Jump to content

Talk:Waco siege/Archive 5

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

Recent content dispute

The role of the Cult Awareness Network and others (plus related topics) in framing law enforcement, media, and public attitudes both before, during and after the incident are certainly germane to this article and merit inclusion. For a quick overview: [1] "key interest groups...had a marked influence on the recognition, selection, and definition of the problem eventually adopted by federal authorities." (Armageddon in Waco: Critical Perspectives on the Branch Davidian Conflict, University of Chicago Press, 1995, pp. 88-90) User:Zambelo has provided several academic journal citations like this, such as Nova Religio, James Tabor, George Michael, George Chryssides, Nancy Ammerman, Catherine Wessinger and others, which examine this and related issues. There is definitely a critical school of thought in academia on these points.

Commenters here appear to have looked at his editing history and concluded that he's POV-pushing or trying to introduce something of undue weight. Understanding that, I would encourage them to evaluate the new material on its merits, not based on the editor. Reversion with edit summaries such as "no", claiming (without basis) "consensus", all-caps foot stamping, etc. aren't helpful; neither are talk page comments about "stupid crap". Note that the editor in question has shown a willingness to cut down the material, in response to the suggestion of undue weight or content forking. Woodshed (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

  • My advice is to not waltz in here and tell the "commenters" what they based their position on. Yes, you threw the obligatory "appear" in to give yourself some deniability, but it doesn't really change how it reads to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Can we focus on content, not meta-commentary on talk page conduct and/or how comments "read"? On the point, both the previous comments on this page and edit summaries have asked "what's your beef with that dude" and asserted that an edit was "stupid unrelated random crap to attack some dude". Another suggested that "it looks like you have a point to make and are trying to make it over several articles.", while another said "It unbalances the article." So, no, I don't think I mischaracterized the response and yes, it does seem like the user's edit history and concerns about undue weight had something to do with the reaction he received. Woodshed (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Funny how you take comments from 3 different people, smash them together and create a motive for all of us. And why on earth would you litter a response with wikilinks to things that don't even make sense to link? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I told the user to write 1 sentece somewhere in the relevant part of this generally highly condensed article, the user refused and returned to random flooding with several paragraphs (so "cut down") of mostly completely unrelated (to the context of the section) text just to attack this Ross person. --Niemti (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment: Inclusion of relevant anti-cult movement material

Attempts have been made to add content to the article relating to the role of anti-cultists in the media leading up to the siege. Prominent Scholars and writers on the subject have agreed that the Cult Awareness network as well as affiliated notable anti-cultists such as Rick Ross and others played a crucial and deciding role in authorities' decision to raid the compound.

The material is referenced, attributed and is within the scope of the article.

my original content was criticised as being too long and focused on an individual - Rick Ross, so I changed the content to include information about other anti-cultists and prominent CAN spokespeople (CAN was the largest anti-cult group at the time) - Rick Ross and others from the organization were featured prominently in the media preceding and after the raid.

My content was removed by User:Niemti "hugevcontent fork". and again. "no." and once more. "if you want to randomly copy-paste over 5 kb of unedited (even link to this article remains) content from someone's biography article, making him much more discussed here than everyone else including Koresh, don't."

At this stage I decided to take it to the discussion page, where User:Niemti explained why they had removed the content: "Unrevelantly random (a whole lot of stupid crap about what some guy allegedly did or said during the siege but placed into the section discussing the events that led to the ADF raid), undue weight, distracting, unedited copypasta"

Another user User:Enric Naval was more helpful, noting: "It gives lots and lots of attention to Rick Ross. It unbalances the article. It also places a lot of blame exclusively on Rick Ross, what about the other advisors and experts?"
User:Niteshift36 wrote "You haven't demonstrated the relevance".

I took these two helpful evaluations, and added new material, removed the undue weight placed on Rick Ross, and added attributed references to demonstrate relevance, including references and quotes by authors writing about how anti-cultists and CAN played an important "crucial" role in the events that unfolded. This is using references by cardinal writers on the topics of cults and religion as well as on the siege itself, and includes a report to the department of Justice. Still, the material was removed. 

   1. The material is factual (everything is referenced using reliable high quality sources)
   2. It is within the scope of the article and the section - relevant, describes events leading up to the raid
   3. It is written in a neutral fashion.

No effort was made by other editors to make changes to the material; it was simply removed from the page without any real reason given. When another editor Woodshed commented above, he was aggressively and personally attacked.

I had requested a request for mediation -but the editors in question refused to participate. Since there appears to be no way forward I am requesting outside input so consensus can be formed. Zambelo; talk 00:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

  • "Aggressively and personally attacked"? Are you familiar with the word "exaggeration"?

Hahaha, yeah.


In the weeks preceding the raid (NOT THIS RAID), self-described cult expert Rick Ross, a Cult Awareness Network affiliated deprogrammer appeared on major network programs such as the NBC[1] and the CBS which had hired Ross as an on-scene analyst for their coverage of the Waco siege.[2] Ross described his role in advertising authorities about the Davidians and Koresh, and what actions should be take to end the siege[3]. He was quoted as saying that he was consulted by the BATF[4] and he contacted the FBI on the March 4, 1993, requesting "that he be interviewed regarding his knowledge of cults in general and the Branch Davidians in particular". The FBI reports that it did not rely on Ross for advice whatsoever during the standoff, but that it did interview and received input from him. Ross also telephoned the FBI on March 27 and March 28, offering advice about negotiation strategies, suggesting that the FBI "attempt to embarrass Koresh by informing other members of the compound about Koresh's faults and failures in life, in order to convince them that Koresh was not the prophet they had been led to believe".[3] The ATF also contacted Ross in January 1993 for information about Koresh[3].

Patricia Ryan, president of the Cult Awareness Network, was quoted by the Houston Chronicle as saying, "Officials should use whatever means necessary to arrest Koresh, including lethal force."L. Keeton and J. Pinkerton (April 8, 1993). "Infiltrating Cult Will End Standoff, Expert Suggests". The Houston Chronicle. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Several writers have documented the pivotal role the Cult Awareness Network had upon the government's decision making concerning Waco[1]

Mark MacWilliams notes that several studies have shown how "self-styled cult experts like Rick Ross, anticult organizations like the Cult Awareness Network (CAN), and disaffected Branch Davidian defectors like Mark Breault played important roles in popularizing a harshly negative image of Koresh as a dangerous cult leader. Portrayed as “self-obsessed, egomaniacal, sociopathic and heartless,” Koresh was frequently characterized as either a religious lunatic who doomed his followers to mass suicide or a con man who manipulated religion for his own bizarre personal advantage". [5]

According to religious scholars Phillip Arnold and James Tabor who made an effort to help resolve the conflict, “the crisis need not have ended tragically if only the FBI had been more open to Religious Studies and better able to distinguish between the dubious ideas of Ross and the scholarly expertise” [6]


How can I see how these 5 paragraphs in the section that previously had only 3 (1 briefly discussing cult abuse allegations and 2 discusing in more detail the suspected firearms violations that actually led to the raid) are so "relevant, describes events leading up to the raid" of February 28 that had no FBI involvement, and no CBS and NBC coverage for that matter? I don't know, but I know it was my lost comment on this sillyness. --Niemti (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


The siege was initiated by the FBI on the 28th of February and retained control until April 20. Ross approached the BATF FBI before the raid. NBC and CBS (and others) covered the standoff as well as the raid itself. Comments by Patricia Ryan occurred after the raid. I'm still not sure what your issue is. Zambelo; talk 04:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry to tell you, but your science fiction concept of "BATF FBI" doesn't even exist in our space-time continuum, and never did other than in the year 1933 (it was called BP then), because it's a completely separate federal agency and they have nothing to do with each other. In our reality, there was no prior "standoff" and the raid was also covered only by a local TV and by Tribune-Herald, because it was supposed to be a surprise raid (and wasn't a surprise anyway, also because of Waco TV reporter, which is all briefly mentioned in the article if you ever bothered to read it). Please go and take these completely random and incredibly distracting pieces of misinformed trivia elsewhere (and by elsewhere I mean not on Wikipedia). And now I'm really done discussing with you. There are many (more than 200) other people with this page on their watchlists, nobody supports you. --Niemti (talk) 09:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you even read any of the references? "In 1992, his reputation was sealed when the FBI sought his advice on David Koresh and the Waco (or Branch) Davidians. A year later, as the Waco siege raged, CBS hired him as on-scene analyst" - The Observer, Sunday 12 December 2004

The ATF gave control to the FBI when they failed to raid the compound. The standoff before that lasted 51 days (read the article?). During this time Koresh was actively giving interviews. Rick Ross moved onto the scene before the raid, and approached both the ATF and the FBI and described himself as a "cult expert" (Wright) he advised the agencies on "what actions should be taken to end the siege" (Wright).

Despite the sheer number of sources linking CAN to the raid, you still maintain that it's "completely random and incredibly distracting pieces of misinformed trivia"?

  • A whole section of a book is dedicated to the role of CAN during the raid, "The Cult Awareness Network: Its Role in the Waco Tragedy." In From the Ashes: Making Sense of Waco, edited by James R. Lewis, pp. 137-42. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Moore, R. I. 1987

Here is an incomplete list of references mentioning CAN in association with the siege. 

   * Johnstone, Nick (December 12, 2004). "Beyond Belief". The Observer (London). Retrieved October 24, 2008.
   * Wright, S.A. 1995. Armageddon in Waco: Critical Perspectives on the Branch Davidian Conflict: University of Chicago Press.
   * Report to the Deputy Attorney General on the Events at Waco, Texas February 28 to April 19, 1993 (Report). United States Department of Justice. October 8, 1993. Retrieved 1 February 2014.
   * MacWilliams, Mark (2005). "Symbolic Resistance to the Waco Tragedy on the Internet". Nova Religio (University of California Press) 8 (3): 59–82.
   * Report to the Justice and Treasury Departments, Nancy Ammerman, September 3, 1993, with an Addendum dated September 10, 1993
   * Waco, Federal Law Enforcement, and Scholars of Religion, Nancy Ammerman, 1993
   * Tabor, James D.; Gallagher, Eugene V. (1997). Why Waco?. University of California Press. pp. 93–96, 138–139, 233. ISBN 0-520-20899-4.
   * Newport, Kenneth G. C.; Gribben, Crawford (eds.) (2006). Expecting the End. Baylor University Press. pp. 154–171. ISBN 1-932792-38-4.
   * Wessinger, Catherine Lowman (2000). How the Millennium Comes Violently. New York, NY/London, UK: Seven Bridges Press. pp. 1, 60, 69, 98. ISBN 1-889119-24-5.
   * Michael, George (2003). Confronting Right-wing Extremism and Terrorism. New York, NY/London, UK: Routledge. p. 148. ISBN 0-415-31500-X.
   * Wright, S.A. 1995. Armageddon in Waco: Critical Perspectives on the Branch Davidian Conflict: University of Chicago Press.
   * Ortega, Tony (November 30, 1995). "Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlatans. Clients of deprogrammer Rick Ross call him a savior. Perhaps that's why people he's branded cult leaders want to crucify him.". Phoenix New Times. Retrieved April 27, 2006.
   * US Department of Justice, Report to the Deputy Attorney General on the Events at Waco, Texas: Part IV, The Role of Experts During the Standoff, 28 February to 19 April 1993. Available online
   * Baum, Michele Dula, "Dangerous cults focus on leader, Deprogrammer Says", The Chattanooga Times, April 30, 1994
   * Wright, Stuart A. (ed.) (1995). Armageddon in Waco. University of Chicago Press. pp. 98–100, pp. 286–290. ISBN 0-226-90845-3.
   * Chryssides, George D. (1999). Exploring New Religions. Continuum International Publishing Group. pp. 55–56. ISBN 0-8264-5959-5.
   * "Letters to the Editor - What Happened at Waco". The Washington Post. July 23, 1995. Retrieved November 4, 2008.

...And yet you are still obstinately removing the content without even discussing it, or offering any sort of alternative. You have also refused mediation. The ball is in your court. Either find some references that refute all of this, or stop offering your original research and opinions and deleting valid referenced material. And perhaps the other 200 people don't want to become entangled in your overtly hostile editing style: the last editor who tried to offer his input above was instantly jumped upon by you and Niteshift36. It seems that you are trying to lay claim on the content of this article and are refusing to allow any new material. I have attempted time and again to discuss the material, but instead of discussing it you have dismissed my edits as "crap" "copypasta"," completely random" and "incredibly distracting pieces of misinformed trivia" without ever offering an alternative or any real reason for removing the content. Zambelo; talk 11:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

  • You seem confused. Just because something "mentions" (your word BTW) CAN doesn't mean it demonstrates the notability of it. Second, you hurt yourself when you try to dump mass amounts of material into a response. This is especially true when you don't really use care and just throw in everything you can find, rather than 3-4 solid, on point references that actually demonstrate the notability. Third, your ultimatum probably won't accomplish much either. Fourth, you act like you're a victim and have been nothing but sweetness and light. Fact is, you've been pretty tendentious about your editing and adversarial in your own right. Try being organized and succinct. Perhaps discussing one thing at a time, rather than trying to do everything at once. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The references are those found in the material, and posted in reply because Niemti still can't fathom the possibility that the Cult Awareness Network played a role in the siege. The references as used with the material are on-point and adequately demonstrate notability. You have yet to explain why this isn't so : the onus is now on you to explain why the material isn't valid, which is something both you and Niemti are skirting around, preferring to unconstructively disparage the content and steadfastly refuse to examine the material on its merits. If you have issues with the content, then discuss it, don't call it names and delete it. You should have a look at Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles, Wikipedia:Civility, and also Wikipedia:Don't_revert_due_to_"no_consensus" Zambelo; talk 14:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I haven't called you names, but if you want to start making allegations like that, I can accommodate you sunshine. I didn't ask where the references were found. So thanks for wasting my time with some more useless information. Nor did I ask what Niemti could or couldn't fathom. Again, more wasting of my time. Don't link a bunch of essays and guidelines, especially when you're on the wrong side of them. I gave you a reasonable answer. You ignored it and chose instead to waste my time with useless crap (there, I said crap too, so you can bitch about me using the word too) and telling me my responsibility. Guess what sport? You're wrong. You are responsible for demonstrating why it belongs. Just vomiting a bunch of sources onto a page and claiming that demonstrate it doesn't cut it. Trying to mold a bunch of mentions into notability doesn't really fly either. You ignored the suggestions I gave you and just went for the fight. Fine by me. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

How about a little civility? Ross does matter mention. However this is not a Rick Ross bio page. Take that into account. Narrow his inclsuion in this article. He worked with them. He's CAN and a deprogrammer. Whom ever criticized the FEDs due to involvement. He's living arrangement isn't important. He's CBS job isn't important. You got enough information for a nice little paragraph. http://web.archive.org/web/20090324033754/http:/www.rickross.com/reference/waco/waco9.html that doesn't seem to be a reliable source. It's unclear who Mark England and Darlene McCormick are. Are they the reporters? Or are they the ones that edited the original article and posted it on rickross.com? Also rickross.com, there's a question of reliability here.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The references to Ross appeareances in the CBS don't belong in the "Prelude" section, and they occupy a lot of space. They should be summarized a lot. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

What would you suggest? Zambelo; talk 10:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you close the RfC, which is not formatted as an RfC and thus will not come to any conclusion, then decide on a proper dispute resolution mechanism. If you decide that you need an RfC, make a new section with a short, neutral notice at the top, a "survey" and/or "discussion" section, then post some neutral notices about the RfC in the appropriate places, such as the talk pages of the relevant WikiProjects. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 18:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree. This RfC is a bit of a trainwreck. It would be best to withdraw it and start over again while following the guidelines in WP:DISPUTE. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I see that the strongest source in "From The Ashes: Making Sense Of Waco", by James R. Lewis. Unfortunately, this author seems to publish material that is overly sympathetic towards the position of cults. McWilliams explains how cults complain in the internet about the mainstream opinion, but it's used for a different purpose in this text.

Please don't count me among the supporters of this addition. I made some fixes, but please don't take that as a reason to revert the text back [2]. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Zulaika, J. and W.A. Douglass. 1996. Terror and Taboo: The Follies, Fables, and Faces of Terrorism: Routledge.
  2. ^ Johnstone, Nick (December 12, 2004). "Beyond Belief". The Observer. London. Retrieved October 24, 2008.
  3. ^ a b c Wright, S.A. 1995. Armageddon in Waco: Critical Perspectives on the Branch Davidian Conflict: University of Chicago Press.
  4. ^ Report to the Deputy Attorney General on the Events at Waco, Texas February 28 to April 19, 1993 (Report). United States Department of Justice. October 8, 1993. Retrieved 1 February 2014. {{cite report}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  5. ^ MacWilliams, Mark (2005). "Symbolic Resistance to the Waco Tragedy on the Internet". Nova Religio. 8 (3). University of California Press: 59–82. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  6. ^ Weitzman, Steven P. 2013. "Religious Studies and the FBI: Adventures in Academic Interventionism." Journal of the American Academy of Religion 81 (4): 959-995.

"civil conflict" infobox

This article uses an infobox that is clearly intended for events like civil wars, revolutions and popular uprisings. This was none of the above. It was a federal criminal raid and should be presented as such. The ill-suitedness of that template to this article is not hard to see:

Causes Belief that federal firearms laws had been violated.[1]

Goals ATF attempted to serve search and arrest warrants; FBI attempted to end ensuing siege.

This is just plain silly. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Branch Davidians were stockpiling paramilitary weapons and supplies; shouldn't this be in the lead?

Having watched the events unfold on TV, I was curious to see how little emphasis this article places on the arms stockpiling by this group. You have to get nearly to the end of the article before discovering that these folks were geared up to kill just about anything short of armored cavalry. On inspection, there appear to be many sourcing and POV issues here. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

They were a cult scared of a final battle versus evil. Of course they were well armed. Also they did not have "para military" weapons they had AR15's and a few .50's most of which were legal. --Youngdrake (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

AR15s and .50 weapons of any variety are paramilitary weapons, even when sold legally in the civilian sector. It's not a comment on their legality; it's on their origin. Both derive directly from military arms, not civilian arms (Ar15 being the civilian version of the M16, etc.).12.11.127.253 (talk) 10:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

By that logic most gun owners have "paramilitary weapons" A brownbess musket would be a "paramilitary weapon" by that account. Paramilitary implys it has the same capabilities as the military weapon which the AR-15 does not have. Such as fully automatic or burst firing. The brown bess would fit your description better. --Youngdrake (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomenclature

My decades of life experience and extensive non-fiction reading causes me to prefer the term "Waco Massacre" vice other labels.Obbop (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I'm not sure it would be appropriate to refer to it as such in the article without a good number of sources to cite as using the term. ~ JoshDuffMan (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
What has the number of sources to do with it. Either the term is merited or not. --41.151.5.2 (talk) 12:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Number of sources is a valid criteria to consider. If we find a single source that calls is the "Waco Birthday Party", would you accept that as a basis to change how we're referring to it in the article? Regardless, in this case, number probably isn't the best criteria, NPOV is. Siege is more neutral than massacre. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia or rather its editors do not have any problem calling the events in Sharpeville a massacre, although in that case the police clearly acted in self-defense. --197.229.93.6 (talk) 11:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
And the nomenclature as in "Waco massacre" shouldn't we discuss this here?--41.146.46.232 (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Waco siege. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Prelude section implies that "Sinful Messiah" came out one day and the feds moved in the next

Starting the Prelude by focusing on the February 27th publication of Sinful Messiah suggests that this event (the publication) led to the action by the feds - which started the next day. The intro to the prelude section should be about the events that led to the siege, many of which are described in the article. However it wasn't that article that alerted the feds to the activity of David Koresh and company. Ileanadu (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

3 video taps from ATF

There were 3 video taps from ATF from the 28. February. Later, they could not be found. --82.192.229.198 (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Waco siege. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

My recent edits

Both authors of this Zulaika source that had been cited in the article are professors of Basque studies and not reliable for analysis on Waco, especially involving a BLP, so I removed it as a source and updated the wording to reflect the other reliable sources on the topic. I also removed much of the content cited to the Wright source as it's a primary source opinion written by authors with a COI and the material covers a BLP. —PermStrump(talk) 08:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I also just rm this paragraph:
Extended content

Mark MacWilliams notes that several studies have shown how "self-styled cult experts like Ross, anticult organizations like the Cult Awareness Network (CAN), and disaffected Branch Davidian defectors like Breault played important roles in popularizing a harshly negative image of Koresh as a dangerous cult leader. Portrayed as 'self-obsessed, egomaniacal, sociopathic and heartless', Koresh was frequently characterized as either a religious lunatic who doomed his followers to mass suicide or a con man who manipulated religion for his own bizarre personal advantage".[1] According to religious scholars Phillip Arnold and James Tabor who made an effort to help resolve the conflict, “the crisis need not have ended tragically if only the FBI had been more open to Religious Studies and better able to distinguish between the dubious ideas of Ross and the scholarly expertise.”[2] In a New Yorker article in March, 2014, writer Malcolm Gladwell wrote that Arnold and Tabor told the FBI that Koresh needed to be persuaded of an alternative interpretation of the Book of Revealation, one that does not necessarily involve a violent end. They made an audiotape which was played for Koresh, and seemed to convince him. However, the FBI waited only three days before beginning the assault, instead of an estimated two weeks for Koresh to complete a manuscript sparked by this alternate interpretation, and then come out peacefully.[3]}}

References

  1. ^ MacWilliams, Mark (2005). "Symbolic Resistance to the Waco Tragedy on the Internet". Nova Religio. 8 (3). University of California Press: 59–82. doi:10.1525/nr.2005.8.3.59. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  2. ^ Weitzman, Steven P. (2013), "Religious Studies and the FBI: Adventures in Academic Interventionism", Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 81 (4): 959-995
  3. ^ Gladwell, Malcolm (March 31, 2014). "Sacred and Profane". The New Yorker. New York. Retrieved March 29, 2014.
The MacWilliams quote implies that the view of Koresh "popularized" by Ross and Breault was responsible for the violent outcome, which is speculation. The rest of the paragraph (a) doesn't have to do with anti-cult activists and (b) is also speculative and (c) makes this whole section feel like a soapbox. —PermStrump(talk) 09:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Outright discrediting and completely eliminating sources in this manner seems highly inappropriate.
I'm afraid that NOTNEWS most definitely applies here. I'd hope even better sources are available than the ones you want to remove completely, but news sources really don't cut it so long after the event, unless we can find some in-depth investigative journalism, which given the time might be available as well.
As for the specifics, what source justifies placing it under "Controversies"? --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Waco siege. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Waco siege. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

No mention of the Cult Awareness Network et al.?

There is a link between the siege, CAN-affiliated deprogrammers and the media. For instance, CAN president Patricia Ryan told reporters that "officials should use whatever means necessary to arrest Koresh, including lethal force", 11 days before the siege. Rick Ross, a CAN-affiliated deprogrammer and "cult expert" told reporters that he believes Koresh is Prone to violence, and that "you could say it's a very violent group".

I don't think CAN's involvement in the siege is negligeable, and they should feature in the Article...

Zambelo (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Involvement from the standpoint that they were a major influence in the definition of what constituted a cult at the time. Also in the 1996 joint hearing before the United States Congress on the Waco Siege entitled: Activities of Federal Law Enforcement Agencies Toward the Branch Davidians a report was presented titled "is the Cult Awareness Network and What Role Did it Play in Waco?". It's relevant because of the importance that was accorded to the group at the time, by both the media and the government in relation to cults generally and the Branch Davidians in particular. Zambelo (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The FBI also received input from two self-described cult experts, Rick Ross (who moved to a hotel in Dallas, and later to Waco, during the standoff and appeared on local television programs, as well as the CNN broadcast of March 10 that upset Dr. Dietz) and Kelli Waxman.
"Dietz next contacted the FBI commanders on Wednesday, March 10, 1993, to advise that he had seen a television interview with self-described "cult expert" Rick Ross. Ross stated during the interview that he hoped Koresh would prove to be a coward who would prefer to write a book and sell the movie rights from prison rather than end up as a corpse. Dietz thought Ross' televised equation of surrender with cowardice could set back negotiations substantially if Koresh had seen the broadcast." [3]

These are events leading up to the siege. Zambelo (talk) 02:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The link you provided doesn't work. I'm sure they solicited input from many sources. I'm still not seeing why it belongs here. From looking at your contribution history, I'd say it looks like you have a point to make and are trying to make it over several articles. If you do have a point, or agenda, I'd caution you against it. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed the link. You would also notice that all my edits are using referenced material, and are nondestructive. I don't have an agenda beyond fixing up cult-related articles ensuring that they are factual, and complete. I am not trying to make a point. Zambelo (talk) 04:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

  • It still doesn't work, but I looked at the site and I highly doubt Spiritually Smart will pass RS. That out dated website appears to have an agenda as well. You may or may not. It does appear to be the case, but I could be wrong. In any case, I see no reason for this info to be added. I'll wait to hear what others have to say. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

http://www.spirituallysmart.com/CAN.html is the link - It's just a mirror for the report which was submitted to the hearing. The second source is the US department of justice. Zambelo (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Rick Alan Ross played no small part on the influence he had over the ATF. As far as I am concerned he planted the seeds to use lethal force. A man that has no religious training, no higher learning beyond high school. In fact he was even lucky to finish with a diploma. His whole background brings into question of his credibility. This is a man that played right into the fears of the time. I think people forget there was this hysteria over satanic cults and killings that were hyped up by these self credited so called "Experts" . Dale W. Griffis should raise some eyebrows for a look into the early 90's. Arrrgonot (talk) 06:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of  †

 † (Template:KIA) is shown against each of the three Branch Davidians included in the infobox. They were added by 75.69.242.101 on 13 February 2014. Each use of the template in this context appears to constitute vandalism; I've removed them as reversion of the changes was not possible; see also User_talk:75.69.242.101 Twistlethrop (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Last paragraph of "prelude" section; firearms conversion allegations in search warrant

As-is, this section is heavily slanted to imply that the ATF's belief that the Dravidians were illegally converting firearms into full-automatic was purely speculative; that it was based only on the Dravidians' purchase of legal firearms and firearms parts:

None of the weapons and firearms were illegally obtained nor illegally owned by the Mag Bag; however, Aguilera affirmed to the judge that in his training and experience, in the past other purchasers of such legal gun parts had modified them to make illegal firearms. The search warrant was justified not on the basis of there being proof that the Davidians had purchased anything illegal, but on the basis that they could be modifying legal arms to illegal arms

...

The paperwork on the AR-15 components cited in the affidavit showed that they were in fact legal semi-automatics, however, Aguilera told the judge, "[sometimes people convert legal semi-automatics to fullauto]."

This is incredibly misleading because the affidavit in fact cites extensive, detailed evidence regarding conversions, but the section's author has ignored all of this, and merely juxtaposed the weakest, most circumstantial supporting parts of the affidavit, to heavily imply that there was nothing more. Here's some of the more specific evidence that was cited:

In June 1992, while she was cleaning one of the bedrooms of the residence she found a plactic bag containing gun parts. She showed them to her brother, David Bunds, who has some knowledge of firearms. He told her that it was a machinegun conversion kit

...

Mrs. Bunds described the weapon to me and was able identify an AK-47 from among a number of photographs of firearms shown to her by me. I believe that she is well able to identify an AK-47. In July of 1991, she saw Howell shooting a machinegun on the back portion of the commune property. She knew it was a machinegun because it functioned with a very rapid fire

...

she observed Howell shooting a machinegun behind the main structure of the compound. She is sure the firearm was a machinegun because of the rapid rate of fire and the rate of fire was much different from that which was usually conducted during practice exercises on the compound. After describing the firing of this weapon to me, I believe that Ms. Bunds was describing the firing of an automatic weapon.

...

On one occasion, Howell told him that he wanted to obtain and/or manufacture machineguns, grenades and explosive devices. Howell stated he thought that the gun control laws were ludicrious, because an individual could easily acquire a firearm and the necessary parts to convert it to a machinegun

...

On one occasion at the Mount Carmel Center, he observed Bunds designing, what Bunds described as a "grease gun/sten gun" on an Auto Cad Computer located at the residence building at the compound. The computer has the capability of displaying a three dimensional rendering of objects on a computer monitor screen. The object appeared to be a cylindrical tube with a slot out into the side of it for a bolt cocking lever. Bunds told him that Howell wanted Bunds to design a "grease gun" which they could manufacture. Mr. Block told me that on another occasion at the Mount Carmel Center he saw Donald Bund designing a template which Bunds explained was to fit around the "grease gun" tubes indicating where the bolt lever slots were to be milled out. This was another step in manufacturing "grease guns" which had been requested by Howell. I know that a "grease gun" is a machinegun following after the design of a World War II era military weapon.

...

During his time at the Mount Carmel Center Mr. Block was present several occasions when Howell would sk if anyone had any knowledge about making hand grenades or converting semi-automatic rifles to machineguns. At one point he also heard discussion about a shipment of inert hand grenades and Howell's intent to reactiviate them.

The section needs to be fixed, and the faux-detailed information "explaining" the ATF's affidavit presumably copied from some conspiracy cite needs to be superseded. TiC (talk) 04:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@TitaniumCarbide: I ripped the vast majority of that out. I agree, it's ludicrous - I'd say you should have just immediately removed it when you saw it and posted a link on the talk page if unsure. SnowFire (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Waco siege. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead/Lede is a little skinny

Hi

The lead/lede is a little short compared to the body of the article.

I am hoping to do a read through and basic copyedit over the next couple of days, as the article has changed significantly since I last looked.

There are some potential issues with missing refs, others with dead links, and would like to also check the bot-performed ref changes.

I also note that since 2011, the article has been "toned down", and "softened" - in some cases it looks like (note LOOKS) two or three words have been removed or replaced here and there, which appear to be reflecting a more "the government were not the baddies" tone.

In other words, it might not be as neutral as it could be anymore - and some of those changes and additional text are unrefd., or change the tone of ref'd material.

It might take a week or so to do. While I understand the concerns over the current 2200 character "discussion", I would prefer it left for now, as it has been there for a VERY long time (2011) without complaint prior to some strange edits in the last few months. Chaosdruid (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion for a Title Change

I think that this article would be better served by a change in title> I am suggesting: "Waco Branch Davidian seige". The reason I suggest this is that there has more recently been a Waco motorcycle gang stand off that could cause confusion to readers. Any thoughts? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

My thought is "No". [Sorry it took so long]
I have never heard of the motorcycle gang, or their "seige", and I doubt anyone I know has heard of it.
So, if it is unlikely anyone outside Texas will have heard of it, it is also probable that anyone outside the USA will not have heard of it either.
It would seem that there will be little confusion, I am afraid, but it is a question often asked when something new comes up, so don't be disheartened :)
For example, after some argument, searching for "Android" no longer pointed to "Android" (the real thing) but to "Android" (the OS). Silly really, because it should have just been "Android" and "Android operating system", but they retaliated with "in that case it should be "Android (robot)" - which was silly, because an Android is obv. NOT a robot! Chaosdruid (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Legacy/Media example

One more example of a cultural reference is the game, Postal 2, where player participates in events modeled after the siege. It involves a compound designed in a similar way (of particular note are the pool and access tunnel, the water tower and buildings layout look similar to Waco, and it's stormed by ATF which results in fire. On top of that, the owner of the compound - protagonist's uncle - is referred to as Uncle Dave 2A02:C7D:203A:F800:D13C:395D:B428:193D (talk) 07:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Aguilera Affidavit

With the Affidavit being disclosed publicly is it a worthy section to add in? I feel like the reason the ATF officially filed for the raid is just as important as the speculated reason. It definitely can show people whether or not there was a goal post move from the original motive. Mdchavez02 (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The Article doesn't say that the ATF forgot to bring the search warrant to the "search".

I skimmed the article, and I don't see an important fact that came out heavily in the media in 1993 and years afterwards: The ATF forgot to actually bring a copy of the search warrant to the location, arguably making the entire search illegal. That was such an important fact, it strongly suggests that it has been omitted or removed due to bias by unknown people. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:6C24:308D:26CE:6918 (talk) 05:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

This article was vandalized repeatedly in the past. I will try to find documentation of that and add it in a logical place - if it will let me. The last time I tried to post anything it had editing from tmobile blocked. Saltykid9000 (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

"Failure to execute a search warrant"

Haha, is this article written by a member of the ATF? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koitus~nlwiki (talk • contribs) 00:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mdchavez02.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Another horrible article

As usual, Wikipedia fails in providing accurate facts. The lead claims (as of 6/27/2022) that the U.S. military was part of the "siege" and provides a reference to a very short ABC News piece that does NOT support that claim. The lead also claims that the siege, also known as the massacre was carried out by the government. So, the government carried out a massacre??? or a siege?? Or are the editors incapable of distinguishing between the two? The way the lead is written is highly misleading and unquestionably incorrect. Fix it.174.131.48.89 (talk) 02:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

a 152.26.89.236 (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Based on the contents of the article, the term "siege" seems accurate. Wikipedia's page on the term states "A siege is a military blockade of a city, or fortress, with the intent of conquering by attrition, or a well-prepared assault." The FBI engaged in attrition-focused tactics (loud music to prevent sleep, cutting off utilities). Whether the compound could be considered a "fortress" is somewhat debatable, but the definition seems to fit. Whether or not the actions were justified by the fact that the compound was led by an authoritarian serially pedophilic rapist who was hording weapons only useful in combat against similarly armed humans is immaterial to the description of the actions taken. The article is quite clear about the conditions inside the compound.
The term "massacre" seems more dubious. There doesn't seem to be enough evidence to say with confidence how the fires started, let alone determine the level of intentionality. However, I think the use of the word in this article is appropriate. In fact, outside of the "references" and "see also" sections, it only appears 4 times. The first time is in the intro, where it states that the event is also referred to as the Waco Massacre. Labeling it this way might be misleading, but this is a term used often enough that it is informative to note that this label refers to the events described in this article. The second use is noting that the Columbine High School massacre may have happened on the day it did due to the day of the Waco siege. The third time is referencing the title of a book, and the fourth time is describing the contents of a book describing how a sect can massacre itself. I don't see any indication that the article is promoting the idea that the government perpetrated the massacre, other than to note that some people have made that accusation. Skyvine (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Waco_siege/Archive_5&oldid=1186731196"