Talk:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge/Archive 2

Claim about divine motivation and message
In the initial paragraph, there is a statement with a citation: "Ammon Bundy, the leader of the group now calling themselves Citizens for Constitutional Freedom, said he began leading the occupation after receiving a divine message from God ordering him to do so.[8]". I would like to suggest that the use of this statement is misleading. I particularly would like to focus on the divine message part. According to Bundy's video released on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl5rkosu2Ig he presents the spiritual component in a very different light. It is easy for people who are not observers of a faith to wrongly understand expressions of people of faith. When I watched the video I got a very different understanding of the role of Ammon's faith in his decision making process. My understanding is that he sought guidance in what to do, but he did not claim a specific divine message to take action. - I may be mis-understanding Ammon, but I suspect that the journalist cited in [8] inaccurately reported or simplified Ammon's experience. I suggest this comment be revised in the text to reflect original source material on Youtube. Hugh Paterson III (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's misleading. I've added another reference for you to check out. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose proposal to revise. LavaBaron (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * May I suggest we use a different wording than the current tautology? If "divine message from God" is what Bundy actually said, it should be in quotes and cited.  The current citation has "Bundy says he's been moved by the Lord", which isn't a direct quotation, and doesn't match our current wording.  I would recommend that we drop the "divine", as a minimum. Tevildo (talk) 11:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Bundy's actual words (from the video above, at 13:50) are "I did exactly what the Lord asked me to do". Tevildo (talk) 11:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I did a quick fix, maybe somebody can do better.   TomS TDotO (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Tempest in a teapot. "what the Lord asked me to do" is the same thing as a divine message. The sources support the sentence. I see no problem and like LavaBaron oppose any tinkering at this time. I did however remove some redundancy, since "divine message" necessarily comes from the Lord. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Good, thanks. We can't have the words "the Lord" in this kind of passage without them appearing between quotation marks. Ericoides (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's OK now: "divine message" is much better than "divine message from God". Perhaps Word of wisdom (not to be confused with Word of Wisdom, important in this context) might be a better link target than Prophecy (Bundy says "they [his plans] are wisdom in the Lord" at 18:20), and "ordered" might be a bit too strong, but the essential problem has been fixed. Tevildo (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a detail wholly unimportant to the lead section. I'm not opposed to including it in the body. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

High Country News as RS
FYI, I have made friendly inquiry on the RS quality of High Country News, a source Somedifferentstuff took out earlier today. The discussion if you wish to chime in is at the RSN in this thread. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

"Very long" tag in "Occupation" section
This section has been divided into subsections. Is this tag still necessary? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think yes because.... If there is too much material that should be purged under WP:NOTNEWS, and I think there is, chopping up the Pepperoni and NotNews pizza into small Pepperoni and NotNews slices doesn't make the overall pizza any smaller. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)  UPDATE:  I should have reviewed the "too long" instructions first.  Sectioning is an approved way to solve it.  However, the overly detailed NOTNEWS problem remains, and it seems there is Template:Overly detailed, so I changed the tag to match the current problem. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there any consensus that there is a problem? I feel the current level of detail is appropriate. We could consider a timeline article if things continue. Bondegezou (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate Bondegeaou. In the "NOTNEWS thread above I thought you said the opposite. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In the "NOTNEWS" thread, I was agreeing with Leitmotiv and LavaBaron that "paring anything down is premature". This is an unfolding event and, in the fullness of time, some detail may come to be seen as unnecessary, but for now I think we've got the balance about right in terms of how much detail we're going into. Bondegezou (talk) 10:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. I disagree.  We have loads of trivial play by play that can go in Wikinews but is inappropriate here.  The operative guideline, with bold for emphasis reads
 * Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events . While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.
 * The "dildo" thread is an excellent example. changed my mind on that one  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Blaine Cooper
Proposed merge of Blaine Cooper Per WP:BLP1E. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support as nominator. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Cooper and Bundy are both definitely known for only one event. Parsley Man (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support for Cooper but oppose for Bundy – Cooper is definitely only known for this event however Bundy has received enough coverage, both prior to and during the event, that he is worthy of his own article. MB298 (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussion has moved to AFD in this thread. Please add your comments there.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Citizens for Constitutional Freedom
Citizens for Constitutional Freedom was created, then redirected, so I removed links throughout this article. But, perhaps we should discuss, does this group meet Wikipedia's notability threshold and justify a standalone article? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Known only for a single event... So no reason for an article... L.tak (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Update: An article is still up, so further discussion may be needed. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I originally redirected the article, but that was overturned. The "organization" is nothing but the name chosen by the people involved in this single event. Any and all references are linked to this one event. Not notable per WP:ORG, so should again be redirected in my opinion. --Reinoutr (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Concur; but there's bigger issues here to fret about NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad you agree, but redirecting takes 2 seconds ;) --Reinoutr (talk) 11:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Update. You are right. I am seeking a more formal consensus to redirect the article here through our AFD process.   The discussion can be found at Articles_for_deletion/Citizens_for_Constitutional_Freedom and all are welcome to opine, but be sure to use reasons not opinion because whoever closes the debate is supposed to ignore "I like" "obvious" "of course" type of commentary. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ta! Good idea to seek more formal consensus. I added my 2 cents in the nomination. --Reinoutr (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Pacific Patriot Network
I've redirected Pacific Patriot Network‎ to this article as well. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Category
Category:Militia occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, just in case you haven't noticed already. MB298 (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not sure this category is necessary, but if kept, should it be renamed to reflect the new title of the parent Wikipedia article? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Since this thread now contains two separate topics, please note that
 * (A) The name change is ✅
 * (B) If you want to discuss deletion of the cat, please start a new thread for that purpose. That way we can all be certain that this thread's status is "resolved".
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was full of redirects. Since redirects are just that and should not be categorized as articles (per WP:CATREDIRECT), I just removed the category from all redirects that were listed there. --Reinoutr (talk) 11:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

David Ward (sheriff)
Citizens for Constitutional Fr There's now a [[David Ward (sheriff) article. Should that be re-directed here as per WP:BLP1E? Bondegezou (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per criterion 7 of WP:POLOUTCOMES. LavaBaron (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:POLOUTCOMES. MB298 (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see how WP:POLOUTCOMES overrides WP:BLP1E? Bondegezou (talk) 10:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. WP:BLP1E is policy whereas WP:POLOUTCOMES is just an essay. --Reinoutr (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect, person in question is known only for a single event. All references listed are linked to this single event, so WP:BLP1E applies. --Reinoutr (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect, Reinoutr is spot on. Single event, no stand alone bio article.   NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

As point of order, a wider audience will be involved - leading to stronger consensus - by moving this WP:AFD discussion to the AFD board, as I have just done for the "Citizens for Constitutional Freedom" moniker. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS
The article is way to detailed with trivial information that will not stand the test of time. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have specific sentences/parts to discuss? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree we will most certainly need to cull this down but suggest we wait until the event reaches some kind of conclusion. As of now it's impossible to tell which specific events will be important in the overall story. LavaBaron (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * As above, can't this be dealt with once the standoff is over? I'd argue it would be easier to decide what material is undue and what meets the 10 year test once the standoff ends. -- Callinus (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * For sure, but at this time I agree with LavaBaron that paring anything down is premature. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree. Bondegezou (talk) 08:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Same. Trying to rip news-cited information out while everything is still forming is just going to create a recipe for needless arguments, especially since there are already enough IP vandals trying to rewrite stuff about the Bundys. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The Raw Story at RSN and story re women and children beside the Bundy forces
FYI, I am asking about the RS quality of an article relevant to this article at the RSN. Opine over there in this thread if you like. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

¡ATTENTION! Do Not Purge Content After a Merge Consensus
Blaine Cooper was blanked and redirected in violation of the decision issued by Davey2010 in this AfD, which found a consensus for merge. I have undid the redirect. As per WP:MERGE, there are two elements to a merger: (a) merging of content, (b) establishing a redirect. No content was merged by NewsAndEventsGuy to Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, the page was blanked and a redirect placed. I note NewsAndEventsGuy has been invoking the consensus ruling in this case as some kind-of carte blanche to allow him to ride roughshod over several other articles by engaging in "Guerilla Deletions" through process of blank and redirect, sans discussion. For example, etc. These articles are currently under discretionary sanctions under the U.S. Politics case and have attracted a high volume of disruptive editors engaging in unilateral, undiscussed, and substantial changes similar to these, usually to remove or obfuscate sourced material. I'm certain this was a combination of innocent error and over-exuberance by NewsAndEventsGuy and protective action is not required, however, editors are nonetheless encouraged to exercise moderation and caution when making substantive changes on these articles rather than playing it "fast and loose." If you want an article deleted, the place to do that is (a) file an AfD, (b) get an admin to recognize a consensus in said AfD and delete the article. "Guerilla deletions" (blank and redirect) are strongly advised against in this, and related, articles. I will be conducting a proper merge at this time by creating a "biographies" (or similar) section and moving the content from Blaine Cooper into it prior to redirecting the page. LavaBaron (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Update - I have moved the content from Blaine Cooper to this article in a section called "Key Persons" and am now redirecting the Cooper article, as per WP:MERGE. I don't really like the heading or its placement, so I encourage anyone to brainstorm a more readable solution that preserves the spirit of the merge consensus. LavaBaron (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * - I apologize for having to revert your note on the AFD, I should've moved it here so my apologies for that, I screwed everything up like a total moron, Anyways thanks for merging it all. – Davey 2010 Talk 20:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's no problem, Davey2010, this was the more appropriate place to leave it, I think your revert was correct. LavaBaron (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

How a merge is executed is subjective, and open to debate. In my view, the best info from that page to merge here was sourcing that named him a leader, and I "merged" that into the infobox, then executed the redir per consensus. If someone else thinks other material should have also been merged here, that's great, as I said in my comments some place. Remember to AGF. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it's really not.
 * First, preserving the references only, while purging all content from a 235-word article does not satisfy the description of what a merge is by a reasonable person's standard. Not to mention, of course, that most mergers require a rough consensus about which content should be merged. The nature of these articles, which have become so incendiary that the rare measure of protecting the Talk page recently had to be invoked, do not realistically put them into that category of mergers that decisionmaking about content preservation can be done BOLDly.
 * Second, don't AGF me. As you know, I kindly said in my OP I'm certain this was a combination of innocent error and over-exuberance by NewsAndEventsGuy. Shotgunning out AGF warnings after I politely offered that caveat can only be construed as an indicator that you are here to stir-up drama, particularly in light of your combative comments to constructive feedback elsewhere. LavaBaron (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * After the snow close, it seemed appropriate to rely on BRD to find out what "rough consensus" on what to merge would look like. And that's precisely what happened.  I was bold, you reverted and tweaked.  OK, move on... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The consensus was to merge. There was an option to redirect and it failed. The consensus was to merge. You violated the closure decision and redirected instead of merging. WP:BOLD is not a wild card that lets you ramrod your way through a consensus decision to impose your preferred edit on the community. I didn't "revert and tweak", I painstakingly undid your vandalism. LavaBaron (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A moment ago, I found this useful essay about voting "merge" at AFD. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Congrats - LavaBaron (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge
Is Category:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge necessary? Do all of the articles within the category even belong to each of the parent categories? I can certainly see how all of these entries are related, but I'm not sure a category is necessary to group them together. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * First, let's resolve status of the listed articles. Frankly, I think each listed article should go to WP:Articles for deletion with a proposal to merge to this article.  After that we can take stock.  If, as I suspect, the cat is empty then there should be no controversy about deleting it, but if there is still a question at that point it would be best debated at WP:Categories for deletion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If you intend, as you seem to have indicated, to nominate all articles in this CAT for AfD, please observe criterion #6 of WP:AFDEQ for the convenience of other editors. LavaBaron (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I would argue strongly that Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (included in this category) NOT be merged here. The location had significance and history long before the standoff, and will continue to be independently relevant after this affair has ended. As summarized at WP:NGEO, "Places with protected status (e.g. protected areas, national heritage sites, cultural heritage sites) and named natural features, with verifiable information beyond simple statistics are presumed to be notable." Any thought that this NWR is notable only in the context of these events is recentism, and the current summary approach utilized in this article is sufficient. Thanks - Antepenultimate (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries there. I'm pretty sure that would be a snowball close.  And I apologize for inadvertently suggesting differently when I said "all" the articles in the cat should be merged/redir'd here.  And for that matter, I have subsequently been persuaded to change my mind about the sheriff's article.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I was hoping it was just an oversight and there was no real intent to merge that article. No need to apologize, but thanks for clarification! Antepenultimate (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I created the category because I thought the notability and scope of the event and the presence of multiple related articles warranted one. However, I am not opposed to merging and/or deleting the other articles into the main one. Parsley Man (talk) 03:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Sex toy story
I don't know if this should be included in the article or not...


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

MB298 (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * similar . MB298 (talk) 01:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No. WP:NOTNEWS.   How exactly do dildos relate to the brandishing of automatic weapons, threats to kill and be killed, and the use of children as human shields in order to compel federal goverment to sell off all the national forests and BLM lands?  Every little thing media trumpets to keep up readership and public interest is not necessarily worthy of Encyclopedia coverage. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Concur - this isn't a tabloid filled with titillating details. Ravensfire ( talk ) 17:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

and, after reading and hearing a fair bit more about this I think I've changed my mind, at least to the extent that the "reactions" section presently has little to nothing about the general non-Internet public's reaction. So I wouldn't object to a sentence on the subject after all. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Along similar lines, User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz has added a sentence about the delivery of lube. This seems like irrelevant trivia to me and I think it should go. However, another possibility is to include this in NewsAndEventsGuy's suggestion. Bondegezou (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The proposed edit by Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz strikes me as sensationalism, and we don't do that. On the  other hand, there are plenty of blase' reports about the general public sending loads of glitter and sex toys, as opposed to truckloads of fuel, food, and ammo.  Sexing it up, so to speak, with the lube stuff is just a, ummmmm,  uhhhhhh, shall we say a "slick" way to try to ridicule this bunch?   That's a vio of NPOV policy, even if it is funny to some. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Well let's see. "News" guy ignores that it sources to Reuters, one of the most RS options available as well as a good judge of what's newsworthy, and then leaves insulting messages on talk pages. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 15:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I remind all that we should assume good faith towards each other.
 * User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, Reuters is a reliable source. I have no doubt this event occurred. The question is whether it warrants coverage in an encyclopaedia: see WP:NOTNEWS for relevant policy.
 * I like the idea of a short sentence under 'Reactions' summarising how multiple different people have sent multiple amusing, sex-related things to the occupiers. I think that may be warranted. Bondegezou (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me take stock. Covered on
 * http://www.gq.com/story/how-to-mail-stuff-to-the-militia-in-oregon
 * http://fusion.net/story/256093/oregon-militia-lube-dildos/
 * http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/someone-has-now-sent-the-oregon-militia-55-gallons-of-lube-to-go-with-their-dildos--ZyzxO7ahP3x
 * http://klaq.com/oregon-militia-lube/
 * http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oregon-militia-idUSKCN0US31420160115
 * http://www.torontosun.com/2016/01/14/oregon-militia-to-the-public-stop-sending-us-sex-toys
 * That's international coverage. How is it considered "not newsworthy"?Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I think this thread has consensus that Reuters is a good source for this and a non-sensationalist statement of fact is reasonable. So I have attempted to implement that by adding this, which simply states
 * "In response to requests for supplies like food and fuel, the public has sent the militants numerous packages of glitter and sex paraphernalia." sourced to the Reuters cite advocated by Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So you get to be uncivil tossing demands that people not edit, but then make edits before there's consensus? I see a double standard going on here. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I saw your remark, and would like to suggest we WP:FOC (no irony intended!) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

In this diff, "members of" was added to make "members of the public" and that's great, thanks. However, "in protest" was added to the end and "in protest" is the editor's interpretation of the action. It happens to mine also. However, "in protest" is not in the source itself, so it fails WP:Verification. If another RS explicitly says "in protest" or some such, then we could use those words if we add that cite. Until then, "in protest" should be deleted, but I don't plan to fiddle with the article for awhile to avoid edit warring. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops.... you were adding refs while I added the comment above. Which of the new refs supports "in protest"? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I tweaked NewsAndEventsGuy's sentence and added another couple of the links Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz gave. (No reason we can't have more than one cite, although actually I don't think I've picked the best -- will revise.) I think that now covers the issue well.
 * While those cites do not use the phrase "in protest", I think that summarises the movitations appropriately. I felt we had to explain why this was happening. Happy to discuss alternate wording. Maybe "to ridicule", which better fits the first cite?
 * Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, the questions is not whether this is "newsworthy", and my apologies for using that phrasing earlier. The question is whether this is encyclopaedia-worthy: see WP:NOTNEWS for details. Bondegezou (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Would "as a joke" work better? Which can be sourced to http://fusion.net/story/256093/oregon-militia-lube-dildos/ Bondegezou (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * " we had to explain why this was happening."  Uh, no.   Wikipedia lets RSs do all the explaining.  When we attempt do fill in blanks we get start doing WP:Original research.   I'm not yet persuaded we need to do anything other than let the reader draw their own conclusions, so why tell them they should interpret it the way we do? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Reuters, Toronto Sun both use the word "ridicule", @NewsAndEventsGuy. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't quite agree with NewsAndEventsGuy's comment. Encyclopaedias regularly explain whys as well as whats. A Wikipedia article has to be understandable to the reader, indeed to a reader far removed from events who doesn't any context (WP:PCR). Yes, we must avoid original research: the whys have to come from reliable sources. But we should have whys. Bondegezou (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If we have RSs for "ridicule", I could live with it, though inline attribution for who thinks that's what it means would be even better. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

An anonymous IP address recently removed said content from the article however I restored it. MB298 (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, never mind. MB298 (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

"Occupiers" vs "Militants"
Most of the sources being used in the article refer to the group as "Militants", but several editors are continually changing references based on those sources to "Occupiers" instead. Starting a discussion here - As I read WP policy, we're supposed to match our language to the sources and not go off on WP:OR or WP:SYNTH-worthy WP:WEASEL changes that can render the wikipedia verbage unsupported by the sources. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No Opinion, But Appreciate the Question being Asked - I've been using the two terms interchangeably. I'm fine establishing a common standard to use one or the other, but don't care which one. LavaBaron (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * An enlightening discussion about what to call this group of people can be found in Those Men In Oregon: Troublemakers, Terrorists Or Something Else? by Mark Mennot, The Two-Way, National Public Radio, Jan. 9, 2015. I agree with their line of reasoning about the appropriate nomenclature to use. Paul H. (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent link and resource with good guidance, Paul H.. (Hopefully we don't have to edit the entire article to refer to them as "troublemakers" now, though - j/k). LavaBaron (talk) 05:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support "Occupiers" - The word "militants" sounds like editorial material. As the source courteously provided says, "militant" is a stronger word than "protester". But it really doesn't look like anything strong is happening over there at the moment. Sure, there's some harassment of local residents going on, but it honestly looks more like pushing than shoving to me. "Militant" also implies a terrorist motive or an active battleground to me because of the strong connotation of that word, and none of the requirements for either are obviously present. Parsley Man (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Militant These aren't unarmed college kids doing a sit-on at the dean's office.   In the "rump militia" debate elsewhere on this talk page, no one is suggesting "armed occupiers", and as Prostetnic says, there is abundant use of "militant" in the RSs.  It is also the word Harney County is using on their government web page.  If they were unarmed, then sure, "occupier" would be apt.  Unlike those college kids at their sit-in, the only reason there is a patina of calm at the refuge is because the law is playing it cool.   If that weren't the case, we'd be seeing the "occupiers" doing a lot more gun pointing and militaryesque deployments.  Being not shy about brandishing their weapons, mere "occupier" is not accurate.  Oh yeah.... and even if it's calm now, they launched with declarations of battle willingness.  You'd holster or shoulder your weapon too after hours of nothing.   Those things get heavy after awhile. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Re NPR, notice that the piece we're talking about was published Jan 9 and concluded that time will tell what they should be called. So here's what NPR has done since (if I overlooked any please add them)-
 * On Jan 9 in a different piece NPR used both occupier and militant
 * On Jan 9 in a another NPR amusingly used both in the same headline
 * On Jan 12 in another it was militant only
 * On Jan 13 in another it was militant only.
 * On Jan 15 in another it was militant only
 * And I hope someone reads all of these to verify that I didn't miss any use of individual words. If I did it was an accident.  Double check me!
 * Seems like NPR is going "militant". Gee, I sound like Rush! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Article and Book About History of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge
A fascinating article about the legal history of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge is Supreme Court already ruled that feds rightly own occupied refuge. by Betsy Hammond, The Oregonian/OregonLive, January 06, 2016 at 5:11 AM, updated January 06, 2016 at 6:38 PM Paul H. (talk) 03:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, there is Where land & water meet: a Western landscape transformed. by Nancy Langston, University of Washington Press, Dec 15, 2009, ISBN 9780295989839. Paul H. (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Also: In Oregon, Myth Mixes With Anger by Nancy Langston, New York Times - an article about the history of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Leitmotiv (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * These sound very nice. Does anyone have a minute to add these links to the Malheur Refuge page? They seem more on topic for that page than this one. Wyvern (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Image Placement
Customarily we stagger images right/left on pages. That's how it used to be here and is allowed and recognized by WP:IMGLOC. Recently someone has pushed everything to the right. High traffic articles tend to attract some of the OCD/Aspergers editors at WP (I'm not saying that's who did that in this case, I didn't look into the edit history to know, this is just a casual observation). Because editors with this condition sometimes have involuntary requirements to align images, etc., I find it's helpful to have a clear community consensus about placement before corrective changes are made. Question: Should we left/right stagger images or keep everything shoved to the right? LavaBaron (talk)
 * Support L/R Stagger LavaBaron (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong support. MB298 (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I changed the placement for Blaine Cooper's image from the left to the right purely for formatting reasons. MB298 (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that was a fine edit, the image didn't work where it was at. My concern was more with the other ones someone else did. LavaBaron (talk) 04:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 3rd option We shouldn't adopt a compulsory rule, as circumstances often arise in which a variety of image layout patterns makes for the best engaged reading. So I'd say... it's a mighty lame thing to edit war about, and we should trust each other's judgment.   Also, one issue is when text gets revised, often it takes awhile to realize the impact the revision has on image layout.  And then even longer to fix problems.  Editor judgment and patience is far better than a hard and fast rule. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

DefendYourBase.net?
The Guardian has positively identified defendyourbase.net as the occupiers semi-official website. Should we include this in an external links section? I'm a little torn. I'm veering toward 'include'; we include URLs for The Pirate Bay and KickAss.to so for reasons of consistency I think it would be hard to exclude this. Thoughts? (Even if we don't include it, I'm going to email the address associated with it and ask the militants to add Creative Commons licensed images to Flickr so we can get some more pictures in this spartan article.) LavaBaron (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure we should be linking their website direct, definitely not assisting them directly with their PR campaign. That's a good way to get ALL sorts of bad legal entanglements to wikipedia. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I really don't think we need to worry about WP getting into "legal entanglements" over a hyperlink. As for "assisting", our job is not to assist but neither is it to disrupt. We simply report facts. As per WP:ELOFFICIAL, we can provide external links outside the article body to an official website if we are reasonably certain the link is controlled by the subject (regardless of how ridiculous the content of said site might be). I think a discussion as to whether or not we provide this link should focus on whether that "official" standard is met in this case, not whether or not Jimbo will be Gitmoed if we link to it. LavaBaron (talk) 04:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Update - I've PM'ed them through one of the social media links on this website asking them to add some CC-BY-3.0 photos to Flickr. Hopefully they follow-through so we can have a little broader range of pictures to sort through than my crappy map and the stock photos. LavaBaron (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Unless someone can point to an applicable policy, I agree with Lava.... if it really is their website then we should include it in the external links.  I usually skip "obviously" but in this case..... absent a policy based reason to exclude it..... obviously. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I couldn't immediately find any relevant policy. There was Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant/Archive_13 that asked whether to add ISIS's official website to their article, but that stalled because the website went down. Equally Talk:Ku_Klux_Klan/Archive_7 foundered on the question of which modern KKK group should be linked to. Something like Imperial Klans of America does have a link given to their site. So we do link to official sites of some unpleasant groups. Bondegezou (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Automatic archiving
Has anyone noticed that although there are multiple sections of this talk page that are more than 7 days old, that many of them have not been properly archived? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I was wondering about the archiving process as well. Could some of the manual archiving change the timestamps of some of the sections that haven't yet been archived? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * My efforts at some (hopefully sensible) WP:Refactoring will have changed some (such as moving and indenting under higher level section headings) but simply taking out some here and some there for manual archiving should have left the untouched ones untouched. That's what's happened to me in the past, anyway. And speaking of past, many times I've run across archiving that seems to be asleep. I've always asked for someone else to fix, and someone who knew what they were doing came along and did so. That's all I know. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Someone a lot smarter than me has fixed this, I think. Thanks John. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 *  Reply - I just bumped the archiving back to 2 days to clear out some of the old discussions. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Should we say anything more about Public Lands Privatization and demand feds cede ownership?
I am having a lot of trouble with the general narrative being told in the lead and "background" sections. Seems to me that we're placing all the emphasis on the Day 1 rhetoric from Bundy's forces that this was just about the Hammond Arson case. Many sources are talking about their demand that the feds cede ownership of the refuge, and others are relating that demand to a broader demand that the feds privatize all the Federal land in the west. I attempted to start adding this element but was reverted with claims it was Original Research. So let's talk about it. In the table below, Option A is text from this version which is now the current one and Option B is my reverted text, with small tweaks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Essentially identical pings to this discussion have been left at a number of talk pages, based on geogrpahy, and casting hopefully a wide topical net, from Sovereign Cit Movement to US Cattlemen's Assoc to Sierra Club. For full list see my contribs. The more civil diversity the merrier, of whatever stripe. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Option B as author and because...
 * 1. Although WP:LEAD text is supposed to summarize the body of the article there is no section talking about private land privatization generally or specifically related to the refuge. All we have is the naked generalized sentence in Option A's lead, with neither context, reasoning, nor history.
 * 2. Word count (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge&oldid=700153407) shows the WP:UNDUE problem.


 * 3. More reasons and sources forthcoming NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Option A - See section below, Closed discussion. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @Somedifferentstuff, in the "closed discussion" and split off "original research" section below the open items are all in the latter, but as you said you were just speculating about another's OR arguments. I took this to mean you were not asserting OR yourself.  Do you still have a basis for prefering the revised Option A?  What is it? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Move to Abort Discussion Option A - First, this level of detail (Option B) on background is wholly inappropriate as per WP:DETAIL. Second, Option B cites sources from 10 years ago for an event occurring in 2015-2016. While there may be valid connections, it's WP:OR to construct this history which is more appropriate for a book or a MA thesis. If this level and depth of background is necessary it will be covered in current sources, in direct reference to the current event. That said, this might be appropriate for a standalone article and I'd suggest the author pursue that instead. Finally, it appears we're not even seeing all of Option B because it was "split due to length?" If this is a consensus discussion, Option B only as presented above is an option for !vote and a consensus for Option B will only result in what is presented above as the agreed text. This isn't a shell game and we don't ask people to blindly weigh-in on "redacted" text. LavaBaron (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @Lava,
 * (1) Too detailed= IJUSTDONTLIKE, and as further support for this view the closer will hopefully compare this short proposed Land Privatization paragraph of Option B with the existing subsections under "background". Such comparison will show the proposed subsection isn't substantively more detailed than any other, and a heap less than that about Hammonds case.
 * (2) OR based on date-of-RS Is just silly. "Option B cites sources from 10 years ago for an event occurring in 2015-2016" Applying that logic we have to delete the entire story of Hammonds arson trial, all of which took place prior to the occupation. The reason that would be absurd is that the story of Hammond's arson, lit in 2001 for reasons which had been brewing earlier, is relevant to the background section.  Same goes for the organized calls to liquidate [federal land]] which Bundy is seriously plugged into.  If sources tie Bundy's present action to this public lands transfer history, and they do, then some sources which explain that history are right on point, whether they were written this month or not.   Finally, you are pounding the table about 2016 sources.  Sorry.  The refs in this version, we find
 * 1997 (27)
 * 2010 (30, 55)
 * 2012 (29,31,36,41) etc
 * Do you want to claim the text supported by those is OR also?
 * (3) Your real beef seems to be relevance rather than OR, but your relevance claim is based on publication date, which we have dealt with.
 * (4) "Split"... oh right. That is a leftover from the first version that was revised.  Initially I was trying to talk about the "first sentence" except option B ended up being split due to length.  That's all.  I should have also explained that Option B's text is what I was proposing for the entire first paragraph, though I have no objection to retaining some of the Hammonds details in a subsequent paragraph.
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow. Just. Wow. Do you actually expect many editors to read your WP:WALLOFTEXT in support of inserting a Wall of Text into the article? LavaBaron (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * For the record, I didn't. I glazed over after the first paragraph once I saw it required reading more than I was willing to. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Refs for discussion of Public Lands Privatization
Hi NewsAndEventsGuy, what you've done above, by leaving out the majority of the first paragraph, is created somewhat of a false narrative. In order for editors to be able to evaluate your proposal effectively, they first need to be able to see the first paragraph in its entirety.

First paragraph of the lead

On January 2, 2016, armed anti-government members of rump militias occupied the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in protest of the pending imprisonment of ranchers Dwight Hammond and his son, Steven Hammond. The two were convicted on charges of arson in 2012 for unlawfully setting fire to federal land under a domestic anti-terrorism law after setting brush fires to clear grazing land without the required permit. Ammon Bundy, the leader of the group now calling themselves Citizens for Constitutional Freedom, said he began leading the occupation after receiving a divine message ordering him to do so. The militant group has also stated that local people should control use of federal land.

I've gone ahead and bolded the last sentence of the current lead to show that there is currently mention of local control. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see it that way, but I'll be glad to fix. Hold on a sec.... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not necessary, let this discussion unfold as it is. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes it was. Chaos is fatal to meaningful consensus.   Suggest we agree instead to delete this subsection you started with all comments from both of us. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC) And by the way, if we erase for sake of building consensus I'm not trying to trick or tie anyone's hands if they try to use the matter against me sometime down the road. It's all in version hist after all so they can have at me all they want. Let's just mop the floor for the discussion, please. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. This is not "chaos" as you call it but part of the necessary discussion. You should not have gone back and changed your original entry but that's your prerogative. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Original research
Hi NewsAndEventsGuy, the suspected reason why another editor accused you of WP:Original research is due to these sources:

As can be seen, removal of these 2 sources would drastically change/limit Option B above. As can also be seen, the first source is from 2005 and the second source is from 2012, long before this current event took place. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I was just about to do that myself, from ver history. I'll reply later.  Signing off for awhile.  While I sleep, I'm hopeful you will take time to explain a bit. First, references by themselves are not OR.  The problem is how they are used.   So I don't understand your quibble with the De Voto book.  The text I wrote is supported by the ref.  At Sagebrush rebellion (which I point to for discussion only) there is a section about congressional attention, and there we find reference to this transfer agitation producing (unpopular) bills in congress back then.  So the text I wrote is reflective of the De Voto book, which you don't challenge as non RS.  The only question I can see is how the text I wrote on the basis of the DeVoto book is related to this article.  That's not OR, its relevance.  So I'm confused and hope you will educate me.  What's wrong with "Since the 1940's....blah blah" (cite DeVoto)?  Good night. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi NewsAndEventsGuy, hopefully the other editor who cited WP:OR will see this and chime in. In the meantime, I highly recommend you remove this sentence (and an inquiry into whether the government is forcing ranchers off their land) from Option B --- Per WP:Weight, this issue has not been covered anywhere near as much as the situation involving rancher Dwight Hammond and should not be in the lead. Have a good sleep. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for collapsing the other part, and your suggestion to drop their inquiry demand is a good idea. As I ponder the lack of recent sources I note that they are really pushing the Sovereign Citizen / fed-free county thing, so maybe they realized that asking the gov't they are trying to boot out to do an inquiry could be taken as an acknowledgement of that govt's authority.  I'm speculating of course but that seems a plausible reason for the disappearance of the issue from the more recent RSs.  I agree, that part should go.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)