Talk:Waco siege

Source for BLEVE

@ HandThatFeeds, regarding the reversion of the edit identifying one of the explosions as a BLEVE:

1) The cited document is a technical report by Dr Jerry Havens, a process safety expert from the University of Arkansas. It was prepared under request of the Office of Special Counsel John C. Danforth, which was the party tasked by the Attorney General to assess the facts around the siege. It should be a reliable source, regardless of the website hosting it, as what counts is the document and not the hosting website. However, since you do not seem to like to see any mention to that website, it turns out that a copy was uploaded on Wikimedia Commons. So now the "via" field of the citation refers to Commons, and the weblinks are also to Commons.

2) I have added two additional reliable sources (although for one of them please see the last paragraph of this message): a story published by the University of Arkansas and the relevant page of the Danforth report.

I trust the above is more than sufficient to prevent calling for another revert.

Tangentially, please note that the Danforth report, which is extensively cited in the article, is sourced from a copy uploaded on the CESNUR website, which I understand is a confirmed unreliable source, see Wikipedia:New pages patrol source guide. Based on the reason for your reversion (unreliable hosting website = unreliable source, which I don't think makes sense), then all the long section on the Danforth report, an official government document requested by the Attorney General, should be deleted. Also, the citation to the Danforth report identifies it as the "final report" but the link given is to the interim report... You may want to look into this.

Cheers,

JudeFawley (talk) 04:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the extra research on that. My concern was that the site itself has no clear editorial oversight, and specifically has no expertise on the topic. Another concern is WP:PRIMARY, we prefer not to cite research papers directly, but reliable, secondary sources which discuss them. I don't have time at the moment to dig into the details, but it looks like you've covered the bases now with some extra RSes, so I'm okay with letting the edit stand. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

In Media; gaming, possible addition

In the game Postal 2 on the 5th day, the game makes explicit reference to the siege, to the point of basically recreating the building and siege itself, in Postal 2's usual bad taste, dark comedic manner

I would add it in myself, but I'm not certain of the regulations that have to be followed. I doubt it'd be an expansive addition to the article though. 51.7.70.147 (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• David koresh.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Redundant

Chapters 2 (Prelude) and 3 (Aguilera's affidavit) overlap considerably. They cover largely the same topics and only provide different details on each. I would suggest merging the two chapters. DerMaxdorfer (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Language in the lede

There appears to be blatant editorialization in the lede. The original language was implemented by an IP editor whose only edit involves this page. This includes diminishing government evidence to mete “claims” while elevating contrary sources and seemingly placing more value on these sources improperly. I have attempted to revert the page to a past edition that was more in line with NPOV but I have been reverted with no explanation. Barbarbarty (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Government accounts of events are not stated as fact, with other accounts reduced to “claims”. This is the same failure to uphold neutral framing as were victims accounts stated as fact and the government account a criticism of it. As there are multiple sources that present both sides and framings of events without giving primacy to one, it’s appropriate for an encyclopaedia article to do likewise.

What is common in accounts of the events from a huge number of reliable sources is that a massacre took place and many people were killed, including children.

Your post above does nothing to address or explain your proposed removal of that fact from the lead sentence. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:48, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Except that the current version does the exact opposite of what you claim, while the version I reverted it to is NPOV. The current lede version implies a narrative that is simply not reflected in the sources of the lede, as a “massacre” implies sources unanimously agree the government was at fault when that is not so. Your version gives primacy to the version of events of government skeptics, saying that they “showed” and “agree” the government started the fire. Meanwhile, the government’s version is claimed to be of “alleged” evidence that “ostensibly” shows their side of the story.

You have also blatantly mischaracterized the version I reverted it to. Your misguided edits state you reverted it to a “long-standing status quo.” This is inaccurate. The version I reverted it to was the version that existed in July of 2026. In fact, the current language was added by an IP user less than a month ago. The current version, in fact, is what is not aligned with the status quo. It is objectively correct that the current version does not follow NPOV. Barbarbarty (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Waco_siege&oldid=1365936223

This was the version that existed just over a month ago. My reverts merely restored the page to this version after an IP editor “shuffled around language” blatantly editorializing the lede in order to imply the government’s narrative has been definitively disproven, which is not so. The language you keep on persistently restoring certainly isn’t the “long-standing status quo.” Barbarbarty (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

I just removed the part about it culminating in a massacre. It is blatant POV pushing and as you noted that wording has only been there for one month. Clearly not a long standing version. ~2026-47461-39 (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

That same edit from July 31 also input "incendiary" before CS gas twice in the lead. The sources and the body do not support this. This is inaccurate and further POV pushing.~2026-47461-39 (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2026 (UTC)