Talk:Waco siege

Chronology of events on February 28
— Preceding unsigned comment added by SNAAAAKE!! (talk • contribs) 10:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * This user was blocked indefinitely on 12 October 2019. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Cyanide mention
There seems to be a political or non-neutral desire to insert that cyanide gas from the CS devices caused the deaths of children. No credible source has shown that the devolution of CS to form cyanide as a byproduct. A cursory examination of the known chemical pathways shows this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:D100:72ED:91B5:87C0:5BD2:6D55 (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, it is accurate that CS can form poisonous cyanide. However, this theoretical possibility does not, by itself, seem to justify a mention in the article. Disturbingly, the citation attached to this statement claimed that its source, "Waco: Rules of Engagement", was published by the New Yorker, a reputable news organization, when it was in fact published by an entertainment company. This is a red flag, although it is possible that it was an innocent mistake. I have correct this and also merged it with another citation in the article referring to the same video, as a housekeeping task.
 * I did find one news report stating that cyanide was found in some of the bodies, from the Los Angeles Times (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-05-29-mn-7278-story.html). However, this is the only place that I found this assertion, and the autopsy records do not appear to be accessible to the public (searching the Tarrant County Medical Examiner's Case Records at https://mepublic.tarrantcounty.com/?linklocation=supermenu&linkname=Medical+Examiner+Case+Records shows no records for the entirety of 1993, I assume that cases have not been digitized that far back). Since there is only one source for this, it is a controversial topic, and there is some evidence of malicious editing, I removed the reference to cyanide poisoning. They were trapped in a burning building. Whether they died from self-harm, carbon monoxide poisoning, being set on fire, or cyanide created by the CS gas is moot.
 * That said, if there are additional sources asserting the existence of cyanide in the body, or the reports from the Tarrant County Medical Examiner can be located and referenced, this information should absolutely be added to the article. We should include all information we know to be true. Skyvine (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

This article by a former chemical-warfare defence expert with the US Army and later the US Secret Service says, 'It is clear from the literature that HCN — that is, hydrogen cyanide gas — is one of the thermal decomposition products that can be created when CS breaks down at high temperatures.' Being lighter than air it would only concentrate to dangerous levels in confined spaces, but that might apply to the burning Waco compound. And HCN can also be produced by burning PVC plastic, which is very common. There was probably a fair bit of it in those buildings. https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2020/02/07/cs-tear-gas-in-hong-kong-and-elsewhere-assessing-the-hazards/ Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

"Serve a warrant" in Lede
The lede contains the following:

"The incident began when the ATF attempted to serve a search and arrest warrant on the ranch. An intense gunfight erupted An intense gunfight erupted..."

Reading this sounds like the ATF came up and knocked on the door and said "Hi, we're here to serve this warrant, please let us come in and look around" and then, for whatever reason (possibly resistance by the BDs), it all went wrong. My impression from other sources (which may not be reliable) suggest that the ATF essentially showed up looking for a fight. If so, perhaps we ought to phrase it more like

"The incident began when the ATF attempted to raid the Branch Davidian compound in order to carry out a search and arrest warrant on the ranch."

On the other hand, if the aforementioned description is innacurate, we should make it very clear that the ATF proceeded in such a way that a peaceful outcome was likely (absent resistance), and support this with sources.

I'm guessing that the way the term "to serve a warrant" is used by LEOs probably includes starting out with a raid, if the server judges that's what they have to do in this case. But to an ordinary reader I don't think this is the impression it creates. It sounds like comparatively peaceful LEO business, and some sources say that this is not what happened.

I'm going to make the change. IMO it should not be changed back to the original, but (if I'm incorrect), changed to a different version which makes the ATF's actual actions clear. Dingsuntil (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Rationale for sudden raid in the lede
The lede previously read

"The ATF had planned a sudden daylight raid of the ranch in order to serve these warrants, intending to quickly control the situation and reduce the risk to all parties that was associated with the large cache of modified weapons and explosive devices the Davidians had available."

I changed this to

"The ATF had planned a sudden daylight raid of the ranch in order to serve these warrants"

I previously made a similar change, but this content was put back in. Here's why it should be left like this: In the lede, we should focus on the basic facts, and leave more involved discussion of more complicated points to later in the article where they can be discussed in an appropriate amount of detail. In my opinion, the rationale for why the ATF went with a specific plan and what objectives they hoped to achieve with this plan is an example of the sort of thing that belongs in the main article.

Also, the original version reads to me like a sloppy attempt to make a pro-ATF argument. Like, the writer is thinking that people will think "A sudden raid? Wow, jackbooted government thugs!" and is attempting to head off this reaction by saying "no, they had legitimate reasons for their tactics." I absolutely think this argument should be made in the main article, but the lede should be kept simple. It's not really possible to discuss the full set of arguments around whether or not the ATF proceeded correctly in the lede, so adding a stray point on the pro-ATF side seems like it's not NPOV. It's better to just say "This is what actually happened" and save discussion for later. Dingsuntil (talk) 08:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Anna, Anne or Ana
In the Background section, the 5th paragraph refers to Anna Hughes, the 7th to Anne Hughes & the article on George Roden (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Roden) refers to Ana Hughes, all of whom are the same person. Googling had me find different articles each from 1993 using different variations as well, specifically Anna & Anne.

I literally just made this account for dark mode so I got no idea on the policy for naming convention, but I don't think its 'use as many variations as possible' Jangurs (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


 * While you're correct that we should probably pick one spelling and stick to it... with the sources all being confused about the proper spelling, it's going to be difficult to determine which one we should have here. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 13:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)