Talk:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

WP:NOTNEWS

The article is evolving nicely, but too much emphasis is being placed on somewhat trivial news items. We should summarize sources carefully and avoid making this a news piece. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Cautiously agree with Cwobeel we should display a high level of discretion in what we add. Let's also display discretion in what we remove just now as it is difficult to anticipate in which direction this could go and what information may have later significance to a comprehensive treatment of this topic. LavaBaron (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

We probably need to expand the Infobox. I added the methods used but we should also add goals and (possibly) the number of protesters. Off to try to find an image on the Commons. Eteethan(talk)🎄 19:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Couldn't find a single free image. Eteethan(talk)🎄 19:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Should we move this photo into the infobox? Eteethan(talk)🎄 20:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Until something better comes along I neither oppose nor support such a move. I'd say you could BOLD move it if you want. LavaBaron (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I just did it. We should probably get the language clear (taken over-seized-occupied)Eteethan(talk)🎄 20:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

use of flags?

Why do we use flags on this article? This is not about states, and it doesn't help to identify the location. Both the governmental flags are weird. The FBI is a federal entity, so one could easily also use the US flag. And the flag of a self-identified groups seems also not too useful. L.tak (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

There's a precedent to use flags in civil conflict infoboxes. See Waco siege, Ruby Ridge, among many others. LavaBaron (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I would accept the way it was done at Ruby Ridge you mentioned.... At least is shows the US as a governmental party; and has no flag for the groups against, but the way it is depicted now suggests all kind of things about those 3-percenters and there mode of organisation that is not correct. Shall I change correspondingly? L.tak (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
No. A flag has no more significance than a logo. It is an aesthetic graphic identifier. LavaBaron (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
"Aesthetic graphic identifier"? So, very similar to a logo in other words? Don't respond, I just thought this was a great belly laugh. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
In fact, exactly identical to a logo, as I said. LavaBaron (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I strongly object to the use of the 3 percenters "flag". at the small scale, it looks like the US flag, which is what they intend. it makes it look like a battle between the US and federal agencies. they are not a recognized government, so no flags should be used at all. the use of flags in this case is POV to the extreme.(mercurywoodrose)2602:304:CFD0:6350:54DE:4FA7:407A:E62C (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Your objection is noted. However, we do not have a policy limiting the use of flags in articles to "recognized governments" whatever that means. Wikipedia is not a party to the Montevideo Convention and does not "recognize" governments. As per Waco Siege, American Civil War, etc., we typically identify non-state actors with flags, when available, for ease of reading and nothing else. A flag denotes no special status for the entity using it. McDonald's has a flag. LavaBaron (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I still say its entirely wrong, and i reverted. waco was a siege of a compound controled by a group, and ostensibly with legal authority to manage it. this incident is an invasion of federal land by outsiders, who have no legal standing to be on the property. use of flags must have some limit, and i believe this article doesnt require, and doesnt benefit from, a flag for "their" side, unless a third party declares them a legal entity.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what "unless a third party declares them a legal entity" means. Your argument for removing the flag, that "I still say its entirely wrong" (AKA WP:IDONTLIKEIT) is not based on policy. LavaBaron (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
We are getting to the point here LavaBaron. Could you point us to any policy involved? Otherwise "I don't like it" would hold both ways (pro and contra) and we remain with an otherstuff-argument.... L.tak (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
There's now a RfC for this, below. LavaBaron (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Refuge closure source

The Facebook page cited as a source for the fact that the refuge is closed is an acceptable primary source in this case - it is a verified official page operated by the staff of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. That said, I certainly support supplementing or replacing that with a reliable secondary source as soon as that information is picked up in the media. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed on both counts. It's important the time the closure was announced is included. This establishes that the occupation began no more than 4 hours and 2 minutes after the start of the protest march and communicates to the reader the rapid flow of events. LavaBaron (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Protest Flag

The protest flag being posted by me is indeed the protest flag that others were using during the rally.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/03/us/oregon-wildlife-refuge-protest/index.html

I was there, but more importantly CNN video shows protesters using this flag. Pardon me, I am new at wikipedia, and getting frustrated trying to figure out how to edit this.

We're getting frustrated having to revert your edits. I've watched your source and don't see the Gadsen flag anywhere in it. If you have a timecode, provide it. LavaBaron (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) We can't claim that a flag used by a protester is "the" protest flag of that group, unless there is a source. If you have a photo of the protesters that is in the public domain, that would be a great addition. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Also, KK Metscher, it appears you own a store that sells the specific flag you're manically trying to insert. [1] Please read the COI guidelines about paid or for-profit editing. LavaBaron (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
My store photo is the only photo that I have, hence the inclusion of the link, I have uploaded this image to wikipedia, and stopped linking to my website. Look at the CNN video, you can clearly see the protesters with this flag.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/oregon-malheur-ranchers-takeover-217304

Look at all the flags the protesters are waving — Preceding unsigned comment added by KK Metscher (talk • contribs) 21:38, 3 January 2016‎ (UTC)

I see at least three four different flag designs in that image, and nothing to indicate that any one of them has been adopted as an official flag of the protest. General Ization Talk 23:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

So include all four? I was putting the oregon specific one because it is not already a historically 'claimed' flag. The Gadsden, or rather 'Don't Tread on Me' is linked to a different history. The USA flag obviously is too. Clearly, this particular one has more meaning to protesters. I stumbled upon this flag about a year ago. I don't see the fourth one that you are referring to.

I am not trying to wage a war, and honestly thought that the image kept being removed because people were edited at the same time. I didn't even realize this page existed to talk about edits. I am learning. Just post the flag, doesn't need to link to my website. My intention is not to sell more flags and use wiki as a means to do that. My intention was to include the flag because it will most probably have significance.

Its a whole lot better than assuming the 3% flag is an accurate representation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KK Metscher (talk • contribs) 21:50, 3 January 2016‎ (UTC)

The fourth flag design (can't tell if it's a flag or a sign) superimposes "Let Freedom Reign" over a conventional US flag. General Ization Talk 23:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thats a neon green sign,

I'll include all three flags than? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KK Metscher (talk • contribs) 21:56, 3 January 2016‎ (UTC)

No. There is nothing encyclopedic about images that show flags that the occupiers may or may not have waved, and the AP photo was taken at the protest in Burns, so has no direct relevance to events at the refuge. General Ization Talk 23:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The prostesters from the march went to the refuge. I haven't found a protest wiki page. Of course the flag is fundamental to the 'encyclopedic' nature of wiki. It clearly shows what they stand for. People retain a lot more from images than from words, it sticks easier. The image helps solidify what is happening at the refuge. I can clarify that is was at the protest that the flags were waved. All three of them. Even the AP photo from the protest is linked to a politico article about the refuge takeover. https://www.qudswiki.org/?query=Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers

Your comments are largely nonsensical I'm afraid and not based on how WP works. Any additional efforts by you, as a COI editor - specifically a retail owner who sells flags and, more specifically, the flags in question - to insert pictures of these banners will be reverted without further comment and you will probably be IP blocked. LavaBaron (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

66.152.115.226 (talk) is persistently vandalizing this page, it's kind of annoying. Thomasmallen (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I've attempted to contact AlexiusHoratius regarding this, and other, IP editors and SPAs, but he said he'd prefer to do nothing. So apparently this article is a free-for-all and is being written by whomever can click "undo" fast enough. Yeeeehaw! LavaBaron (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Maybe we need to add something to [2] Thomasmallen (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree. Unfortunately, given the sheer volume of IP editors and SPAs currently active here, and the likelihood more will soon arrive, this is probably just whackamole as long as no one is willing to apply page protection. Filing endless ANIs isn't fun for me but I'm happy to chime-in if someone else does. LavaBaron (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
You're probably right ... I'll still give it a stab (if I can figure it out :p). If only it would stop snowing in upstate NY (the source of this IP). I have a hunch this user is not savvy enough to bypass a ban, to be honest. Thomasmallen (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
That took much longer than expected, hopefully it is correct-ish: [3] Thomasmallen (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

#YallQaeda

Shouldn't this be added to the twitter hashtag part. It is trending more than #OregonUnderAttack and people are using this more now. AntiRacistSwede (talk) 00:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

If you can find a RS that says it is trending. Your personal analysis of Twitter trends is WP:OR, however. LavaBaron (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Would this source be ok http://gawker.com/oregon-militiamen-receive-fitting-nickname-yallqaeda-1750791887 AntiRacistSwede (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
No, but Al Bawaba[4] is reporting on it. Curro2 (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggested change of infobox

I suggest we change the infobox to the military conflict infobox. Not because this is a military conflict but because infobox precedent generally says we should use whichever infobox is most appropriate to an article. The civil conflict infobox does not have a working "Strength" field and we have four wildly divergent reports of the militants strength (12 - Guardian; 6-15 Oregon Public Broadcasting; 20-25 Oregonian; 150 militants themselves). Doing a quick Google search of discussion on this topic that references this WP article there appears to be substantial confusion on this point which indicates both reader interest in the militant's numbers and readability issues regarding our current construction. Being able to succinctly present the various estimates of the militants strength in the infobox would be helpful for readers. LavaBaron (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Support change per nom. MB298 (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
change made LavaBaron (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Redirects

The FBI press release[5] mentioned the "Hardie-Hammond Fire" and the "Krumbo Butte Fire". I created redirects here since I can't think of a better destination though maybe they deserve their own pages. Curro2 (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd not redirect them here. They probably don't deserve their own pages either. There are dozens named fires over a fire season and only a handful of Oregon fires have reached a level of Wikpedia notability--see Category:Wildfires in Oregon and List of wildfires#North America. There is an article for the 2015 Oregon fire season, I think mostly because it made things smoky in the Willamette Valley where most Oregonians live. I suppose it's possible to summarize Hardie-Hammon and Krumbo in new articles about the 2001 and 2006 fire seasons respectively, or better still create a new list article such as California's and redirect them there. Valfontis (talk) 04:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Map

Resolved

User:LavaBaron changed the map showing its location within Oregon to a map showing its location within the United States, saying in the edit summary, "changed map type in Infobox from Oregon to United States for benefit of non-American readers." I understand that, however feel a map of Oregon should be included along with a map of America to give readers from the Pacific Northwest a general sense of where it is. MB298 (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Changing the |map_type= parameter to "United States#Oregon" would present viewers with the US map first, and radio buttons to show either the Oregon map or both simultaneously. Would that work? Antepenultimate (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not experienced in infobox maps, but it seems like it would work to me. MB298 (talk) 04:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Excellent idea. LavaBaron (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2016

URL for citation of refuge being closed:

http://www.fws.gov/nwrs/twocolumn.aspx?id=2147583082

50.247.87.43 (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Thank you, but this is a primary source. We already have one such source; what we really require are reliable secondary and tertiary sources that discuss the closure. Appreciate your having mentioned the MNWR page, however. General Ization Talk 05:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

satellite image

I labeled a USGS satellite image of the facility and added it to the article to deal with the lack of imagery we currently have. If anyone wants to take a crack at doing a nicer illustration, be my guest and feel free to replace my feeble attempt. LavaBaron (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

For a Laugh

Extended content

I know this is an abuse of the Talk page, however, this is too good to ignore. According to the conspiracy website Rumor Mill News, the editors who have been working on this article are all secret agents in an elaborate psyop: "With the event barely 24 hours old there are so many entries and references that it could only be a planned psyop on someone's part." Also, in ref to our RfC debate about the term "rump militia" this is asked: "How Long Before the Gun Grabbers Start Parroting the New Psy-opp Term: ..."rump militias". Sounds like a strategically designed, specifically created emotional reactive moniker, to be parroted by the DC Crime Cabal talking heads." I even score a personal name mention as the puppetmaster in this elaborate black op. See: [6] LavaBaron (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

hahaha.... oh this is typical ignorant drivel. Thanks for this. *eyeing LavaBaron suspiciously*.... Leitmotiv (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Congratulations, LavaBaron! A bonus will be forthcoming in your next paycheck from the US Treasury. General Ization Talk 06:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
General Ization shoveling feed to the paranoid! Love it. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps is it because - to the casual observer - that you all are hovering over this article like mother hens. This is still another example of What's Wrong with Wikipedia. And why I no longer support it with donations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ 98.194.39.86 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
So you have a problem with people having enthusiasm and a healthy obsession? Would you prefer they have drug addictions instead? Also don't forget to sign by typing in four consecutive tildes. I see you've done it other times too. If you are nameless your opinion matters even less to others. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
And as you can easily see, we're all suffering terribly for the loss. (Please troll somewhere else, we're busy writing an encyclopedia here.) General Ization Talk 06:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Excellent work, men. panic, chaos, destruction: our work here is done. Party is at usual location, 9800 Savage Road, the 7th floor suites (above our offices, ask for dottie) Fort Meade, Maryland. Pizza is provided, but bring your own MKUltra chemical agentsNotmercurywoodrose
Drats, the mask is off now! Thomasmallen (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Lack of coverage

Alright so a number of you living in Oregon, right? Am I imagining this or are the local TV news not reporting on this, or at least not very well? I haven't seen anything about it on any of the Portland (NBC KGW, ABC KATU, CBS KOIN) reports. --RThompson82 (talk) 09:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The news broadcasts at the time seem to all be covering the weather, they even replaced the Today Show today with local weather news. I would say it would be reported more if it weren't for the snowy and icy conditions at this moment. MB298 (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Media outlets are reporting updates, but the weather is currently the lead story. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
The local media isn't ignoring them, but they grabbed the Visitors' Center only hours before the heavily populated parts of the state got hit with some dramatic and troublesome weather. So that's very much the important and topical subject. Wyvern (talk) 06:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
My local news station KTVZ has released reports every day. And have reporters on site apparently. I think a lack of coverage comes from a lack of developments. No feds are even near the complex from what I understand. Leitmotiv (talk) 07:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

This event needs proper categorizing: Insurrection

This is most certainly an insurrection. The act of occupation by a militia is just a mode of this. It's descriptive, but not sufficiently substantive in the proper context, which is politics and security, and possibly law. There must be mention of the word insurrection in the lead, and in the form of "X is Y (class; in this case: an insurrection) that happened at a time&place Z". Also, using the word "takeover" in the lead is incorrect. There is already mention of occupation, so why dilute the lead with this diverging term. Takeover is an irregular seizure of some kind of power (usually power of the state), not seizure of property; it's more figurative than occupation and doesn't fit what's going on here.

we should never place an article in a category if the content doesnt express it clearly. so, find sources that state this is an insurrection, add them to article if appropriate (third party etc), then categorize it as such. refs:
not a lot yet. opinion pieces, not news outlets or the govt. May be appropriate for "reactions" section, including the racial component (would a similar group of african americans be treated the same, or differently?)(mercurywoodrose)50.193.19.66 (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

If categorizing is your concern, we don't have a Category:Insurrection or Category:Insurrections. We do not even have an article on insurrection, since this is treated as a synonym of rebellion. We do have a category about Rebellion and several subcategories. Dimadick (talk) 08:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2016

It seems to me that the term "rump militia" in the first paragraph should be linked to a page describing what the heck one of those is.

72.235.197.191 (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You are free to write such a page. WP is written by editors like you, not some mysterious force. LavaBaron (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey, take it easy. I think you should limit yourself to one snippy reply per week. - theWOLFchild 02:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The lead

Resolved

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The first sentence in the lead says they - took control...in protest of the pending imprisonment of Harney County, Oregon ranchers Dwight and Steve Hammond. However, that's not the only reason that sources are reporting for the takeover of the building. In the body of this article (Occupation of refuge), it also says that they want - the federal government to relinquish control of the Malheur National Forest. Thoughts on including this other reason for the takeover in the lead as well. I think it should be included, this is not just about the Hammonds.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that would be a fine idea. LavaBaron (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

Resolved

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is mentioned in the "Environmental groups" section, but I am not sure most people would consider PETA as such. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Update: I merged the "Business" and "Environmental groups" into a single section called "Organizations", which seems appropriate given the Oregon Cattleman's Association was the only group mentioned in the Business section. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
good idea LavaBaron (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Resolved

Wouldn't that technically go under the "Organizations" section? MB298 (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it probably should. LavaBaron (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Done. Bondegezou (talk) 11:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Map of Denmark

Resolved

Is the map of Denmark particularly helpful? I find it a little distracting. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It's definitely in a weird location, because the best location is already filled. I don't see the benefit of noting the size of Harney County. Its the refuge that is the focus. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to continue a discussion, but I went ahead and removed the map for now. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
It should be included in Harney County, Oregon, but definitely isn't relevant to this article. MB298 (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Might as well not let it go to waste. Leitmotiv (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I made it and added it and, frankly, I don't mind it being removed altogether. After seeing it in place it didn't seem odd. LavaBaron (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2016

Please change the word "militia" in the first sentence to "domestic terrorist organization" 78.228.241.17 (talk) 06:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done See above. General Ization Talk 06:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Ammon Bundy

Resolved

Similar to the above section, Ammon Bundy currently redirects to Bundy standoff. Should it redirect elsewhere now, or should he even have a standalone Wikipedia article? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

As he is involved in both controversies and is frequently mentioned in the media (when I see news about the standoff on KGW or the Today show, he is always mentioned), I feel he is notable enough to deserve his own Wikipedia article, as should his father. MB298 (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with MB298. I've written the articles for the other three leaders of this event, however, so it's someone else's turn. LavaBaron (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I created the article (Ammon Bundy), it isn't much but still there. MB298 (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for getting the ball rolling. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Islamic State Reacts To Armed Protesters at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

Resolved

It seems like everyone is intent on politicizing the armed protesters at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge for their own agenda as seen in Islamic State tries to use Oregon takeover to turn Americans against their government. by Jack Woby, Washington Post, January 9, 2015.

Another interesting article is Those Men In Oregon: Troublemakers, Terrorists Or Something Else? by Mark Mennot, The Two-Way, National Public Radio, Jan. 9, 2015. Paul H. (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Timeline

Resolved

The militia occupation and authority response sections seem to be so wound together they could be merged into a "Timeline" section with description in chronological order (I believe this was discussed somewhere above but don't know where). MB298 (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

MB298 - see my similar suggestion a few sections up. LavaBaron (talk) 06:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

"Parties to the civil conflict" section in infobox

Resolved

The "parties to the civicl conflict" section in the infobox is awfully long. Would it be more appropriate to merge the many counties into "Sheriff's offices of A County, B County, C County", etc.? Or, any other ideas? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed too long. It seems rather pointless at the moment, pointless or WP:OR. Bondegezou (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
In reference to the portion of "Parties to the civil conflict" section I think that seems like a fine idea and don't object. However, I would note there is a structural importance in maintaining the content in some form for an article of this type; a fundamental pseudolegal idea of groups like CCF is the conspiracy theory of "sheriff supremacy" - there's a scholarly and historical relevance, therefore, in maintaining the substance of content in some form that may become important later, though I'll defer to you in terms of what form that should take. (There are also many other conflict infoboxes that are longer even than this one, such as Syrian Civil War.) Also, I wouldn't support a condensing of the "Number" section because, to do so, would require we add numbers from disparate reports and I think the act of addition would become WP:OR. LavaBaron (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I think we can trim all the supporting counties that are not directly involved in the occupation. The section under Authorities response also has an excessive list of counties that has supplied support and it should be trimmed to a few examples, or deleted entirely. If we are listing nearly every county in the state, at some point it should just be called many Oregon counties. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
This event is considerably simpler than the Syrian Civil War! Every level of government, every government institution is opposed to this occupation. It is merely a matter of logistics which particular government agencies are involved. Bondegezou (talk) 11:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Update: Marking this section as resolved since the infobox no longer has a very long list of parties. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Something strange going on in Escalation subsection

User:NorthBySouthBaranof deleted material from the Escalation subsection, but this deletion does not show up in the diffs. Here is one diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Militia_occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge&diff=698938715&oldid=698937599 and here is the next diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Militia_occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge&diff=next&oldid=698938715. You can see that an entire relevant, reliably sourced and NPOV sentence and supporting citation disappeared and that it does not appear in the second diff. Also note that according to User:NorthBySouthBaranof's user page, he or she is a Federal government employee. This should be looked into regarding how a deletion disappeared, as well as potential conflict of interest. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Errr, nope. You simply haven't read the edit history correctly. The sentence you refer to was rewritten by User:LavaBaron in this edit. I would appreciate a retraction of your entirely-unfounded accusation that turns out to be nothing more than your own inability to properly read the article's edit history. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, the content was duplicated in the preceding section so I'd moved the remnant. My edit summary wasn't very good. LavaBaron (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
My apologies to NorthBySouthBaranof! Your edit was a deletion and LavaBaron's was apparently an addition of material. I was puzzled at how it disappeared without the deletion being shown. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I understand now. Since LavaBaron added more text than he deleted, his edit showed up as an addition of material. Since your edit was the only deletion at that time, I assumed it was removed during your edit but did not appear in the diff somehow. My bad! Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
So now the same event is mentioned in two sections. LavaBaron (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Closely related threads about "terrorism"

Why is this not labeled a terrorism event per 18 U.S. Code § 2331?

Unclear why not.

It may be, but we need a source for that assertion in relation to this incident. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Because this is Wikipedia, not a District Court arraignment. LavaBaron (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
"...not a District Court arraignment" argument is absurd. This meets all standards for armed insurrection, which means that, by definition, it is an act of domestic terrorism. Please call it what it is. LavaBaron, you seem to be more of a supporter than a neutral editor, from all that I've read on this page. Perhaps you should recuse yourself from further involvement in this article in the interest of fairness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.39.86 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 4 January 2016‎ (UTC)
And perhaps you are clueless about how Wikipedia works. We will not label this a terrorist incident until it is declared to be so by a competent authority, and until that declaration appears in published, reliable sources. And no one who follows Wikipedia's core content policies will be required to recuse themselves, thank you. General Ization Talk 06:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
source for describing it as terrorism: [7], by Juliette KayyemNotmercurywoodrose 07:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Right. After having spent the last 3 months almost single-handily de-whitewashing Frank Gaffney I think I'm above characterization as a "militia supporter." (Though I'm admittedly delighted to have been accused of being both a "militia supporter" and a government "psyop agent" trying to take down militias all within the same article.) LavaBaron (talk) 07:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll just restate this here again: Breitbart, angry blogs and Daily Caller don't count as competent authorities on this. Thanks --RThompson82 (talk) 09:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
While it's nice you keep peppering the Talk page with this caution, has anyone tried to cite either of those in this article? If not, perhaps we could curtail the preemptive warnings so as to get this very unwieldly Talk page a little more focused. Agreed? LavaBaron (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Oregon Militia Groups

None of the militia groups in Oregon supported the reclamation of land by the collective. News agencies are quick to copy other news agencies... it doesn't mean they are usually correct...

I think that more valid references need to be produced in regards to the 'militia' label. --JT2958 (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

That may or may not be true. Unfortunately, our policies require us to go by what WP:RS report, not by what JT2958 reports. LavaBaron (talk) 00:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
CNN has labeled this an act of terrorism. Is CNN a WP:RS ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.39.86 (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Unless CNN is quoting an authority able to make such declarations, no, CNN is not a reliable source for that information. General Ization Talk 06:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

LavaBaron, have you taken a break from editing Flower Island to come pay me a visit? Thanks... This may be of interest, although it isn't in to scope of your cute little deluded policies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARpBS6O14FE

Censorship regarding sources in this article (definition of terrorism)

pls stop 66.152.115.226 (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You are the editor who needs to stop. If you haven't noticed, I am also reverting edits calling this a "terrorist attack," etc. Please stop with the partisan nonsense and sophomoric 1984 quotes in edit messages, accusations of censorship, vandalism, it's fairly pointless as logs show that you are spamming the same refs again. Take the advice another user already left on your talk page (https://www.qudswiki.org/?query=User_talk:66.152.115.226#Discussing_edits) and open a discussion here if you feel so strongly about the matter. Thomasmallen (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
At 02:20 UTC, User:66.152.115.226 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was blocked for 24 hours. General Ization Talk 02:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
LOL. This is an article under discretionary sanctions. The IP editor has - by my count - made 32 spam edits in the last three hours and he gets a 24-hour block. Which means we get a break from the deluge. Not a reprieve, just a break before we have to again halt all work on this article and start rapid-tapping the undo key for hours on end. Meanwhile all the other IP editors continue to ply their trade. It's become such a chore to have to edit an article on WP an admin isn't personally interested in and could, therefore, give a rip about. LavaBaron (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Btw, folks, Breitbart, angry blogs and Daily Caller don't count as legitimate sources on this. Thanks. --RThompson82 (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
What's wrong with BB and DC? Why are they illegitimate, but Gawker not?86.156.53.204 (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
BB and DC are both horrible sources and both extremely racist and have been caught making up tons of lies, they don't even have any real journalists. Gawker however does not engage in this practice in their journalism, although you don't source to gawker articles that are blogs and opeds. AntiRacistSwede (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
BB and DC are indeed serving particular political interests, so are WP:SECONDARY sources of quite limited reliability. We don't want to count on them for controversial claims, and prefer more neutral sources, if available. Note however, that in a way, more mainstream media is biassed, too. Something like perfectly neutral, unbiassed media doesn't exist and never existed. We always have to weigh how much the publication's bias affects the credibility of the article, or of a specific piece of information. In some cases, information by sources of limited reliability may be credible and usable, too. In any case, they are legimitate WP:PRIMARY sources. --PanchoS (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Lead should mention race / religion

The lead says: The takeover sparked a debate on the meaning of the word "terrorist"

However this component, the labelling component (who do we call a terrorist?) is only one component of the debate. The other is how people would react differently if the militia were Black or Muslim (both how the public would react and how the government / military / police / National Guard would react).

The question of "what if they were Black or Muslim?" is widespread and the NYTimes has documented it here: [8]. It should be added to the lead. Thanks. 98.247.93.88 (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

This may be pertinent to include in a freestanding section of the article. At this time, inclusion in the lede would be WP:UNDUE. Etymological introspection on the treatment of this event constitutes a small minority of coverage relative to the substance of Who, What, Why right now. At a future date it might be appropriate for the lede, however. LavaBaron (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
The lede is supposed to summarize the contents of the article. If the body of the article does not call them terrorists and contains no sources which do that, the lede should definitely avoid the term. [?]
Those are good points; the question of race and terminology would be better placed farther down in the article. Wyvern (talk) 05:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, this act does not really count as terrorism. Per our article on terrorism, the definition used by the United Nations involves acts "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants". What civilians have these militias killed or intended to kill? They do not exactly strike me as the American equivalent of the Irish Republican Army and the ETA, which have caused massive loss of life in their self-declared wars. Dimadick (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Section on an opinion about the BLM and/or the Hammonds

I have removed this passage,

As part of a half-hour speech before the House of Representatives, the local Congressman Greg Walden stated, "I know the Hammonds. I have known them for probably close to 20 years. They are longtime, responsible ranchers in Harney County," while harshly criticizing the various federal agencies which administer much of Harney County, especially the BLM.

which was inserted by Tapered into the "Hammond arson conviction" section.

My concern is that it's nothing more than a politician's personal opinion of the Hammonds' character, and a criticism of federal land management agencies. The statement offers no particular insight into the Hammonds' arson convictions, and would open the door to introducing and inserting into that section a wide number of other competing political personal opinions about the Hammonds or land management agencies. Once we add one personal opinion about the Hammonds and land management agencies there, NPOV would mandate that we include other notable personal opinions from other perspectives in accordance with their prevalence in reliable sources. I'm not sure that belongs in this article - it might belong in another article more specifically about the Hammonds and reactions to them personally. Or, it might belong in a separate "Reactions to the Hammonds" subsection. At any rate, let's discuss it here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with your edit. LavaBaron (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, you done good. If need be, it can be placed further down the article. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, it's an opinion--from the most powerful politician in that part of Oregon, its nine-term and running Representative, and chair of some major Republican committee. Oh yeah, and it's part of the Congressional Record. So it's actually more than an opinion. I began the process of making the edit without intending to do so. I actually read Walden's whole speech, and thought, "There's more than one side to this story." And then I read an account of the Hammonds' criminal behavior. (The contrast reminds me of an Italian defender who thought to himself before the 1970 World Cup Final that Pele and the Brazilian team were just men like himself, who put on their shoes and uniform as he did. After the game, he said that he knew he was wrong.) Walden's comments speak worlds about the his mindset and the mindset of the people and local power structure of the area, and the quality of the 'injustice' that the 'protestors' claim to oppose--especially when they follow factual accounts of the Hammonds' behavior. They add context to the article. That's why they belong where they were placed. Perhaps you could put them back where you found them and see if they attract an extraneous collection of Hammond character assessments. If they do, I will stand corrected and cheerfully acquiesce to their re-placement or removal. Tapered (talk) 06:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Divisions among the occupiers?

Is it worth having a paragraph on reports of divisions among the occupiers? For example, this Guardian article talks of "signs that at least some in his militia want their controversial standoff to draw to a close." While this piece talks of one militia member going AWOL. Bondegezou (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Collapse militia occupation and response of authorities

At this point the difference between the occupation and the response has become artificial. It made sense early on to have two sections but the event is so singular and closely related it seems to me to make for a clumsy read now. I'd like to suggest we merge these two sections and then sub-section it by date, as though a timeline of events. Thoughts? LavaBaron (talk) 07:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Citing legal briefs as RS to support statements made in wikivoice

This article asserts various statements as fact while relying on sources that are inherently one-sided POV, specifically legal briefs. Specifically, please see refs 29, 33, and 35 in this version. I'm fine with the gist of the text, I just think the text should be written to say these facts were alleged in the legal briefs rather than in wikivoice.

For those unfamiliar with court procedure, the purpose of a trial is to determine facts. Briefs either lobby for one view of the law..... or they lobby for one view of the facts. Thus, briefs alone are not RS for anything other than the fact one side in the lawsuit alleged these things. Whether or not the allegations are true is unknown, until a court rules. Even then, the best way to adhere to NPOV is to attribute such facts to court rulings.

Does anyone else choke when we use wikivoice to declare as true things said in inherently one-side legal briefs? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Well spotted. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I've tried to use legal terms when appropriate such as "indicted" or "according to." Leitmotiv (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 3 January 2016

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

The result of the move request was: Moved to Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, sufficiently precise, concise and NPOV for now. Move protected for 60 days pending any radical change in circumstances Mike Cline (talk) 11:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


Militia occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge → Armed occupation of Oregon wildlife refuge – While the current title "Militia occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge" is basically okay and sufficiently descriptive, it seems too specific to be recognizable by the average international reader. Non-local outlets tend to refer to the building as "Oregon wildlife refuge." See for example:

Int'l media refers to the occupation as well as taking place in "Oregon" or at the "Oregon wildlife refuge" rather than at the "Malheur National Wildlife Refuge".
Secondly, "Armed occupation" sounds less bumpy than "Militia occupation". If possible, a "fast-track" discussion would be great, as not just the event is in the news, but also the Wikipedia article ranks high at Google News. PanchoS (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose I support the spirit of PanchoS's suggestion, however, "Armed occupation of Oregon wildlife refuge" is too long for a non-specific title. LavaBaron (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Note For now I have redirected the requested title. Eteethan(talk) 23:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. In addition, though the occupiers describe themselves as a "militia", there is currently no evidence that the group organized for any other purpose than the occupation. We should not validate their self-serving description by including it in the title of the article. General Ization Talk 23:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
RS refers to them as a group composed of militia members. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not validate or invalidate anyone. LavaBaron (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - nonsense, but would not oppose moving to Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge - Cwobeel (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - if this hits the bigger news, it is about an Oregon refuge, and there is no reason to add the specific name (even if Malheur is an apt name in view of what is happening now). L.tak (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, "Oregon wildlife refuge" can be wrongfully interpreted as implying ownership by the state of Oregon, which isn't true - it is a "wildlife refuge in Oregon". It's federal land, and that fact is relevant to the occupiers' motivations. Per Cwobeel, Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge seems the best option with what is known so far (this also future-proofs the page title if this sort of thing, heaven forfend, becomes a trend). Antepenultimate (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Note The title should be changed as the current "National Wildlife Refuge" is too vague and the occupation isn't of the refuge itself, but of the headquarters building specifically. They don't have enough manpower to occupy the entire refuge. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
None of the above suggestions satisfy your concern, what would you suggest? FWIW, their intent is to occupy the entire refuge - "This refuge here is rightfully owned by the people and we intend to use it," [Ammon Bundy] said, adding that they plan to assisting [sic] ranchers, loggers, hunters and campers who want to use the land.-per The Washington Post Antepenultimate (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
The article's provided sources have not substantiated your claim they intend to occupy the refuge, but to use the HQ as a base of command to take back the land of Harney County and give it back to private citizens - to speak nothing of the claim by the Sheriff to take land back from local and federal governments.. Again, while they are inside the refuge, they are not strictly occupying it. That's like saying I'm occupying Harney County, Oregon, but really it's just the location where I set up shop. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, point taken. Again, if you could put forth a suggested title for this page, rather than just saying "The title should be changed" without suggesting an alternative, that would be helpful. Antepenultimate (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I think you're being a little pedantic. The sense in which the word occupy is being used here is not to take up the entirety of but the military/legal sense to have taken possession or control of a territory or site, usually by displacing the rightful owners or occupants. The fact that they will never be able to position sympathetic personnel over the entire 187,000 acres of the Refuge doesn't mean that they have failed to achieve an "occupation". General Ization Talk 04:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
No, I think it's a worthwhile distinction. They haven't taken control of a territory as laid out in the title. If this is a small location we are talking about, we should establish that in the title. The site is the HQ building. The influence of that occupation is only felt at the HQ building so far.... I recommend, at the very least switching it from Malheur National Wildlife Refuge to something like Militia seizure of Harney County government building. For the record, the refuge itself is mostly a body of water. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
The title most certainly shouldn't refer to a "Harney County government building" as that strongly suggests a building owned and used by the government of Harney County, Oregon, rather than a federal building as is the true case here. General Ization Talk 04:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Well that would require a simple fix, wouldn't it? Leitmotiv (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I would strongly oppose a renaming to Militia seizure of Harney County government building for several reasons: (a) news reports indicate they control at least two permanent structures at the site, the HQ building and a watchtower, (b) news reports indicate the militia are maintaining a manned roadblock at the wildlife refuge, (c) news reports indicate militia are freely moving on the refuge on foot and in vehicle. That may not indicate "control" of the refuge proper but it indicates a higher level of control than being confined to the interior of a building. LavaBaron (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm fully aware of what their occupation entails as I've been to that very building. It's just a small nothing place. They don't have control of anything except a very small complex and one of the roads immediately leading to it. Maybe we should add the word "complex" to the title instead? Leitmotiv (talk) 05:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Sure. It seems, taking in everyone's requested terminology changes, we could rename the article "Armed Group Affiliated with the United States Militia Movement's Occupation of a United States Fish and Wildlife Service Complex in Oregon." LavaBaron (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
BE BOLD SIR!!! j/k Leitmotiv (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose The history of the United States has long called these "militia actions", even when it is a small disorganized self proclaimed militia. ADNewsom (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - something short would be fine, like Malheur National Wildlife Refuge standoff or Harney County standoff. Neutralitytalk 18:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose but strongly prefer just Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge with no adjective. There is a whole long article to discuss the particulars of the occupation, but there has been only the one occupation so additional disambiguation is not needed. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support removing "militia" from the title, it's not being used as a neutral term here, but I don't really like the proposal for being either for being awkward. Suggest instead Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupation as being sufficient to identify the event. Of course "occupation" does not imply that the occupiers are armed, but that and other particulars can and should be dealt with in the lede. If some sources are using different names (like Oregon instead of the full name of the facility) then other titles can redirect there. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support move, or any action that removes the word "militia" from the title. It can lead to confusion and offend 'good' militias. - theWOLFchild 02:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – Both article titles go well beyond what is actually happening. The occupation is of one building – the headquarters building – not the entire refuge. Let's be NPOV and simply say "2016 illegal occupation the MNWR Headquarters". – S. Rich (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm going to support on this on the basis that the current title is ridiculously long, and that any shorter or more WP:CONCISE title is going to be a step forward. NickCT (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Malheur National Wildlife Refuge standoff seems concise and appropriate. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per reasons stated above. MB298 (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment "Malheur National Wildlife Refuge standoff" would be a fairly simple, non POV name. -- Callinus (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Note that Bundy standoff has a hatnote linking here. The term "standoff" in the title would mirror the other article title. The two events are linked in various publications (eg this article on front page of Reuters.com today). -- Callinus (talk) 06:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support removing the term "militia" from the title, in favor of "Armed occupation" or the like, per my comments in thread above about "rump militia" etc.; neutral on the rest (e.g., whether to name Malheur in the title). JamesMLane t c 10:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge/Archive_1&oldid=1190264988"