Talk:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Need for a more memorable and concise title for this article

Requested move 20 August 2016

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved, current title kept per original proposer of move, and rough consensus not to move (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 06:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

---

Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge → Malheur Refuge Standoff – Typically, such armed actions as described in this article eventually are remembered historically using brief and concise titles, such as "Shay's Rebellion," "Whiskey Rebellion," or "Fries Rebellion." Usage of such complicated and difficult to remember titles as "Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge" are never remembered or used over the long term.

History classes are hard enough as it is. Can you imagine how much harder it would have been if history teachers had to try to force us all to have to learn complex titles like "Daniel Shays Rebellion Against Perceived Economic Injustice" instead of just "Shays' Rebellion"?

I've searched Google for the most commonly used title within the press for this incident, and have come up with the "Malheur Refuge Standoff," which has 9300 Google hits. I have not been able to find any other more popular title for this article.

After attempting to move this article to the new more concise and popular title, the article was moved back with the rationale that "Google counts don't say everything." I agree with this statement, they do not say everything, but still I would like to hear a rationale as to specifically why anyone might believe that the current title is specifically better than the proposed title of "Malheur Refuge Standoff" which the press has already found to be preferred.

Based on your argument that "Google counts don't say everything, the next logical step of that argument would have to be that you must have some greater rationale than the Google count that more clearly "does say everything." If you could please clarify your rationale that you hold "trumps" the Google rationale, and the rationales listed below, and more clearly represents "everything," I would certainly like to know it.

My specific rationale for the Malheur Refuge Standoff title is three fold:

1. Preferred by the press.
2. Easier to remember.
3. Easier to refer to.

If anyone could please give me any positive specific rationale for the superior value of the Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge title, aside from the negative rationale that Google shows it as more popular, I would be happy to consider that here.

Thanks,

Scott P. (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC) move template initiated by L.tak L.tak (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose for now. There are way more google hits for the first page (60000) and that is a reasonably short descriptive title. I would agree that IF the common name is Malheur Refuge Standoff then that should be used. But I haven't seen that (and no refs are added in this request... ) L.tak (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Support. Yes, but obviously these 64,000 Google hits are mostly the result of the fact that this is the current Wikipedia title for the subject. Clearly this is not due to the fact that the long drawn out 7-word title is easier for anyone to remember. The only way that I was able to find the article myself, was to first go to the Malheur Refuge article, and to then click on a link to the article on the Stand-off from there. Too difficult to remember or find.... I would assert that your 64,000 Google hit rationale is not really the best rationale for the longer title. Your logic here seems to be a rather circular argument, still without any real explanation as to why the longer title is more memorable and easier to use than the shorter title.

Please, if you might happen to have any other rationale besides the fact that the rather complicated "7-word" Wikipedia title shows up more often in Google than the simpler proposed three word title, then could you please list that rationale here too, as I would much like to hear it. Also, if you might happen to find any other concise and easily memorized title that is more popular than the Malheur Refuge Standoff title, then I would certainly be open to that. Google was the ref I referred to, and Google is often used as a basis for making decisions for the best title in Wikipedia, all other things being equal. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, google search is not my only argument (google search arguments are bad arguments in general; but as you noted it; I happened to check as well). Personally I think a 7-word title is not that long. And luckily we have redirects so also with other names people can find it. This title describes it in my opinion better than with the shorter title. Also history students coming across this would be better served to know also a bit of content besides the name, and then the fact that this happened at a wildlife refuge etc is not too much to ask. Anyway, let's wait and see what other think in the next week or so this is up... L.tak (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose We can use re-directs to get people to this article, so I think we can afford something slightly longer if it better satisfies other criteria. When this was all going on, I recall "occupation" being used. I don't recall "standoff" being the dominant descriptor, and I find it a somewhat vague term; "occupation" better describes what happened. "Standoff" can mean almost anything. Bondegezou (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Strongly oppose: As said by Bondegezou, we can in fact use redirects. Unlike the Bundy Standoff, this was an occupation of federal property. Google hits are no criteria for renaming pages. MB298 (talk) 03:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose (A) It wasn't a "standoff". The law mostly hung out at their airport staging area miles away (a 30 min drive?) and let people and supplies come and go at will. The way it ended was a typical police action with a perimeter and a tiny number of people inside. Very different from the small armies facing each other in firing range at other mentioned events. (B) The good faith idea expressed in the section heading suggests we should supply a name to fulfill an unmet need. See also, Scotts remark in another subsection "If we don't rename the article here, historians, authors and journalists will most probably rename and simplify it on their own anyways, " As others pointed out we don't do that...instead we follow sources and there isn't an overpowering RS based argument either way.... yet. For that reason, I tend to fall back on what I said under (A). Note too that (A) is consistent with a heap of sources that discuss the different approach law enforcement took in this instance. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose I concur with NewsAndEventsGuy that the incident at the refuge is better described as an occupation, not a standoff. While the news media frequently used the term standoff (perhaps because it's a more sensational term), official statements released by the FBI that I have read late in the occupation and shortly afterwards consistently used the terms occupation and occupiers, and I think the Oregon governor likewise used the same terms.

A rough history of the article's title:

• Jan. 3: Malheur incident
• Jan. 4: Malheur incident > Militia occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge aka Malheur incident > Militia occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (Malheur incident) > Militia occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge > Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

No actual standoff at the refuge headquarters developed (the Jan. 27 to Feb. 11 police perimeter at the headquarters notwithstanding). The terms incident and occupation were probably seen by the editors in the early days of the occupation to be a more accurate description of the event. Alan G. Archer (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Strongly oppose - Per everyone else. Bondegezou's reasoning seems extremely sound. I too find "occupation" a better word to use, and that "standoff" seems to have been less used in reports describing the event. Parsley Man (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

After doing a little more Googling, I got only 100 hits within the last month on "Malheur Standoff", but 492 hits within the last month for "Malheur Occupation." It appears that recently the most popular simple phrase being used to describe it is the "Malheur Occupation." Scott P. (talk) 03:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose use Redirect for Standoff Title - There is already a redirect with this title which points to the original article. I don't think it matters one way or the other if it's called a "standoff" but to be honest, the Waco siege was a standoff, while this incident is more like an occupation because there were not armed law enforcement surrounding the building with gunfire on both sides, like the Waco siege and standoff. 166.70.216.23 (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Malheur Occupation?

Bondegezou, I like your point about the word "occupation." I did a little more Googling using that word and here is what I found.... the phrase Malheur Occupation garners 22,000 Google hits. The best hit score yet (aside from the Wikipedia 7 word title.) Now that might make an even nicer simplification. Why try to rewrite the rules that history has always used to name historical events using titles that are short and sweet. Thank God we don't have to say the American Revolution Against British Taxation Without Representation every time we have to say the American Revolution. Or instead of the Civil War we were told we could only refer to it as the Civil War Against Slavery Imposed by Southern States? If we don't rename the article here, historians, authors and journalists will most probably rename and simplify it on their own anyways, just like they always have in the past, won't they? Scott P. (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd be happy with something like "Malheur Refuge Occupation". But I'm happy with the current title too. Bondegezou (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Time to close this move-discussion?

It seems to me from the conversation above that the article should probably not be moved at this time. With everyone else's permission, I would like to suggest that this move-conversation be closed at this time as "keep current article title." OK? Further comments on closing as such? Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Finicum's writings re: imminent collapse of US gov, and relationship between Ammon and Clive Bundy are relevant

NewsandEventsGuy, I don't know if you've read Finicum's book, but in it he "prophesied" that the Mormon equivalent of Armageddon was soon to come, and that a certain hero-rancher, eriely similar to himself, would be a slayer of evil government agents. He sometimes referred to Malheur as the "Oregon Revolution" and the last few holdouts there encouraged other militia to literally kill members of the government. For these reasons, I feel that it is important that others are allowed to know as much as possible about exactly what Finicum was really thinking when he did what he did. So please leave this info in the article. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Same subject is being discussed at Talk:LaVoy Finicum#Finicum's book. MB298 (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

What secondary sources have discussed the book in the context of the occupation? VQuakr (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to hear that also. Meanwhile, I have added a list of sources dicussing Finicum's goals in the occupation over at the other page.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Oregon Freedom Revolution

I've created the redirect Oregon Freedom Revolution, as it was used in the militants' publications and such, so technically is a term that can refer to this incident. What do y'all think of this? MB298 (talk) 00:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, redirects help people get where they want to go. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Not Occupation-Protest but Occupation-Military

I just reverted and then restored part of Alan's good faith characterization of this matter as an "armed seizure and Occupation (protest)" Note, Alan's wikilink read just "occupation"... I typed the page name here for clarity

Going to the wikilink for protest-occupation it said "entry and holding", so seizure seemed redundant.

From the perspective of the "sovereign citizen" and "sagebrush rebel" types at the refuge... again, from THEIR perspective, this was more like a confiscation. Unlike a mere protest occupation they had no plans to give the refuge back.

BUT we have to follow the RSs and the RSs (other than the 'standoff' RSs) say "occupation". The militants were adamant that they were organized, armed, willing to use force to defend their possession, and --- the key thing ---- intended to relinquish control when the feds "returned" the refuge to the county. So I think its more accurate to describe this as an "occupation" by wikilinking Military occupation, which describes an armed force holding land that isn't theirs and they don't intend to keep when the dust settles.

Thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no objections to changing "armed seizure and occupation" to simply "armed occupation" in the intro and Infobox. I'm no too sure about wikilinking to Military occupation, however. This incident did not involve any formal national armed forces -- I don't consider private militias or state and federal law enforcement to be the military. It may also be just fine to remove any wikilink to the term 'occupation'. Alan G. Archer (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

removing the link altogether sounds good. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

New article for Grant Co Sheriff Glenn Palmer

FYI, please help build the new article Glenn Palmer (sheriff). The name might get changed for disambig purposes. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Militants won and occupation continues?

Here's an interesting piece from a local intimately familiar with the refuge. There are facts asserted here as well as opinion. Not sure how to use this just yet. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Domicile for "LaVoy" Finicum

Although Finicum previously had a ranch in Yavapai County, his home was in Cane Beds, AZ, in Mohave county. The existing citations did not define any residence for him. This ranch is much closer to the Bundy Ranch in Nevada. Activist (talk) 10:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The media may also have reported outdated information concerning the location of Finicum's home/ranch/grazing allotment, leading to confusion. (Does a rancher's home and grazing allotment have to be physically connected?) Cane Beds is some distance north of Chino Valley. St George News published a story with video in November 2015 regarding his Arizona Strip allotment and his "very good" relationship with the BLM: http://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2015/11/01/mgk-finicum-blm-dispute-bundy/. Perhaps Finicum's Wikipedia bio could be updated confirming his former and final residence. Alan G. Archer (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

LEO response compared to 2016 Native American protest in ND

This sort of comparison will probably continue to be made. Is there a place for this somewhere? "The peaceful protest of the Dakota Pipeline by tribal people has been met by the incarceration of tribal leaders, blockage of services and inability to access needed services," Burns-Paiute Council Chair Charlotte Rodrique wrote in the tribe's letter of support. "This is certainly in contrast to how the armed militia that overtook the Malheur Wildlife last winter was treated. They were allowed to come and go as they wanted, shop at local stores, deface federal buildings and intimidate local people." http://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/2016/09/02/oregon-tribes-send-support-standing-rock/89774520/ NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really sure at the moment. I would say creating another subsection under the "Aftermath" section, but I really don't know if such a comparison will be made again in the future. Does this incident even have its own Wikipedia article? I'm not that well-informed on the situation. Parsley Man (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Not specifically but is mentioned here. here and here. Possibly elsewhere. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think every subsequent mention of the Malheur incident needs documenting here. However, an article on this new incident or related issues could use that quote (and link back here). Bondegezou (talk) 10:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Reaction section re elected leaders

I see that I'd also conflated Alan Archer's edits with your own. I hate working on articles that are "hot." Sometimes I'll be trying to do an edit and I run into a number of edit conflicts even though I might only have started on the edits 10-15 minutes earlier. It usually doesn't happen in the wee hours, but it sure did this evening. Thanks. Activist (talk) 10:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Now it's clear. I thought I'd left the citation in an unbroken paragraph. I'm not sure if I split or someone else did, but here's some of the supporting text from the citation:

Two Democratic congressmen from Oregon said federal prosecutors should have acted much earlier to arrest Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy. Had authorities acted sooner, the lawmakers said it might have discouraged militants inspired by Bundy from occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Reps. Earl Blumenauer of Portland and Peter DeFazio of Springfield on Thursday called for tough federal prosecution against both Bundy and the militants who ended their nearly six-week long occupation the same day. “I am very pleased that the federal authorities finally acted to arrest Mr. Bundy,” DeFazio said in a telephone interview. “Unlike tens of thousands of ranchers across the West who get an incredibly sweet deal on federal lands, he’s refused to pay his fees, grazed illegally in protected habitat and threatened federal agents himself and with his friends with guns. He should have been prosecuted two years ago, and Malheur wouldn’t have happened." DeFazio said he had asked...he was told that “because it’s going to a criminal case, it has to be airtight. I said, ‘Two years?’ And they were pretty quiet on that.” DeFazio said Bundy and the occupiers should be “vigorously prosecuted” and added that the government should “get much more aggressive against insurrectionists on the radical fringe.”

So I think that the cite covers the wide difference in attitude between them (and Brown) and Walden. Do you agree? Activist (talk) 11:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

(A) I assume we're talking about the blockquote to compare notes on how we understand, before trying to write article text.... We can't say all that in our article because its verbatim from the RS, see WP:COPYVIO

(B) You appear to want to contrast these statements to the statements from the others as cited in this specific RS, and then report your conclusion after making that comparison. We can't do that either. See WP:Original research.

(C) To say xyz were "more circumspect" is to imply "B" above and implying anything creates a problem of being vague and invites everyone to read it with their own POV to arrive at their own prior beliefs see Confirmation bias; true, we could say "according to this one reporter, they "were more circumspect" but that doesn't get around the basic problem that the reporter was implying something and/or that our result would be vague.

(D) Suggest We just report what people actually said (mostly by summarizing not quoting), and let readers do their own compare/cotrast. Alternatively if you can find RSs that says xyz did not call for prosecution or xyz sympathized with the militants (Rep Fiore comes to mind) then that's different because its WP:Verifiable (whether its true is another question, but see WP:Verifiability, not truth.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I was just using the blockquote from the cited source to support the reliability of my brief edit that contrasted the substantial differences between Walden as opposed to the other elected officials. Because of the inadvertent paragraph break, the citatiion was separated from the text it supported. I also had taken the word "circumspect," directly from the cited source, rather than substituting my own synonym in the reworded digest text. Activist (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

refs for this section

References

Shooting of LaVoy Finicum

The description of the death of LaVoy Finicum used the word, "allegedly," about his reaching for a gun. I've read many reliable sources that were contemporary to the incident and none use that weasel word. The current cited sources certainly do not. I'm changing it to "apparently," which I think is the least controversial descriptor since the many contemporary reliable sources I reviewed all say he reached for it, and it was in his inside jacket pocket when he was killed. Moreover, he demanded that the LEO's who had pulled him over either shoot him or let him proceed to the intended meeting. That's on the video taken by his companion in the SUV he drove. Statements he made prior to the drive indicated he would not consider backing down in his demands and was willing to die if he didn't get his way. I've added a citation from one of those definitive sources. This isn't a defense of the tactics which were used by those attempting to take him into custody, just a simple statement of fact. If any editor wants to revert this change, please seek consensus first and ping those editors who have been involved in contributing to the article. Thank you. Activist (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this is the right section to discuss this... Parsley Man (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Shrapnel

A discussion about Ryan Bundy's shrapnel wound can be found here. Please join us. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Appeal for popular material support and reaction

Is it worth noting the militants did not plan for a long siege and appealed for supplies to be shipped to them at the refuge and via delivery options in town..critics responded by sending candy phalluses, sex toys, condoms and lubricants as a form of commentary...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/oregon-militia-gag-gifts-dildos-article-1.2495329

--Patbahn (talk) 03:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

This was debated at the time, and that discussion is in the archives. The arguments on either side have not changed, so far as I know. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Conspiracy charges also used against extreme green

Something to perhaps fold in is that the main charge, conspiracy to impede federal officials blahblah, has also been used against the tree huggers. One RS that makes the generic point is https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/10/28/off-the-charts-unbelievable-will-acquittal-of-oregon-refuge-occupiers-embolden-extremists-militias/ A good future todo is to track down specific example to see if that would lead to an article improvement in the section talking about charges and the trial. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

so to be clear, are the dildo bearers related to the tree huggers in any prevalent way? Or does this all fit into a larger rubric of federal land law? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.24.184 (talk) 08:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Bail and Detention including the Nevada 2014 standoff

Gathering links related to Mumford's "yelling" at the judge about releasing Bundys.

• federal court Order for Detention pending trial for 2014 standoff re Ammon
• federal court Order for Detention pending trial for 2014 standoff re Ryan
• Oregon Live article about the above two orders

Comments re background... when Mumford yelled at judge, he was yelling about Nevada not having jurisdiction and therefore, according to him, the federal marshals could not keep the Bundys in custody.... but (of course) the first two documents above are FEDERAL (not Nevada state) court orders that Bundys must remain in custody until trial for the 2014 Bundy standoff. It's incromprehensible (to me anyway) that Mumford did not know about the pending FEDERAL detention orders when he staged had his confrontation with Judge Brown. But back to our article.... we should elaborate on the orders for detention (no bail) in both cases in the logical sequential place, and try harder to not be redundant when it comes to mentioning Mumfords antics argument with the judge. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to add this information and your supporting reliable sources to the article, but please don't delete relevant, NPOV and reliably sourced material in the process. The news article you cited above does not directly relate to Mumford's complaint about the judge holding Ammon Bundy after the trial without producing any documents to that effect in court, such as the order from the court in Nevada that they are to be held without bail until the next trial. There may be reliable sources that discuss this if you can find them. Was she unable to produce the document in court, or did she think his request was frivolous or disrespectful and she simply refused to produce it? Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I added the Oregon Live article you cited above as a RS to the line about being held while awaiting trial in Nevada. Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Acquittal

• http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns-oregon-standoff-bundy-militia-news-updates/ammon-bundy-verdict-oregon-standoff-malheur-court/
• http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/verdict-near-in-malheur-wildlife-refuge-standoff-trial/
• http://kval.com/news/local/jury-finds-bundy-brothers-other-malheur-refuge-occupation-leaders-not-guilty
• http://www.kgw.com/news/verdict-reached-on-all-but-1-charge-in-oregon-occupation-trial/343325145
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/27/jury-acquits-leaders-of-armed-takeover-of-the-oregon-wildlife-refuge-of-federal-conspiracy-charges/
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oregon-standoff-refuge-not-guilty_us_5812858ce4b0990edc303679
• http://www.wweek.com/news/2016/10/27/the-bundy-gang-is-found-not-guilty/
• http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article110938202.html
• http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37795012
• http://fox13now.com/2016/10/27/all-defendants-found-not-guilty-in-oregon-standoff-trial/
• http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/bundy-brothers-oregon-occupiers-found-not-guilty-article-1.2848047

MB298 (talk) 00:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

See end of Trial sub-section.Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Bias

This is the most bias artical I have ever read on Wikipedia, It has an extreamly one sided view and has cherry picked sources to support it's narrative.81.171.3.212 (talk) 07:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

All 224 sources are cherry picked? Towards what viewpoint is it biased? VQuakr (talk) 07:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The article may have problems, but at first pass I count 7 spelling or grammatical errors in your ~25 word post. When I see that, it's hard to get very excited. Then again, when complaints are this vague it's impossible. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Move along everyone. Commenter is anonymous and doesn't provided examples for exaggerated claims. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160104211508/http://www.ktvz.com/news/refuge-occupiers-settle-in-concerns-mount-in-burns/37249044 to http://www.ktvz.com/news/refuge-occupiers-settle-in-concerns-mount-in-burns/37249044
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2015/12/militiamen_ranchers_in_showdow.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/where_is_burns_harney_county_h.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/burns_residents_confront_milit.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/oregon-under-attack-anger-as-armed-white-militia-takes-control-of-a-us-government-building-to-a6794421.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160121044719/http://gawker.com/oregon-wildlife-refuge-occupiers-ransack-native-america-1754179614 to http://gawker.com/oregon-wildlife-refuge-occupiers-ransack-native-america-1754179614

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Where were Finicum's hands at the moment he was shot

This is a popular contention with many police shootings. However there is some evidence this is the case. I have cited this article: http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/04/ammon_bundy_to_challenge_autho.html Foia req (talk) 05:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC) actually it turns out I copied the wrong link http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/03/oregon_standoff_fbi_lie_uncove.html Foia req (talk) 05:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Unless I'm totally missing it, that source article does not say anything about Finicum being shot while he had his hands up. If you could copy/paste quote the section you believe supports that contention, that would make things easier. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The article links to this video and does discuss it. Or it may be some weird cache glitch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uH4PInHFfOc This video shows a window shattering while Finicum had his hands up. I will refrain from making further edits since this is a bit odd. Foia req (talk) 05:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The article says that a shot was fired at the vehicle, shattering the glass and impacting the vehicle, and that an FBI agent was being investigated for allegedly lying about firing the round, but it doesn't say that shot hit Finicum or was responsible for his death. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

In addition, this particular video is only one of many floating around, and it only shows the shot(s?) that missed when Finicum exited the truck. Go watch the full thing, with audio. You'll understand then that the shots in this video are not the shots we need to talk about when we describe "Finicum shot with hands ______?_______". Also, I changed the section heading, per our rules (WP:TPG) which require neutraly phrased headings. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I saw the drone video a few days after the shooting. If memory serves, it was taken well at first above and then from west of the road, beginning from when Finicum was stopped, just beyond the first checkpoint or roadblock. He was there a few moments. A male passenger got out. Then he drove north, rapidly away from the roadblock toward the next roadblock which was unseen, maybe a mile north and around a bend, with no one in visible pursuit. After he buried the crew cab in the deep snow in a shallow gully on the southbound shoulder while trying to drive around the roadblock, he exited the vehicle and started moving toward the rear of his vehicle and uphill away from the pickup. It was up the slope, toward a state trooper whom he realized was advancing toward him. I think the trooper appeared to be armed with a stun weapon, though it looked like it could have been a shotgun, and he was crouching slightly. LaVoy was raising his arms together, up to about shoulder height, and then back down, near to and then away from his pockets on both sides. He was shot as he twisted away from the road and he fell away from the shooter and toward the trooper advancing downhill. The two shots fired by the FBI agent from the road at the crew cab were not to be seen, in that video. I expect you still should be able to find that video on line. There was some video taken inside the back seat of the crew cab as well, by a female passenger, I think. Activist (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

There's no need to try to remember, just read the article and follow the links. Also, if we interpret the video to tell people what it shows, that might be WP:Original research and that's silly when we have so many excellent secondary WP:Reliable sources that the interpretation for us. We report what they say it shows, rather than what we see. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: @NorthBySouthBaranof: I spent quite a bit of time looking for a reliable source that said Finicum had his hands up, and found just one mention. However, there is a difference between having one's hands raised to shoulder height for less than a second, and raising them completely as a sign of surrender. Finicum raised them three times and quickly lowered them again, and was shot in the back three times. I suspect that the third and fatal shot hit him when he was lying on the ground or was falling there, as it hit just above his hip and went through his heart, according to the sources and stories gathered at Oregon Live. The state police officer who was close in front of him up the slope had holstered his weapon and it was a stun gun in his hands. I'm guessing it was in an obvious attempt to take him alive, though the FBI HRT agent who shot at him from the road as he was just exiting and hit the top of the car, apparently intended to kill him, but missed. Finicum also had told the LEOs numerous times to either shoot him or to proceed to John Day to talk to the sheriff. I also noticed in the existing text said that "twelve" defendants had pleaded guilty, but there was no such claim in the cited sources. There was a statement that eleven defendants had pleaded guilty in a story this week, so I changed the "twelve" to "many" and used the number of guilty pleas from the reliable source as eleven in the story about the sentencing of Travis Cox. Activist (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for making an RS-based correction to the text. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: @NorthBySouthBaranof:Actually, there was a hatnote directing readers to the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom article, with a request at the Occupation page that the CCF article be updated. I went there and added sentences for six defendants, including citations, and discovered that a dozen defendants actually have pleaded guilty, referencing the table at that article, so the original number was correct, though not supported by the existing citations. I updated the lede to reflect that info. Activist (talk) 07:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Use of informants

There are some interesting facts not included in the article yet, on the use of informants, brought up in the trial: [1] [2] It might be good to include them, especially once the trail is over or once court documents can be accessed to find additional sources for verification. --BurritoBazooka ^Talk Contribs 11:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The judge has blocked the names of 15 informants, but they were leaked to a blogger ostensibly by a defendant or the defense. Nine were on the reservation. Activist (talk) 08:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Update on defendants

I've made a substantial number of edits to bring the article up to date, and read a great deal of the cited stories, but have not done one necessary task. Without comparing the list of indictments of the 27 defendants with the resolution of the individual cases, I only have accounted for the results for 24 defendants: Seven acquittals, charges dropped in one case, at least 12 pleaded guilty, and four convicted at trial. I'm not sure about the fate of the other three. I hope someone will do a chart, not necessarily for posting which is a very time-consuming process, though it would be very helpful, and might thereby resolve this discrepancy. There's a posted chart in a similarly complex case, the "Fat Leonard Scandal," which could serve as a template. Activist (talk) 08:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Poor Citation

Citation 31, the one cited in population and area statistics, links to an active website with a very poor and possibly broken template. In its current state it may be better to locate an alternative citation, this data should be available relatively easily. I'm not very experienced with managing citation text and the source code interface so I am personally nervous about working on it, anyone want to manage this one or should I handle it? Jyggalypuff (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest! Unsolicited advice tip #1.... learn how to create "Diff" for use on talk pages, so people know what you are talking about. (Click the link in prior sentence). To link to a specific reference, notice that some other editor could change the article and thereby reorder the reference numbers. So if you just say "31" tomorrow that one might be 33 or 29. So to lock it in, first tell your browser to show the full url of the web page. Notice the url for the article. Now go to "Version history", and click the most recent version of the article in the list. The text that displays is identical to what you were just looking at (since you clicked the most recent version) (((BUT))) the url has become longer. It now contains text that points to this specific version. Now go to the reference and click on it. The url should now point to (A) the specific article version fixed in time and (B) the specific reference number. When I do this, I get this url (which I will display using WP:NOWIKI markup

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge&oldid=801311580#cite_note-CrombieCountyProfile-31

And I can link to that reference like this.

Anyway..... it seems the url was correct except it was choking on https but seems to like http. Fixed. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Government Militias

I question the neutrality of "anti-government militias." Who's declaring them anti-government, but their detractors? For example, on the "About" page of the III %ers website at http://www.iiisecurityforce.com/about.html the group discusses how militias are often viewed as anti-government, but that they don't consider themselves to be so.

So, if this article is neutral on that point, why are we using the words of their detractors but not the words of the militia group itself?

Also, what defines "anti-government?" The groups, though many people may not like them, organize and govern themselves. They have leaders, protocol, and a hierarchy. What is that but government? BudJillett (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

We base what we say on what reliable sources say in preference to what the militia group says about itself. This is basic Wikipedia policy: see WP:V and WP:NPOV. Bondegezou (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Bodegezou, for the guidance. I checked WP:V and found "The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments." So, if an article is written about a militia group calling it "anti-government," but the militia group's "About" page states that it is not anti-government, wouldn't this be bad fact-checking? And therefore not a very reliable source? BudJillett (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The militia group's own "About" page is a primary source and there are lots of problems with primary sources: see WP:PRIMARY. If a newspaper article (or a Wikipedia article) contradicts a primary source, that could be for very good reasons and we trust reliable sources to make those judgments. Wikipedia is very clear in its policies: we use reliable, secondary sources over primary sources. Bondegezou (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Bondegezou, for the informative dialog. In reading some of the source articles, it seems to me that the term "anti-government" originated from opinion rather than fact. Be it the opinion of the local Sheriff, or of the reporter herself. However, I see that following Wikipedia's guidelines makes it totally legit for it to appear in the Wikipedia article, and does not seem to be against policy as you've pointed out. I often see biased terminology from sources that most (including myself) would consider reliable, such as CNN, TIME, even REUTERS on occasion slips up and uses biased terms. I wonder how we, as a community, can keep mainstream media bias (where it might occur) from migrating into Wikipedia? BudJillett (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

We can't. By foundational definition, if you believe that all mainstream media are biased, our articles will reflect that bias because our articles are based upon what is verifiably published in reliable sources. We have a responsibility to reflect multiple points of view, but we are required to put due weight on viewpoints based on their prevalence in reliable sources. That is, fringe viewpoints will not receive as much space or credence as mainstream ones. The idea that armed militias taking over government facilities are not anti-government is, charitably, a fringe one. Therefore, our article will reflect the mainstream consensus of sources. If you object to that, you quite simply object to the very idea of Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

An alternative response would be... Go take this matter up with CNN, Time, Reuters etc. rather than here. Bondegezou (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it's generally accepted that all media is biased to varying extents. Bias sneaks in everywhere, and often unintentionally. I agree that those biases are reflected in Wikipedia articles. I think it's natural for that to occur. This particular article seems to have a higher degree of bias than others on Wikipedia, which I have usually found to be pleasantly neutral. "Anti-government" stood out to me. Especially at "By late fall, local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies had become aware that members of anti-government militias had started to relocate to Harney County." This left me with the impression that the militia groups had formed around a professed anti-government agenda, but in reading their pages I found this not to be the case. In fact, the Three Percenters go into detail about why they are not anti-government. I understand we can't quote the militia's web page because they are a primary source. Still, I believe we should remove the misleading adjective. It leads people to believe the groups are self-proclaimed anti-government groups when they are making no such proclamation. BudJillett (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomenclature

@NorthBySouthBaranof:Twenty of the articles from reliable sources cited in the Wikipedia article on the Occupation use the word, "Militant" in their very titles, to describe the occupiers. Allowing the article to be scrubbed and sanitized by instead calling the militants "protesters," is simply absurd. Many carried pocket copies of W. Cleon Skousen's bizarre interpretations of the constitution with them. In my opinion, that ignoring of over 230 years of jurisprudence constitutes a prima facie case for their position as "anti-government." Activist (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: The main article does refer to the occupiers as militants, which you seem to be in agreement with. The word "protesters" is used only in reference to what was imprinted on the signs by the roadblocks. BudJillett (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I am in agreement with referring to the militants as "militants." However, an IP editor from Dover, NH, twice replaced the term "militants" with "protesters" over 100 times in the article's text. After editor NorthBySouthBaranof reverted those changes, twice, I registered my concurrance with the long-time editor's restorations. Activist (talk) 08:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I counted the citations and indeed 20 of them refer to the occupiers as "militants" in their very titles. Only 11 refer to them as "protesters" (or Bundy as "protest leader") and only 11 refer to them as "group," so I see where "militant" wins out. BudJillett (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)