Talk:Waco siege

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)

Chronology of events on February 28

Time	Event
05:00	76 agents assemble at Fort Hood for the drive to the staging area at the Bellmead Civic Center. According to a later Treasury Department Review, the agents drove in an 80-vehicle convoy that stretched for a mile (1.6 km) with a cattle trailer at either end.
09:45	ATF agents move in on the compound. A gun battle begins.
09:48	Branch Davidian Wayne Martin, a Waco attorney, calls 9-1-1.
11:30	Ceasefire reached.
16:00	The first message from Koresh is relayed over KRLD Radio In Dallas.
16:55	Michael Schroeder is shot dead returning to the compound.
17:00	ATF spokesman Ted Royster says gunfire has continued sporadically through the afternoon.
19:30	Koresh is interviewed by CNN. The FBI instructs CNN not to conduct further interviews.
20:15	ATF spokesperson Sharon Wheeler says negotiations continue with Branch Davidians and gunfire has ended.
22:00	Four children exited the compound (two Sonobe children and two Fagan children).
22:05	Koresh talks for about 20 minutes on KRLD, describing his beliefs and saying he is the most seriously wounded of the Branch Davidians.

Cyanide mention

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

As far as I can tell, it is accurate that CS can form poisonous cyanide. However, this theoretical possibility does not, by itself, seem to justify a mention in the article. Disturbingly, the citation attached to this statement claimed that its source, "Waco: Rules of Engagement", was published by the New Yorker, a reputable news organization, when it was in fact published by an entertainment company. This is a red flag, although it is possible that it was an innocent mistake. I have correct this and also merged it with another citation in the article referring to the same video, as a housekeeping task.

I did find one news report stating that cyanide was found in some of the bodies, from the Los Angeles Times (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-05-29-mn-7278-story.html). However, this is the only place that I found this assertion, and the autopsy records do not appear to be accessible to the public (searching the Tarrant County Medical Examiner's Case Records at https://mepublic.tarrantcounty.com/?linklocation=supermenu&linkname=Medical+Examiner+Case+Records shows no records for the entirety of 1993, I assume that cases have not been digitized that far back). Since there is only one source for this, it is a controversial topic, and there is some evidence of malicious editing, I removed the reference to cyanide poisoning. They were trapped in a burning building. Whether they died from self-harm, carbon monoxide poisoning, being set on fire, or cyanide created by the CS gas is moot.

That said, if there are additional sources asserting the existence of cyanide in the body, or the reports from the Tarrant County Medical Examiner can be located and referenced, this information should absolutely be added to the article. We should include all information we know to be true. Skyvine (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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)

"Serve a warrant" in Lede

The lede contains the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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