Talk:Randy Weaver

Lack of Reference to Christian Identity

I'm not entirely sure who did it or why, but it seems like someone seriously did some cutting to the article and left out all stuff referencing his white separatism and affiliation with the Christian Identity movement, which is not only present in all the sources but seems to have been agreed upon previously as something worth including in the article. I'm not really sure what the consensus was on how much of that stuff should be included, so I just added in the old paragraph about the family's beliefs, which were a big part of why the incident happened and are certainly relevant enough to be included on his page. If there has been some shift in general consensus that it is not worth including, it'd be great if that discussion could happen. Sir Charms a Lot (talk) 06:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure who did it - you merely have to look at the edit history to know the answer to that. ButlerBlog (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I was the one who cut most of the article and I wasn't exactly shy about it considering my previous talk page contribution. As to the white separatist stuff, I removed that specifically because contains close paraphrasing of a non-free copyrighted source: "Randy Weaver's Return from Ruby Ridge" from The Washington Post. I removed it again since you reincluded it. Please provide different wording and citation for inclusion and I'd be happy to support it. Thanks, Anon0098 (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

It's fine as it is - at least the diff I restored[1] Limited close paraphrasing is also appropriate if there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing, which is the case here (WP:LIMITED). If you're concerned about it, copyedit rather than removing it. If it were egregious, removal would be appropriate, but this is a statement of fact in which case it's appropriate to leave it in. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

White Seperatism

I know a similar discussion has already been made. However, Weaver openly admitted to believing in the "separation of the races". Would this not qualify him as a White Separatist? He was nowhere near as extreme as others, but he still held similar views. Weaver also adhered to Christian Identity esque views, which tend to advocate white separatism. I am bringing this up because the "white separatist" label has been removed. Could someone explain this? 2601:CF:4500:ACF0:DCC6:6E4C:F1E0:6BD5 (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

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)