Talk:Bundy standoff/Archives/2014/May

Additional sources

• The Nation' "On Cliven Bundy’s ‘Ancestral Rights" [1]

• Washington Post "Cliven Bundy and the entitlement of the privileged" [2]

• Chicago Tribune "Rancher, conservatives put GOP in tight spot" [3]

• Reuters "Cliven Bundy: Racism entwined with government antipathy" [4]

Cwobeel (talk) 04:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

This one is particularly of interest, as it is new, previously unreported events: Horsford Urges Sheriff Gillespie To Investigate Armed Militia Presence In Bunkerville [5] Cwobeel (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Good backgrounder at Forbes.com [6] Cwobeel (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

"Paramilitary" claim

The claim of "paramilitary" is sourced only to a quote by Dean Heller, a decided partisan - not an independent, dispassionate report. The rest of the section is similarly tendentiously worded and not in accordance with NPOV. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree. I can delete all that nonsense due to the 1RR restriction, so I have resorted to attributing that claim. Cwobeel (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Nice on the Stockman statement, it almost looks like he's complaining about the protesters! Found a link for unarmed protesters on the 9th, but found a good link on the FAA implementation of the fly zone, almost forgot about that.

• Breaking News at the Bundy Ranch: Armed Agents Assault Protesters Armed with Cameras
• Supporters gather to defend Bundy ranch in Nevada, FAA enacts no-fly zone

Seems like the No Fly zone in notable, I don't remember any no fly zones being implemented for the Occupy protests. 009o9 (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

"The Independent Sentinel" fails our tests as a reliable source. It is a partisan blog, not an objective news-gathering organization. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it kind of looked like a blog other than the video, that's all I found that incident, I'll keep looking. BTW: anybody here claim that the SPLC is not partisan?

Assaulting a Federal Officer is a pretty serious claim (police dog), have charges been filed? Generally, people used "alleged" to keep from getting sued. There were lots of cameras there, perhaps the charge cannot be supported? pic There was also a news crew on hand, I haven't seen that footage anywhere yet.009o9 (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The SPLC is a reliable source for their area of focus which is tracking hate groups. Cwobeel (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The cited source (the Washington Post, an indisputable reliable source) does not use the word "alleged" - it states as fact that he kicked the dog. I won't speculate as to why, but a meme-picture with words photoshopped into it is proof of literally nothing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS The statement in the Washington post is attributed to nobody. Let's have the name of the accuser (officer John Doe) or an indictment. You might also identify which one of Bundy's sons this was, I'm sure he has a given name.009o9 (talk) 05:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Reports in The Washington Post do not need to be further attributed. It is a newspaper of record and an unambiguous, indisputable reliable source. If there is a reliable source which disagrees with the Post's characterization of events, we should include a statement of that dispute.

You were the one who inserted the original mention of stun-guns and police dogs into the lede. You're right — there were stun-guns and police dogs involved. I didn't revert your addition — I simply added the context of the situation as reported by reliable sources. A stun-gun was used on someone who kicked a police dog. It's not really my problem that the truth of the situation as reported by reliable sources is less inflammatory (and less flattering to the Bundys) than your original wording. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and the incident with the dog is, and will continue to be, covered in more detail in the body. The lead is for summary details, in the case of an event, it makes sense to do a chronological order with simplest/uncontested of details to show how the situation escalated and introduce the main players. Did the BLM erect First Amendment fences, miles away from the media, do you suppose this pissed anybody off/elevated tensions?

From my viewing of the video, the BLM was telling Bundy to move his ORV and when he tried to comply the other agent commanded his dog. Every protester was filming and I'd pretty sure the reason we haven't seen the professional film is because the BLM confiscated it as evidence. Still no charges for assaulting an officer???????? Extremely unusual if the allegations are true, we also used to have this thing in the USA about innocent until proven guilty.

Here's my problem with the source, The Washington Post says, that TheSpectum says, that an unnamed BLM agent says that Bundy kicked a dog. For one, a BLM agent is a partisan actor, and two, If I tried to use a statement like "The BLM sicked the dog on him." from an unnamed protester you guys would (rightly) not allow it.009o9 (talk) 06:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

You're correct, details should be avoided in the lede.

The problem is that you inserted the details of "police dogs" and "stun-guns" in the lede and did so in a clearly biased manner, in that it introduced an inflammatory inference about the use of policing tools and force, without explaining the context in which those tools and force were apparently used. It's like saying "America dropped a nuclear bomb on Japan" without mentioning that we did so in a war started by a Japanese sneak attack.

You can't have it both ways. You cannot mention just enough details to create a negative inference and then leave out the other side of the story. If you wish to mention the details of "police dogs" and "stun-guns" in the lede, you cannot do so without the context in which they were used.

This also goes for the above use of "paramilitary raid" — a similarly-inflammatory inferential statement which cannot be used without the qualifier that it is an opinion expressed by a particular person, not an even-handed description by an impartial source.

If there is a reliable source stating an accusation that the BLM police dog attacked the protester first, then we should note the existence of that competing claim. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The Spectrum directly states that Ammon Bundy kicked a BLM dog and was tasered. "During the altercation Wednesday in Bunkerville, Ammon was tasered three times by BLM officers after he kicked a German shepherd dog leashed by one of the BLM officers." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I said police dogs and stun-guns were deployed I did not even say "if" they were used. "Deployed", meaning, moved into position, I did not say they were utilized -- not relevant for the lead. In other words, they brought the dogs out of the cars and the stun-guns out of their holsters to most readers.

I said advanced on paramilitary personnel "paramilitary raid" was in the reference title, but I didn't use it. I mentioned holstered weapons because it is relevant, they (in the valley) had weapons but they were not pointed at agents (not deployed). Throughout the entire article, there is no mention of BLM agents wearing full body armor and carrying rifles i.e., paramilitary, but there are 11 mentions of militia. The entire article fails credibility on this point alone, not to mention absence of the free speech fences.

Rationalize it as you may. You stated facts without context in a manner clearly designed to plant an inference. If you are going to mention police dogs and stun guns, I am going to mention the context.

Your original research definition of "paramilitary" would include virtually every police officer in the United States, as it is now common practice for street officers to wear body armor and have semi-automatic rifles available, particularly in rural areas. (When criminals can buy AR-15s at Wal-Mart, cops are outgunned without them.) In Alaska, pretty much anytime a state trooper gets beyond their patrol car in an enforcement action, they're going to carry their rifle. The protesters are described as "militia" because that's how they're described in the majority of reliable sources. If the majority of reliable sources state as fact, rather than as a personal opinion, that the BLM law enforcement rangers were "paramilitary personnel," then that's how we should describe them. But they don't, so we don't.

There are many reliable sources which unambiguously state that protesters had rifles out and aimed at BLM personnel, so your claim that they had only "holstered weapons" is simply false. ("Flat on his belly in a sniper position, wearing a baseball cap and a flak jacket, a protester aimed his semi-automatic rifle from the edge of an overpass and waited as a crowd below stood its ground against U.S. federal agents in the Nevada desert." Reuters) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I have moved the dog kicking incident out of the lede; per WP:LEDE that material is not notable or significant enough to be there. Cwobeel (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that, I'd like you watch this video from reporting directly from the event. They show some footage and then the story turns to the suspected killing and burial of cattle (unexplained backhoe and dumptruck) and that roundup separated calves that will likely starve. Nowhere, in the video, is there a mention of a dog being kicked, which would not be left out of a Human Interest story with an animal angle. The reporter states that there is a press conference occurring while she speaks and promises an update for the later newscast -- it doesn't appear that this update occurred. At every official press conference I've ever seen, the speaker identifies themselves and makes sure that their name will be spelled correctly. Still, on every instance I can find, the "kicked the dog" statement is attributed to an anonymous person at the BLM. Then, we check the Text story from channel 8 that accompanies the video and find, Posted: Apr 09, 2014 4:27 PM PDT and Updated: Apr 09, 2014 10:48 PM PDT. Presumably to append the section starting with... "In a statement released late Wednesday afternoon, the BLM and park service said in part:" Credible journalists do not work this way, they identify sources. Was this a printed statement? Whose letterhead was at the top? BLM or the park service? Do they have some letterhead that has both the agencies at the top? Was it an email or phone call? How was it determined that it was coming from an official source? Statements that are not sourced are no more credible than a blog.

Paramilitary: From one photo, I count 18 helmeted, battled dressed agents, dressed decidedly different from other agents present -- with rifle-rated body armor. Indecently, this number qualifies it as a squad in military terms i.e., paramilitary. I qualified that the protesters in the valley had holstered weapons, if they hadn't been holstered they would not have been allowed to advance. The fact that both sides had rifles pointed at each other is for the body of the article, and had any shooting occurred, the militiaman pictured on the bridge would have been the first to die (the BLM also had sniper teams and air cover).

The overwhelmingly vast percentage of privately owned firearms in the United States would be used to assist peace officers rather than against them. These guys are our friends, we BBQ with them, they don't understand this paramilitary crap either. My brother, an on duty cop, is very likely alive today because the public came to his assistance. This worked out very badly for the man who attacked him (while my brother was collecting himself). He never did say how many people stopped on the freeway to help him, but it was enough to eliminate the threat from a very large man. Alternately, when you start telling Americans what they can say and where they can say it, enforced at the point of a gun, you will not get very much support from the public at large. This is called governance at gunpoint (I've also resisted introducing this term into the article).

Anyway, the lede is not the place to pull heart-strings with unproven accusations, whether they are about starving calves or kicked dogs -- thanks for removing. 009o9 (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Section -- "Cliven Bundy's worldview" and race-baiting

My concern for this article concerns persistent race-baiting from a statement taken out of context and printed by the NYTIMES. A paragraph, once again, has been inserted into the lede that screams READ MY SECTION FIRST. This is MOS:OPED. Additionally, the title of the section "Cliven Bundy's worldview" presumptive, WP:OR and WP:POVNAMING. Other editors have moved simply moved the section to where content is a better fit (this event did not occur at the Bundy standoff), but somehow the section keeps percolating upward, to immediately below the Background section. WP:UNDUE

Please do not remove my article template (Op-ed) until the editor in question allows Mr. Bundy's quotes to be expanded, consensus on the section title is reached and the proper placement for the sub-event has been determined.

Thank you 009o9 (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The reporting about the racially charged comments has been extensively covered and not just by the NYT. That includes multiple statements by republican politicians as well. Nothing UNDUE and POVNAMING at all. I am reverting your edit on the lead, per WP:LEAD: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies Cwobeel (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want to add more from Bundy's comments or worldviews, by all means go ahead, provided these has been significantly reported in reliable sources. Cwobeel (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

(ec) : You also refer to the racially charged comments as a "sub-event", but the prominence of sources indicates that his comments and associated worldviews is at the core of the subject being addressed in this article. As such, the prominence of his views need to be stated early in the article to provide that appropriate context for the legal issues in which Bundy got himself involved with. Cwobeel (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Please provide references on how Mr. Bundy's purported racial views caused the Bundy standoff. If you are going to diagnose Mr. Bundy's state of mind, I suggest you quote a psychiatrist or two. Alternately, I have added primary sourced quotes -- expanding the shortened quotes that exist the section, these were summarily reverted. Reverting your edit thank you.009o9 (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

If you do, you would have breached the 1RR restriction. I'd suggest you don;t revert, and if you have, it may be a good idea to self revert.Cwobeel (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

As for the personal comments above, please avoid personal attacks. According to sources Bundy's worldviews are consistent with the Posse Comitatus and other similar extreme right groups, which have remnants of white supremacist and anti-government world views. His worldviews clearly inform his actions, based on the abundant number of sources on the subject. Cwobeel (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• My uninvolved 2 cents. The subject of his statements needs to be covered particularly because of the impact it's had on his outside support. However looking at the article, the placement of the section screams out as being wrong. In my opinion It really needs to be after the meat of the article regarding the grazing dispute, the legal judgements etc. It should follow for the most part how the lede is written, with the racist comments being near the bottom, not the first section.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I could agree that the racist comments may be placed lower in the page, but there are other worldviews that Bundy holds that are necessary for context. Also, this article is as much about the grazing dispute as about Bundy himself, so I think the current placement is probably better. Cwobeel (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

If it were me I would take the first paragraph of 1.1 and slide it up into background. Then take everything starting with the Southern Poverty Law Center and drop it somewhere in the sec 7 or 8 range.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a good idea ... only that if we do that we are stating Bundy's views in one place and counter POVs in another place. I would be OK with having the first para of 1.1 and the Southern Poverty Law Center sentence in background and adding a section just to address the racial comments controversy. Cwobeel (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll wait till tomorrow to see if other ideas come forth before attempting that change. Cwobeel (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with @Cube Lurker, the idea of moving the first paragraph up, and the race sideshow down, but I've also had problems when I correct or expand the context from the given reference or primary references, I've been summarily censored. For instance, "Bundy does not recognize and will not submit to federal power." faithfully reproduced from the given reference this reads "...federal police power." In the same paragraph, the actual court records show that, "Bundy claims that he is a citizen of Nevada and not a citizen of a territory of the United States..." whereas, the Guardian shortens the statement (without ellipsis) to just - citizen of Nevada -. Again, my counter point was deleted. This is important information because much of the case law bounces back and forth between the terms "territory" and "state."

There is a lot more to the background of this story than character assignation of a 70 year old rancher -- the fact that citizens feel the need to strap on sidearms to negotiate with the government makes me feel we'd better get all the facts on the table and try harder to leave the media spin out of it.

My point is that in 5, 10, or 20 years, who is going to want to read about the opinions of former politicians and a bunch of media spin? 009o9 (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

What would you include instead? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

009o9, Regarding your last point. This is an encyclopedia and this subject and the way it has evolved, including the media frenzy and the political fallout for some politicians based on the racial/separatist/posse comitatus views of Bundy, will be fascinating to a reader of the future. Cwobeel (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The law surrounding this is fascinating and needs more depth/content in other articles. There is an environment issue/angle that is largely untouched, in fact, there are only two passing mentions of tortoise in the article. Starting in the 70s, the environmentalists caused problems with building permits, which retarded new county property tax revenues. Eventually the environmentalists were co-opted or worn down and once the Golden Butte Preserve is finalized, the tortoise on private land will still not be relocated -- they will be bulldozed over in place. Vegas might see another housing bubble, there is a lot of money at stake here. Basically, the builders needed another bad guy and the ranchers and their cattle fit the bill. The documented plan was to buy out willing sellers, is it possible that the BLM had a part in making them willing sellers? I think so, Federal takings are pretty common these days and that story is still developing. Then there is Bundy's water rights, Bundy is sitting on the Virgin River, which feeds Lake Mead. Because of the physics properties of being to create a siphon condition, the higher the elevation of the water head, the higher elevation you can deliver water to without pumping. Finally, Bundy's ranch, melon farm and water rights are worth a fortune, a million dollar fine will not come close to breaking him. (I believe the Feds are pissed that he didn't bankrupt himself along the way by paying lawyers.) Then we have the BLM, the Judge all but instructed them to hire local authorities to do the roundup and Bundy respects the Sheriff. What did the BLM think would happen when they designated multiple fenced free speech areas (deciding daily which would be open daily at the whim of incident command) away from media, automatic weapons and body armor etc. They either planned to inflame emotions, or they are completely daft. Anyway, it's a hugely fascinating area of research, but all this media reaction stuff (which will surely be deleted eventually) is unproductive and not encyclopedic content. 009o9 (talk) 06:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand what you're driving at here, but it is sounding quite a bit like original research to me. As has been explained, Wikipedia relies on reliable sources for its information, and unless these claims and theories and ideas you are positing have been published in a reliable source, we cannot publish them either. What you believe or think possible is perhaps interesting, but categorically unsuitable for the encyclopedia. In particular, see the prohibition on original synthesis. We cannot take Fact A and Fact B, then put them together to create Conclusion C unless that specific set of facts and conclusions has already been published in a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

There is tons of published information on the tortoise and other protected species, plans to restrict grazing, and in many cases, Clark County is specifically named or studied. Additionally, Bundy has clearly stated that a range war is being waged against him, including an attempted land grab. In my mind, all of the dirty tricks that occur in range wars are open for consideration, fences, destroying water and infrastructure, strong arming suppliers and customers, grass fires, land grabs, closing of easements and other legal maneuvers. The only difference in this range war is that instead of horses, cattle or sheep being in contention for the land, it is the tortoise and the government is the tortoise rancher.

Much of the argument of WP:OR has been raised, based on the the current article title. It has been argued that the reference must have Bundy in it, this is no longer a valid, because other editors have created various redirects. The current text that is printed at the top of the article is not enough to determine allowable content. If the article title is going to somehow narrow relevance, I contend that we may have a problem with the title WP:CONCISE since there are already redirects.

References have been accused of being partisan, this is the nature of all disagreements, they have two or more sides, the source does not have to be NPOV, the editor does. Additionally, if the reference was published prior to the incident, it's impossible to have a slant on this event.009o9 (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to re-read WP:ADVOCACY. Wikipedia is not the place for that. Cwobeel (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

So only accusations from the government, unnamed sources from BLM and those whom proclaim Bundy as racist are welcome here? Where are Bundy's accusations faithfully reproduced and covered in this article? Why haven't you added them?

WP:ADVOCACY is an essay (not policy). I am refraining from making edits that I cannot cover neutrally. I have a few quite a few edits sidelined that I will revisit for POV before adding. Do you? 009o9 (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The section about Bundy's worldview accurately describes his views and positions. If you feel it needs to be expanded, let's work on that. But we cannot use his claims uncritically or report his allegations as fact. We also cannot use unreliable sources. Guidelines and policy prohibit the use of self-published blogs as sources for anything other than their own opinions. The use of conspiracy sites such as Infowars is prohibited altogether. Wikipedia is not an he "alternative media" site to tell a story you think is being unfairly reported in mainstream sources. Our articles are based on what has already been published in reliable sources. If that is not as flattering to Bundy as you would like... that's the way it goes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought that up, SPLC clearly fits the definition of a conspiracy site WP:QUESTIONABLE -- ...claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead,... 009o9 (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The SPLC is a reliable source for its viewpoints and is widely used on Wikipedia. We do not state the SPLC's claims as fact - we attribute their statements as ones of opinion. If there are reliable sources rebutting the SPLC's opinions, we should include them. If you wish to challenge the longstanding consensus that it is a reliable source, please open a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard to gain broad community consensus for your claim. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Free Beacon is not an RS

This edit [7] not only is original research, it is also sourced to a non reliable source Cwobeel (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Infowars.com is not a credible source

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

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

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

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

I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I did stay at a holiday inn last night. No wait...I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I am a coincidence specialist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.166.26 (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Grazing on US federal rangeland in Nevada section

That section is basically original research in the context of this article. It will be better moved to Grazing rights, where it can be groomed and expanded, or moved to a new article Grazing rights in Nevada. Cwobeel (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I have performed the split, being careful to keep all sources and notes. Now this article, as well as the new one can be expanded as needed without ending up with a massively long article. Cwobeel (talk) 02:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Hopelessly slanted attack piece, redirects to the article, name the subject, so this is a thinly disguised WP:ALIVE. Very well sourced attempts at editing for balance have resulted in either WP:OR challenges and source credibility challenges. We've even had Glen Beck allowed for one viewpoint and then dictated not allowed for the other. What remains of good faith edits are reworded to be unfaithful paraphrases of source. There is just too much content to verify that all edits now are a fair representation of the source. Hopelessly deadlocked strongly suspect professional COI, maybe we can try again in a year or two.009o9 (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The article is not going to be deleted as it is well sourced and very comprehensive. Granted, articles sometime don't fit with what we believe to be the truth, or the right way to present a subject and we get disappointed and upset, but we have to accept that Wikipedia can only be based on what reliable sources say about a subject. Cwobeel (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Should Alleged Racist Comments of Cliven Bundy be in the lede?

Just a question since it is treated fully in the aftermath section and (arguably) is not directly relevant to the dispute. JuanRiley (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• Strong No Does not belong in lede, unfounded media spin, exposing wider examination of shortened quote has been met with extraordinary resistance here.009o9 (talk)

Note Spin and or otherwise (e.g. "debunked") is a POV. The question is whether it topically belongs in the lede. JuanRiley (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• Undoubtedly as the racist comments has dominated media coverage of the event. There's not really any serious dispute here. — goethean 21:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Note Media coverage is not the page topic and has it own section.JuanRiley (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:LEDE, the lead "...should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies'" (emphasis mine). If the racist comments are off-topic, then they should be removed from the article. But as long as they remain in the article, they should be mentioned in the lead. However, they are not off-topic. — goethean 22:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Note Point taken. I am not espousing a yes or no just asking opinions of those more informed in Wiki practice than I.

• No The media does not always decide what is relevant and what is not. This article is about the standoff, not about the man himself. Bundy's racist comments do not belong in the lead section. Elassint ^Hi 21:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• Of course, yes Per WP:LEDE (my highlight): The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.. Cwobeel (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I oppose the framing of this question (besides that his racist comments were not "alleged"). Given that massive coverage of these remarks, the question should be: Should the slavery comments by Clicven Bundy be omitted from the lede?. Cwobeel (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for the naming of this question. I was trying, I guess, too much to be neutral. Now which circle of Dante's Hell does that put me in? JuanRiley (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you need to apologize. Let's all take a breath - this has gotten pretty heated of late. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• Yes - Per WP:LEDE. The racist comments have become a significant part of the controversy around the standoff. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources issues

Glenn Beck and The Blaze are reliable sources for repeating what those outlets claim. They are not reliable sources for facts. The "Western Journalism Center" is a "blogging platform", not an edited, fact-checked news outlet, and is therefore unacceptable.

If you are the person who has inserted the disputed sources, you are not permitted to unilaterally remove source-disputing tags inserted by another editor — the whole point of those tags is to note that a second party has disputed them and that their suitability should be discussed further. You don't get to insert questionable sources and then erase any evidence that they have been questioned. They should not be removed until the sources have been discussed and a consensus has been reached here.

Ridiculous, so now you are going to dictate how a source (Beck - Blaze) can be used for one side but not the other? Western Journalism is a fine site, professional blogs are perfectly acceptable, miles above the credibility of SPLC. I didn't remove your tag, I did a paste revert. Your edits edits destroyed references that are supporting other statements, you might try to find a way to fix that -- see references section. 009o9 (talk) 08:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Your claim that "Western Journalism is a fine site" is interesting. It is not, however, a reliable source by our standards. Anyone can get an account and post anything they want there. There is no apparent fact-checking or editorial oversight. This makes it nothing more than a glorified personal blog. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

You might look at the top of the Western Journalism article, it clearly says news as opposed to blog.

About the Author B. Christopher Agee

An award-winning journalist, B. Christopher Agee spent more than a decade building a career in newspaper and radio. He is currently the senior staff writer at Western Center for Journalism. Chris is the author of two books and is a frequent guest on talk radio shows across the U.S. He lives with his wife, Nancy, in Phoenix, Ariz.

009o9 (talk) 08:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what they say - it matters what they are. If anyone can open an account and post essentially whatever they want with no oversight, they're a personal blog, not a news organization. You are welcome to open a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard and gain a broader consensus if you dispute this. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

And yes, that's exactly correct - we can use some sources for some things but not others. The Blaze, a site run by Glenn Beck, is a citable reliable source for what Glenn Beck's views are, or for its own opinions. It is not a reliable source for neutral, dispassionate news coverage. This is just as the SPLC is a citable, reliable source for what the SPLC's views are, but not a reliable source for neutral, dispassionate news. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The quotes from politicians are completely duplicated in the section "Reactions by public officials" - we literally aren't going to include the same quote and statement twice. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Why not? We've got the racism stuff in three places. 009o9 (talk) 08:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it's only in two places - the lede and the "Racial comments" section. The two sections do not duplicate each other. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

And what is contentious in the statement about David Brock? He's quite proud of his accomplishment, it's in the official CBS video at about 5:30. The primary is in post and I'm sure I can track it down. Heck, it's on Fox, CNN and Media Matters too, I'll make a big long list of references to match the one your buddy had there WP:DUE 009o9 (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the lede and it was sourced solely to a right-wing polemic blog, which is unacceptable per WP:RS and WP:BLP. In addition, the way it was worded was clearly negatively slanted. The newsworthiness of the tape is not related to who found it. It might be worth mentioning in the racial comments section, but not the lede. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I note that User:009o9 has yet again unilaterally reverted the questionable-sources tags out of the article — a violation of the 1RR restriction that has been reported on the EW noticeboard. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracy

This phrase, what Bundy claimed was "over 300"[48][49] BLM Enforcement Rangers and Special Agents from outside a First Amendment zone... is factually inaccurate. Bundy makes no such claim and is not cited in any source making that claim. The source actually states "over 200."

The source cited here says The Bureau of Land Management has “overstepped its boundaries by not letting me access my rights, not recognizing state’s sovereignty, and having over 200 armed officers watching our every move and stealing our cattle,” Bundy said.

That is the only quote for Bundy's claim of how many officers there are.

Another source here says Spokeswoman Jessica Kershaw added that there are about 300 law enforcement officers under the BLM’s direction to provide support on 245 million acres of public land, prompting a need already to work with local officials.

This source clearly states that there are 300 BLM law enforcement officers nationally — it does not claim that 300 were present at the Bundy standoff.

Stating that Bundy claimed there were "over 300" officers present is therefore a misuse and abuse of sources, and cannot stand. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I did gloss over the source, the other article was phrased differently and I found it first. I did get another wrong word in that passage before my edit was hacked up, it read: "Dave Bundy was arrested for filming a 300 200 strong contingent[14][15] of [including] heavily armed BLM Enforcement Rangers and Special Agents from outside a First Amendment zone and was released on April 8 2014.[16][17]"

Between the 200, or 300 number, it really doesn't matter to me and somewhere we have an estimate of 80 wranglers that isn't in dispute. The fact is, I've tried to introduce both to the numbers into the article. I still don't see any information in the article about how many people the government sent to roundup 900 cattle in the middle of highly sensitive tortoise season (March 1 through June 15 according to the BLM full-force-and-effect decision). Is closing Gold Butte ASEC still about the turtles? Why does the 200 number keep disappearing from the article?

To say that there are only 300 "law enforcement officers" in the field nationwide raises the question, what do the other 11,321 employees do?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 009o9 (talk • contribs)

They manage the land. Biologists, foresters, hydrologists, geologists, rangeland scientists and technicians, wilderness specialists, trail crews, ranger-interpreters, surveyors, firefighters, radio technicians, engineers, heavy equipment operators, dispatchers, etc. There's a helpful list of some of the many land management agency career fields here.

By law, Congress has mandated that federal land management agencies of multiple-use lands (BLM and USFS, primarily) are responsible for conserving and developing the lands they manage, and doing so in a controlled and scientific manner in accordance with the laws governing each agency. See the Federal Land Policy Management Act, Federal Land Use Policy Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act, etc. The field staffs of an agency (and far and away the majority of those employees are in the field, not in D.C.) are responsible for developing and implementing those plans in each of their local areas. For example, here is a list of all the BLM field offices in California. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Dave Bundy was arrested for "failure to comply with multiple requests by BLM law enforcement to leave the temporary closure area on public lands" [8]

By Sunday, April 6, one of Bundy's sons, Dave Bundy, was taken into custody for refusing to disperse and resisting arrest, while hundreds of other protesters, some venturing from interstate, gathered along the road few miles from Bundy's property in solidarity. Dave Bundy was later released.[9]

What Dave Bundy said according to The Blaze is not "data". His comment can be added, provided that it is attributed to him as well as additional material is added per the sources above. Cwobeel (talk) 10:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe the statement you've quoted is factually incorrect, this was days before "hundreds" of protesters arrived, it was still primarily only family and locals on the 9th with the dump truck incident (everybody seems to know each other by name). Of interest here is what he was doing, "illegally" filming i.e., First Amendment, so it is relevant to the section (if it is still there). I don't really think the minutia about the charges make the BLM look any less totalitarian (and anyway lots of people (mostly black) are beaten to death while the cops are screaming "stop resisting" for the cameras).

Reminds, me that I hadn't watched the film of the BLM killing the black kid in Red Rock in February, the video isn't worth much, but the eyewitness/candid commentary, "redneck justice" certainly is. [10] 009o9 (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

009o9, while I appreciate the comments, please not this talk page is not a forum for discussions Cwobeel (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, this is on topic for the discussion page only, you are the one who insists that race is so relevant to this article that it belongs in the lede and you are insisting that the it be noted that the Bundy arrest went the hardway. Additionally, this is another recent incident of an arrest that went the hard way, by the same same authority, in roughly the same location. I'm mildly surprised by your response concerning how differently these two arrests worked out. Bundy has referenced this arrest/shooting in many places. ""They are the same agents who killed that kid over at Red Rocks," referring to the fatal shooting of a 20-year-old man by two BLM rangers on Feb. 14, near Red Rock Canyon, outside Las Vegas."009o9 (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

New article on Kornze

If anyone is interested, I just started a stubbish article on Neil Kornze. Feel free to comment or contribute if you like. KConWiki (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Significant views

NPOV requires us to present all significant views. But this sentence in the lede: Some supporters, however, claim that Bundy's comments were taken out of context does not present a significant view. If it is a minority viewpoint, it can be added to the body of the article but not in the lede. Per WP:UNDUE:

"" Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.

Cwobeel (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, having an entire quote from Joseph Curl in the "Racist comments" section, is WP:UNDUE. Cwobeel (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article." WP:IMPARTIAL

• • Can we prove that only Republican politicians and talk-show hosts supported, repudiated or condemned? No Independents? No Libertarians?

• • Why do we need 48 words to say, "Some comments Bundy made we're considered racist by the media, supporters distance themselves."?

• • The existing sentence, using condemned and then repudiated and then condemned again, all in the same sentence? Reeks of POV.

WP:WEASEL "A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority, yet has no substantial basis. Phrases such as those above present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They may disguise a biased view." 009o9 (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing WP:WEASEL in the article. There is an overwhelming number of sources, local, national and international that describe Bundy's comments as racist, with a tiny number of sources saying otherwise or apologetic. You should be content with the sentence or two in which the minority viewpoints are described. Regardless, the minority viewpoints have no place on the lede, per WP:UNDUE Cwobeel (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE also states: "In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained."

Per WP:BALASPS, this minor episode does not belong in the lede and has nothing to do with the standoff. "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news."

Considering the probability that some of the militia present that day, truly are racist, Bundy was pretty brave to discuss his empathy for his black and Hispanic brothers. 009o9 (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we have exhausted this conversation already. The prevalence of sources makes this not to be a "minor episode", and as this article is about Mr. Bundy standoff against the federal government, as well as about the views that informs his decisions and actions, the inclusion in the lede is more than appropriate. As for your last sentence, I'd better not address it. This is not a forum. Cwobeel (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

What seems to be missing

what seems to be missingfrom this page is a general discussion of preemptive water and grazing rights, including a discussion concerning the bundling of rights. For example a right to property may be deeded without transferring the underlying fee simple. One such deed is a deed for years or another, a deed to air space. The fact that the general public cannot get their head around this separation of rights is an impediment to a political solution to the problems presented by Bundy. A second missing element is a discussion concerning the transfer of jurisdiction vs. a transfer of ownership. An example is the adhesion contract constructed at the village of Guadalupe Hidalgo. It caused the border to be moved between the US and Mexico but never described the land ceded nor mentioned to whom it was ceded. It could be argued therefore that the land in question was in fact still owned by Mexico and that the US had but a right of administrative jurisdiction. I apologize for any undue distress that I may have caused by my amateurish attempts to edit the article. It was the fault of my ignorance of proper procedures. I will endeavor to correct that deficiency.[11] Fidlurjohn (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

fixed indent for readability 009o9 (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources discussing such claims as serious, legitimate, non-fringe points of view, then those viewpoints should be added. However, they cannot be given significant weight, because the overwhelmingly-predominant point of view, as established by more than a century of jurisprudence, is that ownership of the land in question was transferred to the United States in 1848 by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. No court has ever ruled that there is a substantial legal question of its ownership. Any opposing view is, necessarily, a small minority - and that view may not even merit.

Moreover, unless these claims have been mentioned in the context of the Bundy standoff, it is original research to connect them directly to these events. This article is probably not the right place for an extensive discussion of land ownership in Nevada. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps part of the problem here is that many readers do not realize that much of the verbiage has deeper meaning in law. Additionally, the nomenclature used in Nevada is likely to be misunderstood by Washington types, for instance, "the ranch" is obviously the base property and the grazing-range combined, the "property" is the 160 acres that is the original homestead. Bundy owns "property" on that open range, not the range itself.

The ownership of the land is not the true item of contention here, even though the US waited until 1976 to claim the public lands as Federally owned in the FLPMA. Prior to the FLPMA, it was presumed that the public lands would become available under the Homestead Acts, with existing grazing and other Right-of-ways sustained. Thus, the "public lands" always belonged to the people (of the United States)it just had not been determined which person would own and improve each 160 acre plot yet.

Bundy has stated that he does not own the public land, he claims that he owns a Right-of-way to his water, improvements and forage, and that the government cannot extinguish his Right-of-way through administrative fiat. Court documents indicate that Bundy protested and refused to sign a "Full Force and Effect Decision Bunkerville Allotment" document, which was an additional rider attached to the localized grazing permit. Bundy also filed a Notice of Intent concerning his Vested Rights, informing the court that he would continue to exercise his Right-of-way to protect his property, easements and improvements. The fact is, that Bundy has sustained his easement/Right-of-way. Operating without a permit is a separate civil matter where the Court's and the BLM's jurisdiction are being tested and there is a precedent ruling in US v. Hage that has not been heard in Bundy.

Here is what Bundy has actually said, "They [pioneers] created Preemptive Rights here, and I've either inherited these Rights or bought these Rights. These Rights were not created by one great big rancher, these Rights were created by individuals, little pioneers that came here and grazed just a work-horse and maybe a milk-cow. These Rights have been collected, by either selling and buying or inheritance and I have either inherited or bought all the Rights I have. Now let me talk about Rights, the Rights I own, I don't own the public land, it's public land, I only own some Rights on it, like a Right-of-way. I own the forage, which is the plants, I own the water, which is the livestock water, I own access to the roads and to my trails to everything across this desert and I own the range improvements, which would be trails and water improvements." [12]

Just before his interview time runs out, Bundy brings up the Right-of-way that the Kern River Pipeline holds, in crossing the Bundy Ranch. I can't find any press stating that Bundy was opposed to the pipeline. 009o9 (talk) 04:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

You have a lot of interesting ideas and theories. You should start a blog or your own personal website to share them. They have not been published in any reliable source, and so Wikipedia is not a place for you to publish them. That's considered original research and is prohibited.

What is verifiable in reliable sources is that Cliven Bundy has made these arguments in a court of law, and those arguments have been rejected as wrong, unfounded and frivolous. Under the Constitution, that court ruling is binding - we operate under the rule of law. Bundy's theories and ideas should be (and are) discussed, where reliable sources are available, but we are under no obligation to present their fringe point of view as if it is significant, much less correct. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

By the way, it is flatly untrue that the U.S. did not claim the public lands as federally-owned until the passage of FLPMA in 1976. The U.S. federal government claimed ownership of the public domain even before the Constitution was written — the fact that the federal government would own all new land acquired by the nation dates to the 1787 Northwest Ordinance, enacted by the federal government under the Articles of Confederation.

You keep referencing law that is specific to territories, States are completely different animals. Are you suggesting that the 11 Western States are still territories and not states? "The U.S. Supreme Court recognized the authority of the Northwest Ordinance of 1789 within the applicable Northwest Territory as constitutional in Strader v. Graham, 51 U.S. 82, 96, 97 (1851), but did not extend the Ordinance to cover the respective states once they were admitted to the Union."009o9 (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

And when those states were admitted to the Union, the federal government maintained ownership of those lands until and unless sold or otherwise transferred under color of law. Admission to statehood did not, at any time in this nation's history, include or mandate a transfer of all public lands. Indeed, specifically to the contrary, states were granted specific amounts of public land for various purposes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, the ownership of the land is not issue at hand, the issue is Bundy's right-of-way and the BLM's jurisdiction. The Nevada Constitution (since modified) ceded ownership of the unappropriated lands, but I don't see anything in Nevada's Constition about ceding jurisdiction.

"Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States, Report of the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States, Submitted to the Attorney General and transmitted to the President, April 1956"

CHAPTER III ACQUISITION OF LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION p46-47

"NECESSITY OF STATE ASSENT TO TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: Constitutional consent.--The Federal Government cannot, by unilateral action on its part, acquire legislative jurisdiction over any area within the exterior boundaries of a State. Article I, section 8, clause 17, of the Constitution, provides that legislative jurisdiction may be transferred pursuant to its terms only with the consent of the legislature of the State in which is located the area subject to the jurisdictional transfer. As was indicated in chapter II, the consent requirement of article I, section 8, clause 17, was intended by the framers of the Constitution to preserve the States' jurisdictional integrity against Federal encroachment." [13]

I'm sure that this report is relying on previous law: "Special provision is made in the Constitution for the cession of jurisdiction from the States over places where the federal government shall establish forts or other military works. And it is only in these places, or in the territories of the United States, where it can exercise a general jurisdiction." New Orleans v. United States, 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 662, 737 (1836)[14]

BTW: Regarding "not a forum" template: This is completely within the topic of the Bundy standoff Background section and provided for discussion on improving the insight on why Bundy has the worldview that the Federal Government is not relevant in the trespass issue -- comment is neither off-topic nor spam. 009o9 (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

But as you have not cited any reliable sources for your claims and arguments, none of it belongs in the encyclopedia. The rest is, literally, just you and I debating, and Cwobeel is right to point out that this talk page isn't a forum for us to debate this. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The Homestead Act dates only to 1862 and does not presume to suggest that all public land would be disposed of in that manner. Much of it was, but much of it wasn't. There was neither Congressional intent nor Congressional mandate that all federal public lands would be sold. In fact, just ten years after that date, Congress would begin setting aside national parks, withdrawing those lands from public sale. In 1891, the Forest Reserve Act permitted the president to withdraw public lands to create forest reserves (now the national forests) lands and in 1906, the Antiquities Act authorized the president to declare national monuments on public lands. All of these acts are unquestionably constitutional under Congress' power inherent to the Property Clause, and all of these acts clearly demonstrate that Congress has long envisioned a future in which the federal government owns and manages significant amounts of land. FLPMA and FLUPA simply codified this intent as to the lands managed by the BLM.

The Taylor Grazing Act, was specific in the limitations the Secretary of the Interior could prescribe, National Parks, drought, disease and determining AUMs were the extent of authority, the FLPMA extended authority, but there is also a pretty good chance that the Department of Agriculture is authoritative in Bundy's case. The "Full Force and Effect Decision Bunkerville Allotment" was an obvious and demonstrable end-around to force Clark County to purchase the grazing permits from "willing sellers" ($325,000.00), so that they would be allowed to develop the private land within the county. My guess would be because they did not have the the votes in Congress to make the Gold Butte area into a preserve, forest, or landmark etc. FLUPA ??? 009o9 (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Your link to the Preemption Act of 1841 is more than 100 years late. The law was repealed in 1891. The idea that it is still in force in any way, shape or form is objectively false. It's no longer law. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

According to the BLM and others, the Preemption Act was repealed by the Homestead Act, the Homestead Act was repealed by the FLMPA in 1976 and Alaska followed in 1986. [15] Just because a law was repealed, it does not extinguish long held land patents. Just because a person, or a government entity happens to own a plot of land, this does not necessarily mean that (s)he exclusively owns the surface, mineral, water and in this case right-of-way forage and Rights. AND you must defend those land Rights, within 18 years, if you wish to disallow others from establishing an easement. 009o9 (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@Fidlurjohn:: if you want to learn the "proper procecdures", please take some time and read these few pages: Wikipedia:A Primer for newcomers and follow up with WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:NPOV. It will make your contributions better and you will also have more fun. Cwobeel (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

On Recent History Section Edits

• I inserted an already existing reference for the BLM acreage in Nevada. I noted at the time that the sentence read BLM not federal land so I changed the number to that for acres of BLM from the reference. We could of course change the sentence to read federal acres in Nevada in which case the old number goes back in. Comments?
• More important is the question over the IP editors insertion of a contrast to Eastern state acreage. In point of fact he originally said no BLM acreage east of the Missippi and only after reverts for factual error attempted to rephrase it. The sentence right now was somewhat "neutralized" by another editor. However...should or should it not be there (not going to attempt to edit it since it may end up in the dustbin. Juan Riley (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

That edit violated WP:NOR. Removed. Cwobeel (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

More on Bundy's worldview

Excellent 3-part article at Forbes. Part III has more on Bundy's worldview. [16]

Along this line, I notice that the user at IP 66.225.161.37 repeatedly tried to remove certain material describing Mr. Bundy's views. The user repeatedly and incorrectly removed certain material in the article by erroneously referencing the Wikipedia content guideline WP:FRINGE, as he did with this edit:

[17].

Here is an excerpt of the text he was trying to remove:

The Southern Poverty Law Center has described Bundy's views as closely aligned with the those of the Posse Comitatus, and also asserts that self-described "patriot" groups are focused on secession, nullification, state sovereignty, and the principle that "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people", and their views overlap with other groups organized around hate [citations not copied here]....

Dear user 66.225.161.37: You did not indicate why you felt that this content guideline would have somehow allowed removal of the material.

Please read the content guideline more carefully. It does not justify removal of this material merely because the views described are fringe theories (and they certainly are fringe theories).

Wikipedia itself is not taking a position that Mr. Bundy's beliefs are correct or incorrect, or that the views of the Posse Comitatus are correct or incorrect. Further, Wikipedia is not trying to give undue weight to Mr. Bundy's theories or those of Posse Comitatus. Instead, Wikipedia is reporting what the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has asserted about Mr. Bundy's theories. The fact that his beliefs are fringe theories (assuming for the sake of argument that he does hold those beliefs) does not mean that Wikipedia cannot mention that the SPLC has stated or implied that he holds those beliefs, or that his beliefs are "closely aligned" with the Posse Comitatus, etc. Famspear (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up: I now see from postings at another page that what user IP 66.225.161.37 was thinking was that the Southern Poverty Law Center is "fringe" -- and that he removed the material for that reason, and not because of the putatively fringe nature of Bundy's beliefs. Essentially, that would be tantamount to a misguided argument that the SPLC is not a reliable source. That argument would be without merit; SPLC is a reliable source. Famspear (talk) 12:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Out of context

Many reliable sources have reported that Bundy's supporters believe he was quoted out of context. If it's appropriate to mention his comments in the lede to this article (which is about the standoff and not Bundy specifically), why is it not appropriate to mention the views of his supporters?CFredkin (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Because these support for Bundy's undoubtedly racist comments, was an insignificant minority, and adding them to the lede with be violating WP:UNDUE. Also using "supporters" in a generic manner is not suitable for a minority view. Cwobeel (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Section "Racial comments" is misplaced

The section "Racial comments" is at the top of the "Aftermath" section, right before several "Reactions of" sections. Those "Reaction" sections were written before Bundy made his Racial comments and generally describe reactions to the standoff, not the racial comments. Having the section "Racial comments" before the "Reaction" sections within the Aftermath section is not only chronologically incorrect, it makes it appear as though the reactions are about the racial comments. I'm moving the "Racial comments" section to the bottom of the "Aftermath" section, so that they are in chronological order and to remove ambiguity. It might also make sense to have the "Racial comments" section outside of the "Aftermath" section (right below it). Sparkie82 (t•c) 05:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. The racial comments was the single issue that got more coverage and response and as such it needs prominence. What needs to be done is to completely re-organize the section to provide a narrative of the aftermath, rather than the current approach in which the aftermath is broken down by the type of constituencies that responses to these issues. Cwobeel (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Shoshone History & Reactions

This can probably be remove since it doesn't seem to be directly relevant and there are no "reactions" Furius (talk) 00:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure: I find the section informative though I can not definitively support its direct relevance to the article other than on possible history of the land in question.Juan Riley (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)