Talk:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Descriptions of the shooting

I've added some qualifying language to the more recent descriptions of Finicum's behavior and actions around his shooting. Reliable sources are a bit more circumspect when stating that he was actually reaching for a weapon. Instead, the attribute the observation to officials and are less conclusive in their own voice. Wikipedia should do the same.Mattnad (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I've tweaked that further to avoid using the word "allegedly", which can read badly and be a bit WP:WEASEL. Bondegezou (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

That works, although I've read other reliable sources saying the gun was in his pocket, not waistband. It's not a minor detail since their being able to see the weapon is different from their concern about a possible weapon. How should we handle the discrepancy?Mattnad (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

What the FBI says: "On at least two occasions, Finicum reaches his right hand toward a pocket on the left inside portion of his jacket. He did have a loaded 9 mm semi-automatic handgun in that pocket." Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Despite this discussion, someone had changed the wording so that we declared, in Wikipedia's voice, that Finicum was resisting arrest and reaching for a gun. I've changed this back. -Darouet (talk) 11:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The article is evolving rapidly, so wording ebbs and flows in good faith. I think it's sensible to keep these things under review.

I don't see any problem with saying, authoritatively, that Finicum was resisting arrest. He sped away from the first stop and didn't stop in an orderly fashion at the second roadblock. There was certainly some resistance to arrest along the way. Is anyone contesting that?

What happened in those final seconds is more contentious. Some reliable sources say he was reaching for a gun; some reliable sources say that the FBI say he was reaching for a gun. (And some of the militants' supporters early claims have evaporated in the face of video evidence.) For now, it seems sensible to go with the latter wording, the FBI say..., but we should monitor how reliable sources handle this going forwards, and any further developments around the investigation into the shooting. Bondegezou (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Under Oregon Statute 162.315 "resisting arrest" is a crime, and we don't usually report such things in Wikipedia's voice until they are convicted. See WP:BLPCRIME. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, "shot while resisting arrest" does not describe that Finicum was fleeing police in his car, and then shot with his hands up outside it while surrounded by officers (it is unclear if he repeatedly dropped and raised his arms while confusedly reaching for a gun, or was trying to hold his side following some injury sustained from officers). -Darouet (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

As we speculate about what it might have been, why flame rumor that any injury was by officers? Maybe he herniated himself slogging in the deep snow; maybe his pants were unbuckled and falling down; maybe a lot of things. But the officers knew what they knew (no need to reiterate it here again) and reported the pocket his hand kept getting close to contained a 9mm semiauto hand gun. If we're going to mention the "injury" speculation, let's not compound it by assuming it was necessarily caused by LEOs. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

BLPCRIME does not apply to Finicum because he's not living. Bondegezou (talk) 08:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen any reliable sources report anything close to Darouet's version of events. Darouet: you are free to believe what you want, but the article has to follow WP:RS. I also note that even Darouet's apologia accepts that Finicum was not cooperating with his arrest. Bondegezou (talk) 11:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah! Dope! Good point! We should still say he reached toward pocket and that feds say a gun was in there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

This is not "my version of events," and I haven't proposed some conspiracy theory be placed into the article. You just need to be clear about what happened, and what officials say happened. When you write that FBI officials say he was reaching for a gun, that's true. When you write that he reached for a gun, period, I'm saying that you don't actually know that. Right now, we write that "Finicum was shot dead and Bundy injured. Officials state that Finicum was reaching for a gun in his pocket when he was shot by a state trooper. The FBI also said that a loaded handgun was found in Finicum's pocket." All sources agree on this. Some sources do write that the video shows Finicum reaching for a gun, but many attribute this to the FBI. Many also say the video "appears" to show him reaching for a gun, and I think that statement would also be justified.

This NBC news piece is representative. They first attribute the statement to the FBI: "The video, taken from an aircraft, appears to show Robert "LaVoy" Finicum reaching into a front shirt pocket before being shot by a state police trooper, FBI Special Agent in Charge Greg Bretzing said at a news conference." They they write that Finicum is "apparently" reaching towards his chest," (other sources write "pocket"), and again cite the FBI: "Finicum is seen in the video getting out, holding his arms to his sides and then apparently reaching toward his chest. Bretzing said Finicum reached toward the pocket containing a handgun twice before he was shot."

Guardian: "... was armed with a handgun and reached for his pocket before he was shot, according to the FBI..." [1]

IBT: "The grainy aerial footage shows 54-year-old Robert ‘LaVoy’ Finicum reaching into his jacket before he was shot dead by law enforcement Tuesday." [2]

The Atlantic: "Then he reached for his pocket, at which point a Oregon trooper, from the trees away from the road, shot him." [3]

AP: "The video appears to show the individual that got out of the truck reaching into his pocket." [4]

National Post: "A video showing the shooting death of an occupier of an Oregon wildlife refuge appears to show the man reaching into his jacket before he fell into the snow." [5]

Seattle Times: "He gets out of his truck and has his hands up at first, then reaches toward his jacket pocket at least twice. He is shot and falls to the snow." [6]

Salt Lake City Tribune: "Video of the fatal police shooting of an Oregon wildlife refuge occupier appears to show the man reaching into his jacket before he fell into the snow." [7]

P.S. @Bondegezou: I'm not really sure where your "apologia" comment is coming from, but if you know WP:RS, I assume you know WP:AGF too. -Darouet (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Darouet, in your post in this thread at (21:16, 2 February 2016 UTC) you wrote a confusing sentence, saying (and I paraphrase) he was shot with his hands up when his hands were not up. I'm pleased to see the list of RSs and agree with you we shouldn't say what he was doing in wikivoice. But that sentence of yours did give me some serious pause. I think we're all on the same page here, and no need to pummel one anothers wikietiquette over a misunderstanding in our phrasing here at talk... what do you think, Bondegezou?. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree completely NewsAndEventsGuy, and I didn't mean to use AGF as a bludgeon - I do hate it when people appeal to civility as their warcry ;) -Darouet (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

We appear to be in strong agreement that the current wording of the article is right and in agreement with RS. Good. Bondegezou (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• If this is not settled in the minds of all participants here, I looked at many precedents and legal dictionaries' definitions or "resisting arrest," and thought I should offer this: I though simply fleeing might qualify, but it does not. Such behavior could be construed as disobeying a lawful. However, what happened on Hwy. 395 meets none of the criteria. i.e., In People v. Lopez, the California Court of Appeals found that "[b]efore one can be found culpable [for resisting arrest under section 148] . . . he or she must know, or through the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that the person attempting to make the arrest is an officer." 188 Cal. App. 3d 592, 599 (1986). It is well established under California law that even "an outright refusal to cooperate with police officers cannot create adequate grounds for [police] intrusion" without more. People v. Bower, 24 Cal. 3d 638, 649 (1979). Furthermore, in People v. Cressey, 2 Cal. 3d 836, 841 n.6 (1970), the California Supreme Court stated that the refusal to open a door upon a proper police request, was not a violation of section 148. Any reasonable officer would have known that they needed more than hesitation to arrest someone. Cf. People v. Wetzel, 11 Cal. 3d 104, 107-109 (1974) (defendant who stood in doorway of apartment and refused to allow officers to enter did not violate section 148). Activist (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Previous Malheur National Wildlife Refuge Controversies - Background Information

The below article provides some background information about past controversies and confrontations involving Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

Rancher Rebellion at the Malheur Refuge Is Nothing New. Just Ask Nancy Ferguson. Willamette Week, by Willamette Week Staff, January 13, 2016.

Denzel Ferguson wrote the books Sacred Cows at the Public Trough (1983) and Oregon's Great Basin Country (1979).

Another newer article is:

A harsh toll: How tough mandatory sentences inspired Harney County occupation. by Jeff Manning, The Oregonian/OregonLive, January 16, 2016. Paul H. (talk) 01:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Booby traps

Is this worth adding to the article under "Continued occupation and legal proceedings"? http://koin.com/2016/02/07/malheur-occupier-says-they-have-booby-traps-near-camp/Pistongrinder (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Probably not. Pop cans and empty water bottles don't qualify as booby traps. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

In this vid Fry shows the empty water bottles they tossed on the ground outside their bulwark; it's subjective, but I sort of think his reference to them as "booby traps" is an attempt to mock the alleged new charges related to fortification. Of course, "booby traps" plays well in the press to grab some headlines..... we needn't follow suit. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's in the timeline article as an afterthought, courtesy of me. Don't see any reason why it should be in the main article, though. Parsley Man (talk) 07:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I see it there. That works for me. Thanks.Pistongrinder (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. Parsley Man (talk) 05:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Rump Militia

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.

---

When I originally created this article I used the term "rump militia" in lieu of "militia" (the specific term used by news sources) to provide just a basic level of clarification for our non-American readers that these were not governmental military units. "Rump militia" has wider historic, geographical usage as a term indicating non state-sanctioned paramilitary groups and is often specifically invoked in specialist and lay observer circles to refer to groups associated with the militia movement in the United States and differentiate from the National Guard and State Defense Forces, the latter of which sometimes specifically also use the word "militia" in their names. Recently, IP editors have started changing this to "civilian militia" throughout the article, contending "rump militia" displays bias. What term should be used?

• armed gang
• militia
• rump Militia
• civilian Militia
• something else (please specify)

LavaBaron (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Private militia or Rump militia for reasons described. LavaBaron (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
• Why is "Militia" even used... Sorry for being stupid? Are we not talking about 12 people or less.. ?
• Rump militia may be the best choice. Some quick Googling confirms that rump militia has been a term of art exactly as you describe. In any case it should be crystal clear that these groups are (1) privately organized (2) of patchy levels of experience and discipline and effectiveness (3) unsanctioned by (in fact armed against) military or civilian authorities, and (4) accountable to nobody but themselves. To me the term "civilian militia" is a dubious self-legitimizing peacock phrase. "Private militia" is another possibility that seems, in my opinion, accurate and neutral. Good work btw. --Lockley (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. --Lockley (talk) 07:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Citizen militia - the stated goal of this survey was to clarify the term militia for our non-American readers. I don't think rump militia accomplishes that. It's clear that citizen militia accomplishes that much more effectively and is one of wikipedia's own definitions for a militia. While rump militia is historic, it is also showing its antiquity. I would also be fine with private militia. Part of the confusion I am having is that neither the militia page, nor the rump militia link discuss the word rump or what it means. I think that itself is clear that this term is vague at best. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
• Rump militia, per comments above. "an armed group affiliated with the militia movement" may work better - Cwobeel (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

As per my comment below, one can't be "affiliated with the militia movement," since "affiliation" suggests a formal relationship and the "militia movement" is a catchall term to describe a variety of disunited groups. We could say "Carrot Top has red hair," we can't say "Carrot Top is affiliated with the red haired people of the world." Also, I've updated the militia page to include the term "rump militia" in hope this will settle the hysterical focus on this word on the Talk page. LavaBaron (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• armed group (with "associated with the militia movement" as below, if you like). Keep it generic. --173.27.83.158 (talk) 05:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• terrorist members of citizen militia
• Armed group, I'd say. The group may be affiliated with that "U.S. militia movement," but that by itself doesn't make it a full-scale militia.
  From an international viewpoint (and that was the intent here, right?), "citizen militia" would be preferable to "rump miltia". Don't know about the U.S., but elsewhere, "Citizen militia" doesn't have the alleged, and undue, positive connotation, but is a neutral description. "Rump militia" on the other hand is mostly unknown, so may be introduced within the article but not used in the lead. --PanchoS (talk) 09:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• Citizen militia or private militia. I was also confused about rump militia, and after digging around the militia WP page and doing a quick google didn't find the answer, had to keep digging. I would also be OK with rump militia if rump militia had an explanation in the militia page. (no mention of rump at all) ADNewsom (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• Armed group or in the alternative an armed group affiliated with the militia movement. Rump militia is not used by sources in describing this specific incident/group, nor is it a common name easily recognized or widely used in sources.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Not to be pedantic, but to be "affiliated" with something the thing with which you're affiliated has to be an actual entity, not an idea. "Affiliated with the militia movement" is akin to saying "the Wall Street Journal is affiliated with the newspaper industry." The "militia movement" is a catchall to describe armed extremist groups organized in a military structure many with different ideas that are often non-complementary (there are white supremacist militias who get along with southern restoration militias but not sovereign citizen militias, but the SC militias do get along with the restoration militias, etc., and multiple other layers of confusion). They aren't a single organization with which one can be "affiliated" and it's technically inaccurate (and not supported by RS) to introduce the word "affiliated." LavaBaron (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

It's OK to be pedantical. But the term "rump militia" is not supported by RS in relation to this incident either.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

It is now. I've updated it in the militia article. As a general note, the militia article is in a poor state and does not, in the least bit, represent contemporary or consensus scholarship on this subject. Maybe in a few months I'll try to update it. LavaBaron (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Great, that helps, but WP is not a RS. I'm still not seeing secondary reliable sources covering this incident describing this group as a "rump militia".-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the point of this RfC ... LavaBaron (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The point of any RfC is a request for editors to comment, which I have done. Whoever ends up closing this RfC will determine if my requested comment is on point or not.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

whomever LavaBaron (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• armed group or any other well-cited source. Rump militia only when citable. It may be a descriptive term, but that doesn't mean we should coin it as an encyclopedia. It still should be reliably sourced and cited, and that hasn't been done (even worse, a citation request was removed). L.tak (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• Anti-government militia group or armed militants or armed group identified with the militia movement or armed antigovernment protestors that are self-styled militias, or something like that (can be shortened on second reference). The other options — "Rump militia," "citizen militia," etc., are somewhat obscure terms that just seem to be not really used in the mainstream secondary sources to refer to this particular group. As Isaidnoway quite correctly noted, we should follow the reliable secondary sources on this:

NY Times: "band of antigovernment protesters" ... "antigovernment militants, including self-styled militias" ... "armed antigovernment group" or "armed group" here, here

Oregon Public Broadcasting/PBS: "armed militiamen" ... "militia groups" (here)

The Oregonian: "militant occupiers" ... "self-styled militia members" (Here, here)

Associated Press: "armed protestors" ... "militia members" (here)

NPR: "self-styled militia members" (here)

Neutrality^talk 22:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• Use citizen militia or civilian militia, but not rump militia (a correct but unfamiliar term) nor armed group (not specific enough). "Militia" is the term most often used in the media, but for clarity a moree specific term should be used, and the term used should be one that is current in discussions of groups like this. Deliberate choice of terms to "avoid legitimizing" such groups is not neutral. In any case there should be liberal use of wikilinks to articles that expand on the subject, such as militia movement. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 04:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what an "ionized atom" is. I probably should, but I don't. However, I'm not going through Chemical bond and removing all instances of the use of the phrase "ionized atom" because a majority of the public is probably unfamiliar with the term. We should make WP as accessible as possible, however, not at the cost of establishing an Idiocracy. The term "rump militia" is linked to militia movement which defines it with a RS. That's sufficient. It is the term that is scholarly accurate and used in academia. LavaBaron (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Lava, that's a fallacious bit of WP:CIRCULAR referencing, and it's OR to apply what we think they are instead of what RSs call them.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Antigovernment militants" as used by the NYT seems most descriptive and precise and gets away from the confusing term "militia" since that term can only be used if it is qualified, since this group is not in fact a mlitia in the common sense of the word. in fact the name of this page should be changed to remove the word militia as well. 68.104.181.214 (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
• Armed group or anti-government militants, as above. - ^theWOLFchild 02:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• Armed group as it seems the most neutral of the terms provided. Et0048 (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• Whatever term is used should be reliable sourced. "Rｕmp militia" is not currently sourced at all, so it appears to be original material and should be deleted. Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
• Armed group or Militia - Seems like what they are most commonly referred to as by the RS's. NickCT (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
• Armed group is neutral and accurately descriptive. Some of the occupiers and/or their allies apparently believe that, by banding together and declaring themselves a militia, they can acquire some kind of legal authority to resist the tyranny in Washington. We shouldn't use "militia" because it's confusing (may lead some readers to think there is some formal connection with the government) and POV (connotes agreement with their fringe ideology). OK to note in the article that they call themselves "militia" and to report their support from Militia organizations in the United States. JamesMLane t c 10:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• Armed group Descriptive and neutral. wctaiwan (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• Armed militants (A) They are obviously armed and therefore get more media coverage than a Quaker peace vigil; (B) word "group" is entirely nondescriptive... group of police? Boy Scouts at camp .22 range? ISIS cell? Word "group" is so bland as to accidentally suggest favorable POV; (C) Wikipedia strives for international readership (else articles get tagged Template:Globalize) and when covering similar bands in other places we don't call them by the bland meaningless word "group"; instead... read on (D) when mass media - writing on an international stage - wants to use a neutral term (something other than 'terrorist' or 'guerilla') they turn to "militant". See Militant_(word)#Mass_media_usage. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC) PS Oh yeah.... Although technically accurate, "rump militia" is a US centric term.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC) PPS, "militants" (with or without the adjective 'armed') appears in USA TODAY; Oregon Live; Jazeera; Seattle's KUOW; Rolling Stone; Australia's Sydney Herald; Oregon public radio; Harney County Government Oregon Sheriff's Association NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC) As of Jan 18 yeah I know GoogleTest is dubious yet the lack of listed RSs for "rump militia" is striking so I ran the test on Jan 18 GoogleNews=1 single hit for ("rump militia") without any further search parameters, and just regular Google ("rump militia" malheur refuge)=54; In contrast GoogleNews(militants malheur refuge)=16,400.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
• Armed group for the first mention. If anything is clear, it's that there is no universally agreed-upon general descriptor for these folks. 'Armed group' is generically descriptive and regularly used in RS. Additional nuance and other sourced descriptions for the group can be included in subsequent sentences or elsewhere in the article. Antepenultimate (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
• Armed group - Accurately describes the "group" with no bias. Meatsgains (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Note for newbies. Please read WP:!VOTE and the guidelines on how we determine the outcome. In general we don't count heads, but try to assess support for the various !votes that are based on logic and reasoning, as opposed to opinion. So elaborate, and cite things that support your interpretation whatever it may be. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Update on RfC as of this time stamp:

• "Rump Militia" - 2 autoconfirmed editors support
• "Militia" - 0 editors support
• "Citizen Militia" - 3 autoconfirmed editors support
• "Antigovernment Militia" - 1 autoconfirmed editor supports
• "Armed group" - 4 5 autoconfirmed editor supports
• "armed antigovernment protestors that are self-styled militias" - 1 autoconfirmed editor supports
• "antigoverment militiants" - 1 IP editor supports
• "terrorist members" - 1 IP editor supports

LavaBaron (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I would also be fine with armed group. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Even though the vast majority of RS are using the term "militia," your personal opinion has been noted and the itemization changed to reflect it. LavaBaron (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The word "rump" seems to have negative connotations and for myself, wasn't immediately clear what it was referring to, because the link just goes to the regular militia article. Civilian seems to be the modern take and conveys all that we need to know and appears to be neutral to me. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The terms "civilian militia," "unorganized militia" and "constitutional militia" are specifically terms used within the militia movement of the United States to refer to themselves. So, yes, it is the "modern take" within the militia movement ... but not outside. LavaBaron (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

but we aren't talking about the movement right? We're talking about what these specific people are... which civilian militia seems to summarize. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

"Civilian militia" is a self-legitimization term used within the militia movement. It is not a NPOV phrase. LavaBaron (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, we aren't talking about what the militia movement says or is. The sources as you mentioned seemed to be using "civilian militia" and that term seems less loaded than say rump militia. If you go to Wikipedia's own article on militia it includes the definition as including "civilians." It fits. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I never said any sources used the term "civilian militia" and I would challenge you to cite any quantity of RS that has. LavaBaron (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

My mistake. If you want a new term, call it citizen militia. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

That is absolutely even less of a NPOV term than civilian militia; it is specifically one long associated with self-legitimization by the militia movement. Further, the word "citizen" has a specific legal meaning and is entirely inappropriate in the absence of RS. LavaBaron (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Doubtful. It is the exact definition wikipedia uses as what a militia can consist of. Just because "citizen" or "civilian" is juxtaposed with militia doesn't mean it is strictly not NPOV. A little common sense here would go a long way. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. See WP:WINARS. LavaBaron (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Give me a fuckin break dude. We are trying to be consistent within Wikipedia. We aren't citing wikipedia. The militia article is a collection of citations with sources. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you need to take a few deep breaths, have a glass of cold water, and maybe take a walk around the block. Your tone is unwelcome and uncalled for. LavaBaron (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Nah, I'm cool man, but did you have a real rebuttal? Leitmotiv (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

We can table this discussion until you've calmed down a bit. LavaBaron (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

So, no? Leitmotiv (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

they are terrorists just like the feds. what is the definition of terrorist? someone who uses force and aggression to achieve political goals

Since there is a decent article on the militia movement already, it seems to me that it's unnecessary to argue about this on this article -- "an armed group affiliated with the militia movement" is succinct, accurate, and NPOV, and the discussion of the status of such organizations is dealt with there. (Whether the movement consists of real militias is irrelevant -- otherwise, we'd have to qualify every reference to the People's Republic of China, etc.

Reference to rump militia

Moved from a thread upon request

There are several threads involved in the use of the term rump militia on this page. I won't go in to the most correct use here, but have a bigger concern that needs to be addressed asap. Can someone please provide a reference in a Reliable Source referring to the Malheur at Malheur as involving rump militias? There is sufficient doubt in this articles (as is shown on the talk page on multiple locations) to warrant a reference... L.tak (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The question of proper identification of the militants is being discussed in a RfC (a RfC in which 6 alternative terms have been !voted upon and none of which appear to have a plurality of support, much less a majority or consensus). Militia supporters who object to the term "rump militia" have also started no fewer than five additional threads on this topic. Yours appears to be the sixth. The Talk page itself is now being protected due to the issues we're having with IP editors and SPAs shotgunning nonsensical and repetitive inquiries here. As a (somewhat) established editor you should know better than to contribute to this disruption. I suggest, if your question is in GF, you move it into the appropriate, active thread, instead of cluttering and derailing this page with more WP:POINTY threads on the same topic. LavaBaron (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion and for the Good Faith. That's also what I am assuming, alhough indeed with the IPs it is not so easy. User:LavaBaron Just to be clear; your answer is quite lengthy and it didn't have a source. Does this mean there is no direct source? And thus the argument is explicitly that i) rump militia is established in scientific literature, ii) rump militia is descriptive and thus clear iii) what is happening at Malheur is done by groups described in many different ways, but they clearly can be called rump militia if you'd keep those points in mind? Is this it? Or were de dots connected by a reliable source? L.tak (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

To answer your question simply: No, someone can not provide a reference, because there are no reliable sources (none that I can find), that are referring to this group as a "rump militia".-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I share the concern raised by Isaidnoway and L.tak. The sources out there simply don't use the obscure "rump militia" term. The use of that phrase here seems to be synthesis. Neutrality^talk 18:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I think LavaBaron has to relinquish his love for Rump Militia. There are no sources. It was a good start for the article, but most of the references I see are calling this an armed group, or just militia, and the option least used is rump. Let's switch it per the RfC to Armed Group. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Obviously anyone can express any opinion they like in the RfC, Leitmotiv. But this is an active RfC and there won't be any changes from the status quo terminology until it's closed by a neutral party who rules on the consensus of the community. Right now, as I've itemized at the top of this thread, there is no consensus for any single term and it seems unlikely - given the high levels of interest this is attracting from editors, and the lack of agreement by anyone, that a consensus will be achieved until well after this event has been settled. Also, simply removing the word "rump" results in the term "militia" - a term which is currently supported by zero (0) editors and its unilateral introduction would be a fairly startling violation of our policies vis a vis RfC, particularly as this is a page under discretionary sanctions. So I'd suggest everyone take a breather and relax. Wikipedia is not a race. LavaBaron (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Point taken. But I'm cool man. How are you? Leitmotiv (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Point taken as well. I must say that in hindsight the start of both RFCs may have been not the best move. They are to get a wider community discussion, when the editors fail to reach a conclusion. And we were nowhere at that point when they were started. Now they seem just to delay the discussion a bit, and the IAR solution was reverted. I do feel however we need in the mean time (it's 3 more weeks) to address the concern of the numurous people requiring a citation (by placing a citation needed tag or a synthesis tag, or a citation). If a significant number of people (not all) feels that this part is problematic, then that is absolutely what should be addressed. I suggest to add only one, in order not to clutter the page, but will not do it myself, as I may be a bit too involved... L.tak (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree, the RfC locked up the article essentially, which for a fluid event as this, shouldn't be happening. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Leitmotiv and L.tak - I know you guys don't like the term "rump militia." The fact is, however, if we don't work through this RfC as per policy there is going to be a minute-by-minute back and forth of undos and reverts given the wide spectrum of opinion, the total absence of consensus agreement on terminology, and the high attraction of this article to every fruitcake internet rando. I just undid another drive-by editor who changed it to "anti-government protesters." Frankly, I'm fine if we nix "rump militias." However, it is crucial the RfC play out to its conclusion and a consensus be placed on the record so that this article doesn't become a bug light for every drive-by editor who wants to make a point by changing it to "protesters" to "pro-constitution supporters" to "terrorists" etc. Just chill, accept that the system isn't perfect, and be patient. I have no doubt this will ultimately net-out to something with which you are both happy based on the direction which consensus is headed. LavaBaron (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, if it's just that you're bored and looking for something to do, why not write the Ammon Bundy or Ryan Bundy BLPs? I already did Jon Ritzheimer, Ryan Payne, and Blaine Cooper and it would be nice if someone else could help with the heavy lifting instead of spending hours battling over 4 letters in the lede. LavaBaron (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

This may not be super helpful, but it is bemusing that we're talking calmly about letting the system do its thing in an article about a group of people who decided not to do that and opted instead to make demands and wave guns around. That in and of itself is a good argument in favor of using stronger terms than "militia", though I agree with the reasonable points you guys are raising. Even though this is the 6th thread, it's useful to the process. -- GR Mule ^{(Talk/Contribs/Michigan)} 01:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@LavaBaron:, I see this problem that we don't know what to replace the term with. My suggestion was just the "interim relief" of an indicator that the term (it just 4 words, but they are in a very visible place, and can not be removed due to procedural reasons) used now is IMO blatantly against our citation policy as either OR or Synthesis. The reason why you ask to wait is exactly the reason why I want something in the mean time: this is a high traffic page and we have to wait about 7 times its present age to see a solution. I don't want to do away with any consensus making business and appreciate that and constructively participated in that, but let's ask it now as an open question: do you think there is any mode to accommodate my (and I have the feeling I am not alone) concerns in the mean time (I was thinking in the directions of: adding a note in which we cite some terms in literature? adding the citation request? adding a citation? I am open to alternatives)? If we find something we regular editors agree on, I am sure it will be stable ( I would have reverted the change you reverted last time as well as not supported by consensus). You are crucial to this matter, as you are a highly active editor on this page. L.tak (talk) 02:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

L.tak With great reluctance, I have amended my !vote to "private militia or rump militia." I don't like to do that as I think "private militia" is a legitimizing term. I can't support any change that does not include the word "militia" as this phenomenon is known as the "militia movement" and RS refer to them as militias. I also am absolutely opposed to any interim change that simply drops the word "rump" as this would result in the standalone term "militia" which currently has zero !votes and would, therefore, be a critical violation of every once of our written and customary policies concerning RfCs. However, I also hope to see a more rapid conclusion to this RfC given the reasons you've outlined which is why I'm amended my !vote to include "private militia" as a compromise. If you and Leitmotiv also changed your !votes to "private militia" and convinced a few others to do so as well, we could have a SNOWBALL close on this RfC by this time tomorrow. LavaBaron (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the word "rump" is needed. I actually thought it was vandalism for a moment. (like "rump-rangers") - ^theWOLFchild 02:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I have no problem with "xxx militia" as long as it is clearly citable (and I have changed my stance to show citability is my main point). The good thing about "private militia" is that indeed we can find some sources for it like this Australian on, but it is not much. I also doubt strongly how this really could be closed as a snowball RFC; as such a close is for RFCs where the debate is not useful as it is blatantly clear what everyone's opinion is. That is not the case here, and any new participant may legitimately have a different opinion. So it is probably best to let the RFC run its course. There are many other final solution that would be good, but which will not show up in this RFC, but only through collaborative editing later. We could go for "armed group" for example, and explain 1 line further that the activities are related to the militia movement in the US (but that's all for later). In other words: I agree with you that the RFC should run its course (or be closed), but a snowball close seems not appropriate. That still doesn't mean we cannot as an interim measure apply something. As said, I'd accept anything from private militia, to militia (there is not much legitimising in that for me, unless you live in a totalitarian regime), to armed group serving as a citable placeholder pending the outcome of the discussion. An alternative is -as said- to use temporarily (rump/private) militia with the note like this (suggestion only, can easily be tweaked). L.tak (talk) 09:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

As an "interim measure" we cannot change the status quo terminology to a word that is the subject of the RfC ("militia" as a standalone), but has zero support, on the basis of a command edict by one or two editors. Introducing "militia" as an "interim measure" is no different than introducing "terrorist" as an interim measure. ("Terrorist" also has no support.) And, if there is not potential for a snowball close then we will have to wait 30 days. Those are our options. LavaBaron (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

It is unfortunate I have not been able to convince you an interim measure is needed (OR/SYNT i te lede) and possible (weighing the procedure of an early-called RFC related measure with OR/citation). I'll leave it at that and go to other areas of the 'pedia. L.tak (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not the one you need to convince of the need for an interim measure. You need to convince the whole of the community. As I said above, we can't introduce "interim measures" on the basis "of a command edict by one or two editors," even if one of those editors is me, LavaBaron. The emergency powers you seem to believe I can invoke don't exist. LavaBaron (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@LavaBaron: - I'm a little confused as to the reluctance in using the standalone moniker "militia", because the title of this article is that very term you object to. I'm sure this page will be renamed at some point, but the point remains. As for my vote, my original cast already includes support for a Private Militia change and has from the beginning. I would help with other articles, but my time available for Wikipedia is probably not as substantial as everyone else's and I do what I can. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

My decision not to raise an issue with the page's title is pragmatic only. It won't serve anyone if we add a fight over the title of the page to the existing backlog of fights with which we're dealing. If that makes me inconsistent, oh well. LavaBaron (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Leitmotiv - I think there's enough support for one version that I'm filing a RfC Closure request. LavaBaron (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• I have never heard of a rump militia, nor does there appear to be a Wikipedia article to explain it, although extrapolating from things I have heard of, "rump parliament", "rump state' and "rump party", the term seems to mean left-over or remnant. So as you can see, using this term would not clarify anything for me. Private or independent at least are words I know.—Anne Delong (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems as if the term "rump militia" is being kept in the article under the pretext of an absence of consensus on a different term. I suggest we use some reliably sourced term while the discussion continues, not an unsourced term. According to Wikipedia guidelines, unsourced material can be deleted, but some editors keep deleting reliably source terms and restoring "rump militia". Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Other threads on topic of rump militia consolidated here

Rump militia

I think the paranoia brings up an issue that should be resolved sooner than later in accompanying articles. Like what specifically is a rump militia? The link doesn't explain what a rump is or why that usage for the variation. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

It actually should be Rump (capitalized) militia, following the Rump Parliament, and refers to events during the English Civil War of 1639-89. It refers to a militia consisting of citizens who were assembled to build fortifications and otherwise to provide defense who were not otherwise part of any authorized military establishment. (In the original case, not part of any military establishment under the authority of the King.) General Ization ^Talk 06:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't quite understand why that phrase is controversial or unclear. (I'm certain it should not be capitalized in every usage. "Rump Parliament" is a proper noun; "rump militia" is not.) To me the meaning is self-evident, analagous to rump legislatures, describing any leftover or discredited or lame-duck political entity. The phrase appears to be in common usage, more or less. And that use of the word "rump" is smiled on by the OED. --Lockley (talk) 08:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that "Rump militia" is a particularly uncommon term, and would like to see it replaced by "Armed group". See the ongoing RfC above: #RfC: Rump Militia. --PanchoS (talk) 10:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Piped links - "Rump militia" and "terrorism"

This is a minor issue compared to everything else, but... as per WP:EASTER, I feel that a couple of piped links in the lede are a bit surprising: "rump militias" links to Militia organizations in the United States, an article that does not use the word "rump", so can we have a better link or some explanation of "rump"? Then, we have "meaning of terrorism" linking to Domestic terrorism in the United States. I get what the text is trying to do there, but perhaps it could be re-written? Bondegezou (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

There are no less than four threads on this already, Bondegezou. Creating a fifth one is not in the least bit helpful. In light of that, if you choose to delete your comment, feel free to delete this one as well. LavaBaron (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I piped the "rump" link and I agree it is an inadequate solution, but I didn't have much time to devote to sorting it out. I had never heard the term until yesterday. Can we add the definition to the U.S. militia article or create a wiktionary definition? Otherwise it might make more sense to simply take the term out of the article for now. Off to look at the other 4 threads now... Valfontis (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

It already is mentioned in militia organizations in the United States, Valfontis. I agree this may not be a term with which many people are familiar. Were I to choose a random chemistry-related article on WP there would probably be very many terms with which I would not be familiar as well. I probably would not try to change them, though, on the basis of my personal non-familiarity. We should make WP as accessible as possible but should not sacrifice scholarly accuracy in doing so. This is a good opportunity for editors not familiar with this scholarly term to become familiar with it, rather than an opportunity for editors not familiar with this scholarly term to purge it from WP. LavaBaron (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you indirectly scolding me for my poor decision making? It looks like it has been fixed. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Scholarly term or not, the article on Militia organizations in the United States mentions that "they are sometimes referred to as rump militias by outside observers to differentiate them from state-sanctioned military forces". This does not exactly explain what "rump" means in this context. Are they remnants of a larger organization? Dimadick (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

My point, LavaBaron, is not about whether these terms should be used, but about how piped links are used win these terms, as per WP:EASTER, which I didn't think had been raised before, but my apologies if it had. Bondegezou (talk) 08:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a case of WP:EASTER. LavaBaron (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

That's an issue you'll need to address with that article. WP is an expanding project, it is not a complete and finished, all-encompassing reference work. LavaBaron (talk) 09:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

References

note

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.