Talk:Waco siege

@ 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 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)

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)

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)