Jump to content

Talk:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Proposed merge with Ammon Bundy

There is consensus to oppose the merge. The majority opinion is that Ammon is notable and is mentioned in RS including the 2014 Nevada standoff. The minority opinion sites WP:BLP1E, but with this being the second notable standoff it is not applicable. AlbinoFerret 16:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

*Support - Definitely a WP:BLP1E issue with this one. Parsley Man (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Not sure if this is still going on, but I am changing my position on this. There has now been enough coverage to warrant the existence of Bundy's own article, which has made a lot of progress in its expansion. Parsley Man (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – While he is primarily known for this event, there has been enough coverage of him by news sources that he deserves to stay. For example, [1][2][3][4][5][6]

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

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

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

  • Oppose. I think there is enough material for a standalone article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Strong Support Really? You do? Other than the information about the standoff, it mentions him getting arrested a couple times, having a rally once, and where he lives. Which part of that, exactly, makes him meet notoriety guidelines? Not only does he not meet notoriety guidelines, he doesn't even come close. Other than this standoff, he has done nothing to merit a Wikipedia page, therefore it should be merged. littlebum2002 16:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
      • To clarify, I am not suggesting the Wikipedia article has enough material, I am saying I believe there is enough press coverage about him to justify an article (which needs to be expanded to include much more info about him other than the standoff). ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per MB298, et. al. LavaBaron (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per @MB298. Nominator's WP:BLP1E merge logic fails item #2, Ammon Bundy is not likely to remain a Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual as he continues to participate in high profile activities. A Google News search for "ammon bundy" yields 1,240,000 results in 30 seconds. Prior to the actual standoff, Ammon Bundy was very much the center of the story when his aunt was thrown to the ground and he was tazed by the BLM.[10] The Wikipedia article has 10,303 page views in 8 days (Jan 4 through Jan 12).[11] The Ammon Bundy article has been tagged for merge, but no discussion has been started on the article's talk page, nor is there a reference to this discussion.Diff Ammon Bundy clearly meets WP:N, the Wikipedia article now has 12 cites with his name in at least three of the titles, NBC News, The Daily Beast, The Oregonian etc., there is no doubt that he is the subject of these RS articles. 009o9 (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support All sourced connect Ammon to this one single event. That doesn't meet our WP:Notability(People) rules, which partially state "If, however, there is only enough information about one notable event related to the person, then the article should be titled specifically about that event..." That's the case here. (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC) later Also, for awhile I was opposed thinking about the future, but as another ed has pointed out CRYSTALBALL is not a basis for notability. Finally, we're only debating notability so far, but the other question is what biographical content?? So far his article looks pretty much like a mirror of this one, and we invite all the problems associated with duplication including maintenance and monitoring to ward against WP:POVFORK drift. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
, Rebuttal to sources listed above
  1. First list of sources by MB298 are all about this one single event (thus proving the point he lacks Notability for a biographic stand alone article)
  2. The USA Today piece is an op ed so it can't be used to establish notability because op eds generally are not considered RS
  3. The [Sun article http://lasvegassun.com/news/2015/mar/25/fiore-ushers-bundy-family-nevada-legislature] comes closest, but gosh all it says is that the guy is lobbying his state legislature a bit. Lotsa people do that everyday. Big whoop.
  4. Suggestion that the Guardian article establishes notability is the most hilarious thing I've seen for awhile. The guy was tasered! Period! That's all it says about him. Well, hold the presses. I should have a bio article about myself then, because once a newspaper ran a pic of me changing a tire, and another time after a bike wreck. That was an attempt at humor to illustrate the point. Apologies if it pss'd anyone off.
  • Support merge, although some references are dated prior to the occupation, those are, as already explained by NewsAndEventsGuy, not for anything that establishes notability (only inherited notability from his father). Thus, the person is known for a single notable event and WP:BLP1E applies. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support merge. If you remove the occupation-related content from Ammon Bundy, there's nothing left. WP:CRYSTAL: since he's going to be tangled up with the courts or in jail for a long while, he won't be directly involved with any future notable crises during that time. Fishlandia (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Tasering incident discussion - Here's some more information about the tasering: [12][13][http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/feds-charged-with-killing-cattle-in-nevada-range-war/][14] - My point is, Bundy is not merely known for this one event, but for several events both during and prior to the occupation. This isn't about a local business owner or someone who was robbed in some small town in Oklahoma or Kansas. MB298 (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

So he got tasered. I've been arrested more than once... had a few parking tickets. I've even been involved in several civil suits and stubbed my toe once. You make this claim that he's known for "several" incidents. That's true of most of us, unless our lives are mighty empty. But suppose you make a numbered list of the instances that you think establish WP:Notability. I start you off with the two you have named
A. The present occupation
B. Cops tasered him during Bundy standoff
C. He's lobbying his state legislature
D. He likes chocolate chip cookies that was humor
E. Anything else ??????
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
While it is very obvious he's notable due to the sources given above, it can also be argued he is in fact notable JUST for the occupation, as it isn't some two-day standoff that was easily resolved. Per WP:ONEEVENT "if the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." It can be argued this event is highly significant, especially in the constitutionality of federal land ownership. MB298 (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Anytime, anywhere in Wikipedia that anyone says "it's obvious" my bullshit meter twitches. I concede you have a nonfrivolous argument, but I'm hardly persuaded that this off-season gun and gabfest at the frozen wetland is the sort of "major event" represented by the example given in that guideline - the assassination of the duke that led to WWI, nor am I persuaded that Ammon's status as media poster child has produced a "legacy" quite the same as that of the assassin, Gavrilo Princip as discussed in his article. Flash in pan copy in the great infotainment cycle isn't really what the rule has in mind, in my view. Of course, if 40 years from now Ammon is credited with the liquidation of all BLM Federal land, then of course he'd qualify. But it's a long way from introducing your stetson to the microphones and that day. I acknowledge you'll disagree with this view. Well, OK. The best place to debate the matter - widest audience, most eds, and most outside eds - is at WP:Articles for deletion with a ping to the WP:Notability noticeboard and let things take their course. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Did you get headlines when you were arrested? His involvement in the 2014 standoff was reported in RS. That would make the current standoff the second event he was notable for. Torven (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
My mistake, support merge per WP:BIO1E. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Note my change above. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose as Ammon is notable in his own right. I think he deserves his own article, as he has generated independent and extensive media coverage. Further, this is most likely not the last we will hear of Ammon. With an eye toward the future, it makes sense to keep his article independent rather than rip it up and rewrite it in a year or two. CaseyPenk (talk) 03:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • STRONGLY oppose -- Ammon Bundy is emerging as the leader for an entire movement that will continue to make national news, and it's strongly expected by national experts in right-wing extremism (some of whom I've been in direct contact with during the occupation) that he will continue making news even if he is arrested, tried and convicted. He is an original founder of the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom, which is likely to continue after the standoff and will deserve its own entry in time. It should also be noted that Randy Weaver and the incident at Ruby Ridge each have their own separate entries. Karimala (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2016 MST
  • Comment - I don't mean to be flip, but some of the above rationales (those predicting that Ammon is destined for continued relevance) is textbook WP:CRYSTAL. There may be plenty of reasons for Ammon to have his own article, but what he might do isn't one of them. Antepenultimate (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC) edited to avoid singling out any one response. Antepenultimate (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – After the arrest, it appears he may now have more notability than he did before. MB298 (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E does not apply per WP:LOWPROFILE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, WP:LOWPROFILE is not a Wikipedia policy, it's an essay. Also, you are correct in that WP:BLP1E is the wrong policy to be noting here. The Wikipedia guideline that supports merging Ammon Bundy into this article is WP:BIO1E. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless both articles are extensively culled. Just how much of the stuff is worth keeping once it all blows over? Possibly most of it? And why does this event get some much coverage and yet a lot of stuff that deserves coverage does not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.162.133 (talk) 07:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - Each subject is separately notable. BMK (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support merge. Per not news. While there is likely to be a sporadic stream of news subsequent to his arrest, I can all but guarantee that will be directly related to the occupation, and barring trial-of-the-century, O.J. Simpson trial stuff, Bundy's notability is intrinsically tied to the occupation, and I'd like to point out that even if he does pass the threshold for a stand-alone article, we are not mandated to maintain a separate article, i.e. if consensus determines it is most prudent to discuss him within the context of his primary claim to fame. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Alternate option

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

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

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

I oppose merger of the articles as Ammon Bundy has previously become well known thanks to the Nevada standoff, which is separate and distinct from this situation. Also, I do not think an article about the family in general is sufficient, as from Cliven's public comments, he was neither aware of the intent to occupy Malheur refuge, nor did he endorse it. I'd add that the Vegas cop killer Jerad Miller did video interviews with Ryan Bundy and his sister Margaret during the standoff that he posted and which remain on YouTube. Activist (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I think they each deserve their own article, as each has generated independent and extensive media coverage. But as a compromise, I would rather see Ammon and Cliven get a new joint article (as they are very much of the same ideology) rather than Ammon merged with this siege (which is only one event and most likely not the last we will hear of Ammon. So, with an eye toward the future I would like to see articles for each of the siege, Cliven, and Ammon. CaseyPenk (talk) 03:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Statistics

On a side note, Ammon Bundy has been viewed nearly 20,000 times since its creation. MB298 (talk) 04:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

21,705 (January 21, 2016). MB298 (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Votes

As of this timestamp, there are roughly 11 "Oppose" votes and 7 "Support". MB298 (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Causes, goals, results parameters in infobox

As the standoff is now over, it's just about time for that to be inserted. MB298 (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

H.R.4431

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4431/text?format=txt In section 2 of this bill introduced by Representative Earl Blumenauer, it says the occupiers would pay for the occupation if passed. Think this bill should be mentioned. 104.34.250.89 (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Use of Flag Icons in Infobox

NAC:There is a rough consensus against the use of the flag icons for the militias. There is also a previous consensus against the use of the term "rump militias". This RFC does not address whether to include the national flag and the flags of the law enforcement units on the left side of the infobox. There is a consensus against using flags on the right side of the infobox. This does not address other issues in this contentious article. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Survey

  • Yes Maybe Yes - This provides an easy reading reference which is why we generally do it in most articles. To vaguely say "militias" obfuscates the details of this situation to the detriment of readers. Inclusion of icons, as well as specific names of groups and wikilinks, should be done whenever possible (I created the article on the involved extremist group 3 Percenters specifically after writing the Malheur incident article, in fact). If we delete any flags, I would support deleting all flags per Cwobeel and MOS Flags, but not one side or the other. LavaBaron (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No - No, they are not helpful at all. We are restrictive with flags on wikipedia (see MOS:FLAG, and I don't always agree, like for example banning them from infobox company), but I do think we shouldn't have a flag of an Agency (that is part of a jurisdiction); nor should we have the flag of self-named militias. We need at least some standing as a jurisdiction. L.tak (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No - Agency flags add nothing. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes A lot easier to read with flags and staying consistent with other articles. Eteethan(talk) 22:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes As per MOS:FLAG examples of acceptable exceptions include military conflict infobox templates. Wykx 23:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No flags. It's unnecessary and opens the door to more complications. For instance. Here's one. Why do we, in both text and by using its flag, represent the 3 Percenters as a party to this conflict when that organization does not condone it? --Lockley (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Other RS say they are a belligerent. Many of these groups don't have a cohesive structure and may simultaneously support and oppose something. Plus this is an evolutionary topic. LavaBaron (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Check. I've been in groups like that. (g) Would you agree that the article should describe these protestors as a splinter group of the 3 Percenters? This is an honest question, with appreciation for your effort here. --Lockley (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I can't presume to know this is, or is not, a splinter group in the absence of an RS statement it is. There could be other reasons for the contradictory statements including, but not limited to, organizational incompetence, internal bickering, or an attempt at plausible deniability or operational security by militants. LavaBaron (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • NO they are not protecting their own territory, like at Koresh's site. this would be like the Symbionese Liberation Army flag used when they robbed a bank. Using a flag or other symbol lends credence to their claims, as if the flag indicates some form of external recognition, like ISIS has gotten. if they set up a provisional government at the site, and resist arrest long enough, and the 3 percenters are FULLY on board with this action, i can see a flag. otherwise, its POV pushing.(mercurywoodrose)2602:304:CFD0:6350:54DE:4FA7:407A:E62C (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No - it's useless clutter (flagcruft, really). The flag guidelines say "if the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags" and "Avoid flag icons in infoboxes." Neutralitytalk 16:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No - I do believe that Y'all Qaeda themselves put a flag up of the United States on the Refuge sign that they took over. So why are we using a different flag? Do they even own a legit flag as portrayed here? Leitmotiv (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes - keep the flags. They're pretty standard in these types of infoboxes. - theWOLFchild 02:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes - Doesn't really seem like we have directly relevant policy here. WP:SOVEREIGNFLAG discusses "subnational" flags, but there isn't really anything discussing flags belonging to "groups" or non-national entities. Lacking clear policy, I'd just follow general practice here, and it seems like we generally include flags in conflicts of this nature, when those flags are verifiable. NickCT (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No given MOS:FLAG and the fact that there's not really a flag prominently identified with either side. They'd just be decoration of dubious accuracy. wctaiwan (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No. Besides the fact that these guys are not valid belligerents and not a military, they also have no generally recognized specific flag.oknazevad (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes. It helps users and readers identify groups easily. MB298 (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No—it's not an armed conflict, and they aren't really an organized actor with a cohesive identity. I would expect flags in a page on WW2, but even framing this as "X vs. Y" is overly dramatic, as it's a one-sided protest that BLM has yet to really engage with. I don't agree with using the military battle infobox for non-violent (thus far) occupations. CaseyPenk (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment At very least, the "3 Percenters" should not be represented with the USA flag. And the Nyberg flag for them isn't official either, and at that resolution is confusingly similar to the USA flag. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 03:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Unclear - called by bot - I think that it may be reasonable to place the occupiers' flag on one side and the United States flag on the other, per NickCT. That said, I agree with Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz that their flag is confusingly similar to the American flag, and that this causes problems. I also agree with CaseyPenk that absent battles and military conflict, showing flags may overdramatize the conflict. -Darouet (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, the appropriate time to use the X vs. Y (with flags) would be for treason—the waging of war against the United States. That's not even close to what's happening here. The occupiers want to make this into an epic anti-government struggle but it's mostly a soliloquy. CaseyPenk (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

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

Update on RfC as of this time stamp
  • No: 11 times
  • Yes: 6 times
  • Unclear: 1 time

MB298 (talk) 02:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Proposed merge with Ryan Payne

Strong consensus to redirect, an action which has already been performed. MB298 (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

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

(De-archived MB298 (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC))

Notable only for a single event. Bueller 007 (talk) 07:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC) (Copied from the talk page at Ryan Payne)

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

Post Occupation

Looks like there is room for a Post Occupation section going forward. Since the occupation itself is over, any further developments should be in a new section titled Post Occupation or something similar. A start in the post occupation article would be on Cliven Bundy's request for a court appointed attorney. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Personally, the specific example strikes me as a NOTNEWS trivial little bit of the juridicial proceedings. Surely, we're not going to list every discovery document and pretrial motion each individual files.... right? (You can get your own free account to look at court docs at the US court system's Pacer Service Center) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I think it would only be eligible if it fleshed out another pertinent piece of information, but is documented here just in case. For now, it would be a place to start to flesh out component of the article that is likely to be implemented in the months to come.
I agree that the specific example given is too trivial to be covered, but there will be important material to cover in terms of how the trials proceed. Bondegezou (talk) 11:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Archiving the talk page "RfC: Rump Militia" section

I propose archiving the "RfC: Rump Militia" section of this talk page soon, as I do not know how to remove the "Do Not Archive" code. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: It's simple, just remove the "<!--- (TEXT) -->" part. MB298 (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

editing sidebar

In the video, after quickly exiting the cab crew pickup, Finicum strides rapidly in deep snow up the embankment toward the woods. He does not raise his hands above shoulder height, turns twice from first facing the woods, where there is an approaching LEO holding a long gun in his left hand, and to the road where three blocking vehicles led to his unsuccessful attempt to pass them on his left in deep snow that has drifted into a roadside ditch. Activist (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

Resolved

The category is still being discussed here, if anyone wants to participate. MB298 (talk) 02:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Michelle Fiore remarks

Michelle Fiore, a publicity seeking Nevada legislator, passed along a hearsay comment about Finicum's death which she had gotten from the wife of Ammon Bundy, who was not present at the shooting, but who had heard of the circumstances from Ammon, who was also not present at the shooting. That's hearsay 3x removed, and doesn't seem worthy of inclusion, so I deleted it. I retained the citation, however. Activist (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

tidbits

Someone else might be interested in working these in;

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Can an FLDS affiliate pls pipe up and suggest that the free stuff / "gimmedats" should be more than just free land, and include as many wives as possible? Just not federal ones. And at least until the Lord blesses them with child. Tah 209.181.53.62 (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Steve or Steven Hammond

There is much inconsistency throughout this article on whether the son of Dwight Hammond is known as Steve or Steven. It originally was Steve, but someone came through a while back and changed it to Steven in some places but not all. MB298 (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

His first name appears to be 'Steven', according to court documents. Alan G. Archer (talk) 09:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Malheur National Wildlife Refuge navigation box

Please see Template talk:Malheur National Wildlife Refuge to discuss which entries belong in Template:Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

KIA

I have added that Finicum was Killed In Action, as it is similar to events such as the Waco Siege which designate others Killed in Action in similar circumstances. 06:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.164.22.36 (talk)

Video from cell phone

Cellphone video Leitmotiv (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Size split of article

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus to split. As a personal observation (in support of user:VQuakr), perhaps a copyedit and pruning of excess detail might help clarify whether there is indeed a subsection which demands separate treatment. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

This article is over 100 kB, and should be split. I propose splitting this page to three new articles entitled:

  1. "Hammond arson case"
  2. "List of people involved in the Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge"
  3. "Reactions to the Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge"

--Jax 0677 (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The Hammond arson case isn't notable on its own. How about keeping it in one article and trimming all of the WP:RECENTISM that made its way into the article over the course of it being a current event? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Reply - @Muboshgu:, Fire Away! --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

We've got detail in the timeline article, so I think the week by week stuff here can be trimmed. But there are no hard and fast rules over article length. 100kB is a guide, that's all. Bondegezou (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I've worked hard at compacting the Hammond arson case so that it reads with punch but skips trivial detail. It isn't just a story about a couple fires, and in my view, it's important to include the fuller context. After I prune, it inflates again. I'll have another go by next week sometime. Meanwhile, I also think the play by play should get mightily chopped with some portion of the chop finding its way into the timeline if it isn't already copy pasted over there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Right, it's the "play by play" that should specifically be trimmed. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - A LOT of the detail in the aforementioned sections seem pretty important to not be included and a splitting of those three sections seem to be in appropriate order. Parsley Man (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the only thing that should be split is the people involved section, besides trimming down the timeline all other information should be kept. Given that Blaine Cooper and Ryan Payne were merged into this article, the new article would contain sections about Cooper, Payne, Ryan Bundy, Finicum, Fry, and the other primary occupiers. The timeline section of this article really needs to go over only the basic events: the original few days and initial police/government response, maybe a bit over the next couple of weeks, the arrests, and the surrender on Feb. 11. MB298 (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose First, the proposal points at raw file size, but size splits turn on the size of "readable prose". The way I evaluate that question is to display the text in read mode so you don't see wiki markup then copy paste the text (along with images and infoboxes but omitting See also and Refs sections) to notepad. Then save and look at the result which in this case is around 56kb. While I'm in favor of trimming detail, I am opposed to wholesale splitting of these sections. Most readers will only visit the main article, after all. So let's condense rather than chop and scatter. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


So far we have 6 votes opposed and 3 supporting. No new entries in 5 days. I had a go to remove the split tag earlier, but that was reverted. Anyone feel a need to weigh in? This discussion has been ongoing for 3+ weeks. Seems time to wrap it up to me. Possums (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment - Keeping my personal opinions aside, I think that there is no consensus for any splitting at all. That being said, the {{toolong}} tag should remain in place until the article is shortened. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. MB298 (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Right. I'll slap a tag up top since it definitely is, and remove the split tag. Possums (talk) 07:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

COWS

GOP Politicians Planned and Participated in Key Aspects of Refuge Occupation Leitmotiv (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Arrests and shooting

The narrative flow needs some work. There seems to be 2 or 3 accounts presented. TomS TDotO (talk) 05:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Really? It all looks clear to me. Would you mind specifying these accounts? Parsley Man (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
These are parts of the narrative:
"Finicum exited his vehicle and briefly held his hands above his head. Two Oregon State Police officers armed with handguns stood to his right, while an OSP officer equipped with a Taser X2 walked toward him from his left. During a briefing, the OSP officers asserted that Finicum had a loaded handgun on the left of his torso. As the officer with the Taser attempted to move within the Taser's range of 15 feet (5 m), Finicum turned his body to the left, holding his jacket with his left hand and reaching for the pocket with his right hand, when he was shot three times in the back.”
Then we back up to what happened earlier:
"OSP officers fired three shots into Finicum's truck as it approached the roadblock, and fired three shots into Finicum. While Finicum was leaving his truck, an FBI Hostage Rescue Team member fired two shots, one of which entered the truck and rebounded, inflicting a minor shrapnel wound on Ryan Bundy.”
(Did they fire three shots into Finicum while he was still in the truck?)
And then we have another report of what happened:
"Immediately after the shooting and arrests, officials stated that Finicum was reaching for a gun in his pocket when he was shot by a state trooper."
Thank you for your work on this. TomS TDotO (talk) 02:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Nope, still clear to me. Parsley Man (talk) 03:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Too long?

What else could we do to get rid of that Template:2L tag? I've done as much condensing and reorganization as I could, but nothing else seems to stand out as needing condensing or division. Parsley Man (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

You really want that to happen, do you? I thought a lot of people were opposed to this? Parsley Man (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Lists are generally bad form, and the Hammond case is rarely the topic in mainstream media when discussing the occupation. They should be calved off. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Any suggestions how? These details are really important to the occupation. Parsley Man (talk) 01:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
The answer is in your own reply right there. The details can be on a separate page. The gist of it can be mentioned here. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Reply - Many are opposed, but since the article is getting close to 200 kB, I thought I would bring it up again as an option, now that the article has been condensed as much as possible. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The actual text = 126 kb, more or less. Note that per WP:SIZERULE articles should be under 100kb, but we don't count image captions, table of contents, refs, see also section etc. Just the text. Right now, the text (and image captions) runs around 126 kb. So the article isn't as crazy as some are saying when they cite the markup size which is around 200kb. Nonetheless, it still needs paring. For one thing, I see no important reason to keep the table of individual charges. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

In my sandbox is the beginning skeleton of a potential Hammond arson case article. Most of it is just copy-and-pasted from the main occupation article, but if we use my material and replace everything in said main article with basic summaries and such, it should be fine. What do you guys think? Parsley Man (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the start of that article is great. I'm of the opinion that the arson case, despite the alleged impetus behind the occupation, has very tenuous connections because what was discussed by the occupiers thereafter very rarely mentioned the Hammonds. The Hammonds deserve a mention in the main article, but the details are best left off the actual occupation article. I like your bold edits, but the consensus discussed earlier seems to be at odds. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Leitmotiv: @Jax 0677: @NewsAndEventsGuy: Are you there? I am really considering creating that arson case article and I would like someone to review what I have right now in my sandbox to see if it's okay. Parsley Man (talk) 05:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Does anybody know why I was pinged to this weird page, or was it a ghost in the machine? -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) Something went wrong with the notification system. I got a "Parsley Man‬ mentioned you on the ‪Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge‬ talk page in 'Too long?‬'." message even though I was not mentioned. If anyone else got notified, let us know so I can file a bug report. My working theory from the fact that Guy Macon and Roxy the dog were pinged is that the software is somehow detecting those users who are incredibly good looking and highly sought after by potential mates... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Me too... weird weird weird. SageRad (talk) 09:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I think Guy's working hypothesis is accurate in its characterisation of the victims, but far more likely is that somebody is picking on people who don't have accidents in Japanese cars, as my Mitsubishi is currently unmarked. -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


User:Parsley Man made a ping error explained at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Bogus alerts. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
My apologies, everyone, I didn't mean to ping you guys as well. Though I can't imagine how that could've happened. Parsley Man (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Removal of table

Considering how long this article is and the efforts to shorten it, I doubt there is an encyclopedic need to know the names of each militant involved and the specific charges they face. Any of that is already covered in the main articles for Ammon Bundy and Jon Ritzheimer. I suggest a complete removal of that table. Parsley Man (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree with getting rid of the table of charges. Two considerations: first, there is otherwise nowhere in the article where we cover who has been indicted, and we are going into a legal process where there will be a lot of things happening - most likely plea bargains for the small fry and possibly additional charges for some of the others (don't forget, the investigation is still ongoing). Second, there seems to be literally nowhere - except probably in some FBI office somewhere - where all the charges are tabulated in some sort of at-a-glance format. That's why I created the table in the first place. We're in a unique position compared to the media, in that we can take a step backwards and look at the overall picture rather than just report on a piecemeal basis. Let's not lose the advantage of doing that. Nobody else seems to be providing such a summary for this case, so we can genuinely provide something unique here. Prioryman (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Prioryman. MB298 (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
But do we really need to know who all of these militants are? The only names that are recurring in the article are the Bundy brothers, Ritzheimer, Finicum, and the last four militants to surrender, and the others just come out of nowhere. Parsley Man (talk) 02:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
@Parsley Man: Yes. The reason they are listed there is because they don't appear anywhere else in the article. Another proposal could be to split People involved in the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge from the main article. MB298 (talk) 03:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
One further possibility, which I'd be open to, would be to create a spinoff article covering the legal proceedings, in which we could incorporate the table and summarise the case as it develops. There is going to be a lot of interest and a lot more material to come on that topic. Prioryman (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Reply - I concur with MB298 and Prioryman, in addition to a new article entitled Reactions to the Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree that this table should be split from the article into its own. Lists are generally bad form for articles and should be subarticles or removed entirely. I think in this case, there is plenty of sources to support a subarticle. Leitmotiv (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
That does sound good. Let's do it? Parsley Man (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
@Parsley Man: Great! MB298 (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Recreate category

There are now 9 articles related to this subject, so I think a category could be recreated. MB298 (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Another Believer: and @Parsley Man: – It has expanded to ten by now; so this current one, as well as the timeline and reactions articles, the Hammond arson case, 3 Percenters, C4CF, Ammon (and possibly Cliven) Bundy, LaVoy Finicum, Jon Ritzheimer, and David Ward. MB298 (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. A category seems appropriate given the timeline and reactions articles. That being said, I would hesitate adding tangentially related articles, which is the reason the category was deleted previously. The category should only contain articles specifically related to the occupation. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Article recreation has been done. Over a month late, but it's still done. Parsley Man (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The category that was re-created was nominated again for discussion. The discussion is here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hammond arson case

Well, I just did a huge overhaul of the article so I could create an actual article on the Hammond arson case. I do hope that was okay. No hard feelings if lots of fixes are made or if my changes are ultimately undone. Parsley Man (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

belated thanks, good job NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge/Archive_5&oldid=1065955858"