This is an archive of past discussions. 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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The edit that the judge was contacted by Hofmeister, added words in bold, is not supported by reliable sources; Hofmeister was contacted by the judge:
Department of Justice
Office of Professional Responsibility
Ruby Ridge Task Force Report 10 June 1994
IV. SPECIFIC ISSUES INVESTIGATED
B. THE FAILURE OF WEAVER TO APPEAR FOR TRIAL
2. STATEMENT OF FACTS
b. Events Occurring From the Arraignment Through February 20, 1991
On January 22, 1991, four days after the arraignment, Judge Ayers sent a letter to Everett Hofmeister informing him that he hadbeen appointed defense counsel for Weaver,....
Naaman Brown ( talk) 02:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I noticed the template requesting a complete rewrite for this article and I can't really understand the justification for the request. Having only briefly skimmed the article: I can't really see any need for a total rewrite. As far as I can tell the article could be greatly improved, but there are no outstanding NPOV or copy-edit issues. Could someone provide a reasonable justification for a complete rewrite of this article, or -failing that- remove the template? bwmcmaste ( talk) 17:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The article says "The version of the firefight told by DUSMs Roderick and Cooper was that the dog, followed by Harris then Sammy, came out of the woods. DUSM Degan challenged Harris, who turned and shot Degan dead without Degan firing a single shot", but then says "The ballistics evidence presented at trial" "showed:...Bill Degan fired seven shots from an M16", and then this: "The ballistics experts called by the prosecution testified on cross examination by defense that the physical evidence did not contradict either the prosecution or defense theories on the firefight "
Um, the Marshals say Degan didn't fire a shot, balistics say he fired 7 shots, and the prosecution 'expert witness' says these things don't contradict each other?? Something doesn't add up.
Am I the only person that has a problem with the first line, which states the entire Ruby Ridge incident was, "because Randy Weaver refused to be an informant for the federal government."? Can someone cite some proof of this? I doubt it. Hardly NPOV, should be removed. Status4 ( talk) 07:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
This is the assertion of Weaver and of his defense attorney Gerry Spence. It may be backed by the timeline of facts presented by the Senate and DOJ investigations: Weaver sold two guns to ATF informant Fadeley 24 Oct 1989; FBI informant Valentino outted Fadeley in an apparent ATF-FBI turf war; 12 Jun 1990 ATF agent Byerly tried to recruit Weaver as a replacement informant using the stale gun sale; Weaver refused; gun charge indicted 13 Dec 1990. Byerly passed on false information against Weaver leading the USMS and FBI to overreact. Weaver stated in an interview that if he had accepted the offer, became an ATF informant, the Ruby Ridge incident would not have happened.-- Naaman Brown ( talk) 02:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
BTW the statement quoted was a Revision 27 Aug 2012 by User:ProudIrishAspie whom you might inquire for a citable source.-- Naaman Brown ( talk) 03:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The question was raised by User:Status4 and I was responding to that user until IP number 79.223.10.247 interjected. (Unless 79.223.10.247 is Status4.)
The chronology in the DOJ OPR Ruby Ridge Task Force Report notes:
After Weaver refused to become an ATF informant, Byerly passed the Weaver case on with exaggerated claims about Weaver's involvement with Aryan Nations and Weaver's criminal record (he did not have one). From the report from the 1995 Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Government Information hearings on Ruby Ridge:
(the dates above are the dates of the Senate hearing testimony)
These false accusations against Weaver influenced the way the USAO Idaho, USMS, and FBI reacted to Weaver. The Senate report stated:
If Weaver had agreed to become an ATF informant, ATF agent handler Herb Byerly would not have passed on to the USAO, USMS and FBI the false claims about Weaver that caused the USMS and FBI to overreact and the federal prosecutor to take a harsher stance against Weaver than was warranted. The argument that Weaver's refusal to become an informant was a cause of the Ruby Ridge standoff and that if he had become an informant, the standoff would not have occurred, is not a stretch. -- Naaman Brown ( talk) 06:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Someone has gone through the article correcting references from "the Aryan Nations" to "Aryan Nations". Going to the source cited for much of the article's dates and facts, US Dept of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility Ruby Ridge Task Force Report June 1994, in the first 39 pages of a 406 page PDF I find:
In reference to the group, the team of DOJ lawyers under Barbara Berman used "the Aryan Nations" refering to the group by name, and dropped "the" only when using "Aryan Nations" as an adjective, eg, "a local Aryan Nations Church".
The Berman task force report is not a fluke: another reliable source is fairly consistent. US Senate Subcommitte report on Ruby Ridge, first 10 pages of a 76 page PDF of the report:
-- Naaman Brown ( talk) 12:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Removing the "the" from a direct quote from a government report discussing the Aryan Nations was a bit far. I have seen this before: editors imposing their sense of style on an article using a global replace, affecting book or article titles, direct quotes and even links (creating red links).
Referring to a group/agency by name whether it is the Aryan Nations, the Cherokee Nation, or the Environmental Protection Agency, the name is commonly preceded with l.c. "the" when obviously "the" is not part of the name. The OPR and Senate Reports refered to "the Aryan Nations" not "The Aryan Nations".
The narrative of the DOJ OPR and the Senate SubCommittee reports refer to "the FBI", "the BATF" and "the ATF" even though "the" is not part of the title of their WP articles or actually part of the name of the agencies. There is currently a redirect for "The FBI" but no redirect for "The BATF", "The ATF" or "The DEA". BTW I question the necessity of a redirect for "The FBI". It is not all cut'n'dried: I have observed a tendancy in government reports to use "the" before a name of an agency or group beginning with a consonant, but to inconsistently use/not "the" before a name beginning with a vowel (DOJ OIG does that).
I question calling the DOJ OPR Report a primary source: primary source would describe the court documents, raw FD-302 interviews and other accounts written by the witnesses involved in the event. The DOJ OPR Report (interpretation, analysis and evaluation by the experienced DOJ Ruby Ridge Task Force attorneys led by Barbara Berman from those primary sources on the event) fits the definition: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event." -- Naaman Brown ( talk) 20:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a summary of some sorts? The 2-line introduction tells you almost nothing, but the 4500 word full article tells me a lot more than I want to know. A ~200 word summary (like many articles have as introduction) would be very helpful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section 77.163.143.28 ( talk) 12:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I notice the "In popular culture..." section has been removed. I'll paste the note originally included under the head:
The 2001 film Hannibal has an FBI agent in trouble for shooting a woman with a baby in a botched raid, and a corrupt FBI official abusing a position of power, themes that some attributed to a post=Ruby Ridge sensitivity. Worth mentioning here? No. "In popular culture..." the article on Ford cars could end up mostly a list of every novel, film, TV show, song with a Ford in it. "In popular culture..." R.I.P. -- Naaman Brown ( talk) 12:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
In the lede to the Ruby Ridge article, the line:
was added on 2 Aug 2008 by "Aldrich Hanssen" (later identified as a sock puppet of "Sarsaparilla" blocked indefinitely).
By Feb 2010, that line was tagged:
on 14 Jan 2010 by Bwmcmaste with comment: (add fact template) on 27 Jan 2010 by Naaman Brown with comment: (cited by whom?)
On 26 Feb 2010, IP user:86.163.44.63 added ref with comment:
Now in the Aftermath section, on 30 Jan 2010, "Naaman Brown" added a ref in response to a fact tag with the response:
If something is posted as a fact in the article, it is up to the person who posted it to provide a cite to a reliable third-party source that can be verified by the reader. The "lazy F^&*s" are the people who throw things in articles and expect the reader to do the search for citable sources.
Still the statement is in the vague passive voice: "The incident was cited as...." begging the question cited by whom? when it is obvious from the source that "Timothy McVeigh cited the incident as..."
The source ("McVeigh offers little remorse in letters" (Associated Press 10 Jun 2001)) also states:
In the letters to his hometown paper, McVeigh reiterated that what he did was necessary to defend the personal freedom of all Americans and exact revenge for the disastrous government raids at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and Waco, Texas. . . .
• The siege at Waco was the defining event in his decision to retaliate against the government with the bombing, which occurred two years to the day after the fiery end of the Texas standoff.
"If there would not have been a Waco, I would have put down roots somewhere and not been so unsettled with the fact that my government was a threat to me," McVeigh wrote. "Everything that Waco implies was on the forefront of my thoughts. That sort of guided my path for the next couple of years."
McVeigh's personal reaction to Waco was more motivating than his reaction to Ruby Ridge; anyway, it is more related to the aftermath. Naaman Brown ( talk) 03:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
McVeigh is said to have visited Ruby Ridge alone one time. Walking at night among the Weaver Family belongings still scattered on the floor. There are no independent witnesses to place him there. He was filmed at Waco, and seemed motivated by that event far more than Ruby Ridge. Johnwrd ( talk) 02:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
This documentary covers primarily the Ruby Ridge standoff of 21 Aug-31 Aug 1992, preceded by a summary of the lead-in and followed by a summary of the aftermath. The narrative structure is a strict timeline of events.
This documentary featured interviews with, among others, Eugene Glenn (FBI SAC Salt Lake City, Site Commander at Ruby Ridge), Fred Lanceley (FBI HRT negotiator at Ruby Ridge), Don Kusulas (Denver FBI SWAT deployed at Ruby Ridge), Randy Weaver and daughter Rachel, civilian negotiators Bo Gritz (retired Colonel, US Army) and Jackie Brown (Vicki's best friend), and County Sheriff Bruce Whittaker.
There is coverage of the Ruby Creek vigil and protest during which civilians from the area camped out at the bridge leading to Ruby Ridge, facing off with the state and federal police controlling access to the road to Ruby Ridge; the Ruby Creek Bridge vigil helped mainstream the militia movement of the 1990s, and deserves some study itself as a historic event.
Yahoo! TV listing of Ruby Ridge: Anatomy of a Tragedy
[www.zoominfo.com/people/Santy_Craig_16449033.aspx info on executive producer]
Ruby Ridge: Anatomy of a Tragedy premiered Fri 19 May 2000 10:00pm on TLC Naaman Brown ( talk) 09:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes Wiki articles pack so much technical detail that they forest is lost for the trees. Ruby Ridge caused Waco caused Oklahoma City. That's the straight and simple truth. Everything else is obfuscation and superfluous details. Another simple truth is that, since then (for a while anyways), the Federal Government has changed they way it does "Law Enforcement". Remember how arrogant they used to be ? Remember "Boys on the Hood" T-shirts and para-military esprit de corps by the ATF ? Don't see that anymore, do you ? Jonny Quick ( talk) 23:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
As I read this article, I keep seeing Byerly's name at critical junctions, and each time it appears Randy Weaver gets deeper and deeper into trouble as he becomes more & more interesting to law enforcement. He seems central, pivotal and responsible to me. There seems to be no hyperlinked article for him, no history of what consequences he may have suffered as a result of his actions or what the Weaver family has to say about him now, in retrospect. Am I off-base, or is there something here that should be included? Jonny Quick ( talk) 23:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I am missing something, but after having read this article, and knowing nothing else about the incident, I have very little idea what happened. What were they charged with? What happened during the siege? What led into the siege? Details of the actual events in this article are exceptionally sporadic. Most of the description contains random events from the trial and testimony with little substance. Is it just that the factual details are disputed? If so, that should be stated as well. As it is, this article gives very little to indicate why this was so controversial or what the controversy was even over. TV4Fun ( talk) 01:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
M16's were never produced in .223 they were produced for 5.56x45. If we are to change this back to the original we need to find out if the rifles were actually M16's or if they were just "M16's" Aka AR-15's. If someone can link me to a version of the M16 with a .223 chamber sold to the US goverment I will change it. But since that does not exist it will stay the same. 5.56x45 =/= .223 the chamber dimensions are quite different and can lead to overpressures. I direct you to the 5.56x45 Page as well as the M16 page 5.56×45mm NATO M16 rifle Both of which clearly state that 5.56x45 is used in the M16 not .223
So its either a AR-15 in .223 rem or M16 in 5.56x45 -- Youngdrake ( talk) 12:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Searching my PDF copy of the 10 Jun 1994 DOJ OPR report on Ruby Ridge, I find no instances of "5.56" but several instances of ".223" in respect to the M16 and M16a2 rifles used by the US Marshals.
o "In preparation for the mission, the marshals had acquired three .223 caliber M16 rifles from the Spokane office."
o "...Degan shipped a .223 caliber M16A2 Colt Carbine..."
o "Roderick and Degan were carrying .223 caliber M16 rifles."
o "Degan’s M16 rifle fires a .223 caliber round."
And the local sheriff's dept routinely procures .223 Remington 55gr FMJ for use in their M16 and M4 rifles and carbines. -- Naaman Brown ( talk) 16:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Ruby Ridge. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Noticed while reading that "U.S. District Court Judge Harold L. Ryan" was not given a single mention throughout the entire article, and was only referred to as "the judge" throughout, despite the fact that a strong argument could be made that Judge Ryan's failure to fix his administrative mistake of sending a inaccurate court date and then refusing to rescind the warrant was the reason why the murders took place. It's Judge Ryan's fault, and yet the wikipedia article won't even mention his name. I smell bias, and added either his name and full title, name and general title ("Judge Ryan") and the last mention of his involvement is simple "the judge" given that his name was mentioned in the previous sentence. I'm not married to my edits stylistically, but I would like to ask that the article not have the most important information regarding who is most responsible for the situation to be sanitized and scrubbed from the article. And I don't believe it was inadvertent. The article has 8 separate references to "the judge" and yet the judge is not named once. Jonny Quick ( talk) 01:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Weaver was arrested and interrogated due to alleged death threats. He denied having made such threats, and given the context of a lawsuit that is probably true - his neighbor just wanted to get back at him. The statement that "Although the Secret Service was told that Weaver was a member of the Aryan Nations and that he had a large weapon cache at his residence, Weaver denied the allegations and no charges were filed" is nonsense. Whether he had made death threats against various people is an entirely different matter from having weapons and being a member of Aryan Nation. He could have had 1,000 firearms, that would not be a reason for charging him with making death threats. The illogical and irrelevant claim should be deleted Royalcourtier ( talk) 06:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
It is not correct that "Weaver's defense attorney, Gerry Spence, rested his case without offering a defense. Instead he convinced the jury to find as they did merely through his cross-examination and discrediting of the government witnesses and evidence". That is a defence! What should have been written is that "Weaver's defense attorney, Gerry Spence, did not call any evidence in support of the defense". Royalcourtier ( talk) 06:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
It is suggested that there was a proposal to charge Sara Weaver. If that is the case, what was she to be charged with? It seems that no member of the family were guilty of any crime. Royalcourtier ( talk) 06:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually there were ten charges against the Weaver Family including Kevin Harris. Weaver was found guilty of one charge out of ten: not showing up in court on either 20 Feb 1991 the reassigned date or 20 Mar the date he had been given. Randy Weaver was convicted by the jury on two charges, and the judge set aside "crimes on pretrial release" on the grounds it required that he be convicted of one of the two charges dismissed by the judge or one of the the six acquitted by the jury. But there was a guilty verdict.
Sara and Vicki Weaver were unindicted co-conspirators in the Ruby Ridge trial of Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris. The second Indictment listed Overt Acts charged against the Weavers and Harris including: "41. On or about August 22, 1992, Randall C. Weaver or Kevin L. Harris and an unidentified female, probably Vicki or Sara Weaver, took offensive action against a helicopter and its occupants, including attempting to shoot at the helicopter, resulting in the death of Vicki Weaver and the wounding of Kevin L. Harris and Randall C. Weaver."
The DOJ OPR stated: "Even though [FBI sniper] Horiuchi could not identify the female, the prosecution had abundant evidence that Vicki Weaver had not run outside. Naming Vicki Weaver as one of the people who might have responded to the helicopter could readily be interpreted as an attempt to assert that Horiuchi was justified in shooting her. It was careless and wrong for the indictment to charge than "an unidentified female, probably Vicki or Sara Weaver" took offensive action against the helicopter." No one in the Weaver party fired a shot in that 22 Aug 1992 helicopter incident.
It was also alleged during the trial that bullets from Sara Weaver's rifle were found (lying pristine on a leaf) at the scene of the 21 Aug shooting at the "Y" in the trails when Sammy Weaver and US Marshal Degan were killed; these were the Evidence series L bullets of questionable provenance. USMS observors placed Sara squarely at the cabin, far out of sight or line of fire of the "Y", during that incident.
Accusations against Sara related to at least two of the ten charges in the Weaver-Harris trial: conspiracy against the government and threatening a helicopter. The Weavers were acquitted by the jury on the conspiracy charge. During the prosecution witness testimony, Spence got the pilot and passenger on the helicopter to admit they were seldomn in line of sight of the cabin and never felt threatened by anyone at the cabin. Judge Edward Lodge dismissed the charge of threatening a helicopter based on prosecution witness testimony. -- Naaman Brown ( talk) 18:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
What Did That Woman Named Vicki Weaver Ever Do That Led To Her Getting Shot To Death At Ruby Ridge,Where She & Her Family Were Staying At That Time?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.119.31 ( talk • contribs) 16:30, 14 January 2016
In The Part Of That Ruby Ridge Film Where Vicki Shouts Out " Yahweh" While Randy Is Being Taken Away,Who Is She Shouting It At & What Does She Mean By That?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.119.31 ( talk • contribs) 16:34, 14 January 2016
I have placed the under construction tag, because I am working my way, start to finish, through the cited sources, after finding all sorts of discrepancies, as well as numerous cases of repeat appearances of the same citation (i.e, redundancies). I have finished with the Walter (2002) book, and am partially finished with the RRTF (1994) report. In all editing of citations, I am using standard markup—cite report, cite journal, cite news, etc.
I have already noted a few things that will be longterm issues, including:
Generally I am just checking content to citations, and completing the citations (adding authors, dates, urls, etc.). But when I find a cited article that does not support a text statement—and I have found clear cases, for instance, of articles cited, that do not even mention Ruby Ridge or other aspects of sentence content—I move it to Further reading, for others to try to re-use later.
In many cases the original citations are so poor (devoid of sufficient content to clearly ascribe them to a single book, or other source) that I have had to do my best, and the add a verification needed tag—for instance, for a statement tied to a video, with no URL or time stamp provided, or for a citation to a book, where multiple editions exist, and no information appears as to date or page number.
In short, the article superficially appears fine, but when anyone with scholarly chops takes a look, it is in very bad shape. I will do what I can to bring it into compliance with guidelines and policies, but it will take a while. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 08:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The page was probably just fine until you started littering it with inane tags, eg. FBI "who" ... lol, well I'm English, but even I know what "FBI" stands for! I cannot for the life of me understand the people who come on wikipedia pages and litter then with these extremely annoying comments. Why do you not just put references in yourself if you feel so strongly about it? (Most people probably couldn't care less). You read newspapers without them being littered with references. Well who ever said newspapers were 100% reliable sources of information? Please. get on with it, put your references in (that the whole world will ignore) if you want and leave it at that! John2o2o2o ( talk) 23:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
The work to identify the actual sources used, to simplify their presentation (so the same source does not appear multiple times), and to assign content to the actual few pages from which it was gleaned in the sources (so that it is truly verifiable, without becoming a doctoral dissertation project)—this work nears half way done.
A few significant hallmarks of the work:
Besides allowing more direct access to the actual sources, this cleanup also (i) makes clear the extent to which this article relies on a narrow range of sources (the Jess Walter book, and the two reports—the latter, for our purposes, almost being primary sources, see below), and (ii) brings to the foreground what will be persistent issues that remain after I finish my work. In the bullets below, I begin to outline those issues I perceive will persist.
For perspective on what follows, there are, as of this date, about 25 total distinct sources, being used to support about 110 appearances of inline citations. Of these, about 70 of the 110 inline citations are to the Walter book and the two reports. That is, 3 of the 25 sources correspond to over half of the inline citations.
The issues likely to persist are:
This article cites its sources but its
page references ranges are too broad or incorrect. |
There may be more issues, but this is what I have seen in the work to date.
When I complete the "Under construction" effort, that tag will come down, and any other tags I have fully resolved, but any of these issues, described here, that are not resolved, will remain tagged.
Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 09:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
The page was probably just fine until you started littering it with inane tags, eg. FBI "who" ... lol, well I'm English, but even I know what "FBI" stands for! I cannot for the life of me understand the people who come on wikipedia pages and litter them with these extremely annoying tag/comments. Why do you not just put references in yourself if you feel so strongly about it? (Most people probably couldn't care less). You read newspapers without them being littered with references. Well who ever said newspapers were 100% reliable sources of information? Please. get on with it, put your references in (that the whole world will ignore) if you want and leave it at that! If I could be bothered (oh don't worry I won't!) I would remove all of your tags. They are really annoying and add nothing to the article. John2o2o2o ( talk) 23:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
In the section, "U.S. Marshall Service involvement" there is a sentence:
Weaver came to believe that he would not receive a fair trial if he were to appear in court. His distrust grew further when he was erroneously told by his magistrate that if he lost the trial, he would lose his land, essentially leaving Vicki homeless, and that the government would take away his children.
There is no indication anywhere else in the article who this "magistrate" is, magistrate is not a commonly accepted English term for a lawyer or advisor, and no official judge or arbiter appears to have made this sort of threat to Weaver. The citation is to a book to which I don't have immediate access, but even if the information is in some twisted way correct, at least the phrasing should be altered. NobleHam ( talk) 11:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ruby Ridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
The article quoted the permissive Rules of Engagement as the FBI Standard Deadly Force Policy a few paragraphs after a list of the ROE. I am not going to look up in the edit history when this mixup occurred. I replaced it with the 1992 FBI Standard Deadly Force Policy given by the 1994 Ruby Ridge Task Force (Bermann Commission, Office of Professional Responsibility, Department of Justice) Report.
"The FBI’s Standard Deadly Force Policy states that:
Agents are not to use deadly force against any person except as necessary in self-defense or the defense of another, when they have reason to believe that they or another are in danger of death or grievous bodily harm. Whenever feasible, verbal warnings should be given before deadly force is applied.[711]"
The Ruby Ridge Task Force (DoJ OPR, Bermann Commission) Report has different evolutions of the Rules of Engagement:
"The proposed Rules of Engagement provided at the initial briefing were:
Any adult with a weapon who was observed in the vicinity of Randall Weaver’s cabin or the fire fight area, could and should be the subject of deadly force.
Following the briefing, the HRT travelled to Ruby Creek at the base of the mountain on which the Weaver cabin was located and began to establish tactical operations centers."
then
"If any adult in the compound is observed with a weapon after the surrender announcement is made, deadly force can and should be employed to neutralize this individual.
If any adult male is observed with a weapon prior to the announcement deadly force can and should be employed if a shot can be taken without endangering the children.
If compromised by any dog the dog can be taken out.
Any subject other than R, V, + K, presenting threat of death or grievous bodily harm FBI rules of deadly force apply."
and later:
"1. 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.
2. If any adult in the compound is observed with a weapon after the surrender announcement is made, and is not attempting to surrender, deadly force can and should be employed to neutralize the individual.
3. If compromised by any animal, particularly the dogs, that animal should be eliminated.
4. Any subjects other than Randall Weaver, Vicki Weaver, Kevin Harris, presenting threats of death or grievous bodily harm, the FBI rules of deadly force are in effect. Deadly force can be utilized to prevent the death or grievous bodily injury to oneself or that of another."
-- Naaman Brown ( talk) 12:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I think it would be wise to shorten it. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 02:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Instead of using weasel language "...killed by sniper fire...", I think the Lede should say she was "...killed by FBI Sniper Lon Horiuchi...". I almost just changed it, since the information is already in the body; it's just a matter of moving it to the Lede. Could not think of a reason to NOT do it, however in the interests of "consensus" and on the chance it's already been discussed, I figured I should ask the question here first. Tym Whittier ( talk) 22:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
What is the significance of this phrase? Why is it used with both mentions of Harris' settlement? Manys ( talk) 01:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Even though Harris had been acquitted of murder in the shooting of Degan 21 Aug by the jury when the only grounds for acquittal was justifiable homicide in defense of self or others, and Harris was shot running away 22 Aug without firing a weapon that day, federal officials repeatedly refused to settle Harris' claim, even though they had settled with the surviving members of the Weaver family. The took several appeals between 1997 and 2000 before the case was heard and settled. -- Naaman Brown ( talk) 21:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Quotation marks which do not should come with a citation of the person who said it, and when. It is a violation of NPOV and tonally wrong for a reference to attempt to convey sarcasm. If editors do not believe the claim, then should write that out explicitly. 70.127.17.241 ( talk) 07:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
On a USGS map, the coordinates given at the top of the article point to Caribou Ridge, on the other side of Ruby Creek from Ruby Ridge. — Tamfang ( talk) 15:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
With sentences such as "Public outcry over Ruby Ridge and the subsequent Waco siege involving many of the same agencies and even the same personnel fueled the widening of the militia movement" imply that there was an outcry from the majority when, in truth, only a very vocal minority made much of this event. Eyes down, human. ( talk) 17:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Edited later stages of events to add more sub-headers to make it easier to read, such as "Trials", "Aftermath: Civil suits," "Federal investigations," etc. Put McVeigh's domestic terrorism in a separate sub-header after completing material about Ruby Ridge, the Weavers and Harris. Parkwells ( talk) 14:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I had previously made a minor edit to correct the number of deaths listed in the sidebar. It incorrectly lists 2 deaths when there were 3. Sammy Weaver, Vicki Weaver and US Marshal William Degan all died as a result of gunfire during the siege. (the actual text of the article and existing references confirms this data).
A later edit by User:Butlerblog reverted the number to 2.
Can someone of sufficient access correct the number of deaths in the side bar and toss a lock on this article to prevent incorrect changes?
in the opening, it states Sammy Weaver was "Harris and Weaver's son." Unless Harris and Weaver were a gay couple, this cannot be correct. 96.63.163.11 ( talk) 20:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. 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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The edit that the judge was contacted by Hofmeister, added words in bold, is not supported by reliable sources; Hofmeister was contacted by the judge:
Department of Justice
Office of Professional Responsibility
Ruby Ridge Task Force Report 10 June 1994
IV. SPECIFIC ISSUES INVESTIGATED
B. THE FAILURE OF WEAVER TO APPEAR FOR TRIAL
2. STATEMENT OF FACTS
b. Events Occurring From the Arraignment Through February 20, 1991
On January 22, 1991, four days after the arraignment, Judge Ayers sent a letter to Everett Hofmeister informing him that he hadbeen appointed defense counsel for Weaver,....
Naaman Brown ( talk) 02:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I noticed the template requesting a complete rewrite for this article and I can't really understand the justification for the request. Having only briefly skimmed the article: I can't really see any need for a total rewrite. As far as I can tell the article could be greatly improved, but there are no outstanding NPOV or copy-edit issues. Could someone provide a reasonable justification for a complete rewrite of this article, or -failing that- remove the template? bwmcmaste ( talk) 17:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The article says "The version of the firefight told by DUSMs Roderick and Cooper was that the dog, followed by Harris then Sammy, came out of the woods. DUSM Degan challenged Harris, who turned and shot Degan dead without Degan firing a single shot", but then says "The ballistics evidence presented at trial" "showed:...Bill Degan fired seven shots from an M16", and then this: "The ballistics experts called by the prosecution testified on cross examination by defense that the physical evidence did not contradict either the prosecution or defense theories on the firefight "
Um, the Marshals say Degan didn't fire a shot, balistics say he fired 7 shots, and the prosecution 'expert witness' says these things don't contradict each other?? Something doesn't add up.
Am I the only person that has a problem with the first line, which states the entire Ruby Ridge incident was, "because Randy Weaver refused to be an informant for the federal government."? Can someone cite some proof of this? I doubt it. Hardly NPOV, should be removed. Status4 ( talk) 07:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
This is the assertion of Weaver and of his defense attorney Gerry Spence. It may be backed by the timeline of facts presented by the Senate and DOJ investigations: Weaver sold two guns to ATF informant Fadeley 24 Oct 1989; FBI informant Valentino outted Fadeley in an apparent ATF-FBI turf war; 12 Jun 1990 ATF agent Byerly tried to recruit Weaver as a replacement informant using the stale gun sale; Weaver refused; gun charge indicted 13 Dec 1990. Byerly passed on false information against Weaver leading the USMS and FBI to overreact. Weaver stated in an interview that if he had accepted the offer, became an ATF informant, the Ruby Ridge incident would not have happened.-- Naaman Brown ( talk) 02:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
BTW the statement quoted was a Revision 27 Aug 2012 by User:ProudIrishAspie whom you might inquire for a citable source.-- Naaman Brown ( talk) 03:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The question was raised by User:Status4 and I was responding to that user until IP number 79.223.10.247 interjected. (Unless 79.223.10.247 is Status4.)
The chronology in the DOJ OPR Ruby Ridge Task Force Report notes:
After Weaver refused to become an ATF informant, Byerly passed the Weaver case on with exaggerated claims about Weaver's involvement with Aryan Nations and Weaver's criminal record (he did not have one). From the report from the 1995 Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Government Information hearings on Ruby Ridge:
(the dates above are the dates of the Senate hearing testimony)
These false accusations against Weaver influenced the way the USAO Idaho, USMS, and FBI reacted to Weaver. The Senate report stated:
If Weaver had agreed to become an ATF informant, ATF agent handler Herb Byerly would not have passed on to the USAO, USMS and FBI the false claims about Weaver that caused the USMS and FBI to overreact and the federal prosecutor to take a harsher stance against Weaver than was warranted. The argument that Weaver's refusal to become an informant was a cause of the Ruby Ridge standoff and that if he had become an informant, the standoff would not have occurred, is not a stretch. -- Naaman Brown ( talk) 06:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Someone has gone through the article correcting references from "the Aryan Nations" to "Aryan Nations". Going to the source cited for much of the article's dates and facts, US Dept of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility Ruby Ridge Task Force Report June 1994, in the first 39 pages of a 406 page PDF I find:
In reference to the group, the team of DOJ lawyers under Barbara Berman used "the Aryan Nations" refering to the group by name, and dropped "the" only when using "Aryan Nations" as an adjective, eg, "a local Aryan Nations Church".
The Berman task force report is not a fluke: another reliable source is fairly consistent. US Senate Subcommitte report on Ruby Ridge, first 10 pages of a 76 page PDF of the report:
-- Naaman Brown ( talk) 12:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Removing the "the" from a direct quote from a government report discussing the Aryan Nations was a bit far. I have seen this before: editors imposing their sense of style on an article using a global replace, affecting book or article titles, direct quotes and even links (creating red links).
Referring to a group/agency by name whether it is the Aryan Nations, the Cherokee Nation, or the Environmental Protection Agency, the name is commonly preceded with l.c. "the" when obviously "the" is not part of the name. The OPR and Senate Reports refered to "the Aryan Nations" not "The Aryan Nations".
The narrative of the DOJ OPR and the Senate SubCommittee reports refer to "the FBI", "the BATF" and "the ATF" even though "the" is not part of the title of their WP articles or actually part of the name of the agencies. There is currently a redirect for "The FBI" but no redirect for "The BATF", "The ATF" or "The DEA". BTW I question the necessity of a redirect for "The FBI". It is not all cut'n'dried: I have observed a tendancy in government reports to use "the" before a name of an agency or group beginning with a consonant, but to inconsistently use/not "the" before a name beginning with a vowel (DOJ OIG does that).
I question calling the DOJ OPR Report a primary source: primary source would describe the court documents, raw FD-302 interviews and other accounts written by the witnesses involved in the event. The DOJ OPR Report (interpretation, analysis and evaluation by the experienced DOJ Ruby Ridge Task Force attorneys led by Barbara Berman from those primary sources on the event) fits the definition: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event." -- Naaman Brown ( talk) 20:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a summary of some sorts? The 2-line introduction tells you almost nothing, but the 4500 word full article tells me a lot more than I want to know. A ~200 word summary (like many articles have as introduction) would be very helpful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section 77.163.143.28 ( talk) 12:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I notice the "In popular culture..." section has been removed. I'll paste the note originally included under the head:
The 2001 film Hannibal has an FBI agent in trouble for shooting a woman with a baby in a botched raid, and a corrupt FBI official abusing a position of power, themes that some attributed to a post=Ruby Ridge sensitivity. Worth mentioning here? No. "In popular culture..." the article on Ford cars could end up mostly a list of every novel, film, TV show, song with a Ford in it. "In popular culture..." R.I.P. -- Naaman Brown ( talk) 12:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
In the lede to the Ruby Ridge article, the line:
was added on 2 Aug 2008 by "Aldrich Hanssen" (later identified as a sock puppet of "Sarsaparilla" blocked indefinitely).
By Feb 2010, that line was tagged:
on 14 Jan 2010 by Bwmcmaste with comment: (add fact template) on 27 Jan 2010 by Naaman Brown with comment: (cited by whom?)
On 26 Feb 2010, IP user:86.163.44.63 added ref with comment:
Now in the Aftermath section, on 30 Jan 2010, "Naaman Brown" added a ref in response to a fact tag with the response:
If something is posted as a fact in the article, it is up to the person who posted it to provide a cite to a reliable third-party source that can be verified by the reader. The "lazy F^&*s" are the people who throw things in articles and expect the reader to do the search for citable sources.
Still the statement is in the vague passive voice: "The incident was cited as...." begging the question cited by whom? when it is obvious from the source that "Timothy McVeigh cited the incident as..."
The source ("McVeigh offers little remorse in letters" (Associated Press 10 Jun 2001)) also states:
In the letters to his hometown paper, McVeigh reiterated that what he did was necessary to defend the personal freedom of all Americans and exact revenge for the disastrous government raids at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and Waco, Texas. . . .
• The siege at Waco was the defining event in his decision to retaliate against the government with the bombing, which occurred two years to the day after the fiery end of the Texas standoff.
"If there would not have been a Waco, I would have put down roots somewhere and not been so unsettled with the fact that my government was a threat to me," McVeigh wrote. "Everything that Waco implies was on the forefront of my thoughts. That sort of guided my path for the next couple of years."
McVeigh's personal reaction to Waco was more motivating than his reaction to Ruby Ridge; anyway, it is more related to the aftermath. Naaman Brown ( talk) 03:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
McVeigh is said to have visited Ruby Ridge alone one time. Walking at night among the Weaver Family belongings still scattered on the floor. There are no independent witnesses to place him there. He was filmed at Waco, and seemed motivated by that event far more than Ruby Ridge. Johnwrd ( talk) 02:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
This documentary covers primarily the Ruby Ridge standoff of 21 Aug-31 Aug 1992, preceded by a summary of the lead-in and followed by a summary of the aftermath. The narrative structure is a strict timeline of events.
This documentary featured interviews with, among others, Eugene Glenn (FBI SAC Salt Lake City, Site Commander at Ruby Ridge), Fred Lanceley (FBI HRT negotiator at Ruby Ridge), Don Kusulas (Denver FBI SWAT deployed at Ruby Ridge), Randy Weaver and daughter Rachel, civilian negotiators Bo Gritz (retired Colonel, US Army) and Jackie Brown (Vicki's best friend), and County Sheriff Bruce Whittaker.
There is coverage of the Ruby Creek vigil and protest during which civilians from the area camped out at the bridge leading to Ruby Ridge, facing off with the state and federal police controlling access to the road to Ruby Ridge; the Ruby Creek Bridge vigil helped mainstream the militia movement of the 1990s, and deserves some study itself as a historic event.
Yahoo! TV listing of Ruby Ridge: Anatomy of a Tragedy
[www.zoominfo.com/people/Santy_Craig_16449033.aspx info on executive producer]
Ruby Ridge: Anatomy of a Tragedy premiered Fri 19 May 2000 10:00pm on TLC Naaman Brown ( talk) 09:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes Wiki articles pack so much technical detail that they forest is lost for the trees. Ruby Ridge caused Waco caused Oklahoma City. That's the straight and simple truth. Everything else is obfuscation and superfluous details. Another simple truth is that, since then (for a while anyways), the Federal Government has changed they way it does "Law Enforcement". Remember how arrogant they used to be ? Remember "Boys on the Hood" T-shirts and para-military esprit de corps by the ATF ? Don't see that anymore, do you ? Jonny Quick ( talk) 23:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
As I read this article, I keep seeing Byerly's name at critical junctions, and each time it appears Randy Weaver gets deeper and deeper into trouble as he becomes more & more interesting to law enforcement. He seems central, pivotal and responsible to me. There seems to be no hyperlinked article for him, no history of what consequences he may have suffered as a result of his actions or what the Weaver family has to say about him now, in retrospect. Am I off-base, or is there something here that should be included? Jonny Quick ( talk) 23:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I am missing something, but after having read this article, and knowing nothing else about the incident, I have very little idea what happened. What were they charged with? What happened during the siege? What led into the siege? Details of the actual events in this article are exceptionally sporadic. Most of the description contains random events from the trial and testimony with little substance. Is it just that the factual details are disputed? If so, that should be stated as well. As it is, this article gives very little to indicate why this was so controversial or what the controversy was even over. TV4Fun ( talk) 01:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
M16's were never produced in .223 they were produced for 5.56x45. If we are to change this back to the original we need to find out if the rifles were actually M16's or if they were just "M16's" Aka AR-15's. If someone can link me to a version of the M16 with a .223 chamber sold to the US goverment I will change it. But since that does not exist it will stay the same. 5.56x45 =/= .223 the chamber dimensions are quite different and can lead to overpressures. I direct you to the 5.56x45 Page as well as the M16 page 5.56×45mm NATO M16 rifle Both of which clearly state that 5.56x45 is used in the M16 not .223
So its either a AR-15 in .223 rem or M16 in 5.56x45 -- Youngdrake ( talk) 12:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Searching my PDF copy of the 10 Jun 1994 DOJ OPR report on Ruby Ridge, I find no instances of "5.56" but several instances of ".223" in respect to the M16 and M16a2 rifles used by the US Marshals.
o "In preparation for the mission, the marshals had acquired three .223 caliber M16 rifles from the Spokane office."
o "...Degan shipped a .223 caliber M16A2 Colt Carbine..."
o "Roderick and Degan were carrying .223 caliber M16 rifles."
o "Degan’s M16 rifle fires a .223 caliber round."
And the local sheriff's dept routinely procures .223 Remington 55gr FMJ for use in their M16 and M4 rifles and carbines. -- Naaman Brown ( talk) 16:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Ruby Ridge. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Noticed while reading that "U.S. District Court Judge Harold L. Ryan" was not given a single mention throughout the entire article, and was only referred to as "the judge" throughout, despite the fact that a strong argument could be made that Judge Ryan's failure to fix his administrative mistake of sending a inaccurate court date and then refusing to rescind the warrant was the reason why the murders took place. It's Judge Ryan's fault, and yet the wikipedia article won't even mention his name. I smell bias, and added either his name and full title, name and general title ("Judge Ryan") and the last mention of his involvement is simple "the judge" given that his name was mentioned in the previous sentence. I'm not married to my edits stylistically, but I would like to ask that the article not have the most important information regarding who is most responsible for the situation to be sanitized and scrubbed from the article. And I don't believe it was inadvertent. The article has 8 separate references to "the judge" and yet the judge is not named once. Jonny Quick ( talk) 01:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Weaver was arrested and interrogated due to alleged death threats. He denied having made such threats, and given the context of a lawsuit that is probably true - his neighbor just wanted to get back at him. The statement that "Although the Secret Service was told that Weaver was a member of the Aryan Nations and that he had a large weapon cache at his residence, Weaver denied the allegations and no charges were filed" is nonsense. Whether he had made death threats against various people is an entirely different matter from having weapons and being a member of Aryan Nation. He could have had 1,000 firearms, that would not be a reason for charging him with making death threats. The illogical and irrelevant claim should be deleted Royalcourtier ( talk) 06:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
It is not correct that "Weaver's defense attorney, Gerry Spence, rested his case without offering a defense. Instead he convinced the jury to find as they did merely through his cross-examination and discrediting of the government witnesses and evidence". That is a defence! What should have been written is that "Weaver's defense attorney, Gerry Spence, did not call any evidence in support of the defense". Royalcourtier ( talk) 06:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
It is suggested that there was a proposal to charge Sara Weaver. If that is the case, what was she to be charged with? It seems that no member of the family were guilty of any crime. Royalcourtier ( talk) 06:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually there were ten charges against the Weaver Family including Kevin Harris. Weaver was found guilty of one charge out of ten: not showing up in court on either 20 Feb 1991 the reassigned date or 20 Mar the date he had been given. Randy Weaver was convicted by the jury on two charges, and the judge set aside "crimes on pretrial release" on the grounds it required that he be convicted of one of the two charges dismissed by the judge or one of the the six acquitted by the jury. But there was a guilty verdict.
Sara and Vicki Weaver were unindicted co-conspirators in the Ruby Ridge trial of Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris. The second Indictment listed Overt Acts charged against the Weavers and Harris including: "41. On or about August 22, 1992, Randall C. Weaver or Kevin L. Harris and an unidentified female, probably Vicki or Sara Weaver, took offensive action against a helicopter and its occupants, including attempting to shoot at the helicopter, resulting in the death of Vicki Weaver and the wounding of Kevin L. Harris and Randall C. Weaver."
The DOJ OPR stated: "Even though [FBI sniper] Horiuchi could not identify the female, the prosecution had abundant evidence that Vicki Weaver had not run outside. Naming Vicki Weaver as one of the people who might have responded to the helicopter could readily be interpreted as an attempt to assert that Horiuchi was justified in shooting her. It was careless and wrong for the indictment to charge than "an unidentified female, probably Vicki or Sara Weaver" took offensive action against the helicopter." No one in the Weaver party fired a shot in that 22 Aug 1992 helicopter incident.
It was also alleged during the trial that bullets from Sara Weaver's rifle were found (lying pristine on a leaf) at the scene of the 21 Aug shooting at the "Y" in the trails when Sammy Weaver and US Marshal Degan were killed; these were the Evidence series L bullets of questionable provenance. USMS observors placed Sara squarely at the cabin, far out of sight or line of fire of the "Y", during that incident.
Accusations against Sara related to at least two of the ten charges in the Weaver-Harris trial: conspiracy against the government and threatening a helicopter. The Weavers were acquitted by the jury on the conspiracy charge. During the prosecution witness testimony, Spence got the pilot and passenger on the helicopter to admit they were seldomn in line of sight of the cabin and never felt threatened by anyone at the cabin. Judge Edward Lodge dismissed the charge of threatening a helicopter based on prosecution witness testimony. -- Naaman Brown ( talk) 18:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
What Did That Woman Named Vicki Weaver Ever Do That Led To Her Getting Shot To Death At Ruby Ridge,Where She & Her Family Were Staying At That Time?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.119.31 ( talk • contribs) 16:30, 14 January 2016
In The Part Of That Ruby Ridge Film Where Vicki Shouts Out " Yahweh" While Randy Is Being Taken Away,Who Is She Shouting It At & What Does She Mean By That?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.119.31 ( talk • contribs) 16:34, 14 January 2016
I have placed the under construction tag, because I am working my way, start to finish, through the cited sources, after finding all sorts of discrepancies, as well as numerous cases of repeat appearances of the same citation (i.e, redundancies). I have finished with the Walter (2002) book, and am partially finished with the RRTF (1994) report. In all editing of citations, I am using standard markup—cite report, cite journal, cite news, etc.
I have already noted a few things that will be longterm issues, including:
Generally I am just checking content to citations, and completing the citations (adding authors, dates, urls, etc.). But when I find a cited article that does not support a text statement—and I have found clear cases, for instance, of articles cited, that do not even mention Ruby Ridge or other aspects of sentence content—I move it to Further reading, for others to try to re-use later.
In many cases the original citations are so poor (devoid of sufficient content to clearly ascribe them to a single book, or other source) that I have had to do my best, and the add a verification needed tag—for instance, for a statement tied to a video, with no URL or time stamp provided, or for a citation to a book, where multiple editions exist, and no information appears as to date or page number.
In short, the article superficially appears fine, but when anyone with scholarly chops takes a look, it is in very bad shape. I will do what I can to bring it into compliance with guidelines and policies, but it will take a while. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 08:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The page was probably just fine until you started littering it with inane tags, eg. FBI "who" ... lol, well I'm English, but even I know what "FBI" stands for! I cannot for the life of me understand the people who come on wikipedia pages and litter then with these extremely annoying comments. Why do you not just put references in yourself if you feel so strongly about it? (Most people probably couldn't care less). You read newspapers without them being littered with references. Well who ever said newspapers were 100% reliable sources of information? Please. get on with it, put your references in (that the whole world will ignore) if you want and leave it at that! John2o2o2o ( talk) 23:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
The work to identify the actual sources used, to simplify their presentation (so the same source does not appear multiple times), and to assign content to the actual few pages from which it was gleaned in the sources (so that it is truly verifiable, without becoming a doctoral dissertation project)—this work nears half way done.
A few significant hallmarks of the work:
Besides allowing more direct access to the actual sources, this cleanup also (i) makes clear the extent to which this article relies on a narrow range of sources (the Jess Walter book, and the two reports—the latter, for our purposes, almost being primary sources, see below), and (ii) brings to the foreground what will be persistent issues that remain after I finish my work. In the bullets below, I begin to outline those issues I perceive will persist.
For perspective on what follows, there are, as of this date, about 25 total distinct sources, being used to support about 110 appearances of inline citations. Of these, about 70 of the 110 inline citations are to the Walter book and the two reports. That is, 3 of the 25 sources correspond to over half of the inline citations.
The issues likely to persist are:
This article cites its sources but its
page references ranges are too broad or incorrect. |
There may be more issues, but this is what I have seen in the work to date.
When I complete the "Under construction" effort, that tag will come down, and any other tags I have fully resolved, but any of these issues, described here, that are not resolved, will remain tagged.
Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 09:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
The page was probably just fine until you started littering it with inane tags, eg. FBI "who" ... lol, well I'm English, but even I know what "FBI" stands for! I cannot for the life of me understand the people who come on wikipedia pages and litter them with these extremely annoying tag/comments. Why do you not just put references in yourself if you feel so strongly about it? (Most people probably couldn't care less). You read newspapers without them being littered with references. Well who ever said newspapers were 100% reliable sources of information? Please. get on with it, put your references in (that the whole world will ignore) if you want and leave it at that! If I could be bothered (oh don't worry I won't!) I would remove all of your tags. They are really annoying and add nothing to the article. John2o2o2o ( talk) 23:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
In the section, "U.S. Marshall Service involvement" there is a sentence:
Weaver came to believe that he would not receive a fair trial if he were to appear in court. His distrust grew further when he was erroneously told by his magistrate that if he lost the trial, he would lose his land, essentially leaving Vicki homeless, and that the government would take away his children.
There is no indication anywhere else in the article who this "magistrate" is, magistrate is not a commonly accepted English term for a lawyer or advisor, and no official judge or arbiter appears to have made this sort of threat to Weaver. The citation is to a book to which I don't have immediate access, but even if the information is in some twisted way correct, at least the phrasing should be altered. NobleHam ( talk) 11:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ruby Ridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
The article quoted the permissive Rules of Engagement as the FBI Standard Deadly Force Policy a few paragraphs after a list of the ROE. I am not going to look up in the edit history when this mixup occurred. I replaced it with the 1992 FBI Standard Deadly Force Policy given by the 1994 Ruby Ridge Task Force (Bermann Commission, Office of Professional Responsibility, Department of Justice) Report.
"The FBI’s Standard Deadly Force Policy states that:
Agents are not to use deadly force against any person except as necessary in self-defense or the defense of another, when they have reason to believe that they or another are in danger of death or grievous bodily harm. Whenever feasible, verbal warnings should be given before deadly force is applied.[711]"
The Ruby Ridge Task Force (DoJ OPR, Bermann Commission) Report has different evolutions of the Rules of Engagement:
"The proposed Rules of Engagement provided at the initial briefing were:
Any adult with a weapon who was observed in the vicinity of Randall Weaver’s cabin or the fire fight area, could and should be the subject of deadly force.
Following the briefing, the HRT travelled to Ruby Creek at the base of the mountain on which the Weaver cabin was located and began to establish tactical operations centers."
then
"If any adult in the compound is observed with a weapon after the surrender announcement is made, deadly force can and should be employed to neutralize this individual.
If any adult male is observed with a weapon prior to the announcement deadly force can and should be employed if a shot can be taken without endangering the children.
If compromised by any dog the dog can be taken out.
Any subject other than R, V, + K, presenting threat of death or grievous bodily harm FBI rules of deadly force apply."
and later:
"1. 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.
2. If any adult in the compound is observed with a weapon after the surrender announcement is made, and is not attempting to surrender, deadly force can and should be employed to neutralize the individual.
3. If compromised by any animal, particularly the dogs, that animal should be eliminated.
4. Any subjects other than Randall Weaver, Vicki Weaver, Kevin Harris, presenting threats of death or grievous bodily harm, the FBI rules of deadly force are in effect. Deadly force can be utilized to prevent the death or grievous bodily injury to oneself or that of another."
-- Naaman Brown ( talk) 12:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I think it would be wise to shorten it. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 02:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Instead of using weasel language "...killed by sniper fire...", I think the Lede should say she was "...killed by FBI Sniper Lon Horiuchi...". I almost just changed it, since the information is already in the body; it's just a matter of moving it to the Lede. Could not think of a reason to NOT do it, however in the interests of "consensus" and on the chance it's already been discussed, I figured I should ask the question here first. Tym Whittier ( talk) 22:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
What is the significance of this phrase? Why is it used with both mentions of Harris' settlement? Manys ( talk) 01:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Even though Harris had been acquitted of murder in the shooting of Degan 21 Aug by the jury when the only grounds for acquittal was justifiable homicide in defense of self or others, and Harris was shot running away 22 Aug without firing a weapon that day, federal officials repeatedly refused to settle Harris' claim, even though they had settled with the surviving members of the Weaver family. The took several appeals between 1997 and 2000 before the case was heard and settled. -- Naaman Brown ( talk) 21:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Quotation marks which do not should come with a citation of the person who said it, and when. It is a violation of NPOV and tonally wrong for a reference to attempt to convey sarcasm. If editors do not believe the claim, then should write that out explicitly. 70.127.17.241 ( talk) 07:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
On a USGS map, the coordinates given at the top of the article point to Caribou Ridge, on the other side of Ruby Creek from Ruby Ridge. — Tamfang ( talk) 15:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
With sentences such as "Public outcry over Ruby Ridge and the subsequent Waco siege involving many of the same agencies and even the same personnel fueled the widening of the militia movement" imply that there was an outcry from the majority when, in truth, only a very vocal minority made much of this event. Eyes down, human. ( talk) 17:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Edited later stages of events to add more sub-headers to make it easier to read, such as "Trials", "Aftermath: Civil suits," "Federal investigations," etc. Put McVeigh's domestic terrorism in a separate sub-header after completing material about Ruby Ridge, the Weavers and Harris. Parkwells ( talk) 14:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I had previously made a minor edit to correct the number of deaths listed in the sidebar. It incorrectly lists 2 deaths when there were 3. Sammy Weaver, Vicki Weaver and US Marshal William Degan all died as a result of gunfire during the siege. (the actual text of the article and existing references confirms this data).
A later edit by User:Butlerblog reverted the number to 2.
Can someone of sufficient access correct the number of deaths in the side bar and toss a lock on this article to prevent incorrect changes?
in the opening, it states Sammy Weaver was "Harris and Weaver's son." Unless Harris and Weaver were a gay couple, this cannot be correct. 96.63.163.11 ( talk) 20:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)