Jump to content

Talk:Waco siege/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5


South Park

South Park did an entire episode spoof on this. Add it.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

So did Stargate. Season 2, episode 3 "Seth" was completely inspired by this; fanatic cult holed up inside a fortress, protected by heavy and illegal weapons, threatening the mass suicide of his followers who included several children. They even included an ATF unit with crappy concealment skills. 147.9.177.90 (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


lol

'"His conversations, dense with biblical imagery, alienated the federal negotiators who treated the situation as a hostage crisis."

The mental image of 25 FBI hostage negotiators describing their feelings of alienation is hilarious.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.228.168 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 24 December 2007

Infobox

I'd like to propose this infobox be changed or removed. A military conflict infobox seems very out of place to me. This was fundamentally a law enforcement action that went terribly wrong, not a military conflict or "battle." The goal of law enforcement in any action, whether making a traffic stop or sending in a SWAT team, is to enforce laws while reducing the risk of loss of life -- whether that of the police or those they're arresting. I wager that most law enforcement officers would be aghast at being called a combatant and I seriously doubt the FBI would call this a "decisive victory." At best, it was a phyrric victory. croll 14:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, seems like a joke to me. "Military Conflict" implies armies, at least semi-professional; not law-enforcement agencies and religious cults. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.162.228.11 (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC).


The infobox doesn't mention on the displayed page that it was "military", that's just what the "military infobox" was called in the wiki code. The infobox uses the words "combat" and "casualties," which sound military but aren't exclusive to the military. I think it's a very concise way to give that kind of information for an article like this. In any case, the article should contain the information which was deleted from the infobox, including the number of deaths and injuries on both sides. On another note, the deleted infobox claimed that 82 Davidians died, and the current article gives a total of 80 when added up. Which was it?Harksaw 20:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Using the military infobox is crass. Forces? How can u reckon that up, when there were, eg 25 children inside? Do they count as combatants?? And "decisive ATF/FBI victory"...?? Surely you don't seriously see a tragic law enforcement operation in those terms? The mil infobox has no place in this article. As for casualties, there was a little guesswork going on - if you've seen the state of the bodies, eg the clump of at least 11 persons and a dog, fused together in the heat; and some count the 2 unborn babies. As far as I'm aware, the most reliable figure given is 54 adults, 25 children, 2 unborn infants. Devious Viper 21:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
While you may find it "crass", it is an accurate depiction and is key to understanding these events. The simple fact of the matter is what happened in Waco is the logical extentsion mixing two roles that are mutually exclusive, those of the soldier with that of the police officer. There is no doubt that the half dozen or so wannabe storm troopers responsible for the original assult had delusions of military conquest. These cowboys went to considerable machinations to secure military hardware and training for the so called "warrant service". These guys fabricated a methanphetamine lab along with deliveries of percurser chemicals in an attempt to get acess to Close Quarters Combat/Close Quarters Battle training from the U.S. Army Special Forces. These meetings with the DOD begain in November of 92. Months before the undercover operation even started. Hell, Texas National Guard depleted its fiscal year 1993 counterdrug funds during its assistance to ATF at Waco. As to whether they considered the children as "combatants" much less the other hundred or so folks who had no relation to the suspected offense, they didn't consider them at all. The infobox should remain.

Rick —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.251.13.53 (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Whether the ATF and FBI acted in a military manner or not, it WAS NOT A MILITARY CONFLICT!! Simple as that. Why don't you apply that flawed reasoning and replace the "Infobox terrorist attack" on the 9/11 article with a military conflict infobox? And then put in there something like "Decisive Al Queda victory" etc? I'm sure from Al Quedas POV thats the infobox it should have, but, just as your reasoning here is, they'd be wrong. Devious Viper 01:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is broken

This article is clearly broken and it cannot be asserted that it maintains an unbiased point of view. I do not have an opinion as to who was to "blame" for the outcome of the Waco Siege. Howevever, it appears that although most of the statements made in this article are presented with a neutral point of view, the preponderance of the information and citations presented tends to favour the Branch Davidians. I am familiar with the reporting and the literature related to the siege, and suffice it to say, the evidence is inconclusive as to several of the key incidents involved.

In short, it is obvious that there has been a significant amount of cherry-picking of articles/sources favourable to the Branch Davidians, such that it does not provide a clear picture as to the extent of the controversy surrounding the events of the siege. I therefore don't think its useful to argue about specific statements made in this article. This article as a whole holds that there was some sort of conspiracy by the authorities against the Branch Davidians, when in fact the evidence is, again, inconclusive. --Lonesome road 15:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This material has always been a magnet for POV-pushers of both sides. I agree with those who say that the article is really a mishmash of POV from both sides, though the proportion that is pro-government or pro-Davidian is constantly shifting as people from one side or the other edit it. Sadly, most of the editors have more bias than knowledge, so the article is highly inaccurate as well. --WacoKid 06:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ross

NPOV Cleanup

I agree with the editors speaking on the NPOV violations here and did some minor cleaning up. First, I Deleted the time magazine cover with Koresh's laughing face superimposed over a fiery background. That can be considered propaganda to make Koresh appear to be something along the lines of a madman. We're not here to judge, but to enter factual information. Any picture here should be a photo of the seige itself. Second, I don't know who's idea it was to give this an info box stating this was a military conflict, with the FBI having a "decisive victory", but it's completely inappropriate. Removed the military conflict references. Any other good ideas to get this article into the realm of total neutrality, I'm all for it. Chairman Sharif 23:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit

When I came to this article I found a mess. It was incoherent, lacked narrative, was badly written and full of weasel words.

I have stripped out a lot of the cruft (including the wholly irrelevant "Culturual references" section, Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate facts), rewritten some parts, and moved others to more logical sections.

Hopefully the result is an article with a logical flow and structure, better writing, and minus a lot of the anti-government bias that was present.

I have also removed the NPOV dispute and unreferenced tags. If someone feels there still are NPOV state precisely what they are below before re-adding the tag. Dan100 (Talk) 18:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Bogus waco-tribune material

Most of the material supplied by them has been proven completely false through the trials and congressional hearings. I'd be very leary of using anything they have to say, as some evidence suggests they were "in bed with the feds". As a matter of fact, it looks like almost the entire first couple paragraphs are filled with about 5% fact, 90% faction, 5% exaggeration.. Ernham 01:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Cite sources. Dan100 (Talk) 14:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

I conducted a references re-write.

I removed the following under the terms of Wikipedia:Verifiability as it is unsourced and I dispute the veracity of the claims. It can be restored with a suitable reference is provided.

Several mothers sent their children out of the complex following promises by the FBI that they would be placed with family members. Unrelated senior citizens who had gone with the children were arrested and the children were taken into state custody and then placed in a religious children's home.

The mothers of these children voiced concern about them and the treatment they were receiving. In reply they received a video sent by the negotiators. The mothers were disturbed that their children were being fed things forbidden by their religious diet and (in their view harmfully) were being allowed to run wild with minimal supervision while watching television. This violation of the promises destroyed any possibility of further trust of the FBI, making the negotiators' job all but impossible.


On 6 March (day 7) Schneider mentions during recorded negotiations that he thinks the FBI will try to burn the building to destroy the evidence of exactly what happened during the initial raid.

Hi Dan, nice to see others taking an interest in this article. With an anniversary of the events approaching, I expect it to start receiving a lot of hits soon, and it would be good to be moving forward to a reliable, NPOV and informative version by the end of the month. The references are a bit slipshod still (not those you've added - although there is a heavy reliance on just one source, the Inside Waco documentary) and I was thinking just last night that I might take the current external links that are used throughout the article body and rewrite them instead as Harvard style. Of the three passages above, I have to fess up that I added one of them - Schneider's comment about evidence. I'll add the reference for that one; also, the other two you removed, although I didn't add them, I know that I have seen them reliably referenced elsewhere, so I'll see if I can find good sources for them, too. I think that one of the criticisms that could be levelled at the article at the moment is that it is still very much "Waco-lite", and perhaps there is too much material inclded that is amply covered in other articles, eg David Koresh and Branch Davidians; this article should concentrate more on what it says on the label - the siege. And for a 51 day siege, involving many complex factors and conflicting claims and conclusions, it is still very light on info. Devious Viper (talk · contribs) 15:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Without acess to negotiation tapes it's impossible to say what the FBI promised regarding placement of the children.

It's clear that thier mothers thought they would have input on where the children went because they placed notes in the childrens pockets instructing to turn them over to the care of relatives. "Ashes of Waco p.227" Same source, same page documents the concerns resulting from videos the FBI sent in. The children were turned over to TDCPS who in turn place 20 of the children in a Methodist group home http://www.rickross.com/reference/waco/waco311.html

Elderly people who left were arrested on conspiracy to commit murder charges and paraded out for the press cameras. "For example, two elderly women, Margaret Lawson and Catherine Mattson, were released from the compound on March 2, 1993. The next day, the United States Attorney's Office (after consulting with at least one FBI supervisor), charged the two women in a criminal complaint with conspiracy to commit murder." http://www.usdoj.gov/05publications/waco/wacofourteen.html

The Schneider "burn the evidence" reference is cited here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/waco/timeline.html

I believe these sources should resolve your dispute. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.251.12.226 (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Just wanted to offer kudos for the bunch of work that has gone into cleaning this article up into something usable. Lots of emotion on both sides make this a difficult thing to tackle. croll 18:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Regards "psy ops"

I trimmed this section and made reference to the use of loud noise as part of the generally more aggressive techniques adopted later in the seige. Under the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy no one element should be given undue prominence over and above others. The use of loud sound is not particularly unusual being a common siege tactic, and does not warrant a unique section (a better idea would be to write an article on the subject, and then link to it).

I disagree - the psyops are a crucial element of the siege. (And there is a very good separate article on wiki about psyops in general.) The conduct of the FBI HRT and the negotiation teams, the use of the psyops against this particular group, bearing in mind their beliefs and world view, etc. - all of this is critical to understanding how the events progressed, and why they progressed as they did. You seem to not want the psyops mentioned, so I'm not going to just go and reinsert it - but I am going to go away and work on a rewrite of the siege section that references heavily the two conflicting tactical approaches that were being used, and how in the hearings, trials and investigations afterward, the conclusions were that they should never have used this, and that it served only to prolong the siege and undo the work of the negotiation team. Devious Viper (talk · contribs) 15:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If you disagree

If you disagree with changes I have made, you need to make verifiable statements using sources that you feel support your point of view (remember the neutral point of view aims to present all sides fairly). You cannot remove material that is referenced, instead, if you feel the statements are incorrect, you need to provide sources that present the alternate point of view.

Thanks for reading, Dan100 (Talk) 10:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Not aimed at me, I hope? ;) I like to try and reference wherever possible. As for NPoV, well, its difficult for me to inject much of my own POV as I actually think both sides were culpable :) Devious Viper 15:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Military Conflict infobox

As per discussions above, the military conflict infobox was removed as it was irrelevant and the fields have no bearing on a law enforcement incident. Devious Viper 19:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Military assets were used from the inception. Military personel were consulted before and attended the ATF planning sessions. ATF sought Close Quaters Combat/Close Quaters Battle traning for the SRTs leading the assault. The military accomponied and took an active role during the original assault. HRT was a LEO in name only. Their training, equipment and rules of engagment are DOD. There were LEOs at Waco. But their concerns were brushed aside. They were the victims of the military/paramilitary mindset entrenched in senior leadership positions. Rick —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.251.12.226 (talk) 09:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
Please discuss changes like this, which have been discussed already, before implementing them. The military did not take an active role in the original assault; they did not take an "active" role at any stage thereafter - officially; and finally, look up the definition of Combatants. Describing this as a military conflict, with "combatants" and forces, and "victories" is misleading, inaccurate, crass, and just plain wrong. Devious Viper 01:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The use of Texas National Guard in the original assault was clearly an active role. I don’t think anyone seriously has contended it was not. When they were interviewed after the assault no written notes were created. Specifically, to avoid future "FOIA requests" (without information there is no civilian oversight and control). The training the AFT sought goes directly to the planner’s state of mind. That they were willing to use fraud to obtain it provides a pretty good indication of their thoughts on civilian oversight as well. Obviously they viewed the targets as "combatants". Otherwise there is no need for the Special Forces to provide a “Discriminating Fire Plan" or Close Quarters Combat training.
HRT was clearly not under civilian control. The rules of engagement from Ruby Ridge make this quite clear. And while the DOJ and all the "official" explainers might say otherwise, the constitution is definitive on the right of life and due process. That Dick Rodgers was running the show at Waco, under full knowledge and sanction of his prior actions, of those in leadership positions at the DOJ; quite clearly they were beyond civilian control.
The DOD provided over a million dollars in couterdrug funds in support and equipment. That’s mighty damn active no matter what all the "official" explainers have to say. The military mindset was so entrenched, that even the Fort Worth Medical Examiner was out there running around in cammo fatigues. If you don't think these guys viewed this as a "victory", why do you suppose they hoisted that flag over the smoldering corpses?
And one last thing, late in the morning on the 19th, the commanders were dismayed that the CS was not having the intended effect. They got intel that the children were in the concrete vault. So our illustrious commanders sent one of our modified tanks in there to dump a load. Do you have any idea what CS does to the lung tissue of children? Nobody in this country has that authority. Nobody, irregardless of what you’re "official" explainers have to say. It was an act of war and in a just world it would be considered a war crime. A crime against humanity. Crass indeed... Rick —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.251.13.10 (talk) 12:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

I don't disagree with some of that, but we have to save our POV for a pro/anti website - this is an encyclopaedia. I agree that the respective federal agencies were gung ho, that there was almost definitely a series of illegal actions with regard to Posse Commitatus, that Delta were probably shooting Davidians trying to escape from the rear of the compound, that a shaped charge was used on top of the "bunker" etc etc etc. BUT here we can only put the "facts" that are verifiable - not necessarily the "truth". And I still say that the mil info box is misleading, inaccurate, and an insult to the victims of the whole sorry affair Viper 19:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You've lost me. What are "facts" if not the "truth"? It is certainly not a fact that "the respective federal agencies were gung ho". But there were "individuals" in leadership positions who sought and lobbied for military solutions over those who advanced a law enforcement aggenda. That the former were "sucsessfull" is why there are/were so many victims. This happened over and over and is what drove the final outcome. It is "verifiable" and belongs in any encyclopedic content on the Waco Siege, contrary to so much of the nonsense propaganda reiterated in this article that was first used to dehumanise the victims. Rick —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.251.12.200 (talk) 12:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Article is self-contradictory

Introduction says that 81 people died in the fire; further down the article it says 74. Which is correct? Also, counting "2 unborn children" as people is definitely not NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.83.156.199 (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC).


Category Removal

As mentioned on the "Category:Sieges involving the United States" talk page, I intend to remove the Waco Siege from that list unless I hear otherwise by April 10.

I offer two main reasons.

1) It is of a different sort from all the other (proper) sieges on this page.

2) The facts even as disputed on this page do not fit Wikipedia's definition of "siege" ("a military blockade of a city or fortress"). If every law-enforcement standoff qualifies as a "siege," then there will be thousands of entries on this page -- they happen literally every day all over the United States. Jcfreed 09:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's definition does not matter here. What matters is common usage of the phrase by the news media who refer to it as the Waco Siege. (Likewise, some "massacres" are technically not massacres, either, but common media usage takes precedence.) Yaf (talk) 12:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Yaf here. When culturally referenced as a "siege", this event should be considered as such, even though the Wiki definition varies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewindmaster (talk • contribs) 16:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


Delta Force Presence

No mention of the FACT that the US Military had members of the Combat Applications Group present at Waco? There is verifiable evidence of this FACT and bureaucrats have at various times admitted and denied this. Needs to be included. Ikilled007 05:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Will NOT be included, due to "political correctness". 65.173.105.79 01:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
BS. please add info can be sourced. This is important. Chendy 09:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
If by "Delta Force" you mean "Special Forces Rapid Support Unit", then I have added it using this source Activities of Federal Law Enforcement Agencies Toward the Branch Davidians--Enric Naval (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Weasel

I don't know enough about this topic to comment on whether it is factually accurate, but I do know that it is filled with POV against the ATF/FBI, particularly through the use of weasel words. The extent of the bias makes it irritating to read. The entire article needs a rewrite. Ultiam 03:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this article is full of weasel words directed against the ATF/FBI but I also don't know enough about this issue. --Dcsmith 14:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The weasel words are directed against the branch davidians as well. For example, in the the minute by minute transcripts, wherever a davidian says something about gasoline or starting a fire, there is no cite as to where this came from, while there are citations for everything else. 139.182.146.55 21:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact, there is NOT ONE source provided for the entire "Investigation" section of the article. This section of the article in particular makes it's points based entirely on opinion, assumption, and unsourced "facts". 71.196.201.195 02:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


Spamming this page - protection

In section 7.1 "Aftermath - Trial", someone has typed (and I quote) "BARNEY KILLED UR MOM IN WACO HE THROUGH FIREY SHIT AT UR DOG". Owing to the sensitivity of the subject matter, the ongoing issue with regards to NPOV and weasel words, and the potential for spam and vandalism, this page should be semi- or even fully-protected as soon as the spam has been removed. Opinions?86.143.162.224 16:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: I have now removed the offending phrase, but please offer your opinions on write-protecting this page86.143.162.224 16:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: In the 'The Raid' section, the ATF is described as having a "search and fuck warrant." This further substantiates the above point.

Part of the reasons because Wikipedia is so famous and has grown so much is that it is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. To follow with this, pages are only protected on the few cases when there is so much vandalism or edit wars that editors can't keep up with the necessary reversions. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


Rewrite

I've made some additions here, but this article is still of poor quality, and is now overlong. Rather than presenting an evenhanded treatment of the controversy, it reads, as others have noted, like a point/counterpoint of various POVs, some of which are extreme, unsubstantiated, and/or of questionable relevance. To my mind, the main issues that make the events at Waco important and interesting more than a decade after they occurred are lost in the bickering. Did ATF display a serious lack of judgment in serving its warrant when its plan was so well known that reporters arrived on the scene before the agents did? In view of the perhaps unsurprising outcome, should FBI have accumulated 2 tanks, 10 Bradley fighting vehicles, humvees, nightstalker aircraft, helicopters, and the assistance of the army, air force, and two state national guards--even if so doing was technically within the bounds of the law? I can't say that these questions are evident from what we have here.

I would agree with Ultiam that this article needs a total rewrite. A rewrite, though, will involve the deletion of substantial portions of what is already here. Before that process begins, let's hear from some of the other contributors.

Puzurinsusinak 17:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Puzurinsusinak

all controversies addressed should be included. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'll agree that there's a lot of "battleing POV's" as it were, but that's the nature of the beast here. You have on one side, dozens of federal agents who might be subject to criminal charges if the other side is right. On the "other side," the branch Davidians, you have most of the major actors dead (justifiably or at their own hand, according to the ATF/FBI). Thus, the situation itself lends itself away from being able to objectively verify what actually happened. Most of what we know is pieced together from various conflicting sources (some of which are self-contradictory) and spotty news coverage. Added to this the fact that the actual site was demolished several weeks after the siege ended, along with lots of missing evidence (i.e. part of the front door dissapeared, quite a difficult thing to lose as it was, well, a large solid steel door). I say let the controversy stand, take out anything you know is blatantly wrong or tone down inflamatory statements (i.e. there were no "reinforced bunkers," and the ATF did not have a "military assault force"), and let people be intelligent humans and figure out who they believe. After all, that's what this comes down to: who do you believe, and why? Ehwhatsthatyousay 02:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

References

Reference #9 on the page is listed as: 

^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t {{{author}}}, A fire that won't die, [[{{{publisher}}}]],
Sept. 20, 1999..

I don't know what this might be referring to, but a lot of the facts on the page rely on it. --Richrobison 16:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. The cite template had its parameters wrong. --Dead3y3 Talk page 09:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


Infobox Military Conflict?

Is this infobox appropriate for this article? I know they were criticized for using military tactics and weaponry but the FBI & ATF are law enforcement organizations who had legal warrants, this wasn't a military operation. --D. Monack | talk 19:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely, that format seems entirely inappropriate. 130.246.132.26 09:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
First of all, this issue is not about "using military tactics and weaponry" to serve a search warrant. That is a seperate issue and would properly be adressed on Fouth and Fifth Amendment grounds. The heart of this issue as it applies to the Military infobox and this article was the fact that federal and state Department of Defense ASSETS and PERSONEL were involved in the organization, planning, and execution of the entire bloody operation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.13.109 (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The use of DOD assets seems irrelevant. To illustrate, the shootdown of KAL Flight 007, for example, used Soviet state Ministry of Defence assets and personnel, but no conflict infobox is present on that article, or for Iran Air Flight 655, which used US DOD assets and personnel in its "organization, planning, and execution." Likewise, no conflict infobox is present there. If we want to get technical, DOD assets are used every time the police use GPS to track down suspects. Clearly different or at least additional factors are needed to warrant the use of the infobox. As it stands, the inclusion of women and children as combatants in the infobox seems particularly cynical and non-neutral- how can they be considered "Strength" of "Combatants"?

  • Col Thomas Lujan, JAG, covered many of the military issues over Waco in the War College

publication Parameters in Autumn 1997. Basically, ATF lied about Koresh operating a meth lab in order to get military assets--including training by Special Forces and national guard helicopters--for the raid. (If they lied about that, what does that say for their credibility on other subjects?) The War on Drugs allows an exemption to the Posse Commitatus Act prohibition on the use of the military in civilian law enforcement (as does, apparently, the War on Terror). Abuse of this system in not good.Naaman Brown 21:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

NEED CONFLICT INCIDENT BOX I like the box idea, but not much of the lingo. (FYI "Waco Battle" is not a phrase I've heard before, and I wrote a book on the topic I think it's Original research). It's possible to create a new box - See WP:Infobox for details of how and Wiki process. It could be called something like "Conflict Incident" which would work for a lot of situations of conflict between groups (Valentine Day Massacre, Haymarket Riot) and between groups and governments (Waco Siege, Chicago Democratic Convention 1968). Here's the categories, to be set up in a similar box to current one. What do you think? If someone knows how to / wants to create box, go for it. Otherwise I'll give it a try next week...

  • Infobox Conflict incident
  • Title:
  • Image
  • Caption
  • Incident
  • place
  • date(s)
  • participants
  • leaders
  • description
  • Casualties
  • ramifications (possibile addition)

Carol Moore 01:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

I am going to remove the infobox if no one provides a sound objection soon. The incident was not a military conflict, and the treatment of it as such by the infobox is misleading and smacks of bias. I personally find it vulgar that this or any historical conflict is treated as a competition, complete with baseball card style stats.67.168.27.245 (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)PBentley

There is a proposal below to create a new infobox that doesn't have those problems, on the "New Photo for Info Box/Changing Box" section. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)



South Park

South Park did an entire episode spoof on this. Add it.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

So did Stargate. Season 2, episode 3 "Seth" was completely inspired by this; fanatic cult holed up inside a fortress, protected by heavy and illegal weapons, threatening the mass suicide of his followers who included several children. They even included an ATF unit with crappy concealment skills. 147.9.177.90 (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

final assault section

i just have one comment to make about the 'final assault' section. it has a sentence that says some of the people went into the underground bunker. i don't believe that is accurate. i don't have my books anymore about the branch davidians (students of the seven seal). i do know that from private conversations with clive doyle he has stated that no one was able to get to the underground bunkers because the tanks had crushed the walls and there was too much debris for them to access the bunkers to escape the fire. that is why they found several bodies near the door. they could not get into the bunker. vlwarren nov.20,2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.252.14.141 (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the inaccurate info above with accurate, sourced info and made a variety of minor changes in the article up to the controversies section, then ran out of time. There is a lot of unsourced stuff and questionable stuff in that section, not to mention whole article, and I put Citation Needed in a few place. And then there is all the missing information relevant to various points made. and points left out. (Like Davidians being released 25 years early, which I put in.) If you want a lot of info with footnotes to clean up article, check out my thoroughly researched book (online for last few years): The Davidian Massacre. I just don't have time to make the changes that need to be made - esp. when people come back and take out important sourced information later when you aren't looking :-(
Carol Moore 02:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Chronology April 19 Section

In the chronology section, every quotation of the surveillance tapes that has Davidians talking about or alledgedly referring to them spreading incindiaries, needs specification or source. What's the point in stating these unconfirmed quotations if there is no ground for them? It creates bias in the section, leading readers to the conclusion that the Davidians burnt up their own homes or contributed to it. There is no solid ground for that conclusion. 91.177.233.39 (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

First hope you don't mind me moving this into proper order and creating a section. Second, yes this could be sourced a bit better. While I have not checked these point by point against original transcripts, there are FBI interpretations of the FBI surveillance tapes that sound pretty much like what is in chronology. Other items could be countered by more accurate info. There is also some quasi-incriminating evidence from a Davidian survivor about what he thought he might have heard indicating a few Davidians had a plan to start a fire to drive off the FBI, but it wasn't a suicide pact, and IF it happened, it didn't happen til after the tank started the first fire. I have a lot of accurate info in my book The Davidian Massacre and in lots of files saved on my computer after the book was published in 1995, but no time to correct all this.
Carol Moore 19:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Fair use rationale for Image:Waco2.jpg

Image:Waco2.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 Wikipedia: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) 05:39, 30 November 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 Wikipedia: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)

lol

'"His conversations, dense with biblical imagery, alienated the federal negotiators who treated the situation as a hostage crisis."

The mental image of 25 FBI hostage negotiators describing their feelings of alienation is hilarious.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.228.168 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 24 December 2007

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Waco_siege/Archive_2&oldid=1137305514"