Talk:LaVoy Finicum

Inaccurate and Biased Information....Please Remove and Change

Please remove the statement indicating he was a militant. He was not affiliated with any militant group. He was my father in law and I know he was not affiliated with any of these groups. Also, it is not necessary to mention a bankruptcy or income. This has nothing to do what what you are writing. Also, the statement "When asked if he would rather be killed than arrested if the occupation turned violent, Finicum replied, "Absolutely ... I have no intention of spending any of my days in a concrete box."[10], he never said that. You need to look at the source. He never said those words. Also, saying he was trying to bypass the roadblock is speculative. He was trying to avoid hitting the trucks that were blocking the road. You indicated that information that is biased will not be included. Remove this please. The statement that he "briefly" held his hands above his head is not accurate either. He raised his hands multiple times, not briefly. And please indicate that when he dropped his hands it could have been to reach for a gun shot wound, and not a gun, which is what I believe. Also, the statement that he received medical treatment 10 minutes after he was shot is inaccurate as well. He did not receive medical treatment for over an hour after he was shot. Also, the gun that was apparently found on his person did not come from a step son. Also, in regards to the rally's please give the accurate numbers. The accurate number of rally's was over 45 all over the U.S. during that weekend alone. There is so much more that I could write on issues I have with this biased information. Please start with making these changes and I will add more later 67.214.242.50 (talk)Tom Tenney~~ —Preceding undated comment added 22:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome to make these changes, however they must be reliably sourced. MB298 (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I added the last bit (number of rallies) based on the Oregonlive.com reference provided. The other two sources are primary and not usable for contentious information. VQuakr (talk) 03:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Much of the information listed baled up by sources that portrayed the occupation from a biased standpoint. How can biased information be accepted as a verifiable source? Why are sources that support lavoy not considered acceptable? Cdmoose (talk) 07:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Correct term used to describe LaVoy

The wiki describes LaVoy as a militant. While this term was used by main stream media outlets LaVoy was never a part of any militant organizations. He is also referred to as an American patriot by thousands of supporters. It would seem the terms occupier, or protestor would be most factual. Cdmoose (talk) 07:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry, but if that's how a majority of sources describe Finicum, then Wikipedia follows. Parsley Man (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

He wasn't, though 205.173.11.220 (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

You seem to trust msm even ifvthey are wrong 2001:14BB:11E:C4D2:0:0:C12:3101 (talk) 12:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Manner of death

Manner of death is listed as gunfire. The official autopsy report lists the cause of death as homicide. Cdmoose (talk) 07:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Cdmoose: The autopsy report is here. The official report lists the cause of death as "gunshot wounds of the back, abdomen and chest", while the manner of death is listed as "homicide". MB298 (talk) 02:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I guess I am not seeing how the two are mutually exclusive. VQuakr (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The autopsy use of technical language is different than the common usage. Homicide in autopsy just means he was shot, not self-inflicted. It does NOT mean it finds the officer guilty of homocide. So copying this technical language is very bad form for the wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:116C:6500:F8B1:5E33:4A9D:5D09 (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

"Homicides can be divided into many overlapping legal categories, including murder, manslaughter, justifiable homicide, killing in war (either following the laws of war or as a war crime), euthanasia, and capital punishment, depending on the circumstances of the death." Don't confuse your misconception about the meaning of a word with "common usage". VQuakr (talk) 07:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Also the autopsy report is a WP:PRIMARY source, which editors often misinterpret. We prefer quality WP:SECONDARY sources NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Finicum's book

NewsAndEventsGuy, you wrote that Finicum's publication of a book that described the overthrow of the US govenment, a few months before he tried to start what he called the "Oregon Revolution" did not help to describe Finicum's background before Malheur and "isn't backgroud." Could you please explain why you think there is no notable relationship between his book and his actions such that his writing of this book should be thought of as irrelevent to Finicum's mindset or "background" before he became a spokesman for The Malheur Occupiers? Yes, the book is listed as a "Finnicum work" below, but that separate listing doesn't seem to me to substitute for the helpful wording, weaving it into the article's background section.

Finicum was obviously a man who had the overthrow of the US government firmly in his sights before he went to Malheur. Why do you seem to find evidence to that effect to be irrelevent? Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 05:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

(A) I changed the section heading to comply with the WP:TPG. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

(B) Anytime anyone says "obviously", I start thinking WP:Original research. In this case, my reading of the sources disagrees. I think Finicum still wanted a government operating with checks and balances under the US Constitution. He just didn't want it to look like what we have. That's a strong political opinion, but stops short, in my opinion, of "overthrow". At any rate, it isn't at all "obvious" that "overthrow" is the right word. Unless used by RSs, and even then we use the word with due WP:WEIGHT.

(C) If the book is background, so is his first job, whether his Mom beat him, did he cry when his first horse died, how did he get into ranching... what I'm tryging to say is that the book isn't "background", its part of the main story and deserves a section of its own.

(D) Originally I was opposed to this separate article since I don't think the guy was sufficiently WP:NOTABLE] except for the events surrounding the occupation, but I didn't try to block the article. That ssaid, this is a by-god biography of the man, not a rehash of the occupation. Therefore the book is just a part of the biography.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Here on a talk page, the language of our discussions with one another doesn't have to follow the same rules as the language we use in the articles. Editors are generally permitted to talk in their own "natural" voices here, while the encyclopedic voice of Wikipedia itself is supposed to be used within the articles. Please don't get lost in attacks on word usage in our discussions here. Rather, this is a place where all are supposed to be encouraged to openly hash out the actual facts of the article, as best they are able, and not get way-laid in attacking and defending one another's ability to sound "encyclopedic" when we talk with each other.

The fact is that shortly before he participated in Malheur, Finicum wrote a book in which he painted the US Government as essentially the devil incarnate. It seems to me that Finicum's having just written something like that about the US government, right before his participation in Malheur, would be something that folks would both want to know, and could be trusted to know. If you could support with any documentation, your own personal theory that Finicum only wanted to "assure the constitutional checks and balances of the Fed were working," then by all means. Otherwise it is only one editor's undocumented personal theory agaist Finicum's own documented words in Finicum's own book. Which would you pick? Scott P. (talk) 04:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I prefer RSs; at the moment you're citing your own interpretation of a work of fiction to defend the way you connected some dots based on date. Show me some nonfiction reliable sources that say Finicum sought to "overthrow" the US government or bring about a "revolution". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm running late for work right now, but later today I will also include a cite to where Finicum called Malheur the "Washington Revolution." It seems to me that the book and the reference I will give later today are currently the two best pieces of evidence available as to what Finicum's intentions may have been, and therefore deserve to be referenced in the article, until any better evidence might emerge. You still have no evidence whatsoever to support your theory, in so far as I know, or do you? To attempt to suppress this, the best information currently available on the topic, simply to support your own "entirely unsupported" theory, seems to me to be purely POV editing. We all have a POV, but it is the evidence that transforms POV into "an encyclopedic point of fact," not the procedural suppression of relevent conter-evidence.

I submit that you might serve Wikipedia better if you spent more time in finding and presenting evidence to support your own theories, and less time in attempting to suppress evidence that supports theories with which you have chosen to personally disagree, based on purely procedural grounds. All of your "procedural maneuvering" seems to be quite a waste of everyone's time and energy, meanwhile WP becomes more of a "thought police" organization, than one which flexibly and elegantly deals whatever evidence may be at hand. Scott P. (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

All you've got is your own reading of a work of fiction and a phrase of colorful rhetoric from a WP:PRIMARY source? Textbook Confirmation bias in my opinion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

All you have to support your own personal theory is zip? Yes Finicum's book is a primary source, but primary sources are not prohibited from use in WP. We are only advised to be careful in how we use them, being certain that they are not misconstrued in the way we present them. If you could improve the presentation of these things, that would be fine with me, but I don't find suppressing them to be helpful. Bye for now. Gotta go. Scott P. (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Focus on the content, not the editors please. Scott, what secondary sources discuss this book at all? Your edit only included Buzzfeed, which is not generally considered reliable. If there isn't anything better, I suggest running it by WP:RSN for review in-context. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

WP does not in any way prohibit the use of primary sources. It only cautions that we be careful to summarize any primary sources in a manner that (para-quoting) "any educated person would be able to see and agree with." Some editors seem to operate under the mistaken impression that primary sources are not permitted in WP. If you could please point out the error of my summaries regarding the two sentences that you removed, then perhaps they could be better reworded. Otherwise, if you cannot point to any WP policy re primary sources other than the one I have just para-quoted from, please allow me to put this material back. It has had a review request by admins and policy editors. If faulty, it will be removed immediately after the review is complete in the next few days. Scott P. (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused, VQuakr is talking about Buzzfeed and Scott replied with a reference to an unnamed primary source. Huh? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

No one said WP prohibits primary sources. But there at least two problems with using a primary source (the book) in the way you propose. One is that you propose to link it to the Malheur occupation, which would require interpretation as discussed at WP:PRIMARY. As a tertiary source, we don't do that. Second, we need secondary sources to evaluate the level of coverage of the book in those sources as discussed at WP:WEIGHT. My impression is that this is a book that basically no one read; if it has received no or very little mention in secondary sources, it should get no or very little mention in this article.

...It has had a review request by admins and policy editors. If faulty, it will be removed immediately after the review is complete in the next few days. Scott, that's now how WP works. Admins and "policy editors" are not supervoters who decide what is included or excluded. We decide, as discussed at WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EDITING, and WP:DR. There is no special class of "policy editors," and admins are just experienced editors with access to some additional buttons (kind of like how a janitor has lots of keys). VQuakr (talk) 04:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Finicums goals

In the main thread, and at other venues, Scott has asserted that Finicum's goal was the "overthrow" of the government or "revolution" (e.g., here).The RSs however are all about the ownership of federal public lands. For example...

• LaVoy's own vid in Aug 2015. It is not about overthrowing gov't or Constitution just disputing whether that doc lets that gov't own land in the west. If you skip to time stamp 21:50, he acknowledges the gov't saying he's going to "trespass" and that he's making the vid to "account to his supervisors" (the BLM). That's an explicit acknolwedgement of the continuation of his government and his taking responsibility for breaking the rules of his government. Thus, "revolution" or "overthrow" do not apply because they are not seeking Secession or a Coup d'état. What they did is a continuation of the decades long Sagebrush rebellion main goal - to turn public lands over to private control.
• 11-01-2015 News story re LaVoy's land claims and working with gov't
• 02-25-2016 another new story about Finicum's owernship claims to public lands
• Just last week... Aug 25 2016 Boulder Weekly Quote "In total thus far, there have already been five armed standoffs or shows of civil disobedience in the West, resulting from disputes over federal land ownership and management."

None of these RSs say anything about Finicum wanting to "overthrow" the gov't or instigate a "revolution" in the sense of a Secession nor a Coup d'état. They all say it was part of a long running land grab effort regarding federally owned public lands. See also Sagebrush Rebellion, Wise Use Movement, and overview article from High Country News "Forty years of Sagebrush Rebellion".

Finally, there is speculation about the privatization advocates who may have financed all this, but so far there aren't any RSs I know of that relate to this article

• 2-25-16 who-funded-malheur-occupation
• 2-10-16 Oregon Takeover Update: The Plot Thickens

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

new article suggestion

When one searches on the title of Finicum's book, especially in a Google News search, one finds a lot of secondary sources. Methinks the book pass Notability muster and could be an article of its own. Provided, of course, that its based on truly reliable secondary sources. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Feel free, though that seems improbable to me. Maybe AfC would be a good way to go to get an opinion on a draft. VQuakr (talk) 04:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Per Notability (Books) -

"A book is notable, and generally merits an article, if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria (bold added) -

"1. The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.[5]"

I'll collect some sources here later, and then we will have something to evaluate. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I support the proposal. MB298 (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Mormon part of the story

We haven't done a good job explaining the Mormon context. For an opinionated and non RS source... to be used as background for eds wanting to do research in this area....see Chris Zinda's Sept 1 2016 column "Journalism and the Cowboy Myth: Bite the Bullet" in Counterpunch, and other sources cited by him. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

to do

Add a bit about rate of speed (I've seen RS for Finicum = 60 and pursuing trooper = 90) and dangerous driving while crossing the centerline. Also County attorney remark about the vehicle being used as a weapon and LEO belief Finicum would try to take out the roadblock injuring LEOs. Consider adding image or vid showing three shots taken as truck first approached. But not right now. If someone else gets to it, then thanks in advance. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

LaVoy Finicum knew about the traffic stop obviously; before driving away he told them he was going to go to meet with the county sheriff and if they wanted to stop him, they'd have to shoot him. He did not know about the OSP/HRT roadblock down the road behind a bend. Rounding the bend at a high rate of speed, he would have little time for any elaborate plans on dealing with the roadblock. A link to the OSP release of the FBI drone footage time synced to the cellphone video of Finicum's passengers would help understand this event. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 07:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

FYI thread that may interest you

I've uploaded a new image that I may propose we use here. Using it here may or may not be a good idea, and we might find out we disagree eventually. But for now, I had a small doubt about the image being free of WP:OR problems, so I asked eds who are interested in that area of policy to comment. You can share you views too of course. The thread is here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Disputed lead paragraphs

This content dispute is about what we should say in the WP:Lead section. I was just reverted with an edit summary "very POV". (@Parsley Man: Ouch. AGF, eh?) So let's talk about it.

Text of the two versions

Version 1

Robert LaVoy Finicum (January 27, 1961 – January 26, 2016)[9] was an American militant, author, and cattle rancher involved in the 2014 Bundy standoff and the 2016 occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. He was shot and killed while attempting to evade a roadblock while traveling outside of the refuge.

Version 2

Robert LaVoy Finicum (January 27, 1961 – January 26, 2016)[9] was, in the last years of his life, a professional foster parent who operated an Arizona cattle ranch even though the ranch did not produce income.[3] Following the 2014 Bundy standoff near Bunkerville, Nevada Finicum became outspoken against federal management of public lands. He self-published a novel shortly before joining the armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in January 2016 in the U.S. state of Oregon. While traveling away from the occupation site, Finicum fled from a police traffic stop and was later shot and killed at a law enforcement roadblock.

Discussion

In my opinion, version 1 suffers from problems regarding time, BLP, WEIGHT, and factually following RSs.

• Time... omitting any temporal references, it makes it sound like the man was a militant ranching author from the date of his conception. That's absurd and uninformative, timewise. It also conflicts with facts, since we know he was in another state in 2002 doing business as "SOUTHWEST HORSE AND TRAILS", except we have no clue what that was. Summer camp? Dude ranch? Hired hand? Don't know. All we know is he was foster parenting from 2008-ish until the state went and took his income away when he picked up the rifle.
• BLP.... it's also a BLP violation since there is no evidence at all that Finicum was a "militant" prior to the 2014 Bundy Standoff at the earliest, and I have my doubts about that date... but for sake of discussion say he was a "militant" in 2014. We are barred from implying he has been making that sort of trouble his whole life under BLP policy.
• WEIGHT... this is a quibble, but I have problems vaguely saying "author" for a single self published book that was so negatively reviewed. Better to state he wrote a book, which is true, rather than say he was an author, which is true but veeerrrrrry ambiguous.
• FACT(RANCHER)... His own blessed words say his money was in foster parenting, and the ranch was a break even thing. See quote in this footnote
• More About FACT(MILITANT).... Show me an RS that supports contention he did ANYTHING as a "militant" prior to seizing the refuge, please. Vague refs that say he was at Bundy standoff don't count, he may have been scrubbing toilets without a gun. His vid to the BLM saying he was going to trespass doesn't count either. Speech is not the same as seizing facilities with a rifle on your shoulder. So I still think his first overt act of militancy was Jan 2016. The best lead will give the reader that impression because its true. Unless you have RSs that say otherwise.

Version 2 does not have those problems, so it should be restored. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

BLP? Sorry to break it to you, but he's dead. WP:BDP restricts us only from negatively impacting family members - much less restrictive, and really just a directive for us not to be sensationalistic. Only a militant for the last years of his life!? By your logic no one could be called a militant, or a police officer, or any profession for that matter, since they weren't born that way. The purpose of the lead is to summarize the article and establish why the subject is notable. This subject isn't primarily notable because of his foster parenting. I don't really have an opinion about whether "author" should be mentioned in the first sentence, but to me the "status quo" version one is quite superior. VQuakr (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

(A) Dope, good point on BLP/BDP, I haven't had to deal with BLP for a long time and forgot. Thanks.

(B) Foster parenting, though is important to put in proper context because underlying this whole deal are the claims about economics pushing the rancher to extinction, only Finicum earned his bread as foster parent, Ammon as a car fleet guy, and Ryan as a contractor. This isn't a story about ranchers and rancher hardships, that's just the photoshopped sexy image on the cover. The story is a lot of people want to get their hands on federally owned public land for a lot of reasons.

(C) I'll wait for more comments before attempting a new proposed version working with these comments

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but Version #2 sounded like an undue and very POV memorial. "Robert LaVoy Finicum was, in the last years of his life, a professional foster parent who operated an Arizona cattle ranch even though the ranch did not produce income." Please, please, PLEASE don't tell me that alone doesn't sound like a memorial, because it does.

WP:LEAD says this:

The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or lede paragraph.

The lead is the first part of the article that most people will read. For many, it may be the only section that they read. A good lead section cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article, but not by teasing the reader or hinting at content that follows. The lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view.

The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Like in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

Therefore, Version #1 suits the article better than Version #2 because of it. Finicum's plight with foster parenting and the BLM do not establish notability alone. If you want to mention Finicum's status as a foster parent, then it should be mentioned fleetingly like the rest listed in Version #1. Parsley Man (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I'll work on a bold edit that emphasizes why he's notable; provides a summary of the overall article (version 1 doesn't do that); and is written in a neutral style. The guy did have respectable qualities (which is why his death is such an effective recruitment tool for the survivors). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

"The guy did have respectable qualities (which is why his death is such an effective recruitment tool for the survivors)." You see, it's that kind of rhetoric that makes me think Version #2 was such a POV-motivated memorial, and it also makes me think there's some sort of agenda going on behind these edits. There was absolutely nothing respectable about someone who supported the forced impediment of federal government offices. The lede is fine for now, but I continue to have my doubts about this. Parsley Man (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Re "The lede is fine now", here is the version at that time). Thanks for your input.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

refs for this section (if any)

Housekeeping...I'm guessing this will become used. We can waste it when we close the thread if its still empty

References

Proposal #3

I think the two paragraphs should be merged, into something like this:

'Robert LaVoy Finicum (January 27, 1961 – January 26, 2016)[9] was an American foster parent, author, and cattle rancher involved in the 2014 Bundy standoff and the 2016 militant occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

In the last years of his life, Finicum was a professional foster parent who operated an Arizona cattle ranch even though the ranch did not produce income.[3] Following the 2014 Bundy standoff near Bunkerville, Nevada Finicum became outspoken against federal management of public lands. He self-published a novel shortly before joining the armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in January 2016. While traveling away from the occupation site, Finicum fled from a police traffic stop and was later shot and killed at a law enforcement roadblock.

MB298 (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Although I'd like to agree, just hitching them together like mules in a pack string creates redundancy, and redundancy makes the text mushy and not so effective. I'd like to hear Parsley explain what is a POV vio of version 2. I know from many prior threads at various venues that he's wedded to the label "militant". Are there other P objects to version 2? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

LEAD AGAIN - Elaborating on why police fired

In this edit the following sentence (which I added this morning) was reverted. In the lead, I had included an important detail about the shooting. The reverted text said

"Video shows he was shot and killed when he dropped his hands to his side while yelling, 'You're going to have to shoot me'."

For a reference, I had included The Oregonian story "LaVoy Finicum's last moments echo earlier provocations".

I'd love to include the reason @Parsley Man: stated in the edit summary but (s)he left it blank.

The text is intended to comply with the MOS:LEAD, which in another recent thread, Parsley quoted at some length. The quoted text describes how many/most readers only read the lead, and that it should therefore summarize the important points and controversies. It explicitly says "DO NOT TEASE". I don't care how we elaborate on the police shooting, but including my text satisfies the requirements Parsley earlier quoted much better than just saying police shot him. The alt-right radio agrees police shot him. Everyone agrees police shot him. So when we just stop the lead with "police shot him" we're failing to provide a lead that will "stand on its own as a concise overview" and we are not "summariz(ing) the most important points, including any prominent controversies."

I plan to restore the text unless someone provides a compelling reason why stopping with "police shot and killed him" makes the best article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see how including a quote elaborates on the police shooting any more efficiently. Parsley Man (talk) 01:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

So restore the text and revert the quote. Or else elaborate because there's a lot more there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean there... Parsley Man (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit conflict.... I was trying to change "a lot more" because I didn't mean a lot more words. You also took out the part about him reaching down. That's a vital piece of info in continuing controversy. Rep Fiore and Victoria Sharp both said - even though neither could see - he was shot with his hands in the air. They aren't the only ones, right-blogosphere is full of "he was murdered with hands up" stuff. Vids show police held fire until the third reach/draw/goading/whatever. They didn't shoot with his hands up. Only when he reached while in a "ready position" that positioned him to draw on the cop by the trees - if that was his intention. That put that officer in immediate harm, so the other two (almost three) defended that guy's life with shots to Finicum's back. Note that the guy in harms way didn't want to murder him, as evidenced by his putting away his weapon and drawing his taser. I don't propose to put all those details in the lead. But we need to say he wasn't "hands up" trying to surrender. As I collect more RSs about maybe Finicum intending to provoke a martyrdom, I may return to the quote too, but for now, I'll be happy with language about what his hands were doing. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I'll make sure the lede reflects that. Parsley Man (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Possible rename to Shooting of LaVoy Finicum

After looking at this article, I was wondering of the possibility of renaming the article to shooting of LaVoy Finicum. It seems that Finicum only became this notable after getting shot and killed, and because of the protests from the right-wing community that followed soon after. Thoughts? Parsley Man (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Rename is highly appropriate, though I prefer "death" to mere "shooting". See the thread Talk:LaVoy_Finicum#Move_to_Death_of_LaVoy_Finicum. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Curious, a quick look at List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States,_2016 hints that there's some convention here at wikipedia to title these "Shooting of...." instead of "death of...."; I am happy with either. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@MB298: please join us here. I think we can still include almost all of the existing text. The part about his bankruptcy, maybe not (as trivia). The rest all fits within the scope of such an article, as the book and foster kids and his own cattle trespassing 2015 are all relevant background, and the events of the occupation were all a factor in the law's design of the operation to try to execute the arrest warrant with a peaceful traffic stop, backed up with a Plan-B roadblock. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

In the earlier discussion, I opposed the proposal. However, after reviewing NAEG and Parsley Man's arguments, I really am fine either way. If it is renamed I would prefer Shooting of LaVoy Finicum as opposed to Death of LaVoy Finicum, in the style of similar articles (e.g. Shooting of Antonio Martin). MB298 (talk) 02:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Still opposed; for the reasons I listed in my previous !vote in the previous discussion. VQuakr (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

VQuakr at that time said

"Oppose. We've got information about his life prior to the protests, his involvement in the 2014 standoff, and his interviews during the ~6 week 2016 standoff prior to his death. None of that is cleanly grouped with his shooting, and a stand-alone article on the shooting is unnecessary because we can cover it here."

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Vquakr, I've seen lots of RSs that say Finicum participated in the 2014 standoff, but that's all they say. I've seen other RSs that say he was inspired by it. Do you know of any RSs that by-god place him at Bunkerville and/or say what he was doing? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Any other objections? Parsley Man (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I've changed my stance to generally oppose; given the very heavy coverage of Finicum both before after his shooting (perhaps more than any other militant besides Ammon Bundy), and his status as a self-published author. MB298 (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Mind providing WP:RS that would support the heavy coverage on him pre-shooting? Parsley Man (talk) 04:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@MB298: the "heavy coverage" of Finicum after his shooting is almost all about his shooting, so the "after" bit you reference is an argument in favor of the rename, IMO. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Parsley Man: if by "any other objections?" you mean you still think the move is a good idea, then I would have a procedural objection to you moving the page without a formal move discussion closed by an uninvolved party. VQuakr (talk) 06:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, no one has been responding for a while so I wanted to know if anyone else was going to voice an opinion. Don't be so defensive. Parsley Man (talk) 08:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Didn't see this above the larger section last now. Defensiveness wasn't my goal; I was just answering the question as I read it. VQuakr (talk) 04:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Moving does not mean deleting anything. In my mind, it's just a reorganization and presentation. The first thing to note is that Finicum is almost entirely known, and will remain known far into the future, because he was shot and killed in this particular context and set of circumstances . Everything else will will fade with time. What does "everything else" consist of, and what would happen to our coverage of the "everything else" if we make this move? Like I said, we'd keep it with some different organization. Let's compare the points supported by known RSs to the notability policy.
A. PACER contains a record of his bankruptcy. However, that doesn't count because policy says "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." Had his bankruptcy been a big deal of itself, there would be news coverage of the bankruptcy at the time (2002). There isn't. The only mention of his BK that I know about is found in 2016 articles that told us about the occupiers.
B. There's an RS somewhere about his time as apartment facilities worker in Milwaukee and somewhere else (Portland OR, if I remember correctly) but doesn't go deeper. Policy says " trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability" In addition, this only surfaced during the 2016 occupation (when Finicum was asked about this during a taped interview he laughed saying (paraphrased) "Those are some OLD memories!")
C. According to the High Country News, "the public record on Finicum is thin prior to 2014." Now that's interesting.... Here's an RS that basically says before 2014 there's little to no evidence to establish notability.
D. We have a handful of RSs that say he "participated" in the 2014 Bundy standoff but do these establish notability? In my view, no. First the coverage was trivial in that none of them say what he actually DID at that time. Second all of the secondary sources I have seen are dated after the start of the 2016 occupation. This makes me doubt he was a significant player at Bunkerville, and maybe just popped over for coffee one day. Who knows? His participation was too insignificant to garner coverage. In flashing back two years, the 2016 RSs sound like they're repeating each other. With no details, and most especially no RS dated AT THAT TIME, I this was trivial coverage that does not establish notability.
E. Self published book. Do we have a secondary RS dated from before the occupation that talks about the book?
F. There's probably secondary RS about his late 2015 decision to stop paying grazing fees, at least from a local paper.
AND SO..... 1. Everything we know about Finicum before the occupation - which is very little - fits nicely in a Shooting of LaVoy Finicum Background section
2. The many RSs about what he did during the occupation fit nicely in a Shooting of LaVoy Finicum Occupation activities before shooting section, because these activities were all factors in law enforcement's approach to the arrest operation. Tarp man communicated - at least by implcation - that he'd shoot it out before he'd submit to arrest. So naturally, law enforcement moved to execute the warrant in a way that would be least likley to kick off a battle between small armies. All that stuff is prelude-to-the-shooting material
3. And the bulk of our article is about the arrest operation that resulted in the shooting, which is what he is mainly notable for. Note that policy says "Sometimes when a famous person dies, there is enough information for an article about their death, such as Death of Michael Jackson or Death of Diana, Princess of Wales." Finicum was temporarily famous as "tarp man" or for taking down the camera, but he achieved political immortality (or infamy, as you prefer) only through his death.
4. When the article is more complete at least 80% of it will be about the traffic stop and shooting. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

There is a fair bit to expand re the shooting, in terms of FBI shots and coverage of conspiracy theories and debunking of them.... again, all material related to the shooting. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

If you are proposing keeping all the same content and just moving the article to a "death of" title, then I would oppose per WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. Your comments about notability are irrelevant in a move discussion; if you think the article should be deleted on notability grounds then take it to AfD. If you think the subject is notable, then individual aspects of said subject need not be individually notable to merit inclusion in an article about said subject. VQuakr (talk) 04:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

We're not merely renaming, we're reclassifying (from biography of a whole life >>> event. This guy is only really notable for one thing, the occupation culminating with the shooting. People notable for a single thing don't usually get biographical coverage of their whole (not-notable) lifetime. They might get coverage for the one real thing (example, Shooting_of_Philando_Castile). That's why the notability rules are relevant... they shed light on question whether this is pacakged as a biography of a whole lifetime, or focuses in on the thing encyclopedia readers care about, which isn't really his whole life and times, is it? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I do not agree with your assessment that the subject "is only really notable for one thing". In any case, notability and article naming critera are completely different topics. You'll find, I think, that WP:N doesn't speak to article naming and in turn WP:TITLE doesn't discuss notability of the subject. If you still think the article should be moved then start a move discussion and I'll !vote; otherwise I think we're done here. VQuakr (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

VQuakr, one goal of mine in this thread is to identify additional sources for points that have not yet been made. You have only replied with policy arguments. You have said nothing about sources or anyone else's assessment of sources. If you set aside the lawyerish argument that notability does not apply, then maybe you could look at my multiple paragraphs about RS based content and we could talk about the RSs and the content, and identify gaps etc? Or do you just want to stick to policy based arguments and forego participation in content? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The topic of this thread is a possible rename. You should be unsurprised if replies are related to possible renaming of the article rather than content. Highlighting, within such a thread, the decision-making process that we use to consistently name articles is not "lawyerish". VQuakr (talk) 22:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

No offense, but when we argue rules without addressing the RS-based content points that arise in the discusssion it just seems like we're a bit off course. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

None taken. If you want to talk content (and feel that WP:CAREFUL precludes just editing the article), I suggest starting a new section. Rereading above I just see notability mentioned a bunch of times, which I already addressed. There could be some content ideas hidden in there, but there's too much noise. VQuakr (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

References

bullet ricochet

This could very well be true, but would someone please hold my hand by pointing out an RS that talks about a ricocheting bullet? Does an RS say that is how R Bundy was wounded? If not, then what is the relevance of the ricochet? Help please NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I find the wording of "went wild" to be rather confusing. Went wild, as in how? What do you mean by that? Parsley Man (talk) 01:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

What I mean is that we follow the RSs and 'apparently went wild' is verbatim from the first quote below. I'm a sport-shooting enthusiast myself (in an Aldo Leopold sense). "Went wild" is part of my vocab. How would you like to say it?

• "Another bullet from the same FBI agent apparently went wild and missed the truck altogether, the investigation showed." http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/03/oregon_standoff_fbi_agents_und.html
• "Oregon investigators, however, concluded that one agent fired twice at the truck, hitting it in the roof and missing on the second shot." http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/06/oregon_standoff_case_defense_l.html

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, "went wild" is not part of my vocab. But I'm not sure how else to say it, if it wasn't a ricochet. Parsley Man (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

No late night 'went wild' kegger parties in college? In this sense it just means "total miss". "Ricochet" is to bounce of something but I haven't heard any reports of what it hit much less what it bounced off of. The truck apparently has no evidence of a fifth bullet strike, despite all the damage from the foam BIPs and pepper rounds. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Nope. Not that type of person. Anyway, thank you for the explanation. Parsley Man (talk) 02:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

This source says the shots were aimed at the truck, and one missed

• "::*Oregon investigators concluded that one agent fired twice at the truck, hitting the roof and missing on the second shot." http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/07/fed_judge_possible_misconduct.html

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

shrapnel

Parsley, the RS that says "shrapnel" does not define it, but I've had a bit of emergency med training, and in those contexts the word isn't limited to parts of the bullet or bomb. For example, in Better: A Surgeon's Notes on Performance By Atul Gawande it says

IEDs often produce a combination of penetrating, blunt, and burn injuries. The shrapnel include not only nails, bolts, and the like but also dirt, clothing, and even bone from the assailants."

So we have an RS that defines Ryan's injury as shrapnel (not a choke hold or a punch or a direct gunshot). But unfortunately the RS does not explain the source of the shrapnel. Since we don't know it was from fragmentation of a bullet or bomb we shouldn't imply that it was by linking to it. But we can still say "shrapnel" as the RS does and let readers take it from there. Eventually we'll hopefully learn more when Ryan uses the pieces in his arm as evidence. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Critical Fact Needs Attribution,. Particularly in the Lede

"He was shot and killed by state troopers while moving his hands toward his pocket, where officers later found a loaded weapon." This is the most controversial fact surrounding Finicum's death and because of this I think it needs to be sourced. To leave this statement in the Lede just "hanging" creates the impression of narrative and not facts. I came here as the result of reading some online "push back" on the media narrative on his death, and this unsourced (or unattributed, whatever the correct term is) statement in the Lede gives the impression of bias.2605:6000:6947:AB00:AD2E:C4D3:781E:7FE3 (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Our rules require that the intro section (called the "lead") be a summary of the main article. Although the article text requires citations to what Wikipedia defines as a reliable source the lead section does not. After all its summarizing stuff already documented in the article. But since you challenge this statement, I've copied references from elsewhere in the article. Most notably the youtube video so you can see it for yourself. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect caption

The description of the photograph of the attempted traffic stop reads "Oregon State Patrol." The agency's proper name is "Oregon State Police." --NeedsGroup (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Context should be given for "narrowly missing an FBI agent"

2016 refuge occupation and death: Flight and death. - After watching the aerial footage many times (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWLHiU8gYWY), I find the language surrounding the vehicle's crash problematic. While it is technically true that the vehicle did narrowly miss the person, it should be noted that the person ran out from behind cover towards the car. Reading the article without seeing the video makes it sound like he aimed for the FBI agent. "Finicum braked and steered his truck left into deep snow, narrowly missing an FBI agent." Could we improve this language or point out that the FBI agent was running in the direction of the oncoming vehicle? 73.254.86.71 (talk) 08:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

You've done what we call WP:Original research. The only way to say anything is to research what we call WP:Reliable sources and report what they say, without any WP:UNDUE weight one way or the other. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)