Talk:Branch Davidian/Siege Archive

New Issues 11/5/05
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)

This entire article is in need of citations. it may sound right and look right, but unless you can ground your statement in fact it's complete baloney (a librarian)

Zach Pruckowski | talk 02:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no mention of the date of the raid (April 20th, right?). (unsigned)

The date of the initial raid was 2/28/93. The seige ended with the fire on 4/19/93. Salty Kid &#124; &#91;&#91;User talk:Salty Kid&#124; talk]]

What I meant was that there was no mention of the second raid (when the fire started) in that section.--ZachPruckowski 21:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

This is non-NPOV and needs editing
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)

I do not agree. I think it reflects the history accurately. People need to learn American History before dismissing our government as perfect with no cover ups or perspective controlling.


 * That is not the purpose of Wikipedia, nor does Wikipedia solely serve American readers. Some guy 22:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It's your opinion that it reflects history accurately, and your opinion may be correct. I don't know. However, as there's hardly universal agreement on whether said government statements were in fact malicious lies, it would be preferable to say something like "Some argue that these statements were lies" rather than stating the opinion as fact.

Please see NPOV for details.

Scrutchfield

POV
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)

Removed:

"Not least in the irony of this event was the professed motive of Janet Reno, appointed by President Clinton to the post of Attorney General. She claimed to be acting to defend the children living under Koresh's alleged sexual and/or mental abuse - her inexperience and lack of foresight apparently contributed directly to the deaths of all the children at the ranch."

This is clearly POV since it is a controversial opinion. It is also not clear to me what the allegation of sexual abuse has to do with the rest of the statement.&mdash;Eloquence 06:31, Sep 21, 2003 (UTC)

I tried to tone down the comment about the tanks being retrofitted for chemical warfare. Chemical warfare is commonly interpreted as using lethal weapons, and this is reinforced by the article that was linked to (though it is ambiguous). I changed it to "chemical weapon", but even this is too harsh. This is more like a riot control weapon--in common parlance, it would probably be called "tear gas". AdamRetchless 03:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thier is a strong argument that the classification of tear gas as a non-lethal weapon is itself misleading, tear gas can and often does result in fatalities especially when used in heavy concentrations in enclosed areas. The conditions and methods described in the article seem on the surface to present the type of situation in which gas might be lethal, pumping gas into an enclosed area with children present and limited if any feedback on air quality within.

Well, the article seems to have regained NPOV. I think the problem is now sourcing. PhatJew 10:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

Needs more detail
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)

congrats
A fine article on a tough subject. Wiki at its best.

My Thanks and Kudos all around!

Paul, in Saudi

Brady bill
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)

links
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)

I don't think one could reasonably refer to "Following the usurpation of the presidency in 2000 by the psychopath George W. Bush, and the subsequent installation of the insane John Ashcroft as Bush's Himmler, things became much worse." as a reasonable statement, regardless of what elements of truth may be in it. However, the article does seem to be a bit schizophrenic in it's lack of neutrality. Some sections are obviously pro-Davidian, some sections are Government position brown-nosing. It was an amusing read nonetheless. - Clay

Reason for the raid

 * The raid was conducted due to allegations of illegal weapons present on the property.

We need a source for this POV. It is contradicted by other POVs.

In particular, there are many who believe:
 * the primary purpose of the raid was to bolster the image of the ATF, which had come under criticism by its own agents - some of whom alleged racism in promotions or hiring.
 * the raid was motivated by a perceived need to "rescue" adults and children from a "cult". There were allegations of child abuse and/or statutory rape, which is not under the purview of the ATF. A state child welfare offical had some involvment.
 * the raid was justified as "necessary" despite no attempt to ascertain whether simply walking up to the door peacefully might have produced any fruitful results. (Some sources say that on more than one occasion, the Davidians inculuding Howell (Koresh) had peacefully surrendered, e.g., to charges of attempted murder.)


 * Actually, you also need to include that the government swore to drug prodution (in order to legitimately gain military assistance). Also that they had the right to go in and inspect sans warrants because there wes a federally licensed firearm dealer there.  And that local sherriff had done inspection previously without incident.
 * ~ender

Come to think of it, we also ought to mention the idea that there was no backup plan in case word of the impending surprise attack leaked out. There are conflicting reports on this. According to one account, the raid leader had (a) decided or (b) been ordered to call off the raid if he lost the element of surprise. An official gov't report indicates that he (1) discovered that Koresh knew or suspected the raid was imminent but (2) immediately ordered the raid to continue in spite of this: "they know we're coming, let's go!" -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:37, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ed, while your points are correct, the warrant was based upon allegations of illegal weapons. The points that you made, are POV.  The purpose of this article is to try to avoid the POV and stick to facts - like the text of the warrant.  Salty Kid |  talk 18:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * These are legitamate issues and they should be touched upon. It's rediculas to take such a narrow view in light of known facts.

A.The decision to conduct a search is seperate form the decision to conduct a no-knock warrant service. B.The decision to proceed with an assault after your undercover agent warns tells you "they know we're coming" is seperate from the decision to conduct a search in the first place. C. The decision not to take Koresh up on his offer of a consent search early in the investigation. D. The decision not to conduct a complience inspection on the inventory stored at Mt. Carmel. E. THe decision to fabricate a drug lab in order to obtain Close Quarters Combat Training in preparation for the "Warrant Service". F. Fully 80% of the text in the affidavit concerned allegations of child abuse or other inflamatory material not in the juristiction of the ATF. G. The charge og the Judicial Commision that the affidavit contained so many miss-statements of facts and miss-statements of the law as concerning the facts, that an investigation should be conducted to determine if officer who submitted the affidavit knew of their falsity.

Aftermath
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)

Removed content
The flashes look like they might be the heat signature of gunfire, but close analysis shows the flashes do not resemble gunfire in several ways. They persist longer than gunfire, and their shape is more irregular than gunfire. There is no apparent human movement at the flash locations. At several of the flash locations there is identifiable debris, such as fallen windows, which can reflect infrared from sources like the sun, the tank exhaust, and the fire.

Okay, *who* is saying these things? An expert? A random wikipedian? A citation someone?

~ender 2005-04-22 21:13:MST


 * Okay, it appears someone was altering content the government source was only talking about visible flashes in broadcast tapes. As reported on Oct 9, 1999.
 * These officials, familiar with the tape, say analysis shows the flashes of light are not from muzzles of weapons, but from light reflected off of other objects.
 * These officials, familiar with the tape, say analysis shows the flashes of light are not from muzzles of weapons, but from light reflected off of other objects.


 * In addition, the popping sounds heard on the FBI tapes are thought to be bullet rounds exploding due to the extreme heat caused by the inferno.


 * But Government sources readily admit that audio was turned off for a period of time after permission to do so was granted, possibly because it was providing interference.
 * ~ender 2005-04-23 14:12:MST
 * ~ender 2005-04-23 14:12:MST

"Admitted Government Lies"
although dana huff addresses this in her NPOV converns, i would like to call to attention the striking lack of neutrality in the headline "admitted government lies". i am myself a neutral party (simply by virtue of my lack of knowledge about the topic), so when i send someone a link to a wikipedia article, i expect it to uphold my neutrality. now, while it certainly is possible to objectively say that someone "told a lie", this article evinces too much passion for one side of the topic for anyone to perceive it as a totally impartial evaluation. furthermore, the bulleted "lying to congress" in that same section is not only abrupt, it's also unjustified by further elaboration. for this section to be bipartisan, these statements need to be demonstrated, not merely asserted. -ReubenGarrett

The FBI testified in court no fires could have been caused by the tear gas, as that type of tear gas was not used. Years later they retracted that when it was shown some of that type of gas was used.

40 years for what charges?
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)

List of dead
WTF? The list of the dead lists people as if the ATF agents aren't Americans... DoomBringer 07:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 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)

List of the dead
Proposing the removal of the list of the dead - if the arcticle about the demise of Titanic would include a list of the dead it would be several pages long. Nobody consulting an encylopedia is interested in that kind of information that can be found in more detail elsewhere.
 * I reverted the blanking because there was no consensus here to remove the list. But remove it if you want to - it's part of being bold I guess. -Splash 00:24, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for being bold. However I agree that it is not appropriate for us to include a long list of this type. Perhaps if there is a specific link to an external source we could note that in the "external links" section. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:35, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Admitted government lies
Someone added "Admitted government lies". Terrible POV. IMHO, the branch davidians got EXACTLY what was coming to them. DoomBringer 29 June 2005 08:05 (UTC)


 * If they're admitted, then mentioning them isn't PoV. Your comment, on the other hand, is. [[User:Mel

Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 29 June 2005 12:13 (UTC)
 * So? The talk pages are not the article.  DoomBringer 1 July 2005 06:43 (UTC)
 * Moreover, where is the source for these "admitted" lies? Cite the darned source! DoomBringer 1 July 2005 06:45 (UTC)


 * 1) As your comment was your reason for making the edit, then it spilt over from this page to the article.
 * 2) If your reason for the deletion was that the claims are uncited, why didn't you say so? You in fact said that their mere presence was PoV, which is why I replaced them, as that's clearly not the case. Could the person who added them supply a citation? Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 1 July 2005 10:40 (UTC)
 * The external links section might be the source, but I doubt most of those links are even credible, excepting maybe the PBS one. Sorry for the confusion over the edit, but what struck me the most was the POV issue.  Sure, my talk page comments are oh-so-uncalled-for and blah blah blah, but I'm intelligent enough to recognize my biases and not insert them into something that is meant to be factual (sure, it is truly impossible to *not* insert biases, but I try my best).  Anyhow, I'd look into those links myself, but I'm far too busy ATM (upcoming code freeze and all) to do a thorough job.  So if anyone can't validate the "admitted lies," I vote for removing the thing.  Frankly, the presentation is bad too... each one of those could be rewritten into a decent paragraph, as opposed to the current ugly list.  Also, the title ought to be just redone as well.  DoomBringer 2 July 2005 05:56 (UTC)

Will remove the "admitted lies" part unles...
Unless someone cites the specific sources for each "admitted lie," I'm going to remove that section (again), due to lack of sources. Something that big and dramatic can't be claimed without sources. If a source is found, I'll re-write the section into a better form, as lists are ugly. DoomBringer 7 July 2005 06:24 (UTC)


 * On the basis of lack of citations, I'd have no problem with the section being removed. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 7 July 2005 10:24 (UTC)
 * Done. While they may have had some merit, they lacked sources; moreover, such a list was the wrong format.  Proper paragraphs could have been made from them. DoomBringer 9 July 2005 07:11 (UTC)

Completely biased article
This article reeks of bias. It ignores the official government inquiry done in the late 1990s that conclusively proved that the fires were started by the Davidians. It also ignores the forensic evidence that showed that approximately a third of the Davidians were killed by point blank gunshot wounds to the head--indicating either suicide or execution-style murder. Also...the "admitted government lies"? THis article is simply completely and totally biased. I would not advise anyone use this article as a basis for an opinion on the Waco tragedy. Find another site, such as Encarta.com, or PBS.org. for your own sake. {unsigned|65.66.103.43|18:33, 8 July 2005}}


 * This rather misses the point of Wikipedia. If somethings broken, fix it, don't moan about it.  Explain the details of your point, and edit the article. --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 8 July 2005 20:21 (UTC)


 * It is not bias to point out the inconsistencies in the "official" government inquiry. I was watching a documentary; Waco: Rules of Engagement.  Quite aside from any testimony regarding this event, there is infared video of questionable law enforcement conduct.  Footage taken from law enforcement aircraft, viewed by the inquiry.


 * There were interviews with at least one FBI forensics photographer, and other testimony given for the documentary, or recorded during the inquiry, which call into question suicide or execution style murder.


 * I think it is irresponsible to label any of these sections, Government Lies, and such. But it is also lazy to dismiss inconsistencies in the federal record.


 * -AntelopeInSearchOfTruth[12:39 pm (Pacific Time), Feb 1st]

Feh
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)

Bs
This article sucks. Just for the record. It sounds like it was written by a surviving Davidian with a bone to pick with the government.

Prelude and Raid
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)

Chemical Weapons Convention sentence
The sentence in question: "Uncontested, however, is the fact that CS gas was employed even though the United States, along with 130 other countries, has signed the Chemical Weapons Convention, which also bans this gas's use in warfare."

I already provided reasoning in the summary box, but I'll do so here as requested...The sentence looks to me like an anti-government red herring. The CWC had no effect on law enforcement and did not go into force until 1997, so I don't think it's relevant to this article. The sentence is also grammatically incorrect: "which also bans this gas's use in warfare". It bans CS in addition to what? Ergbert 22:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not easy to plough through the verbiage of the various relevant Web sites, but Article One of the convention states:


 * 1. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes never under any circumstances:
 * (a) To develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile or retain chemical weapons, or transfer, directly or indirectly, chemical weapons to anyone;
 * (b) To use chemical weapons;
 * (c) To engage in any military preparations to use chemical weapons;
 * (d) To assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention.
 * 2. Each State Party undertakes to destroy chemical weapons it owns or possesses, or that are located in any place under its jurisdiction or control, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention


 * The only mention of mlitary involvement is in 1c, concerning preparations, but the article seems clearly to prohibit the use of such weapons in general, not only in warfare. The final clause in the Wikipedia sentence is certianly not grammatically incorrect; I assume that you mean that its reference is unclear &mdash; but it surely refers to the fact that the ban applies not only to police use but also to military use.


 * The U.S. signed the convention in January 1993, though didn't ratify it for four years. --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 07:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Article Two says:


 * 1. "Chemical Weapons" means the following, together or separately:


 * (a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;

and


 * 9. "Purposes Not Prohibited Under this Convention" means:


 * (a) Industrial, agricultural, research, medical, pharmaceutical or other peaceful purposes;


 * (b) Protective purposes, namely those purposes directly related to protection against toxic chemicals and to protection against chemical weapons;


 * (c) Military purposes not connected with the use of chemical weapons and not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare;


 * (d) Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes.

Ergbert 17:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

My understanding of that was that it concerned the production and sale, not the use of such chemicals. On the other hand, it wouldn't particularly surprise me if chemical weapons were prohibited from use aginst other countries, but permitted for use against governments' own citizens; that fits my opinion of politicians perfectly. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 18:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

You guys...I really think we're getting somewhere in this article. It still has work to be done, but it's finally starting to resemble a fair, somewhat unbiased article. That's pretty impressive considering that we're writing about one of the most controversial events of the 90s. Let's keep up the good work.

POV Inevitable
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)


 * 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)

Delete
This article is simply poorly written, organized, and has a very biased POV (the bias depends on what section you read). I personally recommend that the article be deleted and completely rewritten. I realize that this is not easy for anyone to do, but when you start with a fundamentally biased product (it was written with a very Branch Davidian Bias in the beginning), it becomes next to impossible to simply reword to become neutral.It would be easier to start over with an outline and write each section with group input. This could be done on the talk page, and when a relatively good product exists, it should replace the current article.

Father
Article states that Koresh was the father of some number of children, and that some mothers were 12 or 13. Is there a source?

Very informative article.
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)

I must respectfully dissagree. This is probably one of the wost hack jobs of this subject I've ever seen. While the accusasion/counter-accusation style may tend to be considered NPOV in some peoples eyes, there has been some sworn tesimony provided on much of this subject matter and I would try to rely on that to form a basis for the outline. Now I realise that much of this testimony conflicts. Nonetheless, presenting this conflicting SWORN testimony can provide a basis for a NPOV approach.

64.48.221.47 18:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Terminology
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)

Content
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Re-adding bad links
Links to pages about the "holocaust" keep getting re-added in the name of protecting against "censorship". Yeah, right. The pages there are mostly full of wild, uninformed opinions and nothing close to the truth. I say remove them and never look back. DoomBringer 07:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Could someone else analyze those links? User:Leon Ehrlich disagrees with me, and I would appreciate outside input as to the validity and factual content of these pages:


 * 
 * 

Just wanted to add here that a discussion recently started about the webmaster of the site with those links (serendipity) because of the antisemitic content. Pairing antisemitism with controversial incidents is a way to smear anyone who is asking real questions -- not nonsense questions -- about tragic incidents which are not forthcoming. The association is loathsome to most people so it is a way to shut down discussion or divert it.

The discussion was here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Researchers_questioning_the_official_account_of_9/11#Proposal_to_remove_a_9.2F11_researcher_because_of_offensive_links and a couple of sites which deal with the issue of holocaust denial are here and here.

Added reference and dispute tags
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))

Critical analysis of http://www.serendipity.li/waco.html
Due to the controversy with the links, I feel the need to investigate the links thoroughly. I'll try to avoid plagiarising the page, but I have to quote a lot of it to avoid having people click between two pages often.

"Much of the Waco information once available on the web has 'disappeared'" Fails to pass even the laugh test. Oh really, the US government, which has limited authority over the Internet, decided to remove webpages? I rather suspect that the pages went out of existance because whoever was hosting them didn't pay the upkeep, or got rid of them as they lost interest. Lets face it, the government really doesn't care at this point...

To begin, note the title: "The Waco Massacre" I contend that the word "massacre" is emotionally loaded, and used incorrectly. The fire that killed most of them was most likely started by the BDs, so "mass suicide" would fit better.

"story that the FBI put out" note the use of the word "story" in the derogatory sense.

"It is a lie" We'll see about that. Unsourced.

"The guns they had were legal" Not relevant, and source? At the time, the BATF thought they had illegal weapons, and there isn't evidence to prove the conspiracy theories flying around about it.

"These were law-abiding American citizens" Depends on the validity of the claim that they had illegal guns, which hasn't been established yet.

"If you still have doubts" Yes I do. Your webpage sucks.

"Bill Clinton, with Janet Reno" Ahh, the right's favorite whipping boy (and girl).

"Already back in 1993 the US government demonstrated its contempt for the American people by carrying out a massacre" Still no proof on that "massacre" thing. This line is just pure opinion, and unsubstantiated at that.

"Following the usurpation of the presidency in 2000 by the psychopath George W. Bush, and the subsequent installation of the insane John Ashcroft as Bush's Himmler, things became much worse. On 9/11 about forty times as many people were murdered as at Waco. In both cases the murderers have so far gone unpunished." What to say about this part? You can argue all you want about the 2000 election, it isn't relevant to Waco and the BDs. "Himmler" is emotionally loaded, of course, the obvious ties to Nazism.

"they did so with guns blazing" Not proven. Some accounts claim the BDs shot first, others say the BATF agents.

"to prevent their exiting Mount Carmel." They didn't want to leave.

"the screams of rabbits being slaughtered" Unsourced on that page. (Maybe the links below are the source, but the page lacks proper source info, such as parenthetical citations or whatever)

I'm skipping a bit...

"with the help of a willing media" OH REALLY? ZOMG! Liberal media! Or not. Whatever.

"Branch Davidian victims" Victims of a fire they set.

"not a wild-eyed madman" Sure, yeah, he wasn't crazy, he just claimed to hear God. Or something.

"deaths of the women and children at Waco were the result of government negligence and incompetence rather than deliberate murder" Emotionally loaded language overload! OMG! Protect the women and children! OMG! Murder! The BDs set the fire themselves! BDs murdered the BDs, or suicide, or whatever you want to call it. Do I really need to continue on this one? Come on! (I know that I'm claiming that the BDs set the fire, see our wikipedia article)DoomBringer 06:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless someone can find some kind of merit to this page, I will remove it. Can anyone find any merit to it?
 * The only reason to keep this link is if we sort it into a "pro-Branch Davidian" section, and offer something similar to the above critical analysis of the page, sorting out its various claims. DoomBringer 23:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Doombringer is obviously very afraid of this page, or that others will read it. One has to wonder why he is so eager to remove the links to articles which do not support the U.S. govt. version of events.  Does he have an uncle in the BATF?


 * Are you a nazi? Do you have an uncle in the nazis?  I fail to see what my relatives have anything to do with this... (and the answer is no).  Nice strawman, though. DoomBringer 08:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * He asserts that the word "massacre" is emotionally loaded, and used incorrectly. If the violent deaths of 75-80 people by military-type assault and burning alive was not a "massacre" then what is? Is there a minimum number of deaths required?  How many people died in the My Lai Massacre?  Should that article be edited so as to remove the "emotionally loaded" term "massacre"?  Both events can reasonably be described as "massacres".  And anyway, the question is not what word to use but rather what the evidence shows.  To debate about the propriety of the word is to distract from the evidence.
 * What evidence? The page has none. DoomBringer 08:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Does not the word "massacre" carry a meaning beyond 'mass death', specifically, that the deaths described are due to directed killings, akin to murder on a large scale? I cannot see that 'massacred' is any less laden than 'murdered', the different appears to be in numbers. To back this up - would the word 'massacre' generally be used about likely accidental deaths such as from a train accident? Probably not. Is it used about the Madrid bombings? Indeed it has. As the usage of the term implies that set 1 of preceding events has taken place, while the rest of the article disputes whether set 1 or set 2 took place, the word is POV. A more NPOV term could be 'mass death'. -Anon, 8 February 2006


 * Doombringer asserts that the fire that killed most of the Branch Davidians was most likely started by themselves and so they 'committed suicide'. This claim is an insult to our intelligence.  Does Doombringer have any evidence to support his opinion?  No.  But tanks were captured on film punching holes in the walls of the main building in order to pump CS gas in (despite the presence of women and children).  The gas is inflammable.  Any open flame being used inside would ignite it.
 * See the article. DoomBringer 08:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * CS gas is combustible, not flammable, meaning that it can burn, but that it will not easily ignite, not even over an open flame. Second, when dichloromethane (methylene chloride) is used as a dispersal agent, chances of ignition are almost non-existant, as dichloromethane is a good fire retardant.  I'm changing this bit. Carbon warrior 19:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Doombringer asserts that the statement that "The guns they had were legal" is not relevant. It is certainly relevant because the alleged illegality has been used to attempt to justify the BATF raid.  "And source?"  That's easy to find for anyone who knows how to use Google.  A search will quickly find the article by Carol Moore which demolishes the claim that the firearms on the Branch Davidian property were illegal.  If the BATF were not sure whether the firearms were illegal they could have asked the local sheriff to investigate (perhaps he did) before they decided to launch an all-out military assault.
 * It really isn't. At the time, they suspected that they had illegal weapons.  If you're accusing the BATF of ulterior motives here, like that they were trying to justify their existance, then you'd better back that up. DoomBringer 08:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If Doombringer wants to hear the BATF playing tapes at night of the screams of rabbits being slaughtered then all he has to do is to rent the video Rules of Engagement and he will hear this loud and clear.


 * But I need not go on. Doombringer's basic error here is that he is criticising that page as if it were a Wikipedia article.  It is not, and so does not have to conform to Wikipedia guidelines.  It certainly has a POV, and attempts to justify it, partly by a presentation of evidence and reference to books, videos and many other web pages which themselves present evidence.  But for some reason Doombringer doesn't want other people to know about this evidence, and so wants to remove the links to this article and those by Carol Valentine and Carol Moore which present it.  If this is not an attempt at censorship then I don't know what is. Leon Ehrlich 12:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh oh, please play the rabbits screams for me, I get off on that stuff. Anyhow, I'm challenging the page's use as evidence here.  But if you're so dead set on it, whatever man, whatever floats your boat.  I'm pretty tired over the one line, but I'm going to probably sort it into a "Anti-government" links section.  I might also give a more formalized critique of it on the page itself.  DoomBringer 08:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this seems a bit PoV
"Psychologists who examined those children who were sent out (not even half were released) during the siege found no evidence of abuse and commented that the children were well mannered and developmentally advanced. Specifically, even the youngest were able to grasp abstract concepts such as infinity and eternity, something that teens often struggle with. Academically the children were also found to be advanced. Finally, each child sent out was well clothed and carried significant sums of cash with a note from the mothers stating that it should be used to pay for quality care and needs of the children. The cash was later confiscated by government officials after the seige."

I'm going to pretend I didn't read that


 * Well, aside from wondering who you are, I'm not sure I understand the reason for playing pretend. The psychologists examination and it's findings are stated.  An action of the government is stated.


 * It's not very productive to make an accusation like that without explaining why. To me, it just looks like you just don't want to believe it, so it's biased.


 * -AntelopeInSearchOfTruth[1:27 pm (Pacific Time), Feb 1st]

Moving to WACO_SIEGE Soon
I noted earlier 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)
 * 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)