Jump to content

Talk:Bundy standoff: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
m assess
Line 18: Line 18:
|listas=
|listas=
}}
}}
{{WikiProject Law|class= C|importance= mid}}
{{WikiProject Law|class=C|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject United States |class= C|importance= low |USGov= yes}}
{{WikiProject United States|class=C|importance=low|USGov=yes}}
{{WPLibertarianism|class=???|importance=???}}
{{WPLibertarianism|class=C|importance=}}


}}
}}

Revision as of 04:17, 3 November 2014

{{User:MiszaBot/config | algo = old(30d) | archive = Talk:Bundy standoff/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s

| archiveheader =

| minthreadstoarchive = 1 | minthreadsleft = 4

The article's summary of the Court cases involved seems good, but the cases involved have enough notoriety to merit their own articles and the infobox and links about these cases should be moved to articles specifically about those cases (with links from here indicating were a reader can get more info). Court cases as they lay down precedent for the future are easily recognized as notable by wikipedia standards and with its own article more detail, such as quotes from friend of the court briefs, quotes from rulings, and dissents can be made without fear of unbalancing and shifting the focus, as might be a concern in this article about the standoff.==Wowaconia (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree that these cases are, from a jurisprudence standpoint, notable enough to merit their own separate pages. There were no appeals (Bundy was denied in both cases), no amicus filings, and no precedent set beyond the fact that trespassing on federal land remains illegal. To whit, the government never asserted any powers derived from the law that they hadn't already before, and Bundy never actually raised any legal arguments that required substantive review and consideration - his filings are a hodgepodge of issues that have been long-since considered settled law and inane theories such as that plants and animals must themselves be engaged in international commerce for the government to qualify for protection under the ESA (incidentally, the ESA really wasn't at issue here). Permanent injunctions against trespassers on federal lands is nothing new, nor is the injunction allowing the government to impound cattle grazing on federal land. Had this guy not engaged in an armed standoff with the BLM and the NPS it's unlikely that anyone would have paid them much attention. Dlk0606 (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of court cases is not whether we can Crystal Ball uses for them, but that they contribute to jursiprudence. As the details of those proceedings, the background leading up to it, the people involved, etc. would be informative for readers but would unbalance this article if added. The case is easily made that they merit their own articles.
It can be argued that the infobox on these cases and the links to court documents is not germane to this article as the cases are already presented in reasonable summary, and are mere background in the real focus of this article - the armed standoff. The infobox unbalances this article, and physically takes up more space than the infobox about the actual event this page is about. The information is notable and should be moved to its own article with a "For further information see" link from this page to that one. It seem as if the articles on the cases, this one on the standoff, and the one on the Sagebrush Rebellion movement should be given their own wiki category as well. With possible other articles included that talk about land use questions that are arising in the American West.--Wowaconia (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In addition the inclusion of similar legal cases on the bottom of this article has no direct relevance to the armed standoff at all but could easily be pointed to in a page about the actual cases that involved Bundy. The amount of legal information in this article has unbalanced a page which is about an armed standoff. There is more about judical review here than accounts of people with semi-automatic weapons facing off against snipers. That strikes me as way out of balance to the point of looking silly.--Wowaconia (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose deletion of Legal Infobox and Opose deletion of legal material This article is primarily about a 20 year legal dispute. The fact that it is named Standoff is still being discussed and debated within this talk page, and we may not have a viable consensus on this title change for at least another month or so. Standoffs are very temporary. Encyclopedic articles are more enduring or historic. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This wikipedia article requires as much legal reference and regulatory background as possible, because the court case, the law regulations, and the enforcement of them are the focus of the entire dispute. All the protests and confrontations that happen over a limited time hinge upon legal or enforcement events. Both sides of the dispute focus upon the law. Covering all this makes it unbiased and informative. There is no limitation on the size of such a wikipedia article, and bandwidth of characters on a page is not so precious to require deletion of well-sourced material. Baleywik (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. These cases contribute to jurisprudence inasmuch as any court case for which a ruling is issued contributes to jurisprudence, but they would be wholly unremarkable had they not been the background for this standoff/confrontation/whatever we decide to call it. There are thousands of federal cases that get decided that no person would argue merit their own wiki, and in this case, quoting from the district court ruling: "In sum, in this most recent effort to oppose the United States legal process, Bundy has produced no valid law or specific facts raising a genuine issue of fact regarding federal ownership or management of public lands in Nevada, or that his cattle have not trespassed." The court documents are important as they provide background on the case - and, as stated by Baleywik the issue here is the enforcement of these otherwise uncontroversial rulings and the difficulties encountered therein. Dlk0606 (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not call for deletion of the infobox and its links, I called for it to be moved or split.

The article is titled Bundy standoff and the segment on "other cases" and the infobox throw of the balance of this article. This article is unbalanced, and the addition of "similar cases" doesn't even involve Cliven Bundy at all. What new name for this article could possibly capture all these aspects (some that don't involve Bundy at all)? The standoff is an event that would merit its own page by wiki standards anyhow, due to press coverage and notable government figures weighing in over the specific event with the armed characters on each side (similar to how the Battle of Shiloh gets its own article and isn't just folded into the American Civil War article).

Nor did I call for a deletion or even moving the summaries, but the info box is obviously about legal cases and not about the standoff. The "similar cases" do not even have Bundy in them as an important figure. The article is overburdened, unbalanced, and the infobox and the "similar cases" should be split off with appropriate links from this page to those.--Wowaconia (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose split Reminder, the title of this article is actively being discussed on this talk page. The title should not confine the material yet. Oppose the split of any parts of this article at this point revisit this spit issue in 3 months. See above. This is a brand new article. Baleywik (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Baleywik (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After examining the links on the introductory sentences of the segment on similar cases it is clear that the link between them and Bundy is solely original research. While it may appear to us wiki editors that there is an obvious link, just because we have access to a computer does not make us notable experts. If this info, with the O.R. linking it to Bundy removed, was put in articles about the cases themselve than those articles could be included in a "See Also" segment in this article, and in "See Also" segments on each of the new articles about the specific cases.--Wowaconia (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose split IMHO, the existence of some material which hasn't been cited with the highest level of citation yet is not a cause for deletion of that material or spinning it off in a split. In legal/law articles such as this one, it is common to talk about and cite other lawsuits or legal decisions. I'm an advocate of trying to add better citations whenever possible (even when I'm not in agreement with the position taken) or else adding "citation needed" or "original research" tags. The material in question is only a week old. IMHO, when editing encyclopedic entries, it is beneficial to take the long term view. It is often difficult to search and add the most appropriate citations for legal issues. If a single cite doesn't meet the highest level of quality, editors should be given the benefit of the doubt. I personally agree that some of the US v Hage material that is presently in the section isn't quite as pertinent or similar to US v Bundy as the US v Gardner case is. However, having US v Hage as a part of the section is beneficial because it shows how similarly-situated Nevada ranchers in a very similar legal case had entirely different outcomes than US v Bundy. It shows that Bundy might have won a partial argument on some water-access issues if he had taken that position in his case. The essence of showing both cases is balance and values of being fair. Baleywik (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Baleywik (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose split The story is still developing, could really cause some edit conflicts; however. There are articles where a lot of extraneous material could be added and wikilinked Sagebrush Rebellion (in See Also). The Wikipedia article on The Taylor Act needs work, there is a Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 but I don't see an article or section on Taylor 1984. There is two articles on the FLPMA, Federal Land Policy and Management Act and Federal Land Use Policy Act of 1976. For a time-line, this blog appears to be pretty accurate www.ispmb.org/History.html. US v. Hage should probably have its own article, it is a landmark case and exposes corruption. For the State of Nevada's opinion on Public Lands see (NRS 321.596 Legislative findings and NRS 321.5973) at www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-321.html#NRS321Sec596. 009o9 (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been reluctant to support splitting this article, but after rereading WP:SPLIT I think it's a no-brainer to support the split. The guidelines on splitting an article are: 1) it's long, 2) the content seems to cover multiple, related topics. This article seems to fit both of those. It's so long as to be difficult for a reader to comfortably navigate and there are two distinct content areas: the 20-year dispute/legal battle, and the April 2014 protests/standoff. The former is about the fees, filings and rulings; the latter is about guard dogs, tasers and the 1st Amendment. There is no question about notability here. The 20-year dispute and the protests have both received more than enough press. I'm unaware of any special guidelines for court case notability, but I would argue that lack of precedence or a clear-cut case are not exclusionary to notability.
What needs to be resolved is what to call the two articles. United States v. Bundy might be too limiting for the 20-year dispute article. The standoff/protest article may have to wait until the smoke has cleared before giving it a permanent name. Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems consensus is for the information to remain rather than being split, there have been additions (made to counter O.R. worries) that more directly link these cases to the standoff. As the page is currently protected I have asked for the removal of the tags indicating there is an open discussion on whether they should be split.--Wowaconia (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. A split of those small sections doesn't make since. I'll propose a split of the entire article below. Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposal - Bundy standoff and Bundy-BLM dispute

No consensus for a split at this time. Most objections are based on recentism. Try again in a few weeks.

Proposal: Split the entire article into: 1) Bundy standoff, and 2) Bundy-BLM dispute. The wp:splitting guidelines on splitting an article are: 1) it's long, 2) the content seems to cover multiple, related topics. This article seems to fit both of those. It's difficult for readers to comfortably navigate the article, this talk page is unwieldy, and there are two distinct content areas: 1) the 20-year dispute/legal battle, and 2) the April 2014 protests/standoff. The former is about the fees, filings and court orders; the latter is about guard dogs, stun-guns and the 1st Amendment. (Note: This proposal grew out of a previous discussion) Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the split is necessary at this time. I suggest we wait until this issue dies off on the news cycle before attempting a split .Cwobeel (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Bundy story will be off the headlines in a few days -- this split proposal discussion will likely run for much longer than that.Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does not seem like. Cwobeel (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest alternate title Nevada public lands dispute -- the story starts in 1864. The article could be curated without the Bundy media sensationalism, the split could be done after the media-cycle and emotions have cooled.009o9 (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. Agree. Cwobeel (talk) 03:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is already an article Sagebrush rebellion which covers that. The two new split articles can be linked-to from that article. If there is enough Nevada-specific content as part of the Sagebrush rebellion article, then maybe that could be spun off from there, but that should probably be discussed on its talk page. Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the original Nevada Constitution has unique conditions attached to statehood. Additionally, because so much of Nevada was considered unusable at that time odd-ball land deals were negotiated and land earmarked for school-funding could not be sold. The Nevada story predates the Sagebrush Rebellion and Nevada content would quickly overwhelm the article. I'm sure a small section would be added to the Sagebrush Rebellion, but the Constitutional issues seem to put Nevada at the center of the State's Rights movement. Both US v Hage, US v Gardener and US v Bundy would be relevant to a "Nevada public lands dispute" article. Besides, do we really need 3 articles dedicated to single rancher's range conflict? 009o9 (talk) 04:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don' need three articles; the proposal is for two articles. Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sparky82 see article Bundy militia. 009o9 (talk) 05:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's flagged for deletion. Sparkie82 (t•c) 07:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of curating/erasing the Bundy info from this article about Bundy, we can create a separate, general "Nevada public lands dispute(s)" article and transfer this article's two general sections (Grazing on US federal rangeland in Nevada & Similar federal grazing legal cases). KinkyLipids (talk) 04:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the "Nevada public lands dispute" article could also have a section regarding the closing of open grazing lands in Clark County Nevada, which is actually what we are writing about here. I just don't see how we can create anything useful (in the long run)while trying to deal with the current-event drive-by editors, BTW: I thought we had a block on IP editors? 009o9 (talk) 05:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Admins removed all protection on the same day. The IPs don't worry me as much as the 2-month long 1 revert rule. Before I knew it, I had already used up my 1 revert. KinkyLipids (talk) 07:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose split. This is not two articles, or "multiple related topics", it's one topic with a long history. And without that historical context, the article could violate WP:NPOV, as it becomes more about a rancher stealing public grazing land for personal gain and supported by anti-federal militia types engaged in illegal actions against the federal government. And it won't make sense to a general reader. Every article in the press that I've read so far covers the history of this conflict, which I think is a fairly good indication of it's need for context and balance. At some point the US v Bundy situation will probably join closed history along with US v Gardner and US v Hage, and then some judicious merging might be in order. Maybe in a more general article about federal land grazing issues, along the lines of Sagebrush Rebellion. But I think it should stay as a single article for the time being. — Becksguy (talk) 05:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are two different types of readers. The readers who are interested in the guard dogs and the stun-guns at the standoff are less inclined to dig through the legal details and those who are legal wonks may not want to wade through play-by-play of the confrontation. Sparkie82 (t•c) 07:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose split. I agree with Becksguy. The present conflict is incomprehensible without the history, and the legal wrangling is fairly insignificant if not tied to the present conflict, which is likely to end fairly quickly. 06:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)06:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedperl (talk • contribs)
The reason it's incomprehensible right now is because it's BIG. If it's split, all the content that ends up in Bundy standoff could be covered in a paragraph or two within the Bundy-BLM dispute and vice versa. Sparkie82 (t•c) 07:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we split it, where should the content go? Put an "x" where you feel the content should go:

Where
Section Bundy standoff Bundy-BLM dispute comments
Background x x
United States v. Bundy x
Legal actions 1998 to 2012 x
Legal actions 2012 to 2014 x
Grazing on US federal rangeland in Nevada x also covered elsewhere
Federal rangeland laws x also covered elsewhere
Federal rangeland grazing regulations x also covered elsewhere
Federal rangeland regulatory changes in 1993 x also covered elsewhere
Court judgements against Bundy's claims x
Claim of inherited grazing rights x
Claim of states' rights x
BLM actions x
Confrontations and protests in April 2014 x
April 10 confrontations and protests x
April 12 confrontations and suspension of roundup x
Aftermath x
Reactions by public officials x
Reactions by media personalities x
Reactions by Bundy and supporters x
Legal and rule-of-law reactions x
Political commentary reactions x
Environmentalist reactions x
Wild horse rangeland reactions x
Bundy family background x
Leavitt family connection x
Abbott family connection x
Similar federal grazing legal cases x also covered elsewhere
United States v Gardner x also covered elsewhere
United States v Hage x also covered elsewhere

Sparkie82 (t•c) 07:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Rfc as proposed, Bundy topic does not merit additional article. Federal courts cite Taylor Act of 1934 for imposition of grazing fees on 14 Western States, Nevada Constitution 1864, does not make sense to only go back 21 years. 009o9 (talk) 08:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)009o9 (talk) 08:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who said we want to only go back 21 years? The article about the April protest will include a background section up front touching on the U.S. purchase from Mexico, BLM's authority, unpaid fees, and court case -- enough to establish the context. It has nothing to due with "merit". The article is too long and there are two areas of content. The areas differ by audience, temporal scope, temporal granularity, and topic. Sparkie82 (t•c) 17:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose The attempt to split the article seems extremely POV. Since the beginning, Bundy's supporters have tried to separate his decades-long refusal to pay grazing fees from the government's enforcement action. The two are inextricably linked. —Megiddo1013 08:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have an opinion on this topic, but the split proposal is NPOV and based on the article being too long and it having two areas of content. Obviously the protest is linked to the dispute and of course the new protest article will have background to establish context as I explained above. Sparkie82 (t•c) 17:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The splits are not needed. The article already has all the information needed. Further bloat and issues are caused by pro-Bundy supporters trying to distort or hide revelations that undermine all of their original claims. 173.153.2.89 (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal is not to add or subtract any information. It merely puts it into a form that is more readable and navigable. Sparkie82 (t•c) 17:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal has been up for just a few hours. Let's get more comments and discussion from a wider set of WP readers/editors. I'm sure those who have quickly opposed the proposal are acting in good faith and are willing to change their minds upon further discussion. Sparkie82 (t•c) 17:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re notability: Prior to the standoff the dispute may or may not have had significant press coverage to gain notability, however, when the standoff happened, the press gave significant coverage to both the long-standing dispute and the protest. For purposes of determining notability, it does not matter what the motivations are as to why the press has decided to give significant coverage to a story, only that there has been significant coverage. The 20-year dispute meets the criterion of WP:N for notability. The term "independence" "independent" in the guideline relates to the independence of the sources from the subject, not to the subject's coverage being independent from the coverage of other subjects. Sparkie82 (t•c) 23:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. There is clearly no split needed at this time. This article is not too long given the complexity and long timeline of the topic. We should at least wait for the result of the AfD on the closely related article Bundy militia before considering a split here, and it may also be best to wait for the media circus to die down as Cwobeel said. At that point, it may be worth considering a split, but I think, as others do, that it would be very difficult to establish notability for the dispute independent of the standoff. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we should wait. Let's keep this proposal open for a couple of weeks. The AfD will probably have been decided in that time-frame. And by then maybe the smoke will have cleared somewhat and there will be more comments here other than objections based on recentism. Sparkie82 (t•c) 23:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The two are fundamentally one and the same. The standoff wouldn't exist absent the legal case. I also oppose the construction "Bundy-BLM dispute" - if renamed to anything, it should be United States v. Bundy, in accordance with other Wikipedia articles about legal cases. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Per Cwobeel, RedSoxFan2434, and Sparkie82. There's nothing to be lost, and perhaps perspective to be gained, in allowing the dust to settle for a month or two before making the decision. --ChetvornoTALK 18:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. Per Cwobeel, RedSoxFan2434, and Sparkie82. The entire mess is about Bundy's claims that were dismissed by the courts and we don't need to create additional articles to cover one incident of criminal mischief.Wzrd1 (talk) 16:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per Sparkie82??? I agree with Cwobeel et. al. that it's probably too soon to consider a split. We can try again in a few weeks when folks can be more objective about it. Sparkie82 (t•c) 18:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accurate half truths

The second paragraph at present reads

"The ongoing dispute began in 1993, when in protest against changes to grazing rules, Bundy declined to renew his permit for cattle grazing on BLM-administered lands near Bunkerville, Nevada.[2]"

It is true that the dispute arose over "changes to grazing rules" but I think it will be important for posterity that those changes were the introduction of the very grazing fees at the heart of the dispute. Its such a key element in the whole plot that to describe the introduction of grazing fees as simply some change in the rules presents a very blurred view of what actually happenned. Im not much of a wikipedian to know the various rules regarding quoting external sources considered respectable by whoever decides their respectable and all that but I hope someone who knows all that stuff can change this as it does skew the whole story considerably to just describe this key aspect as "change in the rules" in one respect while stating bundy "refused to pay fees" on the other. The half truth here distorts the directness of the connection. Its a bit like saying boston tea partiers destroyed the kings property without even mentioning who harvested the tea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.250.93 (talk) 09:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the changes were not in the fees. In fact the fees have been pretty constant over the years (in the 2 dollar range per AUM)---see various governmental (BLM and CRS) references in this article and in Sagebrush Rebellion. The changes were I believe decreases in the number of AUM's allowed for the specific range area involved due to ecological/environmental BLM assessments (which they are statutorily required to do). Juan Riley (talk) 23:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jerad Miller

This content was reverted as "original research", though I did no such thing and relied solely on the media sources.[1] The original plus some extra bits for those interested:

Las Vegas "revolution"

On June 8, Jerad and Amanda Miller simultaneously killed two Las Vegas police officers and a civilian before taking their own lives during a shootout with police.[1] During the attack they shouted "this is a revolution", and they covered the bodies of the officer in a Gadsden flag and left a copy of a manifesto bearing a swastika.[2][3] Their original plan may have been to take over a courthouse and execute public officials.[4] Identified by Al-Jazeera as a rancher in its April 22 coverage of the Bundy protest, the Millers had moved from Indiana to the Las Vegas area in January.[2][5] They were quoted on Reno television KRNV: "I feel sorry for any federal agents that want to come here and try to push around or anything like that. I really don’t want violence toward them but if their gonna come and bring violence to us, well, if that’s the language they want to speak, we’ll learn it."[5] Miller commented on the issues involved in greater length in social media, and interviewed other protesters at the Bundy ranch.[6][7]

Interior Secretary Sally Jewell reacted to the shootings, saying "It's very important to bring lawbreakers to justice. There's no question that my colleagues back here, the governors of Western states, do not want people riding roughshod over the landscape ... [Bundy] put our people in grave danger by calling in armed civilians from around the country, and that’s not okay." Carol Bundy said "I have not seen or heard anything from the militia and others who have came to our ranch that would, in any way, make me think they had an intent to kill or harm anyone."[8] Bundy's son said that the couple had been asked to leave the ranch after a few days because they were "very radical" and did not align themselves with the protest's main issues.[2]

  1. ^ Lua error: too many expensive function calls.
  2. ^ a b c Lua error: too many expensive function calls.
  3. ^ Lua error: too many expensive function calls.
  4. ^ Lua error: too many expensive function calls.
  5. ^ a b Lua error: too many expensive function calls.
  6. ^ Lua error: too many expensive function calls.
  7. ^ Lua error: too many expensive function calls.
  8. ^ Lua error: too many expensive function calls.

Wnt (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's lots more coming out about this; I'll try with the new version soon for the heck of it. Wnt (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about this either in this article. Key phrase: not sure. It would seem at first blush to be more noteworthy in an article on the Miller/Las Vegas shootings...if such exists. Here it might be construed as painting Bundy with every nut case (homicidal or otherwise) who might have verbalized on the Bundy standoff. Juan Riley (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So far there's no such article. I think it's fully appropriate to have here though, because the person was interviewed at the protests as representative of their demands, because the Interior Secretary has commented on Bundy in reference to this, and because the Bundy family has responded to that. Any one of these would be enough. I think it is even likely that these shootings will have a determining role in the outcome of this event - if the Bundy protests are really as they say the Tiananmen Square of the U.S., then this may be the equivalent of the point where some of the people in China attacked a military shipment and stole weapons, leaving the way clear for a severe reaction. Wnt (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And apparently folks at the Bundy Ranch soon ostracized the Millers. And that latter part of your argument is indeed OR (to put it mildly). Juan Riley (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why it's on the talk page. Unfortunately, the basic facts, that many sources describe this in reference to the Bundy case doesn't seem to be all that is being considered. I think I was pretty fair in including the Bundy reaction, though any future prowl through the news may change that overall balance of statements. Wnt (talk) 01:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, my sentence about the simultaneous killing of the two officers was based on the source. However, I admit that as I left it I wasn't clear that the civilian may have died at a different time. The first report I read called him a bystander, but now there is a version that he challenged the husband when he was coming into Walmart and the wife got him by surprise. Wnt (talk) 01:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Millers murders

I don't agree that Jerad Miller should redirect here. It deserves its own page. Cwobeel (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I set that up because it should turn up something. You're more than welcome to start an article on the shootings. Be aware though that whenever people start articles on recent events, they get swamped by some people who like to cite "WP:NOTNEWS" without reading what it actually says who think Wikipedia has to be out of date. I'll give you a vote when the time comes, but I can just about guarantee you it'll be an AfD fight. I know, it's annoying and stupid, I'm just telling you how I've seen it happen. Wnt (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

extra source?

http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/Federal_Land_Showdown_147565925.html

Is this useful? (I decline to be involved in this article myself, but I feel that this might be a useful source.) DS (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It shows that the goverment's re-filing of the 2012 case was done at the urging and request of the Clark County Sheriff's Office. This is an important fact given Gillespie's dereliction of duty in the 2014 confrontation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.236.94 (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bundy_standoff&oldid=632237370"