Talk:David Koresh/Archive 1

Koresh's Religion
The gaping absence of description of his religious teaching and his unique hermeneutics is beyond "odd". His widely available sermons, lectures and writings show clearly-defined beliefs, which could logically have followed from the teachings of the prior Davidian prophets. I am most disappointed that the article does not bother to address this group by the name of their choosing, "Students of the Seven Seals". The term "Branch Davidian" is inaccurate, as it reflects theological positions Koresh rejected

Any discussion of his take on the Bible should begin with his statement that, "all I care about when I judge men, is one thing - do you want to know the Seven Seals?" His use of the Seals follows from his insistence on reading the Bible from the perspective of the Book of Revelation. In giving his Bible Studies, Koresh dazzled his audience with an uncommon facility for juxtaposing Biblical passages seemingly unrelated to each other. For Koresh, Revelation functioned as a scaffolding from which every word of the Bible could be understood in terms of any other. Indeed his hermenutical approach was the dominant basis for his authority; to the faithful, his discoveries of new Biblical truths was opening of the seven seals described in Revelation. His unique ability to deliver that knowledge justified his exalted status. A further important departure from traditional theology was his insistence that the historic Christian approach to Isaiah did not make sense. Rather than inferring Jesus from Isaiah's language, Koresh believed Isaiah was referring to Cyrus as the Lamb of God. According to their understanding of the Bible, these two key propsitions validated one another and justified Koresh's claim to being the Lamb of God. According to the Bible, the Lamb opens the seals during End Times. It follows that their belief in Koresh's spiritual distinction required that they believe in an imminent Apocalypse.

The lack of Davidian theology is unacceptable for two reasons. First, it raises the practical question, "of what value is an article about a religious group that ignores the religious beliefs which distinguish it from other groups. Second, it is impossible to maintain an NPOV about a controversial religion without exploring its tenets. Here's why: In early 1993, most people had never heard of this sect. The population at large would have remained mostly ignorant of this group indefinitely, had events not unfolded as they did. Instead, the dramatic BATF incursion and subsequent standoff were inextricable from the public's perception of the group. The group was unquestioningly branded "cult" by a media all-too-willing to report unsubstantiated accusations of child abuse.

At the same time, journalists seem not to have been diligent in their description of the group's beliefs. To be sure, their theology parted with the mainstream, but not as drastically as 'regular' Christians would like to believe. After all, the internal logic of Koresh's contentions was built around an acceptance of the Bible's complete truth. No one can point to an objective mistake Koresh made in his interpretation. Rather, attacks on his beliefs could only come from a subjective understanding about how to interpret the Bible. Koresh was well-equipped to answer any such attack with a nuanced battery of Biblical quotations which supported his view. Whether he was right or wrong, Koresh did his homework.

The millions of Americans who shared with Koresh a belief in the Bible's perfection, were never given a chance to gain an honest understanding of that shared belief. A 1996 Pew Research Center survey showed that 92% of Americans believed that Jesus died on the cross. On this central tenet of Christianity, the Davidians' beliefs were unquestionably mainstream. The belief in the Bible's literal truth was held by 35% of Americans in 1996. The number of Students of the Seven Seals was estimated in the 100's in 1993; 76 died. This group accounts for a negligible fraction of the 35% of Americans with whom they shared unwavering acceptance of the Bible. These are but two of the many fundamental Christian beliefs which Koresh and his followers shared with the mainstream denominations. This is not to conceal the beliefs which isolated the Davidians within Christiandom, only to point out that those differences were mostly inhereted from the Seventh Day Adventist Church from which the founding Davidians split.

Two of the beliefs held by the Branch Davidians were used time and again to persuade the public of their status as a "doomsday cult". First, media accounts often claimed that Koresh believed he was Jesus. He never believed that. Koresh did claim to receive God's word as a prophet. While this was often used to cast Koresh as manipulative and delusional, the idea of modern-day prophecy came directly from Seventh Day Adventism. To this day, SDAs recognize God's ongoing interaction with the devout. Secondly, The Students of the Seven Seals insisted that events foretold in Revelation were imminent. Their preparation for the Second Coming of Christ was manipulated in the media to portray that belief as evidence of their inherent dangerousness; Koresh's own role in facilitating Christ's return was generally understood to be evidence of Koresh's ill-begotten control over his flock. In the context of the religious tradition from which these ideas arose, they were not uncommon claims.

Jews believe the Messiah will be of earthly origin. Due to theological differences within Judaism, there is no consensus as to whether the messiah will be an actual person, a mystical energy, or whether "messiah" should be understood as a metaphor for the world to which we should aspire. The traditional view is that the messiah will be a person with a relationship with God akin to the Prophets. Throughout Jewish history, dozens of men have either claimed to be the messiah, or have been touted as such by devoted followers. Currently, some Lubovitch Hassidim believe that Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson will rise from the grave and don the Messianic mantle. His followers have refused to name a successor since his death, as they remain faithful that he will lead them again. More important than the identity of the hypothetical King that Jews call "Messiah" is the unprecedented period of history Jews look forward to. Jews envision the Messianic age as one in which oppression ceases to exist. The King will promote peace around the world, and his wisdom will inspire foreign leaders. The Temple will be restored,and knowledge of the Torah will become intuitive.

For several reasons, Judaism rejects the possibilty of Jesus being the Messiah. First, the Christian notion of a trinitarian God contradicts the Jewish understanding of a unified God. The God that Jesus proposed contradicted Jewish law. As Jews accepted their laws as God's, they would reject any contrary theology. Second, Judaism believes that the Messiah will arrive to herald an era of unprecedented peace, which Jesus failed to do. Third, Judaism views salvation as the result of living a moral and reverent life. Some Jews believe that the dead simply rest in their graves until the Messiah comes. Others define heaven as an eternity devoted to understanding Torah. Hell is a place where, if need be, souls are purified in preparation for heaven. There is no Jewish belief in Satan reigning over hell; while it is though to be unpleasant, it is not a place of torture. No soul remains for longer than one year before leaving for heaven. One more important note on the afterlife: Judaism does not purport to be the lone path for humans to gain God's favor; the laws of Judaism are for Jews alone to follow. Jewish law recognizes the right of gentiles to approach God on their own terms.

In no way is the recognition of that right to be considered a Jewish endorsement of the outcome. Christian denominations often believe themselves to be unique in their ability to grant access to God, but it seems fair to say that Judaism is uncomfortable with shifting its definition of divinity to include the changes incorporated in some Christian theology. The Trinity immediately and permanently erectshttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Koresh&action=edit&section=8 walls in theological discussion, but the separation is further enforced by the creation of Sainthood, the doctrine of the Church's infallibility, and the ambiguity of the Christian understanding of the Messiah. The Christian Messianic figure cannot be reconciled with any Jewish understanding of "Messiah" if he: 1. Is necessarily divine; 2. does not represent the beginning of an era of unconditional peace; 3. Relies on supernatural events outside the scope of Jewish mythology. In other words, Judaism will not entertain the addition of new mythology into its canon. This last point explains the enormous rift between Jewish theology and that adopted by Koresh. Not only would Revelation narrative have to be absorbed, the undocumented demigod status claimed by Koresh would preclude Jewish authority from challenging his assertions. The temporary acceptance of foreign ideas is tolerable for the sake of argument. The demand that I suspend inquiry is intolerable, as is its necessarily inferred asertion of authoritative rights in conflict with my natural urge to ask questions. 207.172.145.188 03:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, if there is WP:N and WP:V then there is definitely scope for a separate article entitled "Students of the Seven Seals". It sounds like it would also be an interesting article to put together, as well as read; if you wish, leave a message on my talk page and I'll happily collaborate on that with you. Devious Viper 13:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The only way to be neutral
when talking about Koresh is to mention everything about how he assaulted CHILDREN. I am a child who will forever with my scars. It SCARES, ANGERS AND ENRAGES MY BEYOND *BELIEF* to see people sympathize or look at him in any light but the absolute worst. Do you know what it was like at a young age to knows young girls who can barely menstruate. Be child brides? Be tools. I speak for every child victim when I say you are all ridiculous.

Oh come on do you have any proof about these claims? If you do please show it.

I removed the bit about the name ("son of God meaning death" or something like that). David indicated his claimed descent from King David, while Koresh is Hebrew for Cyrus, who was referred to by deutero-Isaiah as the Messiah. Danny 01:48, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I think the "son of God meaning death" was based on a book published by his former right-hand man that I read a long time ago. I may have just remembered wrong. Pakaran 05:35, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Removed the phrase "M16" - that's US military hardware, not among the allegations of the warrant used to justify the ATF raid. No M16s were found after the fire. The FBI claimed 48 illegal automatic weapons but never allowed independent testing of this evidence to determine if they would, in fact, fire full-auto.

What is the reason for the NPOV tag? I see nothing on the talk page, no note in the edit history, and no real reason for it. It was added on the 28 of July by an IP user. I'm removing it. If someone wants to add it back and explain why, it's fine by me. 24.7.186.18 06:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The user who added the NPOV tag seems to have added a lot of biased things to the raid section. The information that the chemicals are banned in warfare is not needed since it is an individual government's choice on what is and isn't banned (for example, many police officers and normal citizens in the USA have made use of mace which is also banned in war).  The statement that Reno knew the gas would kill the children and then lied needs to be cited to remain.  The final statement is completely out.  24.7.186.18 06:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

posted out of sequence by anonymous editor

Yeah, except that idiot, he did teach that Koresh meant death so before you go removing things why don't you do some research first. Posted by:66.42.62.66

With an article about a subject such as this, the point/counterpoint nature of the "facts" will mean that references to support any allegation, rebuttal or counter allegation will be "biased". The two fundamentally opposed PoVs make it difficult to find a citation that someone won't claim to be biased. As such, I would argue that wikipedian editors should add citations wherever possible, regardless of which side of the argument the citee sits. Our attempt to abide by WP:POV should be to avoid giving weight in the article to either one side or the other. And remember WP:V - we are not here to edit a "true" version of events, we are aiming to edit a "verifiable" version of events... Devious Viper 17:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * While it is worth it to mention the effort you've put in to finding references for this article, it seems you've done little to balance the viewpoints adequately. That "Sinful Messiah" article is a journalistic abortion.  After swinging for the fences with it's accusations, you'll see "Howell has denied such claims" and nothing else regarding validity at all.  Not to mention the fact that you have poached the reference off of Rick Ross's site, is unforgivable.  Why not pull up the DOJ articles about Rick Ross and how much blame is put on his role in the Waco disaster?  Or how he has no education to speak of, just a bag full of hatred to any religious movement he does not agree with?  I'm removing that link and will continue to make sure Rick Ross will never be used as a reference on a site that claims to strive for NPOV.  Btl 05:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You will continue to make sure Ross will never used as a reference?? So, his credentials are sufficient for him to testify as an expert witness in thirteen states, for him to lecture on the subject at universities, etc (source: Wikipedia) but he's not good enough for you? Wow. The only PoV I'm seeing here is yours, as you obviously have a subjective dislike for this man, whom I can judge only upon his reputation. As for criticism re Waco, that was levelled by Nancy Ammerman, not the DoJ, and she is hardly known for NPoV herself. I think you have overshot the target a little here. If you read my edits of this article, you'll see that I added very little in terms of "viewpoint", merely looking for the statements requiring a citation, which I then tracked down. Whether those statements painted Koresh in a favourable light or no, was irrelevant. I have no opinions on the man Koresh, and no axe to grind with the ATF or the US government. I have merely provided citations where required. I believe I also sought out references to back the claims that the fires were not started by the people inside Mt. Carmel, for example. I'm sorry, but your aversion to Ross is unfounded and biased, and this is clearly demonstrated in the language you use above to attack Ross and the pretty much unrelated and internationally known newspaper article. I am going to revert the edit, considering it PoV. Devious Viper 13:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Rick Ross and his reputation. An expert witness that has twice been convicted on felony grand theft and conspiracy charges.  His expert deprogramming of Jason Scott.  Running the original CAN into the ground but not before suggesting that burning the Mt. Carmel compound would be the only way to remove it's occupants.   A long history of diagnosed mental disorders, no college degree in ANYTHING let alone religious studies.  Links?  The first one is more credible than Mr. Ross's entire life.  You can randomly google for more to see how fake his expert witness claim is.  .  I'm not going to draw this out.  You cannot use this man as a source of anything.  His "expertise" came from watching the Jonestown reports on television.  Wikipedia's emphasis on finding reputable references alone has helped bolster this mans reputation in at least 10 different articles, none of which provide any clarity outside of the mans own website.  He's a hate-monger and in my, extremely biased opinion, should not be cited.  Btl 14:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I have an open mind on the subject, and I have looked at the links you provided. I'm disconcerted to see that the first one, in which you place so much credibility, is actually Religious Freedom Watch - a site created by The Church of Scientology and used to discredit persons or groups that may be a source of criticism of Scientology. And Ross falls into that category. Link 2 is built around the opinion of Nancy Ammerman, whom I believe Ross identified as a Church of Scientology apologist as far back as 1995. Link 3 is a site which alleges Ross may be homosexual and states that homosexuality = "hatred of women". Hm, I'd call that kind of logic = "homophobic". You criticise Ross' inclusion as being anti-NPoV. Well, of course he has a POV, just as the DoJ has a point of view, Ammerman has a point of view, etc. etc. etc. Not to sound repetitive, and regardless of your feelings about Ross, but you cannot justify deletion of material because you don't like it.


 * See, Scientology, just like David Koresh and his followers, all have the right to practice whatever freaky religion they want. In fact, we all do, flying spaghetti monster and all.  Rick Ross, wants those rights taken away from people, you know, like kidnapping and abusing people against their will.  You know, like what he's been convicted of, and sued for on more than one occasion.  The funniest thing is, he's nothing more than an uneducated profiteer.  There are a lot of people dedicated to wiping out fringe religions and "dangerous" cults.  Ross just does it for the money.  The man who is convinced that Scientologists are slandering him at every chance, and just because he promotes a language of hatred and violence towards them.  Really, you shame this article, and you're own effort of finding source material, by linking to Rick Ross's site and using him as a source.  Did you find those "13 cases where Rick Ross was used as an expert witness" yet?  Just wondering.  Neutral means reporting on the facts from an unbiased view I assume.  Well, Mr. Ross was directly involved with the killing of these people, from which, he's been criticized by every side for his actions.  Pretty neutral. Btl 18:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

General Comments
I deleted a paragraph worth of pornographic trash (terminology such as "sucking cock" and "fucked Michael Jackson") that belonged on a hustler website instead of here.


 * I see this now, the person vandalised the page on the 30th of November and they continue to vandalise other pages to this day. They appear to have a static IP and so can be easily banned if this is something Wikipedia do. His page can be found here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=70.182.241.67

This is a challenging article to write, as there are seemingly two sides to this story. One side is that Koresh was a wackjob child-molester who liked to shoot FBI agents. This story says that the FBI rightfully killed the residents of the compound. The other is that the FBI used excessive force, directed at revenging losses incurred by the ATF in shooting many of the defenseless residents and burning down their compound. Its worth doing some real research (which I'm not willing to do) prior to writing this one.

NPOV
The word "cult" appears three times in this article. I have yet to check the Branch Davidian page, but I am willing to bet it appears there as well. By calling a religious movement a "cult", the speaker is making a negative value judgment against that religious movement. See the wikipedia article on cult for further explanation.

I've re-added the NPOV tag to the final section of this article (N.B. it wasn't me who added it in the first place). Reasons as follows:

"The manufacturers of the chemical agent specify that it should not be used in enclosed buildings". I'd like to see a source for this - it should be reasonably easy to either confirm or refute.

"...the compound caught fire" Correct and verified by many sources.

"...probably due to a combination of kerosene lanterns the davidians were using for light..." They may well have been using Kerosine lanterns, but there is no evidence to suggest that these were a cause of the fire. On the contrary, on audio recordings made before the fires started, the Davidians can clearly be heard saying "don't light it yet and "spread the fuel".

"...that were knocked over by the tanks". The Danforth Report which was commissioned by The Special Counsel concluded with 100% certainty that the cause of the fire were the deliberate actions of the Davidians. I.e. the tanks were not responsible for starting the fires.

"...the flamable nature of CS gas" Is CS gas flammable? That should be easy to check - I'll take a look into that one later. ''Edit: This retailer states "potential fire hazard" whereas this MSDS states "...may burn but does not readily ignite." It's not exactly compelling proof, but it suggests that CS is flammable to a degree at least.'' Robotmannick 11:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

"...and the incindiary devices that the government reluctantly admitted three years later to having used that day". The "incendiary devices" were in fact flares used for lighting the night sky as well as pyrotechnic gas cannisters, the last of which devices were used over 4 hours prior to the fires and at no time were they used inside the compound. However, there was an initial denial over the use of any "incendiary devices".

"Barricaded into their building, 75 Branch Davidians, including Koresh, were unable to escape the blaze and died." An FBI-operated vehicle breached the front doors of the building providing a means of escape for those inside. Likewise, a similar breached occurred in the gymnasium area. At least one woman was seen to exit the building from the front door, however she then re-entered the burning building, only to be forcibly removed by an FBI agent. I would therefore suggest that those inside were not "unable" to escape the blaze but "unable or unwilling".

Robotmannick 07:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I am the one who removed it and I was going to work on it but got side tracked. The tag was first added by an IP user who added many of the things you took complaint with.  I thought it was odd that they added an NPOV tag and than added so many things that made the article worthy of it.  The old "Raid" text was a somewhat clinical explanation of what took place.  My guess is that the user who first added the tag supported Koresh (or at least took issue with the way he was dealt with) and decided to add the NPOV tag (because they thought a non-critical raid description was biased) and added elements to make the discription more critical of the legal forces.  The Raid section should probably be more closely restored to its original form. Revision as of 05:21, 28 July 2005 added all POV issues to the Raid section. - 24.7.186.18 19:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input. I took a look back at some previous edits and made an attempt at rewriting it.  Feel free to have another go if you still don't think it's right. Robotmannick 10:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm kind of new around here and not sure how to add the link properly, but an author by the name of David Hardy has evidence released by the government in response to freedom of information act requests several years after the Danforth report was written that might help resolve some of the issues. Salty Kid | talk 05:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info Salty Kid. I'll let you know if I turn anything up on that front.

Robotmannick 12:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

POV
"The federal negotiators, for their part, treated the situation as a hostage crisis, despite a two hour video tape sent out by the Davidians with some of the children, in which the adults and older children/teens appeared to explain clearly and confidently why they chose of their own free will to remain with David."

How is this not POV?


 * POV in what way? I realize you have a point, but I apologize that I am missing it (I can be a little dense sometimes). Please help me see what you are seeing. --DanielCD 21:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A note to anyone who cares: Don't drop questionable criticism about something and then never return to support/clarify it. If this sentence needs fixing, I have no idea what the author of the above complaint had in mind, and hence no idea how to remedy his complaint.


 * If he cares so little, why should anyone else? --DanielCD 00:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Need verification for statutory rape claims
None of the references cited mention Koresh impregnating a 15-year old or being a statutory rapist. Can someone add an appropriate reference for those claims? Thanks. Kaldari 23:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I found a reference to the 15-year old girl, although it says she "became pregnant" rather than "Koresh impregnated her". I have corrected the article to state the former. As for the claims of Koresh having sex with minors in later life, it seems these claims are disputed. I am removing the statutory rapist category for now, in the interests of WP:V and WP:NPOV. If someone adds some better references for this claim, perhaps it can be added back. Kaldari 23:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is a firm case where such categories can be misused. All the info I've seen on such accusations has been heresay, which certainly does no good in making a case for category inclusion. It needs a very strong citation, as well as reasoning here on the talk page as to why it's so notable to point out. --DanielCD 00:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Which merely means you aren't especially well-informed. Kiri Jewel testified before congress that Koresh began raping her when she was 10 years old. This is not "heresay."


 * And perhaps you aren't so well-informed either. Kiri Jewell's testimony alleged a molestation, but one that stopped short of penetration. Also, saying that he "began" raping her implies that there were other occasions, when she said there was only one incident. And while she did tell Congress that it took place when she was 10, at other times she has said 11, leaving some ambiguity about her exact age. While her testimony is not hearsay, it is still the allegation of a single person.


 * Having said that, whatever he did or didn't do with Kiri Jewell, I agree that some of his polygamous brides were adolescents. After all, he legally married his first wife when she was 14. My problem is whether "statutory rape" is a useful concept, when historical and cultural concepts of the age of consent differ so markedly. Hundreds of millions of Muslims believe that Muhammad betrothed a 6-year-old girl, and consummated their marriage three years later. But I don't think there is anything to be gained by adding Muhammad to Category:Rapists or Category:Pedophiles, nor many other figures throughout history who had such relationships. --WacoKid 18:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And let's not forget Kiri Jewell's own grandmother disputed her "molestation by Koresh" testimony and Kiri was the focal point of a very ugly divorce. Also, in the State of Texas (at least back then) a 14 could legally marry with a parent's consent.  The Waco sheriff went on record saying, as far as prosecuting or even charging Koresh with any crime,  if a parent gives consent there was nothing he or his deputies could do.  Mr Christopher 19:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"Trivia"
I have removed the trivia bit about the band and its supposed song about David Koresh, for a few reasons.

First, there are many songs inspired by David Koresh or the Waco situation (here's one list), so singling out one (obscure) band's song seems arbitrary and unwarranted.

Second, a Google search for "nogudnik waco" turned up no hits. (Even a search just for nogudnik didn't turn up that many hits, and most weren't even about the band.) I also went to the band's website, and again found no mention of the song. So there is a conflict with Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Of course, it's not the case that "only what is online is verifiable," but if the band itself doesn't mention the song on their own site, how can people not in Sydney know that the song even exists?

Third, a Trivia section may be unencyclopedic, especially when the trivia only relates secondhand to the subject of the article.

I've also checked the other contribs from the IP address that added the Trivia bit. I found his other contribs largely inappropriate, sometimes outright vandalism, usually relating to Sydney musicians. I assume he is a fan of the band, but Wikipedia is not the appropriate venue for promoting one's favorite little-known local band, and his immaturity in his way of going about it only makes it more likely that other editors will delete his contribs. --WacoKid 09:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Categories Removed
I have removed David Koresh from the category Vegetarians. It is true that, as a Seventh-day Adventist, he practiced vegetarianism, and in one of his early taped studies, he apparently made a statement that "No meat eater is going to receive the kingdom of God." However, later on he reintroduced meat into the Branch Davidian diet, with dietary restrictions analogous to Jewish kosher. Thus, as someone who took an Adventist offshoot that was practicing vegetarianism and turned them into carnivores, it seems inappropriate to place him in this category.

I have some qualms about the category Houstonians. While he was born there, he really grew up elsewhere. But while I wouldn't have added it in the first place, I can't see sufficient grounds for deleting it in the category's vague definition of Houstonians as being people "from Houston."

I've also deleted the Rapists category. First, the earlier deleted category Statutory rapists would be more appropriate to the charges against Koresh. Since there's not even a consensus about that yet, the even more provocative label of "rapist" must go. I plan to comment on the statutory rape issue, but right now I'm too tired. Good idea. I've done a lot of research on Koresh, and I really haven't found anyproof of him as a rapist. People could have made that up... or started it. I have my own theroies, but lets not go into that.....

I've also deleted the link to the TIME article. It is not a high-quality link, as much of the "information" in that article has turned out to be wrong. At the time that it was written, remember, the media could only hear from the government and defectors, the government wasn't allowing the media to talk to the Branch Davidians. By the time the media could get the other side of the story, they considered the "story" over. --WacoKid 06:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Content?
There is very little in this article concerning his activities within the branch davidian cult. This article skips from his joining straight into the ATF attack. ANyone else think this looks odd? Where's a description of his rise to primacy? Turly-burly 04
 * I'd also noticed the glaring twelve-year gap in David's life. It's 1981 and he's just joined the BDs, then abruptly it's 1993 and he's surrounded by the feds. Huh?


 * While looking through the history, I found that there used to be a section entitled "Ascent to leadership." Then, last November 30, a vandal made a couple of edits that turned it into a section he retitled "I Like Child Pornography." The next editor, rather than reverting to the last good page, simply wiped out the section, and it's never been restored! The same vandal also changed the date of the raid to "my birth day, February 13, 1992." The next editor simply deleted the phrase "my birth day!" Then another editor noticed that the year was wrong, but not the day! The wrong date stayed in the article for over six weeks!


 * (Even before the vandalism, the section contained several errors and POV issues, which is why I haven't simply resurrected it. Gonna have to get around to rewriting it one of these days.) --WacoKid 06:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Reference links, etc.
I'll explain the changes I made with my last edit.

First, I deleted some additions made to the Return to Earth section.
 * David Koresh said that he would come back when an earthquake has occurred in the town. It is true that he predicted an earthquake that would rock the area, destroy the dam on Lake Waco, and flood the town, but I'm not sure he made any statement connecting it to his return. During the siege, the FBI actually worried that followers on the outside might set explosives on the dam to make it look like his prophecy had come true.
 * "If the Bible is true, then I'm Christ." I deleted this quote as well. For one thing, even if it is to be included in the article, it's in the wrong section. It's also apparent that a lot of people misinterpret it. He did not believe he was a reincarnation of Jesus, but a third messiah, following Melchizedek and Jesus. He also did not call himself Yahweh. During Passover, he sent out letters signed "Yahweh Koresh." However, he believed that this was God's full name, that non-BDs only knew God's first name. Signing those letters that way was intended to signify that they were messages from God, relayed through David, rather than communications from David himself. They did not mean that David thought he was Yahweh.

Second, someone deleted the References section a while ago, whether accidentally or through vandalism. I restored it, but decided to remove the two web links, which I'd been wanting to get rid of. The A&E Biography link no longer works, and searching for Koresh on their Biography.com site takes you to a page that gets his birth year wrong and consists of only a few sentences. I also deleted the PBS Frontline bio link, even though it's apparent that people editing this page have used it as a reference, even to the point of. It's also apparent that many other sites have been ripping off the Frontline bio.

However, despite PBS Frontline's reputation, their Waco episode wasn't their finest, and neither is its webpage. I hadn't looked at that bio page in ages, but checked it again because of Wikipedia. I found it to be not only biased, but inaccurate on a number of points. I was nearly finished writing up an account of problem statements on that page, when it got eaten by the computer. I'll recreate it later, probably, but right now I'm tired.

Lastly, someone recently added the FindAGrave link to External Links, at the top. I have reservations about whether a site focused on where people are buried is broad enough to deserve a link. For now, however, I've simply moved it to the bottom of the list. --WacoKid 11:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Question About "The Siege"
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.

You (WacoKid) 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 19:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WacoKid"


 * To be honest, it's been several years since I watched Rules of Engagement, and the version I watched then was the McNulty cut, which is twenty minutes longer. (That version is no longer available, the Giffords went to court to block its distribution. The Giffords had pared down director Gazecki's cut to what they felt was a more commercially viable length. But another difference they had with McNultry is that he apparently wanted to push a "harder" line, while the Giffords wanted to keep their reputation as respectable liberals, not conspiracy theorists.)


 * I checked my watchlist while I was editing, someone just vandalized this section. I'll just put in what I have now, and get back with the rest of my comments. --WacoKid 22:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry I took so long to get back to you. To tell the truth, I didn't like WROE. To be fair, since I had already been studying Waco, what may have been revelations to an average viewer were old hat to me. I also had enough knowledge to see some of the manipulative tricks they were using (for instance, the opening sequence where little Melissa Morrison asks "are you going to kill me," cuts out the part where you can hear her mother coaching her). It had all sorts of little errors in their account of Davidian history. And I thought it didn't do enough to present the human side of the Davidians. as opposed to their version of events.


 * As for the FLIR tape, I'm not a FLIR analyst. My own gut feeling is that I'm not convinced by either side. On the one hand, I've never seen what advantage FBI agents would have had, taking up the positions that the tape shows, as opposed to more covered positions. Also, I think Allard may be stretching when he points to a flash off the back of a tank as someone shooting from it- that seems like something that might be a glint. On the other hand, the idea that the flashes are just glints off debris- "glints" that pulse repeatedly and ryhthmically shortly before the fire, and no other time- seems unconvincing. If they were shards of broken glass, for example, wouldn't they have been there before and after the morning of April 19? The FBI also doesn't have a good explanation of what the 11:59 flash in the gymnasium might have been. Nor do I trust the Danforth/Vector test as unbiased, critiques have been made of it. But I have no special insight into forward-looking infrared beyond the average person's.


 * No Waco documentary gets my wholehearted endorsement. I think that the best documentaries at humanizing the Davidians are the first ABC Turning Point on Waco, and Surviving Waco, which deals more with the aftermath. Day 51 gets too conspiratorial for me, though it did contend that it was pyrotechnic CS being shot into the construction pit, years before that was conceded by the FBI. Frontline concentrates on presenting internal FBI debates, rather than the Davidian side. And so on. And almost all documentaries have some factual errors. So much misinformation has been pumped into the datastream, even into what Wikipedia considers "reliable" and "verifiable" sources, that it's nearly impossible to write an an account about Waco of any length without at least a few errors creeping in. --WacoKid 06:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV on Siege
I've added an NPOV-check tag on the section about the siege.

Why are we citing Waco: Rules of Engagement as a source here? It's an editorial documentary, it shouldn't be referenced as a source of unbiased information. I wouldn't mind keeping in the part about the Branch Davidians claiming others were shot by the FBI while attempting to flee, since it's primary source material.


 * An editorial documentary is still based on primary evidence. Wikipedia does not have a policy against using "unbiased" information. It simply tries to represent the story from a neutral point of view using the information as is available. A publicly broadcase documentary seems okay to me, as long as it is not the only source. Ans e ll  00:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Waco: Rules of Engagement has stood the test of time. It was nominated for an Academy Award as the best documentary film of 1997, and none of its allegations have been disproven or effectively countered by the FBI.  In fact, two of its allegations--that incendiary devices were used by the FBI on the day of the fire and that shots were fired into the building during the fire--have either been directly corroborated by the FBI or indirectly corroborated by the FBI's own FLIR footage.Founders4 07:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Apropos of anything else, if you are going to use anything as a mark of W:ROE standing the test of time, a subjective award for "best in category" (where best can encompass anything from cinematography to production to anything in between) is not what I would use as such. I'd also counter that the FBI has no duty to even acknowledge, let alone disprove or counter, allegations of a group of filmmakers with an admitted prejudice as to their belief of FBI wrongdoing / overreation / incompetence, etc. Achromatic 12:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * We are not here to judge whether an organisation should or should not respond to criticisms. A best in category award means that someone thought the film was more than just junk. Using the (un)reliable sources argument to enforce a POV is not what wikipedia editing is about. Ans e ll  23:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

jesus wore glasses
did any of his followers notice that he wore glasses? if he was the "great healer" why didnt he cure himself? ****dthomas****


 * Theoretically, Jesus could also fly instead of walk, but he chose to walk. Go figure.Izaakb 01:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Redundancies

 * 1)  The unsubstantiated accusations of child rape are dealt with by reference to the investigation by Waco Sheriff.
 * 2)  Koresh's name is Howell prior to 1986/87, it is appropriate to refer to him as Howell when describing that timeframe.
 * This is an interesting point - I don't have the exact wording to hand, but I'm fairly certain that the legal document supporting a name change requires the person to be known thereafter - in all dealings, documents and transactions - by their new name. In which case, Koresh should always be referred to as "David Koresh" except when stating, eg. "born Vernon Wayne Howell" and the like. Devious Viper 13:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Is the date of Death correct?
Upon hearing about about the death of David Koresh I clearly Remember thinking how ironic that he died on the Christian Holiday of Good Friday. Good Friday was, however, Friday, April 9, 1993 instead of Monday, April 19, 1993. Either there was a premature announcement of his death (which happens frequently; see recent announcement for Fidel Castro and Pope John Paul), or the date is wrong (Apr. 9 can EASILY be mistyped Apr. 19) Does anyone have any info that may clarify this for me?

-Paul M. 10/30/06

Deletion of "Seventh Day Adventist" link
While minor, this link was deleted 11:21, December 6, 2006 60.49.59.102. The Seventh Day Adventist church is relevant to this article and I will be reverting the deletion. Izaakb 15:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

---and yet again Izaakb 03:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Bogus waco-tribune cites
The waco tribune is a joke paper that was made into a laughing stock during the various trials and hearings. I strongly advise not using any direct sources from them. They were also noted as being "in bed with the feds" during, before, and after the siege. Smells to me like all the waco-related wikis are filled with government plants me-tooing this nonsense. Legit wikipedians beware.Ernham 22:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Waco4.jpg
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 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)

Cite sources
Lots of un-cited material on this page, as well as weasel words like "some critics say." Which critics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.220.246 (talk) 09:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

April 19, 2011
The last 7 edits to this page appear to be vandalism of a very juvenile nature (and it's not even 4-20 yet). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.52.96.9 (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

External link
The external link to "Waco: A Massacre and Its Aftermath" which points to http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9505/articles/kelley.html was not valid as of this date. The error seems to imply that the article no longer exists 68.99.245.160 (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

biased posts
Can whoever is responsible for managing this article get rid of rush4hires posts, which are not only offensively anti Catholic but irrelevant to the subject matter of this article. What exactly does the Spanish Inquisition or the Jesuits have to do with the Waco Siege? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.184.35 (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

messiah
Just curious, how much time has to pass before this guy can be recognized as a messiah? The discussion on this page seems to have died down, at this point I'm just wonder what the verifiability criteria is. Tricadex (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)