Talk:Bundy standoff

Orphan tag

I propose taking away the "orphan" tag on this article, as the page Grazing rights links to it. However, this "Bundy standoff" is rife with politicized coverage (and I googled it, and apparently conspiracy theorists are all over this stuff, it's a bit toxic), so I urge particular caution on further edits. Samcashion (talk) 05:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal

I removed the "orphan" tag on the article. Biased or politicized or not, the "orphan" tag is used to denote a page with no pages that link to it. Grazing rights links to this page, so I removed the orphan tag. (Someone added "Clive Bundy" to the See also section of the page. His name is 'Cliven,' not 'Clive.' So I removed it altogether and added the link to Bundy standoff. NiklawskiMSTM traveled from the fourth dimension to deliver this text to you. Please thank him on his talk page. 16:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Good! I didn't want to unilaterally remove it myself, because I wasn't sure whether there were other things that needed to be done first. Thanks Samcashion (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Bundy family history

I think there should be description of the history of the disputed land, such as the fact that the Bundy family has owned the land since the 1800s, before Nevada even became a state. Now the government wants to confiscate the land, allegedly because cattle somehow threaten a tortoise, yet people unconnected to the ranch do offroad vehicle driving in that area all the time. You'd think the government would try to do something about that, but they don't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.150.252 (talk) 08:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Except there is no dispute of his ownership of the lands. They are not his. According to public record, the land for his family didn't include any of this land. He has also never paid property taxes on the land in question (again, according to public record). He has also admitted he is willing to pay the state for the grazing fees, which would be a bizarre thing to do if you are claiming it's your own land. His stance on using the land is that federal lands cannot exist once a state becomes a state. While at the moment it is true in the Constitution, once the state agrees to give that land back to the federal government, it's federal land inside the state boundaries. It's therefore not a "fact" they owned the land. His other position is that he allowed his cattle to graze on the land long before the BLM was formed. Except it was formed 2 years before he was born. Thus there are no land disputes. HE is basically disputing who's land it is - the states or the federals, in any situation, it isn't his and never was. Furthermore, after the ruling on the lands he was already on, he rerouted the cattle to be on more public land. Seola (talk) 07:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

"He has also admitted he is willing to pay the state for the grazing fees, which would be a bizarre thing to do if you are claiming it's your own land." Very true, but irrelevant because the family does not claim to own the land. There is no dispute over ownership of the lands, just over grazing rights. It is claimed that the Bundy family purchased permanent grazing rights in 1887. Perhaps that was a legitimate transaction, which was never nullified. Just because the BLM (created in 1946) has no record of that transaction, does not mean it never took place and should not be afforded legal consideration. If that transaction indeed took place, and is to be nullified by eminent domain or some similar process, the family has a right to some compensation. I'd like to see this article examine the claim about the purported 1887 transaction. 75.163.143.115 (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Added section Bundy family background

The section was added today, to provide background on the Bundy family, relevant to the inheritance claims Bundy made in his legal cases. Please don't get too carried away on the whole family tree or offshoots of the clan, that are not really pertinent to the encyclopedic article. :) Baleywik (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

My reply

I created this page because I am really interested in this. But this is Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia. We want to keep things as unbiased as possible. I'm not the best writer, so if you can put it in there in an unbiased fashion, that'd be great.

NiklawskiMSTM traveled from the fourth dimension to deliver this text to you. Please thank him on his talk page. 16:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed: a new page for Nevada grazing legal actions

The present section "Other Nevada grazing legal actions" is starting to take over the Bundy page. Already the bullet points and huge paragraphs full of legal issues regarding the Colvin and Hage case are way too off-topic for this Bundy page. It was fine when it was just a small paragraph about a background, but now it has legs of its own. It might be better to either de-emphasize the Colvin Hage section by moving it to the bottom, or else start a new page for it and just have a small paragraph on the Bundy page that refers to it. Baleywik (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support moving the whole subsection to a new article. It may be similar enough to be indirectly related to Bundy, but without a direct connection, there should be reliable secondary source establishing that the similarity is notable. At most, indirectly related cases would go into a See Also section. Otherwise anyone can start detailing every indirectly related case from the entire judicial history of grazing cases. KinkyLipids (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Opposed The government corruption in the Hage case needs the scrutiny it will receive from the Bundy publicity. Both cases originate from the same 1993 BLM "administrative" changes (profiteering) and the only difference is that the two men handled the same situation (in the same state and BLM region) differently. —Another thought, I'm not qualified to wade through years of water and grazing law, I don't think I'm qualified to do a US v Hage article. So in the absence of someone who is really dedicated to the topic, the likelihood that the two articles get merged back together is pretty high.009o9 (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism of this page

Hey, I'll be restoring this page to its pre-vandalism state. The vandalism was perpetrated by someone with the IP address of 98.224.28.167. NiklawskiMSTM traveled from the fourth dimension to deliver this text to you. Please thank him on his talk page. 17:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Another vandal at 08:44, 14 April 2014‎.. The vandal's IP address is 66.87.90.25 . Others should out watch for that IP address because it is repetitive. Baleywik (talk) 09:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Noting the 4th instance of IP address 66.87.90.25 vandalism. Baleywik (talk) 09:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Noting the 5th instance of IP address 66.87.90.25 vandalism. Baleywik (talk) 04:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism of section: Other Nevada grazing legal actions

I will be restoring the following to Other Nevada grazing legal actions, anonymous user (173.153.3.126) has blanked the section and has already threatened to report me for edit-warring with only one revert. My reading of WP:NOT3RR indicates that reverting vandalism (i.e., blanking of relevant information) is not edit warring. The section in the article currently includes accusations against other ranchers in Nevada grazing cases, but the anonymous user appears to wish to censor the trial's outcome from the public -- citing original research.

Perhaps the quote box will make it more apparent that this is testimony and documented fact rather than original research.

Begin section revert:

The charges against Colvin were dismissed, Chief Judge Robert C. Jones of the Federal District Court of Nevada found in favor of Hage concerning water rights, grazing rights and all but two livestock trespass charges in United States vs. Wayne Hage (2013).

Judge Jones found:

• Congress prescribed grazing rights on federal lands were to be granted based on a rancher’s ownership of water rights established under local law and custom.

• Hage has a right of access to put his livestock water rights to beneficial use, therefore the livestock could not be found in trespass. [Within one half mile of water rights]

• USFS employee Steve Williams was found in contempt of court and guilty of witness intimidation.

• Tonopah BLM manager Tom Seley as found in contempt of court and guilty of witness intimidation.

• Williams and Seley were held personally liable for damages with fines exceeding $33,000.

• The Hage’s were found guilty of only two minor trespass violations and were fined $165.88

• Regional Forester Harv Forsgren was excluded from testifying at trial during witness credibility hearing for lying to the Court.

Chief Judge Robert C. Jones stated at the conclusion of the case:

"I find specifically that beginning in the late ‘70s and ‘80s, first, the Forest Service entered into a conspiracy to intentionally deprive the defendants here of their grazing rights, permit rights, preference rights."

Statement of Randy N. Parker for, The US House of Representatives, Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Water and Power, October 10, 2013

End section revert: I for one, find the trial outcome very interesting and highly relevant to the Nevada grazing rights issue. Regards 009o9 (talk) 08:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

You kept adding original research, which is against the rules. That makes your posts vandalism. I reported you for it and I hope you are blocked. If you even bothered to look at your sources, you would see that Monitor Valley is over a hundred miles away. 174.147.113.160 (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's see, that would put the case in Nevada, USA, wouldn't that be the same jurisdiction? You might note that the preceding accusatory paragraph (not mine), is about exactly the same persons and topic WP:BALANCE. Why don't you tell us the real reason you want this very relevant information censored?

Original research. I can put up cases where people threatened other with guns and went to jail based on your rationale. The Bundy group took pictures where they aimed sniper rifles at unarmed rangers. That is a serious crime. You want to put in original research against the rules. 174.147.113.160 (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with US v Hage? 009o9 (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

What does Hage have to do with this page? Nothing. Your original research and off topic posts have violated multiple rules. 174.147.113.160 (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Administrators, please see User_talk:009o9#WP_No_Original_Research009o9 (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Just a thought, if Mr. Bundy had been aware of the outcome of US v Hage, would he have chosen to pursue a remedy through the court rather a direct confrontation with government swat-teams? I don't know. It is very telling when an anonymous poster is engaged in promoting the criminality of one side while attempting to censor the criminality of the other. Censorship could very well be a contributing cause of the confrontation. I'm sure that this is not a concern for the "ends justifies the means" type mentalities though. 009o9 (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I've got a couple of problems with that section. First, it's way too long. Second, it's got a lot of primary sources in the court documents. It uses The New American as a source which Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_134#The_New_American_usable_as_a_RS.3F which has been questioned at RSN. The massive quote is pulled from a statement from the CEO of the Utah Farm Bureau Federation. No WAY is that a usable source folks. There may (!) be something to this section, but it needs to be pulled from solid sources, not what's out there now. I'm trimming it back a fair amount, but hopefully some better sources can be found for this. Ravensfire (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Some quick googling turned up this which is by a law professor. Still probably not a good source, but it gives a much better background on the Hage case than the other sources used here. In other words, there are better sources out there that present this in a fairly balanced manner and give some background into the legal situations. Ravensfire (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Another possible good source - here Ravensfire (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Infowars.com is not a credible source

The two cites to infowars.com link to a conspiracy opinion web site that should not be accepted as fact. The articles are purely the authors opinion. Author Kit Daniels also has opinions on infowars.com that claim 9/11 was a U.S. Government conspiracy. 97.120.221.218 (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Who are you to judge what or what is a conspiracy theory? Btw don't you dare call me a conspiracy theorist because in my opinion infowars is full of nonsense but I'm trying to be neutral as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.135.121.217 (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously wrote in an opinion: "It's hard to define hard core pornography but I know it when I see it" 97.120.220.35 (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

If that website is the only cite you can find for an entry, it is a clue that the entry isn't really encyclopedic. Baleywik (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Some suggestions for balance

Realiable sources. Excerpts from something someone allegedly said on TV should never be used unless you have a transcript or other recording to direct people to. Try to use publications which have a reputation for even handedness and good fact checking. Remember to include both sides of the argument. Right now, this article's kind of a disgrace IMO. 173.228.54.18 (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

"Bundy is the trespasser, and is responsible for past fees, liable for damages, and must negotiate grazing and fees with the agency going forward"...this is a biased statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.71.24.90 (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Referring to First Amendment Zones as unconstitutional is a biased statement. They have not been unambiguously ruled as such by the Supreme Court. Actually the court has ruled them constitutional so long as a set of criteria for their use has been met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.139.9 (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Remove the term 'statist' from the phrase 'statist courts'. The meaning of the term statist is tied to one's POV, and as such cannot be used without creating ambiguity. In the Wikipedia definition any and all court is statist because the only form of society that is not statist is anarchy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.139.9 (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Add a reference to the FAA No Fly Zone that was imposed over the area restricting access to "ONLY RELIEF AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS UNDER DIRECTION OF BLM" http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_4_1687.html

Add details from this original youtube video of the confrontation at the cattle coral. Note the frame that shows BLM snipers overlooking the scene. Note the protestors steadily advancing on foot and horseback on the heavily armed law enforcement personnel. Not clear if law enforcement is threatening over bullhorns to shoot. Note that the law enforcement withdrew and did not engage with the protestors. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD61YFxUga4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.22.176 (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The Blaze as a source

The Blaze is being used as a source in this article currently. That isn't really appropriate, seeing as The Blaze doesn't really have any reasonable pretense of being an objective source of information. There are obvious POV issues with anything coming from this site. We really should try to find other sources verifying what they say, or scrap the section using it as a source entirely. Last night I edited the section which was stating a dubious assertion by Carol Bundy that there were/are snipers in this conflict, as fact, and noted that (even within the article it says BLM spokeswoman Kirsten Cannon didn't confirm this) there has been no verification of what Bundy said. I'm not sure if that's enough though, because this still might mislead people. Samcashion (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Samcashion asserts, "There are obvious POV issues with anything coming from this site."

Here are five statements coming from The Blaze.

• A 4-year-old southeastern Pennsylvania boy is dead after police said he was hit by a van just after his father’s funeral.
• The co-pilot of the missing Malaysia Airlines jet attempted to make a call mid-flight, moments before the aircraft vanished from radar, a Malaysian newspaper reported.
• Ukraine’s interior minister says one security officer has been killed and five others have been wounded in a gunfight with pro-Russian militia.
• A Texan, apparently, isn’t easily accepting the ticket he got in the mail after a camera allegedly caught him in a traffic violation.
• The Metro Transit Authority said it uncovered a camera made to look like a power outlet and a credit card skimming machine at a busy Manhattan subway station.

None have obvious POV issues.

Now that Samcashion's assertion has been disproven, one wonders whether Wikipedia editors who make such false assertions themselves have obvious POV issues. 75.163.143.115 (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You have mischaracterized that user's actual assertion, which is: "The Blaze doesn't really have any reasonable pretense of being an objective source of information." The POV issues stem from that. Regardless of your ability to pull quotes, and without remarking on the validity of your assertion that "None [of the statements] have obvious POV issues", there are better sources of information for a story of this exposure. Corey Glynn (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Did someone redefine the word "actual" while I wasn't looking? I'll repeat Samcashion's actual assertion again: "There are obvious POV issues with anything coming from this site." Not only didn't I mischaracterize his actual assertion, I took care to accurately copy and paste every single letter of it. The thing you wrote is most definitely not his actual assertion.

If you see any "POV issues," obvious or not, with the five Blaze statements reproduced here, by all means please point them out. That would give us some insight into where you're coming from. 75.163.143.115 (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I doubt anyone besides you understood the user to mean that literally every string of characters on the site has POV issues. I wouldn't get too caught up on this — we are not using The Blaze as a source. Corey Glynn (talk) 06:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal of unconstructive edits

Someone with the IP address of 187.250.123.47 made a few edits that I deemed destructive. Here's a list of the edits, my action, and an explanation of my actions:

• Reverted "[...] somehow "owned" the land long before the establishment of the BLM -- despite his lack of any legal title or evidence. The BLM argues that allowing Bundy not to pay his land management fees discriminates against the over 16,000 law-abiding ranchers who pay the same fees. Bundy's refusal to pay his fees thus gives him a competitive advantage over law-abiding ranchers. The BLM also makes an environmental argument, noting that the illegal grazing of Bundy's cows is further endangering the desert tortoise." I reverted this due to the very evident bias towards the side of the BLM. What would be less biased is if the editor had put, "According to the BLM, Bundy's refusal (blah blah blah). (citation)," and the lack of the citation shows clear bias. And I even cited how the government is executing the desert tortoise. Sure, Infowars might not be a good resource, but a bad resource is better than no resource.
• Reverted all changes of "taxes" to "fees" as if you look into it, the payments in question are actually payments that Bundy was required by law (though didn't anyway) to pay as income tax.
• Reverted the request for a citation for the part where it says that Sean Hannity called out the BLM. I would cite it if I knew how to cite a television program.
• Reverted the request for a citation at the part where it says many people have claimed that the BLM used excessive force. If you go on and read about why many people claim that the BLM has used excessive force, the reasons have their own citations, thus rendering an additional one redundant.
• Reverted unnecessary capitalizations. Did they pass English? If it doesn't start a sentence and isn't a proper noun, don't capitalize it!
• Reverted "Unfortunately this argument makes no sense, as the enforcement action has its origins in a 1998 decision, upheld by a Nevada judge in 2013, that Cliven Bundy was violating the law. In that 1998 decision Cliven Bundy was permanently enjoined from grazing his cattle on the land he illegally claimed." This was heavily biased. And, speaking from the view of someone who believes this conspiracy (I'm personally on the fence about it), the government may say that that is why, but Harry Reid may have something to do with it and the government isn't telling us. Speaking from the point of view of someone who doesn't believe it, still. Why make a perfectly unbiased section of Wikipedia describing a conspiracy theory biased?
• Changed "Over 200 agents<citation #2> Bundy then dramatically exacerbated the situation by bringing in outside militia groups to attack federal officials who were attempting to retake the federal range land," back to its previous state as "Over 200 agents<citation #2>" The line, "Bundy then dramatically exacerbated the situation [...]" is biased and unnecessary. In Bundy's eyes, he was doing the right thing. In the BLM's eyes, he dramatically exacerbated the situation. So let's just keep it unbiased and remove the biased portion. Fair?

I haven't taken out the Infowars citations yet. I have second-hand knowledge that some things that are referenced from Infowars happened, as my friend's dad was down there and gave me live updates. So I'll be looking for alternative references.

Oh, and if you're wondering, I accidentally deleted some of the edits that actually were not destructive, including the conspiracy theory. They should be back up soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NiklawskiMSTM (talk • contribs) 00:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You admit above to not being the best writer, and you show gross misunderstandings of sources and biases. For the sake of a balanced viewpoint, please stop editing this article. Corey Glynn (talk) 03:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Confrontations and Protests

Cites are needed in the Confrontations and Protests section. At the present time, there is a lot of material in it that may be true, although some of it is badly biased. But, in any case, there needs to be some cites added to back up the statements, because otherwise the unsubstantiated stuff won't be believed a year from now. Please cite some reputable newspaper instead of tabloid style web lunacy. There are a lot of good newspaper reports covering the events, so it shouldn't be too difficult to find. Search is your friend. Baleywik (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This article should be renamed "Battle of Bunkerville" as it is becoming popularly known as. Citations have been added within the article to reflect this. 209.33.216.162 (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, the opening paragraph of this section is biased, insinuating protesters who were armed were "not peaceful" simply because they carried weapons:

"Armed individuals and private militia members from across the United States joined peaceful protesters against the trespass cattle roundup in what has become known punningly as the Battle of Bunkerville.[3][25][26][27][28][29] There was no armed battle and no shots were fired in the incident."

It should rather read "Peaceful armed individuals and private militia members from across the United States joined peaceful unarmed protesters..." or something similar that's perhaps not as wordy. 209.33.216.162 (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Very few sources even mention the town of Bunkerville. And the protestors lost the right to be called "peaceful" when they attacked a construction site. Their own video shows them violently harassing local police and construction workers. 173.153.5.233 (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Very Biased Article

This article is seriously biased. I attempted to clean it up but somebody reverted back to the la-la-land version. Issues:

-- It's a fact that the stand-off began when Bundy stopped respecting US law and failed to pay his grazing fees. The editor who edits it back to the idea that the stand-off originated because the government was at fault just doesn't understand how rule of law works. -- The Harry Reid conspiracy theories at the end are ridiculous; the most recent stand-off is a consequence of a Nevada judge's ruling in 2013 that the 1998 permanent injunction against Bundy was valid. This has nothing at all to do with Harry Reid. -- Infowars, a cartoonish "news" fabricator, should not be cited as a source. -- I noted in my edits that the BLM argues that allowing Bundy to get away with not paying his grazing fees discriminates against the 16,000 who do. Whoever edited out that edit is turning this article into a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.250.123.47 (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Rule of law doesn't equate to abrogation of the law (note- not necessarily saying this is). At any rate, youre supporting the othe rbias of the state side. There are 2 sides to every coin.Lihaas (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

More unbiased now

Recent edits and organization of sections have resulted in a significantly better article with much less bias. Neutral wording and the addition of factual material with cites have contributed to a more encyclopedic reading. This article will need to be improved more, especially by the addition of more cites on the protest section. Baleywik (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

After several hours of cleanup, the page is starting to form into more of a wikipedia article. Editors should pay attention to the need for cites when new material is added. This helps to make it unbiased. Baleywik (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It's filling up with facts!

I just wanted to say, kudos to the editors who've improved this article pretty dramatically over the last several hours. 173.228.54.18 (talk) 04:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You can "thank" the various editors by going to the View History page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bundy_standoff&action=history and at the end of each edit you will see "thank". Click the ones you think are worthy of your thanks :) Baleywik (talk) 01:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The word "standoff" implies that two heavily-armed parties have each other in their sights, and both parties are potentially willing to escalate into violence.

While the government employees in the area were certainly heavily armed, there have been no reports that the Bundy family is heavily armed; and there have been no reports that the Bundy family was interested in escalating the situation into violence.

Even the first sentence of the article backs off from use of the word "standoff." It says "The Bundy standoff is a dispute", not "the Bundy standoff is a standoff".

Since it's actually a dispute, not a standoff, let's change the article name to "Bundy cattle-grazing dispute". 75.163.143.115 (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support move to Bundy cattle-grazing dispute or Bundy grazing dispute. A standoff suggests an individual confrontation and has Wild West connotations similar to Mexican standoff or showdown. Merriam-Webster defines it as "an argument, contest, etc., in which there is no winner; a tie, deadlock". This article covers not just the recent confrontation but also the decades-long dispute. KinkyLipids (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Support move to Bundy cattle-grazing dispute. It is more descriptive as an encyclopedic entry, and the article covers an ongoing, more historic legal dispute rather than just a few days of protest or armed confrontation. If there needs to be a spin-off of the article regarding the armed protest and confrontation, it should be called Bundy armed confrontation or something.(talk) 13 April 2014 Baleywik (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose move to Bundy cattle-grazing dispute or Bundy grazing dispute. The article and the dispute involves much more than the grazing issue. It involves land rights, state's rights, First Amendment, and others. Changing the title as proposed would give future editors an excuse to remove content about those other issues. Since the problem involves the word "standoff", I suggest simply changing the title to Bundy dispute. Sparkie82 (t•c) 19:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
• Alternative article names

This section is for proposed alternative article names.Baleywik (talk) 00:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

There should at least be another word between Bundy and dispute since there must be plenty of notable disputes involving someone named Bundy. Otherwise this article could show up in google search results for something like Ted Bundy. KinkyLipids (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I would support "Bundy land-use dispute" if Sparkie82 feels that "Bundy cattle-grazing dispute" is not general enough. 75.163.143.115 (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, "Bundy dispute" is not descriptive enough, but I think "land-use" may be too narrow since the one of the key issues is the ownership/rights in the property, not just land use. Some other options: Bundy Bunkerville despute, Bunkerville dispute, Bunkerville Bundy dispute, Bunkerville BLM dispute, Bundy BLM dispute... I'm going to revert the recent name-change edits in the article until we have a consensus. Sparkie82 (t•c) 21:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd go with Bundy BLM dispute and against anything with Bunkerville. The map of the disputed lands extends beyond the city limits of Bunkerville. KinkyLipids (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Bundy family not from that area

[1] This is Cliven's dad, from Arizona. Records show that the family was in Arizona until at least the 30s (birth records). The grandparents were also not from the area. They were never able to prove that the family had rights or deeds going back that long. This is why. 173.153.11.73 (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

That's interesting, but doesn't disprove the claim that the family purchased permanent grazing rights in 1887. I own a parcel of land that's 1700 miles from my residence. Seems equally likely that I could own grazing rights, mineral rights, water rights, or some other rights associated with a property that's far from my residence. 75.163.143.115 (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Permit rights weren't in existence until the 1930s. They also provided no documents for that claim, and they claimed they owned the property many times, not just a permit for it. 173.153.11.73 (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Whatever the family's earlier understanding may have been, the current statement from Shiree Bundy Cox says that "rights," not land, were purchased in 1887. Can you cite a source saying that sale of land-use rights, as separate from land ownership, was not practiced before the 1930s? 75.163.143.115 (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I've answered my own question: at least one type of land-use rights -- rights of way -- were bought and sold long before the 1930s. 75.163.143.115 (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, this is just original research. And Bundy's claim is that his family has grazed cattle in the Virgin Valley, not just Clark County, so being born in Arizona is consistent with their claim. I'd be content with a secondary source concluding that there simply is no pre-existing Bundy deed or ownership of grazing rights anywhere in the Virgin Valley. KinkyLipids (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Virgin Valley is on the other side of Lake Mead from where his family was from. Cattle don't magically jump across the Grand Canyon. [2] Map of Lake Mead and the Colorado River to show that magic cows were not owned by the Bundy family. 173.153.11.73 (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

No magic cows? Next you'll tell me that the dish didn't run away with the spoon. I was assuming that Mount Trumbull in the birth record refers to some town near Mount Trumbull Wilderness, which is on the north side of the Colorado River. KinkyLipids (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

That would be BLM land and get you into trouble. [3] This is the town. The wilderness is huge and not the town. 34 miles south east of Wolf Hole Lake according to those directions. That puts you a far way away from the range. 184.63.185.239 (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia does not accept original research using primary sources. This talk page is also not a place to clog up the threads with original arguments, no matter how compelling. Please find secondary sources so we can end debate and so I can remove the tag. KinkyLipids (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I removed the text saying his paternal family did not move to Nevada until much later than he claimed. The source only says his father was born in Arizona. It's original research to say more than that in the article. KinkyLipids (talk) 02:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The book source shows when the family moved to Arizona in 1880 and lived there. The father was born in Arizona. 173.153.3.126 (talk) 02:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting it's impossible for cattle that graze on one side of a canyon to be owned by a person who resides on the other side of the canyon? Bear in mind that cattle can graze without human oversight for many months at a time, and many livestock owners never see the animals they own, because they hire ranch hands to do roundup work, etc. 75.163.143.115 (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

During the 19th century, YES. A resounding yes! You didn't let your cattle go a hundred miles away in such a lawless place. 184.63.185.239 (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Local ranch hands hired by distant well-off owners to supervise the herd didn't exist in the 19th century? I see... 75.163.143.115 (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

No where have they claimed that. No where have they admitted they were from Arizona. No where have they produced any documentation. They claim and claim and claim, but have no proof. 184.63.185.239 (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Another point that should be made: nobody is claiming that David Bundy (b. 1922, Arizona) purchased permanent grazing rights in 1887. The claim is that an earlier Bundy ancestor did so. The earlier ancestor may or may not have resided near Bunkerville at the time. 75.163.143.115 (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The family claimed to have actually owned the property. Grazing rights weren't a thing until much later. None of the dates match up or are possible. That is the problem. The Bundy family has hoodwinked a lot of people. That is why there is little proof of their claims and why so many statements by the family contradict. 184.63.185.239 (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

[4] This is the Taylor Grazing Act from the 30s. [5] This is a Congressional review of the act that the Bundy family testified on because their permit was under it. Their permit came from the 30s, which matches up to the time that the family moved to Nevada from Arizona. 184.63.185.239 (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's what we know... David Bundy was born 90 miles southeast of Bunkerville in 1922, and on the same side of the Grand Canyon as Bunkerville. This tells us nothing about whether an earlier Bundy ancestor purchased permanent grazing rights on public land near Bunkerville in 1877. 75.163.143.115 (talk) 01:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The town was south east of the mountain, and the mountain was adjacent to the Grand Canyon. Your statement about it not having the Grand Canyon, along with a large mount, and a mountain range, and a river separating them is a little far fetched. The distance is insurmountable. They obviously had no connection to the land until much later than they claim. Also, there is no such thing as a "permanent grazing right" on public land. The Taylor Grazing Act limits it to 10 years and stipulates that it is not a right but can be revoked due to drought and other issues. 173.153.10.128 (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Cliven Bundy's dad, David Ammon Bundy, was still living in Arizona in 1940 [6]. Even some of Cliven's siblings were born in Arizona, one died there young [7]. David's father (Cliven's paternal grandfather) Roy Bundy was born in Nebraska. David's mother (Cliven's paternal grandmother) Doretta Marie Iverson was born in Washington, Utah. Cliven's mother, Margaret Bodel Jensen, was born in/near Bunkerville [8]. Her mother (Cliven's maternal grandmother) Abigail Christena Abbott was also born in that area in 1891. Her father (Cliven's maternal grandfather) John Jensen was born in Sanpete County, Utah in 1887. So Cliven Bundy's only family claim in that area before the 1940s comes through his maternal grandmother (the Abbott family).209.33.230.34 (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Is Taser a Commonly Understood Word Among Readers At Large?

Twice now I have edited the first occurrence of the word Taser to have double brackets, thereby creating a link to the Wikipedia article on this device. And twice, different folks have steamrolled right over this helpful link, replacing whole paragraphs, leaving some readers in the dark as to what is being discussed.

My idea of helpful text is to have a few hyperlinks to other Wikipedia articles here and there as appropriate. Since Taser and especially tasering and tasered are not yet what I call common words, I consider it entirely appropriate to link the first occurrence for the benefit of readers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Link

If useful hyperlinks get carelessly removed, more articles would earn the dreaded "orphan" tag, and where would that leave us?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Orphanage

What is the consensus on Taser? I certainly don't want to keep adding links that nobody wants. But I can't help but think that the folks who are editing this article every two minutes are well aware of Tasers, and have given no thought to the possibility that there might be readers who need to find out what one is. Megapod (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

definately a good idea wo ad d a wikilinkLihaas (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion that Page be Removed

Trying to keep my language as neutral as possible: any coverage of this issue will be seen as biased by somebody. Report on it when it is history. 174.56.63.69 (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It has been happening since 1993. It is history. 173.153.10.128 (talk) 03:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Shoot to kill

Watch the videos and audio of the final confrontation at the gate. The BLM clearly state over the loud speaker that they (THE BLM) were going to shoot the American Patriots if they attempted to cross the BLM line. The BLM had military assault rifles pointed at the crowd and the BLM were hiding behind armored vehicles. 09:17, 14 April 2014‎ 66.87.90.25 (talk)‎

You can add such material in a different paragraph or sentence if you have a written transcript of it you can point to, or if it is in print somewhere that you can cite a reference to it. However, you can't just change the previous entry that was written that has a cite reference already with an exact quote. If you persist it is vandalism to keep reverting it. Baleywik (talk) 09:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Last Man Standing debunked

Reported claims by media and Bundy that he is the last cattle rancher in Nevada or Bunkerville have been debunked. In fact, cattle owned by other ranchers were rounded up in the same pens as Bundy's. See the cites in the article for reference. Baleywik (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you post the source and quote here for future reference? The page changes too fast and I don't want the information to be lost. 70.8.177.67 (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Bundy may be the last cattle grazer in the Bunkerville allotment area only because he is illegally grazing in an area where cattle aren't allowed anymore! But even that has been debunked, because here is the cite showing cattle owned by other Bunkerville cattle ranchers were rounded up in the BLM roundup contractor sweep https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada/good-progress-cattle-roundup-decelerate Baleywik (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

According to BLM records the Bunkerville 02005 allotment area has been officially closed to cattle for many years. Any livestock found on that land are there illegally. You can reference it easily in the BLM map system by going to the http://www.geocommunicator.gov/blmMap/Map.jsp?MAP=SiteMapper and in the Select Map drop down in the upper right select Rangeland, turn on all the sub layers, then zoom into the Bunkerville area. Here is a pdf of the listing https://www.blm.gov/workspace/ihtml/Request?DocUUID=0000010c1214c4b1-0000-691d-0a780c38&DocInstanceID=1&SectionName=&StatusID=0&Command=ExportPDF&FileName=&ObjectIDs=&Params=CurrentPageNo%7C1%7CCurrentPageNoH%7C1%7CCntSz%7C1037x674&BrowserURL=&HiddenParams= Too bad nobody cares about facts anymore. There are too many 'true believers' out there stirring up trouble, it seems, IMHO Baleywik (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Bundy answer nominated for deletion at Commons

I nominated the file File:United States v Bundy - Answer June 2012.pdf for deletion at Commons; you can find the deletion discussion here. RJaguar3 | u | t 13:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, it will probably be deleted eventually, due to the fact that it is in a gray area of copyright law that hasn't been adjudicated (copyright status of third party public court documents). The document is pertinent to the article here, and very difficult or elusive for most to access, so it was uploaded. The few days of it being available here might enable it to be made available at a more accessible web location.Baleywik (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Similarity to US v Hage

I am having a difficult time finding a reference that demonstrates similarity between the Bundy case and US v Hage. The Bundy case is about whether grazing permits are required at all. But Hage was about water rights, grazing incidental to those water rights, and the unfair denial of grazing permit applications. In Hage, the court ruled on the basis of expert testimony that grazing incidental to water rights was allowed within one-half mile of the water source. My understanding is that the ruling concludes that unpermitted grazing beyond that distance would constitute trespass, but that the government had acted unfairly in denying Hage his permits. The ruling orders that (1) the Hage estate will apply for permits consistent with those held before the government refused to renew them, that (2) the BLM and USFS will consider and approve those applications "in accordance with regulation and statute" (i.e., no jerking them around), and that (3) the Hage estate will pay the standard fees for those permits.

Those conclusions are described in pages 101 to 104 of this ruling. My understanding of the Bundy case is that Bundy rejects the assertion that any permits are required whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.17.128.88 (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Bundy has attempted to pay his grazing fees to the state or county, and paid his fees until the BLM orchestrated a cap of 150 animals, that effectively destroyed over 50 ranches. The United States v Hage found that the Forestry department had engaged malfeasance. It is reported by eye-witnesses that the BLM last week was engaged in removing water sources from the area. The document I referenced is in the Congressional record, I had problems finding the actual court case, reading it now 009o9 (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The county clearly told him that they were not the agency to pay. The Hage case is also completely unrelated. The "destroyed over 50 ranchers" was already debunked. 173.153.3.126 (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It is normal to offer fee in trust in disputed contractual claims and also demonstrates an Adverse possession claim. Just because a file clerk does not accept the fees in trust does not mean that the good-faith offer was not made. For instance, if a landlord refuses to maintain the apartment you've rented, in many jurisdictions, it is perfectly acceptable to to pay your rent to a trust instead of the landlord until the case is resolved in court.

US v Hage specifically addresses the 1993 ruling where Mr. Hage wrote some kind of signing statement, and subsequently, the BLM refused to issue a permit. likely because they would be bound to such an agreement. I believe that Mr. Bundy refused to sign because the document compelled him to give away some of his existing grazing rights. This is simply an alternate way to test the law, in this case to see if an Executive branch agency had over-stepped its bounds. Page 99 "Defendants clearly had a good faith belief in their right to use the land as they did and had no intention to disregard the right of others. This does not prevent a trespass claim, but it does prevent punitive damages."

THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that the denial of E. Wayne Hage’s renewal grazing application for the years 1993–2003 was an abuse of discretion, as well as a violation of due process, as the only reason given for the denial was that the applicant noted near his signature that he did not thereby relinquish certain unidentified rights under the UCC, a superfluous condition that cannot possibly have affected the terms of the permit. It is this violation that has led to all of the allegedly un-permitted grazing to date and the BLM’s refusal to offer any permit to Hage himself.

The court also instructed the BLM to issue back permits in accordance with historical usage, so if Bundy had agreed to the 150 head limit for any length of time, he would probably be stuck with it.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Hage shall apply for renewal grazing permits consistent with those possessed by E. Wayne Hage before the refusal of the BLM and USFS to renew them, using standard application forms, and without attempting to add any conditions or commentary not provided for on the standard forms. The BLM and USFS must consider and grant the application(s) in accordance with statute and regulation, i.e., in accordance with those historical usages and preferences in the relevant areas existing as of the last date E. Wayne Hage or Jean Hage had such permits in good standing, and Hage shall pay the required standard fees.

It does appear that there can be trespass, but the BLS must prove each instance of the animal being more than half a mile from the location owner's watering rights. Those watering rights appear to include irrigated areas.

Now, let's see about this "debunking" you speak of.009o9 (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

"Fee in trust" is not a thing, which is why the county rejected taking any of that money. This is the equivalent of saying that you don't trust the IRS so you will send what you owe to your state instead. That isn't how it works and it is silly to use that as a justification. Also, Hage has nothing to do with this case. Bundy was originally in the Bunkerville Allotment and claimed grazing rights there. Then he left and went to the Golden Butte, where he never had any claims. The current dispute is Golden Butte. 173.153.3.126 (talk) 02:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

There are tons of diffent kinds of trust accounts, most commonly they are called escrows, fund control accounts and retainers, in fact the tax withholding taken from your paycheck is likely placed in a segregated account and dispersed to the government quarterly. I haven't found anything that supports your claim of Bundy moving, or that it would somehow extinguish his family's rights water and grazing rights. Even the court documents, filed by the BLM against Bundy state that the family has been working the land in question since 1877. Bundy's personal residence is irrelevant here.

Now you are trying to tell me that Federal statutes are not uniform between the Bunkerville allotment and Golden Butte?009o9 (talk) 02:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

What I am telling you is that they were two different parcels. They claimed to have rights to the one, but never did and were removed. Then they went further into the park land where there was no possible way for them to have the rights, and they suddenly make it up now. Also, none of the court documents mention that he had rights but state that "even if he did" have some claim that it would not matter because any supposed claim would not have been legal. It has already been proven by Bundy's ancestors biography and his family website that they lived in Arizona and not Nevada. They did not work the land according to their own previous history. 173.153.3.126 (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

In fact, I do recall reading that the water and grazing rights were purchased from his father, so it is quite likely that Bundy may have lived elsewhere, even so, since when is a businessman required to live at his business?009o9 (talk) 02:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no proof that they were ranchers in that area until well after 1930. 173.153.3.126 (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

What does 1930s that have to do with the case at hand? The BLM wasn't created until 1946, both are irrelevant. It is without question that Bundy had grazing rights prior to 1993, so the rights are established. On May 23, 2013 it was discovered that the government agents had been perpetrating fraud against ranchers (via water and grazing rights in the same jurisdiction) for decades (70s and 80s). This is the discovery of new evidence and grounds for appeal and very relevant to this article. 009o9 (talk) 04:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

[9] The Federal Government had an agency that later became the BLM since 1787. The Taylor Grazing Act was also there in 1934. No one has been able to say that the Bundy have ever had grazing "rights" nor is it a right. It would be a permit. There could also be no claim to Bundy having anything in Golden Butte because he never claimed that until the recent case. Before, he was illegally in the Bunkerville Allotment, and Golden Butte is further into the Federal lands from there. 174.147.113.160 (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

"oo9", if you have ANY actual evidence, show it. You claim something found on May 23, 2013 - I can find no links that back you up. Either come up with evidence or go away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.236.94 (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Family History Fixed

I fixed the family history section based on the source. Leavitt was only in Bunkerville for a few years, and Cliven's ancestors were quickly moved elsewhere. It also explains why Cliven's family didn't return to Bunkerville until after the 1930s. 70.8.177.67 (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It should be enough for the article to say he makes all sorts of unverified claims that have no effect on the outcome even if they're true. Even if his family grazed cattle in the Virgin Valley since 1877, it doesn't mean he has the right to ignore the law. Bundy has the burden of proof and the burden to provide arguments that make sense. The article should not assume his arguments make sense, nor does it have a burden to disprove a negative by having a section on family history that could potentially grow to include all of his ancestors from the era to exhaust all possibility of his claim being true. KinkyLipids (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The Leavitt family is part of the central claims. Putting up the family history is important to telling this tale. This is more than a legal battle. It is a complete PR war by the Bundy family against everyone. Putting up all the facts is important for the reader so they can see where reality stands in comparison to Bundy's claims. 173.153.5.233 (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The sub-segment "Other Reactions" does not appear to be on topic

The sub-segment under Reactions, entitled "Other reactions" is actually not a reaction to the events in this article at all. It seems that the editor adding them wanted to point out that elsewhere in the region there are concerns over land-development that involve Harry Reid. I have not examined any of the refs offered so I can not verify if they are notable or reliable, but right now I don't even see how this information is germane to this page. If the information about the environmentalists can be expanded while remaining on topic to this article perhaps it could be included but otherwise it seems it should be moved to either the Harry Reid page or to a page about the environmentalists themselves.--Wowaconia (talk) 22:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I moved this section to Coyote Springs Investment, a stub that seemed more relevant to this content. Mreed911 (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

No mention of the top story on internet the day before ... you guys sleeping?

http://www.infowars.com/breaking-sen-harry-reid-behind-blm-land-grab-of-bundy-ranch/

What about all the videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD61YFxUga4

Wikipedia is useless for anything other than non-controverial neutral info such as some basic biology or mathematics.

Xowets (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)