Talk:Randy Weaver

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.


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)

Contents

[edit] 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)

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)

---bias----

"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)

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)

[edit] Categories

An anon added several categories which I removed. He was adding categories elsewhere that didn't belong, and I figured these categories would have been considered here. Given this contect, I removed several. Please look to see if these categories indeed belong. --DanielCD 02:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

An anon re-added the same catagories, so I deleted them. I have no problem per se with the catagories that he/she is attempting to add, but I feel if you don't want to log in, and claim your changes, then perhaps they are ill considered. --rhmoore 21:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not a matter of whether or not the user is anonymous. All that matters is that the information is reliably sourced. Since justification for the categories wasn't reliably sourced, I also support there removal. Rklawton 22:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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

[edit] 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:

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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)