Talk:Wise use movement

wise use

The problem is "wise use" isn't a broad coalition with "relatively centrist to extremist views." "wise use" is counterpoint to ecotourist. There are relatively moderate antienvironmentalist organisations (the Oregon Chamber of Commerce comes to mind), but they don't qualify as "wise use" because there neither extremists nor violent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antycrist (talk • contribs) 09:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Current version reads like "wise use" POV grey propoganda

I made balancing edits last nite and now find not only them gone but my comments about the in the descution too.

1) "wise use" is not a neutral term referring to both radical/violent anti-environmentalist and moderate business-over-environment groups. Just as there is a term ecoterrorist that apply to only radical/violent groups.

An instructive example comes from the Lake county (next county west of Burns) collage news. "... at this point Wise-Use members broak from the main protest and moved into a federal building. Wise-use groups, such as III% and supporter of Cliven Buddy, have been frustrated with the oderation of nonviolent groups like Oregon Farm Bureau and Oregon Chamber of Commerce,as well as the local community, over there unwillingness to use 'extralegal' tactics. ..." (note: I tiped this from a video broadcast)

2) The historical term it references was code for business masquerading as maintenance people such as the First head of the forest service.

3) The term is often used for any anty property regulation terrorism. An instructive example is the 1982 Oregonian artical: "The third failed attempt to repeal sb100 [the comprehensive planning and zoning law] lacked the violence of previous conflicts over sb100. Antycrist (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)This was primarily do to the 'wise-use' groups change in tactics." Antycrist (talk)

I agree this article needs a lot of work. I reverted most of your work because it did not include wikipedia style citations to what wikipedia defines as reliable sources. I'd do this whether you were Charles Koch with his POV or Michael Brune with a very different one. The only reason I hadn't reverted earlier similar issues is because like you I'm new to this article. The first change I want to see is to rename this page "Wise use movement" because the term "wise use" is really an rationalizing appropropriation of Gifford Pinchots "wise use" concept. In the NFMA, that sort of "wise use" became "multiple use", as you may know. Since this movement is just the rebranded Public Lands Transfer inititiave earlier known as "sagebrush rebellion" it should be named "Wise use movement". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk)

This is not correct at least in Oregon. "wise use" is a anty property regulation terrorist group from the 70s that absorbed most of the Public Lands Transfer inititiave after the sagebrush rebellionAntycrist (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC).

That's interesting, but we usually don't use talk pages to hold a general discussion of topics. (See WP:FORUM) Is there some way you propose to use this info to improve Wikipedia and if so, what WP:RS will you include? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The problem is the history section of the artical suggests it starts in 1988 as a rebranding of the sage brush rebellion. When it was an institution that broke from the opposition to sb100 in 1973 to engage in "nullification" of sb100 and "deterrence" of state agents. (reed defie state law and intimidate state imploies). I was looking for a fix in the history section.Antycrist (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

(A) Please read the help info on how to use indenting to thread a discussion

(B) I don't plan to think about anything you say that is not presented with a WP:Reliable source, and I am probably interested in remarks that are consistent with good RSs. Do you have any? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 1 September 2016

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

The result of the move request was: Moved to Wise use movement  — Amakuru (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

---

Wise use → Wise-use movement – The article is about a political initiative i.e., a "movement" so that word should be in the title NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. As presently written the article seems to be about both the concept ("wise use") and movement ("wise use movement"). The strongest possible form might be to start with the concept and then to discuss the movement. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for comments and I agree the concept needs coverage as does the movement. But let's pause a second. What is the concept, anyway?

"Wise use" as a concept is much older than this article makes out. The phrase is the holy grail of early supporters of public lands... supporters who wanted those lands to be used by all for the benefit of all, longterm. (Example RS) In the National Forest Management Act the term was rendered "multiple use". Then along came the 1980s renewed push to turn over these lands to states and private interests... the "wise use movement" (which this article is about). Since these interests had already exhausted the usefulness of "sagebrush rebellion" as a label, they needed a new one when they renewed their movement. So they stole the "wise use" label from public land advocates and appropriated it for their own privatization purposes.

Returning to this article, when this article describes the "wise use" concept, they are talking about the strategy goals and talking points of the privatization movement.

We should rename the article to refer to the movement, and include this history as a section. I suppose I'll have to work on text and sources; companion editing will need to happen at Sagebrush rebellion since many sources describe that as a discrete push in a limited timeframe, and but others who take a broader historical view apply the Sagebrush Rebellion label to several other upticks in the privatization movement.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Taking a closer look, I agree that this article should be renamed; I would suggest Wise use movement, without the hyphen. There is room, as well, for a separate article on "wise use", the concept. But that is not this article, as presently written. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, in general, we could do a lot to improve the cohesive interaction of articles about the public lands, including their history and evolution. If we dig into the sources that tell that story and work on that structure, the best way to report on "wise use" as a concept will become obvious and happen as a natural part of that work. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Tagging for POV

Tagging for POV - the arguments and citations seem to largely come from critics. K.Bog 14:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I removed the tag because your reason is based on a logical fallacy involving confirmation bias. So what if the sources are mostly from critics? You seem to be assuming there is bias based solely on who is doing the talking. To show POV violation you have to show that the article content itself is biased. Even sources who are politically opposed to the goals of the Wise Use Movement might be unyielding in their own intellectual integrity. Or they could be bald faced liars. The point is, you can't tell based on whose speaking. If you're really concerned about what you say is a problem here, research sources (from anyone) and try to improve the article based on what you read in the most unquestionably RS ones. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPOV before alleging that people who disagree are making a 'logical fallacy involving confirmation bias', thanks. The article must represent different points of view proportionately to their presence in reliable sources. The article overweights arguments from critics, and should include more secondary published sources, e.g.:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/08/rancher-rebels-the-rise-of-the-wise-use-movement/

http://prospect.org/article/how-west-won-astroturf-lobbying-and-wise-use-movement

https://www.csmonitor.com/1993/0112/12111.html

The lead, in particular, is uncited and does not seem to be an adequate representation of what some other sources state.

K.Bog 15:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Counterpunch and prospect.org are non-RS with selfpub and/or blog issues I think.

The CSM source looks like some valuable material.

As for your reading of NPOV it does not say you must use sources from the other side, only that the different persoectives have to be told based on good RSs with reasonable WEIGHT given to each viewpoint. So far the only assertion you have made is that the RSs are from critics. They could be telling a NPOV story before providing their own perspective. It's possible, is it not? I have not reviewed them nor have I assessed their use in this article. I'm just saying you have only complained about WHO is speaking. You haven't said squat about what is, or is not, in our text. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Well we don't evaluate the sources to see if they themselves are NPOV, we can include all of them if they are from a reputable source. I don't object to including critics' point of view, I was just suspicious at the fact that no other side of the story is being told, so I searched around to see if there were any other articles that might represent the views of others. K.Bog 17:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Looking at our text to see if the non-fringe views are all neutrally told is indeed what needs to happen to eval for NPOV. Note your first post doesn't talk aobut our text. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)