Talk:Branch Davidian
|
|
| Contents |
This is non-NPOV and needs editing
This article needs a lot of work and much of it is highly non-NPOV. e.g, "The Coverup" section. Second bullet isn't using complete sentences. "Legal Aftermath" section looks like a laundry list. Governement statements are described as "lies" on two occasions--this is a highly charged term. Could they have been misstatements? Errors in communications? etc.? Scrutchfield
I agree. I find the section labeled "Government Lies" particularly non-NPOV. I don't know enough about the subject to edit this site, but it needs doing. Dana Huff
Relation of VTH to SDA
I just wanted to say that V.T.H. did not leave the SDA church,he was kicked out.
POV
Some of this was unbelievably POV. Changed to NPOV as much as possible. Removed information about alleged involvement of government informers in the Oklahoma City Bombing because that rightly belongs in the Oklahoma City Bombing article. It really has nothing to do with this one. Also added government reasons given for the raid and gave government side of cause of fire controversy. Also added government side of alleged weapon fire at survivors.Ark30inf 05:33, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Removed:
"Not least in the irony of this event was the professed motive of Janet Reno, appointed by President Clinton to the post of Attorney General. She claimed to be acting to defend the children living under Koresh's alleged sexual and/or mental abuse - her inexperience and lack of foresight apparently contributed directly to the deaths of all the children at the ranch."
This is clearly POV since it is a controversial opinion. It is also not clear to me what the allegation of sexual abuse has to do with the rest of the statement.—Eloquence 06:31, Sep 21, 2003 (UTC)
I tried to tone down the comment about the tanks being retrofitted for chemical warfare. Chemical warfare is commonly interpreted as using lethal weapons, and this is reinforced by the article that was linked to (though it is ambiguous). I changed it to "chemical weapon", but even this is too harsh. This is more like a riot control weapon--in common parlance, it would probably be called "tear gas". AdamRetchless 03:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Needs more detail
This article shows the product of some work. I added a lot and didn't remove much. It could all use more precise detail, such as who was head of FBI, ATF, what agencies investigated, what was the actual number of prosecutions and acquitals, how many escaped at what point during incident, and a list of all victims. It certainly needs sections now, and well, I know more about Waco than I know about Wiki code for making sections. And i type fast and probably won't spell check till latr.
If anyone can find a way to break it out into another article, it might help. The history of the Davidians, as commentator said above, needs better precision and detail. I'm watching the OKbomb article with an eye to including a balanced look at other theories - especially the role of informants who at least advised gov something was afoot. But this is old stuff and I deleted, for example, the McVeigh trial transcript last time I cleaned the hard drive. Other books of mine on the subject are in boxes, but the article really needs at least mention of where some of the major books can be found at markets or libraries.
This article is clearly biased. Whoever wrote it clearly sympathized with the Davidians. The author completely ignored the forensic evidence that proved that almost a third of the victims of the fire died from close-range gunshot wounds to the head, which is indicative of either a suicide or an execution-styl murder. The author also completely ignored infrared evidence that proved that all three fires started at exactly the same time--which strikes a blow to the theory that the FBI accidentally started the fires. The author also ignores the statements of the children who escaped from Mt. Carmel. The children spoke of sexual abuse (Howell enjoyed relations with a ten year old girl), physical abuse, and of being denied meals. This is, quite frankly, a terrible article. The FBI DID fire flammable gas canisters, but they fired them at an underground bunker some forty yards away from the main compound. The canisters bounced off the bunker and fell harmlessly into a field; they did not even open. This is a truly terrible article.
congrats
A fine article on a tough subject. Wiki at its best.
My Thanks and Kudos all around!
Brady bill
Removed:
- "At the time, new Brady Bill regulations had prohibited the manufacture or importing of certain semi-automatic weapons. The ban drove a profitable market for the newly regulated semi-automatic rifles, commonly called assault rifles already in the US. Gun dealers could assemble guns from parts and sell rifles with more assault or military-style features than could be obtained from manufacturers. The same rifles could be converted to automatic rifles if sold under the license of an approved gun dealer."
The timing of this is all wrong - the raid occurred in February 1993: the Brady Bill was not passed until the very end of the 1993 session of Congress, in December. The "assault weapons" ban was not even part of the Brady Bill - it was enacted as part of the the 1994 omnibus crime control legislation. 209.149.235.254 16:25, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
links
Removing the "http://www.serendipity.li/waco.html" link. It's very non-government POV and doesn't contribute anything to the understanding of the incident.
http://www.rickross.com/reference/waco/waco260.html / http://www.rickross.com/groups/waco.html
- So we only allow pro-government links, or only mild anti-government links? Are there any disputed facts in that link? There's a lot of information in that link, which is not reflected in the article here.
- ~ender 2005-04-23 07:43:MST
Reason for the raid
- The raid was conducted due to allegations of illegal weapons present on the property.
We need a source for this POV. It is contradicted by other POVs.
In particular, there are many who believe:
- the primary purpose of the raid was to bolster the image of the ATF, which had come under criticism by its own agents - some of whom alleged racism in promotions or hiring.
- the raid was motivated by a perceived need to "rescue" adults and children from a "cult". There were allegations of child abuse and/or statutory rape, which is not under the purview of the ATF. A state child welfare offical had some involvment.
- the raid was justified as "necessary" despite no attempt to ascertain whether simply walking up to the door peacefully might have produced any fruitful results. (Some sources say that on more than one occasion, the Davidians inculuding Howell (Koresh) had peacefully surrendered, e.g., to charges of attempted murder.)
- Actually, you also need to include that the government swore to drug prodution (in order to legitimately gain military assistance). Also that they had the right to go in and inspect sans warrants because there wes a federally licensed firearm dealer there. And that local sherriff had done inspection previously without incident.
- ~ender
Come to think of it, we also ought to mention the idea that there was no backup plan in case word of the impending surprise attack leaked out. There are conflicting reports on this. According to one account, the raid leader had (a) decided or (b) been ordered to call off the raid if he lost the element of surprise. An official gov't report indicates that he (1) discovered that Koresh knew or suspected the raid was imminent but (2) immediately ordered the raid to continue in spite of this: "they know we're coming, let's go!" -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:37, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Aftermath
It would be great if this article included information about how people responded to the events at Waco. As I remember, it was part of McVeigh's stated motivation, and it has become part mythology of anti-government groups. AdamRetchless 03:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Removed content
The flashes look like they might be the heat signature of gunfire, but close analysis shows the flashes do not resemble gunfire in several ways. They persist longer than gunfire, and their shape is more irregular than gunfire. There is no apparent human movement at the flash locations. At several of the flash locations there is identifiable debris, such as fallen windows, which can reflect infrared from sources like the sun, the tank exhaust, and the fire.
Okay, *who* is saying these things? An expert? A random wikipedian? A citation someone?
~ender 2005-04-22 21:13:MST
- Okay, it appears someone was altering content the government source was only talking about visible flashes in broadcast tapes. As reported on Oct 9, 1999.
- These officials, familiar with the tape, say analysis shows the flashes of light are not from muzzles of weapons, but from light reflected off of other objects.
- In addition, the popping sounds heard on the FBI tapes are thought to be bullet rounds exploding due to the extreme heat caused by the inferno.
- But Government sources readily admit that audio was turned off for a period of time after permission to do so was granted, possibly because it was providing interference.
- ~ender 2005-04-23 14:12:MST
"Admitted Government Lies"
although dana huff addresses this in her NPOV converns, i would like to call to attention the striking lack of neutrality in the headline "admitted government lies". i am myself a neutral party (simply by virtue of my lack of knowledge about the topic), so when i send someone a link to a wikipedia article, i expect it to uphold my neutrality. now, while it certainly is possible to objectively say that someone "told a lie", this article evinces too much passion for one side of the topic for anyone to perceive it as a totally impartial evaluation. furthermore, the bulleted "lying to congress" in that same section is not only abrupt, it's also unjustified by further elaboration. for this section to be bipartisan, these statements need to be demonstrated, not merely asserted. -ReubenGarrett
40 years for what charges?
The article mentions who is sentenced for how many years, but not for what (and how well-supported those charges might be). Telling someone is in prison but not what for it was - well, let's call it unusual.