Talk:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Characterizing the excavator

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

Surely we can come up with a wording that explains that the excavator was stolen, but be clear that it was on site -- they didn't go steal it from somewhere else. Bondegezou (talk) 10:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Surely the Times specifically used the word "stolen" for a reason. It's not for Wikipedians to edit content due to discomfort with the source. Activist (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we don't use the word "stolen". I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the NYT as a source: seems like an excellent source to me. I am suggesting that we write text that explains what happened to the reader. When I first read the headline using the word "stolen", I was confused until I saw that it meant the occupiers used a vehicle that was already there. So what I'm suggesting is that we use "stolen", but go on to explain what happened. Bondegezou (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it's clear we should keep the frame of the article in mind in regards to the excavator. They are occupying the refuge which is exactly what they are doing with the excavator. "Stolen" suggests they took it from somewhere else and brought it with them to the refuge. Sometimes sources suck and you have to be level-headed. They're just using government property during their occupation. Also don't revert a perfectly good link. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the term 'unauthorized use' would be a good compromise here. As in, Meanwhile, the occupiers made unauthorized use of a government CAT excavator.... Any objections to that wording? Antepenultimate (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

"unauthorized use" is far too tepid a characterization. I'm assuming also that the "alleged" criminals hot wired the Cat and moved it a considerable distance to employ it in destroying fences. In response to the affected landowner(s?) upset with the fence removal, the press has reported that the occupiers have rebuilt it. Adequate sturdy fence replacement is not an easy task. It requires specialized equipment and substantial material that was unlikely to be available on the site. I'd further venture that restoration to the status quo ante was unlikely, and is probably substantially insufficient in this case. Activist (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Move to Abort Proposal

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

Survey

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

1 The table options proposes replacing the first paragraph of the lead (option A) with new text in (Option B).

2 Already, constructive dialogue has persuaded me to endorse a tweak of my Option B.

3 Already, other dialogue has persuaded me accept preserving some of the text in Option A.

4 I admit it I botched the labels in the first column when I tried to address the first criticism received (in the closed discussion above). cleaning up the labels in the first column should be easier to read and it looks like this

Same proposal, cleaned up row labels. Reflist is here (click show to read)

Option A Lead first paragraph Since at least the 1940s, there has been pressure on the federal government to liquidate its extensive holdings of public lands (e.g., national forests, national parks, acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management, etc.)[10] In the 1970s, advocates of privatization mounted a renewed effort known as the "Sagebrush Rebellion", and for a time in the 1980s as the "Wise Use Movement".[11] At least 11 states have explored the possibility of taking back federally-managed public lands in recent years,[12] and the militants' occupation of the refuge is fueling the debate.[13][14] (section could have been expanded upon re the refuge specifically but for the reversion) Public Lands Privatization Addressed in last sentence of the lead first paragraph, above, and omitted from body Option B Lead first paragraph On January 2, 2016, armed anti-government members of rump militias occupied the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. They have demanded a transfer of ownership of the refuge to private interests, more lenient sentences for two area ranchers convicted of arson, and an inquiry into whether the government is forcing ranchers off their land.[7][8][9] Public Lands Privatization New subsection under existing "Background" section Since at least the 1940s, there has been pressure on the federal government to liquidate its extensive holdings of public lands (e.g., national forests, national parks, acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management, etc.)[10] In the 1970s, advocates of privatization mounted a renewed effort known as the "Sagebrush Rebellion", and for a time in the 1980s as the "Wise Use Movement".[11] At least 11 states have explored the possibility of taking back federally-managed public lands in recent years,[12] and the militants' occupation of the refuge is fueling the debate.[13][14] (section could have been expanded upon re the refuge specifically but for the reversion) Option C Other. If you really mean A or B with tweaks, please say that. If you have an entirely new idea, please be specific and include RSs

5 In reply to rebuttal logical reasoning, the creator of this motion responed (current version) with ad hominem and now the motion to abort.

Consensus is not aided by muzzling topics of proposed article improvements based on policy and RSs

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support Abort Sorry but it's still unreadable and way too confusing to work with. Agree we should wipe what little exists of the discussion and start from scratch on the topic. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to LavaBaron for moving this - I submit that this proves my point though. The formatting of even your "cleaned up" version is out of whack and so impossible to follow that I couldn't even get my comment into the right place, NewsAndEventsGuy... Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 05:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Good idea, Prostetnic thanks for suggesting it. I was opposed to just aborting my proposal, which is how Lava's question seemed to read. I'd be happy to start over. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

New report -- illegal occupiers destroyed Federal property

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/01/oregon_standoff_occupiers_remo.html

Please add to list of alleged crimes by the terrorist group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.16.108 (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Occupations' focus and possible backfire impact on Hammonds release

Sources are starting to assess the occupation in terms of its focus and impact on the Hammonds sentence. For example,

SOURCE EXCERPTS

Extent of militants focus on Hammonds release

• Close friends of the Hammonds – some of whom grew up alongside Steven and have been neighbors for decades – say they have done everything they can to keep the spotlight on the father and son locked up in federal correctional institution. But the cries for freedom for the Hammonds have sometimes been almost entirely absent from press events of militia leader Ammon Bundy and the news reports that follow.

• But the siege and standoff that’s making national headlines today isn’t primarily about the Hammonds. Ammon Bundy and his allies are exploiting the ranchers’ situation as a way to further their broader, and more radical, agenda. As the Hammonds’ case was unfolding, radical right-wing activists had been storming around the West, looking for kindling to light their movement on fire.

Protest by armed occupation of fed facilities may interfere with Hammonds own efforts to win release

• Nearly two weeks after the Hammonds' reported back to prison, the case offers a final irony: The armed standoff inspired by their case may doom their last shot at getting out of prison early. The Hammonds and their close supporters have taken pains to distance themselves from the armed protesters who have occupied the refuge building near their ranch. That's in part because they are now seeking clemency from the White House.

• "Land said he worried that the militia’s violent image could taint the Hammonds’ reputation and make it harder for them to get out of prison. “I’m afraid the judge or whoever hears the case, it’s going to put doubt in their mind that Steven and Dwight might do something against the government.”

The above is not proposed text, just sources to discuss. I'm uncertain Yes! Magazine is RS, and all of these should probably get inline attrib.

I think these concepts should be added to the article, but am uncertain how they fit with the structure and organization, and so have not attempted to draft text. Your thoughts? Where does this aspect fit? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that some content on this would be good. What about a subsection in Reactions on the Hammonds' evolving reactions to the situation? Bondegezou (talk) 13:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions how/where? I'm already working on the Hammonds seeking clemency, but that leaves (A) how armed occupation of fed facilities would impact that bid, and (B) what Hammonds think of the occupation (unless that's already in and I overlooked it). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Image for Ryan Bundy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtBykFIh0oA (poor quality video). MB298 (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: Category:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

I've nominated Category:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge for deletion. Please feel free to add your two cents to the discussion. ----Another Believer _(Talk) 22:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Either way as far as I'm concerned NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

OK. You might add comments here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Move to Abort Proposal (DE-ARCHIVED)

Should the proposal on this Talk page titled "Should we say anything more about Public Lands Privatization and demand feds cede ownership?" be aborted? (Note: Someone archived this proposal before we got resolution, de-archiving it here so discussion can continue.)

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

1 The table options proposes replacing the first paragraph of the lead (option A) with new text in (Option B).

2 Already, constructive dialogue has persuaded me to endorse a tweak of my Option B.

3 Already, other dialogue has persuaded me accept preserving some of the text in Option A.

4 I admit it I botched the labels in the first column when I tried to address the first criticism received (in the closed discussion above). cleaning up the labels in the first column should be easier to read and it looks like this

Same proposal, cleaned up row labels. Reflist is here (click show to read)

Option A Lead first paragraph Since at least the 1940s, there has been pressure on the federal government to liquidate its extensive holdings of public lands (e.g., national forests, national parks, acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management, etc.)[10] In the 1970s, advocates of privatization mounted a renewed effort known as the "Sagebrush Rebellion", and for a time in the 1980s as the "Wise Use Movement".[11] At least 11 states have explored the possibility of taking back federally-managed public lands in recent years,[12] and the militants' occupation of the refuge is fueling the debate.[13][14] (section could have been expanded upon re the refuge specifically but for the reversion) Public Lands Privatization Addressed in last sentence of the lead first paragraph, above, and omitted from body Option B Lead first paragraph On January 2, 2016, armed anti-government members of rump militias occupied the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. They have demanded a transfer of ownership of the refuge to private interests, more lenient sentences for two area ranchers convicted of arson, and an inquiry into whether the government is forcing ranchers off their land.[7][8][9] Public Lands Privatization New subsection under existing "Background" section Since at least the 1940s, there has been pressure on the federal government to liquidate its extensive holdings of public lands (e.g., national forests, national parks, acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management, etc.)[10] In the 1970s, advocates of privatization mounted a renewed effort known as the "Sagebrush Rebellion", and for a time in the 1980s as the "Wise Use Movement".[11] At least 11 states have explored the possibility of taking back federally-managed public lands in recent years,[12] and the militants' occupation of the refuge is fueling the debate.[13][14] (section could have been expanded upon re the refuge specifically but for the reversion) Option C Other. If you really mean A or B with tweaks, please say that. If you have an entirely new idea, please be specific and include RSs

5 In reply to rebuttal logical reasoning, the creator of this motion responed (current version) with ad hominem and now the motion to abort.

Consensus is not aided by muzzling topics of proposed article improvements based on policy and RSs

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support Abort Sorry but it's still unreadable and way too confusing to work with. Agree we should wipe what little exists of the discussion and start from scratch on the topic. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to LavaBaron for moving this - I submit that this proves my point though. The formatting of even your "cleaned up" version is out of whack and so impossible to follow that I couldn't even get my comment into the right place, NewsAndEventsGuy... Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 05:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Good idea, Prostetnic thanks for suggesting it. I was opposed to just aborting my proposal, which is how Lava's question seemed to read. I'd be happy to start over. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Too long?

Concern has been expressed that the article is too long and with too much content that is not encyclopaedic, i.e. does not have long-term significance. I think, by and large, we've got the balance about right, but have been trying to trim the article here and there as appropriate. However, others disagree over some of the material removed, so I thought we could consider some of this here. I'll start with what I've chopped and others have re-instated as examples for consideration.

One example is this diff about the PETA stunt sending vegan jerky. I don't think that has any lasting significance. We only included the sex toy stuff along similar lines when there had been more news stories about it. I suggest we drop this, or maybe include it more briefly after the sex toy comments under Reactions.

Another example is this diff: I removed various bits here, so this is more complicated. To explain some of my edits, I don't think the exact timings of most items matter. Why do we care the press conference was at 11am?

There's a part ending "the militants had deployed into defensive positions with elements manning a roadblock, guarding the headquarters entry, and stationed in a fire lookout usually used to watch for forest fires. Additional militiamen occupied the facility's buildings." I deleted everything after "defensive positions": why do the precise details of the defensive positions matter?

Next paragraph, I knocked out a Ward quote. I don't see any need to quote everything he says. There's a subsequent quote saying much the same thing, so I thought this one could go.

There's a later phrase that begins, "U.S. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon said that he had been briefed by the special agent in charge of the Portland FBI field office and said that" which I chopped. I don't see why it's important that Wyden said this -- that detail is in the cite given if people care.

Overall, details on timings seem unnecessary much of the time; and I think we can cut back on detail in some places as to who said what. If we're confident a report is accurate, we just need to say what is reported, not who said it how. Bondegezou (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I was happy to see Bondegezou start the trimming process in the diffs above, and was disappointed to see them reverted (obviously not enough to re-revert, because life's too short). The type of info they removed is exactly the sort that crufts up these articles and ultimately makes it difficult to really understand what is happening.

It was discussed elsewhere that the 'play-by-play' style currently employed, which makes sense when building an article at the same time the events are unfurling, will need to be revisited and compacted. Eventually, we can hopefully compress the narrative into weekly summaries (preceded by a section dedicated to the very beginning of the occupation and the immediate events leading up to it). In-prose attributions and individual dates and times for specific actions/reactions only seem important because the events are so recent, but such details will soon become trivial, even obfuscating, once some time has passed.

I think that such a massive re-org can likely wait until after the events have truly stabilized or the situation is resolved, but Bondegezou's edits are a good first step. Count me among those who would like to see more trimming occurring so we can clearly present readers with truly relevant information. Antepenultimate (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Bondegezou, you need to take the deletionism down a notch and stop trying to take so much out of the article. WP:NOTPAPER, we have room to be detailed, especially as the article is coming together towards a stable form. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

PVJ, can you be a tad more specific? Do you object to every element discussed above? I read WP:NOTPAPER and it's not some get out of jail free card: it is clearly couched in the context of other guidelines and practices. Bondegezou (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I mean Bondegezou - seriously, back off a bit and stop trying to constantly cut everything. You keep trying to trim everything you can off of the article. Wikipedia is not paper - there are at least a few thousand bytes available to keep the article properly up to date while we work out what, long term, will be relevant and not. You're pushing the bounds of WP:RAPID behavior while trying to couch it in unrelated policies, take a chill pill for a little while and give time to work out with CONSENSUS what should and shouldn't be included. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I join Antepenultimate in expressing appreciaton to Bondegezou for starting to do the hard pruning work, and I generally agree with most of the pruning. Plus, we have fewer bytes left than Prostetnic asserts, because the occupation's purpose of Public Lands Transfer and asserting Sovereign Citizen stuff are not yet adequately reported, nor is the reaction from Hammonds or the impact on their desired release. So no, however many bytes you think we have for minutae and drama-saga, Prostetnic the real number is lower. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Bondegezou - I think there's been a rough consensus expressed in previous discussions that trimming should wait until this event has reached its natural conclusion, which it has not yet done. At that point trimming is absolutely appropriate but, right now, we can't tell what will ultimately be important in the overall story. LavaBaron (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:Consensus can change and no one WP:OWNS articles, so have at it, B!!!! The WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle always applies. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

LavaBaron, as per my comments a few days ago, I broadly agree with the strategy of letting the article grow until events reach a conclusion. That's why I'm not suggesting any major changes now. Rather, I'm talking about judiciously trimming words and phrases here and there to make paragraphs read better and to keep text concise where that is easy to do. I think this is something we can do as we go along. If you look at the edits I made (some since reverted, some not), I've not been removing significant content or suggesting any big re-organisation. (The one content piece I cut in total was about the PETA PR stunt.)

Everyone else, thanks for comments. Would it be useful to move on to discussing specific edits? E.g. time of the press conference, details of defensive positions, PETA's vegan jerky? Maybe after a few examples, we will have a better idea of what sort of things to keep or drop...? Bondegezou (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that the trimming is necessary. Parsley Man (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Week

Could the sections change from days "January 8–10" to weeks (eg first week, second week, third week)? That would seem to be a logical time break greater than single days. It would also allow limited condensing of any repetition of similar events in a single week. -- Callinus (talk) 05:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Note:

    January 2016      
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa  
                1  2  
 3  4  5  6  7  8  9  
10 11 12 13 14 15 16  
17 18 19 20 21 22 23  
24 25 26 27 28 29 30  
31 

Thus,

• First week (Jan 2)
• Second week (starting Jan 9)
• Third week (starting Jan 16) -- Callinus (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Support "week" subsections Not only is this a great organizing suggestion but it also meshes with many RSs I have seen, especially about "week 3". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Support "week" subsections - That definitely sounds good. :) Parsley Man (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Redirects

I've redirected Kenneth Medenbach and Duane Kirkland to this article. MB298 (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: Timeline of the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

Is there is ongoing discussion regarding the creation of Timeline of the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and ways to address the redundancy between the timeline article and the main article? ----Another Believer _(Talk) 21:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I favor chronicling the daily diary in the split-off article, and sticking to high-order things on this page. An example of a high-order thing would be a major change in the law's approach, delivery of a deadline, or on the part of the militants new demands for their departure. Close calls with pointed guns, too. An example of trivia, in my view, would be the arrival of a DUKW (duck boat) filled with tree-huggers waving inflated dildo balloons I just know that's gonna happen any day now or the 2-person counter-protest by the eco people reported in todays' RSs, or who-said-what or prancied for the latest newsie cameras. The NOTNEWS antics are getting old. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I concur with NewsAndEventsGuy. Parsley Man (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes: timeline stuff goes in the timeline article. This article should now be high-level. Bondegezou (talk) 10:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations on making a bunch of extra work for everyone. I'm going to keep updating information as I can get it and putting up the sources, you figure out what to do with it then. Obviously you think you WP:OWN the article anyways and don't want to actually work with anyone else, Bondegezou. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 13:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Especially considering that the supposed "moves" constituted section-blanking, removing entirely the January 19-20 area from this article without bothering to leave a summary behind. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 13:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, would you please read WP:AGF and WP:FOC. This is a fast-changing article with lots happening. Sometimes we all get in each others' ways and trip over each others' edits and ideas for edits, but it would be easier to resolve these issues if we treat each other with kindness. Myself and three other editors appeared to have a rough consensus above on what to do now we have the timeline article; I've just been trying to work on that. If you feel we're wrong to move material from here into the timeline article, can you lay out specifically what you think should happen? Bondegezou (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Again for starters Bondegezou: you mass-moved an entire section, blanking out the January 19-20 content without bothering to replace it with a summary. You're moving too fast, you're not bothering to talk to anyone about what you do, and you're damaging the article as a result. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I moved an individual paragraph. It is not workable for this article to contain summaries of every paragraph in the Timeline article. While this article does need to summarise events, it will have to be a much higher level to be practical. There is no need for this article to say something about every day if nothing very significant happened on that day. However, as are all Wikipedia articles, this article is a work in progress. Feel free to insert an appropriate summary here if you feel one is needed. Bondegezou (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

In other words, you don't care to discuss your edits, it's your way or the highway. Which is exactly the WP:OWN attitude I object to. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

No, that was not my intent at all. I am entirely open to any ideas you have for summaries in this article. Please do make suggestions, either here or just boldly stick them in the article. I think we all agree that the timeline material in this article has to be less detailed than what's in the Timeline article. Getting that right is a challenge: I am very happy for other people to work on this or to make suggestions. I feel, personally, that we have a long way to go and should have much less detail in this article than we currently do, as happens with other Wikipedia articles with Timeline spin-offs, but I have no strong views on how to achieve that. Bondegezou (talk) 15:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The two articles are now in a complete mess, I fear! We have a huge amount of redundancy and repetition across both. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz is adding lots of material here that seems better suited for the Timeline article. There is no point in a Timeline article if people aren't going to use it. Can we either work out what goes where, or abandon the Timeline article? Bondegezou (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Please don't abandon the timeline article, and don't stop moving the daily minutia from here to that article. I join with the emerging consensus that this article needs to focus on the high-level causes, developments and implications of the occupation, while the day-to-day drama and "news" from desperate reporters can be added to the timeline article for anyone that really is interested in that level of detail. Editing for concise clarity for an article like this is really difficult, but worthwhile; keep it up!

PVJ, perhaps at least consider adding each headline you come across to the timeline article first; if it proves to truly be an important development, you can be assured it will make its way here eventually. Antepenultimate (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I only have a certain amount of time. I'm going to put the stuff that is RS-worthy here. You want it moved/summarized? You figure it out. Nobody even bothered setting up a talk or asking for consensus on setting up a timeline article in the first place and they should have per WP:PROSPLIT. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 03:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok! Most of us have agreed to transfer detail to the timeline article and at least one doesn't like it but has expressed willingness to drop the debate. Let's get on with the job. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Way to go misrepresenting my comments. Since your stated goal [1] is clearly to allow no discussion and not to bother reaching a consensus but instead to uncivilly browbeat and threaten people until they go away, "NewsAndEventsGuy", fine: fuck you, I give up on this article.

There, you have what you wanted. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Pocket constitution

Here's something worthy but I'm not going to follow up. Any takers?

Many of the Bundy forces are flashing a pocket constitution only their version was published by the National Center for Constitutional Studies and is rife with the personal philosophies of W._Cleon_Skousen. The booklets became a focal point for at least one powerful editorial on the things you can do "with a gun on your hip and a pocket constituition".

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Interesting info, but it seems to fall under the category of WP:TRIVIA. Unless we can find sources indicating that these pocket Constitutions are closely connected to the takeover, including lists of paraphernalia seems like a slippery slope. Just my thoughts. The Cap'n (talk) 06:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

And they're GREAT thoughts. Sure we need to source it, I agree completely. It's more relevant to the Bundy core group than to the entire occupying force. It appears to be central to their version of mormonism and it isn't the constitution that is the issue, it is Clousen's perspective on the constitution that, according to the first RS, animates the Bundys. Here's one other RS (inline attrib to one person's opinion would be needed) and a newsblog which or may not be RS - someone else can judge - are is this one

No doubt more possibly reliable sources will pick this up, especially if they really do hold their mock trial. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: Category:Terrorist incidents in the United States in 2016

Is Category:Terrorist incidents in the United States in 2016 appropriate for this article? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The category description says: "This category's scope includes pages on topics and subjects relating to terrorism". So inclusion in the category is not us/Wikipedia saying this definitely is terrorism, but saying it is an article of interest to those interested in the category. So that seems fine to me. Bondegezou (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

To expand on that, compare Rose Tattoo (song), which is in Category:Boston Marathon bombing, a sub-category of Category:Terrorist incidents in the United States in 2013, not because the song is a terrorist incident, but because it is an article that has some relevance to a terrorist incident. Bondegezou (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Neutral but unless there is a clear reason not to do so, we should treat the 2014 Bundy standoff the same way NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not certain the Bundy standoff does have to be treated the same. They were different circumstances that arose in different ways. We have multiple RS talking about this incident as terrorism or as possible terrorism, so I'm fine with the category label here, but I don't know if we do for that event. Bondegezou (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The guys wore "domestic terrorist" name badges, or so our article says. I haven't reviewed any of the RSs from that event, though. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough then. Bondegezou (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• No. Because no one is calling this a "terrorist incident". Some people are complaining that it hasn't been called a terrorist incident and the "freedom to not be termed a terrorist" is now part of white privilege. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment This calls it "the terrorist attack". This says in the headline "Refuge Taken Over By Domestic Terrorists". This article says "some see it as domestic terrorism". So, yes, some people are complaining that it hasn't been called terrorism, but others are just calling it terrorism. Bondegezou (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
• No (though I don't feel particularly strongly about it). The relevant guideline here is WP:CATDEF. The guidance found there is: A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having... (emphasis original). I don't think this clears that hurdle. Antepenultimate (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
• No - This doesn't feel like a terrorist incident at all, just a form of protest. The only topic of terrorism that can be raised from this event is, obviously, the controversy about labeling this as a terrorist incident. Parsley Man (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

People involved

This from The Oregonian is a useful run-down of the militants. Bondegezou (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Should we include every militant involved in the people involved section? How about just the main ones (Cooper, Ritzheimer, etc.) with another section titled "Other militants" or something similar, with a bulleted list and sentence or two about the other occupiers. MB298 (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I agree there is no need to list everyone in detail. We should follow reliable sources on who the important figures are. Bondegezou (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Great work on timeline

Hi folks—I came back to this page after half a week and wow, the timeline section is much improved. It reads more like a summary now, with the timeline sub article dedicated to play-by-play detail. I think that's a wonderful balance: one article that walks you through the general outlines and another that gives a minute retelling (similar to the 9/11 and timeline of 9/11 pair). Perhaps the biggest improvement is grouping them by weeks rather than days, and starting to group them by themes rather than one-off events. Would love to see it refined even further. Not sure who worked on this and I know there's been contentions, but credit to everyone who's helped to clean up this article and make it a cohesive narrative. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Closing out

Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz states his concerns, and notes that he is closing down his involvement with one or two pages, so that people don't expect him to respond. EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To whom it may concern: I'm quitting Wikipedia due to misbehavior, bullying, gaslighting and other harassment by NewsAndEventsGuy and Bondegezou (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LavaBaron#80.25_likely_I_just_quit._Make_that_90.25. for details, noting they filed a bad-faith ANI action trying to get me blocked out of spite as well as their IP vandalism to my talk page). Today the only thing I'm doing is closing down my involvement with one or two pages so nobody expects me to respond to anything. So long, and thanks for all the fish! Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Infobox- POTUS

Comparing the infobox to something like the Waco siege- why is POTUS here and not in there? It seems to be a grossly overstated inclusion without sources. 50.149.81.197 (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I've trimmed the infobox ow. Bondegezou (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Items concerning influence of religion in general, and Mormon religion in particular

I've reverted NewsAndEventsGuy's edit [2]. He felt that the inclusion was "mocking or sanctifying" with a comment about "confirmation bias."

I disagree wholeheartedly; religion has been a large part of the issue for the militants. It is well studied, with the Boston Globe commenting that the Bundy group's behavior has its roots in Mormon anti-government religious fanaticism. https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/01/05/oregon-standoff-has-roots-mormon-fanaticism/QLgIkrNZipFjtbn4AyUZFJ/story.html

Other sources analyze the peculiar member who refuses to be known by anything other than "Captain Moroni", another figure of mormon anti-government fanaticism. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/01/05/why_ammon_bundy_calls_himself_captain_moroni.html

Oregon Public Broadcasting has covered this as well, as has PBS. http://www.opb.org/news/article/explainer-the-bundy-militias-particular-brand-of-mormonism/ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/why-the-bundy-militia-mixes-mormon-symbolism-with-anti-government-sentiment/

LA Times notes the religious connection too: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-activists-oregon-20160105-story.html

I could go on with more sources if needed, but suffice to say: the religious connection is well documented and including mention of it is not a matter of "mocking or sanctifying". Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The issue is the turn of phrase and it being in the WP:LEAD. To be clear, the text in question reads

*Ammon Bundy, a car fleet manager from Phoenix[16] and son of notable anti-government protestor Cliven Bundy and the leader of the group now calling themselves Citizens for Constitutional Freedom, said he began leading the occupation after receiving a divine message ordering him to do so.[17][18]

I have no problem mentioning in the lead that some of them claim Mormon inspiration based on these sources. Alternate, and in my opinion more NPOV text might read

While many of the initial militants claim inspiration from Mormonism, later arrivals have drawn from a variety of backgrounds.

That was a first crack at an alternative text. The problems with the first text are that

• this should be summarizing the ENTIRE article and places HUGE focus just on one man, Ammon.
• in the sources I've read, his being in transport serving rather than ranching is mainly used to mock his defense of the (poor) rancher we look like we're implying the same mockery, which is POV by implied character assassination (I say that even though I personally think the irony is hilarious)
• as for "divine message"... the lead is supposed to summarize the article and this statement is ambiguously provactive without providing any real information. I'll elaborate this last point.

When a evangelical reader sees "he got a divine message", that reader's unconscious confirmation bias is likely going to produce an instantaneous and unconscious initial good impression of the man. In contrast, when an atheist reader sees it, their unconscious confirmation bias is likely going to produce an instantaneous and unconscious first impression of contempt. Since it means absolutely nothing and creates these problems, it is far better to deal with the whole Mormon thing in a short paragraph where the thoughts can be fairly and neutrally summarized based on RSs. Thus, while I agree the Mormon-esque inspiration driving many of the initiators can be mentioned in the lead, we need to do that in a direct, NPOV, clear manner, while making room for mention there are other varieties of folk out there now as well.

Thoughts? Thanks for starting the thread.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we should definitely cover the role of religion and particularly Mormonism in the article; PVJ has found some good citations there. I think the precise phrase "divine message" is problematic and doesn't quite fit what citations say, so I'd like to see that wording tweaked. Maybe NewsAndEventsGuy's wording, or maybe something that still focuses on Bundy and his religion, just re-worded.

Bundy's occupation, while worth mentioning somewhere, seems unnecessary detail in the lede. The lede needs to tell us the basic, core facts and Bundy's job isn't one of those. But I do think the lede should focus on Bundy as the instigator. Bondegezou (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

How about inserting the underlined so the first part reads

While many of the initial militants, including leader Ammon Bundy, claim inspiration from Mormonism....

Of course that's just one idea. Thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

You make some good points, but the problem is that you delete things wholesale, but your argument is about minor things. I think your edits could be more productive if you actually acted upon your recommendations here, rather than doing what you do in the article, which is to delete entire sections. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Leitmotiv: Are you talking to me, or one of the others? Regardless the behavioral comments should go to usertalk per WP:FOC. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, you... Leitmotiv (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Leitmotiv: Since you have not yet said anything about the CONTENT of this sentence can the rest of us infer you are neutral? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

How about this? "The leader of the group is Ammon Bundy, son of notable anti-government protestor Cliven Bundy. Many of the initial militant group claimed they were inspired by religious fundamentalist interpretations of Mormon scriptures and legends; Bundy claims to have received a direct 'divine message' asking him to begin the occupation."

I suggest moving the wording about the "citizens for constitutional freedom" group lower in the lede, to allow for slightly more detail and to include language noting that the name was not chosen until after other militant groups such as the "Oath Keepers" declined to formally endorse the militant occupation.

Thoughts? Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

As described in our usual guidelines for the lead section we're shooting for a summary. That's not a summary. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

No, it is a summary. There's much greater detail later in the article. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

If there is "greater detail later", that means your suggested alt lead text has some detail now. Which is why I objected. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Again: Go do what you want, you win. You ran me off the article, which was your plan with your "assassination page" writing and other tactics from the start. The page has barely seen updates in 3 days, because apparently I'm the only one who would bother trying to keep the timeline up, the "Timeline" article you created without bothering to have a discussion hasn't seen any upkeep either since all you were doing was moving my work to it.

NewsAndEventsGuy, clearly all you want to do is damage this article. Well go right ahead and do it. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It would be helpful if the motivation section gave some motivation more specific than Mormonism. I came to this page to see why they are protesting. What are they upset about? Instead all we say is that they are protesting because they're Mormons. (Or maybe I don't know enough Mormons, but the few I do don't seem to be taking over buildings.) What is their complaint that they amplify with religious rhetoric? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.192.40.100 (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

New arrest

A new arrest has occured, add it to the section: http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/01/watch_man_seeking_to_join_oreg.html --Dagko (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I've put something on the Timeline article, but I've not added anything here. I wasn't certain it counted: it wasn't an arrest of an occupier, it was an arrest of someone who said they were on their way to become an occupier. Not quite the same, so...? Bondegezou (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, there is a clear distinction. Beach drifter (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be worth mentioning in the "Arrests" section, however. MB298 (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I recall reading that that person had traveled to Harney county, intending to join the occupiers, but was arrested for drunk driving en route. Activist (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Conspiracy law

Perhaps something could be said about the law that is being cited in the arrests. This seems to explain it, including the maximum penalty, and it cites some sources for more information. [3] TomS TDotO (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Useful. Bondegezou (talk) 14:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

This category is still being discussed here, if anyone is interested in participating. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Mugshots

Here is the collage [4] --- Does anyone think it would be possible/worthwhile to upload to commons and then use in the article? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Dunno. See WP:BLPCRIME NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

As long as they aren't copyrighted (I've always been confused about mugshots and copyrights) I would be all for it. MB298 (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Good to keep them at hand for if they are convicted, but until then, per BLPCRIME, let's leave them out... L.tak (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Images

I added the video of Finicum's death. As for the image someone uploaded that was a screengrab of the MNWR where it says "please send birdseed" - this is obviously a joke that was photoshopped. A search for the phrase "please send birdseed" returns no hits in Google News, and the current iteration of the MNWR website doesn't display any similar image, nor does the WayBackMachine show anything that says "please send birdseed" in the last few days. Does anyone object to it being removed? LavaBaron (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

For the video, in terms of copyright, it's fine as it's a federal gov't document and therefore fair use under the law. I also think it's fine from an editorial perspective. It's widely shared in the media, so there are no concerns about the violence being too graphic. The birdseed pic, if photoshopped, is not encyclopedia unless it becomes an important part of the narrative. I don't see that it is now.Mattnad (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll remove the birdseed part + replace with the accurate screenshot. MB298 (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, agreed. Bondegezou (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The vid works as a graphic on the side and/or ext link, but we'd need to be very careful how it is used as a citation for article text to avoid WP:OR NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, it should be a graphic only and not used as a source for analysis or content. LavaBaron (talk) 07:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I've added two more photos - a headshot of Finicum and an "action" shot of Bundy on the phone. I just slapped them in there so someone may want to move them around to better positioning. LavaBaron (talk) 07:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@LavaBaron: Done. Thanks.

Bundy arrested

See here and here. Definitely needs to be added to the Arrests section (somewhat relevant to the above discussion). MB298 (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Lavoy Finicum has also been confirmed dead [5]142.105.159.60 (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The word shootout is currently being used in the lede to describe the incident wherein Lavoy Finicum lost his life. The family members are insisting that there was no "shootout," that Finicum was shot with his hands raised. I know that many media sources are also using the term "shootout." Do any of them state specifically that shots were fired by persons on both sides? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 09:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The following can be found on the Facebook page of Finicum's daughter, Thara Tenney: "I want the world to know how my father was murdered today. His hands were in the air and he was shot in the face by the American authorities. Ammon Bundy reported there are 6 witnesses to this evil." It was posted on January 26, 2016 at 10:47 US Central Time. [6] Michael-Ridgway (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

There will be a press conference on Wednesday at 10:30 a.m. in Burns regarding the arrests and death. Hopefully, there were cameras that recorded the traffic stop, arrests and death of Finicum, but in the absence of that, it may be hard to draw conclusions about what happened. However, the shooting did not occur in Harney County as has been reported, but in Grant county, well north of Burns and north of Seneca, as the occupiers traveled north for a meeting at the town of John Day. Grant County Sheriff was at the scene and may have given occupiers reason to believe that he was sympathetic to their cause. Activist (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

This post can be seen on the Bundy Ranch Facebook page:

Patricia Anderson Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiore said that Ammon Bundy called his wife, Lisa Bundy, from the back of a police car on Tuesday night.

Fiore, a vocal supporter of the Bundy family, said that Ammon Bundy told his wife that Finicum was cooperating with police and had put his hands up. Then, Fiore said, Bundy told his wife that he watched police shoot Finicum three times. She said that Ammon Bundy also said Finicum was on the ground when he was shot.

Finicum on Monday said in a radio blog interview that he sensed heightened activity from federal law enforcement. [7] Michael-Ridgway (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

We should follow, as always, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Thus, we have multiple reliable sources reporting shootout, so I'm OK with us leading with that for now, but we should also report in the article that the militants have an alternative version of events. And, hopefully, in due course, more details will emerge clarifying the situation. Bondegezou (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Form OregonLive story

sources told The Oregonian/OregonLive that Finicum and Ryan Bundy disobeyed orders to surrender and resisted arrest. No other details were available.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to go with that wording if people feel that's better. Bondegezou (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest an article tweak, just rumor control here on talk. It's so fluid I'm not even going to attempt editing until dust clears a bit, if then. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I have, more boldly, updated the text. Yes, it's a fluid situation and what we know is changing fast, so feel free everyone to change my edits as you all see fit. I've led with the official version that's being reported by RSs, but added the alternate view from the militants and their supporters, as that is also being reported by RSs. Bondegezou (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

More From Oregonlive

Robert "LaVoy" Finicum, the spokesman of the refuge occupation, was shot and killed after he charged police during a roadside stop north of Burns on Tuesday, according to (Mark McConnell) a man on Facebook who claims to be the driver of one of two vehicles involved in the highway shooting.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Lacking high quality RSs about a 2 way "shootout" or "gunfight" I have purged those rumors from article text but have not attempted to add any neutral text based on high quality RSs. Suggest waiting until after police news conf this afternoon. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I watched the press conference on CNN at 11:00 a.m., PST. There was no discussion of any details of the death of Finicum, and it was stated that any release of info would be contingent upon release of the medical examiner's report. Activist (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

There was nothing in the cited source, WaPost, that gunfire was "exchanged," nor was that contention in the comments of occupiers who were first hand sources. I changed the language to reflect the cited source account. I would add that Fiore, the AZ state rep who claimed that Finicum was "murdered," was repeating hearsay. Activist (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe my cache is showing an old version of the article, but the word "shootout" still appears twice in the published article, in the section Bundy arrests and Finicum shooting, at least in my browser. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 06:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Although the word "shootout" was used does not mean that was an accurate description of what happened. The end of Bonnie & Clyde was not a "shootout," though some writers might call it that. It was an ambush with no returned fire. I am thoroughly familiar with another well very publicized situation where an A.P. reporter got the first report of a prison escape and hijacking wrong, and subsequent reporters picked up on her misreporting and repeated it as if it were fact. I wrote to her immediately to let her know she had it wrong. She never responded or corrected her error, so it persisted in other media. There is a likelihood that all the incidents at the Hwy. 395 arrest site and the roadblock beyond were caught on camera so we eventually know what happened. The narrative of the passenger in the car or SUV who said that Ryan was in that car with her, not the pickup that Finicum used to flee from the initial arrest site. She said that Ryan got a minor shoulder wound. There is conflicting information about Finicum's death from eyewitnesses. It was reported that he ran off the road trying to avoid the roadblock and got stuck in the snow on the shoulder. The witnesses at the original site claimed they could see what happened to Finicum, but it has been variously reported that it was 200 feet away, or a mile north of where the passenger vehicle had stopped from which it did not move any further. The young girl in the car, whose account is on "Blaine Cooper's" YouTube channel, said everyone in the car was on the floorboards, trying to keep from being hit by gunfire, so they would not have been in any position to observe what happened with Finicum. I would urge all the editors who have participated in this article's presentation to exercise a good deal of caution before making changes. Activist (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

We are not journalists and it's not our job to be tracking down primary sources (WP:PRIMARY). We follow reliable secondary sources as per WP:RS. They may get things wrong and we should keep on top of a fast-moving situation, but we should be very careful about getting into direct reporting of eyewitnesses and Blaine Cooper's YouTube channel does not remotely constitute a reliable, unbiased secondary source. Bondegezou (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The video of the "shootout" has been released. It's time to remove the word "shootout" from this article. There was no shoutout. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 05:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC) Who wants to describe for our readers what the video actually shows? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 05:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC) Or shall we run with the headline of the very reliable source, Maxim, which posted an article 28 minutes ago with the title: THE FBI JUST RELEASED FOOTAGE OF THE OREGON MILITIA SHOOTOUT, AND IT'S INTENSE.

From the Atlantic: "Only police fired shots." [8]

I have re-worked the main section of text on this and removed the "shootout" language now we have a much more detailed picture of what happened. Bondegezou (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

This is the most detailed description of events I've seen. Haven't had time to add it to the article myself yet; if someone else would like to... Bondegezou (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Category

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_19#Category:Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge (the discussion is still going on). MB298 (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Useful article on people involved and legal cases

This has lots of details. Bondegezou (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Number of arrested instead of names?

Considering how long the "Arrested" portion of the infobox is, does anyone think we should shorten it to just a number? I personally find it unnecessarily long. Parsley Man (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes LavaBaron (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Good idea, and consistent with WP:BLPCRIME NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Activist (talk) 01:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2016

This is EXTREMELY distorted. Lets not pretend that a protesters religion is always the cause and motivation. Everyone in the world already knows from every source out there this is about federal land management policy. 75.174.87.225 (talk) 10:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done As stated, protected edit requests must suggest a specific change and be in the form of "change X to Y". 331dot (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

There's overlap between the political and the religious viewpoints in this case, just as there are in most other beliefs or denominations. The occupiers have come under substantial criticism, both as individuals and collectively from mainstream LDS, but the FLDS and AUB are possibly very supportive. I have noticed that a lot of the traffic and criminal charges participants have accrued elsewhere have occurred in significantly or predominantly FLDS communities, such as Cedar City, Utah, and the very geographically and culturally isolated, polygamist, Colorado City, AZ. Linicum's Cave Creek ranch was very near to Colorado City. There's a big difference between the worldviews of, say, Mitt Romney and Warren Jeffs. Activist (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)