Talk:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

Page protection warranted?
,, , I think this article could benefit from autoconfirmed editor page protection. The last two edits that were made by IP editor 67.169.209.150, from the vicinity of Corvallis, OR, were vandalism, otherwise known as "good faith" here at Wikipedia. The six prior IP edits were made by an edit warring IP editor from the vicinity of Dover, N.H. Activist (talk) 13:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have requested semi-protection. MB298 (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I kinda like Wikipedia's generally open policy. I checked the edit history and I don't see the page is being edited all that much. I also have no problem with assuming good faith, at least on the more recent edits. I agree the reversions were warranted since the edits did not accurately reflect the cited sources, and the editor offered no new citations to backup his or her edits. The comment in the edit summary was a bit dubious (in addition to being a bit cryptic!), but I still tend to write it off as a user under-educated about Wikipedia's policies. Maybe if that IP does it again, offer some education on his or her talk page? I've got this page on my watch list so, if I catch it, I'll try to point that person to the correct Wikipedia policy. BudJillett (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree in large part, because it's not hard to register a username and become involved. Registering doesn't make Wikipedia not "open". It's still free and super easy. But let's face cold hard realism: 99% of anonymous IP editors are hit and runs. They aren't looking for consensus, they aren't looking to cite reliable sources, and they aren't following established procedure. If they really have an invested interest in Wikipedia, they can register a name and get involved.
 * One thing I've learned about being around the great outdoors of the west, is that the general public has no respect for anything that is accessible and convenient. Make it one step harder (in this case, still easy by registering) and you will weed out 90% of those who are looking to vandalize and deface. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * All reasonable points. I wonder, though, how do they apply specifically to protecting this page, as opposed to making registration a requirement for Wikipedia as a whole? I've spent the last few weeks doing some patrolling as a way to learn more about Wikipedia, and during that time I've seen several egregious cases of obvious vandalism. Sometimes these were repeated onslaughts to a particular page over a number of days. But I just don't see that here. BudJillett (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I was an editor of this page, in some function or another, from its inception, and if my memory serves me, it had vandalism/revert wars. What I suspect this page will go through is much like other articles now - because the content is politically charged and controversial, people will routinely come in to edit it to suit their personal views rather than take the due diligence to back it up with reliable sources. This article has seen that consistently, if not in any inundating way recently. I think this article is similar to other hot button articles where it would behoove the editors to lighten their work load by enforcing protective measures against the never-ending onslaught of anonymous editors who have no intent of improving wikipedia, but bending wikipedia to their own views. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ,, , Thanks for making the request. I disagree about the need, obviously. There are editors on Wikipedia who are little more than graffiti artists, "taggers,"interjecting vulgarities here and there, for instance. It's obvious what they're doing and that's not what's happening here, of course, but it shares a spectrum with what is. There are others who share an unreality and feel that by erasing reliably sourced, but unpleasant to them text, that they somehow have put things right. Finicum's unfortunate death was classic "suicide by cop." All those erasures and substitutions (and they've been going on for a while), won't change that. Autoconfirmation won't stop that but presents some impediments, especially for those impulsive readers/posters, that will make that situation a little more difficult, so should be welcomed, in my opinion. Registering as a confirmed user isn't all that big a burden. Activist (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, everyone, for clarifying. Does moving forward with semi-protecting this page, for the reasons so far given, square with WP:PREEMPTIVE? BudJillett (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This goes beyond vandalism and falls mostly under content dispute - the two most common examples are changing "militants" to "protesters" and often changing the facts surrounding Finnicum running away from the barricade and reaching into his jacket, to some other conspiracy theory nonsense. It's an ongoing issue. I foresee that it will not change. Semi protection for a year would help and it could be reevaluated at that time on trial basis. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Occupied or Seized
Clearly, use of the term "seized" rather than "occupied" in the lede is a far more accurate descriptor of what happened at Malheur. I am reminded of the term, as defined in Wiktionary, "terminate with extreme prejudice" which was substituted for the accurate "assassinate," "execute" or "murder" during the Viet Nam war. Activist (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Honestly, neither one seems very loaded to me. They seem like synonyms and I don't see wildly differing connotations.
 * seize: To deliberately take hold of; to grab or capture. Or, to take possession of (by force, law etc.).
 * occupy: To have, or to have taken, possession or control of (a territory). VQuakr (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Seized UPDATE see later comment below. Original comment read.... (A) Lots of RSs use seized;  (B) Each have various connotations.  The context for this article is, in broad strokes, political direct action.  I've been around that culture a bit, and the common language I am personally familiar with talks about "occupying" offices that are acknowledged to belong to some authority and the premise of the action is to return control of those spaces to those authorities at the actions conclusion.   In this case, the militants stated purpose was to wrest control of the lands from the federal government and (re)distribute them to the locals.  That's their own stated goal as reported in the RSs.  Very different from some college kids "occupying" the university president's office over divesting from fossil fuels. Example "In a sign of growing tensions, students occupied and shut down the university finance building last week and said there could be “no more business as usual whilst the university remains complicit in the destruction of the planet and vulnerable populations across the globe”." https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/apr/23/cambridge-university-urged-again-to-end-fossil-fuel-investments   In such actions there is no intention of keeping such spaces or putting third parties into control.  The occupiers return control and acknowledge the rightful "owners".  So no, I don't think are equivalent terms at all. Yes I know other RSs say "occupy".  Where we have competing words supported by different RSs we should use our judgment to describe the militants stated purpose - take control, keep control, pass control to others.  Er go, "seized"...."and get lost, feds)"...   NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ,, ,, , . If the words were simply synonymous, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Without going all "Alice/Humpty Dumpty," here, the terms were more synonymous in Old Latin. Today, they'e not. When the Nazis occupied northern France, it was a seizure. The French had little choice in the matter or the description, though they were allowed to remain. One can "occupy" a flat, with an agreement with the landlord, or and uninhabited or unclaimed island or deserted building, perhaps. But the refuge was taken over, "seized" by heavily armed interlopers with no intention of surrendering it back to government stewardship. The legitimate occupants were expelled. Visitors, by virtue of the confrontation, were unwelcomed. If someone, with no legitimate claim to possession, came to your home and threw you out, would you say they had "occupied" your home, or "seized" it? Activist (talk) 00:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the email and ping... FYI in such short threads, I usually assume the other parties have pages watchlisted, and that's how I find out about new stuff posted on this one. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd call it "occupied" by squatters, but "seized" by a judge. In other words, "seized" connotes a legitimate albeit unpleasant formal seizure, whereas "occupy" connotes an illegitimate unwelcome occupation of the premises. Also note that the article is called "Occupation of…", not "Seizure of…" — JFG talk 01:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with JFG. It is exactly this connotation that made me prefer occupied. Occupation is a fact, but seizure depends on whether you think is a legitimate power. If you think the occupiers have, it is an occupation and a seizure, if you think the central government has the legitimate power, it is "only" an occupation. I therefore think the word occupy is the neutral term to use; and also the most used term to describe the conflict. L.tak (talk) 03:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Checking how this event is described: 132 counts of the word "occupation", "occupied" or "occupiers" in the article, including 73 in titles of cited sources. "Seizure" or "seized"? 1 source in Boise Weekly. Nowhere in article text except the contested lede wording, and a guy who had his camera seized. Case closed. — JFG talk 04:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * To me the key difference is the presence of firearms. Students occupying university buildings are almost universally unarmed. Occupy wallstreet was unarmed. The Bundys & co were bristling with firearms. So to me seizure is more appropriate. That's why I changed it in the first place. Possums (talk) 07:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * seized and occupied If we had to pick just one, then my earlier comment's reasoning still stands and "seized" more neutrally described what actually transpired. Although the dubious WP:GOOGLETEST made by another editor can tell us what is popular, that how-to guide tells us it is not how we decide.  Rather, our goal is neutral description of actual events.  Alas, there is no bright line of dictionary definitions to help us, and so we have this mostly opinion-based debate.  What are neutrally-minded Wikipedians to do?  Reliable sources to the rescue... many use both terms, e.g.
 * At 9:15 p.m. the day it all started Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward gave the following statement "After the peaceful rally was completed today, a group of outside militants drove to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, where they seized and occupied the refuge headquarters." (emphasis added) https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/drama_in_burns_ends_with_quiet.html
 * Finally, although we can't cite our own articles as RSs note that the first sentence of our own article Reactions_to_the_occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge also says "seized and occupied".NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

There having been no additional comments, I went ahead and changed "seized" to "seized and occupied". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Resolving confusion as to fatal shots
I've read differing accounts about which officers fired which shots. In the trial of FBI Agent Astarita, however, the account is sworn testimony. It said that "Officer 1" who was at the fatal roadblock, fired three shots with an AR-15 into Finicum's truck, then two into his back, after he got out of his truck. Then another, "Officer 2," also fired, hitting Finicum in his back at the same time. Activist (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the contributions
,, , , , , , , Dear Wikipedia editors who worked on this article. I think it is an example of excellent collaboration to produce an article that does justice to the aims of Wikipedia. I'm pinging those editors who comprised the "top ten" in terms of their additions to the articles, without singling out any individual from that list. In addition to the content, I particularly liked the layout, with which I had little to do except for a minor change. Activist (talk) 03:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Same goes, @Activist! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Also should get some credit as a contributor of 4.7% of the text added. I've added 3.5% as the 10th top contributor. I'll give myself a single pat on the back. Thank you for all your work guys and your vigilance. Leitmotiv (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

stray cite
This was just floating at the top of the article with no context.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality
Over time, this article has progressed towards making the bias tone of this entry the norm. Which is a problem regarding specific topics across Wikipedia. This article though, the introduction has changed as such since the creation of the entry in 2016:

"armed members of rump militias"

"armed group affiliated with the U.S. militia movement"

"armed standoff"

"armed occupation and standoff"

"armed militants"

"armed far right whites"

"armed group of far-right extremists"

For most people who pass by the entry, people who don't bother editing Wikipedia, the bias is glaringly obvious to them. And that's only one example from the introduction.

Any attempt to restore neutral language is met with a revision and then warnings about getting banned or blocked for edit warring. So the bias only gets increasingly worse as the phrasing on articles such as these progresses with the labels of the time. In a few months we'll see another biased labeling up there or additions to further insert personal bias that will be upheld as supposedly being "unbiased". This is why many (regardless of leanings) don't accept Wikipedia as a source. Entries like these, in time, are always written to fit around a "source" that conforms the political leanings of the most prolific editors. And if there is an alternate news reference to restore neutral designations of groups, individuals or otherwise, it is always replaced by a news reference to restore the biased tone. There isn't a discussion to be had on this. That is exactly what happens. Zeph1 (talk) 03:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please explain why you believe the description is inaccurate. Are you disagreeing with the reliably-sourced description of the armed militants as "far-right"? The article extensively discusses the right-wing anti-government ideologies held and expressed by those responsible. Why is it "biased" to accurately reflect this fact? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, this is an interesting conversation and while I won't be making any edits myself, I think it's worth considering the use of the word "extremist" more so that "far-right". Far-right is a pretty solid descriptor for these people and few reputable sources would dismiss that claim. However, calling them extremist may be problematic in light of the source material. if you would take a look at the NPR article that is sourced the only mention of "extremism" comes from the opening paragraph in which it is stated, "And since then, they have worked hard to shake the county's unwanted reputation as a haven for far-right extremism". While this may draw an association between the standoff incident and a "reputation" for far-right extremism in the county, it does not directly label those who took part as extremist. We must be very careful with our language and the utilization of certain labels, as anybody whose studied the usage of words like "terrorist" could tell you. I argue that, unless more articles from reliable sources can be found that label the participants as extremists, the word "militant" should be utilized instead as it seems to be more commonly used and gives reference to their militia background. And, if more evidence can be found that leads to a consensus on the use of the term "extremist", then those sources must be cited in the initial sentence alongside the NPR citation. Thanks for reading, please ping me back if you plan on responding so I can respond as quickly as possible!! 2601:409:8400:B00:3C07:ABD3:2A63:13CC (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ALso, I wasn't logged in, so here is my actual account for you to ping Thanks!! Sixfish11 (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This article also refers to them directly as extremists. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The focus of that article is others in the community, and even the reporter says they are "self described militia"... members of a national militia are soldiers, and Joe Citizen are militants, as many source descrbed them to be. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the additional source, but it seems like has other sources as well that describe them as militants. Maybe the best way to go about deciding would be to see, roughly, whether they are described more often as "extremists" or "militants" in the sources. I'm very new to editing so if there is a more formal way to conduct an analysis i'd be interested in taking part! Sixfish11 (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been with this article since the beginning. I'm just back from a multi month wikibreak.  The place to start is in the talk page archives.  Just search for threads with "militants".  This has been frequently debated. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm skeptical of the term "far-right" in connection with these groups. Considering "fascism" is described as "far-right" as well, and that being a system in which the State itself is the moral actor in the world, and all private interests being subordinate to the will of the State, I fail to see how the Sovereign Citizen Movement and other anti-government ideologies can also be lumped together with the same label. They seem like polar opposites to me, don't you think? 173.165.136.242 (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Fascism can be in any political system. Far-right and fascism are not synonymous. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * actually.... wikipedia: "Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultra-nationalist political ideology and movement..." 137.188.108.39 (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how fascism | grants the power to suppress any anti-regime party, it can be found in any ideology. That said, today it is predominantly exhibited in the Far Right. Regardless, Wikipedia is not a forum. Leitmotiv (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Psychological manipulation: Maliciously causing someone to doubt their own perceptions, senses, or understanding with the objective to win an argument or force someone to behave the way you want.
United States Law Enforcement entities are shown as affiliated with a political party while the perpetrators of the occupation are shown with an imitation American flag. This is misleading and an attempt to inject political agenda. 75.183.176.7 (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see what you are talking about with US Law Enforcement being shown as a political party. Party in this instance is the group they are affiliated with or represent. You're right that the individuals associated with Bundy are depicted as sharing the same US Flag with the Law Enforcement leading to some confusion. I've taken the lead of the Bundy standoff article and removed the US flags from the individuals, and updated the 3 Percenter flag. Also, assume good faith with comments like "inject political agenda". It could have been a simple oversight. Leitmotiv (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)