Talk:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:04, 23 January 2016 editProstetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,113 edits →Items concerning influence of religion in general, and Mormon religion in particular ← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:17, 23 January 2016 edit undoOshwah (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Interface administrators, Oversighters, Administrators496,883 editsm Reverted edits by Prostetnic_Vogon_Jeltz (talk): Personal attack or uncivil behavior toward another user (HG) (3.1.18)Next edit →
Line 461:		Line 461:
	::No, it is a summary. There's much greater detail later in the article. ] (]) 00:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)		::No, it is a summary. There's much greater detail later in the article. ] (]) 00:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
	:::If there is "greater detail later", that means your suggested alt lead text has ''some'' detail ''now''. Which is why I objected. ] (]) 01:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)		:::If there is "greater detail later", that means your suggested alt lead text has ''some'' detail ''now''. Which is why I objected. ] (]) 01:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
	::::Again: fuck you. Go do what you want, you win. You ran me off the article, which was your plan with your "assassination page" writing and other tactics from the start. The page has barely seen updates in 3 days, because apparently I'm the only one who would bother trying to keep the timeline up, the "Timeline" article you created without bothering to have a discussion hasn't seen any upkeep either since all you were doing was moving my work to it.
	::::Fuck you, NewsAndEventsGuy, clearly all you want to do is damage this article. Well go the fuck right ahead and do it. ] (]) 17:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:17, 23 January 2016

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 4 days

Blaine Cooper was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 15 January 2016 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Old topics on this talk page are automatically archived by MiszaBot after 4 days of inactivity. To view inactive discussions, please see the archive pages. Once an archive reaches 75K in size, a new one is automatically created.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Law Enforcement

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Template:WikiProject Libertarianism

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Oregon Mid‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Protected areas Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Protected areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected natural or ecological areas worldwide.Protected areasWikipedia:WikiProject Protected areasTemplate:WikiProject Protected areasProtected areas
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: Government Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

On 2016-01-04, Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was linked from Google News (main page), a high-traffic website. (Traffic)

All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

RfC: Rump Militia

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:

Politics, government, and law

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

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

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

Survey

Private militia or Rump militia for reasons described. LavaBaron (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Rump militia may be the best choice. Some quick Googling confirms that rump militia has been a term of art exactly as you describe. In any case it should be crystal clear that these groups are (1) privately organized (2) of patchy levels of experience and discipline and effectiveness (3) unsanctioned by (in fact armed against) military or civilian authorities, and (4) accountable to nobody but themselves. To me the term "civilian militia" is a dubious self-legitimizing peacock phrase. "Private militia" is another possibility that seems, in my opinion, accurate and neutral. Good work btw. --Lockley (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutrality 22:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

Update on RfC as of this time stamp:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reference to rump militia

Moved from a thread upon request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Use of Flag Icons in Infobox

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists:

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should flag icons, where available, be used for the rump militias involved in this, as per other civil conflict infoboxes such as Waco Siege?

Survey

Yes ~~Maybe~~ ~~Yes~~ - This provides an easy reading reference which is why we generally do it in most articles. To vaguely say "militias" obfuscates the details of this situation to the detriment of readers. Inclusion of icons, as well as specific names of groups and wikilinks, should be done whenever possible (I created the article on the involved extremist group 3 Percenters specifically after writing the Malheur incident article, in fact). If we delete any flags, I would support deleting all flags per Cwobeel and MOS Flags, but not one side or the other. LavaBaron (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
No - No, they are not helpful at all. We are restrictive with flags on wikipedia (see MOS:FLAG, and I don't always agree, like for example banning them from infobox company), but I do think we shouldn't have a flag of an Agency (that is part of a jurisdiction); nor should we have the flag of self-named militias. We need at least some standing as a jurisdiction. L.tak (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
No - Agency flags add nothing. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes A lot easier to read with flags and staying consistent with other articles. Eteethan(talk) 22:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes As per MOS:FLAG examples of acceptable exceptions include military conflict infobox templates. Wykx 23:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
No flags. It's unnecessary and opens the door to more complications. For instance. Here's one. Why do we, in both text and by using its flag, represent the 3 Percenters as a party to this conflict when that organization does not condone it? --Lockley (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Other RS say they are a belligerent. Many of these groups don't have a cohesive structure and may simultaneously support and oppose something. Plus this is an evolutionary topic. LavaBaron (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Check. I've been in groups like that. (g) Would you agree that the article should describe these protestors as a splinter group of the 3 Percenters? This is an honest question, with appreciation for your effort here. --Lockley (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't presume to know this is, or is not, a splinter group in the absence of an RS statement it is. There could be other reasons for the contradictory statements including, but not limited to, organizational incompetence, internal bickering, or an attempt at plausible deniability or operational security by militants. LavaBaron (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

NO they are not protecting their own territory, like at Koresh's site. this would be like the Symbionese Liberation Army flag used when they robbed a bank. Using a flag or other symbol lends credence to their claims, as if the flag indicates some form of external recognition, like ISIS has gotten. if they set up a provisional government at the site, and resist arrest long enough, and the 3 percenters are FULLY on board with this action, i can see a flag. otherwise, its POV pushing.(mercurywoodrose)2602:304:CFD0:6350:54DE:4FA7:407A:E62C (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
No - it's useless clutter (flagcruft, really). The flag guidelines say "if the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags" and "Avoid flag icons in infoboxes." Neutrality 16:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
No - I do believe that Y'all Qaeda themselves put a flag up of the United States on the Refuge sign that they took over. So why are we using a different flag? Do they even own a legit flag as portrayed here? Leitmotiv (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes - keep the flags. They're pretty standard in these types of infoboxes. - WOLFchild 02:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes - Doesn't really seem like we have directly relevant policy here. WP:SOVEREIGNFLAG discusses "subnational" flags, but there isn't really anything discussing flags belonging to "groups" or non-national entities. Lacking clear policy, I'd just follow general practice here, and it seems like we generally include flags in conflicts of this nature, when those flags are verifiable. NickCT (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
No given MOS:FLAG and the fact that there's not really a flag prominently identified with either side. They'd just be decoration of dubious accuracy. wctaiwan (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
No. Besides the fact that these guys are not valid belligerents and not a military, they also have no generally recognized specific flag.oknazevad (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes. It helps users and readers identify groups easily. MB298 (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
No—it's not an armed conflict, and they aren't really an organized actor with a cohesive identity. I would expect flags in a page on WW2, but even framing this as "X vs. Y" is overly dramatic, as it's a one-sided protest that BLM has yet to really engage with. I don't agree with using the military battle infobox for non-violent (thus far) occupations. CaseyPenk (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment At very least, the "3 Percenters" should not be represented with the USA flag. And the Nyberg flag for them isn't official either, and at that resolution is confusingly similar to the USA flag. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 03:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Update on RfC as of this time stamp

No: 3 times
Yes: 6 times

That's no consensus but it is quite close. Partly in view of request of 1 yes-vote to if we remove, to do so on both sides (and since there are now flags only on one side), it seems there is consensus in this situation to remove flags; so I will proceed wit that. L.tak (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

RfCs are closed by uninvolved editors after 30 days or SNOWBALL. You can make a request at Requests for Closure if you believe there is cause for a SNOWBALL close. Until then, your edits have been reverted as a violation of WP:RFC. This page is subject to discretionary sanctions under the U.S. Politics case. LavaBaron (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Update on RfC as of this time stamp (current)

No: 5 times
Yes: 5 times

LavaBaron (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Ammon Bundy

Much as Cliven Bundy is a redirect to Bundy standoff, this should be restored as a redirect. Ammon Bundy is not notable outside of this event, making this fail WP:BLP1E. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Support - Definitely a WP:BLP1E issue with this one. Parsley Man (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose – While he is primarily known for this event, there has been enough coverage of him by news sources that he deserves to stay. For example,

I see Ammon Bundy on the news every day. Not just on the local news, but on the national news as well. MB298 (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Every one of those sources is in conjunction with this one event, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

How about ? Or ? Perhaps ? All of these were published well before the occupation began. MB298 (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

These extra sources still do not establish notability for him to have his own article. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

~~:If he's on the news "every day", then how come those other newsworthy events aren't on his page? littlebum2002 17:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)~~

Oppose. I think there is enough material for a standalone article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- Strong Support Really? You do? Other than the information about the standoff, it mentions him getting arrested a couple times, having a rally once, and where he lives. Which part of that, exactly, makes him meet notoriety guidelines? Not only does he not meet notoriety guidelines, he doesn't even come close. Other than this standoff, he has done nothing to merit a Misplaced Pages page, therefore it should be merged. littlebum2002 16:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  - To clarify, I am not suggesting the Misplaced Pages article has enough material, I am saying I believe there is enough press coverage about him to justify an article (which needs to be expanded to include much more info about him other than the standoff). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    - Thanks for the clarification. I still support the merge, though, as I personally haven't heard anough about him to consider him noteworthy littlebum2002 20:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose as per MB298, et. al. LavaBaron (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose per @MB298. Nominator's WP:BLP1E merge logic fails item #2, Ammon Bundy is not likely to remain a Misplaced Pages:Who is a low-profile individual as he continues to participate in high profile activities. A Google News search for "ammon bundy" yields 1,240,000 results in 30 seconds. Prior to the actual standoff, Ammon Bundy was very much the center of the story when his aunt was thrown to the ground and he was tazed by the BLM. The Misplaced Pages article has 10,303 page views in 8 days (Jan 4 through Jan 12). The Ammon Bundy article has been tagged for merge, but no discussion has been started on the article's talk page, nor is there a reference to this discussion.Diff Ammon Bundy clearly meets WP:N, the Misplaced Pages article now has 12 cites with his name in at least three of the titles, NBC News, The Daily Beast, The Oregonian etc., there is no doubt that he is the subject of these RS articles. 009o9 (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Support All sourced connect Ammon to this one single event. That doesn't meet our WP:Notability(People) rules, which partially state "If, however, there is only enough information about one notable event related to the person, then the article should be titled specifically about that event..." That's the case here. (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC) later Also, for awhile I was opposed thinking about the future, but as another ed has pointed out CRYSTALBALL is not a basis for notability. Finally, we're only debating notability so far, but the other question is what biographical content?? So far his article looks pretty much like a mirror of this one, and we invite all the problems associated with duplication including maintenance and monitoring to ward against WP:POVFORK drift. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

, Rebuttal to sources listed above

First list of sources by MB298 are all about this one single event (thus proving the point he lacks Notability for a biographic stand alone article)
The USA Today piece is an op ed so it can't be used to establish notability because op eds generally are not considered RS
The comes closest, but gosh all it says is that the guy is lobbying his state legislature a bit. Lotsa people do that everyday. Big whoop.
Suggestion that the Guardian article establishes notability is the most hilarious thing I've seen for awhile. The guy was tasered! Period! That's all it says about him. Well, hold the presses. I should have a bio article about myself then, because once a newspaper ran a pic of me changing a tire, and another time after a bike wreck. That was an attempt at humor to illustrate the point. Apologies if it pss'd anyone off.

Support merge, although some references are dated prior to the occupation, those are, as already explained by NewsAndEventsGuy, not for anything that establishes notability (only inherited notability from his father). Thus, the person is known for a single notable event and WP:BLP1E applies. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Tasering incident discussion - Here's some more information about the tasering: - My point is, Bundy is not merely known for this one event, but for several events both during and prior to the occupation. This isn't about a local business owner or someone who was robbed in some small town in Oklahoma or Kansas. MB298 (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

So he got tasered. I've been arrested more than once... had a few parking tickets. I've even been involved in several civil suits and stubbed my toe once. You make this claim that he's known for "several" incidents. That's true of most of us, unless our lives are mighty empty. But suppose you make a numbered list of the instances that you think establish WP:Notability. I start you off with the two you have named

A. The present occupation

B. Cops tasered him during Bundy standoff

C. He's lobbying his state legislature

D. He likes chocolate chip cookies that was humor

E. Anything else ??????

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

While it is very obvious he's notable due to the sources given above, it can also be argued he is in fact notable JUST for the occupation, as it isn't some two-day standoff that was easily resolved. Per WP:ONEEVENT "if the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." It can be argued this event is highly significant, especially in the constitutionality of federal land ownership. MB298 (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Anytime, anywhere in Misplaced Pages that anyone says "it's obvious" my bullshit meter twitches. I concede you have a nonfrivolous argument, but I'm hardly persuaded that this off-season gun and gabfest at the frozen wetland is the sort of "major event" represented by the example given in that guideline - the assassination of the duke that led to WWI, nor am I persuaded that Ammon's status as media poster child has produced a "legacy" quite the same as that of the assassin, Gavrilo Princip as discussed in his article. Flash in pan copy in the great infotainment cycle isn't really what the rule has in mind, in my view. Of course, if 40 years from now Ammon is credited with the liquidation of all BLM Federal land, then of course he'd qualify. But it's a long way from introducing your stetson to the microphones and that day. I acknowledge you'll disagree with this view. Well, OK. The best place to debate the matter - widest audience, most eds, and most outside eds - is at WP:Articles for deletion with a ping to the WP:Notability noticeboard and let things take their course. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Did you get headlines when you were arrested? His involvement in the 2014 standoff was reported in RS. That would make the current standoff the second event he was notable for. Torven (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Support merge per WP:BLP1E. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

My mistake, support merge per WP:BIO1E. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

STRONGLY oppose per WP:LOWPROFILE. WP:BLP1E does not apply to Bundy as he actively seeks out media attention via his daily press conferences and other activities. Per WP:BLP1E, "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people and to biographies of low-profile individuals." Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Note my change above. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose as Ammon is notable in his own right. I think he deserves his own article, as he has generated independent and extensive media coverage. Further, this is most likely not the last we will hear of Ammon. With an eye toward the future, it makes sense to keep his article independent rather than rip it up and rewrite it in a year or two. CaseyPenk (talk) 03:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
STRONGLY oppose -- Ammon Bundy is emerging as the leader for an entire movement that will continue to make national news, and it's strongly expected by national experts in right-wing extremism (some of whom I've been in direct contact with during the occupation) that he will continue making news even if he is arrested, tried and convicted. He is an original founder of the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom, which is likely to continue after the standoff and will deserve its own entry in time. It should also be noted that Randy Weaver and the incident at Ruby Ridge each have their own separate entries. Karimala (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2016 MST
Comment - I don't mean to be flip, but some of the above rationales (those predicting that Ammon is destined for continued relevance) is textbook WP:CRYSTAL. There may be plenty of reasons for Ammon to have his own article, but what he might do isn't one of them. Antepenultimate (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC) edited to avoid singling out any one response. Antepenultimate (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E does not apply per WP:LOWPROFILE.

The guidelines in WP:BLP1E are clear and require 3 criteria to qualify. I think a lot of people are misreading them so I'm going to paste them here.

"We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:

If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley, Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.

The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of the People notable for only one event guideline (WP:BIO1E) when compared with this policy (WP:BLP1E): WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people and to biographies of low-profile individuals."

Ammon Bundy may meet criterion 1, depending on future events. Is anyone here going to claim that he somehow fits 2 or 3? That he is currently, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual given his penchant for daily press conferences and driving cross-country looking for hotspots to inject himself into? Likewise that his role is "not substantial" or "not well documented" in this event, given the amount of press coverage ongoing and again, his own daily press conferences?

I submit that none can. Therefore we need to look to WP:LOWPROFILE.

"Media attention High-profile: Has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication, website, or television or radio program, as a "media personality" (a.k.a. "public face" or "big name"), a self-described "expert", or some other ostensibly (or would-be) notable commentator. Need not be a "household name", simply self-promotional. May ostensibly represent an employer or other group, but is clearly self-representing as well."

"Promotional activities High-profile: Has voluntarily participated in self-publicity activities, such as press conferences, promotional appearances, book signings, and the like; and/or has participated in an attention-seeking manner in publicity for some other concern, such as a cause, election campaign or commercial endorsee."

I submit that Ammon Bundy is a "High Profile Individual", likely to remain such for a significant time, and as such WP:BLP1E does not apply.Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, WP:LOWPROFILE is not a Misplaced Pages policy, it's an essay. Also, you are correct in that WP:BLP1E is the wrong policy to be noting here. The Misplaced Pages guideline that supports merging Ammon Bundy into this article is WP:BIO1E. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Alternate option

Is there perhaps enough newsworthy information to make an article about the Bundy family as a whole, that the various family members can be redirected to? Or does that violate a guideline I'm not aware of? Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I somewhat agree with your proposal. Cliven, Ammon, and Ryan seem to be notable enough (with material relevant to this article and to the Bundy standoff). I would support this proposal if Ammon Bundy is merged with this article. MB298 (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for creatively looking for a solution, and as I understand the rules the answer is both no and yes. It's "No" in the sense that we can't take a little WP:Notability from A and add it to a wee bit from B to produce an article that has just enough WP:Notability to survive at WP:Articles for deletion. The reason we can't do this addition is because things generally can't inherit notability from something else. Any WP:TOPIC is supposed to stand on its own. HOWEVER.... if you can find enough reliable sources which discuss the Bundy family as a whole, then sure they can have an article. (Same goes for any topic). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Overview of the family unit might fit at Sovereign citizen movement. For background, a non-RS blog source describes the family as "the Bundys have arguably become the most well-known faces of that movement". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree, that would be a very solid option - and it really ought to be where Ryan Payne got merged to, rather than this article. How does one go about suggesting to de-merge Ryan Payne and merge it there instead? Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Payne's only here in the infobox I think. No reason whatever is appropriate about him can't be added there too. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Changed my mind per above. "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people and to biographies of low-profile individuals." Ammon Bundy does not qualify as a low-profile individual as he actively seeks out media attention, per WP:LOWPROFILE. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I oppose merger of the articles as Ammon Bundy has previously become well known thanks to the Nevada standoff, which is separate and distinct from this situation. Also, I do not think an article about the family in general is sufficient, as from Cliven's public comments, he was neither aware of the intent to occupy Malheur refuge, nor did he endorse it. I'd add that the Vegas cop killer Jerad Miller did video interviews with Ryan Bundy and his sister Margaret during the standoff that he posted and which remain on YouTube. Activist (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I think they each deserve their own article, as each has generated independent and extensive media coverage. But as a compromise, I would rather see Ammon and Cliven get a new joint article (as they are very much of the same ideology) rather than Ammon merged with this siege (which is only one event and most likely not the last we will hear of Ammon. So, with an eye toward the future I would like to see articles for each of the siege, Cliven, and Ammon. CaseyPenk (talk) 03:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Statistics

On a side note, Ammon Bundy has been viewed nearly 20,000 times since its creation. MB298 (talk) 04:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

21,705 (January 21, 2016). MB298 (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Too long?

Concern has been expressed that the article is too long and with too much content that is not encyclopaedic, i.e. does not have long-term significance. I think, by and large, we've got the balance about right, but have been trying to trim the article here and there as appropriate. However, others disagree over some of the material removed, so I thought we could consider some of this here. I'll start with what I've chopped and others have re-instated as examples for consideration.

One example is this diff about the PETA stunt sending vegan jerky. I don't think that has any lasting significance. We only included the sex toy stuff along similar lines when there had been more news stories about it. I suggest we drop this, or maybe include it more briefly after the sex toy comments under Reactions.

Another example is this diff: I removed various bits here, so this is more complicated. To explain some of my edits, I don't think the exact timings of most items matter. Why do we care the press conference was at 11am?

There's a part ending "the militants had deployed into defensive positions with elements manning a roadblock, guarding the headquarters entry, and stationed in a fire lookout usually used to watch for forest fires. Additional militiamen occupied the facility's buildings." I deleted everything after "defensive positions": why do the precise details of the defensive positions matter?

Next paragraph, I knocked out a Ward quote. I don't see any need to quote everything he says. There's a subsequent quote saying much the same thing, so I thought this one could go.

There's a later phrase that begins, "U.S. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon said that he had been briefed by the special agent in charge of the Portland FBI field office and said that" which I chopped. I don't see why it's important that Wyden said this -- that detail is in the cite given if people care.

Overall, details on timings seem unnecessary much of the time; and I think we can cut back on detail in some places as to who said what. If we're confident a report is accurate, we just need to say what is reported, not who said it how. Bondegezou (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I was happy to see Bondegezou start the trimming process in the diffs above, and was disappointed to see them reverted (obviously not enough to re-revert, because life's too short). The type of info they removed is exactly the sort that crufts up these articles and ultimately makes it difficult to really understand what is happening. It was discussed elsewhere that the 'play-by-play' style currently employed, which makes sense when building an article at the same time the events are unfurling, will need to be revisited and compacted. Eventually, we can hopefully compress the narrative into weekly summaries (preceded by a section dedicated to the very beginning of the occupation and the immediate events leading up to it). In-prose attributions and individual dates and times for specific actions/reactions only seem important because the events are so recent, but such details will soon become trivial, even obfuscating, once some time has passed. I think that such a massive re-org can likely wait until after the events have truly stabilized or the situation is resolved, but Bondegezou's edits are a good first step. Count me among those who would like to see more trimming occurring so we can clearly present readers with truly relevant information. Antepenultimate (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Bondegezou, you need to take the deletionism down a notch and stop trying to take so much out of the article. WP:NOTPAPER, we have room to be detailed, especially as the article is coming together towards a stable form. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

PVJ, can you be a tad more specific? Do you object to every element discussed above? I read WP:NOTPAPER and it's not some get out of jail free card: it is clearly couched in the context of other guidelines and practices. Bondegezou (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I mean Bondegezou - seriously, back off a bit and stop trying to constantly cut everything. You keep trying to trim everything you can off of the article. Misplaced Pages is not paper - there are at least a few thousand bytes available to keep the article properly up to date while we work out what, long term, will be relevant and not. You're pushing the bounds of WP:RAPID behavior while trying to couch it in unrelated policies, take a chill pill for a little while and give time to work out with CONSENSUS what should and shouldn't be included. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I join Antepenultimate in expressing appreciaton to Bondegezou for starting to do the hard pruning work, and I generally agree with most of the pruning. Plus, we have fewer bytes left than Prostetnic asserts, because the occupation's purpose of Public Lands Transfer and asserting Sovereign Citizen stuff are not yet adequately reported, nor is the reaction from Hammonds or the impact on their desired release. So no, however many bytes you think we have for minutae and drama-saga, Prostetnic the real number is lower. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Bondegezou - I think there's been a rough consensus expressed in previous discussions that trimming should wait until this event has reached its natural conclusion, which it has not yet done. At that point trimming is absolutely appropriate but, right now, we can't tell what will ultimately be important in the overall story. LavaBaron (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:Consensus can change and no one WP:OWNS articles, so have at it, B!!!! The WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle always applies. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

LavaBaron, as per my comments a few days ago, I broadly agree with the strategy of letting the article grow until events reach a conclusion. That's why I'm not suggesting any major changes now. Rather, I'm talking about judiciously trimming words and phrases here and there to make paragraphs read better and to keep text concise where that is easy to do. I think this is something we can do as we go along. If you look at the edits I made (some since reverted, some not), I've not been removing significant content or suggesting any big re-organisation. (The one content piece I cut in total was about the PETA PR stunt.)

Everyone else, thanks for comments. Would it be useful to move on to discussing specific edits? E.g. time of the press conference, details of defensive positions, PETA's vegan jerky? Maybe after a few examples, we will have a better idea of what sort of things to keep or drop...? Bondegezou (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that the trimming is necessary. Parsley Man (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Week: Could the sections change from days "January 8–10" to weeks (eg first week, second week, third week)? That would seem to be a logical time break greater than single days. It would also allow limited condensing of any repetition of similar events in a single week. -- Callinus (talk) 05:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Note:

    January 2016      
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa  
                1  2  
 3  4  5  6  7  8  9  
10 11 12 13 14 15 16  
17 18 19 20 21 22 23  
24 25 26 27 28 29 30  
31

Thus,

First week (Jan 2)
Second week (starting Jan 9)
Third week (starting Jan 16) -- Callinus (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Support "week" subsections Not only is this a great organizing suggestion but it also meshes with many RSs I have seen, especially about "week 3". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Support "week" subsections - That definitely sounds good. :) Parsley Man (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: Timeline of the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

Is there is ongoing discussion regarding the creation of Timeline of the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and ways to address the redundancy between the timeline article and the main article? ----Another Believer _(Talk) 21:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I favor chronicling the daily diary in the split-off article, and sticking to high-order things on this page. An example of a high-order thing would be a major change in the law's approach, delivery of a deadline, or on the part of the militants new demands for their departure. Close calls with pointed guns, too. An example of trivia, in my view, would be the arrival of a DUKW (duck boat) filled with tree-huggers waving inflated dildo balloons I just know that's gonna happen any day now or the 2-person counter-protest by the eco people reported in todays' RSs, or who-said-what or prancied for the latest newsie cameras. The NOTNEWS antics are getting old. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I concur with NewsAndEventsGuy. Parsley Man (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes: timeline stuff goes in the timeline article. This article should now be high-level. Bondegezou (talk) 10:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations on making a bunch of extra work for everyone. I'm going to keep updating information as I can get it and putting up the sources, you figure out what to do with it then. Obviously you think you WP:OWN the article anyways and don't want to actually work with anyone else, Bondegezou. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 13:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Especially considering that the supposed "moves" constituted section-blanking, removing entirely the January 19-20 area from this article without bothering to leave a summary behind. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 13:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, would you please read WP:AGF and WP:FOC. This is a fast-changing article with lots happening. Sometimes we all get in each others' ways and trip over each others' edits and ideas for edits, but it would be easier to resolve these issues if we treat each other with kindness. Myself and three other editors appeared to have a rough consensus above on what to do now we have the timeline article; I've just been trying to work on that. If you feel we're wrong to move material from here into the timeline article, can you lay out specifically what you think should happen? Bondegezou (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Again for starters Bondegezou: you mass-moved an entire section, blanking out the January 19-20 content without bothering to replace it with a summary. You're moving too fast, you're not bothering to talk to anyone about what you do, and you're damaging the article as a result. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I moved an individual paragraph. It is not workable for this article to contain summaries of every paragraph in the Timeline article. While this article does need to summarise events, it will have to be a much higher level to be practical. There is no need for this article to say something about every day if nothing very significant happened on that day. However, as are all Misplaced Pages articles, this article is a work in progress. Feel free to insert an appropriate summary here if you feel one is needed. Bondegezou (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

In other words, you don't care to discuss your edits, it's your way or the highway. Which is exactly the WP:OWN attitude I object to. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

No, that was not my intent at all. I am entirely open to any ideas you have for summaries in this article. Please do make suggestions, either here or just boldly stick them in the article. I think we all agree that the timeline material in this article has to be less detailed than what's in the Timeline article. Getting that right is a challenge: I am very happy for other people to work on this or to make suggestions. I feel, personally, that we have a long way to go and should have much less detail in this article than we currently do, as happens with other Misplaced Pages articles with Timeline spin-offs, but I have no strong views on how to achieve that. Bondegezou (talk) 15:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The two articles are now in a complete mess, I fear! We have a huge amount of redundancy and repetition across both. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz is adding lots of material here that seems better suited for the Timeline article. There is no point in a Timeline article if people aren't going to use it. Can we either work out what goes where, or abandon the Timeline article? Bondegezou (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Please don't abandon the timeline article, and don't stop moving the daily minutia from here to that article. I join with the emerging consensus that this article needs to focus on the high-level causes, developments and implications of the occupation, while the day-to-day drama and "news" from desperate reporters can be added to the timeline article for anyone that really is interested in that level of detail. Editing for concise clarity for an article like this is really difficult, but worthwhile; keep it up! PVJ, perhaps at least consider adding each headline you come across to the timeline article first; if it proves to truly be an important development, you can be assured it will make its way here eventually. Antepenultimate (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I only have a certain amount of time. I'm going to put the stuff that is RS-worthy here. You want it moved/summarized? You figure it out. Nobody even bothered setting up a talk or asking for consensus on setting up a timeline article in the first place and they should have per WP:PROSPLIT. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 03:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok! Most of us have agreed to transfer detail to the timeline article and at least one doesn't like it but has expressed willingness to drop the debate. Let's get on with the job. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Way to go misrepresenting my comments. Since your stated goal is clearly to allow no discussion and not to bother reaching a consensus but instead to uncivilly browbeat and threaten people until they go away, "NewsAndEventsGuy", fine: fuck you, I give up on this article.

There, you have what you wanted. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Redirects

I've redirected Kenneth Medenbach and Duane Kirkland to this article. MB298 (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Pocket constitution

Here's something worthy but I'm not going to follow up. Any takers?

Many of the Bundy forces are flashing a pocket constitution only their version was published by the National Center for Constitutional Studies and is rife with the personal philosophies of W._Cleon_Skousen. The booklets became a focal point for at least one powerful editorial on the things you can do "with a gun on your hip and a pocket constituition".

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Duara, Nigel (21 January 2016). "Oregon armed protesters invoke Constitution -- with commentary from W. Cleon Skousen". LA Times.
Eachus, Ron (18 January 2016). "What you can do with a gun and copy of the Constitution". Statesman Journal.

Interesting info, but it seems to fall under the category of WP:TRIVIA. Unless we can find sources indicating that these pocket Constitutions are closely connected to the takeover, including lists of paraphernalia seems like a slippery slope. Just my thoughts. The Cap'n (talk) 06:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

And they're GREAT thoughts. Sure we need to source it, I agree completely. It's more relevant to the Bundy core group than to the entire occupying force. It appears to be central to their version of mormonism and it isn't the constitution that is the issue, it is Clousen's perspective on the constitution that, according to the first RS, animates the Bundys. Here's one other RS (inline attrib to one person's opinion would be needed) and a newsblog which or may not be RS - someone else can judge - are is this one

No doubt more possibly reliable sources will pick this up, especially if they really do hold their mock trial. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: Category:Terrorist incidents in the United States in 2016

Is Category:Terrorist incidents in the United States in 2016 appropriate for this article? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The category description says: "This category's scope includes pages on topics and subjects relating to terrorism". So inclusion in the category is not us/Wikipedia saying this definitely is terrorism, but saying it is an article of interest to those interested in the category. So that seems fine to me. Bondegezou (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

To expand on that, compare Rose Tattoo (song), which is in Category:Boston Marathon bombing, a sub-category of Category:Terrorist incidents in the United States in 2013, not because the song is a terrorist incident, but because it is an article that has some relevance to a terrorist incident. Bondegezou (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Neutral but unless there is a clear reason not to do so, we should treat the 2014 Bundy standoff the same way NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not certain the Bundy standoff does have to be treated the same. They were different circumstances that arose in different ways. We have multiple RS talking about this incident as terrorism or as possible terrorism, so I'm fine with the category label here, but I don't know if we do for that event. Bondegezou (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The guys wore "domestic terrorist" name badges, or so our article says. I haven't reviewed any of the RSs from that event, though. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough then. Bondegezou (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

No. Because no one is calling this a "terrorist incident". Some people are complaining that it hasn't been called a terrorist incident and the "freedom to not be termed a terrorist" is now part of white privilege. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Comment This calls it "the terrorist attack". This says in the headline "Refuge Taken Over By Domestic Terrorists". This article says "some see it as domestic terrorism". So, yes, some people are complaining that it hasn't been called terrorism, but others are just calling it terrorism. Bondegezou (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
No (though I don't feel particularly strongly about it). The relevant guideline here is WP:CATDEF. The guidance found there is: A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having... (emphasis original). I don't think this clears that hurdle. Antepenultimate (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Items concerning influence of religion in general, and Mormon religion in particular

I've reverted NewsAndEventsGuy's edit . He felt that the inclusion was "mocking or sanctifying" with a comment about "confirmation bias."

I disagree wholeheartedly; religion has been a large part of the issue for the militants. It is well studied, with the Boston Globe commenting that the Bundy group's behavior has its roots in Mormon anti-government religious fanaticism. https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/01/05/oregon-standoff-has-roots-mormon-fanaticism/QLgIkrNZipFjtbn4AyUZFJ/story.html

Other sources analyze the peculiar member who refuses to be known by anything other than "Captain Moroni", another figure of mormon anti-government fanaticism. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/01/05/why_ammon_bundy_calls_himself_captain_moroni.html

Oregon Public Broadcasting has covered this as well, as has PBS. http://www.opb.org/news/article/explainer-the-bundy-militias-particular-brand-of-mormonism/ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/why-the-bundy-militia-mixes-mormon-symbolism-with-anti-government-sentiment/

LA Times notes the religious connection too: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-activists-oregon-20160105-story.html

I could go on with more sources if needed, but suffice to say: the religious connection is well documented and including mention of it is not a matter of "mocking or sanctifying". Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The issue is the turn of phrase and it being in the WP:LEAD. To be clear, the text in question reads

*Ammon Bundy, a car fleet manager from Phoenix and son of notable anti-government protestor Cliven Bundy and 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.

I have no problem mentioning in the lead that some of them claim Mormon inspiration based on these sources. Alternate, and in my opinion more NPOV text might read

While many of the initial militants claim inspiration from Mormonism, later arrivals have drawn from a variety of backgrounds.

That was a first crack at an alternative text. The problems with the first text are that

this should be summarizing the ENTIRE article and places HUGE focus just on one man, Ammon.
in the sources I've read, his being in transport serving rather than ranching is mainly used to mock his defense of the (poor) rancher we look like we're implying the same mockery, which is POV by implied character assassination (I say that even though I personally think the irony is hilarious)
as for "divine message"... the lead is supposed to summarize the article and this statement is ambiguously provactive without providing any real information. I'll elaborate this last point.

When a evangelical reader sees "he got a divine message", that reader's unconscious confirmation bias is likely going to produce an instantaneous and unconscious initial good impression of the man. In contrast, when an atheist reader sees it, their unconscious confirmation bias is likely going to produce an instantaneous and unconscious first impression of contempt. Since it means absolutely nothing and creates these problems, it is far better to deal with the whole Mormon thing in a short paragraph where the thoughts can be fairly and neutrally summarized based on RSs. Thus, while I agree the Mormon-esque inspiration driving many of the initiators can be mentioned in the lead, we need to do that in a direct, NPOV, clear manner, while making room for mention there are other varieties of folk out there now as well.

Thoughts? Thanks for starting the thread.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we should definitely cover the role of religion and particularly Mormonism in the article; PVJ has found some good citations there. I think the precise phrase "divine message" is problematic and doesn't quite fit what citations say, so I'd like to see that wording tweaked. Maybe NewsAndEventsGuy's wording, or maybe something that still focuses on Bundy and his religion, just re-worded.

Bundy's occupation, while worth mentioning somewhere, seems unnecessary detail in the lede. The lede needs to tell us the basic, core facts and Bundy's job isn't one of those. But I do think the lede should focus on Bundy as the instigator. Bondegezou (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

How about inserting the underlined so the first part reads

While many of the initial militants, including leader Ammon Bundy, claim inspiration from Mormonism....

Of course that's just one idea. Thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

You make some good points, but the problem is that you delete things wholesale, but your argument is about minor things. I think your edits could be more productive if you actually acted upon your recommendations here, rather than doing what you do in the article, which is to delete entire sections. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Leitmotiv: Are you talking to me, or one of the others? Regardless the behavioral comments should go to usertalk per WP:FOC. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, you... Leitmotiv (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Leitmotiv: Since you have not yet said anything about the CONTENT of this sentence can the rest of us infer you are neutral? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

How about this? "The leader of the group is Ammon Bundy, son of notable anti-government protestor Cliven Bundy. Many of the initial militant group claimed they were inspired by religious fundamentalist interpretations of Mormon scriptures and legends; Bundy claims to have received a direct 'divine message' asking him to begin the occupation."

I suggest moving the wording about the "citizens for constitutional freedom" group lower in the lede, to allow for slightly more detail and to include language noting that the name was not chosen until after other militant groups such as the "Oath Keepers" declined to formally endorse the militant occupation.

Thoughts? Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

As described in our usual guidelines for the lead section we're shooting for a summary. That's not a summary. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

No, it is a summary. There's much greater detail later in the article. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

If there is "greater detail later", that means your suggested alt lead text has some detail now. Which is why I objected. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Categories:

Misplaced Pages