Talk:Waco Siege

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Waco Siege article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Federal Bureau of Investigation Seal
 This article is within the scope of WikiProject FBI.
Department of Justice Seal
Start (Rating Comments: [{{fullurl:Talk:Waco_Siege/Comments|action=edit}} add]/view)
This article has been rated as Start-Class
High
This article has been rated as High-Importance


Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] warning of inaccuracy

This entry also starts off with an upgrade to the "disputed facts" warning from the Branch Davidian page, since this article inherits the most contentious issues from that page. The transferred content is rife with inaccuracies and riddled by bias. Until the quality of this article is substantially improved, the warning should remain.--WacoKid 03:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] confused

I came here looking for what Waco was and why and how and all that info, and I can barely get past the first few paragraphs without being confused. why did the fbi want to raid waco? was it a cult? what were they accused of? why were the police so heavy handed? what did the people at waco do? I feel like this is VERY US-centric and that you need to know stuff beforehand before reading the article, which is very unencyclopedic if you ask me 81.149.170.242 (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't blame you for being confused. An excellent way to understand this event is to view a documentary produced in 1997 that was nominated for an Academy Award, "Waco: The Rules of Engagement". Netflix has it, and it is also available for sale.
For more information please use the Wikipedia link, then go to the offical website by using the associated external link. Apostle12 (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Briefly, the original raid was by the ATF ( Alcohol,Tobacco, and Firearms ) , who alleged the Branch-Davidians were making illegal full-automatic weapons, something which has never been fully-established, BTW. While other aspects are much disputed, the primary purpose of the raid is generally-thought to be public relations for the agency, religious fanatics with guns being easy to demonize. Which is why the media was tipped off and how the Branch Davidians had warning. The FBI was only called in after the original ATF raid resulted in an armed confrontation and a standoff, which the FBI is much better equiped to deal with than the ATF.Drjem3 (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 1 gun?

I highly doubt the police had 25 casualties against 1 machine gun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.41.21 (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WS:COTW

This is a note to inform all interested watchers of this article that Wikisource has chosen the Branch Davidians and Waco Siege as their Collaboration of the Week.

This means that we are spending this week collecting, copying and formatting Public Domain documents related to the church and its 1993 siege. This includes speeches by David Koresh, Federal documents in the aftermath of the siege, the charges against Lon Horiuchi and the surviving church members, and early church documents whose copyright have expired.

We would encourage you all to come help us, if you have any questions, feel free to leave a question on my talk page - either on Wikisource or Wikipedia!

I hope to see some of you there, helping us document the primary sources for future research and historical analysis!

Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 21:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Administration Bush / Clinton

There is no reference that the this was started under Bush seniors presidency and concluded under the Clinton administration. There is no mention of Hillary's possible influence and also Vince Foster close connections to Hillary and Waco. As I understand there were also FBI power struggles going on because of the switch in administration. All these facts might help further explain the disastrous handling of this situation, and the ongoing cover-up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.211.130 (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

So... anyone has a source for that information? Some report on the siege that talks about that circumstance? We need to have a verifiable source for that, or there will be an edit war about it --Enric Naval (talk) 03:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] It was a "compound"

References I found to "Davidian Branch Compound", "Mt. Carmel's compound" and similar wordings of "compound": Time Magazine, Tribune-Herald Although many followers have fled, Howell remains with about 75 faithful in a compound they built to await the end of the world. Former cult members and authorities say it is heavily armed. Guards reportedly walked the grounds at night. Perched above the compound is a tower with lookout windows facing all directions, touristic website for the compound (photos of underground tunnels and bunker), Frontline report, US Department of Justice Evaluation of the Handling of the Branch Davidian Stand-off in Waco, Texas, cnn.com, transcripts of Terry Nichols trial at cnn.com.

For all this I'm re-adding "compound" to the article, which was replaced by "complex" and "building", which look like a POV wording for people believing that it was a deliberate massacre. Like here [1] where they call it "village complex" when talking about fleeing mother and children, even altought the header calls it compound. As an aside it's also used on newspapers, like on St Louis Dispath [2] [3], and the fire investigation [4], and used interchangeably on some places.

To sum it up, I infer from my searches that "compound" is a WP:NPOV description of the place and ws used on the trial to describe it, while "complex" appears to have a POV bias for its use on POV websites, and "building" is probably plain incorrect, so I'll add it back in short time. I'll wait a pair of days for comments from other editors --Enric Naval (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a matter of accuracy here that we need to keep in mind. The "compound" or "complex" included multiple buildings and extensive land holdings surrounding the buildings. It is therefore inaccurate to state that the "compound" was burned to the ground, being that it included the large expanse of real estate itself. The ground didn't all burn up :-) And, on the other hand, stating that the tanks pushed into the "compound" means something entirely different than saying the tanks pushed into the "building", possibly starting fires inside the building. Compound vs. building is a difference that is needed for article accuracy.
"Compound" is also considered a very heavily POV term among many, equating to the Government's description of any private property that is the alleged hold-out of any "criminals". The use of the word "compound" is clearly done to influence and sway juries, as opposed to calling a "compound" by the term "private property". Clearly, the use of "Compound" in the title of the Government report cited as a reference should remain (and has) in the article. On the other hand, calling the private church building of a private organization a "compound" is POV pushing, pure and simple. That said, I advocate we use "compound" for the titles of Government reports, where it was called a compound, and "building" where the article is talking about tanks pushing down walls, and "complex" for the entire buildings/land holdings except for direct quotes where it was called a "compound". This avoids contributing to any subtle POV pushes in calling a church building or a private home by the evil-sounding term "compound". Does this make sense? Yaf (talk) 01:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: actual quotes must always use the original words, even if we don't agree with them.
(to sum my comment up: I only disagree with Yaf on the use of "complex" to describe the set of buildings, and on "compound" having a POV weight)
No, "compound" being a POV term does not make sense. You see, the "private church building of a private organization" was built around a church and was not a church itself and it wasn't either a private home. It had underground tunnels to connect the buildings, a subterranean "vault" made of cinder block, a gun cache, hand grenades, gas masks, guards, the Texas Rangers found the remains of a "small machine shop [...] with a methal lathe and mill [...] and firearms, ammunition, and devices resembling explosive ordinance", and Koresh said that "they built to await the end of the world" so I assume they had food reserves too. The description of the buildings on the arson report made by Texas Rangers uses the word "compound" and indicates that the davidians were restricted to one multi-storied building with a tunnel system that connected to a subterrean cinder block room (the vault) and an unfinished concrete-walled building. Looking at Compound (enclosure) and Compound (fortification), I fail to see how "compound" not a neutral description of it.


The main building was a wooden frame with crappy materials so it wasn't actually fortified, but it was connected by a tunnel to an unfinished concrete building on construction, (I'm going to risk a guess that it was a fortificated building for the purpose of resisting the end of the world).


The word "compound" was also used extensively by the media reporting the event, including Associated Press, and by the government on places where there was no jury to sway, like on the report by the Comittee on Government Reform and oversight to the House of Representatives (that also uses complex on some places) [5], Report to the Justice and Treasury Departments regarding law enforcement interaction with the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas [6], Remarks to Federal Law Enforcement by Bill Clinton [7], Evaluation of the Handling of the Branch Davidian Stand-off in Waco, Texas [8].


The compound definition does not include the terrains about it, so you can technically say that the tanks pounded in the compound walls, since the buildings were joined together with tunnels and there was no enclosure or fence that delimited a terrain outside of the buildings that could be called "compound walls" and cause a confusion. (Mind you, I don't oppose the word of "tanks used bombs to puncture holes in the walls of buildings" altought it should be "the walls of parts of the building", since there was only one actual building being assaulted, and the compound was unfinished)


P.D.:Actually looking to this aerial video of assault you can see several joined roofs, so the compound would sort of have more than one "building" and fit the description of compound "formed by the buildings themselves, when they are built around an open area or joined together.".


P.D.D.: Diagram of the damned thing. This page discuss it [9] but it maintains obvious false statements as the tanks having flamethrowers, so it's probably not reliable. anither view another actual photo


So, "compound" is a descriptive word that matches roughly the buildings at Waco, and that was used by at least the US Department of Justice, several media like Associated Press, Frontline and New York Times, also by Bill Clinton, the Texas Rangers and by a comitee from the House of Representatives. Using "complex" instead would be taking out the military significance of the buildings (designed to resist the end of the world, provisioned with weapons and a bunker, with its inhabitants receiving paramilitary training) and wouldn't match the mainstream media denomination during or after the siege. Using "building", and not "buildings", is adequate for talking about the tank's actions since there was only one building being assaulted for the compound was unfinished (I didn't find any reference to the unfinished building being assaulted) --Enric Naval (talk) 12:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

P.D.D.D.: As for military significance, Koresh believed that he was related to Cyrus_the_Great named korush or similar, who was a conqueror king (or that he was Cyrus himself, can't bother to find the source right now), and the day that the AFT presented the search warrant the cult members were saying the "the assyrians are coming" [10], the assyrians had a empire on persa empire territory before it existed, and it's probably also some reference to the bible. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

"the day that the AFT presented the search warrant"??? Clearly someone would make such a statement demonstrates a gross ignorance of these events. You should refrain editing this article in any manner shape or form.
Rick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.148.166.41 (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
you're right, it would be more correct like this "the day that the AFT claims to have gone there to present a search warrant". I believe that this identificates unambiguosly and more neutrally what day I am talking about. If you are really convinced that I shouldn't be editing this article then you should go to an admin or to some place like village pump and explain your reasons and then ask that I am banned from editing this article. Btw, I intend to do the change to the compound word this sunday. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you please explain what in your mind makes you qualified to edit this article? What is your motivation? I don't expect an answer but this is something you should ask yourself if you intend to be accurate. Rick
If you look to the WP:PILLARS 5 pillars that sustain wikipedia, you will see that the third pillar says "Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit.(...) Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual controls any specific article; therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community. (...)", so please stop saying that someone is not qualified to edit any article, since *everyone* can edit it. I also provided secondary sources supporting my edits and discussed them on the talk page of the article in order to avoid edit wars. If you think that I shouldn't be editing the article, then please go to Wikipedia:Village_pump and post about you thinking that I shouldn't edit this article (I think this request probably would belong to the miscellaneous part, so I advice you to post it there), but be aware that people there will probably ask you for some proof of that inadequacy, apart from your personal opinion. Every day there are users that get blocked or prevented from editing at certain articles because of "disruptive editing" and "abusing of editing privileges", so it wouldn't be a new thing. Btw, if you just post that I shouldn't be editing and then apport no reasons for this, then there is a chance that your comment gets deleted right away, so make sure to prepare a good case.--Enric Naval (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
It's pretty clear. You made an inaccurate statement of fact about one of the key issues central to this event. I don't know your intentions but the situation is binary, you are either ignorant or a propagandist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.148.166.41 (talk) 09:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I answered on your talk page --Enric Naval (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The US department of Justice also says the same as the AFT: (...) the agents who arrived on February 28 with a valid search and arrest warrant. [11]. I think that I'll have to ask for some RS source of why this claim is incorrect --Enric Naval (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
You made a statment of fact "the AFT presented the search warrant". It never happened. This is incontovertable. However, one cannot argue that there was no search warrant or that it was not valid on it's face, but that is not the point. There is however considerable doubt as to the question as to fact of if the ATF even bothered to BRING the search warrant (refer to the trial transcripts as no agent that testified had seen the warrant much less much less did they have it in their possesion during the assault). Presenting the warrant was contingient upon the completion of the "Dynamic Entry". This is why the the term "Execute a Warrant" as used in the opening paragraph is generally correct. It's a simple algorithim, assault>subdue>present. Rick
The US Department of Justice says that they brought the warrant and so says the report to the Deputty Attorney General, and I think that the report qualifies as a reliable source (the indictment was an appendix to it, and was a separate document from other source, not an actual part of the report). That a few agents on the trial said that they hadn't *seen* the warrant themselves doesn't mean that the agent on charge of the operation didn't bring the warrant on a folder on his hand, and I would like to see the testimonial where any agent says that he is totally sure that they didn't actually bring the warrant, as opposed to not being sure if they brought it because they never got to see it (hey, maybe they had an actual warrant and the idiot on charge neglected to bring it with him. If you please present some sources like pages from the trial transcript where there is actually proof that they didn't bring the warrant, then we can add it to the article). --Enric Naval (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

P.D.D.D.D.: From indictement [12], statements supporting that the Waco buildings had militar significance

“ 5. It was a part of the conspiracy that Vernon K. Howell, also known as David Koresh, would and did advocate and encourage an armed confrontation, which he described as a "war," between his followers and representatives of the United States government. Vernon K. Howell, also known as David Koresh, originally predicted that this "war" would occur in the Nation of Israel and later changed the location to Mt. Carmel Compound, near Waco, Texas. ”
I suppose it would be obvious to most that an indictement is clearly a POV source. Then again, I suppose it's not just a trivial matter that the fact finders, the Jury, specifically rejected this count would be mentioned from a NPOV source.
Rick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.148.166.41 (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, you're right, an indictment is POV and should only be used to show the statements of the accusers. I'll cite a WP:RS source to support my statement that Koresh was preparing for a war against the government, and that's why he was converting the buildings had a military purpose. The report to the Deputty Atorney General says about Koresh's followers: "They also believed the end of the world was near, that the world would end in a cataclysmic confrontation between themselves and the government"[13].
Enric it needs to be pointed out that this "report" you keep refering to is very POV and is not reliable. Alan A. Stone, Touroff-Glueck Professor of Law and Psychiatry at Harvard University and a former president of the American Psychiatric Association has shared some thoughts on it here http://bostonreview.net/BR22.5/stone.html. "Reno had ordered the Justice Department to investigate itself and the FBI. The supposedly independent investigator, Edward Dennis, an assistant attorney general during the Reagan administration, based his report on that less than searching self-examination. The result was a total whitewash". Now keep in mind that he was one of the "experts" the DAG paid for their opinions and he refused add his name to it because it was structurally flawed. Rick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.148.166.41 (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Rick, if you have a problem with the DOJ report then go to Wikipedia:RSN and ask them if it is a reliable source for my statements. Btw, Stone did sign his report [14]. I'm sure that you can find points on it that can go into the article (please open a new section using = signs, this section is getting very long and we are disgressing from the "compound" topic) --Enric Naval (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, can you find a RS source for the jury rejecting this point? It could be added to the trial section on the article, which is lacking on references and could do with a link to the jury's final decision --Enric Naval (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
refer to page 7403 if you have the trial trancripts

THE COURT: Mrs. Flowers, would you publish the

 verdict, please, and make sure your mike is working?
       MRS. FLOWERS: Yes, sir. Is it working?
       "We, the Jury, unanimously find each of the following
 Defendants guilty or not guilty of the offense of Conspiracy to
 Murder Federal Officers, as alleged in Count One of the
 Indictment:
       "Brad Eugene Branch, not guilty.
       "Kevin A. Whitecliff, not guilty.
       "Clive J. Doyle, not guilty.
       "Jaime Castillo, not quilty.
       "Livingston Fagan, not guilty.
       "Paul Gordon Fatta, not guilty.
       "Woodrow Kendrick, not guilty.
       "Norman Washington Allison, not guilty.
       "Graeme Leonard Craddock, not guilty.
       "Renos Avraam, not guilty.
       "Ruth Ottman Riddle, not guilty.
       "Question 2. Wer the Jury, unanimously find each of
  the following Defendants guilty or not guilty of the offense of
  Aiding and Abetting Unknown Principals and Each Other in the
  Murder of Federal Officers, as alleged in Count Two of the
  Indictment:
       "Brad Eugene Branch, not guilty.
       "Kevin A. Whitecliff, not guilty.
       "Clive J..Doyle, not guilty.
       "Jaime Castillo, not guilty.'
       "Livingston Fagan, not guilty.
       "Paul Gordon Fatta, not guilty.
       "Woodrow Kendrick, @ot guilty.
       "Norman Washington Allison, not guilty.
       "Graeme Leonard Craddock, not guilty.
       "Renos Avraam, not guilty.
       "Ruth Ottman Riddle, not guilty.
       "For each of the Defendants, if any, that you found
 not guilty in Question 2, or for each of the Defendants, if any,
 you were unable to reach a verdict in Question 2, answer this
 question. For each of the Defendants, if any, that you found
 guilty in Question 2, do not answer this question with regard to
 that Defendant.�
        "Question 3. We, the Jury, unanimously find each of
 the following Defendants guilty or not guilty of the offense of
 Aiding and Abetting Unknown Principals and Each Other in the
 lesser included offense of Volunt@ Manalaughter of Federal
 officers, as described in the instructions:
       "Brad Eugene Branch, guilty.
       "Kevin A. Whitecliff, guilty.
       "Clive J. Doyle, not guilty.     
       "Jaime Castillo, guilty.
       "Livingston Fagan, guilty.
       "Paul Gordon Fatta, not guilty.
       "Woodrow Kendrickt not guilty.
       "Norman Washington Allison, not guilty.
       "Graeme Leonard Craddock, not guilty.
       "Renos Avraam, guilty.
       "Ruth Ottman Riddle, not guilty.
I added a reference to that page on the part of the article that talks about the jury decision. I see that this does not say wether Koresh himself was preaching for a war and wether Koresh believed that he was going to have a war. I remind you that on wikipedia it's important to have verifiable WP:RS reliable sources supporting the statements on the article. I have found the indictment (which is POV but it's another source supporting this), the US Department Justice, and also the Koresh article links this [15] "At the start of Desert Shield in 1990, he thought the place of his martyrdom might be in Israel but finally at the start of Desert Storm in 1991 he was convinced that his martyrdom would be here in the US. He started to build and to arm himself for the coming confrontation. Instead of Israel, David said the prophecies of Daniel would be fulfilled in Waco and that the Mt. Carmel Center was the Davidic kingdom. ", to support that Koresh was preparing Mt. Carmel for a militar confrontation. Now, see, he also bought lots of weapons, (which are listed on the article, btw) and lots of ammo. I think that the trial for child abuse also talked about the kids being given paramilitary courses and teached a military song "We are the children of the Lord, we will fight and stand our ground" that they sang while marching in a military fashion after playing war games and trying to engange the FBI agents on discussion about weapons [16]. It also appears on Time magazine [17]. This is all consistent with Koresh preparing for a war. If you think that he wasn't then please provide RS sources for that. Otherwise, discussing is pointless because we couldn't include it anyways on the article because of lack of sources for the statement.


The Davidians (and many outside supporters) considered it to be a church with buildings; govt/media propaganda called it a "compound". The answer is to simply make that distinction clear. Couple quotes supporting that:
  • The old structure, part of a chain of buildings federal agents called "the compound," was reduced to ashes at the end of a 51-day standoff nearly seven years ago. REF: Dick J. Reavis, Staff Writer, "Rising from the ashes:Volunteers rebuilding Koresh chapel," San Antonio Express-News, Thursday, Feb 3, 2000.
  • Not a WP:RS) Davidian Trial Reveals ATF Planned Lethal Military Assault, From a July 1994 e-mail post by court observer Egon Richard Tauschshares opinion Prosecution witnesses avoided using the prejudicial words "cult" and "compound" -- the latter a military-sounding term never used by the inhabitants of Mt. Carmel -- for almost half of the trial.
  • Tausch also shares: Dan Cogdell gave the most memorable closing arguments, reminded the jury that the Davidians were attacked in their home and their church, not a "compound."
  • Google search of "church not a compound" finds phrase used frequently by supporters.
Carol Moore 15:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Carol, Egon's statements can actually be verified by cheking the trial transcripts, which unfortunately appear to be 7,500 pages long + 1,500 pages of documents.
A google search with quotes gives only two hits [18]... The words "church compound" waco, for example, give 338 hits[19].
The statements from the davidian's lawyers are, of course, totally parcial and are constructed to try to save their clients from going to jail.


The statements from Egon are totally subjective with statements like "Mike DeGuerin gave a rousing patriotic speech", "what could most charitably be described" (while refering to AFT attorney), etc, and appears to be totally partial against the AFT, so he probably cut references that he didn't like and remarked the ones he liked. He also says that it was proved that there was no warrant on the day of the raid, but the indictment mentions it, and there is even an affidavit for it [20]. He also says that witnesses avoid the use of the word "compound", but neglects to mention that the judge used "compound" on the trial indictment and also mentioned the warrant: "agents of the FBI who were authorized to execute search warrants under the authority of the United States from February 28, 1993, until each of them emerged from the Mt. Carmel Compound."[21]. Seeing all of this, he looks like a totally POV source. Also, he is a attorney who wrote a page about the trial, but he didn't take part on it.


The church was the main building and the davidians lived there, but calling it "a church and its buildings" would be a misrepresentation of the underground bunkers, tunnels, small machine shop for weapons, guns, hand grenades, gas masks, etc. I agree with remarking on the article that the davidians did not call it a compound and that they considered it a church, but only if there an actual source for that, and not an argument by their attorney. Otherwise, it should be included as "Dan Cogdell, on the Waco Siege trial, reminded the jury that the Davidians were attacked in their home and their church, not a "compound."" or similar wording. It's not a statement that supports calling the buildings a church, but an attorney defence on the trial. Also, using his arguments would give WP:UNDUE undue weight on one of the side's arguments if the AFT lawyers' statements about why they called it a compound are not also included). --Enric Naval (talk) 17:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
There was an underground cellar that was there for 30-40 years; there was a buried bus that was used as a tunnel to an under-construction tornado shelter big enough for 120 0dd people; there was a machine shop that a few guys evidently used to mess with a few weapons. The bottom line remains, it's ok to say that the govt/media called it a compound (and Reavis should be quoted) but not to say davidians called it that without a ref. I think Koresh calls it home and church on video and else where. But don't have time to research my copies on minor point. Carol Moore 19:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
I don't know how davidians called the place (probably "church" or something, and I'll be happy to cite it on the article if I stumple on the info while searching), I was trying to discuss how we should call it on the article from a NPOV --Enric Naval (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, if you don't know why don't you keep your hands off?? There were around 140 People in that place the day of the assault. Four, perhaps five generations living there. Mt. Carmel Center was their home. It was their ranch and farm. There was a chapel, a gym, kitchen and common dining area. Like most farm houses on the Texas prairie of that period, it was little more than a plywood shack. The whole place could have been demolished and pushed into piles in just a few hours with a 35hp tractor. Really, it's incumbent upon you to show that the use of the word "compound" to describe that place was in common usage prior to the arrival of the paramilitary on the scene. Rick
If you know how exactly the davidians called the place, and provide RS sources for it, thn I will be happy that it gets included on the article, properly sourced and attributed as what the davidians called it. Then we can explain how the AFT called it, how it appeared on the media, how it appeared on the trial, etc. All points of view except the most fringe have to be included on the article, per WP:NPV the neutral point of view of wikipedia, but if they are disputed then they have to be sourced, and, since this is a very disputed article, it's better to source as much as we can when adding stuff. Feel free to find a source for how the davidians called the place and include it in the article.
Rick, the fact that you think that it shouldn't be called a compound is a personal opinion that you have. Wikipedia articles are based on verifiable reliable sources talking about notable facts, and on an encyclopaedic tone. I can't put someone's opinion on it when I have adequate sources that say otherwise, even if I think that he is right. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] complex attacked on the day of the raid?

On February 28, the day of the raid, when the ATF says that they were only going to present a search and arrest warrant, they though that they would encounter no resistance and weren't prepared for a fight. Some of the agents thought that there would be problems and asked to be allowed to bring their rifles, and their request was denied. The ATF was not preparing an attack, so saying that it attacked the complex is an accuracy. See [22]. It was also a raid too, not an assault. I changed the infobox to say "shoout". The attack at April 19, however, does qualify as a full assault with intention of getting control of the buildings with force. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding?? I don't know what you are using for sources but I can assure you this was an "assault with intention of getting control of the buildings with force". Hell, they wrote their blood type on thier bodies if I recall correctly, maybe it was dog tags. You've made reference to the trial transcripts, have you attempted to read them? I would point out that it is progress not to speak of the ATF agents as having one mind. THeir were eighty individuals on the outside and ~140 in the building. They were not of one mind on either side Rick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.148.166.41 (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Reference Davidian Criminal Trial Transcripts 2054-2055

Richardson - Cross (Mr. Rentz) 2054-2055
25  Q  When you left the staging area, did you by chance put your
1  blood type on your arm?
2  A   No, sir, not on the arm.
3 Q   Where did you put it?
4  A   The blood type was -- was placed on the side of the neck.
5  Q   Why did you do that?
6  A   I didn't place it on there, that's what was some -- one of
7  the other agents came by and he placed it on the side of the
8  neck.
9  Q   Why did you do it, do you know?
10  A   I assumed that in case there was any injury or anything,
11  that you would be able to know what the person's blood type was.
12  Q   Had you ever done that on a raid before?
13  A   No, sir.
14  Q   So, you anticipated possibly or somebody anticipated the
15  need for knowing your blood type, then?
16  A   Someone apparently did, sir.
17  Q   Okay.
18  MR. RENTZ: No further questions.

99.148.166.41 (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)rick

I added the ref to the article. I read it somewhere, but it's just the underlings antipating trouble, with their boss (the agent in charge of the operation) appearing to think that Davidians would give no resistance for whatever silly reason (and that's one of the decisions criticized on the DOJ reports, I think, they should have anticipated that there would be armed resistance) --Enric Naval (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Enric it's impossible to know the state of mind of the comanders who decided to assault that place. You should understand that this is by design. The DOJ interviened and told the ATF to stop their shooting review because they were creating evidence that might tend to show the innocence of the Davidians. Johnston is the Assistant United States Attorney
Similarly, the September 17, 1993 memorandum on "ATF Statements
and Issues concerning ATF Knowledge of the Loss of the Element of
Surprise," prepared for the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury
for Enforcement contains this summary:

    March 1, 1993                      Troy WAR Interview 
    ATF initiates a shooting review. David Troy and Bill Wood
interview Rodriguez and Mastin (3/1), Chojnacki (3/3), Cavanaugh
(3/3), Sarabyn (3/2). Troy tells Review they immediately
determined that these stories did not add up. They communicated
information to both Hartnett and Conroy on the day or day after
each interview. Conroy gave Troy's handwritten notes to Hartnett.
(Note -- Johnston at this point advised Hartnett to stop the ATF
Shooting review because ATF was creating Brady Material. Because
Chojnacki had not yet been interviewed, Johnston authorized that
interview but no notes were created.)

Now compare this to the Treasury Review version of why the shooting review was halted

After the interviews, the shooting review team was concerned because Sarabyn's urgency and his 
statements at the staging area about Koresh's knowledge that ATF and the National Guard were coming were 
inconsistent with his lack of any recollection that Rodriguez had told him that Koresh had been tipped about 
the raid. As a result, the team was prepared to conduct additional interviews. However, after being told by 
Hartnett that the local U.S. Attorney's office had directed ATF to stop the shooting review because it was 
needlessly duplicating the pending leak and murder investigations, the team concluded its efforts.

This is why this subject is a bear trap. It's why I maintain the sources you are using are POV. Someone has "sanitized" the information for the official report. "Brady Material" if you don't know is exculpatory material that the prosecution discovers during an investigation and must disclose to the defense. 76.203.230.246 (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC) Rick

I'm afraid that this demonstrates nothing about what actually happened or not at the staging area. It just shows that the ATF didn't want to give "free" material for the defence to use against them. Totally coherent with the ATF simply trying to cover their incompetence, and the fact that they didn't take into account Koresh's awareness of their arrival. The two reports don't fit exactly but they don't contradict each other (mind you, I'm a bit tired right now, so I'm probably missing stuff) --Enric Naval (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Enric, my point was to illistrate why you need to use caution about these sources you keep quoting. They are not netrual. In fact, in many instances, as I have shown here, they are fraudulent. The key differences should be obvious. The official report states "needlessly duplicating the pending leak and murder investigations" but the reality is, if Troy's notes are accurate, that the ASUA was obstructing justice. The Brady rule is where the rubber meets the road in the due process clause. 76.203.230.246 (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Rick
You are right in that they are not neutral, but showing that they are fraudulent would take a bit of effort and would fall outside the scope of wikipedia's goals. We are supossed to use verifiable secondary reliable sources. Until such a source is provided about the reports being fraudulent, it's difficult to add that to the article. At most, I can attribute some of the statements as, for example, changing "the agents prepared" to "the DOJ report claims that the agents prepared". Actually, you could attempt to find some of those places on the article and attribute them yourself, or add the tag {{ww}} (aka Weasel Words) on the sentences so me and other editors can check them and change them. I am currently a bit busy on other places to do this myself.
'At most, I can attribute some of the statements as, for example, changing "the agents prepared" to "the DOJ report claims that the agents prepared".' Excacty! I would say such a presentation is a step in the right direction. 76.203.230.246 (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Rick
Now, if you could make that change yourself.... I am a bit busy with other stuff, and can't do it myself --Enric Naval (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
About the request for military advice, it's not cleared on the report why exactly they decided that they needed it. I took out the statement about the agents deciding that there was risks of injuries because I noticed that it was a belief of me based on reading the trial testomony of one agent incorrectly. The Davidian's attorney is weasely wording the questions to avoid asking the agent whether he personally anticipated problems. I'm afraid that I would need to see all the pages of the trial where the agent is giving testimonial, to see what the ATF/FBI/DOJ/whatever attorneys asked them, and what the judge said, if he made some statement, in case that the testimonials have been cherry picked to include only the questions from Davidians attorneys, and that parts favoring the ATF version have been ignored. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
P.D.: the staging area is where plans for the raid are told to the agents to prepare them. It appears that, after hearing the explanations from the ATF commander, the agents decided that there would gravely injured agents at the end of the raid needing transfusions. I think that the DOJ report also says that the agents requested to bring their rifles with them, and that the petition was denied by the same ATF commander. Let's see if I can find that again --Enric Naval (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I have to admit I got a chuckle out of that one. And then I consider the date on your post... and the the thought of the snipers in their gilli suits that were deployed in the pre-dawn hours asking for permission to take their rifles with them.... I suppose it might provide a clue why some agents were armed with sawed-off shotguns and others submachineguns...."give me that rifle takes these instead"....You're joking right??? 76.203.230.246 (talk) 10:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Rick
Hum, I think that you are confusing the raid on february 28 where the ATF agents were totally unprepared with no rifles and transported to the compound in cattle wagons, with 3 helicopters for distraction, and the assault on April 19 that had fully armed agents with sniper support driving National Guards vehicles into the buildings for pouring CS gas inside and force the Davidians outside. The raid just plain had no snipers, and the ATF was actually very critiziced by DOJ and others for being underprepared for an armed confrontation. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I guess I can safely assume your original statment was not some April fools prank. And after thinking about it some more I do recall your statement somewhat mirrors some of the propaganda injected into the discourse about these events. It's another trap an honest person could fall into if they fail to research these events properly. Please do try to find your original source as the propaganda and the way public opinion was and has been manipulated is central this story. I don't have time to source it this morning but I can assure you that it is not me who is confused about these particular facts. The version you have posted is directly counter to sworn testimony by the ATF agents who testified at the trial. 76.203.230.246 (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC) Rick
Got this from [23], unfortunately, I can't find the rifle thing again, but I think it was on one of the reports I linked.
"Earlier Wednesday, an ATF agent said ATF medics received first aid training from their military counterparts two days before the raid. The agent, Gerald Petrilli, said he expected fistfights with cult members when agents raided the compound, not a shootout."
"Under cross-examination, Petrilli said some agents were taught by personnel at Fort Hood, a nearby Army post, how to administer intravenous lines and treat shock and gunfire wounds a few days before the raid. He also said his blood type was written on his neck and leg before the raid."
"Former ATF agent Robert White testified last week that writing an agent's blood type on their body was recommended by the military and not standard procedure."
On light of this, it looks the agent didn't really anticipate the need for transfusions, and took that down from the article.
That's a bit of a leap of logic. The training provided by the military was based on requests by the ATF, not the other way around. The information needs to be taken in contex. Individual agents may or may not have expected violence, but the assault planners certainly did. "By December 1992 (almost 3 months before the raid), ATF agents were requesting Close Quarters Combat/Close Quarters Battle [63] (CQB) training by U.S. Army Special Forces soldiers for ATF agents.[64]"http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Activities_of_Federal_Law_Enforcement_Agencies_Toward_the_Branch_Davidians/Section_5#b._Chronology_of_ATF.27s_request 76.203.230.246 (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Rick
For the sawed-off shotguns, I think you are getting confused with another incident, see [24], and I have no idea of ATF agents bringing submachineguns to a raid. You should find a source for that. I have no say, I found nowhere a place where it was specified what actual weapons the agents were wearing when going to the compound the day of the raid :( --Enric Naval (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no list of weapons nor is there an inventory of how many rounds the ATF fired. That list would have been generated from a "Shooting review" or and "After action review". It's a proceedure or policy virtually all law enforcement agencies in the US have to insure that any use of deadly force is reasonable and lawful. It was ATF policy at the time and they violated it. As I've already pointed out, the DOJ killed that review as it was just starting. 76.203.230.246 (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Rick

[edit] inflamatory

"The bunker is later found to have held only the remaining women and children in the compound. They were trapped in the concrete bunker as it filled with CS gas; all were either gassed to death or burned to death." while this is flagged as citation needed, I think it should be removed if not sourced. First, it should easily be verifiable if true. Second, it contradicts the notion that CS gas is generally recognized as non-lethal (see wikipedia entry). Third, it is inflamatory/reflects bias - while it is possible the women and children were burned to death, absent a cause of death determination, claiming they were "gassed to death" is not only scaremongering, but seems biased against federal agents. It could have a short statement that the gas may have contributed to an inability to exit or such, but again, absent a source, this speculation does nothing good for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.99.4 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 17 April 2008

I corrected and sourced the statements [25], and then I moved them to its own section under controversies section [26]. The placement was suggesting that the persons on the bunker were dead because of that agent firing two shells --Enric Naval (talk) 10:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "war in waco"

I reverted this edit[27] adding "war on waco" as a name to refer to Waco Siege. I looked up "war in waco"[28]. Altough google claims 11200 results, if you try to reach the end of the list it stops at the third page (23 results that are not repetitions). I could only find one real usage of the term on an editorial here. There was also a reference on a opinion column on New York Times that is not using it a noun[29], as well as several references to completely unrelated events that also get called "war in waco", like a judicial dispute [30] a Scrabble competition [31], a dispute about where to diposit cow manure[32], a war on gas prizes on Waco[33], etc. There is nothing indicating a regular use of that term to refer to Waco Siege. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. A few months back there was some similar phrase stuck in there with no WP:RS that I removed. Carol Moore 03:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}