Talk:Randy Weaver

Reliability of "People" article.

I noticed that this article makes some VERY contentious claims regarding the Weavers (such as Sammy allegedly having a poster that said "death to Jews", and that Vicki drew a Swastika on the calender date for Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday. It also says the couple ranted about Jews and Blacks, which I cannot find any other sources for. I feel this article's credibility should be rexamined. 2601:CF:4500:ACF0:C88C:5FC2:7859:1BFF (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

You can probably find that same information in Jess Walter's book, "Every Knee Shall Bow", which is probably the most comprehensive work that gives a fair presentation to both sides (if anything, it's probably more sympathetic to the Weaver's side - and still notes these very real things). ButlerBlog (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

Randy weaver was in fact a green beret! He did not go to Vietnam, but he did complete and qualify Army Special Forces — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:B048:9EFD:5C29:CFCA:D822:4CF7 (talk) 12:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

This seems highly unlikely. In that era, as is still the case, one has to be a rank of at least E-3 (Private first class); you enter as an E-1. In reality, very few E-3s are ever selected, and most selectees are E-4 or above. All personnel, in addition to Basic Combat Training, must have completed Advanced Individual Training (AIT) and U.S. Army Airborne School to be eligible to begin Special Forces training. Then there's the actual training itself, which takes well over a year. All in all, Weaver's short time in the Army could not possibly have contained all those requirements, just based on the calendar. But none of that is as relevant as his own DD-214, which did not mention Special Forces training - and it certainly would have, whether he graduated or washed out, if he had, in fact, received any. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Please revert edit

Pleas revert this edit, the edit specifically says that he "but he shared the group’s white supremacist and antigovernment views" and says nothing about he denouncing them.2001:8003:3FB4:CF00:C8F:95DE:F32B:648C (talk) 11:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Done. Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2024

96.28.162.54 (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC) In this article's first sentence, Mr. Weaver is referred to as a "white separatist". The only citations are an Encyclopedia Brittanica article, which is not a valid source, and another article which doesn't satisfy any Socratic proof for this assertion. Either remove this slander against a man who can no longer defend himself, or justify it with proper citations.

 Not done:It is hard to imagine a MORE valid source than Britannica.PianoDan (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

A claim that using a term that Weaver used to describe himself is somehow "slander" is patent nonsense. Aside from the fact that the Brittanica source is more than adequate to meet the criteria of WP:RS, there are other sources that say the same thing - Jess Walter's book Every Knee Shall Bow is one of them, which, quoting myself from another ridiculous claim of bias on this TP, is "probably the most comprehensive work that gives a fair presentation to both sides (if anything, it's probably more sympathetic to the Weaver's side)". It's tiresome to have to constantly point out how sourcing works and why we don't need to resort to "Socratic proof" (because we don't do original research). There are dozens of credible sources that describe Weaver as a "white separatist" including Time, The New York Times, Weaver himself, Jess Walter (who directly interviewed Weaver for his book), and even Gerry Spence (Weaver's own attorney in his murder trial). Britannica as a tertiary source allows us to avoid refbombing the lead paragraph when we don't have to. Sorry for the rant, and maybe I'm guilty here of WP:NOTFORUM myself, but it's just tiresome to have to deal with such ridiculousness. Feel free to revert my comment as NOTFORUM, or feel free to leave it as a word of advice to others who would put in such a frivolous page protection request - either is fine by me. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Green Beret or Not

On one hand we've got the NYT: "Mr. Weaver was a former Green Beret who neighbors said..."

On the other there's the Ruby Ridge report (via famous-trials.com): "It was subsequently learned that this assertion was false. Weaver's military 'DD-214' shows that he may have received some demolition training in an Army engineering unit, but that he was neither a Green Beret nor a member of the Special Forces. Sworn Statement of David Hunt, February 14, 1994, at 2, 6; FD-302 Interview of W. Warren Mays, October 5, 1993, at 2, 4."

I would trust NYT to have done their homework on this one? Especially because the alleged reading of the DD-214 by Hunt and Mays showed that he "may" have received some demolition training? DD-214s are not typically known for the ambiguity, and I'd question the reliability of anyone speculating on the meaning of their content. 104.232.117.132 (talk) 05:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)