Jump to content

Talk:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LavaBaron (talk | contribs) at 19:35, 16 January 2016 (→‎Move to Abort Discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

RfC: Rump Militia

When I originally created this article I used the term "rump militia" in lieu of "militia" (the specific term used by news sources) to provide just a basic level of clarification for our non-American readers that these were not governmental military units. "Rump militia" has wider historic, geographical usage as a term indicating non state-sanctioned paramilitary groups and is often specifically invoked in specialist and lay observer circles to refer to groups associated with the militia movement in the United States and differentiate from the National Guard and State Defense Forces, the latter of which sometimes specifically also use the word "militia" in their names. Recently, IP editors have started changing this to "civilian militia" throughout the article, contending "rump militia" displays bias. What term should be used?

  • armed gang
  • militia
  • rump Militia
  • civilian Militia
  • something else (please specify)

LavaBaron (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • Private militia or Rump militia for reasons described. LavaBaron (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rump militia may be the best choice. Some quick Googling confirms that rump militia has been a term of art exactly as you describe. In any case it should be crystal clear that these groups are (1) privately organized (2) of patchy levels of experience and discipline and effectiveness (3) unsanctioned by (in fact armed against) military or civilian authorities, and (4) accountable to nobody but themselves. To me the term "civilian militia" is a dubious self-legitimizing peacock phrase. "Private militia" is another possibility that seems, in my opinion, accurate and neutral. Good work btw. --Lockley (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my mind. --Lockley (talk) 07:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citizen militia - the stated goal of this survey was to clarify the term militia for our non-American readers. I don't think rump militia accomplishes that. It's clear that citizen militia accomplishes that much more effectively and is one of wikipedia's own definitions for a militia. While rump militia is historic, it is also showing its antiquity. I would also be fine with private militia. Part of the confusion I am having is that neither the militia page, nor the rump militia link discuss the word rump or what it means. I think that itself is clear that this term is vague at best. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rump militia, per comments above. "an armed group affiliated with the militia movement" may work better - Cwobeel (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As per my comment below, one can't be "affiliated with the militia movement," since "affiliation" suggests a formal relationship and the "militia movement" is a catchall term to describe a variety of disunited groups. We could say "Carrot Top has red hair," we can't say "Carrot Top is affiliated with the red haired people of the world." Also, I've updated the militia page to include the term "rump militia" in hope this will settle the hysterical focus on this word on the Talk page. LavaBaron (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • armed group (with "associated with the militia movement" as below, if you like). Keep it generic. --173.27.83.158 (talk) 05:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • terrorist members of citizen militia
  • Armed group, I'd say. The group may be affiliated with that "U.S. militia movement," but that by itself doesn't make it a full-scale militia.
    From an international viewpoint (and that was the intent here, right?), "citizen militia" would be preferable to "rump miltia". Don't know about the U.S., but elsewhere, "Citizen militia" doesn't have the alleged, and undue, positive connotation, but is a neutral description. "Rump militia" on the other hand is mostly unknown, so may be introduced within the article but not used in the lead. --PanchoS (talk) 09:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citizen militia or private militia. I was also confused about rump militia, and after digging around the militia WP page and doing a quick google didn't find the answer, had to keep digging. I would also be OK with rump militia if rump militia had an explanation in the militia page. (no mention of rump at all) ADNewsom (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Armed group or in the alternative an armed group affiliated with the militia movement. Rump militia is not used by sources in describing this specific incident/group, nor is it a common name easily recognized or widely used in sources.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be pedantic, but to be "affiliated" with something the thing with which you're affiliated has to be an actual entity, not an idea. "Affiliated with the militia movement" is akin to saying "the Wall Street Journal is affiliated with the newspaper industry." The "militia movement" is a catchall to describe armed extremist groups organized in a military structure many with different ideas that are often non-complementary (there are white supremacist militias who get along with southern restoration militias but not sovereign citizen militias, but the SC militias do get along with the restoration militias, etc., and multiple other layers of confusion). They aren't a single organization with which one can be "affiliated" and it's technically inaccurate (and not supported by RS) to introduce the word "affiliated." LavaBaron (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK to be pedantical. But the term "rump militia" is not supported by RS in relation to this incident either.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is now. I've updated it in the militia article. As a general note, the militia article is in a poor state and does not, in the least bit, represent contemporary or consensus scholarship on this subject. Maybe in a few months I'll try to update it. LavaBaron (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great, that helps, but WP is not a RS. I'm still not seeing secondary reliable sources covering this incident describing this group as a "rump militia".-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand the point of this RfC ... LavaBaron (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The point of any RfC is a request for editors to comment, which I have done. Whoever ends up closing this RfC will determine if my requested comment is on point or not.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
whomever LavaBaron (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • armed group or any other well-cited source. Rump militia only when citable. It may be a descriptive term, but that doesn't mean we should coin it as an encyclopedia. It still should be reliably sourced and cited, and that hasn't been done (even worse, a citation request was removed). L.tak (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anti-government militia group or armed militants or armed group identified with the militia movement or armed antigovernment protestors that are self-styled militias, or something like that (can be shortened on second reference). The other options — "Rump militia," "citizen militia," etc., are somewhat obscure terms that just seem to be not really used in the mainstream secondary sources to refer to this particular group. As Isaidnoway quite correctly noted, we should follow the reliable secondary sources on this:
NY Times: "band of antigovernment protesters" ... "antigovernment militants, including self-styled militias" ... "armed antigovernment group" or "armed group" here, here
Oregon Public Broadcasting/PBS: "armed militiamen" ... "militia groups" (here)
The Oregonian: "militant occupiers" ... "self-styled militia members" (Here, here)
Associated Press: "armed protestors" ... "militia members" (here)
NPR: "self-styled militia members" (here)
Neutralitytalk 22:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use citizen militia or civilian militia, but not rump militia (a correct but unfamiliar term) nor armed group (not specific enough). "Militia" is the term most often used in the media, but for clarity a moree specific term should be used, and the term used should be one that is current in discussions of groups like this. Deliberate choice of terms to "avoid legitimizing" such groups is not neutral. In any case there should be liberal use of wikilinks to articles that expand on the subject, such as militia movement. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 04:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what an "ionized atom" is. I probably should, but I don't. However, I'm not going through Chemical bond and removing all instances of the use of the phrase "ionized atom" because a majority of the public is probably unfamiliar with the term. We should make WP as accessible as possible, however, not at the cost of establishing an Idiocracy. The term "rump militia" is linked to militia movement which defines it with a RS. That's sufficient. It is the term that is scholarly accurate and used in academia. LavaBaron (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Note for newbies. Please read WP:!VOTE and the guidelines on how we determine the outcome. In general we don't count heads, but try to assess support for the various !votes that are based on logic and reasoning, as opposed to opinion. So elaborate, and cite things that support your interpretation whatever it may be. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update on RfC as of this time stamp:
  • "Rump Militia" - 2 autoconfirmed editors support
  • "Militia" - 0 editors support
  • "Citizen Militia" - 3 autoconfirmed editors support
  • "Antigovernment Militia" - 1 autoconfirmed editor supports
  • "Armed group" - 4 5 autoconfirmed editor supports
  • "armed antigovernment protestors that are self-styled militias" - 1 autoconfirmed editor supports
  • "antigoverment militiants" - 1 IP editor supports
  • "terrorist members" - 1 IP editor supports
LavaBaron (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would also be fine with armed group. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even though the vast majority of RS are using the term "militia," your personal opinion has been noted and the itemization changed to reflect it. LavaBaron (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The word "rump" seems to have negative connotations and for myself, wasn't immediately clear what it was referring to, because the link just goes to the regular militia article. Civilian seems to be the modern take and conveys all that we need to know and appears to be neutral to me. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The terms "civilian militia," "unorganized militia" and "constitutional militia" are specifically terms used within the militia movement of the United States to refer to themselves. So, yes, it is the "modern take" within the militia movement ... but not outside. LavaBaron (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
but we aren't talking about the movement right? We're talking about what these specific people are... which civilian militia seems to summarize. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Civilian militia" is a self-legitimization term used within the militia movement. It is not a NPOV phrase. LavaBaron (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we aren't talking about what the militia movement says or is. The sources as you mentioned seemed to be using "civilian militia" and that term seems less loaded than say rump militia. If you go to Wikipedia's own article on militia it includes the definition as including "civilians." It fits. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I never said any sources used the term "civilian militia" and I would challenge you to cite any quantity of RS that has. LavaBaron (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. If you want a new term, call it citizen militia. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is absolutely even less of a NPOV term than civilian militia; it is specifically one long associated with self-legitimization by the militia movement. Further, the word "citizen" has a specific legal meaning and is entirely inappropriate in the absence of RS. LavaBaron (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doubtful. It is the exact definition wikipedia uses as what a militia can consist of. Just because "citizen" or "civilian" is juxtaposed with militia doesn't mean it is strictly not NPOV. A little common sense here would go a long way. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. See WP:WINARS. LavaBaron (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a fuckin break dude. We are trying to be consistent within Wikipedia. We aren't citing wikipedia. The militia article is a collection of citations with sources. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to take a few deep breaths, have a glass of cold water, and maybe take a walk around the block. Your tone is unwelcome and uncalled for. LavaBaron (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I'm cool man, but did you have a real rebuttal? Leitmotiv (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We can table this discussion until you've calmed down a bit. LavaBaron (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, no? Leitmotiv (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

they are terrorists just like the feds. what is the definition of terrorist? someone who uses force and aggression to achieve political goals

Since there is a decent article on the militia movement already, it seems to me that it's unnecessary to argue about this on this article -- "an armed group affiliated with the militia movement" is succinct, accurate, and NPOV, and the discussion of the status of such organizations is dealt with there. (Whether the movement consists of real militias is irrelevant -- otherwise, we'd have to qualify every reference to the People's Republic of China, etc.

Reference to rump militia

Moved from a thread upon request

There are several threads involved in the use of the term rump militia on this page. I won't go in to the most correct use here, but have a bigger concern that needs to be addressed asap. Can someone please provide a reference in a Reliable Source referring to the Malheur at Malheur as involving rump militias? There is sufficient doubt in this articles (as is shown on the talk page on multiple locations) to warrant a reference... L.tak (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question of proper identification of the militants is being discussed in a RfC (a RfC in which 6 alternative terms have been !voted upon and none of which appear to have a plurality of support, much less a majority or consensus). Militia supporters who object to the term "rump militia" have also started no fewer than five additional threads on this topic. Yours appears to be the sixth. The Talk page itself is now being protected due to the issues we're having with IP editors and SPAs shotgunning nonsensical and repetitive inquiries here. As a (somewhat) established editor you should know better than to contribute to this disruption. I suggest, if your question is in GF, you move it into the appropriate, active thread, instead of cluttering and derailing this page with more WP:POINTY threads on the same topic. LavaBaron (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion and for the Good Faith. That's also what I am assuming, alhough indeed with the IPs it is not so easy. User:LavaBaron Just to be clear; your answer is quite lengthy and it didn't have a source. Does this mean there is no direct source? And thus the argument is explicitly that i) rump militia is established in scientific literature, ii) rump militia is descriptive and thus clear iii) what is happening at Malheur is done by groups described in many different ways, but they clearly can be called rump militia if you'd keep those points in mind? Is this it? Or were de dots connected by a reliable source? L.tak (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question simply: No, someone can not provide a reference, because there are no reliable sources (none that I can find), that are referring to this group as a "rump militia".-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I share the concern raised by Isaidnoway and L.tak. The sources out there simply don't use the obscure "rump militia" term. The use of that phrase here seems to be synthesis. Neutralitytalk 18:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think LavaBaron has to relinquish his love for Rump Militia. There are no sources. It was a good start for the article, but most of the references I see are calling this an armed group, or just militia, and the option least used is rump. Let's switch it per the RfC to Armed Group. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously anyone can express any opinion they like in the RfC, Leitmotiv. But this is an active RfC and there won't be any changes from the status quo terminology until it's closed by a neutral party who rules on the consensus of the community. Right now, as I've itemized at the top of this thread, there is no consensus for any single term and it seems unlikely - given the high levels of interest this is attracting from editors, and the lack of agreement by anyone, that a consensus will be achieved until well after this event has been settled. Also, simply removing the word "rump" results in the term "militia" - a term which is currently supported by zero (0) editors and its unilateral introduction would be a fairly startling violation of our policies vis a vis RfC, particularly as this is a page under discretionary sanctions. So I'd suggest everyone take a breather and relax. Wikipedia is not a race. LavaBaron (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. But I'm cool man. How are you? Leitmotiv (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken as well. I must say that in hindsight the start of both RFCs may have been not the best move. They are to get a wider community discussion, when the editors fail to reach a conclusion. And we were nowhere at that point when they were started. Now they seem just to delay the discussion a bit, and the IAR solution was reverted. I do feel however we need in the mean time (it's 3 more weeks) to address the concern of the numurous people requiring a citation (by placing a citation needed tag or a synthesis tag, or a citation). If a significant number of people (not all) feels that this part is problematic, then that is absolutely what should be addressed. I suggest to add only one, in order not to clutter the page, but will not do it myself, as I may be a bit too involved... L.tak (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the RfC locked up the article essentially, which for a fluid event as this, shouldn't be happening. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Leitmotiv and L.tak - I know you guys don't like the term "rump militia." The fact is, however, if we don't work through this RfC as per policy there is going to be a minute-by-minute back and forth of undos and reverts given the wide spectrum of opinion, the total absence of consensus agreement on terminology, and the high attraction of this article to every fruitcake internet rando. I just undid another drive-by editor who changed it to "anti-government protesters." Frankly, I'm fine if we nix "rump militias." However, it is crucial the RfC play out to its conclusion and a consensus be placed on the record so that this article doesn't become a bug light for every drive-by editor who wants to make a point by changing it to "protesters" to "pro-constitution supporters" to "terrorists" etc. Just chill, accept that the system isn't perfect, and be patient. I have no doubt this will ultimately net-out to something with which you are both happy based on the direction which consensus is headed. LavaBaron (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if it's just that you're bored and looking for something to do, why not write the Ammon Bundy or Ryan Bundy BLPs? I already did Jon Ritzheimer, Ryan Payne, and Blaine Cooper and it would be nice if someone else could help with the heavy lifting instead of spending hours battling over 4 letters in the lede. LavaBaron (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This may not be super helpful, but it is bemusing that we're talking calmly about letting the system do its thing in an article about a group of people who decided not to do that and opted instead to make demands and wave guns around. That in and of itself is a good argument in favor of using stronger terms than "militia", though I agree with the reasonable points you guys are raising. Even though this is the 6th thread, it's useful to the process. -- GR Mule (Talk/Contribs/Michigan) 01:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LavaBaron:, I see this problem that we don't know what to replace the term with. My suggestion was just the "interim relief" of an indicator that the term (it just 4 words, but they are in a very visible place, and can not be removed due to procedural reasons) used now is IMO blatantly against our citation policy as either OR or Synthesis. The reason why you ask to wait is exactly the reason why I want something in the mean time: this is a high traffic page and we have to wait about 7 times its present age to see a solution. I don't want to do away with any consensus making business and appreciate that and constructively participated in that, but let's ask it now as an open question: do you think there is any mode to accommodate my (and I have the feeling I am not alone) concerns in the mean time (I was thinking in the directions of: adding a note in which we cite some terms in literature? adding the citation request? adding a citation? I am open to alternatives)? If we find something we regular editors agree on, I am sure it will be stable ( I would have reverted the change you reverted last time as well as not supported by consensus). You are crucial to this matter, as you are a highly active editor on this page. L.tak (talk) 02:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

L.tak With great reluctance, I have amended my !vote to "private militia or rump militia." I don't like to do that as I think "private militia" is a legitimizing term. I can't support any change that does not include the word "militia" as this phenomenon is known as the "militia movement" and RS refer to them as militias. I also am absolutely opposed to any interim change that simply drops the word "rump" as this would result in the standalone term "militia" which currently has zero !votes and would, therefore, be a critical violation of every once of our written and customary policies concerning RfCs. However, I also hope to see a more rapid conclusion to this RfC given the reasons you've outlined which is why I'm amended my !vote to include "private militia" as a compromise. If you and Leitmotiv also changed your !votes to "private militia" and convinced a few others to do so as well, we could have a SNOWBALL close on this RfC by this time tomorrow. LavaBaron (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the word "rump" is needed. I actually thought it was vandalism for a moment. (like "rump-rangers") - theWOLFchild 02:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have no problem with "xxx militia" as long as it is clearly citable (and I have changed my stance to show citability is my main point). The good thing about "private militia" is that indeed we can find some sources for it like this Australian on, but it is not much. I also doubt strongly how this really could be closed as a snowball RFC; as such a close is for RFCs where the debate is not useful as it is blatantly clear what everyone's opinion is. That is not the case here, and any new participant may legitimately have a different opinion. So it is probably best to let the RFC run its course. There are many other final solution that would be good, but which will not show up in this RFC, but only through collaborative editing later. We could go for "armed group" for example, and explain 1 line further that the activities are related to the militia movement in the US (but that's all for later). In other words: I agree with you that the RFC should run its course (or be closed), but a snowball close seems not appropriate. That still doesn't mean we cannot as an interim measure apply something. As said, I'd accept anything from private militia, to militia (there is not much legitimising in that for me, unless you live in a totalitarian regime), to armed group serving as a citable placeholder pending the outcome of the discussion. An alternative is -as said- to use temporarily (rump/private) militia with the note like this (suggestion only, can easily be tweaked)[a]. L.tak (talk) 09:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As an "interim measure" we cannot change the status quo terminology to a word that is the subject of the RfC ("militia" as a standalone), but has zero support, on the basis of a command edict by one or two editors. Introducing "militia" as an "interim measure" is no different than introducing "terrorist" as an interim measure. ("Terrorist" also has no support.) And, if there is not potential for a snowball close then we will have to wait 30 days. Those are our options. LavaBaron (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is unfortunate I have not been able to convince you an interim measure is needed (OR/SYNT i te lede) and possible (weighing the procedure of an early-called RFC related measure with OR/citation). I'll leave it at that and go to other areas of the 'pedia. L.tak (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one you need to convince of the need for an interim measure. You need to convince the whole of the community. As I said above, we can't introduce "interim measures" on the basis "of a command edict by one or two editors," even if one of those editors is me, LavaBaron. The emergency powers you seem to believe I can invoke don't exist. LavaBaron (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@LavaBaron: - I'm a little confused as to the reluctance in using the standalone moniker "militia", because the title of this article is that very term you object to. I'm sure this page will be renamed at some point, but the point remains. As for my vote, my original cast already includes support for a Private Militia change and has from the beginning. I would help with other articles, but my time available for Wikipedia is probably not as substantial as everyone else's and I do what I can. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My decision not to raise an issue with the page's title is pragmatic only. It won't serve anyone if we add a fight over the title of the page to the existing backlog of fights with which we're dealing. If that makes me inconsistent, oh well. LavaBaron (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Leitmotiv - I think there's enough support for one version that I'm filing a RfC Closure request. LavaBaron (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have never heard of a rump militia, nor does there appear to be a Wikipedia article to explain it, although extrapolating from things I have heard of, "rump parliament", "rump state' and "rump party", the term seems to mean left-over or remnant. So as you can see, using this term would not clarify anything for me. Private or independent at least are words I know.—Anne Delong (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems as if the term "rump militia" is being kept in the article under the pretext of an absence of consensus on a different term. I suggest we use some reliably sourced term while the discussion continues, not an unsourced term. According to Wikipedia guidelines, unsourced material can be deleted, but some editors keep deleting reliably source terms and restoring "rump militia". Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other threads on topic of rump militia consolidated here

Rump militia

I think the paranoia brings up an issue that should be resolved sooner than later in accompanying articles. Like what specifically is a rump militia? The link doesn't explain what a rump is or why that usage for the variation. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It actually should be Rump (capitalized) militia, following the Rump Parliament, and refers to events during the English Civil War of 1639-89. It refers to a militia consisting of citizens who were assembled to build fortifications and otherwise to provide defense who were not otherwise part of any authorized military establishment. (In the original case, not part of any military establishment under the authority of the King.) General Ization Talk 06:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand why that phrase is controversial or unclear. (I'm certain it should not be capitalized in every usage. "Rump Parliament" is a proper noun; "rump militia" is not.) To me the meaning is self-evident, analagous to rump legislatures, describing any leftover or discredited or lame-duck political entity. The phrase appears to be in common usage, more or less. And that use of the word "rump" is smiled on by the OED. --Lockley (talk) 08:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "Rump militia" is a particularly uncommon term, and would like to see it replaced by "Armed group". See the ongoing RfC above: #RfC: Rump Militia. --PanchoS (talk) 10:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Piped links - "Rump militia" and "terrorism"

This is a minor issue compared to everything else, but... as per WP:EASTER, I feel that a couple of piped links in the lede are a bit surprising: "rump militias" links to Militia organizations in the United States, an article that does not use the word "rump", so can we have a better link or some explanation of "rump"? Then, we have "meaning of terrorism" linking to Domestic terrorism in the United States. I get what the text is trying to do there, but perhaps it could be re-written? Bondegezou (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are no less than four threads on this already, Bondegezou. Creating a fifth one is not in the least bit helpful. In light of that, if you choose to delete your comment, feel free to delete this one as well. LavaBaron (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I piped the "rump" link and I agree it is an inadequate solution, but I didn't have much time to devote to sorting it out. I had never heard the term until yesterday. Can we add the definition to the U.S. militia article or create a wiktionary definition? Otherwise it might make more sense to simply take the term out of the article for now. Off to look at the other 4 threads now... Valfontis (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It already is mentioned in militia organizations in the United States, Valfontis. I agree this may not be a term with which many people are familiar. Were I to choose a random chemistry-related article on WP there would probably be very many terms with which I would not be familiar as well. I probably would not try to change them, though, on the basis of my personal non-familiarity. We should make WP as accessible as possible but should not sacrifice scholarly accuracy in doing so. This is a good opportunity for editors not familiar with this scholarly term to become familiar with it, rather than an opportunity for editors not familiar with this scholarly term to purge it from WP. LavaBaron (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you indirectly scolding me for my poor decision making? It looks like it has been fixed. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Scholarly term or not, the article on Militia organizations in the United States mentions that "they are sometimes referred to as rump militias by outside observers to differentiate them from state-sanctioned military forces". This does not exactly explain what "rump" means in this context. Are they remnants of a larger organization? Dimadick (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My point, LavaBaron, is not about whether these terms should be used, but about how piped links are used win these terms, as per WP:EASTER, which I didn't think had been raised before, but my apologies if it had. Bondegezou (talk) 08:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a case of WP:EASTER. LavaBaron (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's an issue you'll need to address with that article. WP is an expanding project, it is not a complete and finished, all-encompassing reference work. LavaBaron (talk) 09:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ 1
  2. ^ 3

note

  1. ^ In media described as armed group[1], armed militiaCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). or militiamen[2]

Use of Flag Icons in Infobox

Should flag icons, where available, be used for the rump militias involved in this, as per other civil conflict infoboxes such as Waco Siege?

Survey

  • Yes Maybe Yes - This provides an easy reading reference which is why we generally do it in most articles. To vaguely say "militias" obfuscates the details of this situation to the detriment of readers. Inclusion of icons, as well as specific names of groups and wikilinks, should be done whenever possible (I created the article on the involved extremist group 3 Percenters specifically after writing the Malheur incident article, in fact). If we delete any flags, I would support deleting all flags per Cwobeel and MOS Flags, but not one side or the other. LavaBaron (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - No, they are not helpful at all. We are restrictive with flags on wikipedia (see MOS:FLAG, and I don't always agree, like for example banning them from infobox company), but I do think we shouldn't have a flag of an Agency (that is part of a jurisdiction); nor should we have the flag of self-named militias. We need at least some standing as a jurisdiction. L.tak (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - Agency flags add nothing. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes A lot easier to read with flags and staying consistent with other articles. Eteethan(talk) 22:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes As per MOS:FLAG examples of acceptable exceptions include military conflict infobox templates. Wykx 23:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No flags. It's unnecessary and opens the door to more complications. For instance. Here's one. Why do we, in both text and by using its flag, represent the 3 Percenters as a party to this conflict when that organization does not condone it? --Lockley (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Other RS say they are a belligerent. Many of these groups don't have a cohesive structure and may simultaneously support and oppose something. Plus this is an evolutionary topic. LavaBaron (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Check. I've been in groups like that. (g) Would you agree that the article should describe these protestors as a splinter group of the 3 Percenters? This is an honest question, with appreciation for your effort here. --Lockley (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't presume to know this is, or is not, a splinter group in the absence of an RS statement it is. There could be other reasons for the contradictory statements including, but not limited to, organizational incompetence, internal bickering, or an attempt at plausible deniability or operational security by militants. LavaBaron (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • NO they are not protecting their own territory, like at Koresh's site. this would be like the Symbionese Liberation Army flag used when they robbed a bank. Using a flag or other symbol lends credence to their claims, as if the flag indicates some form of external recognition, like ISIS has gotten. if they set up a provisional government at the site, and resist arrest long enough, and the 3 percenters are FULLY on board with this action, i can see a flag. otherwise, its POV pushing.(mercurywoodrose)2602:304:CFD0:6350:54DE:4FA7:407A:E62C (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - it's useless clutter (flagcruft, really). The flag guidelines say "if the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags" and "Avoid flag icons in infoboxes." Neutralitytalk 16:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - I do believe that Y'all Qaeda themselves put a flag up of the United States on the Refuge sign that they took over. So why are we using a different flag? Do they even own a legit flag as portrayed here? Leitmotiv (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - keep the flags. They're pretty standard in these types of infoboxes. - theWOLFchild 02:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - Doesn't really seem like we have directly relevant policy here. WP:SOVEREIGNFLAG discusses "subnational" flags, but there isn't really anything discussing flags belonging to "groups" or non-national entities. Lacking clear policy, I'd just follow general practice here, and it seems like we generally include flags in conflicts of this nature, when those flags are verifiable. NickCT (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No given MOS:FLAG and the fact that there's not really a flag prominently identified with either side. They'd just be decoration of dubious accuracy. wctaiwan (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Besides the fact that these guys are not valid belligerents and not a military, they also have no generally recognized specific flag.oknazevad (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. It helps users and readers identify groups easily. MB298 (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Update on RfC as of this time stamp
  • No: 3 times
  • Yes: 6 times

That's no consensus but it is quite close. Partly in view of request of 1 yes-vote to if we remove, to do so on both sides (and since there are now flags only on one side), it seems there is consensus in this situation to remove flags; so I will proceed wit that. L.tak (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfCs are closed by uninvolved editors after 30 days or SNOWBALL. You can make a request at Requests for Closure if you believe there is cause for a SNOWBALL close. Until then, your edits have been reverted as a violation of WP:RFC. This page is subject to discretionary sanctions under the U.S. Politics case. LavaBaron (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update on RfC as of this time stamp (current)
  • No: 5 times
  • Yes: 5 times

LavaBaron (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 January 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, sufficiently precise, concise and NPOV for now. Move protected for 60 days pending any radical change in circumstances Mike Cline (talk) 11:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Militia occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge → Armed occupation of Oregon wildlife refuge – While the current title "Militia occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge" is basically okay and sufficiently descriptive, it seems too specific to be recognizable by the average international reader. Non-local outlets tend to refer to the building as "Oregon wildlife refuge." See for example:

Int'l media refers to the occupation as well as taking place in "Oregon" or at the "Oregon wildlife refuge" rather than at the "Malheur National Wildlife Refuge".
Secondly, "Armed occupation" sounds less bumpy than "Militia occupation". If possible, a "fast-track" discussion would be great, as not just the event is in the news, but also the Wikipedia article ranks high at Google News. PanchoS (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RS refers to them as a group composed of militia members. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not validate or invalidate anyone. LavaBaron (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above suggestions satisfy your concern, what would you suggest? FWIW, their intent is to occupy the entire refuge - "This refuge here is rightfully owned by the people and we intend to use it," [Ammon Bundy] said, adding that they plan to assisting [sic] ranchers, loggers, hunters and campers who want to use the land.-per The Washington Post Antepenultimate (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article's provided sources have not substantiated your claim they intend to occupy the refuge, but to use the HQ as a base of command to take back the land of Harney County and give it back to private citizens - to speak nothing of the claim by the Sheriff to take land back from local and federal governments.. Again, while they are inside the refuge, they are not strictly occupying it. That's like saying I'm occupying Harney County, Oregon, but really it's just the location where I set up shop. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, point taken. Again, if you could put forth a suggested title for this page, rather than just saying "The title should be changed" without suggesting an alternative, that would be helpful. Antepenultimate (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're being a little pedantic. The sense in which the word occupy is being used here is not to take up the entirety of but the military/legal sense to have taken possession or control of a territory or site, usually by displacing the rightful owners or occupants. The fact that they will never be able to position sympathetic personnel over the entire 187,000 acres of the Refuge doesn't mean that they have failed to achieve an "occupation". General Ization Talk 04:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think it's a worthwhile distinction. They haven't taken control of a territory as laid out in the title. If this is a small location we are talking about, we should establish that in the title. The site is the HQ building. The influence of that occupation is only felt at the HQ building so far.... I recommend, at the very least switching it from Malheur National Wildlife Refuge to something like Militia seizure of Harney County government building. For the record, the refuge itself is mostly a body of water. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The title most certainly shouldn't refer to a "Harney County government building" as that strongly suggests a building owned and used by the government of Harney County, Oregon, rather than a federal building as is the true case here. General Ization Talk 04:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well that would require a simple fix, wouldn't it? Leitmotiv (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly oppose a renaming to Militia seizure of Harney County government building for several reasons: (a) news reports indicate they control at least two permanent structures at the site, the HQ building and a watchtower, (b) news reports indicate the militia are maintaining a manned roadblock at the wildlife refuge, (c) news reports indicate militia are freely moving on the refuge on foot and in vehicle. That may not indicate "control" of the refuge proper but it indicates a higher level of control than being confined to the interior of a building. LavaBaron (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fully aware of what their occupation entails as I've been to that very building. It's just a small nothing place. They don't have control of anything except a very small complex and one of the roads immediately leading to it. Maybe we should add the word "complex" to the title instead? Leitmotiv (talk) 05:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. It seems, taking in everyone's requested terminology changes, we could rename the article "Armed Group Affiliated with the United States Militia Movement's Occupation of a United States Fish and Wildlife Service Complex in Oregon." LavaBaron (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BE BOLD SIR!!! j/k Leitmotiv (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Redirs and Cats

Citizens for Constitutional Freedom

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Discussion has moved to AFD in this thread. Please add your comments there.--Reinoutr (talk) 12:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens for Constitutional Freedom was created, then redirected, so I removed links throughout this article. But, perhaps we should discuss, does this group meet Wikipedia's notability threshold and justify a standalone article? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Known only for a single event... So no reason for an article... L.tak (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update: An article is still up, so further discussion may be needed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I originally redirected the article, but that was overturned. The "organization" is nothing but the name chosen by the people involved in this single event. Any and all references are linked to this one event. Not notable per WP:ORG, so should again be redirected in my opinion. --Reinoutr (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concur; but there's bigger issues here to fret about NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you agree, but redirecting takes 2 seconds ;) --Reinoutr (talk) 11:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update. You are right. I am seeking a more formal consensus to redirect the article here through our AFD process. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Citizens_for_Constitutional_Freedom#Citizens_for_Constitutional_Freedom and all are welcome to opine, but be sure to use reasons not opinion because whoever closes the debate is supposed to ignore "I like" "obvious" "of course" type of commentary. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ta! Good idea to seek more formal consensus. I added my 2 cents in the nomination. --Reinoutr (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pacific Patriot Network

I've redirected Pacific Patriot Network‎ to this article as well. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category

Category:Militia occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, just in case you haven't noticed already. MB298 (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure this category is necessary, but if kept, should it be renamed to reflect the new title of the parent Wikipedia article? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since this thread now contains two separate topics, please note that
(A) The name change is  Done
(B) If you want to discuss deletion of the cat, please start a new thread for that purpose. That way we can all be certain that this thread's status is "resolved".
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was full of redirects. Since redirects are just that and should not be categorized as articles (per WP:CATREDIRECT), I just removed the category from all redirects that were listed there. --Reinoutr (talk) 11:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Ward (sheriff)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Discussion has moved to AFD in this thread. Please add your comments there.--Reinoutr (talk) 12:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[[Citizens for Constitutional Fr There's now a David Ward (sheriff) article. Should that be re-directed here as per WP:BLP1E? Bondegezou (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per criterion 7 of WP:POLOUTCOMES. LavaBaron (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how WP:POLOUTCOMES overrides WP:BLP1E? Bondegezou (talk) 10:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't. WP:BLP1E is policy whereas WP:POLOUTCOMES is just an essay. --Reinoutr (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As point of order, a wider audience will be involved - leading to stronger consensus - by moving this WP:AFD discussion to the AFD board, as I have just done for the "Citizens for Constitutional Freedom" moniker. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Claim about divine motivation and message

In the initial paragraph, there is a statement with a citation: "Ammon Bundy, the leader of the group now calling themselves Citizens for Constitutional Freedom, said he began leading the occupation after receiving a divine message from God ordering him to do so.[8]". I would like to suggest that the use of this statement is misleading. I particularly would like to focus on the divine message part. According to Bundy's video released on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl5rkosu2Ig he presents the spiritual component in a very different light. It is easy for people who are not observers of a faith to wrongly understand expressions of people of faith. When I watched the video I got a very different understanding of the role of Ammon's faith in his decision making process. My understanding is that he sought guidance in what to do, but he did not claim a specific divine message to take action. - I may be mis-understanding Ammon, but I suspect that the journalist cited in [8] inaccurately reported or simplified Ammon's experience. I suggest this comment be revised in the text to reflect original source material on Youtube. Hugh Paterson III (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's misleading. I've added another reference for you to check out. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose proposal to revise. LavaBaron (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest we use a different wording than the current tautology? If "divine message from God" is what Bundy actually said, it should be in quotes and cited. The current citation has "Bundy says he's been moved by the Lord", which isn't a direct quotation, and doesn't match our current wording. I would recommend that we drop the "divine", as a minimum. Tevildo (talk) 11:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bundy's actual words (from the video above, at 13:50) are "I did exactly what the Lord asked me to do". Tevildo (talk) 11:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick fix, maybe somebody can do better. TomS TDotO (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tempest in a teapot. "what the Lord asked me to do" is the same thing as a divine message. The sources support the sentence. I see no problem and like LavaBaron oppose any tinkering at this time. I did however remove some redundancy, since "divine message" necessarily comes from the Lord. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good, thanks. We can't have the words "the Lord" in this kind of passage without them appearing between quotation marks. Ericoides (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's OK now: "divine message" is much better than "divine message from God". Perhaps Word of wisdom (not to be confused with Word of Wisdom, important in this context) might be a better link target than Prophecy (Bundy says "they [his plans] are wisdom in the Lord" at 18:20), and "ordered" might be a bit too strong, but the essential problem has been fixed. Tevildo (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a detail wholly unimportant to the lead section. I'm not opposed to including it in the body. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Ammon Bundy

Much as Cliven Bundy is a redirect to Bundy standoff, this should be restored as a redirect. Ammon Bundy is not notable outside of this event, making this fail WP:BLP1E. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see Ammon Bundy on the news every day. Not just on the local news, but on the national news as well. MB298 (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every one of those sources is in conjunction with this one event, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about [7]? Or [8]? Perhaps [9]? All of these were published well before the occupation began. MB298 (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These extra sources still do not establish notability for him to have his own article. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

:If he's on the news "every day", then how come those other newsworthy events aren't on his page? littlebum2002 17:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC) [reply]

  • Oppose. I think there is enough material for a standalone article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Support Really? You do? Other than the information about the standoff, it mentions him getting arrested a couple times, having a rally once, and where he lives. Which part of that, exactly, makes him meet notoriety guidelines? Not only does he not meet notoriety guidelines, he doesn't even come close. Other than this standoff, he has done nothing to merit a Wikipedia page, therefore it should be merged. littlebum2002 16:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • To clarify, I am not suggesting the Wikipedia article has enough material, I am saying I believe there is enough press coverage about him to justify an article (which needs to be expanded to include much more info about him other than the standoff). ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per MB298, et. al. LavaBaron (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per @MB298. Nominator's WP:BLP1E merge logic fails item #2, Ammon Bundy is not likely to remain a Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual as he continues to participate in high profile activities. A Google News search for "ammon bundy" yields 1,240,000 results in 30 seconds. Prior to the actual standoff, Ammon Bundy was very much the center of the story when his aunt was thrown to the ground and he was tazed by the BLM.[10] The Wikipedia article has 10,303 page views in 8 days (Jan 4 through Jan 12).[11] The Ammon Bundy article has been tagged for merge, but no discussion has been started on the article's talk page, nor is there a reference to this discussion.Diff Ammon Bundy clearly meets WP:N, the Wikipedia article now has 12 cites with his name in at least three of the titles, NBC News, The Daily Beast, The Oregonian etc., there is no doubt that he is the subject of these RS articles. 009o9 (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either way ok with me Figured I'd say so, since I started editing here.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC) (struck by author NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC))[reply]
  • Support All sourced connect Ammon to this one single event. That doesn't meet our WP:Notability(People) rules, which partially state "If, however, there is only enough information about one notable event related to the person, then the article should be titled specifically about that event..." That's the case here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
, Rebuttal to sources listed above
  1. First list of sources by MB298 are all about this one single event (thus proving the point he lacks Notability for a biographic stand alone article)
  2. The USA Today piece is an op ed so it can't be used to establish notability because op eds generally are not considered RS
  3. The [Sun article http://lasvegassun.com/news/2015/mar/25/fiore-ushers-bundy-family-nevada-legislature] comes closest, but gosh all it says is that the guy is lobbying his state legislature a bit. Lotsa people do that everyday. Big whoop.
  4. Suggestion that the Guardian article establishes notability is the most hilarious thing I've seen for awhile. The guy was tasered! Period! That's all it says about him. Well, hold the presses. I should have a bio article about myself then, because once a newspaper ran a pic of me changing a tire, and another time after a bike wreck. That was an attempt at humor to illustrate the point. Apologies if it pss'd anyone off.
  • Support merge, although some references are dated prior to the occupation, those are, as already explained by NewsAndEventsGuy, not for anything that establishes notability (only inherited notability from his father). Thus, the person is known for a single notable event and WP:BLP1E applies. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tasering incident discussion - Here's some more information about the tasering: [12][13][14][15] - My point is, Bundy is not merely known for this one event, but for several events both during and prior to the occupation. This isn't about a local business owner or someone who was robbed in some small town in Oklahoma or Kansas. MB298 (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So he got tasered. I've been arrested more than once... had a few parking tickets. I've even been involved in several civil suits and stubbed my toe once. You make this claim that he's known for "several" incidents. That's true of most of us, unless our lives are mighty empty. But suppose you make a numbered list of the instances that you think establish WP:Notability. I start you off with the two you have named
A. The present occupation
B. Cops tasered him during Bundy standoff
C. He's lobbying his state legislature
D. He likes chocolate chip cookies that was humor
E. Anything else ??????
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While it is very obvious he's notable due to the sources given above, it can also be argued he is in fact notable JUST for the occupation, as it isn't some two-day standoff that was easily resolved. Per WP:ONEEVENT "if the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." It can be argued this event is highly significant, especially in the constitutionality of federal land ownership. MB298 (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anytime, anywhere in Wikipedia that anyone says "it's obvious" my bullshit meter twitches. I concede you have a nonfrivolous argument, but I'm hardly persuaded that this off-season gun and gabfest at the frozen wetland is the sort of "major event" represented by the example given in that guideline - the assassination of the duke that led to WWI, nor am I persuaded that Ammon's status as media poster child has produced a "legacy" quite the same as that of the assassin, Gavrilo Princip as discussed in his article. Flash in pan copy in the great infotainment cycle isn't really what the rule has in mind, in my view. Of course, if 40 years from now Ammon is credited with the liquidation of all BLM Federal land, then of course he'd qualify. But it's a long way from introducing your stetson to the microphones and that day. I acknowledge you'll disagree with this view. Well, OK. The best place to debate the matter - widest audience, most eds, and most outside eds - is at WP:Articles for deletion with a ping to the WP:Notability noticeboard and let things take their course. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did you get headlines when you were arrested? His involvement in the 2014 standoff was reported in RS. That would make the current standoff the second event he was notable for. Torven (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, support merge per WP:BIO1E. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note my change above. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E does not apply per WP:LOWPROFILE.

The guidelines in WP:BLP1E are clear and require 3 criteria to qualify. I think a lot of people are misreading them so I'm going to paste them here.

"We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:

  1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
  2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
  3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley, Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.

The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of the People notable for only one event guideline (WP:BIO1E) when compared with this policy (WP:BLP1E): WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people and to biographies of low-profile individuals."

Ammon Bundy may meet criterion 1, depending on future events. Is anyone here going to claim that he somehow fits 2 or 3? That he is currently, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual given his penchant for daily press conferences and driving cross-country looking for hotspots to inject himself into? Likewise that his role is "not substantial" or "not well documented" in this event, given the amount of press coverage ongoing and again, his own daily press conferences?

I submit that none can. Therefore we need to look to WP:LOWPROFILE.

"Media attention High-profile: Has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication, website, or television or radio program, as a "media personality" (a.k.a. "public face" or "big name"), a self-described "expert", or some other ostensibly (or would-be) notable commentator. Need not be a "household name", simply self-promotional. May ostensibly represent an employer or other group, but is clearly self-representing as well."

"Promotional activities High-profile: Has voluntarily participated in self-publicity activities, such as press conferences, promotional appearances, book signings, and the like; and/or has participated in an attention-seeking manner in publicity for some other concern, such as a cause, election campaign or commercial endorsee."

I submit that Ammon Bundy is a "High Profile Individual", likely to remain such for a significant time, and as such WP:BLP1E does not apply.Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, WP:LOWPROFILE is not a Wikipedia policy, it's an essay. Also, you are correct in that WP:BLP1E is the wrong policy to be noting here. The Wikipedia guideline that supports merging Ammon Bundy into this article is WP:BIO1E. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate option

Is there perhaps enough newsworthy information to make an article about the Bundy family as a whole, that the various family members can be redirected to? Or does that violate a guideline I'm not aware of? Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I somewhat agree with your proposal. Cliven, Ammon, and Ryan seem to be notable enough (with material relevant to this article and to the Bundy standoff). I would support this proposal if Ammon Bundy is merged with this article. MB298 (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for creatively looking for a solution, and as I understand the rules the answer is both no and yes. It's "No" in the sense that we can't take a little WP:Notability from A and add it to a wee bit from B to produce an article that has just enough WP:Notability to survive at WP:Articles for deletion. The reason we can't do this addition is because things generally can't inherit notability from something else. Any WP:TOPIC is supposed to stand on its own. HOWEVER.... if you can find enough reliable sources which discuss the Bundy family as a whole, then sure they can have an article. (Same goes for any topic). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overview of the family unit might fit at Sovereign citizen movement. For background, a non-RS blog source describes the family as "the Bundys have arguably become the most well-known faces of that movement". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that would be a very solid option - and it really ought to be where Ryan Payne got merged to, rather than this article. How does one go about suggesting to de-merge Ryan Payne and merge it there instead? Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Payne's only here in the infobox I think. No reason whatever is appropriate about him can't be added there too. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind per above. "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people and to biographies of low-profile individuals." Ammon Bundy does not qualify as a low-profile individual as he actively seeks out media attention, per WP:LOWPROFILE. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citing legal briefs as RS to support statements made in wikivoice

This article asserts various statements as fact while relying on sources that are inherently one-sided POV, specifically legal briefs. Specifically, please see refs 29, 33, and 35 in this version. I'm fine with the gist of the text, I just think the text should be written to say these facts were alleged in the legal briefs rather than in wikivoice.

For those unfamiliar with court procedure, the purpose of a trial is to determine facts. Briefs either lobby for one view of the law..... or they lobby for one view of the facts. Thus, briefs alone are not RS for anything other than the fact one side in the lawsuit alleged these things. Whether or not the allegations are true is unknown, until a court rules. Even then, the best way to adhere to NPOV is to attribute such facts to court rulings.

Does anyone else choke when we use wikivoice to declare as true things said in inherently one-side legal briefs? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Well spotted. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to use legal terms when appropriate such as "indicted" or "according to." Leitmotiv (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS

The article is way to detailed with trivial information that will not stand the test of time. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have specific sentences/parts to discuss? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we will most certainly need to cull this down but suggest we wait until the event reaches some kind of conclusion. As of now it's impossible to tell which specific events will be important in the overall story. LavaBaron (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above, can't this be dealt with once the standoff is over? I'd argue it would be easier to decide what material is undue and what meets the 10 year test once the standoff ends. -- Callinus (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For sure, but at this time I agree with LavaBaron that paring anything down is premature. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Bondegezou (talk) 08:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Same. Trying to rip news-cited information out while everything is still forming is just going to create a recipe for needless arguments, especially since there are already enough IP vandals trying to rewrite stuff about the Bundys. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Characterizing the excavator

"...using bare hands and a Wildcat excavator stolen from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to rip apart a barbed-wire fence erected by the government at a far end of the vast refuge."

Surely we can come up with a wording that explains that the excavator was stolen, but be clear that it was on site -- they didn't go steal it from somewhere else. Bondegezou (talk) 10:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the Times specifically used the word "stolen" for a reason. It's not for Wikipedians to edit content due to discomfort with the source. Activist (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting we don't use the word "stolen". I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the NYT as a source: seems like an excellent source to me. I am suggesting that we write text that explains what happened to the reader. When I first read the headline using the word "stolen", I was confused until I saw that it meant the occupiers used a vehicle that was already there. So what I'm suggesting is that we use "stolen", but go on to explain what happened. Bondegezou (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's clear we should keep the frame of the article in mind in regards to the excavator. They are occupying the refuge which is exactly what they are doing with the excavator. "Stolen" suggests they took it from somewhere else and brought it with them to the refuge. Sometimes sources suck and you have to be level-headed. They're just using government property during their occupation. Also don't revert a perfectly good link. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the term 'unauthorized use' would be a good compromise here. As in, Meanwhile, the occupiers made unauthorized use of a government CAT excavator.... Any objections to that wording? Antepenultimate (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Returning links to talk page (not sure why someone felt the need to remove them):

Extended content

---Another Believer (Talk) 19:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer:, there are a million of them. See WP:LINKFARM NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but I don't see any harm in adding sources to an article's talk page for future reference. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about moving the LINKFARM to a subpage then? TPG says we're supposed to be discussing article improvements here. Simply starting a list of the million news stories is not gonna help us do that, and gets in the way, IMO, but I would not mind a subpage. You could leave just one link to the location of that page, for navigation purposes? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if this has already been added, but lots of good background to the event at [16]. Bondegezou (talk) 08:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article and Book About History of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

A fascinating article about the legal history of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge is Supreme Court already ruled that feds rightly own occupied refuge. by Betsy Hammond, The Oregonian/OregonLive, January 06, 2016 at 5:11 AM, updated January 06, 2016 at 6:38 PM Paul H. (talk) 03:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is Where land & water meet: a Western landscape transformed. by Nancy Langston, University of Washington Press, Dec 15, 2009, ISBN 9780295989839. Paul H. (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also: In Oregon, Myth Mixes With Anger by Nancy Langston, New York Times - an article about the history of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Leitmotiv (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These sound very nice. Does anyone have a minute to add these links to the Malheur Refuge page? They seem more on topic for that page than this one. Wyvern (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

High Country News as RS

FYI, I have made friendly inquiry on the RS quality of High Country News, a source Somedifferentstuff took out earlier today. The discussion if you wish to chime in is at the RSN in this thread. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Very long" tag in "Occupation" section

This section has been divided into subsections. Is this tag still necessary? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think yes because.... If there is too much material that should be purged under WP:NOTNEWS, and I think there is, chopping up the Pepperoni and NotNews pizza into small Pepperoni and NotNews slices doesn't make the overall pizza any smaller. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC) UPDATE: I should have reviewed the "too long" instructions first. Sectioning is an approved way to solve it. However, the overly detailed NOTNEWS problem remains, and it seems there is Template:Overly detailed, so I changed the tag to match the current problem. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any consensus that there is a problem? I feel the current level of detail is appropriate. We could consider a timeline article if things continue. Bondegezou (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please elaborate Bondegeaou. In the "NOTNEWS thread above I thought you said the opposite. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the "NOTNEWS" thread, I was agreeing with Leitmotiv and LavaBaron that "paring anything down is premature". This is an unfolding event and, in the fullness of time, some detail may come to be seen as unnecessary, but for now I think we've got the balance about right in terms of how much detail we're going into. Bondegezou (talk) 10:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining. I disagree. We have loads of trivial play by play that can go in Wikinews but is inappropriate here. The operative guideline, with bold for emphasis reads
Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events . While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.
The "dildo" thread is an excellent example.changed my mind on that one NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sex toy story

I don't know if this should be included in the article or not...

MB298 (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

similar [17]. MB298 (talk) 01:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. WP:NOTNEWS. How exactly do dildos relate to the brandishing of automatic weapons, threats to kill and be killed, and the use of children as human shields in order to compel federal goverment to sell off all the national forests and BLM lands? Every little thing media trumpets to keep up readership and public interest is not necessarily worthy of Encyclopedia coverage. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Concur - this isn't a tabloid filled with titillating details. Ravensfire (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MB298: and @Ravensfire:, after reading and hearing a fair bit more about this I think I've changed my mind, at least to the extent that the "reactions" section presently has little to nothing about the general non-Internet public's reaction. So I wouldn't object to a sentence on the subject after all. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Along similar lines, User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz has added a sentence about the delivery of lube. This seems like irrelevant trivia to me and I think it should go. However, another possibility is to include this in NewsAndEventsGuy's suggestion. Bondegezou (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed edit by Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz strikes me as sensationalism, and we don't do that. On the other hand, there are plenty of blase' reports about the general public sending loads of glitter and sex toys, as opposed to truckloads of fuel, food, and ammo. Sexing it up, so to speak, with the lube stuff is just a, ummmmm, uhhhhhh, shall we say a "slick" way to try to ridicule this bunch? That's a vio of NPOV policy, even if it is funny to some. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's see. "News" guy ignores that it sources to Reuters, one of the most RS options available as well as a good judge of what's newsworthy, and then leaves insulting messages on talk pages. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 15:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I remind all that we should assume good faith towards each other.
User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, Reuters is a reliable source. I have no doubt this event occurred. The question is whether it warrants coverage in an encyclopaedia: see WP:NOTNEWS for relevant policy.
I like the idea of a short sentence under 'Reactions' summarising how multiple different people have sent multiple amusing, sex-related things to the occupiers. I think that may be warranted. Bondegezou (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let me take stock. Covered on
That's international coverage. How is it considered "not newsworthy"?Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this thread has consensus that Reuters is a good source for this and a non-sensationalist statement of fact is reasonable. So I have attempted to implement that by adding this, which simply states

"In response to requests for supplies like food and fuel, the public has sent the militants numerous packages of glitter and sex paraphernalia." sourced to the Reuters cite advocated by Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you get to be uncivil tossing demands that people not edit, but then make edits before there's consensus? I see a double standard going on here. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your remark, and would like to suggest we WP:FOC (no irony intended!) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this diff, "members of" was added to make "members of the public" and that's great, thanks. However, "in protest" was added to the end and "in protest" is the editor's interpretation of the action. It happens to mine also. However, "in protest" is not in the source itself, so it fails WP:Verification. If another RS explicitly says "in protest" or some such, then we could use those words if we add that cite. Until then, "in protest" should be deleted, but I don't plan to fiddle with the article for awhile to avoid edit warring. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops.... you were adding refs while I added the comment above. Which of the new refs supports "in protest"? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked NewsAndEventsGuy's sentence and added another couple of the links Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz gave. (No reason we can't have more than one cite, although actually I don't think I've picked the best -- will revise.) I think that now covers the issue well.
While those cites do not use the phrase "in protest", I think that summarises the movitations appropriately. I felt we had to explain why this was happening. Happy to discuss alternate wording. Maybe "to ridicule", which better fits the first cite?
Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, the questions is not whether this is "newsworthy", and my apologies for using that phrasing earlier. The question is whether this is encyclopaedia-worthy: see WP:NOTNEWS for details. Bondegezou (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would "as a joke" work better? Which can be sourced to http://fusion.net/story/256093/oregon-militia-lube-dildos/ Bondegezou (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
" we had to explain why this was happening." Uh, no. Wikipedia lets RSs do all the explaining. When we attempt do fill in blanks we get start doing WP:Original research. I'm not yet persuaded we need to do anything other than let the reader draw their own conclusions, so why tell them they should interpret it the way we do? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters, Toronto Sun both use the word "ridicule", @NewsAndEventsGuy. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite agree with NewsAndEventsGuy's comment. Encyclopaedias regularly explain whys as well as whats. A Wikipedia article has to be understandable to the reader, indeed to a reader far removed from events who doesn't any context (WP:PCR). Yes, we must avoid original research: the whys have to come from reliable sources. But we should have whys. Bondegezou (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we have RSs for "ridicule", I could live with it, though inline attribution for who thinks that's what it means would be even better. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous IP address recently removed said content from the article however I restored it. MB298 (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, never mind. MB298 (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Blaine Cooper

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Discussion has moved to AFD in this thread. Please add your comments there.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Blaine Cooper Per WP:BLP1E. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Automatic archiving

Has anyone noticed that although there are multiple sections of this talk page that are more than 7 days old, that many of them have not been properly archived? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about the archiving process as well. Could some of the manual archiving change the timestamps of some of the sections that haven't yet been archived? ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My efforts at some (hopefully sensible) WP:Refactoring will have changed some (such as moving and indenting under higher level section headings) but simply taking out some here and some there for manual archiving should have left the untouched ones untouched. That's what's happened to me in the past, anyway. And speaking of past, many times I've run across archiving that seems to be asleep. I've always asked for someone else to fix, and someone who knew what they were doing came along and did so. That's all I know. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Someone a lot smarter than me has fixed this, I think. Thanks John. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I just bumped the archiving back to 2 days to clear out some of the old discussions. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

Is Category:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge necessary? Do all of the articles within the category even belong to each of the parent categories? I can certainly see how all of these entries are related, but I'm not sure a category is necessary to group them together. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, let's resolve status of the listed articles. Frankly, I think each listed article should go to WP:Articles for deletion with a proposal to merge to this article. After that we can take stock. If, as I suspect, the cat is empty then there should be no controversy about deleting it, but if there is still a question at that point it would be best debated at WP:Categories for deletion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you intend, as you seem to have indicated, to nominate all articles in this CAT for AfD, please observe criterion #6 of WP:AFDEQ for the convenience of other editors. LavaBaron (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue strongly that Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (included in this category) NOT be merged here. The location had significance and history long before the standoff, and will continue to be independently relevant after this affair has ended. As summarized at WP:NGEO, "Places with protected status (e.g. protected areas, national heritage sites, cultural heritage sites) and named natural features, with verifiable information beyond simple statistics are presumed to be notable." Any thought that this NWR is notable only in the context of these events is recentism, and the current summary approach utilized in this article is sufficient. Thanks - Antepenultimate (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries there. I'm pretty sure that would be a snowball close. And I apologize for inadvertently suggesting differently when I said "all" the articles in the cat should be merged/redir'd here. And for that matter, I have subsequently been persuaded to change my mind about the sheriff's article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping it was just an oversight and there was no real intent to merge that article. No need to apologize, but thanks for clarification! Antepenultimate (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I created the category because I thought the notability and scope of the event and the presence of multiple related articles warranted one. However, I am not opposed to merging and/or deleting the other articles into the main one. Parsley Man (talk) 03:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

¡ATTENTION! Do Not Purge Content After a Merge Consensus

Blaine Cooper was blanked and redirected [18] in violation of the decision issued by Davey2010 in this AfD, which found a consensus for merge. I have undid the redirect. As per WP:MERGE, there are two elements to a merger: (a) merging of content, (b) establishing a redirect. No content was merged by NewsAndEventsGuy to Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, the page was blanked and a redirect placed.
I note NewsAndEventsGuy has been invoking the consensus ruling in this case as some kind-of carte blanche to allow him to ride roughshod over several other articles by engaging in "Guerilla Deletions" through process of blank and redirect, sans discussion. For example [19], etc. These articles are currently under discretionary sanctions under the U.S. Politics case and have attracted a high volume of disruptive editors engaging in unilateral, undiscussed, and substantial changes similar to these, usually to remove or obfuscate sourced material. I'm certain this was a combination of innocent error and over-exuberance by NewsAndEventsGuy and protective action is not required, however, editors are nonetheless encouraged to exercise moderation and caution when making substantive changes on these articles rather than playing it "fast and loose." If you want an article deleted, the place to do that is (a) file an AfD, (b) get an admin to recognize a consensus in said AfD and delete the article. "Guerilla deletions" (blank and redirect) are strongly advised against in this, and related, articles. I will be conducting a proper merge at this time by creating a "biographies" (or similar) section and moving the content from Blaine Cooper into it prior to redirecting the page. LavaBaron (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I have moved the content from Blaine Cooper to this article in a section called "Key Persons" and am now redirecting the Cooper article, as per WP:MERGE. I don't really like the heading or its placement, so I encourage anyone to brainstorm a more readable solution that preserves the spirit of the merge consensus. LavaBaron (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LavaBaron - I apologize for having to revert your note on the AFD, I should've moved it here so my apologies for that, I screwed everything up like a total moron , Anyways thanks for merging it all. –Davey2010Talk 20:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's no problem, Davey2010, this was the more appropriate place to leave it, I think your revert was correct. LavaBaron (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How a merge is executed is subjective, and open to debate. In my view, the best info from that page to merge here was sourcing that named him a leader, and I "merged" that into the infobox, then executed the redir per consensus. If someone else thinks other material should have also been merged here, that's great, as I said in my comments some place. Remember to AGF. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's really not.
First, preserving the references only, while purging all content from a 235-word article does not satisfy the description of what a merge is by a reasonable person's standard. Not to mention, of course, that most mergers require a rough consensus about which content should be merged. The nature of these articles, which have become so incendiary that the rare measure of protecting the Talk page recently had to be invoked, do not realistically put them into that category of mergers that decisionmaking about content preservation can be done BOLDly.
Second, don't AGF me. As you know, I kindly said in my OP I'm certain this was a combination of innocent error and over-exuberance by NewsAndEventsGuy. Shotgunning out AGF warnings after I politely offered that caveat can only be construed as an indicator that you are here to stir-up drama, particularly in light of your combative comments to constructive feedback elsewhere. LavaBaron (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After the snow close, it seemed appropriate to rely on BRD to find out what "rough consensus" on what to merge would look like. And that's precisely what happened. I was bold, you reverted and tweaked. OK, move on... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus was to merge. There was an option to redirect and it failed. The consensus was to merge. You violated the closure decision and redirected instead of merging. WP:BOLD is not a wild card that lets you ramrod your way through a consensus decision to impose your preferred edit on the community. I didn't "revert and tweak", I painstakingly undid your vandalism. LavaBaron (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A moment ago, I found this useful essay about voting "merge" at AFD. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats - LavaBaron (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Raw Story at RSN and story re women and children beside the Bundy forces

FYI, I am asking about the RS quality of an article relevant to this article at the RSN. Opine over there in this thread if you like. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image Placement

Customarily we stagger images right/left on pages. That's how it used to be here and is allowed and recognized by WP:IMGLOC. Recently someone has pushed everything to the right. High traffic articles tend to attract some of the OCD/Aspergers editors at WP (I'm not saying that's who did that in this case, I didn't look into the edit history to know, this is just a casual observation). Because editors with this condition sometimes have involuntary requirements to align images, etc., I find it's helpful to have a clear community consensus about placement before corrective changes are made. Question: Should we left/right stagger images or keep everything shoved to the right? LavaBaron (talk)

I changed the placement for Blaine Cooper's image from the left to the right purely for formatting reasons. MB298 (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that was a fine edit, the image didn't work where it was at. My concern was more with the other ones someone else did. LavaBaron (talk) 04:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3rd option We shouldn't adopt a compulsory rule, as circumstances often arise in which a variety of image layout patterns makes for the best engaged reading. So I'd say... it's a mighty lame thing to edit war about, and we should trust each other's judgment. Also, one issue is when text gets revised, often it takes awhile to realize the impact the revision has on image layout. And then even longer to fix problems. Editor judgment and patience is far better than a hard and fast rule. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DefendYourBase.net?

The Guardian [20] has positively identified defendyourbase.net as the occupiers semi-official website. Should we include this in an external links section? I'm a little torn. I'm veering toward 'include'; we include URLs for The Pirate Bay and KickAss.to so for reasons of consistency I think it would be hard to exclude this. Thoughts? (Even if we don't include it, I'm going to email the address associated with it and ask the militants to add Creative Commons licensed images to Flickr so we can get some more pictures in this spartan article.) LavaBaron (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure we should be linking their website direct, definitely not assisting them directly with their PR campaign. That's a good way to get ALL sorts of bad legal entanglements to wikipedia. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think we need to worry about WP getting into "legal entanglements" over a hyperlink. As for "assisting", our job is not to assist but neither is it to disrupt. We simply report facts. As per WP:ELOFFICIAL, we can provide external links outside the article body to an official website if we are reasonably certain the link is controlled by the subject (regardless of how ridiculous the content of said site might be). I think a discussion as to whether or not we provide this link should focus on whether that "official" standard is met in this case, not whether or not Jimbo will be Gitmoed if we link to it. LavaBaron (talk) 04:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I've PM'ed them through one of the social media links on this website asking them to add some CC-BY-3.0 photos to Flickr. Hopefully they follow-through so we can have a little broader range of pictures to sort through than my crappy map and the stock photos. LavaBaron (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unless someone can point to an applicable policy, I agree with Lava.... if it really is their website then we should include it in the external links. I usually skip "obviously" but in this case..... absent a policy based reason to exclude it..... obviously. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't immediately find any relevant policy. There was Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant/Archive_13#Official_website_external_link_and_accurate_flag that asked whether to add ISIS's official website to their article, but that stalled because the website went down. Equally Talk:Ku_Klux_Klan/Archive_7#Main_Site_as_external_link. foundered on the question of which modern KKK group should be linked to. Something like Imperial Klans of America does have a link given to their site. So we do link to official sites of some unpleasant groups. Bondegezou (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Occupiers" vs "Militants"

Most of the sources being used in the article refer to the group as "Militants", but several editors are continually changing references based on those sources to "Occupiers" instead. Starting a discussion here - As I read WP policy, we're supposed to match our language to the sources and not go off on WP:OR or WP:SYNTH-worthy WP:WEASEL changes that can render the wikipedia verbage unsupported by the sources. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent link and resource with good guidance, Paul H.. (Hopefully we don't have to edit the entire article to refer to them as "troublemakers" now, though - j/k). LavaBaron (talk) 05:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Occupiers" - The word "militants" sounds like editorial material. As the source Paul H. courteously provided says, "militant" is a stronger word than "protester". But it really doesn't look like anything strong is happening over there at the moment. Sure, there's some harassment of local residents going on, but it honestly looks more like pushing than shoving to me. "Militant" also implies a terrorist motive or an active battleground to me because of the strong connotation of that word, and none of the requirements for either are obviously present. Parsley Man (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Militant These aren't unarmed college kids doing a sit-on at the dean's office. In the "rump militia" debate elsewhere on this talk page, no one is suggesting "armed occupiers", and as Prostetnic says, there is abundant use of "militant" in the RSs. It is also the word Harney County is using on their government web page. If they were unarmed, then sure, "occupier" would be apt. Unlike those college kids at their sit-in, the only reason there is a patina of calm at the refuge is because the law is playing it cool. If that weren't the case, we'd be seeing the "occupiers" doing a lot more gun pointing and militaryesque deployments. Being not shy about brandishing their weapons, mere "occupier" is not accurate. Oh yeah.... and even if it's calm now, they launched with declarations of battle willingness. You'd holster or shoulder your weapon too after hours of nothing. Those things get heavy after awhile. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re NPR, notice that the piece we're talking about was published Jan 9 and concluded that time will tell what they should be called. So here's what NPR has done since (if I overlooked any please add them)-
And I hope someone reads all of these to verify that I didn't miss any use of individual words. If I did it was an accident. Double check me!
Seems like NPR is going "militant". Gee, I sound like Rush! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should we say anything more about Public Lands Privatization and demand feds cede ownership?

I am having a lot of trouble with the general narrative being told in the lead and "background" sections. Seems to me that we're placing all the emphasis on the Day 1 rhetoric from Bundy's forces that this was just about the Hammond Arson case. Many sources are talking about their demand that the feds cede ownership of the refuge, and others are relating that demand to a broader demand that the feds privatize all the Federal land in the west. I attempted to start adding this element but was reverted with claims it was Original Research. So let's talk about it. In the table below, Option A is text from this version which is now the current one and Option B is my reverted text, with small tweaks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Option A revised after a complaint about my initial presentation
Lead first paragraph On January 2, 2016, armed anti-government members of rump militias occupied the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in protest of the pending imprisonment of ranchers Dwight Hammond and his son, Steven Hammond.[1][2] The two were convicted on charges of arson in 2012 for unlawfully setting fire to federal land under a domestic anti-terrorism law after setting brush fires to clear grazing land without the required permit.[3] Ammon Bundy, the leader of the group now calling themselves Citizens for Constitutional Freedom, said he began leading the occupation after receiving a divine message ordering him to do so.[4][5] The militant group has also stated that local people should control use of federal land.[6]
Public Lands Privatization Addressed in last sentence of the lead first paragraph, above, and omitted from body
Option B
Lead first sentence (split due to length) On January 2, 2016, armed anti-government members of rump militias occupied the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. They have demanded a transfer of ownership of the refuge to private interests, more lenient sentences for two area ranchers convicted of arson, and an inquiry into whether the government is forcing ranchers off their land.[7][8][9]
Public Lands Privatization New subsection under existing "Background" section Since at least the 1940s, there has been pressure on the federal government to liquidate its extensive holdings of public lands (e.g., national forests, national parks, acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management, etc.)[10] In the 1970s, advocates of privatization mounted a renewed effort known as the "Sagebrush Rebellion", and for a time in the 1980s as the "Wise Use Movement".[11] At least 11 states have explored the possibility of taking back federally-managed public lands in recent years,[12] and the militants' occupation of the refuge is fueling the debate.[13][14] (section could have been expanded upon re the refuge specifically but for the reversion)
Option C Other. If you really mean A or B with tweaks, please say that. If you have an entirely new idea, please be specific and include RSs

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially identical pings to this discussion have been left at a number of talk pages, based on geogrpahy, and casting hopefully a wide topical net, from Sovereign Cit Movement to US Cattlemen's Assoc to Sierra Club. For full list see my contribs. The more civil diversity the merrier, of whatever stripe. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Option B as author and because...
1. Although WP:LEAD text is supposed to summarize the body of the article there is no section talking about private land privatization generally or specifically related to the refuge. All we have is the naked generalized sentence in Option A's lead, with neither context, reasoning, nor history.
2. More reasons and sources forthcoming NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the closed discussion is truly closed the pointer should go to the open items in the "original research" section. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A - First, this level of detail (Option B) on background is wholly inappropriate as per WP:DETAIL. Second, Option B cites sources from 10 years ago for an event occurring in 2015-2016. While there may be valid connections, it's WP:OR to construct this history which is more appropriate for a book or a MA thesis. If this level and depth of background is necessary it will be covered in current sources, in direct reference to the current event. That said, this might be appropriate for a standalone article and I'd suggest the author pursue that instead. Finally, it appears we're not even seeing all of Option B because it was "split due to length?" If this is a consensus discussion, Option B only as presented above is an option for !vote and a consensus for Option B will only result in what is presented above as the agreed text. This isn't a shell game and we don't ask people to blindly weigh-in on "redacted" text. LavaBaron (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lava,
(1) Too detailed= IJUSTDONTLIKE, and as further support for this view the closer will hopefully compare this short proposed Land Privatization paragraph of Option B with the existing subsections under "background". Such comparison will show the proposed subsection isn't substantively more detailed than any other, and a heap less than that about Hammonds case.
(2) OR based on date-of-RS Is just silly. "Option B cites sources from 10 years ago for an event occurring in 2015-2016" Applying that logic we have to delete the entire story of Hammonds arson trial, all of which took place prior to the occupation. The reason that would be absurd is that the story of Hammond's arson, lit in 2001 for reasons which had been brewing earlier, is relevant to the background section. Same goes for the organized calls to liquidate [federal land]] which Bundy is seriously plugged into. If sources tie Bundy's present action to this public lands transfer history, and they do, then some sources which explain that history are right on point, whether they were written this month or not. Finally, you are pounding the table about 2016 sources. Sorry. The refs in this version, we find
  • 1997 (27)
  • 2010 (30, 55)
  • 2012 (29,31,36,41) etc
Do you want to claim the text supported by those is OR also?
(3) Your real beef seems to be relevance rather than OR, but your relevance claim is based on publication date, which we have dealt with.
(4) "Split"... oh right. That is a leftover from the first version that was revised. Initially I was trying to talk about the "first sentence" except option B ended up being split due to length. That's all. I should have also explained that Option B's text is what I was proposing for the entire first paragraph, though I have no objection to retaining some of the Hammonds details in a subsequent paragraph.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Just. Wow. Do you actually expect many editors to read your WP:WALLOFTEXT in support of inserting a Wall of Text into the article? LavaBaron (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Refs for discussion of Public Lands Privatization

References

  1. ^ Petty, Terrence; Valdes, Manuel (January 6, 2016). "Oregon Tribe: Armed Group 'Desecrating' Their Land". ABC News.
  2. ^ Moore, Wanda; Lerten, Barney (January 3, 2016). "Harney County sheriff urges others not to join refuge 'militants'". KTVZ. Retrieved January 9, 2016.
  3. ^ Denison, Bryan (October 7, 2015). "Controversial Oregon ranchers in court Wednesday, likely headed back to prison in arson case". The Oregonian. Retrieved January 5, 2016.
  4. ^ Binder, Melissa (January 4, 2016). "Oregon militants: Why the Bundys' Mormonism matters". The Oregonian. Retrieved January 4, 2016.
  5. ^ "Mormon Faith Serves As Powerful Symbol For Oregon Protesters". NPR. January 4, 2016. Retrieved January 8, 2016.
  6. ^ Petty, Terrence; Valdes, Manuel (January 6, 2016). "Oregon Tribe: Armed Group 'Desecrating' Their Land". ABC News. Retrieved January 6, 2016.
  7. ^ Fantz, Ashley (6 January 2016). "Oregon standoff: What the armed group wants and why". CNN. Retrieved 12 January 2016.
  8. ^ Moore, Wanda; Lerten, Barney (January 3, 2016). "Harney County sheriff urges others not to join refuge 'militants'". KTVZ. Retrieved January 9, 2016.
  9. ^ Petty, Terrence; Valdes, Manuel (January 6, 2016). "Oregon Tribe: Armed Group 'Desecrating' Their Land". ABC News.
  10. ^ De Voto, Bernard Augustine (2005). Muller, Edward K. (ed.). DeVoto's West: history, conservation, and the public good. Swallow Press/Ohio University Press. p. 108-109. Mr. Brock's article also revealed that his committee's immediate aim was to transfer the Taylor Act grazing lands to private ownership, and as soon as possible, to do the same with grazing lands in national parks, national forests, and national monuments.
  11. ^ Gorte, Ross W.; Vincent, Carol Hardy; Hanson, Laura A.; Rosenblum, Marc R. (February 8, 2012). "Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data" (PDF). Table 1. Federal Land by State, 2010. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved January 14, 2016.
  12. ^ Chokshi, Niraj. "The Oregon standoff is far bigger than a group of armed men in a refuge". The Washington Post. No. January 4, 2016. Retrieved January 14, 2016.
  13. ^ Sepulvado, John (January 12, 2016). "How Refuge Occupation Could Fuel Land Privatization Movement". Oregon Public Broadcasting. Retrieved January 14, 2016.
  14. ^ Kuglin, Tom (January 13, 2016). "Oregon occupation reignites federal land transfer debate in Montana". The Missoulian. Retrieved January 14, 2016.


Closed discussion

Hi NewsAndEventsGuy, what you've done above, by leaving out the majority of the first paragraph, is created somewhat of a false narrative. In order for editors to be able to evaluate your proposal effectively, they first need to be able to see the first paragraph in its entirety.

First paragraph of the lead
On January 2, 2016, armed anti-government members of rump militias occupied the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in protest of the pending imprisonment of ranchers Dwight Hammond and his son, Steven Hammond.[1][2] The two were convicted on charges of arson in 2012 for unlawfully setting fire to federal land under a domestic anti-terrorism law after setting brush fires to clear grazing land without the required permit.[3] Ammon Bundy, the leader of the group now calling themselves Citizens for Constitutional Freedom, said he began leading the occupation after receiving a divine message ordering him to do so.[4][5] The militant group has also stated that local people should control use of federal land.[6]

References

  1. ^ Petty, Terrence; Valdes, Manuel (January 6, 2016). "Oregon Tribe: Armed Group 'Desecrating' Their Land". ABC News.
  2. ^ Moore, Wanda; Lerten, Barney (January 3, 2016). "Harney County sheriff urges others not to join refuge 'militants'". KTVZ. Retrieved January 9, 2016.
  3. ^ Denison, Bryan (October 7, 2015). "Controversial Oregon ranchers in court Wednesday, likely headed back to prison in arson case". The Oregonian. Retrieved January 5, 2016.
  4. ^ Binder, Melissa (January 4, 2016). "Oregon militants: Why the Bundys' Mormonism matters". The Oregonian. Retrieved January 4, 2016.
  5. ^ "Mormon Faith Serves As Powerful Symbol For Oregon Protesters". NPR. January 4, 2016. Retrieved January 8, 2016.
  6. ^ Petty, Terrence; Valdes, Manuel (January 6, 2016). "Oregon Tribe: Armed Group 'Desecrating' Their Land". ABC News. Retrieved January 6, 2016.

I've gone ahead and bolded the last sentence of the current lead to show that there is currently mention of local control. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it that way, but I'll be glad to fix. Hold on a sec.... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary, let this discussion unfold as it is. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was. Chaos is fatal to meaningful consensus. Suggest we agree instead to delete this subsection you started with all comments from both of us. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC) And by the way, if we erase for sake of building consensus I'm not trying to trick or tie anyone's hands if they try to use the matter against me sometime down the road. It's all in version hist after all so they can have at me all they want. Let's just mop the floor for the discussion, please. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. This is not "chaos" as you call it but part of the necessary discussion. You should not have gone back and changed your original entry but that's your prerogative. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Original research

Hi NewsAndEventsGuy, the suspected reason why another editor accused you of WP:Original research is due to these sources: [1][2]

References

  1. ^ De Voto, Bernard Augustine (2005). Muller, Edward K. (ed.). DeVoto's West: history, conservation, and the public good. Swallow Press/Ohio University Press. p. 108-109. Mr. Brock's article also revealed that his committee's immediate aim was to transfer the Taylor Act grazing lands to private ownership, and as soon as possible, to do the same with grazing lands in national parks, national forests, and national monuments.
  2. ^ Gorte, Ross W.; Vincent, Carol Hardy; Hanson, Laura A.; Rosenblum, Marc R. (February 8, 2012). "Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data" (PDF). Table 1. Federal Land by State, 2010. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved January 14, 2016.

As can be seen, removal of these 2 sources would drastically change/limit Option B above. As can also be seen, the first source is from 2005 and the second source is from 2012, long before this current event took place. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was just about to do that myself, from ver history. I'll reply later. Signing off for awhile. While I sleep, I'm hopeful you will take time to explain a bit. First, references by themselves are not OR. The problem is how they are used. So I don't understand your quibble with the De Voto book. The text I wrote is supported by the ref. At Sagebrush rebellion (which I point to for discussion only) there is a section about congressional attention, and there we find reference to this transfer agitation producing (unpopular) bills in congress back then. So the text I wrote is reflective of the De Voto book, which you don't challenge as non RS. The only question I can see is how the text I wrote on the basis of the DeVoto book is related to this article. That's not OR, its relevance. So I'm confused and hope you will educate me. What's wrong with "Since the 1940's....blah blah" (cite DeVoto)? Good night. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi NewsAndEventsGuy, hopefully the other editor who cited WP:OR will see this and chime in. In the meantime, I highly recommend you remove this sentence (and an inquiry into whether the government is forcing ranchers off their land) from Option B --- Per WP:Weight, this issue has not been covered anywhere near as much as the situation involving rancher Dwight Hammond and should not be in the lead. Have a good sleep. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for collapsing the other part, and your suggestion to drop their inquiry demand is a good idea. As I ponder the lack of recent sources I note that they are really pushing the Sovereign Citizen / fed-free county thing, so maybe they realized that asking the gov't they are trying to boot out to do an inquiry could be taken as an acknowledgement of that govt's authority. I'm speculating of course but that seems a plausible reason for the disappearance of the issue from the more recent RSs. I agree, that part should go. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Abort Proposal

Should the proposal on this Talk page titled "Should we say anything more about Public Lands Privatization and demand feds cede ownership?" be aborted?

Survey

  • Support Abort The proposal is indecipherably complex. It appears to involve the replacement of three sentences (I think, honestly not even sure) but uses a 14-cell table, dynamic and mid-discussion changes by the proposer through multiple strikeouts and red text, WP:WALLOFTEXT by proposer, invectives declaring respondents opinions "silly", and a variety of footnotes containing corollaries and caveats to the proposal. I suggest it be aborted without prejudice for its reintroduction in a more comprehensible form. Work on this high-traffic page is proceeding nicely with a good degree of comradery among the regular editors and the unexpected introduction of Chewbacca Defense discussion methods is somewhat disruptive, albeit I'm sure unintentionally so. LavaBaron (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge&oldid=700157481"