Talk:Bundy standoff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


This is indeed an elaborate article. Why? THe standoff was a minor footnote in history yet it has more words to its page than: John Adams or the NIV version of the Bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC) Good point. Much of the article is also biased against the Bundys; some of that material could be usefully deleted. Starchild (talk) 04:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Question of whether Info box and links to court findings, briefs, etc. should be moved to articles on the court cases[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Split proposal - Bundy standoff and Bundy-BLM dispute[edit]

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

Proposal: Split the entire article into: 1) Bundy standoff, and 2) Bundy-BLM dispute. The wp:splitting guidelines on splitting an article are: 1) it's long, 2) the content seems to cover multiple, related topics. This article seems to fit both of those. It's difficult for readers to comfortably navigate the article, this talk page is unwieldy, and there are two distinct content areas: 1) the 20-year dispute/legal battle, and 2) the April 2014 protests/standoff. The former is about the fees, filings and court orders; the latter is about guard dogs, stun-guns and the 1st Amendment. (Note: This proposal grew out of a previous discussion) Sparkie82 (tc) 03:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Sparkie82 (tc) 07:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

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

The proposal has been up for just a few hours. Let's get more comments and discussion from a wider set of WP readers/editors. I'm sure those who have quickly opposed the proposal are acting in good faith and are willing to change their minds upon further discussion. Sparkie82 (tc) 17:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now. The page is long, but not unmanageable in its length, and I doubt that the Bundy-BLM dispute is notable independent of the standoff. bd2412 T 17:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose and agree with BD2412 and others. Bundy is only noted because of the standoff. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Re notability: Prior to the standoff the dispute may or may not have had significant press coverage to gain notability, however, when the standoff happened, the press gave significant coverage to both the long-standing dispute and the protest. For purposes of determining notability, it does not matter what the motivations are as to why the press has decided to give significant coverage to a story, only that there has been significant coverage. The 20-year dispute meets the criterion of WP:N for notability. The term "independence" "independent" in the guideline relates to the independence of the sources from the subject, not to the subject's coverage being independent from the coverage of other subjects. Sparkie82 (tc) 23:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. There is clearly no split needed at this time. This article is not too long given the complexity and long timeline of the topic. We should at least wait for the result of the AfD on the closely related article Bundy militia before considering a split here, and it may also be best to wait for the media circus to die down as Cwobeel said. At that point, it may be worth considering a split, but I think, as others do, that it would be very difficult to establish notability for the dispute independent of the standoff. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree we should wait. Let's keep this proposal open for a couple of weeks. The AfD will probably have been decided in that time-frame. And by then maybe the smoke will have cleared somewhat and there will be more comments here other than objections based on recentism. Sparkie82 (tc) 23:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The two are fundamentally one and the same. The standoff wouldn't exist absent the legal case. I also oppose the construction "Bundy-BLM dispute" - if renamed to anything, it should be United States v. Bundy, in accordance with other Wikipedia articles about legal cases. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per Cwobeel, RedSoxFan2434, and Sparkie82. There's nothing to be lost, and perhaps perspective to be gained, in allowing the dust to settle for a month or two before making the decision. --ChetvornoTALK 18:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. Per Cwobeel, RedSoxFan2434, and Sparkie82. The entire mess is about Bundy's claims that were dismissed by the courts and we don't need to create additional articles to cover one incident of criminal mischief.Wzrd1 (talk) 16:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Per Sparkie82??? I agree with Cwobeel et. al. that it's probably too soon to consider a split. We can try again in a few weeks when folks can be more objective about it. Sparkie82 (tc) 18:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Accurate half truths[edit]

The second paragraph at present reads

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

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

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

Jerad Miller[edit]

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

Las Vegas "revolution"[edit]

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

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

  1. ^ Cynthia Johnston (2014-06-09). "Killers of Las Vegas cops harbored anti-government ideology". Reuters. 
  2. ^ a b c Michelle Rindels and Martin Griffith (2014-06-09). "Bundy's Son: Las Vegas Shooters Kicked off Ranch". Associated Press via ABC News. 
  3. ^ Michael Pearson, Saeed Ahmed and Kevin Conlon (2014-06-09). "Source: Possible 'manifesto' found in Las Vegas shootings". CNN. 
  4. ^ Mike Blasky and Colton Lochhead (2014-06-09). "Indiana couple who killed Las Vegas police also had plans to attack courts". Las Vegas Review-Journal. 
  5. ^ a b "Nevada rancher versus the federal government: Who’s in the right?". Aljazeera America. 2014-04-22. 
  6. ^ "Video Emerges of Vegas Cop Killer Jerad Miller Speaking at Bundy Ranch". Mediaite. 2014-06-09. 
  7. ^ David Corn, Dana Liebelson, and Asawin Suebsaeng (2014-06-09). "The Chilling Anti-Government, Cliven Bundy-Loving Facebook Posts of the Alleged Las Vegas Shooters". Mother Jones. 
  8. ^ Reid Wilson (2014-06-09). "Interior Secretary Jewell connects Las Vegas shooting to Bundy ranch". Washington Post. 

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

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

Millers murders[edit]

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

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

extra source?[edit]

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

It shows that the goverment's re-filing of the 2012 case was done at the urging and request of the Clark County Sheriff's Office. This is an important fact given Gillespie's dereliction of duty in the 2014 confrontation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Bundy's comment about blacks and slavery[edit]

Bundy's comments about blacks have nothing to do with the standoff, let alone worthy of mention in the summary, of which a significant portion is devoted. This article is titled: Bundy Standoff. It should remain true to its title. I'm disappointed the summary isn't allowed to be edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2:5880:0:68BC:309D:1BC3:7FAA (talk) 04:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

It was later revealed that the New York Times had selectively edited his speech, taking it out of context and focusing on Mr. Bundy's use of the word "Negro". I feel this should be noted, preferably after the last line in the opening which does appear to be of hostile intent to sour the reader's opinion of the subject before even reading the article. (talk) 02:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree to the extent that it shouldn't be included in the lede, but should be included in the body.Skberry889 (talk) 11:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Why should it be included in the body if it has nothing to do with the standoff? Starchild (talk) 04:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Those citations though[edit]

This page has four [citation needed] notes, and yet in the intro there are eight citations for one paragraph. Maybe we could move some of them down below where we need more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:F00:19E:8199:27AA:529E:2C51 (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Mass grave?[edit]

Why no mention of the mass grave of dead cattle, (allegedly healthy cattle killed by BLM) that was found and dug up. There are multiple videos of it and dozens, if not hundreds of articles on it as well; one example found here. This is oddly absent from the article... - theWOLFchild 04:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Is the Bundy family history really relevant?[edit]

It's three paragraphs of family history that is neither important to the article or even on a wider historical scale. The article is already far too long as it is, so I believe this is a good candidate for deletion. 2602:304:CEEE:B700:485A:30F1:721C:45EB (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Should Cliven Bundy biographical material be split?[edit]

Cliven Bundy currently redirects to this article, which serves partly as a biographical article for Bundy. That's typical for people known only for one event, especially when that event is a matter of controversy. However, there is news now that Bundy's sons may be involved in another violent land dispute, although Cliven Bundy himself may not be. Should the material on Mr. Bundy's life outside the land dispute be split out to a full Cliven Bundy article? I'm in favor of a split, for the record, but I'd like to see what others think.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Support split per nom. MB298 (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
"Support" split, suggest the new article be titled to refer to the Bundy Family rather than just Bundy himself as I suspect it will soon be filled with more information on his sons current activities. (talk) 05:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Support - I too like the idea of a Bundy Family page. I believe Ammon Bundy is carrying the torch of his group and will deserve his own page soon, so a Family page seems apt for both Cliven and Ammon, et al. Leitmotiv (talk) 07:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose for now the topic is in the news cycle again, very difficult to get anything done in a fluid atmosphere and complexity increases with multiple articles to maintain. See also several failed split proposals above. 009o9 (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Subsequent mall shooting[edit]

The mall shooting two weeks later, perpetrated by two of the people involved with the stand-off. Why isn't this mentioned in the article? Am I missing something? --RThompson82 (talk) 09:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe that it was in at one time and reevaluated. The only connection turned out to be that they were asked to leave the Bundy Ranch and nothing places them at the standoff, only the ranch afterward. Las Vegas Shooting Couple Had Been Booted From Bundy Ranch as 'Too Radical' (ABCNews) 009o9 (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

name of the article is terrible[edit]

Certainly isn't how it is referred to any news report I've read. Let's get something more encyclopedic? (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Updating unclear dates[edit]

Several sections of this article say things like "still" and "In April" without giving a date when it was written. April when? April 2015? Needs to be edited. (And I suggest avoiding using unclear language like this when adding dates here in future edits, and elsewhere on wikipedia.) I don't know enough about the details of this case to feel confident about editing, hopefully someone who knows more can clean things up. (talk) 05:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The infobox (top right of the article) clearly states "Confrontation: April 5, 2014 – May 2014". These are likely also the dates of the BLM closure for the trespass cattle roundup. The word "still" occurs one time in the article body, but is not in context to a date and "In April" only occurs one time, in the section heading "5 Confrontations and protests in April 2014". I agree that the article is a train wreck, but not seeing where you are having a problem with identifying a year. 009o9 (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Permits section[edit]

There is information missing on why Bundy refused to renew his grazing permit. The article is currently getting tens of thousands of reads per day, I'm not interested in getting involved in a bunch of drama with a bold edit. I just thought I'd leave this here for review/consensus/historical -- this can certainly wait until the news cycle goes elsewhere. 009o9 (talk) 06:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Permits section
Under Bureau of Land Management permits first issued in 1954, Bundy grazed his cattle legally and paid his grazing fees on the Bunkerville Allotment until 1993. In that year, the BLM reduced his permit to 150 head of cattle for the coming decade on the 158,666 acre allotment, in protest, Bundy did not renew his permit. [1] Bundy's refusal paved the way for Clark County to purchase all of the Gold Butte allotment grazing permits for $375,000, which where then retired,[2] as authorized by the Clark County Habitat Conversation Plan, of which the BLM became a signatory of in 1991.[3] In an April 9, 2014, town-hall meeting with fellow residents, Bundy stated: "I know without doubt that our Constitution didn't provide for anything like the federal government owning this land, and so when I pay my grazing fees -- if I owe any grazing fees -- I will sure pay it to the right landlord, and that will be to Clark County, Nevada."[4][5]

The BLM made several attempts to have Bundy renew the permit, the rancher declared that he no longer recognized the BLM's authority to regulate his grazing and he asserted that he had "vested rights" to graze cattle on the land.[6] He also claims that the remedy to the government is to provide a fence, as per Nevada State Law.[7][8][9] Federal courts have consistently ruled against Bundy, finding that he is a trespasser with no right to graze on federal land and authorized the BLM to remove his cattle and levy damages for unauthorized use.[6][10]

Bundy has since accumulated more than $1 million of unpaid grazing fees and court-ordered fines.[11][12] The Portland Oregonian newspaper reported in May 2014 that the amount that Bundy owed stood in "stark contrast" to the situation in Oregon, where just 45 of the state's roughly 1,100 grazing permit holders collectively owed $18,759 in past-due payments to the BLM.[13] Excluding Bundy's unpaid fees, the total of all late grazing fees owed nationwide to the BLM was only $237,000, the newspaper said.[14]

  1. ^ HENRY BREAN (25 March 2014). "Bunkerville rancher vows to resist federal roundup of his cattle". Las Vegas Review-Journal. Archived from the original on 7 January 2016. Retrieved 7 January 2016. 
  2. ^ Becket Adams (13 April 2014). "Is Harry Reid Involved? Seven Answers to Seven Questions You’re Probably Asking Right Now About the Nevada Rancher Situation". The Blaze. Retrieved 7 January 2016. 
  3. ^ Gayle Marrs-Smith (22 April 2013). "Notice of Proposed Decision Arrow Canyon, Arrow Canyon in Battleship Wash, and White Basin Allotments" (PDF). Bureau of Land Management. Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 January 2016. Retrieved 7 January 2016. 
  4. ^ Michael Martinez (12 April 2014). "Showdown on the range: Nevada rancher, feds face off over cattle grazing rights". CNN. Archived from the original on 7 January 2016. Retrieved 7 January 2016. 
  5. ^ Fuller, Jaime (April 15, 2014). "Everything you need to know about the long fight between Cliven Bundy and the federal government". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 15, 2014. 
  6. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference CourtOrder1998 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ "Nevada Grazing". Bureau of Land Management. Archived from the original on 7 January 2016. Retrieved 7 January 2016. 
  8. ^ Gary McCuin; Steve Foster (2010). "NEVADA OPEN RANGE LAW" (PDF). University of Nevada Cooperative Extension. Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 January 2016. Retrieved 7 January 2016. 
  9. ^ Logan Churchwell; Brandon Darby (12 April 2014). "The Saga of Bundy Ranch–Federal Power, Rule of Law and Averting Potential Bloodshed". Brietbart. Archived from the original on 7 January 2016. Retrieved 7 January 2016. 
  10. ^ Glionna, John. "BLM seizes cattle in range war with stubborn Nevada rancher". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved April 12, 2014. 
  11. ^ Nagourney, Adam (April 23, 2014). "A Defiant Rancher Savors the Audience That Rallied to His Side". The New York Times. Retrieved April 24, 2014. 
  12. ^ Martinez, Michael (April 10, 2014). "Showdown on the range: Nevada rancher, feds face off over cattle grazing rights". CNN. Retrieved April 10, 2014. 
  13. ^ Zaitz, Les (May 12, 2014). "Rancher Cliven Bundy's grazing debt has no equal among Oregon cattlemen". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on May 13, 2014. Retrieved May 13, 2014. Past-due bills owed by cattlemen for grazing on Oregon's federal lands aren't enough to cover the price of a new pick-up truck. The Bureau of Land Management said that as of late April 2014, 45 cattlemen owed a collective $18,759. And most of that is barely past due, with just two ranchers leaving their bills unpaid 60 days or more, considered a truly delinquent account in private business ... Jeff Clark, BLM public affairs officer in Portland, said the agency has 1,100 permit holders. 
  14. ^ Morgan, Whitaker (June 6, 2014). "Bundy owes the government more than all other ranchers combined". MSNBC. Retrieved June 7, 2014. Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy owes more money to the federal government for outstanding grazing fees than all other ranchers combined, according to the Bureau of Land Management. While Bundy owes more than a $1 million to the BLM, the total sum of all other late grazing fees totals a comparatively small $237,000, according to BLM data first reported by E&E News. 

Discussion of proposed changes to Permits section[edit]

I see why 009o9 wants to expand this section. There was an event that caused Bundy to stop applying for permits, viz: the BLM reduced the number of permitted cattle. What you wrote after that is an attempt to very briefly tell a confusing story. What I have gleaned is this sketchy knowledge:
  • It is a fragile environment with an endangered species.
  • The federal government and Clark County are collaborating on reducing the amount of grazing, the county buys up unused grazing rights and keeps them out of circulation.
  • The number of cows grazing is not well known. The government relies on aerial surveys. Bundy does not keep track, many of the cattle are not branded but Bundy claims them if they graze in the same areas as his branded ones.
From reading the references you provided that seems to me to be the gist of it. It is not clear to me how much of this story to put in this article, or even if I have it right. The references provide a jumble of particulars. And a better article would put this in context. Did the reduction to 150 cattle cover the entire land that Bundy used, or only a part? What do Bundy's complaints about a lack of a fence have to do with it? The jumble of geographic names don't seem to refer to disjoint entities. I completely agree with you about adding this. I also feel more work is needed to find the encyclopedia synopsis of the story. M.boli (talk) 13:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
@M.boli This is an extremely deep and interesting topic, at its core dating back to water-wars and the conflict between established cattle ranchers and nomadic sheep herders. What I've added above barely scratches the surface.
  • Bundy was the "last rancher standing" by his own accord, I believe there were over 20 grazing permits for the Gold Butte allotment, where all of the cattle co-mingled (open range). I haven't found a source, but I'd guess the prior grazing permits allowed between 500-1000 head of cattle, so it is likely the allotment has supported grazing for 10,000 to 20,000 head of cattle. I believe that the entire roundup yielded less than 400 cattle, regardless of brand and they were all returned to Bundy. 150 head of cattle, on 150,000 acres of land seems pretty prohibitive and since it takes 2 to 3 years for a steer to reach market-weight, 50 sales will not support a ranching operation.
  • Nevada's open land fence-out law applies to land owners who for instance want to keep open range cattle/horses out of their garden, it is the land owner's responsibility to provide a fence rather than sue the rancher. The reference I provided [8] from the University of Nevada Cooperative Extension is the most informative. The Federal government claims to own the land, but has also found that it is not bound the the state's fence-out law.
  • There are many terms in this debate which are used interchangeably, when in fact they are not. The "Public Lands" and the "Federal Lands" are two different terms, the public lands are unappropriated lands that are available for sale (disposal to pay the federal debt), this largely refers to the Homestead Act. The Federal Lands have been appropriated for some other purpose, this is important because the terms of Nevada's admittance to statehood (and the other western states) grant the unappropriated lands tax free status, with the understanding that they would become taxable when sold/appropriated. Additionally, the government relies on the Property clause Article Four, section 3, clause 2 for it's ownership claims, but the clause clearly uses the term "Territories". Nevada is no longer a territory, the Nevada Territory was divided into several states. Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution describes the the types of properties that the Federal government may own, but more important than that is that is that the clause names "where" the Fed has jurisdiction.[2] The State of Nevada has ceded jurisdiction to the government sites that concern "Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;", however, the parks and forests are absent from those state laws that cede jurisdiction, so it is understandable why the citizens of the state feel that the BLM and the Federal Courts have no jurisdiction over these lands within their state. Here is a pretty good overview, but way too much to include in this article. [3]009o9 (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Righto. Thank you muchly!
  • It seems to me it would be a useful addition to this article to explain about the economic pressure that was being put on Bundy by the decisions, that he was the last rancher, and so forth. Right now the article reads like his reaction to the 150 cattle restriction was an ideological decision. But if signing the lease 20 years ago would have put him out of business, it should be mentioned.
  • Similarly, the reason for the restrictions on grazing could also be mentioned. It's not like the government made up an arbitrary limit possibly for the express purpose of putting him out of business.
  • I wonder whether there is an existing Wikipedia article that covers most of the historical and legal context material? Maybe the grazing rights in Nevada article? If not, should there be one? And this material should be linked to in more places from this article?
M.boli (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Bundy militia's demand(s)[edit]

Regarding our article about the Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge please consider commenting at that article's talk page on the question "Should we say anything more about Public Lands Privatization and demand feds cede ownership?"NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Citations in the lead[edit]

Why are sources needed in the lead? The information is basically repeated in the rest of the article. Besides, a lead is a summary. (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

  • First, I don't understand the desire to take sources out of the lede. Material should be sourced, if you depend on people to search for the sources later in the article you are not doing them any favors. Especially in a long article like this.
  • Furthermore you are leaving open the possibility that when the other parts of the article are edited, the material in the lede is rendered sourceless.
  • I also note that this article is on a controversial and recent topic. WP:CITELEAD is pretty clear that these are good reasons to keep cites in the lede.
  • Personally, I favor the style which moves the cites to the end of sentences or several sentences. I understand that they somewhat break up the flow of the text.
On the other hand, I can see how what you are doing improves the reading experience. Which is a good thing to want to do. So maybe we can gather up the cites and put them at the ends of paragraphs? Or maybe I am just being too much of an academic. M.boli (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
@M.boli: Yes, this can work too, although the cites shouldn't only be in the lead. That is my main issue with the cites; otherwise, I am fine with them. (talk) 04:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Criminal complaint with all six charges[edit]

I don't have time to add all six charges to the standoff article, but FYI here is the criminal complaint. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that, but the indictment only covers Cliven Sr., by name. There were fourteen more arrests made, including of two more sons, after Ryan and Ammon's arrests in Oregon. I'll post the article. Also, I was under the impression that Cliven Jr. was in prison in Ely, NV, for burglary and other offenses, during the standoff, but he is listed in the infobox. Activist (talk) 08:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

RSs regarding LaVoy Finicum[edit]

We know that Finicum made reference to the standoff after it was over, but was he there or otherwise supporting the standoff at the time? Does anyone know of RSs to verify this? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Bundy standoff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Racism discussion in lede[edit]

I have reverted a bold edit by Bongey (talk · contribs) which removed from the lede a graf discussing Cliven Bundy's racist comments and the impact they had on his public support. I think it's worthy of being discussed in the lede precisely because they did cause many one-time supporters to distance themselves from Bundy. However, if there's a general consensus that the material doesn't belong there, I will of course yield to that determination, so let's discuss the subject here and see what other editors think. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Details in the body, concise summary in the lead. Wikipedia SOP NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Because it is hearsay/off topic. The problem is the comments were not said during the actual standoff, and the article is about the standoff.The standoff officially ended April 12, 2014. Comments were made sometime after that in a press conference about the stand off. --Bongey (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Stockman letter[edit]

Is there any reason whatsoever to discuss Congressman Steve Stockman's letter? Congressmen write letters on all manner of topics, and there is no reason to believe that this one is particularly significant. No reliable sources even covered the letter. And a letter is less significant if written by only one member (as opposed to letters signed by a number of members, which often do get noteworthy coverage). Neutralitytalk 19:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality: I reverted a recent deletion. The sourcing that had been tagged as "questionable" is from Western Journalism, a Christian conservative site that gets a million daily hits, and is focused on news. It's a subsidiary of Liftable Media, which notes it has a staff of 70 persons. The cited story contains a clear copy PDF of the actual letter sent by then-Representative, Christian conservative Steve Stockman (currently awaiting a trial on 28 counts of fraud and campaign finance violations rescheduled until January 2018) to president Obama and Interior Secretary Sally Jewell. There's nothing inherently unreliable about Western Journalism and the deleted text contained a phrase from the first paragraph of the widely quoted letter. Activist (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
The size of a publication's staff, the number of Internet hits, and a focus on news are all not relevant to reliability. ("Liftable Media" is also a self-described "a digital media company" rather than journalistic organization; the majority of their staff are presumably not reporters). (And this community college library-guide, for instance, indicates that "Western Journalism" propagates fake stories; this gives an example of the website promoting hoax stories.)
But in any case, the question is not just reliability (I don't doubt that Stockman genuinely wrote that letter), but WP:WEIGHT. This letter, from a single congressman, got no substantial coverage. I question how noteworthy it is on this topic. Maybe it is worthy of a mention at Steve Stockman, but not here. Neutralitytalk 19:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
The comments from Congressional delegations are pertinent on their own, I think, but reflect a broader national issue and stayed in the article for years. Reactions to the Bundy standoff marked a deep public opinion divide. Nevada Republican Governor Sandoval downplayed the legitimacy of the federal government's role in something as basic as managing public lands in the public interest. Harry Reid on the other hand accentuated it. Two out-of-state congressmen weighed in on the issue, supporting the Bundy's, including Charles Stewart from Utah and Steve Stockman from east Texas. The congressman in the District, Democrat Steve Horsford sided with the government in 2014 and lost his apparently secure seat to a weak Republican candidate that fall in which their positions on the standoff may have affected the close outcome of the vote. His successor, Crescent Hardy, lost to a Democrat in 2016. Neil Kornze, the BLM Director, promoted from within in December 2013 before the standoff, is a native Nevadan who previously was a land issues expert on Reid's staff. Western Journalism certainly does have an ideological perspective, but the cited story was as straight reporting as a box score. The cite you gave for its problems (and thanks for looking it up) came from a longer story in PolitiFact, which rated the Florida "Sharia Law" vote to be "Pants-on-fire," untrue. I've regularly corrected reporters (and usually received thanks for my tips) from some of the biggest print and broadcast outlets. All media have a problems with the facts at times. Think "Saddam's WMD's" in the "paper of record," the NY Times, i.e., in which Judith Miller (with Michael Gordon sharing the byline) shared pure White House propaganda for a year or so, if memory serves. Things will get worse given their ridding themselves of copy editors. After your comment I brought the Stockman page current, by the way. I half expected that he might get indicted for campaign finance violations ages ago, especially after he hired a staffer from Western Tradition Partnership/American Tradition Partnership, back in 2013, which may have also involved nepotism. Activist (talk) 01:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bundy standoff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Revert explanation[edit]

I have reverted this edit because it amounts to unsourced POV and speculation. There are no reliable sources which have reported any claim that any BLM employee acted wrongfully, much less criminally, during the standoff, and therefore it is entirely inappropriate to create the suggestion or intimation that such was the case. It amounts to a false equivalency which cannot be permitted here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

This comment was based on a 180 opposite reading of the revert history. I struck it after my error was pointed out. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)Statements that "X has not happened" or "There are no sources" must still comply with WP:VERIFICATION. I doubt very much that there any genuinely reliable sources which say "NewsAndEventsGuy has not yet been charged with pedophilia", and by the same token, I doubt there are any RSs which say BLM officials have not yet - repeat yet - been "charged with exceeding their Constitutional authority, reckless endangerment, or other crimes." Even if such RSs did exist, we still can't say stuff like that because of the restrictions in WP:BLP. Your text just waved hands and arms with ambiguous reference to "any" BLM people, but our article has the names of the main BLM players. What you meant was those specific people have not been charged....................yet. WP:BLPCRIME prohibits the imputation of criminal wrongdoing of this sort. Finally, please refrain from "casting aspersions", such as auto-accusing people of POV when you get reverted. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
You have this precisely backward. Every part of Wikipedia must be reliably sourced. The section I removed contains no sources, much less any sources which support the statement that there is any reason to suggest that any BLM officials did anything criminal such as "exceeding their Constitutional authority, reckless endangerment, or other crimes." The section I have removed is clearly intended to create such an intimation, by speculating about various possible alleged "crimes" that "nobody has been charged with" and which no reliable source has said anything about. Your hand-waving yet nonsense is just that - nonsense. There is no reason to mention purported crimes which have no foundation in fact or sources. Furthermore, I have redacted your disturbing personal attack by way of "comparison" - making any statement about a Wikipedia editor and the word you used is quite simply unacceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Apologies! My god you're right, I had it backwards. I thought I was removing the offending text but - dope! - I actually restored it after you already removed. Thank you for catching that. I also apologize for using your name instead of my own in making the rhetorical point why BLPCRIME is a problem. That was an illustration of the principle, not a NPA vio, but I did change the name to my own. Bottom line... guess I was working too quickly when I did this one. Apologies. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


The article as written is badly biased in favor of the Feds by making the Bundys sound like simple scofflaws who do not have any legal justification for their actions. The fact of multiple state legislatures effectively agreeing with their position should be included in the lede of the article. I tried to add this material, but someone keeps deleting it. Starchild (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there should be some brief mention of Bundy's position in the lede (that the federal government doesn't have authority over public lands), but I disagree that it should be so extensive as to get into who has argued what on each side — that would very quickly get unwieldy, because we would then have to mention the numerous scholars and others who don't agree with their position. That's not appropriate for the lede - any detailed discussion should be in the body text; I suggest the existing Bundy standoff#Claim of states' rights section. Moreover, the fact is that Bundy's arguments — and all arguments like them — have been repeatedly rejected by federal courts for nigh on two centuries at this point. His claim is a fringe theory and if we mention it, we are required to mention that it is, quite simply, not in accordance with any jurisprudence of the modern United States. He can argue anything he wants, but the law says otherwise, and the multiple legal decisions against him are amply cited here. His worldview is discussed here extensively, but we cannot in any way, shape or form present it as if it has legal merit. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate you moving at least part of what I wrote to a different section and not simply deleting it altogether. However here you mention "federal courts", but in the article you refer to state AND federal courts rejecting arguments that federal ownership of lands for wilderness, grazing, etc. is unconstitutional. I deleted the reference to state courts as I found no mention of adverse state court decisions in the sources cited.Starchild (talk) 04:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarchildSF (talkcontribs) 04:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
By the way, it is unsurprising that federal court judges, appointed by the president of the United States, tend to side with the federal government. This should never be taken as proof that the claims about the lack of constitutional authority for federal ownership of vast tracts of land in the United States outside the District of Columbia are wrong. Starchild (talk) 04:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, yes, it is. Under the rule of law and the American Constitutional system, judges rule what the Constitution and the law means, and that ruling is legal fact. Some people may disagree with the ruling, but it is legal fact that the federal government has Constitutional authority over the federal public lands. We treat that decision as fact, while noting that some disagree. This is just as we treat the ruling in Citizens United v. FEC as legal fact, no matter whether or not we agree or disagree with its outcome. If you disagree with the judges, your argument needs to be in court, not on Wikipedia. Wikipedia relies upon reliable sources and treats arguments with the weight given to them in reliable sources. Reliable sources note what the courts say, and so do we. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Being "legal fact" is not the same thing as being historically correct, fair, or true, and these things should not be falsely conflated.
As evidence of the article's bias, I note the inclusion in the lede of a paragraph about Bundy's racist remark (which another commenter here says was taken out of context, although I have not looked into that) that slavery would have been better for blacks than federal dependency, which had nothing to do with the article topic (and certainly was not relevant as part of a "brief summary of the article" as you say the lede should be). I moved it to a different section, although as noted it arguably isn't relevant to the article at all. Starchild (talk) 05:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Again, your argument needs to be with the courts, not with Wikipedia. Questions of law are determined by judges and justices in the American Constitutional system of government. Whether or not a law is compliant with the Constitution is a subject for judicial review, and there's two centuries of unbroken jurisprudence on this subject. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs that you perceive somewhere. We document the world as it is, not as some people wish it to be. I'm sure Bundy sincerely believes what he believes. But what he believes is simply, as a matter of law, wrong. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not arguing with Wikipedia, only with those contributors who may disagree with me. There is a difference between a court's opinion being legally binding and that opinion being legally correct. Courts for many years upheld racial segregation in the U.S., but although their decisions were viewed as legally binding at the time, they are now seen as having been legally (as well as morally) wrong and a violation of Constitutional rights. Starchild (talk) 05:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
”Effectively agreeing”? I’m on my exercise bike and iPad so can’t write much, but we need sources that mention the standoff or we are doing original research, which we of course can’t use in the article and shouldn’t be arguing here. Doug Weller talk 06:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Starchild, in this edit you got some legal terminology wrong, and it's key to why the argument you're making doesn't mean what you think it means. The ruling refers to "jurisdiction," not "sovereignty" and those words mean different things. The Enclave Clause refers to areas of federal exclusive jurisdiction, in which states have no regulatory or police power, such as military bases, etc. It is correct that federal "enclaves" cannot be created without state permission. However, the vast majority of public lands are not claimed as such enclaves. Rather, they are areas of concurrent jurisdiction, where the federal government is a proprietary landowner within a state. This means that states have jurisdiction over criminal law, wildlife management, etc. on such public lands so long as they do not conflict with federal law. However, as the proprietary landowner, the federal government has plenary power to determine what to do with that land - whether to sell it or keep it, whether to allow or forbid any activity or action, how to manage it, etc. This power is without limitation under the Property Clause and states cannot supersede such regulations because, of course, the Supremacy Clause makes federal authority superior to that of the states. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @StarchildSF: Skimming thru the dialogue, I noticed your statement above that "This should never be taken as proof that..." This succinctly flags the core problem here. Wikipedia editors are not concerned with "proof". To be concerned with proof means sifting through stuff and arguments and writeups and making a by god decision what the truth is. As Doug already mentioned, we are forbidden from engaging in WP:Original research of this sort. Instead, we neutrally report what reliable sources of say. Often we use inline attribution and try to watch out for stating facts in WP:Wikivoice. Anything else is using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX. In a nutshell then, see our essay Verifiability, not truth. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)