Talk:Branch Davidians/Archive 1

Archive 1

Let's Rise Above the Smoke and Mirrors

While I agree that the article needs a major overhaul, it must be done to truly reflect the 4 opposing views of the matter. Those 4 are: (1) The followers of David Koresh; (2) The Government; (3) The Branch Davidians who did not go with David Koresh in his unique faction but who followed George Roden for a while; and (4) The Branch Davidians who did not go with David Koresh in his unique faction but remained with Lois Roden.

Though but few understand the true distinction between the various factions which may be known by the name Branch Davidian, the very fact that the Koreshians lost their bid in 2000 to gain legal title to Mt. Carmel Center due to the efforts of one Lois Roden's followers, proves that there is more to this matter than what most people commonly understand. With all due respect to DoomBringer, the very fact that he/she (?) says, "I can't be bothered to read the 40 pages of text (probably interlaced with bible verses)" about the link he/she feels needs to be removed shows that there are people who don't care to know any more than what they already presume to be true. This attitude seems contrary to the Wiki principle which is stated as being "audi alteram partem," meaning "hear the other side or hear both sides."

Also, DoomBringer's reluctance to read the Warfare article because it may contain "bible verses" also shows a prejudice which surely must effect his/her evaluation of its worth. After all, the article is about a religious group, so one might well expect any link that provides a discussion on the matter to involve discussions on Bible verses. The article on Mormons contains links to things written by the Mormons and which contain Bible verses. The same is true of the article about Jehovah's Witnesses, and probably most every other article on any religious group (Bible based or otherwise).

What is lacking from the article are the facts concerning how the Seventh Day Adventists, in general, and the original Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists, in particular, are viewed by the other churches, and how this has (or may have) affected the portrayal of the events in this matter. That is, anyone who has a general knowledge of the Adventist doctrine knows that the general Protestant and Catholic churches are quite antagonistic to the Adventists because the Adventists say they are wrong in keeping Sunday instead of Saturday as the Sabbath. I have noticed in other articles which concern such controversies that there is presented a section on the "Catholic" point of view, and on the "anti-Catholic" ones.

After reading another comment by RegBarc, it is even more apparent that people will cling to what they feel secure with, and may choose to disregard the bigger picture. I say this because RegBarc states,

"Now, before anyone points it out to me, let me say, I am aware that rickross.com is an anti-cult website. HOWEVER, the links I provided are not his, or his writers, thoughts or opinions. The two articles I listed there are from Time Magazine and the Washington Post. PBS has excellent resources on what happened at Waco, and I encourage anybody seeking to edit this article, or just looking for futher information to check it out." RegBarc 13:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Therein he mentions "Time Magazine," as though it is a reliable source for information on the Branch Davidian matter. The reason I mention this is that, as the author of the link (The Warfare...) that DoomsBringer wants to remove as being unfit for people to examine, I know first hand that Time magazine refuses to tell the true story, but, for whatever reason, is caught up in the popular misportayal of events. The reason that I can say this with confidence is that the Monday following the February 28, 1993 raid, I was interviewed by a reporter from said magazine for around one hour. Yet not only did that magazine choose to totally disregard my testimony (1) about how Vernon Howell's (a.k.a., David Koresh's) was at first (for nearly 4 years) a different association, with a different name (Davidian Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists), and was not even interested in seeing the proof of such (which is posted in Appendix 1 of that Warfare... link ); (2) of how Lois Roden did not lose her position as president of the church, nor pass her leadership on to Howell, but instead openly opposed his presumptions and assumptions, and (3) that I was one of the members of the church who did not leave it to go with Vernon Howell, but they went so far as to portray me as one of Howell's disaffected ex followers.

I have that Time article, if anyone wishes to see what I am taking about(I believe this writer maant to use the word talk instead of taking). The matter of Lois' antagonism to Howell's assumptions, and his admitting of the facts are quoted at the end of the Warfare... link. If anyone one wants a copy of the audio tape that is transcribed at the end of that presentation, I can supply it also. But you might be able to get a copy from the Koreshians. I would be curious to know if they have altered it.

What is really of note in this whole matter is that during the 1993 standoff one of the women who came out of the building stated that Koresh had said that he now wanted his followers to be known as "Koreshians." This was in many news reports at the time. Yet they are still claiming to be "Branch Davidians" in spite of the fact that they have forsaken most all of the fundamental teachings of the church. A perfect example is the well reported fact that the church teaches strict vegetarianism, yet Howell encouraged his followers to eat meat again, and did so freely himself. His wives (concubines) is another radical departure from clear, historic, Branch teachings.

I am not in the least bit pleased at the portrayal of the events that one of the Koreshians, or one of their supporters, have written in the article (and it appears that I am not alone in this), and feel that the only way to rectify the matter is to rewrite it stating that there are differing points of view, state those points of view individually, and let the chips fall where they may. That way the article will be much more accurate to the real situation, and not be so confusing or offensive to those of the differing POVs. After all, how can a controversial subject be properly reported without admitting and accurately portraying the controversy? anyone7 00:40, 21 July 2005

Umm...That whole quote wasn't me. Did you even read what he put there? The only thing I put was this: "It is not the place of Wikipedia to ask questions (rhetorical questions, at that). It's not NPOV. Also, you're inferring that they wished for combat and stating what their categorization is, instead of adding all sides. The prelude, raid, and aftermath need A LOT of work to remove this stuff. Also, the rickross stuff is POV links that can otherwise be obtained from less radical sources. If they can't be obtained from less radical sources as to recalling factual events, then they don't belong there."

That's it. It you have a problem with that, then adress that directly. But what you quoted was some other poster who was anon and untagged. RegBarc 01:00, 22 July 2005

Well, the thing is, I would have read that site, but at that point, I had already read the 5 or so other sites I had removed... and I was quite tired of reading them. Feel free to read it yourself, but I don't (and didn't) have time to give the link any deep thought or analysis. My thing about Bible verses is that they're usually just completely misconstrued or thrown in to make the thing seem more Christian (and thus, more important/serious/whatever). The goal of what I wrote about that link was to encourage someone else to do that one for me... I did the rest. DoomBringer 06:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Removing pointless or bad links...

I'm going through each site, and removing them as I find them irrelevant or pointless. DoomBringer 9 July 2005 07:26 (UTC)

Can anyone go through the "The Warfare of Vernon Howell (a.k.a. David Koresh) and others against the Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists" link and tell me if it's worthwhile? It is truly massive, and seems to be written by a Branch Davidian or whatever... so I doubt it's accuracy or validity. I can't be bothered to read the 40 pages of text (probably interlaced with bible verses...) DoomBringer 9 July 2005 07:32 (UTC)

This attitude will never serve to eliminate the POV problems with the article. Salty Kid | talk 18:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Missing links

Who is Amo Bishop Roden? S/he is mentioned in the bottom section but not in the top. Presumably this person is related to the other Rodens in the article, but how or who?

Also, what is the connection to MOVE? It is not explained in either article.

- Keith D. Tyler ¶ 00:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I've just created a stub for Amo Bishop Roden, actually not in response to your request, but after seeing her redlinked on the page for the Boards of Canada EP, In a Beautiful Place... I don't want wikipedia to be cluttered up with articles on every obscure Tom, Dick, and Harriet, but apparently someone else thought she deserved a wikilink.

I've also now edited the "Today" section to link to my new entry, and also to change references to Amo Bishop to Amo Roden. Calling her by her maiden name is a way of casting aspersions on the legitimacy of her marriage to George Roden (and more broadly, to her claim on Mt. Carmel, even her claim to be a Branch Davidian). While there are grounds for doing so, she calls herself ABR and she's known to the public as such. It would be akin to someone changing all references to David Koresh to Vernon Howell, or Muhammad Ali to Cassius Clay. Besides, she has had many other husbands besides George, so using her maiden name is dubious also.

As for MOVE, there is no direct connection. Many people see parallels between the two situations: grudges over dead officers, exaggerated reports of massive arsenals and fortresslike defenses, excessive force, fires allowed to burn out of control, callous disregard for the lives of "cultists..." One tangential connection is that Ron Noble, the nominee for Treasury law enforcement undersecretary, had been a Philadelphia official at the time of MOVE. When he got wind of the planned ATF raid, he was nervous about another potential MOVE disaster, and got reassurances that the raid would be called off if the element of surprise was lost. (Though there is a theory that after ATF commanders learned they didn't have surprise, they called him to get his OK for the raid.)

I also can't see a direct connection to Gordon Kahl, for that matter. When he was surrounded, the feds used CS gas, and when he didn't come out (because he had been fatally shot, but they didn't know that), they set fire to his hideout to burn him out. The parallels some people see should be obvious. --WacoKid 22:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy

If one of the major editors could let me know if this page is factually accurate in its current state, I would appreciate it; the Waco Siege article has a factual dispute tag that references this article as the source of the problem.Daemon8666 21:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I accept the current page as (at least more or less) accurate, which is why I removed the accuracy disputed tag on February 27. However, I don't agree that the Waco Siege article is accurate, which is why I put the tag there and plan to restore it.

I also wouldn't say that this article is the source of Waco Siege's problems, but the material itself, which attracts people who have more POV than knowledge. Thus, it caused accuracy and POV problems when it was in the David Koresh article, it carried the problems to this article, and remains problematic now that it has been separated into its own article. Branch Davidian got rid of most of its problems by shunting them off to W_S. What remains at this page would only be contentious to those who are more informed about the Branch Davidians than the general public. (An anti-Koresh Branch Davidian has edited this article, which is why it goes into so much detail about the post-1993 land dispute, but his POV has been pared down so that it is reasonably NPOV.) --WacoKid 22:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Innocent or guilty

The article states that when the survivors were put on trial,they were found not guilty of murder,but some of them were found guilty om manslaughter.I don't know that that is accurate.From ALL I have read and heard,after the jury found them all not guilty,the federal judge berated the jury,and then,in a legal move that I frankly don't understand,entered a guilty verdict.I am going to do some more research,get some sources and then probably edit out this BS and put in the facts.Saltforkgunman 02:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

They were acquitted of conspiracy to murder, convicted of manslaughter, but also for using a firearm in the conspiracy. Originally, the judge threw out the firearm verdict because of the inconsistency, but after the prosecution argued that there was precedent for inconsistent verdicts, he reinstated them, claiming that he had never thrown them out, only planned to later. Manslaughter carried a maximum of ten years, but the firearms charge allowed him to tack on another thirty. In justifying his sentencing, he even reversed the logic, arguing that since the jury convicted them of using a firearm in the conspiracy, they obviously believed them guilty of conspiracy to murder, despite a letter from the forewoman explaining that the jury had misunderstood, believing that the charge was for using a firearm in a felony including manslaughter, not tied specifically to the conspiracy count.

As far as "editing out this BS and putting in the facts," remember that Waco Siege is now the main article for the standoff, not this one. --WacoKid 23:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Seven Seals Inclusion

This article would benefit from a brief description and explanation of the Seven Seals. I think understanding the Seven Seals is key to understanding the Branch Davidians. As far as online resources go, I'm not sure what site would be the most reliable to quote or link to. Religious sites tend to be on the subjective side...

And as a side note, why is the Waco Siege article so God awful? That article must be one of the worst ones in all of Wiki land. Mr Christopher 18:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't strike me as particularly bad. WhiteCat 09:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

On second thought perhaps I'll quote my trusty bible for the Seven Seals :-) Mr Christopher 19:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone explain what this sentence is saying?

Davidians believed prophesy to foretell a cyclic series of events, described as a spiral, with history returning to prophetically foretell events but each time, advance in terms of cosmological progress.

I can't make heads or tails of it. Mr Christopher 04:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It means that history repeats itself in a foreseeable manner as the universe ages. Or it means that the frog in your blender will go round and round if you keep pushing the button. Take your pick. Rklawton 04:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll take frogs in a blender for $200, Alex...Seriously, I am working on some of the early Davidian history and that sentence is probably going to go unless some evidence surfaces to support it. I haven't found anything remote that suggests that reflects Davidian beliefs Mr Christopher 15:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoever first wrote that was apparently paraphrasing from Dick Reavis' Ashes of Waco, which in trying to explain about "typical" and "antitypical" events, uses the spiral metaphor (early in Chapter 6, p. 59 in the original hardcover). A closer look at this passage indicates that he was actually attributing this quality to typological conceptions in general, not just the Davidian version: "According to views which accept 'typical' and 'antitypical' events... history is like a spiral..." I did a text search on two Davidian sites that feature the collected works of VT Houteff, and the word "spiral" does not appear on them. So it is likely that the passage represents Reavis' understanding, rather than how Davidians themselves think of their beliefs.

Note that I'd already made two changes to that sentence. First, I added the beginning phrase, "According to Houteff's heavily typological system," in order to introduce the concept of typology explicitly. Second, I moved it from one of the last paragraphs in the History section to the top, to make it clear that it was a teaching Koresh inherited rather than originated. --WacoKid 23:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Raid and Siege

Paragraph #1 states "Eventually, legal authorities investigated their charges." The authorities involved should be specified here. It's not clear if this references the local child welfare authorities or the Drug Enforcement Agency. Rklawton 21:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, this section is only intended as a brief summary, those who want details are directed to the Waco Siege article. --WacoKid 22:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Naming the authority doesn't change the length of the sentence. Just replace "the local authorities" with the name of the authority (e.g. "state child welfare" or "the DEA" etc). Rklawton 17:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant information

This article needs to be pared down. Especially towards the end, a lot of the information is obscure (to put it mildly). To a person reading about Branch Davidian for the first time, like me, it's a bit of a put-off. --Smithfarm 18:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Government Confrontation

Something needs to be mentioned about the critics of the government in more detail. There is no mention of who ordered the military-style seige. There is little mention of how many see this as unncessary confrontation with religious groups by government agencies and how some claims about them as cults grew out of proportion while other facts were perhaps not realized. There is little mention about all the various viewpoints detailed here. Some even going so far as to call it murder. It could be given that they were "surrounded" and perceived to being shot at by the mere act of exiting. Also, little detail about what attempts there were to rescue children or the survivors IMHO. This article is almost a stub. Many people were glued to their sets during the whole seige. It was one of the biggest media frenzies of its time next to the OJ trials. Why that is would be worthy of yet another article. Also, what did the government do after the fact? Would or could they do something like this again or have measures been taken to prevent confrontations like this? Is the advancement of humanism in modern society seen as the cureall by the government and no further action was taken? Lives were lost. I do appreciate links to cults. They fit most definitions but some might even open that for debate as to how and how not or if the definition is fair or not. (another article though but one in which this would be an example). Dare I edit without fear of losing my work due to PC'ness and perceived slants?

Johngagon 12:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

language

okay, i'm new at this so go easy on me. i don't know all of the facts of the case. however, the language alone seems biased. even if all of the facts are correct, and they may be, the way the article is written would tend to make me discount the information in it. can this be corrected? Ampardue 18:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Bad people?

Were the branch davidians necessarily bad people ? why did the government brutally murder them? -from ;1939newleader

Eirra 20:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC) In my opinion, they were not bad people. They were extremists. Also, it isn't proven that the government murdered them.

I have lived in the Waco area for a majority of my life. The Davidians were led a by a man who was on massive power trip and led his followers to their deaths. That and the way the govt. led the assualt that day could of been handle a lot differently.ShadowWriter 03:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Some clarification of terms

What was done to the people at the Branch Davidian 'compound' was a MASSACRE.Not a 'DEBACLE'. Not a 'TRAGEDY'.A debacle is when the President of the United States gets caught playing cigar with a teenage girl in his office and his wife finds out.Debacle.A tragedy is when a loaded semi runs over a carload of teenage pussy.Tragedy.It was a massacre.Saltforkgunman 05:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

How eloquent! -- 12.116.162.162 18:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There was no Tragedy or Debacle or Massacre involved. A massacre is something like the revolutionaries getting shot in Boston after throwing snowballs at the British soldiers. A massacre is the events that happened at Kent State during Vietnam. What happened here was that federal agents entered the property, and were fired upon. 4 ATF agents were killed. If deadly force is used against you, there is no massacre. There is retalliation and victory. Essentially, this was a battle in which one side was poorly trained, outnumbered, and lacked the technology required to win.

[edited out useless verbal attack]

Removal of bias

I tried to remove the bias from the Raid and Siege section. I think I got most of it. If everyone else agrees, the article can probably be un-tagged. Ultiam 03:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about that; there are still many points that have no citations. I just attempted to fix the blatant non-NPOV in the media section. I still think it's a bit biased, but there's validity to the point that SOME believe that the media is to blame. But the concept that they weren't fanatical in actuality--and that the media falsely portrayed them as such? I don't think so. We can objectively say that their leader, at least, was both "fanatical" and "criminal." The first citation in that section is sketchy as well, whereas the second is more objective. If anyone else agrees, I would suggest knocking out the sketchy one and further paring down the language of the section. Efrafra (talk) 04:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I'm going to work on sourcing the article. Word. Missvain (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the following line from the "Media" section since it didn't belong there. Since it's the most current detail, I suppose it could go in the intro. However, since there's absolutely no info about where this info comes from, I didn't think it would make sense to put there now. If anyone has a source for this, here it is:

It has been reported that a break off from the Branch Davidians is being formed in Mabank, Texas by a woman who visits David Koresh's gravesite on a weekly basis and believes she is here to carry on his mission as the Messiah.

Efrafra (talk) 04:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Flite-Rites

I just corrected a statement that Flite-Rites are non-pyrotechnic. This is not true, and in fact the use of Flite-Rites has been found to be the cause of several hundred fires. This prompted most American law enforcement agencies to ban their use except in extreme circumstances.

When fired, the Flite-Rite burns for about 20 seconds, during which time the steel case of the grenade becomes red hot. Designed as a penetrator, with hardened steel nose, it is considered LETHAL weaponry. Critic-at-Arms (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Branch Davidians/Mount Carmel Seige

Now, I'll be the first to admit that the Branch Davidians weren't the sanest bunch of people. However, I believe the article posted was extremely bias in favor of how the government handled the situation. I remember watching the whole ordeal on TV when I was 13. I watched every single day of the seige. I originally thought because of news coverage that the Branch Davidians set the fire themselves. They were extreme in their beliefs. This was all TV have pumped us full of.

The point that should never be forgotten was this. The ATF claimed that they raided the place due to the Davidians having a stockage of guns. I remember the coverage vividly. It was later discovered that all of the guns were legally owned and registered. Now, I wouldn't exactly be comfortable with a bunch of extremists held up in a compound with guns either, but the law is the law. They were not breaking it.

The way it ended was the most horrific ending of any seige I ever witnessed on TV. I didn't realize everything that was happening at first. I was only 13. However, I remember that when the compound caught fire, the ATF ordered the Fire Department to stay away at first because they didn't want them to get shot. I'm pretty sure that people facing the possibility of burning alive would have had killing firemen on their mind.

They were strong in their beliefs that Uncle Sam didn't have a right to be there. Not to mention the fact that some accounts, from survivors, were that the ATF did not state who they were before attempting to breach the compound. As a result, many men, women, and children were burnt beyond recognition. Since history is written by the winners, the ATF has taken the position that all of their actions were proper, legal, and necessary. I'm not one for questioning a government that has taken such good care of me, but they made a horrible mistake that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.55.89 (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Please Clarify

I don't think that the Branch Davidians should be linked with Seveth-day Adventists; that gives the not loony Adventists a bad name. What I'm saying is, can someone PLEASE clarify that the Branch davidians are actually not a part of the Seventh-day Adventists, but just a cult that deceptively claims that they are? Danielaustinhall12 (Go Wolverines!) 01:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The way the article describes the sect is, unfortunately, the best available description. If we were to try to eliminate all the negative connotations within splinter groups on the groups they split off from, we'd have a PR nightmare. Consider just the Koresh group: they're a splinter group of the Branch Davidians, which are a splinter group of the Davidian Seventh-Day Adventist Church (The Shepherd's Rod), which is a splinter group of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, which is the outgrowth of the 1844 Millerite Movement, which is an offshoot... and so on ad infinitum. Ad nauseam too.

I accept your complaint as valid; I just don't see any way to handle this without compromising NPOV and providing a lot of excess verbiage that really doesn't belong. Caeraerie (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Name

What exactly does "Branch Davidian" mean?

The branch of the Seventh Day Adventists which followed the teachings of King David (whatever that means)? The branch of the Seventh Day Adventists that followed the teachings of David Koresh? Or Branch Davidian = "branch of David", i. e. offspring of King David, and an allusion that Jesus was a descendant of King David? (I suspect the latter).

Currently the article only states opaquely: "Branch" refers to the new name of Christ.

Oh, he's called "branch" now? Somebody should call the pope.

Jokes aside, someone please clear this up. Thanks. Maikel (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it comes from the name of the person who will rebuild the temple, according to the prophet Zachariah in the Old Testment, Chap. 6 -- "And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD:" I don't have a reference for this theory, or I would add it to the main page.

Hypnopomp (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I added an explanation of the different names under the "History" section of the article, along with the Bible references. Hypnopomp is generally correct. The Branch applies that chapter of Zechariah to the latter days, rather than at the time the prophecy was made because of the context of the texts. That is, no one named "the Branch" had anything to do with building the second temple. Moreover, the Branch teaches that both the first and second temples were types of two phases of the Christian church. The first (Solomon's temple) was a type of the early Christian church that was destroyed by anytitypical "Babylon" (the Catholic church) when they brought in the sun worship practices and theories of ancient Babylon. The second temple was a type of the current building of the latter day Christian church. Thus, the "man whose name is the Branch" refers to Christ in His current work of building His temple (church). That is the short version of it all. Anyone77 (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed work group

There is currently discussion regarding the creation of a work group specifically to deal with articles dealing with this subject, among others, here. Any parties interested in working in such a group are welcome to indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed Dispute Notice

As the disputed material was moved to another article, and there have not been any disputes raised on the current content, I removed the dispute notice.Anyone77 (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible vandalism

It appears that someone (134.210.57.32) has removed the entire "See Also" and "External Links" in such a way as it cannot be simply undone. If this was vandalism please cease from it. If not, please login and post your reasons for doing such in the Discussion section so that the matter may be properly resolved.Anyone77 (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

External links

Added {{No more links}} to EL sect. Cirt (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Vernon Howell/David Koresh story

Whatever the legal name of the guy to use, should the story of "Vernon Howell's (David Koresh's) affiliation with the Branch" really be in this article? The article itself is about Branch Davidians and mentioning VH/DK should be brief and described as an offshot from the Branch Davidians. The entire text in the section could be another article about a destructive (provably so) cult founded by Vernon Howell in the fringe among power-struggling real Branch Davidians. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Forget it! After reading the article, I simply understand nothing. It seems there was a major controversy but the involvement of Vernon Howell with the movement and its impact on it is extremely confused in the article. Well, did he burn a whole farm in Waco Texas or not? He died, the text says, but first he does something of less interest, then the text simply claims "after his death".

• Why did he die?
• Who did he kill first?
• What houses did he burn down to ground?
• What policemen did he shoot dead first?
• Why did the policemen come there?
• What were the accusations against Vernon Howell? Did he steal a farm from some Branch Davidians, or did he do sexual abuses or did he own illegal weapons?

Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

WAR

It is possible that those that survived may be preparing for war. Can this be stated ? 65.173.105.79 01:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's possible that those who survived are preparing for Elvis to return. If we post all of the "possibilities," this is going to be a very long article. Critic-at-Arms (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As of 2010 survivors like Clive Doyle, David Thibodeau and Sheila Martin appear to have patiently been advocating a peaceful pursuit of justice. Naaman Brown (talk) 11:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

David Koresh (Vernon Howell) Vernon Howell (changed to David Koresh) etc.

What is the purpose of repeatedly stating that David Koresh was previously Vernon Howell? It does nothing to clarify or add to the article, and stands out upon reading as forced. More importantly, it's not Wikipedia convention, and seems to be attempting to sneak in some subtle POV. I hesitate to remove it entirely, but I will if I'm not given a decent explanation of why it should be mentioned more than once (and honestly, I really think it should be out entirely). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.29.215 (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It should be mentioned at least once: anyone researching the subject will find the name Vernon Howell before May 1990 not the name David Koresh adopted then. The federal form 4473 gun sales records after 1990 used both names birth and aka legal with Tex DL number (his driver's licence may have listed both names). Historically I think referring to him as Koresh before May 1990 is anachronistic and contrary to contemporaneous records. (Vernon Wayne Howell filed a petition in California State Superior Court in Pomona on 15 May 1990 to change his name legally "for publicity and business purposes" to David Koresh; on 28 Aug 1990 Judge Robert Martinez granted the petition. ref: Clifford L. Linedecker, Masscre at Waco, Texas, St. Martin's Press, 1993, page 94.) Naaman Brown (talk) 12:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Disfellowship and Excommunicate... same things?

BTW, just FYI, Adventists do not 'Excommunicate', they 'Disfellowship'. It is the belief of the church that they cannot control the communication between man and god and that man is fallible, therefore the only recourse against those felt to be in violation of orthodoxy is for them to be removed from the roles of the church, ie, 'disfellowshipped'. This has no force other than removing the membership.

I agree and have changed the text accordingly. AFAIK Seventh-day Adventists do not excommunicate.--98.70.58.162 (talk) 11:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, SDA's disfellowship. Excommunication is an act that originated with the Catholic Church, which claims through its doctrine that it (the church) is the conduit between God and Man. Other claims of the Roman Church similarly originate within the church and have no basis in Scripture; but like many things originated within the Roman Catholic Church may have been adopted by any of its' Protestant "daughter" churches. I do know that a few of the Protestant churches likewise refute any claim to communication, and when confronted with an unruly member, will "dis-fellowship" that individual. 75.184.127.157 (talk) 09:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This is what happens

This is what happens when you get an offshoot of an offshoot of a religious group founded by a man who was disfellowshipped by an obscure denomination of a division within Christianity. Seems to me that when you're trying to reform the message of the reformed reformer's reformation, you end up with Babylon and infighting and the literal case of he said she said they said. To this I say 'nuts'!

I rather think this is a fine example of why we should judge a thing by its fruits. 75.184.127.157 (talk) 10:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

False start

After beginning to read this article i feel it has a strange start to it. Why does it begin by talking about Relationship to other groups (more like David Koresh's relationship with the group) instead of beginning with the history section. The controversial dispute regarding whether Koresh's teachings were truly a form of the Branch Davidians or a separist group should be much further down the article page. Monkeymanman (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

References to "Koresh's survivors"

The references to "Koresh's survivors" is subversive bias. It is still highly disputed as to what took place in 1993. Saying "Koresh's survivors" implies that Koresh is to blame for the deaths in 1993; a point that is highly contentious.

So how should it be worded, 'Survivors from Event's at Waco'? I feel there are errors throughout the article so any further input into changes would be most welcome. Monkeymanman (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism

There has to be a better way of phrasing, "The Branch Davidians have many theological beliefs in Messianic Judaism", but I'm drawing a blank. Thoughts, anyone? Joefromrandb (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The Branch Davidians have many beliefs in common with Messianic Judaism.198.229.219.72 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry RegBarc

My sincerest apologies to RegBarc for misunderstand what was your position, and what was someone else's. I have read Rick Ross' things and found them to be quite biased, almost to the point of being purposely misleading. I find it hard to believe that people are able to rise above their own prejudices in this matter, as I have had quite the opposite experiences. I see that I need more faith in the power of truth to correctly influence even the most stubborn of hearts and minds. In my Wafare... link I not only tell about the experiences I had at the beginning of this controversy in the 1980s but through the 1993 incident, etc. I couldn't even get the members of Congress who were supposed to be investigating the truth of the matter to look into the fact that the true Branch church was continually being misrepresented. So I am sorry if I have acted in a combative manner, such has never been my intention.

We have had a hard time even getting the basic facts of our situation in the article, as others have repeatedly tried to remove them. I have not looked at the clean up work RegBarc has done recently, but I intend to as soon as possible. I have tried to avoid getting involved in either the Koreshian's or the government's POV on the matter, as they are both clearly trying to sustain their actions while condemning to other's. Though few may be able to see clearly to understand that the whole thing was a set up from the beginning, and was designed to go down pretty much the way it did, I can only pray that people's hearts and minds will be exercised by these controversies to see the overall picture, as sad and hard as it may be.

So regarding the many reports, books, investigations, and other things people have said about the BD situation, I can only say, "Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be accounted of?" Isa 2:22 (sorry DoomBringer, for the Bible verse) anyone7 09:26, 22 July 2005

"Though few may be able to see clearly to understand that the whole thing was a set up from the beginning, and was designed to go down pretty much the way it did..."

You accuse others of bias yet peddle a conspiracy theory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.67.75 (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

David Koresh was not BDSDA; and BDSDA is not David Koresh

Was really glad to see the separating out of the "Waco Seige" information. And am looking forward to seeing the Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventist article be more fully fleshed out soon. As another commentator suggested, I have been reading the lengthy (but very interesting and information-packed!) paper *The Warfare against the Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists by David Koresh, and Others (available at www.the-branch.org). Additionally, I have been checking out some of the items contained in the Warfare paper (including the assertion that David Koresh for a period of time used the name "Davidian BDSDA" for his group), and (from a myriad of sources, pro and con BDSDA) it ALL CHECKS OUT. For those who just won't have the time to read the "Warfare" paper (or, if they have no SDA background), an improved Wiki article will be a great service.

For here is a main idea to keep in mind: David Koresh is not BDSDA! So what is BDSA? Well -- that is what the Wiki article should be about (NOT about David Koresh -- who deceptively stole the name and has confused everyone for too long).

I don't know if those without a true SDA background will easily understand all that is involved. But I DO know that EVERY lover of Freedom and Truth CAN fully appreciate what a breathe of fresh air it is to finally have the facts becoming available to all who care to read them. And THAT is what epitomizes the role of Wikipedia: Making the information available to all who desire to know the truth. For as fantastic as it may sound, the GREATER sin may have been committed not by the ATF/FBI, etc. (horrific as it was!) and with the resulting temporal deaths of dozens of men, women, and children; but by David Koresh -- who deceived not only those under his tutelage, but also all those of us who were for too long given a wrong picture of BDSDA (which could have resulted in COUNTLESS ETERNAL deaths).

--WestPalmBeach 03:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I added some info on Koresh renaming his group after 1985. If you want to see the legal document, I have a .pdf of it. As for my qualifications, I was a follower of Koresh from 84-89. I am quoted in this article but I did not add that.

--Dbunds 14:52, 05 December 2007 (PST)

Is the document copyrighted? Could you post it in the Wikimedia commons? --98.70.58.162 (talk) 11:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but as the above poster pointed out, it is refreshing to learn the facts behind the real Branch Davidian church, beyond all of Koresh's antics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.67.75 (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

This article needs a complete re-write

This article has terrible POV problems, meanders all over the place (poorly organized), and has way too much unsourced material. If if is not rewritten, it should simply be deleted.198.229.219.72 (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Most of the unsourced stuff that is tagged can ALL be cited from THE ASHES OF WACO an exhaustively sourced journalistic inquiry into both sides of the case that is more balanced than anything I've read so far. Info:Syracuse Univ Pr (Sd) (May 1998) ISBN-10: 0815605021 Author: Dick J. Reavis. I can try and help with Cites but I have too many other New religious Movement articles under my belt right now to do a page 1 re-write It's a book I expected to see cited almost every other sentence since Reavis' sources of direct info are also listed in his notes.LiPollis (talk) 04:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, I did some copy-editing and left it tagged. Bearian (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Pruning

I just massively pruned three large sections of essay--like OR and synthesis, not to mention BLP violations. If anyone objects let's discuss here first. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Relation of VTH to SDA

I just wanted to say that V.T.H. did not leave the SDA church,he was kicked out.

Eirra 20:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC) Yes, he was. He fell in love with an underage girl, and the church didn't support their marriage. So he got kicked out for being a bad example.

Eirra, let's hope you are just naive and not being purposefully deceptive. That is false on what you have said. Study the true history. "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Presenttruth777 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Why did the siege happen?

No. I'm not a Wikipedia expert so I hope this is ok. If there's any top to bottom re-write, I hope there might be some discussion of what prompted the move against them? I can't find any enlightenment on that and can't recall, directly, what it was about. Rob G. 2606:A000:C749:7900:3CE4:9177:3EBD:5DED (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Work needed

This article needs more work, specifically towards their actual beliefs, the Waco siege, reasons why it happened, and perhaps some information on the alleged child abuse as well as the gun charges against the Branch. I will attempt to add as I have time, does anyone have any other suggestions? Rigidbodyratking (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC) I have updated the Waco Siege bit accordingly. Rigidbodyratking (talk) 18:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality and equating Branch Davidians with "Koreshians"

This is a fundamental issue that needs to be resolved. Currently, the article presents a bias against Branch Davidians, when there is evidence that David Koresh disencouraged his group to call themselves so, and instead promoted "Students of the Seven Seals". My edits to get rid of this obvious bias against Branch Davidians that violates Wikipedia's policy on neutrality has been called "highjacking of the page". Thoughts?Ernio48 (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

How many Branch Davidians killed on April 19

The Wikipedia page "Waco_siege" states 76
The Wikipedia page "David_Koresh" states 79
The Wikipedia page "Branch_Davidians" states 76 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisdaytrivia (talk • contribs) 17:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The Stolen Identity of the Branch Davidians

Would it be possible for anyone to state that the Waco siege had nothing to do with the true Branch Davidian movement? Koresh and his followers actually called themselves "Students of the Seven Seals".Branch93 (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)branch93

Early History

This topic needs a lot of work. It doesn't describe fully enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Branch93 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Big deceptive mistake on who was "founder" of Branch Davidians

There is a glaring error that should be corrected. Under the title "Branch Davidians" and under the Branch flag, it lists Victor Houteff as "founder". Anyone who can carefully read and understand will see further in the article that Ben Roden was the founder of the Branch Davidians.Your article says-- "Thus, in 1955, after Houteff's death, the Davidians split over who had the qualifications to lead the reform movement. This dispute brought about the General Association of Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists, headed initially by Benjamin L. Roden. The name Branch reflects their belief that Branch is Jesus' new name.[6] In the late 1960s, the group established its headquarters east of Waco, Texas, on the property previously occupied by the Davidians after they sold their property west of Waco in the early 1960s."

Be aware that NOWHERE in any writings of Victor Houteff was there any mention that his church group were known as "Branch" Davidians.This association was strictly Ben and Lois Roden's affiliation. This mis-information leads one to think that there is a possible tie-in with the Koresh teachings to Mr. Houteff. True deception.

Victor Houteff was the founder of the "Davidian Seventh Day Adventists" NOT the "Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists. Please correct this error and deception. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobP12345 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, the Branch Davidians are made to look like their teachings are the teachings of Koresh, when this is not so.Branch93 (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)branch93