Talk:Ruby Ridge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ruby Ridge article.
Article policies
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Contents

[edit] Errors in Content Type and Major Changes Needed

The entire section of the article titled "Oklahoma City bombing" should be removed. A note about other events potentially related to or reference the Ruby Ridge event would be fine. But to completely describe the completely seperate event and people involved belongs in an article about "Oklahoma City bombing" event, not the "Ruby Ridge" event. Attempts to tie the two together blur lines of Encyclopaedia content with political conspiracy theories and opinions. Badlandz (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Except that a cited source claims the connection. Is there a veracity problem with CNN (the source of the claim)? Is the source not verifiable? Being that there is a cited reliable and verifiable source that claims the connection, the cited content should remain. Wikipedia is not censored. On the other hand, if another cited reliable and verifiable cource claims no connection, that content would be fine to add, too, representing another opinion. Yaf (talk) 02:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it does seem strange that the section mostly describes the Oklahoma City Bombing and only mentions the "connection(s)" in the last two sentences. Also, I don't know that it deserves its own section. I think it could be merged into the Aftermath section, or maybe another one. I don't see any problem with the source, though.--Hamitr (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for shootout

The article does not claim why there were "people hiding out" on the property in the first place. Was it Weaver? Was it the Feds? The second paragraph mentions that "a firefight arose". Was Weaver in fatigues, or were the Feds? And why were US Marshalls on the property in the first place? Someone please cleanup and rewrite this article. ````02/29/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.45.5 (talk) 19:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I've read this and I didn't understand anything. 80% of the article is about a guy taking a shot at someone and hitting a woman behind the door. The same facts about it are repeated to fill space (and they are also in the article about the guy), while not much else is explained. I mean seriously, "the people" shot their dog? Isn't it known who the people were? Also, a child got shot in the back while running away and nobody cared, while everyone was up in arms about a woman accidentally getting shot through a door? The whole thing started for no reason at all? The article paints a very unbelievable picture of the events. Tapir (talk)
I've just reead the Randy Weaver article, and it has a much better description of the events. I'm not sure how to fix this, but I believe an article about the event is supposed to describe the event in detail, while the article about a person should have basic information, with a link to the more specific article. This one's the other way around, the article about the shooting doesn't say very much about the shooting, so you're supposed to click on the guy's name, which is non-intuitive, since you expect this article to be more detailed in that regard. Tapir (talk)

[edit] Quality of writing

I would like to modesty assert that this article make the event sound like the federal agents went out of their way to "screw" the Weaver family. As a long time researcher for the DoD, I know that US government is flawed; however, I do not believe federal agents are that evil as a group -- perhaps individuals. And an operation of this size requires a group. As a group of people acting to screw the Weavers, somebody would have leaked something to the public. Thus I believe this article is biased: it must have left parts of the story out.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.207.198.126 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A family of white-separatists living in the mountains in isolation preying on apocalyptic ideas, perhaps they're not "all there". 130.207.198.126 23:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC) CW Georgia Tech Research Institute

And since when is being "not 'all there'" reason for the FBI to hunt and kill a family for failure to appear at a trial?Nolo Contendre 05:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Good point. From a purely technical perspective, you're right as a symmetrically-inclined, overly-principled person. However please also take into account normative values: cracking down a vocal, racist nuthead (easy to justify and do) in a pluralistic society may give people reason to pay patronage to its gov't. Maybe? I think from a normative perspective, people could see this coming. You probably wrote this article didn't you? tsk... tsk... tsk... CW Georgia Tech Research Institute
Unnecessary verbiage. "Cracking down a vocal, racist nuthead in a pluralistic society may give people reason to pay patronage to its gov't." It may. What is the point being made here? And where is the evidence for "bias" in the article? Let me point out that the article does not promote a conspiracy theory, but merely, presumably the ineptness of the government agencies in handling the matter.The Gnome 01:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


I think this article would be greatly strengthened by an overall edit. The writing is very colloquial (e.g. "Randy and Vicki Weaver were an outspoken couple trying to make their way in Idaho").

Also, can people sign/dates their comments on this page? You just have to use four tildes (~). It makes it a lot easier to read. Thanks, Hu Gadarn 19:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


  • This article can use some loving care... came here from 'Kent State shootings', and the contrast is immense. Note that I'm a foreigner who has never heard about either incident before reading here.

The first section 'Background' is hard to follow, I don't quite understand the infiltration plot. Please consider people who read this article without prior knowledge of the incident. What were the charges, and where did the charges came from?

The article contains plenty of POV, but at least the course of events (disputes and all) is made clear. POV expressions: "explained away", "'mix-up'" (the quotes), "clandestinely" (why was it?). I also find "hotly debated" remarkable, given the rest of the sentence and the article on Randy Weaver himself. [unsigned]


  •  :"The canine gave chase. The DUSM shot at the pursuing dog in self-defense, and, in the ensuing exchange of gunfire, accidentally injured Weaver’s son."

I don't get this, he shot the dog but how does it go from there to an exchange of gunfire? It almost reads like the dog shot back or something. :?


  • ----

I mostly reverted something- /* Events */ revert most of first paragraph of events [08:14, 22 September 2005 204.249.77.141 (→Events)] -see talk

  • I do agree with your "which is the point of surveillance" but can you cite that the dog actually manage to attack the agent? I think the dog got shot before he had a chance. Also, WTF is up with the "Randy Weaver had instilled in his son a deep mistrust for the Federal government, and was considered by many an anti-government extremist." is this NPOV?

66.173.192.96 03:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ruby Ridge Song

Ruby Ridge song - I am the songwriter of Up on Ruby Ridge and give my permission for my lyrics for appear on your page related to Ruby Ridge. Frank Delaney www.mtamicro.com


[edit] Laws re. legality of modified weapons

  • From what I can find, there is no law against shortening the buttstock of a shotgun. However, there is a LAW against shortening the barrel. That needs to be cleared up and I intend on doing so.
  • I slightly changed the sawed off shotgun section, as a source, I used the court TV link at the bottom

http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/cops_others/randy_weaver/1.html?sect=18 66.173.192.96

  • Shortening the barrel of a shotgun below 18 inches declassifies it as a shotgun and then reclassifies it as "Any Other Weapon" by the National Firearms act of 1934. This requires you to be put into a national registry for Class III weapons, equal to owning a machine gun. It also requires you to pay for an extensive background investigation and transfers fees.
  • There are two length limits on shotguns: barrel must be 18" or longer and overall length must be 26" or longer. Actually an AOW is factory-made as a shotgun pistol; a fullsize shotgun sawn off by an individual is always a SBS short barrel shotgun. A point I would like to make is that the ATF informant Gus Magisono saw the Model 870 shotgun before it was altered and pointed out where he wanted Weaver to cut it. Since Weaver had no history of making and selling illegal weapons, the jury saw this as entrapment.Naaman Brown 17:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Ruby Ridge"?

I used to live in that part of Idaho, back when this all occurred. There is no place named Ruby Ridge. The area is called Caribou Ridge, which Ruby Creek runs through. Ruby Ridge is a mythological fantasy created by the media for alliterative purposes. --[jon] [talk] 14:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, now that the media's created it, there is a Ruby Ridge. =P Other than that...make a note of that in the article, no? [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 22:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • A study of the United States Geologic Survey quad, Naples(ID),shows "Ruby Ridge" between Molar Creek and Ruby Creek (which is south of Caribou Ridge)at Longitude 53 degrees 81 minutes 45 seconds East, Latitude 53degrees 85 min 64 sec North. Nolo Contendre 05:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Good grief. Hasn't anybody noticed that the latitude and longitude above is not valid? There are 60 seconds in a minute, and 60 minutes in a degree - so "Latitude 53degrees 85 min 64 sec North" is bogus, as is the longitude given. Further, longitude 53 degrees east, latitude 53 degrees north is actually in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, about 100 miles NE of the Spotted Islands - not real close, almost 3000 miles away from "Ruby Ridge"!

The actual lat/lon is closer to 48 degrees 37 minutes N, 116 degrees 29 minutes W, about 10 miles SW of Bonners Ferry, ID as the crow flies.

This kind of error just makes Wikipedia even more suspect than it already is...204.120.131.252 22:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I checked Microsoft Terraserver and the topographical map shows west of Bonner's Ferry Idaho (at approx Long. 116 W Lat. 48 N) a series of ridges divided by creeks: -Snow Ridge -Caribou Creek -Caribou Ridge -Ruby Creek -Ruby Ridge -Molar Creek. So Ruby Ridge is a valid placename (the earlier poster had the Long and Lat wrong). Another source left me with the impression that Caribou Ridge and Ruby Ridge have swapped names over the years, also. Some sources place the Weaver cabin on Ruby Ridge and others place it on Caribou Ridge. (The topo map was dated 1983.)Naaman Brown 19:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horiuchi and Vicki Weaver

  • "tactical assault on the Weaver compound" -- Why not replace compound with "house."
  • Thweat, the 9th Circuit Court decision discusses the physical evidence which proves Horiuchi could not see Vicki Weaver. It's been linked on page for quite some time, and you should read it carefully. Horiuchi has never changed his story regarding his shot being intended for the adult male running toward the open door of the cabin. Further, the FBI obviously did not have access to the inside of the cabin after the shooting, so there was no way to know Vicki had been shot. Also your claims about "sniper procedures" are mere speculation.

Horiuchi shot at Harris as he approached the door, and missed. Shooting a moving target at long distance is extremely difficult, and Horiuchi did not hit his intended target. The door to the cabin opened out, and the curtains were drawn against the window. Horiuchi did not know Vicki was behind the door when he shot at Harris. Again, this is all laid out well in the court documents from the 9th Circuit. Sources such as that are much better than your unsupported speculation regarding what Horiuchi did or did not see when he shot, and your unsupported claims about what "sniper procedures" are.

Reverting back.

  • Horiuchi was negligent in not considering his backdrop- in other words, he didn't take into consideration where his bullet would go if he missed. This is improper gun handling, and certainly not something you expect from a trained sniper. And that's not even getting into the fact he was attempting to shoot someone in the back to begin with, generally considered a cowardly act.
  • The FBI had to have known that Vicky was dead. In the meantime, the FBI sent agents who crawled under the house and stuck listening devices under the floor. And although Randy many times screamed out to the officers that they had killed his wife, the officers pretended they did not know she was dead, and they mercilessly taunted the family. "Did you sleep well last night, Vicki?" and "Show us the baby, Vicki? We had pancakes," and on it went. (www.Ruby-ridge.com) AND, if you don't like that, try http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/cops_others/randy_weaver/16.html : As soon as the lights illuminated the cabin, Randy yelled out the door, “You killed my f--king wife!” Elisheba then began crying out, “Mama, Mama.” ... The psychological warfare became even worse the following day. “Good morning Mrs. Weaver,” Fred Lanceley, an FBI negotiator, called out. “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?” Following the statements made by the negotiator, the whole family began sobbing loudly. ... Following his statements, the robot retreated and a negotiator began speaking again, “Vicki, how's the baby?” he said. “Let me know if there is anything that can be done for the baby.”
  • Regardless of Horiuchi's intentions, he is responsible for Vicki's death and should be held accountable. A sniper is responsible for the bullet's trajectory from the pull of the trigger to the end of its path. Horiuchi made a lethal mistake and should be punished.


Why "compound" instead of "house"? Because only politically correct individuals may live in houses. Anyone who isn't "politically correct" lives in "compounds" because this conjures up images of dangerous, snarling, gun toting ("...keep amd bear arms...") extremists bordering on barbarism. It's just another way to de-humanize certain groups so that it might become acceptable in the publics eye to "deal with them." Incidentally much of the "background" section is purely speculation. "People Weekly" is only a notch or two above the "National Enquirer" and as such should be held as only slightly more reliable. Historiocality 17:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, any mention of someone's thought or feelings at a particular moment is conjecture as well, unless you can mind read better than me. This should also apply when citing third party sources (i.e. magazines, "expert" conjecture, etc) which speculate on peoples thoughts and feelings.Historiocality 18:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  • "Compound"-- According to Marshal Cooper at the Weaver/Harris trial, just hanging a rifle on the mantelpiece converts a homestead into a "compound." Militarily speaking, a "compound" implies extensive fortifications. The Weaver cabin was described by Vicki's dad as a "plywood mess." The walls could easily be penetrated by even a .22 rimfire rifle. The only "fortifications" at the cabin were natural features: the steep hillsides, trees and boulders.Naaman Brown 05:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Penalty

There is no mention for the penalty for the sale of a shotgun 3/8ths of an inch too short. He violated the National Firearms Act of 1934. The government set up a giant stake out with hundreds of agents and killed his wife and son all because Randy Weaver did not pay the transfer tax of $5 and failed to show up in court. Also, there seems to be a lot of debate about NPOV. Perhaps someone could make a separate article about the "Ruby Ridge Controversy" or something? Its just an idea, dont know if there's enough info/debate to do it right or not.

As I recall, the NFA tax isn't $5, it's $200. 71.203.209.0 19:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • NFA tax on a factory-made shotgun pistol or AOW is $5; the NFA tax on a sawed-off shotgun is $200. Weaver made the two sawed-off guns in Oct 1989. Jun 1990 the ATF offered Weaver a deal: go undercover for the ATF or go to jail. He refused. Then they pressed charges. It seems to me his real offense to ATF was refusing to snitch, not sawing off two shotguns.Naaman Brown 18:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] latest edit

My last edit was to better conform to Harris's testimony in the official report. He says: "A camouflaged [sic] person was in the road and he shot Striker. Sam yelled 'You shot Striker, you sonafabitch!' And they pointed a gun at Sam. Sam opened [sic] fire. I took cover behind a stump and Sam headed up the road toward home. it appeared [sic] as though Sam had been wounded in the right arm . . . . THE men were still shooting at Sam, so I shot one of the sons of bitches. After they killed Sam one of the FEDs jumped out of the woods and for the first time declared he was a federal marshal. The FEDs then grabbed their wounded and left. I then headed home up the road and spotted Sam's body laying in the road without a doubt shot in the back." , so, from his viewpoint (which that paragraph is from), there are more than one marshals shooting at Sam, and he shot 'one' of them.

I wish there was a description of the marshals story, but there are multiple stories, and it is probably too long to get into details.--12.110.196.19 02:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

  • This article still reads heavily of politics and needs much revision. I will add what I can. Humble Servant 06:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

This article clearly has bias running entirely through it. It's written more like a story than fair information. The majority of the information given is alright, but most of the article needs to be completly rewritten, it's shameful.

  • Some date RR back to the "infamous" April 19, referring to an aborted/cancelled raid.[1]

The next day, a government sniper named Lon Horiuchi wounded Weaver, then killed Weaver’s wife Vicky, with a single shot to the head, and wounded another son. Vicky Weaver was holding a baby in her hands when shot dead.

added wife's name Vicky and the fact that she was holding a baby (not holding a gun) when shot. NOPV?

  • I can't believe how skewed this article still is. Doesn't the government claim that the group didn't leave the house to "go hunting," that in fact they were guarding the property and had been coming out of the house with weapons periodically during the night whenever the dogs barked? Further, doesn't the government claim that they were chased from the house by the armed group and that a gunfight occurred when the agents stopped and took up defensive positions? Why isn't the governments position outlined here? I'm not familiar enough with Widipedia to go editing the page, I thought I would ask this here first.
  • ^^go for it, it's easy to revert. This thing needs some work
  • Would it matter if they were out there defending their own property? That's legal.
  • I changed the events paragraph to reflect the real dispute over the shooting at the Y. The disputed facts as far as I can tell are who fired first and when did the marshals identify themselves.

User:70.232.45.141 11 November, 2005

This article is terrible skewed and not very factual. PErhaps it shoudl be rewritten by some who is not anti-government or a conspiracy theorist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.166.102.70 (talk • contribs) .


Agreed. Not quite up to standards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.188.96.109 (talk • contribs) .

Come on!!! This was written by an anti-government conspirist? Please! There is absolutly no mention of the fact that after the slaying of Vicki Weaver (an act of gross negligence), the FBI and ATF cooked the books, destroyed evidence, and falsified reports. And this isn't just me saying it. I just got done watching a special on the History Channel that was very critical of Mr Weaver and his views (as they should be), but they did admit that the Federal government took this too far, and that they attempted to cover it up. I mean seriously! We have Marines on trial for killing terrorists who, wounded or not, were reaching for their weapons, and the sniper who shot Vivki Weaver is off the hook thanks to the Supremecy Clause. Talk about double standards!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.50.151.8 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the story will tell itself. It does not need any adornment. If you are not happy with the actions of law enforcement and want that to change, telling the story from a NPOV and letting the story tell itself will be more effective in accomplishing what you want than skewing the article. Rearden9 13:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Why was this removed: Of course, this violates one of the basic rules of gun handling: "Always be sure of your target and of what lies beyond it."? It's a very common sense rule of gun handling. The fact that a trained government sniper didn't follow one of the BASIC rules of gun handling, and it lead to the death of an innocent, is an important part of the story. 12.110.196.19 04:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I would imagine it is because it seems more like a supporting fact to an argument or debate point rather than a fact that informs someone of the events.
Garden Stater 08:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't sound very encyclopedic. 69.40.243.205 01:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-Introduced NPOV

This article has gone through a lot of changes since any discussion was held on it.

New sections have been added, and I see lots of "assumptions" on Randy Weaver's motivations behind his actions with no citations of any kind.

I went ahead and re-added the npov tag. 216.52.163.1 17:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)LUID

NPOV and Unsourced statements are two different things, deserving of different tags. By all means, be bold and feel free to cite some of the unsourced claims. But I think changing the tag would be appropriate. Thanks Dubc0724 19:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
The next day, an FBI sniper named Lon Horiuchi shot and wounded Weaver while Weaver, Harris, and Weaver's 16-year-old daughter Sara were outside, attempting to visit the dead body of Sam Weaver, which was placed in a shed after being recovered by the family the previous day. Weaver was shot from behind as he went to lift the latch of the shed. Then as Randy, Sara and Harris ran back to the house, Horiuchi fired again in an attempt to shoot Kevin Harris. Weaver's wife Vicki was holding the door open, and the shot went through the open door of the cabin, hitting her in the head and killing her, the bullet continued on to hit Harris, who was wounded. Vicki Weaver was holding her 10 month old baby Elishiba in her arms when she was killed. The next day, an armoured personnel carrier came to the cabin and announced the presence of law enforcement. According to the Weavers, this was the first formal announcement of the presence of law enforcement.

Biggest assumption of reasoning I've seen. This is a total white-wash of the facts and reads like a sanitised evening news report from the governments POV. Jachin 15:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you please state in your POV what parts of the above paragraph are a "white-wash of the facts" so that they can be addressed. Rearden9 14:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If there is any biased, it is in favor of Randy Weaver. There is as much a lack of citation involving government actions and motives as there is involving Randy Weaver. 24.107.66.62 17:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


Who wrote this, the lawyers for the FBI? How about we have this rewritten without all the POV? Hmoul 03:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


I've done what I can to cite where appropriate, and eliminate conjecture. Let's get this one to a NPOV. This story is much too important to let it be compromised by opinion.Nolo Contendre 05:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously it is difficult to find an unbiased account of the events. What we do know was that everyone who witnessed those events was directly involved or is dead. An unarmed person was shot and killed by a FBI sniper in a non-hostage situation. No federal officers were in immediate danger from whomever was being targeted when the shot was taken. These are the facts of the case. Only because the federal government intervened was the FBI sniper not tried for this shooting. A jury found that the Weavers were the victims in this situation and made awards to the Weaver children accordingly. What is troubling about this case is that while most reasonable people don't agree with the philosophy of white supremacy we find the Weavers sympathetic. We see a federal law enforcement going beyond what most would view as a proportional response to the severity of Randy Weavers crimes. It appears that he was targeted because of his beliefs not the threat he posed to society. The death of a minor , his parent, and a federal agent over a firearms infraction has no justification. The burden of legal conduct in this tragedy was the FBI's and they clearly came up short. Trying to homogenize this piece of history misses the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.202.67 (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2007

Weaver isn't a saint in this either. His own actions only exacerbated the situation. He knew that he was supposed to show up to court to face charges. And even if the charges were bogus, Mr. Weaver and his family should have shown up in court and made their case just like every other citizen has to do when the government wrongly charges them with a crime. Instead of showing up and defending himself in court, the Weavers chose to arm themselves to the hilt and resist Randy's eventual arrest, which was lawfully ordered by a Judge.
Um, have you even read the article? They were given a WRONG COURT DATE, and before the court date they were given had passed, the govt. issued warrants for them. Example: Someone needs to be in court on Monday, but they are told to show up Friday. Then the court (knowing they were told the wrong day!) issues an arrest warrant for Failure To Appear on Wednesday.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.110.196.19 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Now of course the gov't made a number of mistakes, as our gov't is often prone to do, but the problems at Ruby Ridge were made much worse by the way the Weaver's handled the situation.
And of course, if you have information and claims to add that come from reputable, verifiable sources, then feel free to add those claims to the article. Vivaldi (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The court date was originally 19 Feb 1991; it was moved to 20 Feb 1991. Pre-Trial Services notified Weaver that the new date was 20 Mar. The ATF had a representative in Judge Harold Ryan's court on 19 Feb and 20 Feb. The judge issued a bench warrant for Weaver's arrest for "failure to appear." Weaver's court appointed attorney informed the court that Weaver had rejected his services. The court found out that Weaver had received a wrong date by 27 Feb. Marshals Dave Hunt and Ron Evans wanted the prosecution to allow Weaver to show up on 20 Mar. Prosecutor Ron Howen responded by seeking a grand jury indictment on 14 Mar, cutting off the chance that Weaver would show up on 20 Mar to answer the bench warrant. The grand jury indictment covered the same charge as the bench warrant, failure to appear, but the indictment would stand even if Judge Ryan dismissed the bench warrant. Before 14 Mar, the marshals dealt with Weaver and Judge Ryan and seemed to be making some progress; after the grand jury indictment, the marshals had to report to prosecutor Howen, not to judge Ryan, and progress stopped. Weaver was willing to deal with Marshal Hunt through third parties, but Howen cut that off. Certainly, Weaver could have shown in court 20 Mar with the PreTrial Services notice, but Weaver had no faith in receiving fair treatment. The Weavers, paricularly Vicki, were stubborn and unreasonable, but so was Ron Howen.Naaman Brown 18:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag and sources tag

I'm removing the NPOV tag added and no references tag added by anon with one edit from this article. I have added a references section and I don't understand how this article favors any particular POV more than the other. Both sides made mistakes and this article makes note of the fact that the gov't paid the Weavers money in a settlement for their part in making the siege so bad. The article also notes that Randy was found guilty of committing a crime. Vivaldi (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add that EMINENT DOMAIN which is the government's desire to take property and these days WITHOUT PAYMENT (or a greatly reduced price of less than 25% of it's real worth) and sell it to developers of homes and businesses, was the initial cause of this tragedy. The fact that the under educated and blinded public and the government thinks it is okay to commit theft of family homes, shows the junk values that have contributed to the moral atrophy in the United States. The Weavers had the Constitutional right to defend their lives and property "against tryranny."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.21.233 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] June 2007

"Federal agents shot samuel's dog; feeling threatend by the FBI gunfire upon him and his dog, Samuel began to fire back at the agent. That firefight resulted in his death and the death of a US Marshal by the name of William Degan."
How do we know that he fired back because he felt threatened? silasthecat, 76.199.25.114 05:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point. Exactly right. I've edited the article accordingly, but it still has lots of other problems.
Wikipedia articles are supposed to report statements by reliable sources, not speculation and innuendo. This article needs another cleanup.
One problem is the lack of good sources. At present, the main source we use is www.crimelibrary.com, and I'm not sure fact-checking is their highest priority. (They say here that "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." Hey, they're almost as bad as Wikipedia ...) Ideally, someone would read the books, decide which books they trusted, and then rewrite the article. One good move would be to use sentences like "Bock (p. 123) reports that the Mr Jones did X" instead of "Jones did X".
Cheers, CWC 10:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Lack of sources? This isn't an obscure, underreported event. There was a great deal of reporting on what happened. While the possibility of the media reports getting things wrong obviously exists, citing them to support the statements in the article is obviously better than using unsourced speculation (which all too often is POV-biased). — Red XIV (talk) 10:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

"How do we know that he fired back because he felt threatened? silasthecat, 76.199.25.114 05:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)"

Well....if someone pops up in the woods where I am walking with my dog, and shoots him, I think most of us would feel threatened, among other things.

I added information from some articles I found through a subscription site-- from People, US News and World Report and the New York Times. Those are all pretty reliable sources. Unfortunately, none except a few NYT articles are online, so I just cited the dates, authors and titles of the articles. I'm also going to remove the tag because the article has citations now.--Gloriamarie 11:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The Senate Judiciary Committee cited the (unpublished) Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility, Bermann Commission Task Force Report on Ruby Ridge as the best source available. A slightly redacted version was posted by Lexis Connect, an information service for lawyers. Jesse Walter's Every Knee Shall Bow (reprinted as simply Ruby Ridge) has also stood up well.Naaman Brown 06:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[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 13:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

- Just noticed that, looks like weaver has become somewhat involved in that affair. ~LUID

[edit] From user:76.23.61.27

User 76.23.61.27 (talk · contribs) added the following text to the article. Unfortunately, it's not the sort of thing we want in encyclopedia articles. (See WP:RS and related policies.) I've moved it here for discussion. Cheers, CWC 16:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

While attending a meeting after Ruby Ridge in Provo Utah approximately one year after the Ruby Ridge encounter with Bo Gritz as the main speaker for the John Birch Society sponsored event Bo Gritz claimed that "when I appeared at the Weaver cabin the government was in the process of placing a satchel charge on top of the cabin in order to remove all evidence".
This statement was heard by myself and a large number of John Birch society members.
This has been a number of years and I am unsure as to why this fact never came out to the public. I was a young man in my twenties at the time, recently out of the military. I have always wondered whether it was a true report or an attempt by Bo Gritz to enlarge his position as negotiator or simple puffing in front of a crowd of listners.
Several other facts that were prominent in the media at the time have not been mentioned here as well such as the duplicity of law enforcement and the further cover up and shredding of documents reported by the news media at the time.
News media at the time up to and including Rush Limbaugh on his syndicated show mentioned that there was a clear view of Vicky Weaver through the sniper's scope when she was shot. Other media reported that she was passing in front of a window when shot and not standing behind the door as mentioned here.
With the government cover up and lack of accountability by the murderous sniper I doubt that we shall ever know the complete truth. Much of the history of Ruby Ridge appears to be conjecture after the fact.

[edit] Strict orders to avoid contact with weaver family?

Were there any such orders? Could references to these orders be cited? -TazerPolice 04:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

From the Department of Justice report: Roderick briefed the team on Wednesday evening, August 19. At that time, he repeated the standing orders from Marshals Service Headquarters that they were to avoid contact with the Weavers, particularly the children.[FN308]12.110.196.19 04:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IfD discussion on image of book

There is currently a discussion on deletion of the image of the book in the article: [2] Interested parties should comment there. Yaf (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears that this page still carries an anti-government bias. It implies that the Weaver family were simply trying to live a life free from government regulation who happened to fall prey to the government that they were avoiding. It still needs a complete clean up. Perhaps a section detailing this debate would be useful.Jsgladstone (talk) 08:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I found that the major discussion sympathizing with Weaver and describing his military history and relationship with his wife were plagiarized from another website [3]. I removed the material from that site and inserted a link to it in the reference page. This page still lacks neutrality and requires a point of view on the incident from people who do not sympathize with Randy Weaver or the separatist movement. Jsgladstone (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oops=

I just learned about the bot that reverts pages. I have entered a false positive flag to prevent a revert. The large section removed was plagiarized verbatim from another website. It also was a very biased Randy Weaver biography irrelevant to the Ruby Ridge incident. Weaver's biography already exists on another page and thus isn't needed on this one. I will not edit the Weaver biography although that page is plagiarized. Rezguy (talk) 05:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Commentary regarding controversy

The original author of this page writes in a very biased opinion that obviously supports Weaver and opposes actions taken by the U.S. Marshall's service. A section that I deleted stated that the Weavers responded to their barking dogs and went out to investigate. What the section that I did delete did not clearly state that was that Weaver, his son, and Harris were armed (http://www.byington.org/Carl/ruby/ruby3.htm). However the article did conveniently mention that federal agents shot the dog. Regarding the dog, the original article conveniently left out this statement in the internal federal report "He held the dog at bay with his firearm, but did not shoot for fear of provoking the Weavers. An exchange of gunfire occurred moments later, resulting in the death of Deputy Marshal William Degan, Sammy Weaver, and the dog" (http://www.byington.org/Carl/ruby/ruby3.htm). Also left out in the original article is who started the firefight, again from a source cited by the author: "According to the marshals, the fire fight began when Degan and Deputy Marshal Cooper rose to identify themselves. Kevin Harris wheeled and fired at Degan with a 30.06 rifle. Cooper returned fire and thought he hit Harris, though he had not" http://www.byington.org/Carl/ruby/ruby3.htm).

Note that the citation for the above comes from a link provided by the original author of this page. It's validity is questionable since it comes from a private family website.

The STATE OF IDAHO, vs. LON T. HORIUCHI case (Case No. CR 97-097-N-EJL) in the US District Court for the District of Idaho dismissed the case against Horiuchi on May 14, 1998 (http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?risb=21_ T3044235491&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T3044235498&cisb=22_T3044235497&treeMax=true&treeWidth= 0&csi=6323&docNo=23). This is not stated in the article.

The article was written with an implication that Horiuchi deliberately shot Vicki Weaver. Department of Justice reports and the settlement state that Vicki was out of view of Horiuchi's view and was mistakenly shot (http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/Pre_96/August95/444.txt.html).

The Ruby Ridge article is a very biased description that supports a separatist view against government. In the spirit of encyclopedic record, it should report the incident and the nature of the controversy. I am attempting to do this as I edit the article.

To support the original author's intent to show that Ruby Ridge is an example of an exaggerated application of law enforcement, I propose inserting a link to the US Justice Department statement by FBI Director Louis Freeh. Mr. Freeh admits that Ruby Ridge was a mistake on the part of the FBI, although it defends the actions of the US Marshall's Service.

The original author fails to mention that US Marshall's were serving a warrant on a white supremacist who had had made threats against the President and other government and law enforcement officials. This bias needs to be balanced with a description of Weaver's anti-government paranoia, rather than the plagiarized section depicting him as a simple man persecuted by the government.

Rezguy (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Weaver was not a white supremacist, he was a white separatist. Quite a difference. Also, he had specifically not joined with the Aryans who were white supremacists, as the FBI had wanted him to, to spy on this organization located near his cabin. If the plagiarized content is gone, why do we need to keep referring to it? Yaf (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

This is an incredibly well-documented incident in American history. There are are a mountain of highly reliable sources on the topic. My suggestion would be to collect some of those references and work from there, based on what they report. Articles in peer-reviewed journals and the most reputable news media would be a good place to start. Books published by academic presses would also be a good choice for research. Avoid disputing details or discussing the accuracy/reporting of primary references (court cases, gov't reports, etc) are accurate. Stick to discussing what the most reputable references report. Vassyana (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Have attempted to address these concerns, adding citations, and cleaning up the text. Yaf (talk) 06:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested Edits and Arguements to Re-Introduce NPOV

I would suggest that these edits be made to the below article section. If they are not then I believe that the NPOV tag should be re-introduced.

The violent confrontation began when Weaver's friend Kevin Harris, and his 14 year old son, Samuel, checked on why Weaver's dog had alerted to people hidden on Weaver's property dressed in "full Vietnam-style camouflauge, with night-vision goggles and full-auto M-16 machine guns".[1] The people fired and murdered Weaver's dog, a harmless Golden Retrever. A firefight arose, resulting in the murder by Fedral Agents of fleeing 14-year old Samuel who was shot in the back[2] US Marshal William Degan was also killed in the firefight.[3] Fearing for their lives the entire rest of the wever family secluded themselves in the house from the unknown attackers.

Suggestions:

1. Remove "violent" in first sentence to maintain neutrality.
2. Remove quote "full Vietnam-style..." from first sentence OR amend to clearly indicate perspective (i.e. using 'as described by') to maintain neutrality.
3. Correct grammar "checked on why had alerted to people..." first sentence - This requires a full re-write of the sentence.
4. Correct detail in first sentence identifying the participants of the confrontation - Randy Weaver and one of Weaver's dogs were involved.
5. Remove "murdered" and "harmless" in second sentence to maintain neutrality.
6. Remove "Golden Retrever" from second sentence - I do not know if the definite species of the dog has been established (or needs to be) however indications from both the federal authorities and the Weavers' are that it was a probable Yellow Labrador-mix.
7. Replace "murder by Fedral Agents" from third sentence - No charges of murder have been filed for any persons or authority for the death of Samuel Weaver.
8. Remove "fleeing" from third sentence OR introduce all detail of his participation in the gunfire leading up to and including his departure to maintain contextual neutrality - Samuel Weaver was moving away from the gunfight as indicated by his wound, however, according to Kevin Harris he fired shots at the marshals before he left. This detail indicates that, as an active participant in the gunfight, Samuel could have been hit by defensive fire as opposed to offensive fire from the marshals. This is important as no charges of murder/manslaughter/etc. have been filed.
9. Remove "who was shot in the back" OR add detail indicating where all wounds were sustained during the gunfire, including the fatal shot of Deputy Marshal Degan.
10. Remove additional "14-year old" to neutrality - Samuel Weaver's age has already been detailed in the paragraph, repeating the detail in the same paragraph could be seen as inflammatory.
11. Possibly add detail to establish the participant that shot Weaver's dog to maintain neutrality and full disclosure - All parties agree that Deputy Marshal Arthur Roderick shot and killed the dog.
12. Possibly add detail in fourth sentence to indicate which party shot and killed Bill Degan to maintain full disclosure and neutrality. - Though Harris self-incriminates in initial statements to the FBI to the shooting of Degan (which was the undisputed cause of death by all parties), both Harris and Weaver were charged, tried and acquitted of murder charges. All details for this must be disclosed or omitted in their entirety.
13. Correct title in fourth sentence - Degan's full title was 'Deputy U.S. Marshal' not "US Marshal" (the 'U.S.' is generally not written or spoken except when using a formal address, as would be used in the announcement of a death; this is why it might not be used elsewhere in the paragraph).
14. Merge second, third and fourth sentences to maintain neutrality - There are varying accounts from nearly every participant (including Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris) as to who might have initiated fire or what caused it so all events involving gunfire should be grouped to remove any suggestion of an established and agreed upon sequence of events.
15. Either remove completely OR site reference and clearly indicate perspective in fifth sentence.

Possible result:

That day Weaver's dogs detected the presence of U.S. Marshals in the area of the Weavers' property and began barking. Randy Weaver, Weaver's 14 year-old son Samuel, and Weaver's friend, Kevin Harris, investigated the noise and followed one of the dogs after the marshals. Soon after a gunfight arose resulting in the deaths of Deputy U.S. Marshal William Degan, Samuel Weaver and the Weavers' dog.

Sorry about the length of this, I wanted to make sure all arguments were laid out because of the controversy. Also, I agree with above comment that considering of the amount of literature there is on this event, I think this article should be tagged until more detail is added from more sources. Mcpaine (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

With reliable and verifiable sources, many of these changes should be made, assuming they hold up to scrutiny. It was, however, a "violent" confrontation. I see no reason to dispute this. As for the information contained in quotes in the article, they are direct quotes from Suprynowicz's book. There is no reason to remove these quotes unless there are conflicting sources claiming otherwise, in which case we need to determine which are reliable vs. non-reliable and verifiable vs. non-verifiable, regarding sources. I have no objection to tagging the article as POV, if there are reliable sources that indicate that the information contained herein is not neutral.Yaf (talk) 03:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I generally support those 14 changes, and I agree that it was 'violent' and wonder if there might be a more neutral word that says the same thing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the incident was "violent" as well, so I somewhat retract that edit. It would be nice to have a conversation about whether a more neutral word exists or needs to be used, however.

The changes that I made can all be verified using the Department of Justice documents and the other trial documents regarding the entire confrontation. The quotes from Suprynowicz's book are an interesting case. I don't know much about the book, but I find that I'm a little leery of taking at face value quotes from a chapter called "Eager Lapdogs to Tyranny" as non-neutral. The first quote "shot through the back" for instance: there is no dispute that Sammy Weaver suffered a fatal shot to the back in addition to an arm wound, but the context and wording in which the quote is being used seems anything but neutral, as you can see from my above arguments. Also for the "Vietnam-style camouflage..." quote, I don't know that there is any specific gear with this name. I thought all camouflage was the same with the exception of the desert fatigues being used in the Gulf currently (colored to more easily meld with sand, etc.) The DOJ report says this: "Each marshal was equipped with radios and night vision equipment and wore camouflage tops, pants, and boots. None wore bullet-proof vests, though they were available." It also seems to indicate that only Degan and Rodrick had M16's. Overall, I think the use of "Vietnam" has been invoked to create certain images and feelings engendered from that war (My Lai 40th anniversary was this month.) and not for any other reason.

In any case, I think the article needs to be tagged for the simple reason that for only 10 references, 5 of them come from the same book (I think 5, #2 seems to have lost it's reference). That doesn't seem to be enough sources. The tone is arguably non-neutral, the wealth of additional information available has not been incorporated in the article and in the time I wrote my last comments, someone has added two sentences to the paragraph; one of which has a quote with no reference. Also this sentence "According to the Weavers, this was the first announcement of the presence of law enforcement." (referring to after Vicki Weaver has been shot) is such a huge falsehood, it is painful. Kevin Harris stated himself that the federal officers identified themself during the time of the first gunfight (see Kevin Harris statement in DOJ report). It seems unbelievable that they wouldn't have been able to carry this knowledge into the second day of the incident. I'm going to try to tag the article, but am not sure I can. If I can't I implore someone else to do so. (Mcpaine (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC))

I reverted the article back to remove the last two sentences that I had pointed out which had no reference. I also tagged the article. Please comment on my 15 points above and for those that have an "OR" in them, discuss which you feel would be the best option. (Mcpaine (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC))
All controversial statements should have cites by reliable and verifiable sources. Otherwise, they should go. On the other hand, statements that meet Wikipedia requirements regarding having to have reliable and verifiable sources should probably stay, despite perhaps not being as "bland" as some would prefer. I think it fair to say that this was a "violent" confrontation. As for the description of the Vietnam style camouflauge, that is precisely what is in Suprynowicz's book. Nonetheless, I would find it hard to believe that desert style camouflauge was being used on Ruby Ridge, so the Vietnam style description is not obviously inaccurate. It would be original research to claim that this description was somehow POV, as it is simply what Suprynowicz's text describes it as being. And, it is cited. Yaf (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war 28 March 2008

This is being discussed on Wikipedia:Editor assistance (permalink to current state: [4]). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mopskatze (talk • contribs) 06:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article structure

I believe most people would consider that explaining the circumstances surrounding the charges laid against Weaver, the failure to let him answer them in court, and the attack on his family and property in that order would be the most informative order in which to describe the events surrounding Ruby Ridge. That's why the sources do it in that order, that's why the article described it in that order prior to being gutted. John Nevard (talk) 07:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Acronyms

There are a couple of acronyms in this article without a prior statement as to what the acronyms mean. The ones I noticed right off was [b]BATF[/b] and [b]USAO[/b]. I know what BATF means, but have no idea as to what USAO is. These should be spelled out. Leobold1 (talk) 10:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)