Talk:Randy Weaver/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Randy Weaver. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Untitled

Removed "This was done to ensure a conviction.^[1] ". It is conjecture at best, and the use of the afterword of a fictional book is not a reliable source... 76.24.51.6 (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Weaver was first given a 19 Feb court date when the judge released him on bond. Then he called PreTrial Services and they said they would send him a letter because the paperwork was not ready. Due to the holiday schedule, the court date was moved to 20 Feb. Weaver was communicationg only with the PreTrial Services (Karl Richins) who sent Weaver a notice the new court date was 20 Mar. Everyone else got the 20 Feb court date, but Weaver's court appointed attorney (Everett Hoffmeister) told the court 20 Feb that Weaver refused to communicate with him. (Prosecutor Howen instructed ATF to be in court 19 Feb abd 20 Feb both, in case Weaver did not get notice of the change in date.) Weaver had no phone or mail service at the cabin, and his mail was picked up at the Post Office in town by third parties (Bill Grider and later Alan Jeppeson). Weaver claims he received only those two dates, 19 Feb then 20 Mar, and when he found out a bench warrant had been issued 20 Feb for failure to appear, he was convinced it was done deliberately. The Weavers saw it as part of a plot and the USMS HQ was aware by 27 Feb that Weaver was circulating copies of the Richins letter with the erroneous court date. The wrong date was probably not deliberately sent. What was not kosher was the prosecutor going for an indictment on 14 Mar and interfering with efforts by Marshals Ron Evans and Dave Hunt to convince Weaver it would be safe for him to show in court. In fact, the judge testified that if Weaver had shown 20 Mar with a PreTrial Services letter giving that date, he was ready to dismiss the bench warrant. The prosecutor went for a grand jury indictment on the bench warrant charge--failure to appear--because he wanted an indictment to use if the judge dismissed the bench warrant. And Weaver did refuse to show in court on 20 Mar. All this is documented in the DoJ OPR Ruby Ridge Task Force Report released after the trial. The court date mix-up was probably not deliberately done. Byerly lying about Weaver having criminal convictions after he refused to become a snitch and Howen stymying US Marshals' efforts to calm Weaver and get him to court peaceably were harder for the Ruby Ridge Task Force to see as reasonable actions. Naaman Brown (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Who ever wrote this didn't do a very objective job of exposing what a crack pot this guy actually is. The real Randy Weaver is a troubled hillbilly. This article doesnt show what an illogical and irrational goober he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.206.156.105 (talk • contribs) 13-Sep-2005

I also do not think this article is written objectively. The Ruby Ridge section focuses on the Weavers as victims. The full article is more objective, discussing the possibility that the Weavers fired on the federal agents first, and that one of the agents was killed in the battle. --65.167.23.134 22:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

References

^ Dean Koontz, Dark Rivers of the Heart (afterword).

bias?

Randy Weaver won a sizeable settlement from the government in a court of law after the incident because of his innocence and their negligence and recklessness. If we want to talk about bias, we should mention that instead of the vague unfounded claims that he was a "crackpot" and "hillbilly." Salty Kid | [[User talk:Salty Kid| talk]]

Thanks Salty Kid. That needed to be said. --rhmoore 09:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

yes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.191.14 (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the term white separatist should be changed. Randy was white, and he was a separatist, but the term implies that he was was a segregationist and tried to form a community solely to exclude Africans. He was a separatist for political reasons, not racial. 65.110.142.92 07:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"Eventually, during a family hunting outing on the property, Randy, his son Sam, and a family friend came upon a number of camoflaged federal agents. They shot the family dog. Randy's son, Sam, responding by opening fire with a single action rifle. The federal agents shot Sam in the back. Sam was killed, but Randy and the family friend managed to escape with their lives back into the house".

I see the author failed to mention that they killed an ATF agent in that gunfire exchange.Also Weaver said himself that they "ran" to investigate "the dogs barking, as they do when strangers approach"not on a "family hunting outing"

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.160.73 (talk • contribs) 4-Feb-2006

Yeah, this page most definitely has a pro-weaver tilt. I imagine it's written by someone from Stormfront.org. Unfortunately, I'm only slightly knowledgeable about the man and not qualified to rewrite this entry. User:Unknown 04:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC) *** update: I copied the event summary from the ruby ridge entry - it seemed much more even handed. 69.170.186.34 (talk · contribs) 3-May-2006

Saltykid states that:

Randy Weaver won a sizeable settlement from the government in a court of law after the incident because of his innocence and their negligence and recklessness.

That whole statement would be fine except for the word innocence. The court that gave him that judgement did not find him innocent of anything. Rather, they found the FBI guilty of negligence. THis article could use a little POV cleanup here and there.Lisapollison 18:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Court rulings only represent one important POV, but do not necessarily dictate what is an isn't factual. They are the POV of the courts, and using the POV of the court is not NPOV. For example, the court ruled against Randy Weaver in the first place, making his arrest legal from the POV of the court (leaving issues about the way the arrest was carried out aside for now). For the purposes of wikipedia, treating that POV as factual would be just as problematic as the above--i.e. there is also Randy Weaver's POV, that the charges brought against him were illegal in the first place (because from his POV it was unconstitutional.) You see the issue? Mentioning the court's POV, like any POV, can be NPOV only if the POV is attributed to the court. But that does not mean the court's view is the "factual" view. When it comes to POV issues on wikipedia, courts hold no special status. If a court ruled that blue was green, that would only be the POV of the court, it would not necessarily mean that blue was green (but for some unimagined reason, maybe they would be right, so the POV, being an important POV would still need to be mentioned in the blue and green articles). Brentt 11:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Zionists

Just for the record, it's entirely possible to be anti-Zionist and have no animosity toward Jews. See Zionism. Indeed, many Jewish people are utterly opposed to Zionism. I don't, however, know Weaver's beliefs. Rklawton 06:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

What kind of a way is it to end the article...

It was the NWO who was behind all this? Apart from poor grammar - it should be 'it was the NWO who were behind all these events' - its rubbish also. Unless this is a quote relating to something I am have missed, it would appear to be a reference to the kind of hysterically anti - Government conspiracies that are allegedly happening all the time. Tosh. And its not even accurate - this whole piece is biased against the U.S. Government I feel the neutrality of this article is questionable at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Command doh (talk • contribs) 17-Apr-2006

Perhaps it isn't a biased opinion. Perhaps the state of our government should in fact be questioned. To say that there is no proof of such an organization as a "New World Order" is in itself, a biased proclamation, as there has been countless evidence throughout history to support such an organization doe in fact exist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.145.84 (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh...

Did Randy Weaver write this himself? "Great American Lies?" "The government's case was so weak and self-destructive?" This smacks of propaganda. This thing is so biased towards Weaver, and I still don't know why the government marked him for arrest. Somebdy fix it. Fix it now please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.202.152.86 (talk • contribs) 14-June-2006

Big Gap in article

There's something missing from this article. In the After the War section and the 1980s section, it leaps from Weavers return from Viet Nam, marriage and dropping out of college to this unsourced statement: Questions: when did Weaver serve in Viet Nam? Where in Viet Nam? His unit in Viet Nam? the couple became convinced that the "Zionist Occupation Government" was about to launch an all-out war against its own citizens

What the hay? How did he go from a dutiful soldier who did his duty to a guy who believed the New World Order was about to send jack-booted thugs to his house?

It would be nice if someone familiar with the Weaver case would fill in the gaps and demonstrate his progression from USA flag-waving Patriot to White Supremacist arms dealer. if anything, descriing his philosophical journey would make him seem less like a nuttter and more like someone who turned to a new political and religious movement for reasons of his own. I hope someone tries to fill in this gap for us. Lisapollison 18:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a distinction between a Supremacist and Separatist, if he is the former then please provide evidence. The information in the article states that he is the latter, a Separatist. I don't know what his personal beliefs entailed, so I'll go with the version stated in the article. --Skallagrimsson 08:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Reason for renewed interest?

The recent jump in editing of this article may be related to the current confrontation between police and Ed and Elaine Brown. CWC 13:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The lack of a neutral POV is particularly blatant here. If no one goes about editing this before the weekend, I'll certainly be researching it. 70.159.43.66 12:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Marked Ruby Ridge Section NPOV

Marked Rbuy Ridge Section NPOV...

"It should be made clear that the Weavers lived deep in the woods, where mountain lions and other potentially deadly animals roamed. The Weavers carried firearms with them frequently, and this should not be taken as a sign of aggression. Eventually the Marshals stopped retreating and took up defensive positions in the woods."

This is useful information, but should probably be stated differently. This is just an example of one bit--the entire section comes across in a similar manner. Mattjm 21:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Reason article

Although it was the first time I heard of the Ruby Ridge incident I found the "Reason Magazine - Ambush at Ruby Ridge" article more informative and unbiased than the Wikipedia article. I have added it as an external link. --Jpvosloo 06:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. That link is a valuable addition to our article. Cheers, CWC 14:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Jury nullification?

I am particularly amused by the subtle inclusion of "Jury Nullification" as a link at the bottom. No where in the body does this article indicate that such a thing occured. It just suggests it allowing some to infer that is why the shooter got off and others to infer it is why weaver got off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.157.40 (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I've removed that "see also" item. Cheers, CWC 16:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

to whom this may effect i don't care

the true victims here, are his wife and son!!!!! if you think the government just sat back and licked their wound, your fucking nuts!!!!! mr. weaver was protecting his family. thats ok, just remember if this ever happens to you, we won't say you were the victim!!! j. bealss —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.194.48.164 (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Vicki's job

Is it really correct to say that she worked as a homemaker? -> "Vicki worked as an executive secretary and then as a homemaker." It's not really a job, is it? 83.108.181.211 (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If you had ever managed a household, you would recognise that homemaker is a real job. At the trial, even the government's witness, neighbor Ruth Rau who had co-operated with both ATF and USMS during their operations against the Weavers 1990-1992, had complimentary things to say about Vicki as a mother and homemaker.Naaman Brown (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Charges and Convictions

The ten charges filed by the US Attorney Ron Howen on 19 Nov 1992 against the Weaver family were:

1. Randy Weaver, Vicki Weaver, Kevin Harris: Conspiracy against the federal government
2. Randy Weaver: Illegal firearms (the two sawed-off shotguns).
3. Randy Weaver: Failure to appear in court 20 Feb 1991.
4. Randy Weaver, Kevin Harris, Sammy Weaver: assault on federal officers.
5. Kevin Harris aided and abetted by Randy Weaver and Vicki Weaver: Murder of Marshal William Degan.
6. Randy Weaver: Endangering federal agents in a helicopter.
7. Vicki Weaver and Kevin Harris: Harboring the fugitive Randy Weaver at the Weavers' home where Kevin Harris was a guest.
8. Randy Weaver aided and abetted by Vicki Weaver and Kevin Harris: Possession of firearms by a federal fugitive.
9. Randy Weaver: Committing crimes while on pretrial release.
10. Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris: Use of firearms in violent crime.

The disposition of charges by federal trial judge Edward Lodge and by the trial jury (Apr 1993) were:

1. Acquitted ("Not Guilty") by jury.
2. Acquitted by jury (possible defense: entrapment).
3. Convicted ("Guilty") by jury (Weaver could have appeared in court 20 Mar 1991, the date given him)
4. Acquitted by jury (possible defense: self-defense against unlawful use of force)
5. Acquitted by jury (only possible defense: self-defense after Sammy shot by Degan)
6. Dismissed by judge: helicopter was not where sniper thought it was and was not in danger.
7. Acquitted by jury.
8. Dismissed by judge: law states to be a crime, fugitive must cross a state line with a firearm.
9. Convicted by jury but Set aside by judge: all the "crimes" specified had been either been dismissed by judge or acquitted by jury.
10. Acquitted by jury (all charges of "violent crimes" were acquitted or dismissed)

Of ten charges against the Randy and Vicki Weaver and Kevin Harris, the jury handed down six "Not Guilty" acquittals, the judge dismissed two charges based solely on prosecution evidence and set aside one conviction based on the jury's misunderstanding of the law. Randy Weaver was found guilty on only one charge: failure to appear in court on a gun charge that was dismissed as entrapment. Weaver's gun charge was described by DUSM David Hunt as a misdemeanor and by the court appointed attorney Everett Hoffmeister as the equivalent of driving 65mph in 55mph zone. Naaman Brown (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Weaver's trial attorney, Gerry Spence, offered to plead Weaver guilty on Charge 3: Failure to Appear if the prosecutor would drop the other charges. Prosecutor Howen refused the offer. After one of the longest federal criminal trials and jury deliberations, Weaver was ultimately found guilty only on Charge 3. How this could happen can be explained by the Senate report on the Ruby Ridge hearings, comments on the quality of evidence against the Weavers. Naaman Brown (talk) 12:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

from or to

after the first day's events, the FBI had changed its usual rules of engagement; specifically, "deadly force can and should be used against any armed adult male if the shot could be taken without a child being injured."

I find this confusing. Was this what the rule was prior to the change or is this what a former rule was changed to? Context would benefit from clarification. 174.92.132.81 (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Supposedly, this was a special rule drawn up for Ruby Ridge. According to the Wiki article on Ruby Ridge, Rule 1 read: 'If any adult male is observed with a weapon prior to the announcement, deadly force can and should be employed, if the shot can be taken without endangering any children.' According to the source notes, this is supposedly taken from a Department of Justice document, which would in any case be a primary source and thus not 'reliable' under Wiki rules, since Wiki rules demand published secondary sources. The 'change' from normal FBI rules is that no verbal warning had to be given. But you'll note that 'prior to the announcement' is meaningless, and you have to look at the supposed Rule 2 from this supposed DoJ document to realise that 'the announcement' means the hillbillies' surrender. So the whole thing looks bogus and hokey. As Ruby Ridge is a sort of Exodus, Parting-of-the-Red-Sea myth for the white-supremacist 'militia' movement (the Weavers were, according to those who knew them at the time, neo-Nazis, and were only living in the woods and home-schooling so as to avoid black people -- the children were trained to give the Hitler salute), and as Wiki is open to manipulation by interest-groups, you probably shouldn't believe much of what Wiki says about Ruby Ridge. The hillbillies had already killed one federal officer, which allowed deadly force without notice. And they not only wouldn't talk to federal officers, they wouldn't even talk to their own attorney. And if this had happened in England, with police executing a routine bench warrant for failure-to-appear, nobody would have died at all, not even the dog, because nobody would have had guns. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

conspiracy

If i read this article here, i get the impression, that:

1. Randy Weaver is in a strange club - Aryan Nations.
2. The different version, if its version one, two or three, about the FBI is going to Randy's House with guns, is very strange.

Reading to the end, it let me back with more questens than giving propre answers. (probably one of nowadays chronical feature) For sure this article has not a very good quality, or is it more the version of the official law? Well, we never realy know a person until we know each other at least a hole year or better more. All modern people are nowadays trained like cameleons. Many can change their lookout and behaviour very rapidly, if they are trained. At least we are all traind since we are childran to act in public different than at home. So we have at least the ability for 2 and more faces, masks. We do like that the hole life long. Like it would be normal. So we can read 50 books of a person, but we even dont know what is true and what not. If we can see and study a picture of a person, it will say in most cases more than 10 000 words. Words can be a perfect lie. A picture of a human can not lie if you are a bit trained in reading faces and he behaviour of humans. F.e.g. eyes are something very important. People who are honest have often opened eyes. It is like an old proverb: thinking is getting believing. Or what you think, what yo belive, is often what you will get in life. What yo do in life, is sculptering your personality and also your lookout. People that are hiding their real personality, have often halfopend eyes. So just look as many different pictures of a person as you can if you are in doubt. Lern to read life, more than the often corrupting letters and words. The person who is writing is normaly depending of the job n of the income. They cant react different, they have to react in a certain matter of way. They are forced to react like that. But they would never say that they are depending, depending from the job, from the boss, from teh money. --82.192.229.198 (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Where is he now?

The article mentions nothing after about 2000. Where is he, and what is he up to? --RThompson82 (talk) 08:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Military Service.

Was he actually a green beret? Generally one has to serve 6 years for that, and he only did three. This needs to be investigated.

I deleted the reference to the green beret's.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.113.17 (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Ruby Ridge name

According to journalist Jon Ronson, who interviewed both Randy and Rachel Weaver, there was no such place as Ruby Ridge. It was an unnamed ridge which the media decided to call "Ruby Ridge" from the nearby Ruby Creek, as an unnamed location would make poor copy. It has been referred to as Ruby Ridge ever since. 78.144.205.77 (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Reference Ideas

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

"Ambush at Ruby Ridge" by Alan W. Bock, Reason, October 1993
Sneath, Wayne Donovan. 2000. “The conspiratorial ideology of right-wing extremism in the 1990s: A cultural analysis of Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Oklahoma City.”

The Reason article is formerly of the External links section. The Sneath article is used as a biographical reference in the existing Pearson reference "Fringe Religion and the Far-Right." Somers-all-the-time (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

POV problems

I've removed the following: "The FBI engaged in psychological warfare. They repeated over the bullhorn such things as “Good morning Mrs. Weaver,” “We had pancakes this morning. And what did you have for breakfast? Why don't you send your children out for some pancakes, Mrs. Weaver?” The FBI maintains that they were unaware that Vicki Weaver was dead." Without sources for what was announced on a bullhorn, much less that they were engaging in psychological warfare, this presently makes it seems as if the FBI was taunting the family. This needs to be reliable sourced before it's reinserted. Also, the following paragraph states protesters were "angered at the heavy-handed nature of the authorities' actions". The heavy-handedness or lack thereof of the FBIs actions is certainly an opinion, so I have reworded this slightly to reflect that. Natalie 15:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it may have been me who put that in the article, relying on page 16 of the Crime Library account. Since then, I've seen claims that Crime Library is not a Wikipedia:Reliable Source. I agree, based on their "About Crime Library" page, which says:

Many Crime Library stories are based on third party sources: books, magazine and newspaper articles and interviews. From time to time, inaccuracies in source materials may inadvertently be incorporated into a Crime Library story.

So I say that Crime Library is not good enough as a source. We'd need another, better source before we could reinsert this. Cheers, CWC(talk) 18:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It now seems to me that Wikipedia should not use Crime Library as a source for any controversial claim. Accordingly, I've just removed the whole "1980s" section, replacing it with one sentence at the end of the "After the war" section: "In the 1980s, they moved to a 20-acre property in remote Idaho and built a cabin on it." I'd be very happy to see someone restore what I removed, as long as we get decent sources. Cheers, CWC 10:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is interesting all the different points of view here which state "bias" against the Weaver family. I have talked to the negotiators personally at the site. There was taunting over a bullhorn. I heard with my own ears one of the negotiators state that the FBI was in the process of placing a satchel charge against the cabin when he arrived on site.

Weaver was well liked by other so called normal people in his community. He was reclusive and not mainstream. This doesn't mean that he was bad..

Lon Horiuchi has had multiple problems as a sniper and been censured more than once. The government paid millions to settle the wrongful death claims to the Harris & Weaver family. When was the last time that happened? The only thing he was ever convicted of was "failure to appear".

Randall Wall— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.61.27 (talk) 05:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Highly POV

'racist criminal' now leads off the article. Well, IIRC he was cleared of all charges in the incident, so not only is it POV but it is incorrect. user:Pzg_Ratzinger

I have added a caution on the talk page for user "Palming," as follows:

Dear user Palming: I notice that you have repeatedly added some pointed comments to the above-referenced article, comments that have been repeatedly removed by other editors (myself included).

Assuming arguendo that everything you have written is accurate, the material still violates Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You must find reliable, previously published third party sources that say what you say; you cannot simply add unsourced material yourself and try to justify the material on the grounds that it is true. Truth is not enough. Being right is not enough.

Please review the Wikipedia policies and guidelines on Reliable Sources, Verifiability, and Biographies of Living Persons.

-- Famspear (talk) 02:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually that is incorrect. This criminal was in fact convicted on two counts; failure to appear in court and a related one, which escapes me at the moment. And yeah, this maniac is a crazy wackjob, but it's not encyclopedia kind information. --80.223.57.250 (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

When Weaver was described by ATF agent Herb Byerly as having criminal convictions (bank robbery, pot farming, etc.), Weaver had no arrests, charges or convictions: he had flipped Byerly's business card in his face and told him "Go to hell. I won't be a snitch." That was Weaver's real offense against ATF. If Weaver had taken ATF undercover agent Magisono to Montana to meet Chuck Howarth in Nov 1989, ATF was ready to ignore the gun charge; if Weaver had agreed to inform on Richard Butler for ATF agent handler Byerly in June 1990, Weaver would never had been arrested. Twice Weaver refused to betray people he quite frankly did not agree with (Howarth and Butler). After the next agencies over-reacted and gave us the Ruby Ridge Siege in all its horror, Weaver stood trial on ten charges and was convicted on two: the judge set aside one of the convictions because the jury misunderstood the law. Weaver's one conviction was for failure to appear in court on a gun charge on which he was acquitted by trial jury. At the Senate Hearing on Ruby Ridge, even Senator Dianne Feinstein felt the Weavers had been grossly mistreated. Naaman Brown (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Racial Separatism

The Later Life section quotes Weaver as saying "I’m not a hateful racist as most people understand it. But I believe in the separation of races. We wanted to be separated from the rest of the world, to live in a remote area, to give our children a good place to grow up." Should we include him being a racial separatist in the introductory section? It seems pertinent. JCTullos (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

He's referred to as a white separatist and white supremacist in multiple reliable sources. I reverted some edits from earlier today where that stuff was removed. The references themselves weren't removed, but the citations to them in the lead were, by at least one account that I could see - Wendigoaway - and some IP editors. I haven't dug too deeply past that. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

If we went back to the longstanding position in the article, it was white separatist. Some of what's been edited and reverted is newly added just prior to the explosion of edits following his death. Yes, there are sources referring to him a white supremacist, and some (not all) of that is a fair assessment. However, nuance is important in this. Anyone who has read the more detailed sources knows that some (or most) of the white supremacist label is guilt by association. This was perpetuated in the media both during the seige and in its aftermath, and has been discussed in multiple sources that are more detailed (such as Jess Walter's book on Ruby Ridge). Ultimately, the label is one that depends on who you talk to, which means that, if it is used, then it's better to use it in a way that it is attributed to the source rather than stated as an absolute. Until this week, the article avoided stating it as an absolute, primarily leaving it to the section on his association with Christian Identity. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Short description

Original post from my talk page:
Hang on a second. MOST of the sources describing Randy Weaver note that he was a white supremacist and white separatist. It definitely feels like white-washing (no pun intended) to remove that from the short description. I disagree with that removal. Fred Zepelin (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that Randy Weaver was a white supremacist/separatist. I do not however believe his racial views define him or offer a disambiguation for readers as suggested in WP:SDESC. As an example, the Associated Press in their obituary introduced him as the short description that I added. Also, regardless of content, the short description should stay below 40 characters. Somers-all-the-time (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Tough call. I don't think you need both "white supremacist" and "white separatist" in the short summary, since they're almost the same thing. I do think you need one of them, and the AP obituary notwithstanding, there are many obits that describe him as a white supremacist or separatist:

There are more, but you get the idea. I'd be okay with "White supremacist involved in Ruby Ridge standoff" or subbing in "separatist" for supremacist. JimKaatFan (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Using the terms white supremacist in the short desc is applying a value label where one is not needed. The only reason that Randy Weaver is notable as an article in WP is for Ruby Ridge, and white supremacy was not a reason (or at least, not a direct reason) for the siege/standoff. I could be OK with separatist, since being a white separatist did have a larger bearing on Ruby Ridge but would still suggest that that is not needed in the short desc, which really only needs to cover a very short notation. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Short descriptions need to be short and they do not need to be a definition. For most people who have not heard of Ruby Ridge, it helps to have something like a date. Participant in 1992 Ruby Ridge siege or Participant in 1992 Ruby Ridge standoff are short and the date does help. Saying that it was in Idaho would help more – Participant in 1992 Idaho siege. Something like Participant in 1992 Idaho shootings implies RW did some of the shooting. Adding white supremacist or white separatist to the SD just makes it longer. His views might help to explain some of the background, but his views were not why he is notable. He is notable only because he was involved in a siege/standoff/shooting — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 15:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

"White separatist involved in Ruby Ridge standoff" is short, and it's more descriptive than "participant". As JimKaat said above, there are plenty of reliable sources that use either "separatist" or "supremacist" - that's who he was, that's a huge part of why he was notable, and taking it out of the short description seems like we're trying to hide something. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Call for consistency of citations to Walter book

I'm just starting to systematically verify the information in this article, and I see there are multiple editions of Jess Walter's book used as references. In case anyone has some input to the contrary, I'm going to start updating all relevant citations to point to the most recent version as published in 2002. On the HarperCollins website Somers-all-the-time (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Only if you confirm carefully by either comparing between the two editions or at minimum confirming that the 2002 ed states what is being cited. Some of the editions of that book had differences/changes. Also, page numbers must be correct - they're not necessarily the same between editions (and book citations need to have page numbers). ButlerBlog (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

That's the plan, with the slight change of using chapters rather than page numbers on account of the eBook I'm referencing lacking pagination. Of course I'll need to update the ISBN information to point to the eBook. Somers-all-the-time (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Veracity of Egan NYT article

I indicated previously in the Unreliable source? template in the "Before Ruby Ridge" section a concern I had with the Egan NYT article, specifically that it was published during the Ruby Ridge siege, making it plausible that its information may not be entirely reliable. Specifically, because no update was given to the article, some information within it may not be reliable as described in the second paragraph of WP:AGE MATTERS. Although Weaver is dead, the strict content requirements of WP:BLP still apply as far as I can tell, as his death is recent enough to apply to WP:BDP. So, I'm bringing this up to see if my concern is shared among any other editors, and if necessary, what should be done about it. Somers-all-the-time (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

This is a huge reach. The NYT is one of the most reliable sources available. The fact that it was published as events occurred has no bearing on its reliability, and your complete and total conjecture that it does is laughable on its face. You are citing WP:AGE MATTERS even though that guideline specifically says that older sources in science-related fields may not be as reliable, and in fact, states that for historical events, "older reports tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing" - that section actually supports using the contemporary NYT article. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Somers-all-the-time. Articles released later point to him only associating with those groups. None directly assert he held those beliefs that I've seen. Would like to see later articles directly state that for me to support inclusion Anon0098 (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Anyone who has reviewed Ruby Ridge and the Weavers thoroughly understands that during the siege and even in the time following, very few people in the US knew about or understood these various movements. The media was quick to associate them all under one banner - including the NYT. Later study by people like Michael Barkun and other sociological and political science experts have shown that nuance is important in understanding the differences. The NYT is not immune to the mistakes made because they are experts in journalism, not sociology or political science. Sources need to be considered in light of what we know now. The Egan article makes mistakes in this regard, and more detailed tomes such as Jess Walters work paints a more clear picture. ButlerBlog (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Substantial Trimming

I attempted to cut a substantial portion of this article that was a direct carryover from Ruby Ridge. The vast majority of information had nothing to due with Randy (since this is his bio page) or was poorly/incorrectly sourced, as evident by the multiple editing templates. All of my edits were reverted by @Fred Zepelin:. Due to WP:Onus, information needs concensus for inclusion not vice versa regardless of verifiability due to WP:Undue. Please bring any information you wish to keep and I'd be happy to discuss. Thanks, Anon0098 (talk) 01:19, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

[1] Dean Koontz, Dark Rivers of the Heart (afterword).

[1]