Talk:2015 Waco shootout

Gang or club?

Gang or club? Is there a legal distinction for gang? Is "gang" neutral? The police call these folks a "gang", but they call themselves a "club" - so which should we use? Rklawton (talk) 04:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

That'd be a simple one. We use the term the sources use. John from Idegon (talk) 04:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Rklawton (talk) 04:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessarily that simple, because of WP:BLP. If we have a free choice between "gang" and "club" we're supposed to recognize that we need solid evidence to suggest a criminal role for a club whose members might insist they are not outlaws. One of the groups, the Bandidos, has been reported as a significant gang threat, but the others are progressively more obscure and may include just about any group with a word on the back of its jacket and someone in cuffs seen by a reporter. We'll need better proof than the incidental word choice in one or two rushed articles. (Rushed enough that ABC has revised at least three times how many were arrested by police - is it 150, 192, 170 ... or are we still counting?) Wnt (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

After watching the May 18 afternoon press conference via the local Waco channel, the number of people taken into initial custody at the police department was 192. That number has been reduced to 170 and those 170 are the ones that are being charged with organized crime in addition to other crimes such as parole violations or outstanding warrants. As for club vs gang, the police spokesman, Sgt. Patrick Swanton used the term gang. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 20:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm for "club", both because that's what Wikipedia already calls them, by article title, and that, charged with a crime that hinges largely on the question of whether the groups are gangs, it's best to give them the presumption of innocence. They've already lost their bikes and many lost friends, best not to also be prejudged by Wikipedia, just because the media, cops and courts also have. It's a stylistic choice, and we're only meant to reflect the facts as they're reported. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Who killed whom?

Some of the reliable sources indicate that police forces opened fire and shot some of the bikers to prevent them from continuing the violence. It will be important, as time goes by, to determine who was killed by whom in the violence among the bikers, and who was killed by the Waco Police and other law enforcement agencies. Also important to present in the article as more in-depth coverage emerges is the role of the "Twin Peaks" restaurant management. Did this Breastaurant company fail to act to prevent expected violence at their premises? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Local news had their live truck down there during the presser. Seems people are going to wait until the autopsies are done to figure out where the bullets came from. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Yo, Cullen, I think I've got your answer for you man :). According to the latest news, it's indeed possible that some of the victims were shot by officers, but it also seems clear that a majority of the victims were shot by members of the criminal biker gangs. Do you think we should include this in the article, or wait for more developments? SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The outside range on the number claimed to be shot by police is from one to all of the dead, with 4-5 being most repeated. Rhoark (talk) 03:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The Waco Police Massacre is one of the sites saying police shooters killed all nine people.-gadfium 20:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Yea like we could use that for a source. John from Idegon (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Info is slowly coming out and more than 8,800 pages of evidence for the grand jury to review. Police bullets hit bikers News story was on the local news and I drove past the area headed to Austin during Labor Day weekend where it seemed that everything was back to normal, sans Twin Peaks. But I did stop by a Twin Peaks in Dallas once, over priced food and eye candy wasn't all that great. Might have been because it was lunch time on a Tuesday but the sights were bleh at best. Thought I would share. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Original research

It looks like all the bikers were there because a biker rights organization was having a regional meeting at the restaurant. It's on their calendar for the day. http://txcocinews.org/calendar.html It's also on the calendar of a Waco area bikers Union website, UCOW, which lists the Bandidos as members.

So it was, I guess, supposed to be a friendly business meeting, not a party, and certainly not a criminal event or a confrontation. 99.104.111.89 (talk) 07:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Somebody did put the link to the calendar in the article, which is a mistake. It is a WP:PRIMARY source. There are secondary sources that mention it that are better to use. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Richard-of-Earth: There is no ban on primary sources, only on USING them for made-up arguments i.e. original research and such. Our job here is to help people research the topic, not to play keep-away and make it hard for people to get the facts and make up their own minds. By letting people go directly to the site, they can make their own critical evaluation of the organization. I ask all editors, on every article, PLEASE stop destroying primary sources just in order to be obstructive. There is no better source than the horse's mouth! Wnt (talk) 12:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@Wnt: I didn't remove the thing, I just said secondary sources were better. I know we can use primary sources, but in this case the source could be changed by the owners. Because image of the calendar on the page is some sort of Google widget, it is not archived by the Internet Archive. See this shot from 19 May 2015. Also the calendar could be deceptive. From this primary source, we do not know who arranged the meeting, just that somebody put it on the calendar and claimed it was a sanctioned meeting. It could have been put in just after the fact. (I know that is not likely.) In news reports we have a biker who had family arrested say it was a Texas Confederation of Clubs and Independents meeting. We have this primary source we can look at now to verify it because we are concerned with the truth, but we cite the secondary source. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

OK - I have no objection to using lots of secondary sources, and I even understand that sometimes it takes a mention by a secondary source in order to be sure a primary source is real or relevant. Wnt (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

10 deaths in Infobox conflicts with article text

I noticed that the article consistently says nine deaths, but the infobox says 10. There's been several edits since then so I can't tell if the infobox is wrong, or that we're missing information in the text. This was the edit that changed it from 9 to 10, only citing that "one man died later @ the hospital": http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=2015_Waco_shootout&diff=prev&oldid=662980363. The editor was Bobby_Iverson

Hopefully someone can clear that up.

Thanks Treeees (talk) 20:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Correct number is 9 as per most recent info from the police and news. 8 died at the scene and 1 was taken to the hospital where he died. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

snipers on roof

Ukraine mydiesn style shooting? There is report "On Monday, police snipers perched on the restaurant's roof"

• 'On Monday, President Barack Obama announced a new executive order aimed at making sure that situation -- more often associated with Palestine ..doesn’t happen again'
• Bouth Monday 18/5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 04:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The quote about the new executive order [1] refers to Ferguson; the Waco shootout is actually cited as a counter-example in the other direction. The quote about the snipers comes from [2]; the longer quote is "On Monday, police snipers perched on the restaurant’s roof as officers in tactical gear and armed with assault rifles guarded the outer perimeter of the yellow crime scene tape." Wnt (talk) 11:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

"According to Police" Removal

On 20 May 2015, I added "According to police" to line 64, so that it read "According to police, more than 100 weapons were recovered from the scene of the crime." Someone removed that, saying "I don't think that intro is needed."

While I may personally believe the police are likely telling the truth about this, the addition seemed to me to be a more neutral POV, as well as making clear that the police are the source of the information.

I am interested in more community input on this, before I change it back.Snideology (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the current article, you'll see that the sentence in question has evolved to "The police said they recovered about 320 weapons from the crime scene". What's to "change back"? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see that. Oddly, the original version was displayed for me yesterday, which is why I brought it up. So no worries, problem solved as far as I am concernedSnideology (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

"Spokesman Patrick Swanton said police recovered about 320 weapons from the crime scene. Swiss army knives, pocket knives, handguns, and an AK-47 style rifle were among the weapons found.[41]

A Swiss Army knife is not a weapon, even if the police say it is. I realize it's a quote, at least we are given the context to judge their claims, but their categorization of everything and the kitchen sink as weapons is laughable. What's the dividing line between normal use of English and repeating police-state propaganda as truth. This bloated and fake number is being used as part of a propaganda campaign to justify the extra-judicial killing of citizens. Are we OK with being at part of that here in the Wikipedia community? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.76.12 (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

No, repeating ridiculous claims just because someone said them, when they are agit-prop designed to cover up the murder of a minority group, is not OK. I agree with the above. 24.22.76.12 (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit warring

There has been recent edit warring to insert a "pro-biker" POV into the article, both by a registered but now blocked user, and by IP editors. The article must summarize what the full range of current neutral reliable sources say. It should not discriminate between pro-police sources or pro-biker sources, as long as they are reliable. Solid reliable sources are increasingly calling the Waco PD statements into question. As long as the sources are reliable, we should pay attention. If, as time goes by, the coverage shifts, then so too, this article should as well. One key missing fact, as I see it, is how many who died were killed by other bikers, and how many were killed by the police? What is the count? And who fired the shots? And if some were killed by the police, is there solid evidence that those people killed were aggressors? There is much that is unknown about this incident. How many of the 170+ who have been arrested actually committed criminal acts? There is great doubt about culpability. There seems little doubt that a large number of innocent people are now jailed. Wearing a vest with a motorcycle club logo is not yet a criminal offense in the USA. This article should evolve as new reliable sources emerge. If solid evidence is produced that bikers killed bikers, so be it. If police snipers killed bikers, as reported by reliable sources as time goes by, then we must not hesitate to report and summarize that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Have requested a hardblock on the blocked editor at ANI. Perhaps that will help. John from Idegon (talk) 05:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Might you please consider a substantive response, based on the very real content issues, as opposed to just reaching for the block tool, John from Idegon? Is that too much to ask, given that nine people are dead and ~170 jailed? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no substantive response needed from me. It would be very unimformed. I have not been editing this page at all. Just trying to keep an eye on it to minimize disruption. Still doing that. You seem to have the situation well in hand. John from Idegon (talk) 05:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, John from Idegon. I appreciate your response and hope you will still keep an eye on it, as I need to both sleep and work. This is a work in progress. Thanks again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I noticed the day that this hit that most of the editors working on it were relatively new, but very enthusiastic. Up until today, they have been doing a bang up job. In the past few days a few more experienced editors have entered the fray, and I think all in all this article is shaping up great. Breaking events articles are a bear. An admin I am aquainted with was up for 56 straight hours right after Sandy Hook happened, trying to keep order in that article. John from Idegon (talk) 07:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

My edits in this subject matter have been few and minor. I was the fellow who pushed for the block on the registered editor last night. The editor was soapboxing, using nothing approximating a source. I'd be interested in mustering minority media views so long as the sources meet WP:Identifying Reliable Sources. A quick search doesn't find much reliable which states police were the aggressors. I'd be willing to read presented sources which say otherwise. This source, while not reliable, presents a side of the story not appearing in the news media yet. If you've got sources, User:Cullen328, please present them here. BusterD (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

BusterD, I just found this USA Today story which presents the biker view of things. I need to work now, but will add it later if no one else does. The "Aging Rebel" blog, though not a reliable source itself, is following the story closely and is worth reading. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Not particular to this case, but in an all-encompassing way, police bringing the fight to organized crime (real or imagined) is routine enough to seem boring. Exceedingly more common than either organized crime fighting police or within itself.

Particular to this case, we know there were many cops already parked outside the restaurant, simply because bikers were there. And we know it's taking an increasingly unusually long time for them to say who shot whom. But while facts may be conspicuous by their absense, and people judged by their silence, the only actual truth to the matter is that many facts are absent and many people are silent. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I have never cited Yahoo News, InedibleHulk. Do you consider it a reliable source? On another matter, I see that an IP has been trying to remove the Washington Post eyewitness account. I think it needs to stand for now unless it is impeached by a better reliable source. Thanks to those who reverted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, they're legit, at least by online news outlet standards, at least since 2011. Like the rest (Washington Post included), they value volume and speed over accuracy, but at least seem to try for all three. I've seen Yahoo! News corrections, but have tried numerous times to make The Los Angeles Times not claim this Doink the Clown left the WWF in 1996. No dice.

Don't let their other shit, especially Yahoo! Answers, fool you. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC) InedibleHulk (talk) 05:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

This video, which I know is not a reliable source, gives a reasonable perspective and explains a lot, if true. I'm starting to come around to the view that RS has been completely hoodwinked by Waco police spokespersons. I'm aware we're compelled to say what the sources say, but I suspect we're going to discover this page is inaccurate in many regards. BusterD (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I saw the same video today, BusterD, and agree that we need to wait to see how this shakes out in reliable sources. My hunch is that what actually happened is dramatically different than what the Waco PD initially reported. So let's all keep our eyes peeled for breaking news. The LA Times published a quite sceptical story on the legal issues today, and I have a strong suspicion that several major papers are investigating this matter diligently. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

What the police reported the next day has been different from what they initially reported, a few times already. Not much different, in that respect, from the first Waco. Note how the wrinkles and holes in that story persist, 22 years later. This article will be a work in progress for quite a while yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Title?

I see we've gained a word. I don't see the need. If there was another shootout in Waco in 2015, sure. But, "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that."

Plus, we still don't know how much of this was a police shootout. The old, concise title doesn't presume either way. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

My intention was to make it easier for people to find the article through search engines. I noticed that a large number of reliable sources use the word "biker", often in headlines. But I am not strongly wedded to the change. If participating editors oppose the change, please feel free to move it back. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't making it more similar to the news headlines make it more likely to get lost in the mix? Or am I missing something about search optimization? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Most search engines push a Wikipedia article up very high if the algorithm sees it as directly relevant. I thought adding "biker" might help. I have seen our article dropping in Google searches recently. I am not an expert in SEO, though. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's clear the move has proved more controversial than expected. For my part I don't think the added word necessary or preferred. I was also unaware search engine optimization was part of the WP:NAMING policy. BusterD (talk) 03:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's possible to overinterpret WP:PRECISE. I entered "2014" in the search box and randomly chose 2014 Guinea ebola outbreak, which redirected to Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa. If that were the only virus epidemic in West Africa, would we feel the need to move it to Virus epidemic in West Africa? I don't see a problem with an "extra" word for descriptive value. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Years are good. The Ebola title works for now, but if another outbreak happens in the region some other year, it won't. I'd also disagree with "virus" there. The disease was the problem. But that doesn't matter here.

Description is good, but where does it end? May 2015 Waco, Texas resturant biker and police shootout and mass arrest? Some info is best suited for the lead, unless disambiguation is needed. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

It ends long before we reach that example, I'd say that goes without saying. Exactly where is just editorial judgment, with no necessarily "correct" answer, and editors can never have too many things to argue about. One word, obviously, is the minimum "extra" one could add, and it's all I'm suggesting. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

And I'll suggest zero is less than one. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Okie dokie. I also want to be clear, I haven't addressed "we still don't know how much of this was a police shootout", only WP:PRECISE. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The reason I don't like the addition of the word biker has nothing to do with it's descriptive quality or its accuracy. There's little question that biker clubs were participants. My concern is the addition of the word "biker" appears to make a judgment about responsibility before we know enough to make that assessment. Excuse the substandard comparisons which follow: We don't call the events of April 20, 1999 the 1999 Columbine High school student shooting even though there several exchanges of fire between two students and the police; neither did we decide to title an article about the events of November 5, 2009 as 2009 Fort Hood Army shooting, even though every person discharging a firearm that day was either US army or Army civilian base police. In this case it appears as though a very small number of bikers fired handguns, and a large number of police opened fire on the poorly armed crowd. It may be found that only one or two bikers discharged a firearm; bikers that have been able to speak out certainly maintain so. It doesn't appear that a single law enforcement officer was hit by gunfire; 27 bike club members were killed or injured. Given the lack of accurate information, I think a very neutral stance (based on the reliable sources) is advised. Based on the evidence so far, I'd prefer the unquestionably accurate "2015 Waco police shooting", but I know that doesn't fit the sources to date. Eventually the word "massacre" might be applied by RS to this event. Sorry for my wall of text, but that's why I prefer the shorter less descriptive title at this time. Unless another shootout occurs in Waco this year (god forbid), I see no reason to add an unnecessary descriptor. BusterD (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

So...back? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that the word implies responsibility, but I guess what matters is that some readers might interpret it that way. So I say back. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Given the name change was made boldly (ie without gaining consensus first), but has been contested, it should be moved back. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I made the move. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the move back to the earlier title at this time. After careful thought and consideration of the input of others, Richard-of-Earth, I agree that "biker" in the title implies something I did not intend. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

"The police said" vs "A police spokesmen said" vs "police sergeant Patrick Swanton said" vs .....

I saw this series of edits by InedibleHulk and it got me to thinking of when we should mention names of non-notable people on the edge of events. I have seen articles where different agencies (government and non-government) made announcements and press briefings and every time the name got mentioned of someone you will never hear of again who was just a mouthpiece. I do not think it contributes to a clear and concise article. What is the Wikipedia policies and guidance on this? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

We'll probably never hear of him again, outside this story. But inside this story, he pops up a lot. He's basically the face of the whole department. Given that, I think his name is significant here, and there's no BLP worries with a man paid to be public, like there is with someone who just happened to witness or get hit by something. "Swanton" is more concise and precise than "a police spokesman" or even "the police". Definitely better than a spokesmen. We should attribute quotes in encyclopedias. "Sources say" is for the news. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Wait, no. Here he explains how the Waco Police Department teaches children to ask for and accept candy from strangers at 2:30 am, then hop in their car. Then they teach the mom to watch her apparently sleeping kid more closely by locking her in jail, pending $2,000. Not to put too fine a point on it, but would it have been so wrong to just give a two-year-old a normal-sized chocolate bar?

Here he is talking about a road warrior style shooting. Apparently, people who drive cars like violence, too.

I guess what I'm trying to say is he's definitely the public arm of Waco law. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, he is the public arm and well face of the Waco police. When people say they won't see him again unless it is in regards to that story, that tells me they do not live in that area. Almost every police department has someone as their public information officer to talk to the media on a regular basis. My favorite is Trooper Guy Gill with the Washington State Patrol. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

My old town's guy was my cousin. I'll withhold his name simply for my own privacy, but he's featured in quite a few papers, too. I could have probably pulled some corrupt stuff, but the opportunity never came up.

Anyway, just readded a "Patrick Swanton" and replaced "police sources" with "Steve Cook, executive director of the Midwest Outlaw Motorcycle Gang Investigators Association". Seems like a totally different thing when it's not shrouded in mystery, doesn't it? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

A slight up on Sgt. W. Patrick Swanton, looks like he is going to run for Sheriff in 2016.Heyyouoverthere (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

He's got my (worthless Canadian) vote! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

ACLU statement

This is a primary source, but we should look for secondary sources covering it. http://www.aclutx.org/2015/06/07/statement-on-dragnet-arrests-jailing-of-bikers-in-waco/

There is new coverage by the New York Times and the Texas Tribune today too. I am at work now but will add some new material this evening. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Latest article at nytimes.com, the next latest being June 7, and that wasn't about ACLU. Except for this, "aclu waco" shows nothing secondary at this time, as far as I can see. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I saw a brief snippet of it on the Dallas TV news when they covered the biker rally in support of the bikers still in jail and they used the word dragnet. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 23:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

That's apparently a solid TV show, and a famous one, but I don't think many people who've heard of it have ever watched a whole episode. Maybe some clues in there (or something). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Heavy biker bias to this article

I just read through this thing to educate myself, and the bias toward the biker club point of view just drips off this. Are you kidding me that nobody has tagged this before 96.241.40.84 (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Please identify specific examples of pro-biker bias. The article summarizes what mainstream media sources have said about the incident. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I removed the POV template. It's been 2 years since it was added and I'm not seeing any pro-biker bias, really. eaolson (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Article has not been updated for a year, needs updates.

Indictments are being superseeded, the first trial is about to start, but you wouldn't know it from this article, which is out of date by over a year now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.76.12 (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Well help yourself. It is not protected. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 00:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)