ATF violated the law and botched the raid killing innocent women and children, but I do intend to cite my sources and research any claimed thoroughly before I save such edits, as well as goverment documents refuting any such findings. I welcome challenges to my research and findings as I think you will find that reliable and verifiable evidence that the ATF and FBI acted outside statutes and the Constitution and as a result the lives of innocent adults and children were lost.
First of all, you need to sign your comments, so we know who to play for a biased article.  You come in on the pretense that you will be showing how the FBI broke the law, something which you could in no way ever really prove.  You sound very self-righteous and now that you have found a few quotes and "an attorney's website" you think you have all the answers.  You are blatantly biased and have no place editing in the wikipedia.  Stop Me Now! 00:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inflamatory and Prejudicial Language vs. NPOV

message: Try asking someone who was actually there and not an outsider. I was one of the children who was taken away and placed in a home. The revisionist historians placing the Waco incident blame solely on the government is disgusting. If you knew anything about the way that **** Koresh operated. If you knew how he EMPLOYED CLASSIC CULT TACTICS. Ifsome of you conspiracy theory, tinfoil hat wearing people realized that the rest of my life is ruined and I WILL NEVER BE NORMAL. Then you would stop spouting off and sympathizing with CULT LEADERS. Some of you are always eager to blame the government for every little thing. Just because you sit comfortably from your home bedroom realize this is real life and hurt and killed many brainwashed, mentally messed up people!
I don't believe you. I have read a great deal of testimony by eye witnesses to various events and the way in which you typed your message (grammar, words, etc.) suggests to me that you were not one of the people at Waco. At least, not one of the people inside.
 
: The way someone types has nothing to do with whether or not they were part of the Waco siege. Unless, of course, you frequently chat online with ALL surviving Waco victims. If you do, my apologies.
::Two words to the origianl poster - Total Bullshit. The Kinslayer 14:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno about upsubstantated, or whatever you call it. To me the group does sound to be your classic cult. With their stockpiling of weapons and other things they had going on there. I think the article does need to present the facts anyhow, without nessesarily handing out verdicts. --Iamstillhiro1112 04:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: There was no child abuse? LOL!

message: I removed the 3rd party link to a copy of the Cato Institute article:  
*Timothy Lynch: No confidence — an unofficial account of the Waco incident by the Cato Institute
And replaced it with a link to the actual source article 
*Cato Institute - "No Confidence:An Unofficial Account of the Waco Incident" by Timothy Lynch
The style of the link I added might benefit from better formatting but it seemed linking to the original article might be a more ideal source and hyperlink. Mr Christopher 05:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the militia link.  That article defines a militia as A militia is a group of citizens organized to provide paramilitary service. Owning a bunch of guns does not make one a member of a militia, nor does having a shoot out with the FBI/BATF make one a militia and no one has ever accused the Branch Davidians of being a militia so I fail to see the relevance of the link. Mr Christopher 16:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the person who added it did not intend to imply that the Branch Davidians were a militia, but that the Waco incident was one of the key events in the rise of the militia movement of the 1990s. Probably, the link would have been better directed to Militia (United States). (And personally, I think the material on the 90s should be broken out into its own militia movement article, replacing the redirect that is there now. --WacoKid 16:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: I removed this  However, the Davidians knew that the people outside were federal officers with warrants, and used deadly force against the agents to prevent execution of the warrants
It is a wild, fantastic claim that defies logic and lacks any support.  This article seems to have a surplus of similar unsupported assertions.  Mr Christopher 01:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Some Stuff

message: This page is contentious enough without people inserting POV essays from any viewpoint.  There is a mountain of reputable published material from a wide variety of viewpoints. If you want to cite from a book, cite the page numbers.  Citing from speculative documentary films is dubious at best.  There are a number of highly critical published works that can be cited without adding allegations from conspiracist videos.--Cberlet 21:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncited Speculation

message: I don't pretend to know anything more about the subject than I saw on a TV special, but this particular statement: After punching a hole through a wall, the ATF proceeded to saturate the complex with flammable gas and ignited it in the first paragraphseems to conflict directly with both the rest of this article and the main Branch Davidian article. This seems to be a pretty divisive subject, so I didn't want to just edit it, but one of you might want to. 64.121.55.220 00:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, it was an alarming bit of speculation that did not belong in the lead.--Cberlet 03:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inconsistent statement

message: Some years back I became very interested in what happened at Waco and befriended Amy Somers, the co-producer of the academy award nominated documentary "Waco: Rules of Engagement." I sponsored its showing at a local theater because I was very concerned about FBI misconduct, especially the alleged shooting of those who were trying to flee the fire, as indicated by FLIR footage.
I've read a lot of what "Waco Kid" has said on this and related pages. You seem quite knowledgeable about matters associated with Waco. If you have seen the "Waco: Rules of Engagement" documentary, I would be interested in knowing what your current opinion is of the validity of its allegations. I talked to Amy a couple of weeks ago; she still stands by the film. Thanks. Founders4 06:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question About the Siege 

message: I tend to dislike "Cultural references" and "Trivia" sections; they strike me as rather "unencyclopedic," tangential to the subject, and often arbitrary, as they typically single out a handful of movies or songs for mention, when vast numbers of references exist. The just-created section, citing a single example from the show "24", is a perfect illustration of why I think they're a bad idea.
I don't watch the show and I haven't seen the episode, but from the description, a passing remark is made about "another Waco." On this slim basis, a bullet entry with a half-dozen wikilinks is generated. This is ridiculous. I can think of shows, like "Walker, Texas Ranger" and "X-Files," where an entire episode has been inspired by the Waco situation. If we were to list every show where an offhand remark is made about "another Waco," it would be a very long list indeed.
I also don't see why we need such a section when this article currently features little discussion of Waco's role in spurring the rise of the militia and Patriot movements, its use by proponents of gun rights and gun control and in other political debates, its possible influence on the 1994 Republican sweep, and other topics I would find more germane.
:I would encourage you to write something along these lines.  How about calling it "Cultural Impact."  Waco did indeed influence many people, including myself.Founders4 08:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, please nuke the "Cultural References" section and write something  intelligent about "Cultural Impact."Founders4 08:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Founders, I hope you saw that I finally finished commenting on WROE, at Talk:David Koresh. Sorry I wasn't more positive, despite all it's done to open some minds on Waco. --WacoKid 02:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural references 

message: The problem with using ATF in this article is that it causes several problems with subject/predicate agreement at various points in the article.  The name of the agency is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, not Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.   Following standard acronym construction for other federal agencies (the Federal Bureau of Investigation, for example, becomes the FBI), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the BATF.  Founders4 08:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always understood ATF to refer to the term "Allied Task Force" in standard UN usage, and I believe the Americans still use ATF to refer to the old Advanced Tactical Fighter project which resulted in the F-22.  Until now I'd never heard of the BATF and thus I agree that the term BATF be used instead of ATF to reduce confusion for international readers. 72.138.217.234 19:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the above comment, I'm pretty sure they use JTF for that now (Joint Tactical Fighter) Dboyz-x.etown 01:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Considering that the Bureau refers to themselves as the ATF and not the BATF it should probably be changed.  Mikemill 01:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The above quote is from the Wikipedia article.  All three acronyms are used at various times.  Which acronym one uses is an editorial choice, and the federal agency's decision to use the shortest acryonym (ATF) does not govern.  Founders4 05:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The clothes the agents were wearing (and do today) had ATF written on them. That's how most people know them. Dan100 (Talk) 16:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BATF versus ATF 

message: I keep hearing WACO or the Seige in Waco - the Tragedy in Waco, but the fact of the matter is that none of this happend in WACO, the Branch Davidians were located 10 miles outside of Waco, Waco just happend to be the only close larger city, so that the press and feds could have hotels, it was the press and/or the Feds who mis named all of this "Waco" when Waco had little to do with it, I had never even heard of the Branch Davidians before that cold wet Sunday morning in Feb.
:It is common to refer to rural locations by the nearest town of note.  What town is used on their postal address?  If you can establish that it happened in a place other than Waco then appropriately edit the article to mention it.  As it stands if you said the "Federal Siege in Timbuktu" or the "Branch Davidian Tragedy at Timbuktu" then no one would know what you are talking about, so if even if it didn't happen there, the name has stuck. Rearden9 20:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Location

message: Any reason not to remove the references to Linda Thompson?
The article is very long as it is, and two paragraphs about allegations that have apparently been debunked seems excessive.  If her allegations are untrue, I don't see the point in including them.  Thanks.
The Linda Thompson video is part of the history of events following the '93 Waco standoff.  In particular, it is known to have influenced Timothy McVeigh in his decision to initiate the bombing of the Murrah Building on April 19, 1995.  Other groups were radicalized as a result of Thompson's allegations, since her charges were not immediately known to be false.  I think the section, as written, is not very good; it should be rewritten and included.Founders4 05:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Founders4.  The Linda Thompson films albeit later discredited were an important part of the early public reaction to the incident.  So they should at least have a mention as such. 70.108.97.172 00:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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 debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 00:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Linda Thompson

message: If I recall correctly from "Waco: Rules of Engagement" the initial gunfire was of federal agents shooting the Davidian's dog and her puppies in a kennel outside the home. This certainly would explain conflicting claims of who started the firefight. The Davidians, hearing the shots that killed the dogs, would almost certainly assume that the home, not the kennel, was the target and would return fire. The agents, knowing that the gunfire was aimed at the kennel and not at the house, would interpret the Davidians' answering gunfire as an act of aggression rather than of defense. ChristinaDunigan 20:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The initial gunfire 

message: This article needs to be heavily edited. Currently it is written not in an NPOV manner but in an almost unreadable mess of claims and counterclaims with few attributions or sources. In other words it is POV from both sides simultaneaously. Rmhermen 16:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This article is a mess. POV partisans on both sides have wrecked it. 20% of it should be deleted as speculation.  80 percent needs to be rewritten. Flagging. --Cberlet 03:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I also agree. Much of the content is so equivical as to be useless and a lot of the remainder reads as very biased. A lot of sourcing and citation needs to take place -- that would probably be a good first step to establishing a NPOV. I'm also very doubtful the FBI would call this a "decisive victory." Indeed, I'm quite certain they'd call this a failure despite having killed, arrested or rescued the residents of the compound.croll 16:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: This raid, the one @ Ruby Ridge has been claimed as igniting the creation of the Militia Movement in the U.S. I've seen some tapes on TV stating that, "The SATANIC U.N. is comming to take out the U.S. Are YOU ready for Martial Law ?!", and Bumper stickers saying that "Is YOUR Church BATF Approved ?!" Martial Law 17:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Militia Movement]]

message: Here's an idea: use that program that was aired on the Discovery Channel on September the 16th for points of reference.  I have never seen a better documentary than this one that covers the event not only in colossal detail, but it includes both sides of the story to show no bias.  mikecucuk 20:30, September 19 September 2006, (UTC)
:I agree that the program was reasonably balanced, but not that it was particularly accurate. Just as an example, the show makes it appear that David Koresh made Robert Rodriguez, the "undercover" ATF agent, cool his heels on the morning of the raid, until he suddenly barges in the room, pointing his finger and yelling at Rodriguez that the ATF is coming. In fact, David did come and start giving him a Bible study, and rebuffed the first effort to call him out of the room to give him the news. After coming back, shaken, he tried to resume the study, but his Bible trembled in his hands. Finally, he stopped, and gave Rodriguez the "they're coming" remarks. So while the Discovery show makes it seem like Rodriguez got a brushoff, in fact David was very interested in talking to him that morning. Another example: in the program, the FBI negotiators find out that Steve Schneider's wife, Judy, has a daughter by David Koresh from a video that is sent out. In fact, the information about Judy and Mayanah should have already been known to them, from people who had left the group. And I think it also repeats a mistake I've seen elsewhere, of calling Waco the longest siege in US law enforcement history. In fact, the Wounded Knee siege of the 1970s lasted longer. Errors like these are sprinkled throughout the episode, though they don't seem to have been made to serve any agenda. --WacoKid 16:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contributions from the Discovery Channel

message: I removed the part about the witness who saw a girl leaving David's apartment being legally blind. There was no proof, and if he was blind, they wouldn't of talked to him, and he wouldn't of claimed seeing anything. This thing really needs protection. Too many half-assed conspiracy theorists are editing in bullshit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.130.138.12 (talk) 
:Actually, Marc Breault was legally blind. (That's not the same as being fully blind.) This article is edited by people who have more passion than knowledge of the subject (on both sides), so material tends to get added and removed not based on whether it is true, but whether it fits in with an editor's biases. --WacoKid 08:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Legally blind?