🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ruby_Ridge_standoff
Jump to content

Talk:Ruby Ridge standoff

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

misleading

[edit]

The statement that it was a "surveillance operation" and that they "had a warrant" in order to be there are misleading. The warrant was found to be invalid, meaning that the officers were trespassing, and they were armed and dressed in camouflaged, and instead of following normal protocol for serving a warrant, decided to engage in these acts of trespassing on the Walker's property. This information should be front and center in the article, as it sets the stage for what happened and the event's aftermath.

I cited both a law firm website and PBS (public broadcasting service, a reliable news source). Can someone please explain why these are not acceptable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:152:4C7C:1D0:6430:AFF4:3D53:B741 (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is a month-old comment, but I didn't see it here, because the IP dragged it over to my Talk page. I'll copy/paste my response about their sources here, just so folks understand what was being asked:
Glover is not an expert. Even his own "resume" says he's an Army vet and contractor. That does not make him an "expert" on this topic, despite his self-aggrandizing. I also love that he claims he has a Bachelors in "Homeland Security" with no university named. Real piece of work there.
The PBS cite is not a valid source for the claim the warrant was invalid. Because it doesn't mention that at all.
And no, the Seattle Times just says that Weaver's lawyers claim the warrant was invalid, not that it factually is. You cannot simply take your personal opinion that the agents were on the property illegally and force it into the article.
You've misrepresented sources to try and push an agenda. You can attempt to make your arguments on the article Talk page, to see if you can persuade anyone else, but if you attempt to force it into the article again I will have to pursue protection.
The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:44, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Zionist Organized Government"

[edit]

This is the first time I see this explanation of the acronym "ZOG". Usually, it means "Zionist Occupied Government", meaning that the zionists exert pervasive control over many members and decisions of a government, or, as one can see in the current US administration, are self-proclaimed zionists. It also means that the government is not primarily acting in the interest of the state it's the government of, but instead puts the interests of Israel first. 2A01:4B00:AD1F:2D00:AB4:D2FF:FECF:66B0 (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no use of the acronym ZOG in the article.
The phrase "Zionist Organized Government" is found U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REPORT OF THE RUBY RIDGE TASK FORCE,and was quoted as used in July 1989 conversations between Randy Weaver and ATF informant "Kenneth Fadeley" (pseudonym). Could have been a phrase limited by location, time, & users. --Naaman Brown (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Dog

[edit]

Should the dog be listed as a causality in the infobox? 2605:4A80:7400:8500:FD55:CA73:DBC4:ED07 (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]