Talk:Ruby Ridge standoff
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ruby Ridge standoff article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 180 days  |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 21, 2012. |
 | This has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
 | On 2 July 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Ruby Ridge to Ruby Ridge standoff. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Self-published source flag
editIt appears that statements of fact originally attributed to the DOJ Ruby Ridge Task Force Report and/or the Senate Subcommittee Ruby Ridge Report have received source citations by page number to a self-published book (WP fllagged [self-published source]). although it appears the self-published book is using the DOJ Ruby Ridge Task Force and the Senate Subcommittee Ruby Ridge report as its sources. What's next? A bot coming along to do wholesale removal of statements of fact from the DOJ and Senate reports because some added page citations to a self-published source? Naaman Brown (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Please point out the edits in question so we can see what you're referring to. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Requested move 2 July 2024
edit- 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: moved. Clear consensus in favor of the descriptive name rather than just the location. Favonian (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
– Ruby Ridge is a ridge. The standoff at Ruby Ridge was an event that should have a different title, like Waco siege. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment See related RM from 2022. 162 etc. (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nominator. Killuminator (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support, as I previously said at Talk:Ruby Ridge/Archive 3#Requested move 18 May 2022, the article is about the incident, not the place, and the title should say that. — BarrelProof (talk) 06:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - The location is only notable due to the incident. Its own article is a stub that references this one to justify notability. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the location is only (or at least primarily) notable for the incident. The subject of this article is the incident. But the title of the article does not currently indicate that the article is about an incident. It should. — BarrelProof (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's not necessary, per WP:COMMONNAME. If you say "Ruby Ridge," people know you're discussing the standoff, not the location. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the location is only (or at least primarily) notable for the incident. The subject of this article is the incident. But the title of the article does not currently indicate that the article is about an incident. It should. — BarrelProof (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Clearly not the actual name of the incident. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Result
editRe this edit by Fred Zepelin reinstating detail to the result parameter. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us that less is best - ie apply the KISS principle. This degree of detail being added against the result parameter is contrary to this. The infobox is unsuited for this degree of detail. It is best left to prose in the lead. The parameter is also for the immediate outcome, not what might have eventually happened. Some of the detail added is outside the immediate outcome. Deaths, though not by name are captured elsewhere in the infobox. The names are detail. The arrest of the two men is the result. This is the immediate outcome simply summarised in a way consistent with the guidance at MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm fine with going back to your version if anyone else agrees with you on what the result parameter should contain. But I don't think that the only "result" was the arrests. The other results that were in there were surely as noteworthy as (if not more than!) the arrests. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)