Talk:Ruby Ridge standoff/Archive 3

== incorrect or lacking info on the preamble to the gunfight, this includes Randy's whereabouts, the thoughts and intentions of parties present, what prompted the agitation of the dogs, poor citations, incorrect data on marshal's recounting, lack of mention of conflicting weaver and Marshal reports, and issues with the writing presentation in general ==

Preambleatory NOTE: As of writing this note, this post is around five thousand words. throughout writing it, considering it's my second post on Wikipedia, I feel as if my skills at writing about this article improved, as well as the information I was privy to. I discovered some holes in the narrative and everything sort of ballooned from there. some sections of this post will be poorly written. there may be sentences that had bits accidentally deleted that make NO sense. feel free to let me know, and ill clarify. I'm just trying to fix what I see as some false information in the story here, mainly around what was happening before the gunfight. I'm going to do a rewrite of the sections I have issues with later, but for now, this is my dissection of the issues currently present. I figured I would post this first, see what you guys say about my critiques before I did any article rewrites, and then take those, and do the rewrite of the preamble description. also, be warned, I suck at a lot of grammar. I comment on a previous talk page post about it and offer a POV, but the only thing here I would consider myself educated on is the internal ruby ridge task force reports, the DOJ dissection of them, and the false narratives present in this article. I know the line "false narratives" makes this seem conspiratorial, but this whole post is about a minor mistake on what instigated the dogs and examples of it, as well as minor conflicts on randy's presence at the Y section, and flaws with the writing and citation present in this article. I would also like to say that if I've committed a few of whatever constitutes a faux pas on Wikipedia with what I say, have mercy. I am new to this. With that preamble that was almost as pointlessly lengthy as the rest of this post over, here is my post on the issues here.

(btw my sources and where they are being referenced used is gonna be at the bottom here because if I was to put a citation link at every point in which I refer to the RRTF internal documents and the DOJ report, I would opt out of writing this, and opt into the electric chair)

the second paragraph of this article has multiple errors on what occurred before the gunfight, and the separate section around the encounter outside the cabin also omits important details. I'll discuss the second paragraph of this article first. the narrative of the second paragraph (pertaining to events pre-gunfight) is that thrown rocks from the team of marshals set off the dogs, causing them to lead harris and Samuel towards the marshals, and down into the woods. believing it to be a game animal. the dog then encounters Roderick, and the gunfight ensues. after some investigation (initially spurred on by trying to figure out if something in this article was a grammatical error) I believed I've discovered evidence showing that multiple aspects of this narrative omit important details the document created by the ruby ridge task force, and the very document cited for this sequence of events says:

It was at this time that Roderick decided to toss some rocks to see how the sound would carry and to see if the dogs would react.[FN336] He asked the OP team to observe the results.[FN337] Roderick then threw the first rock. Roderick, Cooper, and Degan did not hear the first rock hit, and the OP team reported that there was no reaction from the people who were inside the cabin or the dogs in the Weaver compound. Roderick threw a second rock and again no response occurred from the Weaver compound.[FN338]

the true cause of the dog's disturbance was the vehicle that the marshals did not hear starting, but the dogs did, causing them to run out and pick up the scent of at least one member of the recon team. in fact, in researching this, I had no idea what made the rocks become such a prevalent detail, as every report discussing the rocks thrown remarks on how they didn't cause a reaction. as to Kevin harris, this paragraph claims that "Harris and Sammy believed Striker was following a game animal,"

the knowledge of what harris and sam thought they were after said here is true in a kinda-sorta halfway sense. first off, the source cited makes NO claim to what sam believed they were on the trail of, so just remove that part (ill probably remove it, I'm just anxious because I've made no actual edits to documents before, I'm a little new to this). here is what we know about what harris and randy weaver thought the dogs were after:

I (Randy Weaver) didn't have any idea what they were chasing, but I was hoping it was a deer. [FN354]

Kevin Harris claimed that, from the intensity of the dog's reaction, he thought that there was "a large animal or a person" in the vicinity.[FN355]. ^ this is from randy's daughter's diary after he spoke to her about it, from the internal report done by DOJ. it's hard to find a full link to all of it from this page, so ill leave one with my sources at the bottom.

IMPORTANT NOTE: while writing this I discovered evidence I will refer to later that sam in fact did have thoughts on what they were chasing, but thought it was just "someone or something" not a game animal. none of the people following the dog ever said they had believed the dog was on the trail of a game animal. only that it was chasing something, they didn't know what, possibly human. I go into a clearer argument against this later in the document, so I guess you'll have to read to the end to see ;)

a minor note I would like to leave here that I'm not sure is too important or not, is that the second paragraph is not making ANY mention of the fact that there were two groups of marshals who had split up. maybe the line "During the USMS reconnoiter of the Weaver property, by six U.S. Marshals" could, instead of going right into the sequence of events, say something about three of the six marshals (the recon team) being present for the provocation of the dogs. I suggest this because perhaps this elaboration will fit well into the structure of the paragraph once the section on Roderick provoking the dogs via the rock-throwing is fixed to fit with the true events.

the other major issue with this paragraph is the omission of Randy Weaver in much of what happened. when I first read the paragraph, I thought that randy had been in his cabin the whole time until harris came back. it makes no mention of his whereabouts until the retrieval of Samuel's body. this is the largest issue with this paragraph in my opinion.

I'll present my narrative on randy now (this will be much more extensive than what should be in the second paragraph, but here is what happened, according to the internal report, specifically the testimony from the weavers and marshals). during the early hours of the reconnaissance mission on the weaver compound, during regular patrols from Harris and Sam, Randy went outside to yell at his dogs, who were barking periodically, to quiet down. these events were considered regular in reference to what was observed in previous surveillance done of the property. later on in the morning, in reaction to the barking of the dogs, members of the family/harris would run to a rocky outcropping nearby to surveil the area and try to see what prompted the reaction from the dogs. Randy, although less frequently than Sam or Harris, would partake, carrying with him what the OP team described as a "long gun." when the dogs became agitated by an approaching vehicle, Randy joined Harris and Sam in the investigation. this occurred around 10:20, at the tail end of the recon operation. Randy was observed running down the drive with Sam, Harris, and Sara. Sara did not accompany them any farther but saw them running as a group to where Striker had stopped and was barking, the pumphouse. Randy then walked down a logging trail that arrived at the Y where the gunfight would occur, whereas Harris and Sam followed the dog through the woods. Randy reached the Y before Harris and Sam would, where he encountered Marshals Roderick and Cooper. Although both marshals claim to have made mutual contact with him, and Roderick claims to have had an exchange where he commanded Randy to stop, to which Randy yelled something unintelligible before retreating, Randy only recounts seeing one Marshal in his testimony to his daughter. Randy claims to have seen a well-camouflaged marshal, been commanded to stop by him, to which he yelled "FUCK YOU" and retreated up the hill. from there he fired once to try to draw attention towards him and away from his son and Harris, and yelled for his son to come back up the hill, who he reports hearing yell back "I'm coming, dad."

90% of this sequence of events is omitted. it's important to note the inconsistencies in retellings even before the shooting. Randy gets the time wrong in his recount, there's a discrepancy between his and the marshals encounters with each other between how many marshals randy even saw, and although randy claims to have fired his shotgun in the air to draw attention, the OP team claims to have heard no shotgun blasts during the engagement. Harris also never mentions Sam calling out to his dad, as Randy claims.

Now, a departure into some grammar present:

factually, those are all discrepancies I noted in the paragraph. ill add that the line "Striker, who subsequently lead Harris and Weaver's 14-year-old son, Sammy, into the woods near the family cabin." contains the word lead, which I ~believe~ should be changed to led, considering this recounting of events is past tense (i don't believe the word subsequently there makes the next verb present tense, and this is a recounting of previous events). I'm no grammar expert, as you can probably tell from this post, my proper noun capitalization most likely has multiple errors, it's something I struggle with. another talk page post on this article also says that the line "harris and weaver's 14-year-old son, Sammy" makes it seem like Sammy is the son of Harry and Weaver. the dispute appears to be settled, but (and this is from someone who is in no way an expert, this is just my pov) I disagree with the resolution achieved. the argument for it staying the way it is says " Notice that there is no possessive on "Harris". It's an ambiguity of English usage that is clarified by the context." for an object being named with joint possession (like if you were naming a child's parents) would only put an apostrophe indicating a possessive on the second thing possessing it that is listed. the first doesn't require it. I would agree with the contextual argument if Sammy wasn't referred to as "weaver's son" but rather "randy's son." when first reading it, I thought "wait, did harris have a child with one of the women of the weaver family?" if the argument is that the phrasing makes it ambiguous, but the context means that it will be easily understandable, people wouldn't be asking about what it meant. since the edits I suggest will likely facilitate the removal of this sentence, introducing Randy into the list between the two will solve the issue, as he was present with them in a group but I'll offer a compromise for when it's just harris and sam being referred to. the subsection "encounter near weaver's cabin" has a beautifully elegant solution for referring to the two of them. "The action provoked the dogs; Weaver's friend Kevin Harris and Weaver's 14-year-old son Samuel (Sammy) emerged and followed the dog Striker to investigate." I like this one the most, but I'm not the grammar authority here whatsoever.

I'll add a last worrisome note before moving fully to the second section of this post. citation 18 on this document, which is used in the encounter near weavers cabin section, is a book I do not have access to. I'm pretty assured in my sources here, being that they are only direct testimony from the parties involved, from the government documents about this situation, but if some section of this book goes against every piece of evidence here that the stone-throwing was not what set off the dogs, please let me know so I can start writing my suicide note. I've been unable to find a copy of the book online, but if someone has a pdf they can shoot me if something in that book refutes my statements (with a source in the book of what the quote is) (i find this HIGHLY unlikely but still, it worries me).

Now to focus on the Encounter near weavers' cabin section. the issues here are more minor, but ill list each off. the first one is that some of these citations on the events are a little bogus. the citation here for harris and sam hoping they were tracking a game animal, due to the cabin not having any food. the source in question says NOTHING about what Harris and Sam hoped the animal was. it instead makes unfounded claims that the motivation to investigate was that it must be a game animal, and they wanted food. the claim that the whole family was hoping for some food is reasonable but purely speculative, and in fact, two out of three involved in the chase were chasing after the source of the dog's agitation, not because they were as the article says "apparently believing the dog had sniffed out a deer or some other game " but because they should investigate the source of the disturbance. Harris didn't believe it was a deer. he thought it must be a large animal or a human. the narrative that they only went out there because they were sure it was some food is a lie. The Weavers wanted to defend themselves and their property. Sara's diary entry of what Randy said about Sam's beliefs on what is causing the dog's agitation corroborates this. "Sam said he heard something, or someone running west, so they followed." Randy was the only one who actually objectively stated he was hoping the animal was a deer, saying "I (Randy Weaver) didn't have any idea what they were chasing, but I was hoping it was a deer." it's highly likely that they WANTED food, but saying that, "Harris and the younger Weaver said that they were hoping that the dog had noticed a game animal since the cabin was out of meat" all the while your source is an article saying "Harris and Sam BELIEVED it was a deer." writing like that is just false. patently. this section SHOULD mention that Randy explicitly was hoping for a deer, still said to Sara that he was going to investigate although he didn't believe he knew what it was, yet still took the logging trail down to the Y intersection because this is what he would've done to trap a deer between both groups. Randy is the closest one to anything pertaining directly to acting as if it was a game animal, yet this sentence says that Harris and Sam explicitly were hoping for a game animal, and not Randy? all it would've taken was the inclusion of Randy and some statement from Harris saying "we were hoping to find some food" in one of the many documentaries on Ruby Ridge. instead, this section claims that it knows Harris's and Sam's inner thoughts with an article claiming things against their testimony about the hunt with speculative absolutes. "Sammy Weaver and Kevin Harris, apparently believing the dog had sniffed out a deer or some other game." The claims made here weren't insane leaps, but they essentially had no real citation, and the evidence given was a speculative sourceless claim contradicting facts in the event. these aren't MASSIVE issues that destroy the credibility of the entire article, but when the only part of this I've even focused on here is riddled with errors, it endangers the public understanding of the truth of what happened at Ruby Ridge.

I just now have realized that I forgot to capitalize the Weavers' part of Encounter near Weaver's cabin a bunch because I misread the title and thought the W was lowercase. my apologies.

Encounter near weavers' cabin: issue two, electric boogaloo let's move onto the fabled rock narrative that this section of the article halfway corroborates. I'll also note that as with the second paragraph, I won't go into the details of the gunfight that much, mainly only the preamble, due to my knowledge here pertaining mainly to what happened before it. this is compounded with the heavily speculative nature present in most discussions of the gunfight due to conflicting reports. I'll also be shortening the name of this section of the article to "Encounter" because quite frankly my energy is waning and I need to shorten things here. Encounter's major issues are a sort of adherence to the rock narrative and unclearness on the whereabouts of Randy in a kind of silly way. the meat of Encounter still mainly pertains to the gunfight, so these issues are easily rectifiable. Although Encounter claims the rock narrative, then says that in later testimony the OP team and Weavers made claims to the contrary, the source of information here is cloudy. the book listed, "Top Cases of the FBI" says this: "Roderick threw two rocks at the Weaver cabin to test the reactions of the dogs. The dogs became alerted" "Later, the OP team and the Weavers claimed the dogs were alerted to the recon team in the woods after neighbors at the foot of the mountain started their pickup truck" I'm not sure what basis these claims have? I don't have a physical copy of the book listed, but I've found a copy online and I can't seem to find the source of these claims made in the book. the OP team was in contact with the recon team during the disturbance alerting the weavers and claiming at the time over the radio that the cause was the pickup truck. I've found no quote online corroborating this claim, that the rock set things off and the OP team and Weaver's later made contrary claims, everywhere talking about their claims supports the pickup truck narrative. the fact that the book makes claims about what occurred that are, to the best of my extent, incorrect, EVEN outside of what is was cited here, makes it a source I wouldn't hinge an argument on (next paragraph talks about this). the matter-of-fact statement in Encounter that "At one point, Roderick threw two rocks at the Weaver cabin to test the dogs' reaction.[1] The action provoked the dogs; Weaver's friend Kevin Harris and Weaver's 14-year-old son Samuel (Sammy) emerged and followed the dog Striker to investigate" Followed by "Later, the OP team and the Weavers claimed the dogs were alerted to the recon team in the woods after neighbors at the foot of the mountain started their pickup truck." is nonsensical. What are we trying to say here? what does "later" even mean here? the first part is worded as fact and the second as "claims being made later" when in reality, since the second the OP team alerted the recon team of the Weavers being alerted by a truck pulling up, the narrative of everyone involved has been the truck made the dogs alert, causing them to pick up the marshal's scent. the only way I can rationalize this POV is that the writer of this part of Encounter was transcribing the narrative basically directly from Top Cases of the FBI, and subsequently, the author of Top Cases of the FBI heard the rock narrative, (which I would love to know the origin of, because it's not from the weavers or the marshals) took it at its word, then read the conflicting OP team and Weaver testimony, but already deadset on the rocks setting off the dogs, simply put forward the rock narrative as truth, and left the conflicting reports as "later claims."

Another of these factors about the incident the book gets wrong is that Randy's recount corroborates the marshal's recount of their encounter in terms of randy's reaction. the book claims all accounts say randy responded to encountering the marshals by cursing and running away. these "later testimonies" are never cited, a passage of one is never directly quoted in the book. are we just supposed to take the author at his word? I wouldn't say so. the evidence I've brought forward here, which is about as firsthand as possible, and was recorded very recently after the events, paints a separate picture. Randy claims to have seen one marshal, been told to stand down, and responded by cursing and retreating. Personally, I believe it, but it's not that supported by the marshal's testimony. Roderick had no idea what Randy said, and didn't even know if Randy had gone further up the trail or into the woods. Connor who also claimed to have encountered Randy said he saw Randy, shouted at harris to back off, then dove behind a rock, and didn't see Randy again. I don't find the Randy curse and run away narrative to be fantastical, but claiming these stories corroborate each other when Randy claims to have only seen one marshal, meanwhile both separate marshals claim to have been seen by him? and the marshals have no recollection of what he said? and neither marshal says definitively that he had retreated or gone anywhere in specific? that's just abject dishonesty. if the book cited any passages from the testimonials by word, these could hold some water. but they just don't.

to fix this section, remove the part about the rocks alerting ANYONE, don't put the narrative from everyone that was present as just "later claims." instead, talk about how the team had thrown rocks, received no reaction, and was beginning to wrap things up when the neighbor's vehicle set off the dogs, causing them to get the scent of the marshals. the dogs were the only ones hearing the truck, everyone saw the dog's reaction and acted on it, but nobody thought their reaction was from the rocks thrown 15 minutes ago. (because it wasn't)

finishing up with the Encounter part of this article, there are two issues. firstly, the article literally DOESNT SAY what happened to Randy after he encountered the marshals. here is the last time Randy is mentioned in the Encounter section. Randy encountered the Marshals at the "Y" yep. that's it. that's the first issue. just SAY WHERE HE WENT. did he retreat? who knows! the other issue that needs a fix is the way the marshal's recount of seeing Randy is, and the lack of mentioning discrepancies. the next line is "Roderick claimed to have yelled, "Back off! U.S. Marshal!" upon sighting Weaver, and Cooper said he had shouted, "Stop! U.S. Marshal!" There are errors here. let's first talk about the big citation for these quotes. the "every knee shall bow" article by Newsweek. I couldn't find where they got these quotes from the article, but they slightly differ from what the marshals said. (it's not Randy's testimony, he claimed that he was addressed by name by a marshal) considering the other group wasn't present for the Randy altercation, I'm going to take what the marshal's said as what they said when encountering Randy. specifically, Roderick claimed to have yelled Stop! U.S. Marshal! in his testimony, and Cooper had yelled Back off! U.S. marshal! cooper also notes that he yelled this to harris, but this should be clearer. if you were to just read that Randy yelled to Randy upon seeing him, and Cooper also exclaimed something similar when this happened, the default assumption is wrong, which is that it would also be directed towards Randy. besides mixing up who said what, and to who, no mention is made of what Randy did besides encountering them. the article should clarify that Randy's claimed to see one marshal and that both marshals claimed he saw them. it should also clarify cooper had said Back off! U.S. Marshal! to Harris, that Cooper and Roderick didn't know where exactly he was after seeing him, and that Randy again claims he fired off a shotgun to draw attention to him after retreating, which the OP team disagrees with. (the existence of a shotgun shot, they don't corroborate that. the idea that Randy retreated from the marshals is most definitely true.)

the final thing ill say on a rewrite of this section is that this part is written poorly. "The recon team (Roderick, Cooper, and Degan) initially retreated through the woods in radio contact with the OP team, but later took up hidden defensive positions.[67][self-published source]

Later, the OP team and the Weavers claimed the dogs were alerted to the recon team in the woods after neighbors at the foot of the mountain started their pickup truck.[67][self-published source] The recon team retreated through the woods to a "Y" junction in the trails 500 yards (460 m) west of the cabin, out of sight of the cabin."

Here, the actions taken by the recon team to retreat and take defensive positions are stated. a claim that I think needs to be reworked (which I spoke about earlier) is said, and then the retreat and defensive positions are spoken about again differently. describe it once, accurately, you don't need to do it halfway-well twice.

all right. let's talk about sources for this. in this page I mention the same points against the narrative of the article multiple times. what ill do to cite this is mention each argument against something purported by the article, and link what contradicts them. the critique of the quality of this article that was posted mentions issues with sources. ill be the first to admit, with this talk page I'm relying on perhaps, too few sources. (I use the DOJ for 90% of these) but I do hold these sources in high regard. they are not the "marshal's perspective" or the "weaver's perspective." they are broad collections of differing reports of what events occurred, from both sides. So, here they are. by the way, I have NO IDEA how to do citations as fancily as the ones at the bottom of the doc, so ill just post a link inside the

sources debunking the rock narrative:

page 41. ruby ridge: report of the subcommittee terrorism, technology, and government information of the senate committee on the judiciary (this is the google books version of the DOJ report if you prefer that for some reason. idk I thought someone might want it)

 page 2. report of the ruby ridge task force, pages 517-545

all of section two. report of ruby ridge task force: IV. SPECIFIC ISSUES INVESTIGATED D. Marshals Service Activities Between August 17 and August 21, 1992

Sources debunking the "harris and sam thought they were after deer, and would never go out there if they thought there might be a human"

same DOJ page. the diary entries in particular are what's relevant tho. Sara Weaver and Vicki weaver's diaries. these contain harris's and Randy's accounts on the hunt to them.

my source for my randy narrative:

DOJ article specifically the earlier parts of section two talking about the dog's behavior in the early morning. those are important

I'm not a fan of using youtube documentaries as sources, but what's important is around the 20-minute mark, what Sara says about what was happening with her dad and the group of them. this also fits in with the anti-rock narrative, but I didn't feel it was too important.

sources on the Randy and marshal encounter discrepancy, as well as the shotgun firing discrepancy: same DOJ section two. the OP testimony of the noise, as well as just the marshal's, and Randy's testimonials.

so. that's the end. I absolutely made a mistake, which is why I didn't edit the article, instead, I published this post. please tell me your thoughts. whether it be my grammar, a sentence that makes no sense, or a flawed argument. I know a lot of this hinges on the DOJ report. the issue is that the DOJ report is THE MOST reputable, reliable, and consistent source on what occurred at this specific part of the ruby ridge siege. (even tho this was b4 the siege the point remains.) all of my sources for what happened are firsthand witnesses, participants, or someone transcribing what a participant said to them (the diaries). So that's that. sorry if this was too long-winded, I just wanted to be accurate. if there are huge issues with the DOJ report let me know. if there are issues with my writing style, grammar, citation/links, or formatting, please feel free to be BRUTAL with your criticism. I am new and need to learn how to do this better. thank you for reading :)

Fathom-My-Grustle (talk) 07:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "sorry if this was too long-winded" - No offense, and I'm sure you put a lot into it, but yes, it is. Sorry, but no one is going to read that in its entirety. Normal protocol would be to not edit/remove something you've posted on the talk page, but in this case, I'd suggest you either cut this down or remove it and start over because no one will read it and it simply takes up space.  Secondly, and more importantly, your approach sounds very much like Original Research, which we do not do. Please read WP:NOR and make sure you understand it - especially the difference between WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY. Do not synthesize your own conclusions or your edits will be reverted as OR.  If you look at No original research Guidelines, there are some links to examples, as well as links to how to properly cite your sources.  Simply using ref tags would be OK if that was the primary style used in this article - but it's not.  Use citation templates.  If you need help, the proper place to ask is the WP:HELPDESK   Butler Blog   (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * @Butlerblog
 * I completely understand your perspective and agree. I'm doing a full rewrite and it's going to be much more succinct, and hopefully up to your standards. I'm curious as to what was referred to as original research here. my only attempt here was to cite what was stated in the DOJ report and court testimony as contradicting points that aren't really very well backed up in the original article. I've come into contact with more information and detailed testimony from the court case, and I'll be linking to that, citing in the templates you are referring to. thank you for the criticism btw. I absolutely agree my formatting, succinctness, and writing style require HEAVY improvement here, but could you point me towards what speculation I posited as the truth for the events? if I'm posting false stuff/making unbacked claims, it's unintentional. if you just got that impression from my opening paragraph talking about "rock narratives" I understand, but that's not the case. I'm basically just quoting off where the article's telling of events contradicts what was actually being said by the people there about what happened, as listed on the DOJ report and Testimony at trial.
 * I will post my rewrite as soon as possible. by the way, I have a copy of the original text saved, so if you want to delete it, please go ahead. Fathom-My-Grustle (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * My mention of OR is simply based on what you said. That should not be inferred to mean what you're putting in is in fact original research - merely that what you said makes it sound like you're on the border-line. This article is on a lot of user watchlists, so your edits are likely to be scrutinized. I highly suggest you review the referenced article on OR (WP:NOR) and make sure you understand it and can defend your edits as not being OR should someone revert them as such. I'd also recommend that you understand WP:NPOV, specifically WP:UNDUE.  Yes, the article needs improvement, but make sure what you're doing is actually improving.    Butler Blog   (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * BTW... the byington source you listed (]) and anything like it should be avoided. There is already some of this in the article and this is not a reliable source as it falls under WP:SELFPUB.  The information there is republished from elsewhere, but because it is self-published, it is not verifiable.   Butler Blog   (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Preamble to gunfight inaccuracies: the shorter and fixed version
Apologies for the length of my last post. I'll keep this much shorter. Five thousand words may have been too many. However, the nature of this post is a multilateral dissection of issues with the series of events presented in the second paragraph of the article, as well as section 3: Encounter near Weavers’ cabin. That means that this is going to be in-depth on the issues present and that it's still gonna be a long post.

First, what are the issues with the sequence of events presented here? The extent of my knowledge here is the preamble to the gunfight that killed Sam, and that's what I know this article has issues with. I'll address the sequence of events in the second paragraph, and once that's finished I’ll discuss the Encounter near Weavers’ cabin section.

The first issue in paragraph two is this statement: During the USMS reconnoiter of the Weaver property, by six U.S. Marshals, DUSM Roderick threw multiple rocks at and provoked the Weaver family's dog, Striker, who subsequently lead Harris and Weaver's 14-year-old son, Sammy, into the woods near the family cabin.

The Article cited here is the DOJ Report, an internal investigation of the shootings at ruby ridge. The source cited here is a reliable account, with the section in question built basically entirely from primary sources, the testimony of parties present. The issue is that the section in question contradicts the claims made when it is cited. "Roderick decided to toss some rocks to see how the sound would carry and to see if the dogs would react.[FN336] He asked the OP team to observe the results.[FN337] Roderick then threw the first rock. Roderick, Cooper, and Degan did not hear the first rock hit, and the OP team reported that there was no reaction from the people who were inside the cabin or the dogs in the Weaver compound. Roderick threw a second rock and again no response occurred from the Weaver compound.[FN338]"

So, the first event stated is incorrect. the dog was not provoked by the stones being thrown. but what provoked it? the answer lies slightly lower in the report: "As they were getting ready to leave the spring house area, Thomas radioed that the Weavers were "responding" to an approaching vehicle. None of the other marshals heard a vehicle.[FN345] The dogs began to bark, and people started to run out of the cabin.[FN346] Randy Weaver exited first, followed by Kevin Harris, Sammy Weaver, Sara Weaver, and Rachel Weaver. Vicki Weaver remained in the compound area."

The paragraph makes no mention of this event. it also claims that subsequently to the rocks agitating the dogs, striker led Harris and Sam to the marshals and that they believed they were hunting a game animal while this happened. this is a gross oversimplification, containing some outright falsehoods.

first of all, no mention is made of Randy's presence in this whole event between the dogs smelling the marshals and the gunfight. In reality, Randy joined Harris and Sam in following striker, until they reached the pump house. Here they diverged with Randy taking a path to the Y intersection on his property that he believed what Striker was chasing would cross, as Striker, Harris, and Sam flushed it out. It was here that he had his encounter with the marshals at the intersection, the details of which are disputed. ill touch on this in the section about the Encounter near the Weavers' cabin that's lower in the article, but it's just important to note how this event is COMPLETELY absent from the summary of events put forward at the start of the article.

Adding to the list of misinformation, none of them ever stated they believed they were chasing a game animal as the article says. As Randy said in his court testimony, he believed a deer would not have caused such a commotion, and that he had no idea who or what caused the dog to react. Harris said the same, as an entry in Vicki's journal shows. "Kevin Harris claimed that, from the intensity of the dog's reaction, he thought that there was "a large animal or a person" in the vicinity.[FN355] Vicki Weaver wrote in her journal on August 21, 1992:" Sam too, every one of their accounts of what sam said when the dogs started barking was along the lines of " Sam said he heard something, or someone running west, so they followed."

The lower section, Encounter near the Weavers' cabin has issues around chronicling these events too. The first issue is the rocks provoking the dogs being presented as matter-of-fact, and then saying that the OP team and Weavers made claims to the contrary later. this source, which is also self-published, just confuses things. It makes no claim or citation as to what report confirmed the truth of the rocks alerting the dogs, and the idea that the OP team and Weavers made these claims later is patently false. the radio message sent to the recon team that the dogs were alerted said that it was due to a vehicle.

This section has the same errors regarding the dog and the party members involved with the chase, not including Randy in the group of people who were alerted by the dog and exited the cabin. it does mention him later but fails to go into any sufficient detail on his encounter with the marshals, and literally doesn't say what happened after they yelled at each other. not from lack of data or anything. we know what happened after, we just don't know the details 100% of who saw who and who said what DURING the part that the article mentions. both marshals claim to have seen and been seen by him, but Randy says he only saw one. Connor's call out when written here also seems like it's directed at Randy. it wasn't, he shouted it towards Harris.

the "Encounter" section also claims that Harris and Sam hoped they were on the trail of a game animal, by citing a newspaper article that makes the entirely different claim that they all followed the dogs because they believed it was a deer. this is patently false, as I've demonstrated previously. We are not privy to the inner thoughts of Sam at this time, and we know both of them thought it could've been a large game animal (harris specifically believing it wasn't a deer) or a human. not only is the cited article wrong (it also doesn't give a source to these claims) but the claim towards knowing the inner hopes of Sam and Harris is speculation. it is entirely possible they were hoping to find any sort of thing outside of a game animal, we just don't know. this is the closest thing I feel like you could say is me doing original research so I want to clarify. it is well within the realm of possibility that Sam and Harris wanted what they were tracking to be a game animal. it is also possible they may have hoped it was something else. the only claim we have on what someone hoped the dog was tracking, not what they thought it was, is from Randy. Randy claims to have hoped the dog was tracking a deer but testified in court that the dogs never had any level of reaction comparable to what was observed, because of a deer. For Randy, we have a firsthand source of what he HOPED it was.

the citation for Sam and Harris's hopes is as follows: Sammy Weaver and Kevin Harris, apparently believing the dog had sniffed out a deer or some other game (the family was out of meat), followed the dog along the logging road.

this statement is just said like that, with no source as to where that information was obtained from on the article. If part of harris's testimony mentions this and I somehow overlooked it, I'll revert what I said. but right now, this claim is basically unverified, and not corroborated by any testimonials.

That's basically everything relevant. the second paragraph messes up Randy's whereabouts, the cause of the dogs being alerted, and the beliefs of Harris and Sam at the time about what they were tracking. it also omits large sections of context that the lower section "Encounter near Weavers' cabin" includes, but that section still has lacking information on Randy's encounter with the marshals and the nature of the entire pre-gunfight situation with Sam and Harris. thank you for reading, please feel free to be brutally critical. if you thought this was long, my last post was 5k words(should probably delete it). this one is about 1.4k, which I hope is small enough. I can cut more if it's necessary.

Fathom-My-Grustle (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * @Fathom-My-Grustle
 * I recently watched Qxir's video and just had to know more about the incident. This time I actually read the entirety of your comment, so making it shorter definitely helped. Hopefully someone who knows what to do replies here and works with you to implement the changes into the article. Thank you for doing this. Desolate Intention (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Striker the Dog
I edited the results section to include the death of Striker the Dog.

R.I.P. Striker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.48.221 (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Dead Links
There are several links to pages that no longer exist. Specific to this note are the links to the page byington.org. I looked at the archived versions of these pages. Most links appear to direct to a Lexus-Nexus-obtained copy of this report: https://www.famous-trials.com/rubyridge/1150-internalinvestigation

Before dropping in to correct them, I wanted to mention it to any eds who regularly watch this page.

Cheers, --Montanakennedy (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 18 May 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not Moved.  There is no clear consensus to retitle as requested. In fact, there is only one support for the requested new title. Others suggested various alternatives but the discussion reveals clear ambiguity between the term: siege and standoff. The current title has been stable since article creation: (2004) with no apparent resulting low page views. Mike Cline (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Ruby Ridge → Siege of Ruby Ridge – The area itself isn't notable. The siege/standoff that occurred there is. Ruby Ridge is just another patch of land if the siege hadn't happened. The article should reflect this, maybe changing some sections around in order to fit the new name. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Move to Ruby Ridge standoff, which is the title used by most of the most recent news articles (especially in the past week with Weaver's death). StAnselm (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * E.g. Randy Weaver, participant in Ruby Ridge standoff, dies at 74, Randy Weaver, key figure behind bloody Ruby Ridge standoff near Canada-U.S. border, dies, and Weaver and the Ruby Ridge standoff contributed to the evolution of the radical right. StAnselm (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - the nom actually supports not moving it: Ruby Ridge is just another patch of land if the siege hadn't happened. That's right, and thus the name has become synonymous with the standoff.  Most people (including journalists and biographers) simply refer to "Ruby Ridge" as representative of the standoff itself.   Butler Blog   (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Move to Ruby Ridge siege. Ruby Ridge can become a primary redirect.  The less concise name in this case is the better option; see also Watergate scandal, with primary redirect Watergate. 162 etc. (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. The name "Ruby Ridge" is not synonymous with the siege, but merely an abbreviation for it in casual speech. Much like "Alamo"  in vulgar speech tends to refer to the siege and not the actual building (e.g. Alamo redirects to the battle). Doesn't make it synonymous. Walrasiad (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Move to Ruby Ridge standoff, which (as StAnselm highlights) is the common name. I also support making Ruby Ridge into a primary redirect, as suggested by 162 etc. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Ruby Ridge siege per nom. The notability of the events derives more from the siege than the standoff.  —  AjaxSmack  02:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Say Ruby Ridge and most people who recognize the name make the link to the ATF, USMS, FBI, Weaver family incident. The revised edition of Jess Walter's book on the incident and trial Every Knee Shall Bow was retitled simply Ruby Ridge. This artice title "Ruby Ridge" has stood since 3 Mar 2004 when the first content was created by editor‎ EdH. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The WP:COMMONNAME for the incident is simply "Ruby Ridge." You say those two words, everyone thinks about the standoff, not the patch of land itself. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Everyone? Everyone who?  Would everyone in Mexico, South Africa or India know it refers to some US event in the 90s rather than to a hill in western Australia?  Remember Wikipedia has a global audience. Walrasiad (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not the win you think it is. People outside the USA won't even know about Ruby Ridge, and thus there is no "common name" in those regions to apply. Which means the one known inside the USA does take precedence. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above common name posts, but create redirects for proposed alternate names. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Move to : The article is about the incident, not the place, and the title should say that. To me, siege implies a more protracted event (i.e., longer than 11 days) in which the assaulting force is more unable to overcome the entrenched opposition rather than simply refraining from doing so out of concern over using excessive force. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove all information from Self-Published sources
I suggest removing all the information from self-published sources. It should not even be in this article if it did not come from credible sources. 2601:204:C600:A9F0:EDF5:1729:FBC:D315 (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

ruby ridge
neglected to state that the two shotguns were in the possession and property of the agents prior. they were given to weaver with a request to cut the barrel down, the intention was to entrap weaver. very important fact. 208.52.68.247 (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you have a source for that claim? &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 12:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Court testimony of Ken Fadeley/Gus Magisano on this: Weaver had a Remington Model 870 duck gun for sale. Magisano (ATF undercover) offered to buy the gun and pay $150 extra if Weaver cut it off and did a good job. Magisano testified he showed Weaver where to cut the gun and pointed behind the pistol grip on the stock and on the barrel in front of the magazine. Weaver cut it off as directed and did a single barrel shotgun for Fadeley the same way. Both shotguns were previously acquired by Weaver. Magisano's testimony and Weaver's memoirs agree on those preceeding points. Magisano could have bought the Remington unaltered and legal but offered an incentive to Weaver to make it illegally short. No other sawed-off shotguns have been associated with Weaver, so there was no showing of propensity to make and sale illegal shotguns. At trial, the jury agreed with the defense that it was entrapment.-- Naaman Brown (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So, that doesn't match what the OP claimed (that the agents had possession of the guns prior). &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * How could they make the claim that he broke the law by modifying the shotgun without being in possession of it? Inductive reasoning. 71.49.141.207 (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? Cops make claims that are false all the damn time. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Acquittal
I looked at this article hoping to find out how a guy gets acquitted when shooting a law enforcement agent who comes to arrest him, and the article didn't make that clear. It seems bizarre. Carlo (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Maybe re-read the article. I think the problem is with your premise. There's no evidence that "he" (assuming you meant Randy Weaver) shot an LEO.  That was Harris, and agents were not there (originally) to arrest him; the original warrant was for Weaver.  All of that is definitely in the article, specifically: In the 1993 trial over charges in Degan's death, prosecutors alleged that Harris had fired the first shot. Harris asserted self-defense and was acquitted.   Butler Blog   (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But I did mean Harris, and he was acquitted too. After shooting an LEO. Carlo (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * While the agents claim they identified themselves, it was not clear that Harris actually heard them. Coupled with the fact they just shot his dog, it's reasonable to believe he did not recognize they were LEOs & responded out of fear for his life. Remember, the threshold for conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt," and the jury apparently had doubts he actually knew these were LEOs firing shots.
 * Might help for us to find sources so we can make that more clear in the article. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 15:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect Author Link
I noticed an apparent error in the other books section - the author link for Tony D Brown is pointed to Danny Coulson. As near as I can tell, Danny Coulson had nothing to do with that book. The erroneous link was apparently added during a huge overhaul by 73.210.155.96 at 19:10, 8 February 2017. Probably it was just a cut/paste mistake. 47.219.179.201 (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Source tagged as Self-Published/Unreliable - Copy of Task Force Report
One of the most used sources throughout the entire article is tagged as self published and possibly unreliable, the host website is byington.org. I've had a look and it's just a straight copy of the original Report of the Ruby Ridge Task Force. I checked a few of the links and so far they all matched up with the pdf from the DoJ already included in the primary sources.

This doesn't necessarily prove it isn't self-published or unreliable. The | scamadvisor report didn't flag anything significant on the website, however the website itself receives very little traffic, so little that | similarweb is unable to present data on it: I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of traffic came from people clicking the wiki links. I've not found anything to suggest it is not a faithful reproduction of the original DoJ report but given it is a very small website with an unknown publisher I'm not sure we can assume it's trustworthy.

Assuming we don't want to keep a source marked as self-published/unreliable, here are the potential solutions as I see them:
 * 1) The gold standard solution would be to cross reference each citation and change it to the cited pdf from the DoJ website with page numbers.
 * 2) * The main difficulty is that the byington.org source does not have any page numbers.
 * 3) ** The source does include section numbers which are also included in the URL
 * 4) * However, if someone properly cross-references each citation then they will find the correct page number in the process anyway.
 * 5) Almost as good but less labour intensive would be to link to the DoJ pdf with the section numbers.
 * 6) * This would be pretty easy as at the end of each URL for byington.org is a number (e.g., 4.2) that denotes the section of the report that is cited.
 * 7) * This would require a quicker check for discrepencies between byington.org and the DoJ pdf instead of individually cross-referencing each instance of the citation.
 * 8) Simply replace each Byington.org source with the DoJ.
 * 9) * Very easy but would then all need to be tagged as page needed. Also means that whoever tries to fix this further down the road has a lot more work to do.
 * 10) Rename the byington.org source so it is clear it is a copy of the DoJ report, remove tags.
 * 11) * Easiest option but it means we have to trust that the source from byington.org is an exact copy of the DoJ pdf. Everything I've seen so far is a faithful reproduction of the DoJ report but given how unknown the website is I'm not sure this would be within WP guidelines.

If we go with anything other than option 1 I would strongly support individually cross-referencing a random sample of the citations just to make sure they aren't any obvious problems.

I'm in favour of option 1 or 2, 3 & 4 seem to give to much credence to this unknown website. Option 1 is the best if someone wants to cross-reference every instance of each citation. Option 2 is a good compromise given the amount of work required for option 1, it quickly checks that byington.org is a faithful reproduction of the DoJ report and assumes that each citation is otherwise correct and the editor who originally cited this website did so in good faith.

If no one else is interested, if I get round to it I would cross-reference a random sample of the citations then proceed with option 2.

Thoughts? John wiki: If you have a problem, don't mess with my puppy... 12:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Option 2 is probably the most practical one to go with. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

precise location?
Following the geohack link in the infobox, the USGS map shows a point on the lower slope of Caribou Ridge, separated from Ruby Ridge by the ravine of Ruby Creek. In satellite view there is no break in the trees at that point, though there is some cleared land with several buildings lower down. —Tamfang (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * VickiWeaverLastPhoto1992.jpg

Green Berets
I'd like to get some outside opinions on this edit. , you're at WP:3RR here, so I don't want to edit war, but this has been a contentious topic for years. Brute-forcing this into the article is a bad idea, so let's see how people weigh in.

Fred is inserting a DOJ document (a primary source) to remove the assertion that Randy Weaver was a Green Beret. This has been a hotly contested subject for years. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The DOJ document as a source is not an issue, as long as he's using it to state a fact (which he appears to be doing). There's nothing wrong with primary sources, per se.  It's when you make interpretive insertions based on them that it becomes an issue (i.e. original research).  As long as the article does not rely primarily on primary sources (which it doesn't), and a primary source is not used to synthesize a conclusion (which IMO isn't the case here), it can be used.   Butler Blog   (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree. There's no interpretation or synthesis involved here. It's a DoJ document, it states that Weaver's DD-214 (another official government document) would have a record of him being in Special Forces, which it didn't, and it's just a simple statement of fact. All of the people saying Weaver was a Green Beret were doing so just trusting him and his family saying that. The DD-214 is hard evidence that he was making that up. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Agency logic problem. FBI or USMS should give warning once the HRT was in position?
"The RRTF report said that the lack of a request by the marshals to the Weavers to surrender was "inexcusable.""

Which agency was expected to give such a warning once the HRT was in position? Seems odd to require that US Marshals Service would need to issue a warning when the FBI HRT was conducting the current operation. I suspect an error in agency identification on this single point at that time. Can we get primary source clarity on this item? Rabby Tat (talk) 01:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You're right - the source does not specify "by the marshals" but our text did. I removed those three words and tweaked the text somewhat. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Infobox summary
In the infobox summary, should the text really be "FBI actions taken following shooting death of a U.S. Marshal" and not "FBI actions taken following shooting death of a pet dog", as that was a preceding event? Vivo (talk) 07:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think most people would agree that if the dog had been shot and the U.S. Marshall wasn't, there likely would not be a Wikipedia article about Randy Weaver or Ruby Ridge. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair point. Vivo (talk) 08:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)