Talk:Cliven Bundy

Criminal complaint with six charges
I don't have time to add all six charges to the standoff article, but FYI here is the criminal complaint. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * PS Thanks to whoever already added the charges NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Cliven Bundy. 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/20140417070700/http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/september-2011/sovereign-citizens to https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/september-2011/sovereign-citizens

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

"Antigovernment" or "Anti-federal government"?
BLP noticeboard

Hi everyone. I was reading this article yesterday and came across this sentence: "Bundy has participated in, and had links with various related movements, including anti-government activism, (which opposes federal government involvement in favor of state and local governments)..." I thought it was a poorly written sentence and edited it. Here's why:

The sentence contradicts itself, because "anti-government" implies opposition to either government as it currently exists, or opposition to the idea of government more generally. But the sentence strongly implies that, in fact, Bundy supports greater involvement of state and local governments, and less involvement by the federal government.

The more accurate term here would be "anti-federal government". Anti-Federalism is a political current that's existed since the USA's founding, and is not the same thing as Anti-statism, which is what the term "antigovernment" denotes.

Furthermore, the sentence in question here is not attributed to a reliable source, so as the term is both inaccurate and unsourced, I see no reason to keep it.

I edited the page to reflect this point, which I saw as a routine, minor improvement, on the level of fixing a spelling error. I figured it would be so uncontroversial that it would never be discussed, but I received some heated pushback from another editor, so, let's discuss it:

Which term is more precise in the context of this sentence, and why? Antigovernment, or anti-federal government? Philomathes2357 (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * My vote is to keep Philomathes2357's edit. Maybe Philomathes2357 can cite a source where Bundy is quoted as being pro-Nevada and include that with the edit. MainePatriot (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a neat idea, I'll look for such a source. Philomathes2357 (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Consider the following article. Especially this sentence:
 * "Bundy's defense is threefold: He claims his family has been raising cattle on the land since 1877, before the BLM existed, so his rights to the land trump the federal government's; he asserts that Nevada really owns the federal lands — a radical offshoot of the long-simmering Sagebush Rebellion — so he should only pay grazing rights to the state or local government; and he has guns."
 * This sentence, while not explicitly saying Bundy is "pro-Nevada", shows that he did not claim that has no obligation to answer to any political authority, but that he feels his obligations are to the state and local government, rather than the federal government. This is consistent with Anti-Federalism and inconsistent with "antigovernment".


 * Should I go ahead and change "antigovernment" to "anti-federal government" and add the above source? Since this seems pretty cut-and-dry, and only one editor has expressed hesitation, I think I'll wait 24 hours and then make the change, unless rebuttals to my argument are presented.

Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This source clearly shows Bundy as anti government, stating his claims supercede those of the government. The article shows no support of any government. Reliable sources call Bundy anti government. Vizorblaze (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The source shows Bundy as anti-federal government. It clearly states that he believes the state of Nevada owns the grazing land, and that he should pay grazing rights, not to the federal government, but to the state and local government. If he was antigovernment, he wouldn't recognize any political authority and would reject the notion that he owes grazing fees to anybody. Also, there is no reliable source cited for the claim that Bundy is "anti-government". If you want to add one, that would be a step in the right direction. Philomathes2357 (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * You will absolutely NOT make that change without gaining consensus first, as that violated policy.
 * As for your source, what you are doing is WP:SYNTH. Wikipedia reports on what sources say, not your interpretation of the sources. Most RS say that he is anti-government, you own source does not say otherwise, ergo you cannot make this change. 2601:18F:107F:8C30:1D7C:105D:E207:A1CD (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * My view is that it states pretty clearly and unambiguously: he feels his allegiance and obligation is to the state of Nevada and to local jurisdictions, rather than the federal government. If he was against all government, he'd also be against paying grazing fees to the state and local government. Right? That's not really SYNTH, that's a straightforward reading of the text.
 * Again, anti-federal government sentiment is an American current of political thought that has existed since the 1700s. Are you familiar with the Anti-Federalist Papers? No expert on American politics would casually conflate anti-Federalism with anarchism or anti-statism. As for your assertion that "most reliable sources say that he is antigovernment" - if that's the case, why aren't any of them cited to support the claim? Maybe you could show us some of the RS that support your position, and we could figure out how to incorporate them in-line into the text. I'd support that. But absent a bunch of RS using the incorrect term, which would force us to use it, I suggest we use the correct term, rather than the incorrect one.
 * I think we can all agree that the sentence I identified is bad: it's self-contradictory, for one. It labels the guy "antigovernment", but then goes on to define "anti-federalism", which is a different thing. And it's unsourced. Maybe it should be scrapped and re-written completely, with references.
 * Also, please watch your tone, none of my comments towards you have been rude, and I expect the same. Not even admins that dislike me go around telling me "you WILL do this" and "you WILL NOT do that", and I wouldn't talk to you that way, even if I thought you made a bad edit. So I don't take kindly to it. Thanks. Philomathes2357 (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * He is anti government according to reliable sources. Maybe expand it with a section backed by additional sources on how he is inconsistent in his beliefs if you feel the need. Vizorblaze (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Which reliable sources? The claim that he is "antigovernment" is unsourced in the article. Which, come to think of it, is a blatant violation of Biographies of living persons. BLP says:
 * "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."
 * I'm going to ping @Herostratus, who I've seen discuss BLP in a way that first helped me understand it.
 * There is only one currently cited source I can find, the Southern Poverty Law Center, that uses the word "antigovernment" to describe, not Bundy personally, but refers to "a large contingent of about a hundred antigovernment “Patriots”...now gathering near the site of the roundup as a form of protest..." . Note that the Perennial Sources page here states the following about SPLC: "The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION". But on Bundy's article, in the "Worldview" section, it states:
 * "J. J. MacNab, who writes for Forbes about anti-government extremism, described Bundy's views as having been inspired by the sovereign citizen movement, whose adherents claim that the county sheriff is the most powerful law-enforcement officer in the country, with authority superior to that of any federal agent, local law-enforcement agency or any other elected official"
 * If he believes that county sheriffs have authority to enforce laws, he's not antigovernment. Antigovernment is not the same thing as Anti-Federalist, which is what he is, or Posse Comitatus, which is another, more nuanced viewpoint that has been attributed to Bundy in at least one reliable source.
 * At this point, this is a non-debatable issue. The label is unattributed, unsourced, factually incorrect, and, per BLP, must be removed immediately and without waiting for further discussion. I am now removing the entire sentence. If someone objects, first, read BLP, carefully, before you decide to revert my edit. Your best path forward would be to either
 * 1) Create a request for comment pertaining to how Bundy should be labeled and how that label should be sourced, or
 * 2) Compile a thorough list of reliable sources that describe Bundy as "anti-government", and add an attributed sentence somewhere in the article stating "Bundy's views have been described by X, Y, and Z as antigovernment" or something along those lines, along with in-line citations. Then, we can debate and come to a consensus about the new content. But this content must go, now. Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, could you rephrase that in under 100 words? It's disrespectful to expect me to read an essay on a talk page after I stated my opinion. Vizorblaze (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The sentence is not only factually incorrect, self-contradictory, and garbage, it's a violation of BLP, and it's been removed without further discussion. Please do not revert my edit without carefully considering Biographies of living persons. If you wish to re-insert the opinion that Cliven Bundy is "antigovernment" into the article in an appropriate way, refer to 1) and 2) above. Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Denied. Reverted. Follow policy, not am radio. Vizorblaze (talk) 04:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Bad choice. Not only have you accused me of bad faith by suggesting that my edit is informed by "am radio", you have clearly and unambiguously violated BLP. This is a non-debatable issue. See the following relevant quote from the policy page:
 * "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."
 * I have removed the sentence again. This is not edit-warring, as my edit is informed by the word-for-word text of BLP policy and yours is so egregiously in violation of it that "you may be blocked from editing" if you continue with this particular line of reasoning. Either create an RFC or show us a list of sources that describe Cliven Bundy personally as "antigovernment". If you're unwilling to do either of those things, with all due respect, you should move on. Philomathes2357 (talk) 04:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Take it to wp:Ani then, but don't act surprised when the boomerang comes back. Vizorblaze (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, it has been taken up here. Philomathes2357 (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, it has been taken up here. Philomathes2357 (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

And your edit warring has been taken to the edit-warring noticeboard. Never edit war against multiple more experienced editors. Assume they know more than you, stop edit warring, and only discuss. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Third para of lede
The third paragraph of the lede is a bit muddled. I would just make some small changes but since there is a comment to discuss it in the talk page, I'm putting my proposal here. Basically, I think we should just remove any mentions of people thinking he is a hero, or opposing him, because this is banal and true of everyone with a public political opinion. Also I think the "sovereign citizen" explanation can just be removed. Wikis allow a simple click for any reader who wants to know what it is. Below is my proposed version: Bundy has participated in, and had links with various related movements, including anti-government activism, (which opposes federal government involvement in favor of state and local governments) and the sovereign citizen movement which holds that people are answerable only to their particular interpretation of the common law and are not subject to any government statutes or proceedings). Some[who?] view him as a hero for having He led a movement of ranchers to encourage more ranchers to join him in defaulting on their grazing fees as per their federal grazing contracts.[5][6] Bundy's views have also generated significant controversy and criticism; for instance, he came under fire for He also made remarks suggesting that African Americans might have been better off under slavery.[5][6] Ashmoo (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Protection needed?
Given the recent edits by unconfirmed users, perhaps some of protection is required for this article. Weazie (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Due to repeat incidents, protection requested. --Weazie (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Should this be mentioned?
Western Watersheds Project has sued the federal government over their failure to remove Bundy's cattle from endangered tortoise habitat areas. USNavelObservatory (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada/feds-sued-over-bundys-cattle-solar-development-near-las-vegas-2904722/

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2023
Please add to article, in section "2016 arrest and prosecution" or a new appropriately named subsection:

In September 2023, the Western Watersheds Project sued the federal government, arguing that the BLM's failure to round up and remove Bundy's cattle from protected lands constituted a violation of the Endangered Species Act. In response to the lawsuit, Bundy blamed the federal government for failing to protect the tortoises, promoted conspiracy theories claiming that environmental laws are just "a moneymaking project for the government and the environmental community," reiterated his previous conspiracy theory claims that the federal government is a "foreign government" whose laws he does not have to comply with and asserted he would once again engage in armed resistance of any attempt to round up and confiscate the cattle or remove them from the lands he illegally grazes them on. USNavelObservatory (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Semi-protection-unlocked.svg Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details., it appears your account is now autoconfirmed, so you should be able to implement this request yourself if you wish. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * When I made this request I wasn't able to do it. Your response is over a week behind and sounds very rude but I'll try to do it myself now. USNavelObservatory (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)