governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues
gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them
genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed
Hi, you stated that what I cited for Ruby Ridge is "not a reliable source". I disagree, the person Joe Rogan had on his show was an expert in that area. But even if you disregard that person (for political reasons because you don't like Joe Rogan?) the same facts are attested to by my other two sources, which are a law firm and PBS, which is a liberal news source! Can you please explain why these are not reliable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:152:4C7C:1D0:6430:AFF4:3D53:B741 (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250110231500","author":"2601:152:4C7C:1D0:6430:AFF4:3D53:B741","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-2601:152:4C7C:1D0:6430:AFF4:3D53:B741-20250110231500-Ruby_Ridge","replies":["c-HandThatFeeds-20250110235700-2601:152:4C7C:1D0:6430:AFF4:3D53:B741-20250110231500"]}}-->
First off, new sections go at the bottom.
Second, accusing me of reverting for "political reasons" is unfounded and can be considered a personal attack.
Third, you have been edit warring to insert these comments, which is not allowed. Take it to the article's Talk page.
Finally, the sources: I'm not convinced a sports news site with loose editorial control is a reliable source, and regardless they're just repeating what someone said on a podcast. At best, we could directly cite the podcast for that person's opinion, not use it as a statement of fact. The PBS cite mentions camouflage (which is already covered in the article), but nothing about the warrant being invalid, so that's not useful. Finally, the law firm's article appears to be a WP:BLOG, which again is not a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes.
If you want to seek more opinions, the article's Talk page is the place to make your case. Take it there. Don't try to just ram this into the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite23:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250110235700","author":"HandThatFeeds","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-HandThatFeeds-20250110235700-2601:152:4C7C:1D0:6430:AFF4:3D53:B741-20250110231500","replies":[],"displayName":"The Hand That Feeds You"}}-->
Reverts
I asked a question:
"(for political reasons because you don't like Joe Rogan?)" A question is not "an accusation". The person in question on Joe Rogan's podcast is an expert in the area, specifically in the area of CIA operations and federal agent operations. I don't understand why that would not be a reliable source. Mike Glover's resume is here: https://fieldcraftsurvival.com/about-us/?srsltid=AfmBOoq55jN6r4Lg4qVZZyj9CvKlGpXWt2R_GOooJLarvbndedO5p2FJ
I'm not sure why he would not be considered an expert or a reliable source.
"The PBS cite mentions camouflage (which is already covered in the article), but nothing about the warrant being invalid, so that's not useful."
You originally objected because I didn't have a valid source. You're now changing your critique to say that it IS a valid source (which contradicts your earlier statement), but that the source and information is valid but it's now irrelevant?
Why did you misrepresent the reason for the edit, or are you making up a new reason now?
Secondly, the fact that bench warrant was invalid, is cited by the source that was already on the page before I edited it, source 1:
Third, the fact that the agents were not surveilling from afar but were ON his property without a valid warrant, as well as covered in camouflaged makes the government's actions illegal.
The article should state up front that these agents were not on his property legally and were dressed in camouflaged and armed. That should be the FIRST thing that people read, not facts buried deep in the article.
Simply saying that they were "surveilling" the situation makes it seem like they were across the street, off the property watching. Federal agents had invaded the property in camouflaged while not identifying themselves (as federal agents or police), without a valid warrant. That is extremely significant in the framing of this episode.
The opening of this article is extremely ambiguous and makes the walkers look like the guilty party when the federal agents were at fault, and were sued and found legally at fault.
Lastly, I do not agree that a practicing lawyer writing an article in his area of expertise is a "blog", nor does anything onthe site mention this is a "blog". 2601:152:4C7C:1D0:98BC:329A:5ED4:E047 (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250111063700","author":"2601:152:4C7C:1D0:98BC:329A:5ED4:E047","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-2601:152:4C7C:1D0:98BC:329A:5ED4:E047-20250111063700-Reverts","replies":["c-HandThatFeeds-20250111120900-2601:152:4C7C:1D0:98BC:329A:5ED4:E047-20250111063700","c-HandThatFeeds-20250111123500-2601:152:4C7C:1D0:98BC:329A:5ED4:E047-20250111063700"]}}-->
Take it to the article Talk page. I have zero interest in letting you just accuse me of things, if you want to work out the edit, discuss it on the article Talk. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite12:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250111120900","author":"HandThatFeeds","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-HandThatFeeds-20250111120900-2601:152:4C7C:1D0:98BC:329A:5ED4:E047-20250111063700","replies":[],"displayName":"The Hand That Feeds You"}}-->
Y'know what, no, I'll go ahead and take these sources apart.
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:Bite12:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250111123500","author":"HandThatFeeds","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-HandThatFeeds-20250111123500-2601:152:4C7C:1D0:98BC:329A:5ED4:E047-20250111063700","replies":[],"displayName":"The Hand That Feeds You"}}-->
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONDESKTOP__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-BarntToust-20250113211100","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Nine_Inch_Nails?-20250113211100","replies":["c-BarntToust-20250113211100-Nine_Inch_Nails?","c-BarntToust-20250113224500-Nine_Inch_Nails?"],"text":"Nine Inch Nails?","linkableTitle":"Nine Inch Nails?"}-->
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONMOBILE__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-BarntToust-20250113211100","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Nine_Inch_Nails?-20250113211100","replies":["c-BarntToust-20250113211100-Nine_Inch_Nails?","c-BarntToust-20250113224500-Nine_Inch_Nails?"],"text":"Nine Inch Nails?","linkableTitle":"Nine Inch Nails?"}-->
Yo, heard you're sort of involved with NIИ. News has it that a new tour is happening this year, and ofc they're doing Tron: Ares#Music. Guess we'll be coming across one another a bit more often in 2025. Glad to see another editor interested in a neat subject! Have a great one. BarntToust21:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250113211100","author":"BarntToust","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-BarntToust-20250113211100-Nine_Inch_Nails?","replies":["c-HandThatFeeds-20250113211800-BarntToust-20250113211100"],"displayName":"Barnt"}}-->
Thanks! Yeah, been a fan of Reznor since the 90s. Probably wont have a tour date anywhere near me, oh well, but looking forward to more music. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite21:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250113211800","author":"HandThatFeeds","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-HandThatFeeds-20250113211800-BarntToust-20250113211100","replies":["c-BarntToust-20250113220800-HandThatFeeds-20250113211800"],"displayName":"The Hand That Feeds You"}}-->
Oh, and definitely an opportunity for a few GAs for their "new material", Tron, the tour, With Teeth short film and video game etc, such and such. Now I mention With Teeth (2005), that's actually when I got into the band. Anywho, sure to be plenty of cool things to work on in the times ahead. See you around! BarntToust22:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250113220800","author":"BarntToust","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-BarntToust-20250113220800-HandThatFeeds-20250113211800","replies":[],"displayName":"Barnt"}}-->
Draft:Peel it Back may be something that develops in tandem with this. Figured I'd let you know as sales may happen, eh, Friday? I'm attempting to structure the article as it is at The Eras Tour, which seems weird to think of but I think it'll work. BarntToust22:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250113224500","author":"BarntToust","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-BarntToust-20250113224500-Nine_Inch_Nails?","replies":[],"displayName":"Barnt"}}-->
