Talk:Bundy standoff

Length

This is indeed an elaborate article. Why? THe standoff was a minor footnote in history yet it has more words to its page than: John Adams or the NIV version of the Bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.109.25 (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC) Good point. Much of the article is also biased against the Bundys; some of that material could be usefully deleted. Starchild (talk) 04:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. This is a very, very important incident in regards to the rights of the American government and its citizens and a very relevant example of the Second Amendment in practice instead of theory. It's one of the best articles I've read on Wikipedia, including how objective and informative it is in its content. I'm actually on this talk page because I want to see how to nominate it for distinction. EGarrett01 (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC) (EDITED to change which amendment I was referencing)

@EGarrett01: I recommend not engaging the talk page as a forum. Talk pages are about editing Wiki articles. The comment you're responding to was not constructive and didn't point out any specific problems with article to be addressed. Just remember this is not the place for politics or to soapbox. Leitmotiv (talk) 07:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The first comment may not have been constructive, but I was replying to highlight its notability in regards to the 2nd Amendment, which multiple independent sources have written about. EGarrett01 (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Question of whether Info box and links to court findings, briefs, etc. should be moved to articles on the court cases

The article's summary of the Court cases involved seems good, but the cases involved have enough notoriety to merit their own articles and the infobox and links about these cases should be moved to articles specifically about those cases (with links from here indicating were a reader can get more info). Court cases as they lay down precedent for the future are easily recognized as notable by wikipedia standards and with its own article more detail, such as quotes from friend of the court briefs, quotes from rulings, and dissents can be made without fear of unbalancing and shifting the focus, as might be a concern in this article about the standoff.==Wowaconia (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that these cases are, from a jurisprudence standpoint, notable enough to merit their own separate pages. There were no appeals (Bundy was denied in both cases), no amicus filings, and no precedent set beyond the fact that trespassing on federal land remains illegal. To whit, the government never asserted any powers derived from the law that they hadn't already before, and Bundy never actually raised any legal arguments that required substantive review and consideration - his filings are a hodgepodge of issues that have been long-since considered settled law and inane theories such as that plants and animals must themselves be engaged in international commerce for the government to qualify for protection under the ESA (incidentally, the ESA really wasn't at issue here). Permanent injunctions against trespassers on federal lands is nothing new, nor is the injunction allowing the government to impound cattle grazing on federal land. Had this guy not engaged in an armed standoff with the BLM and the NPS it's unlikely that anyone would have paid them much attention. Dlk0606 (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The notability of court cases is not whether we can Crystal Ball uses for them, but that they contribute to jursiprudence. As the details of those proceedings, the background leading up to it, the people involved, etc. would be informative for readers but would unbalance this article if added. The case is easily made that they merit their own articles.

It can be argued that the infobox on these cases and the links to court documents is not germane to this article as the cases are already presented in reasonable summary, and are mere background in the real focus of this article - the armed standoff. The infobox unbalances this article, and physically takes up more space than the infobox about the actual event this page is about. The information is notable and should be moved to its own article with a "For further information see" link from this page to that one. It seem as if the articles on the cases, this one on the standoff, and the one on the Sagebrush Rebellion movement should be given their own wiki category as well. With possible other articles included that talk about land use questions that are arising in the American West.--Wowaconia (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

In addition the inclusion of similar legal cases on the bottom of this article has no direct relevance to the armed standoff at all but could easily be pointed to in a page about the actual cases that involved Bundy. The amount of legal information in this article has unbalanced a page which is about an armed standoff. There is more about judical review here than accounts of people with semi-automatic weapons facing off against snipers. That strikes me as way out of balance to the point of looking silly.--Wowaconia (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

*Oppose deletion of Legal Infobox and Opose deletion of legal material This article is primarily about a 20 year legal dispute. The fact that it is named Standoff is still being discussed and debated within this talk page, and we may not have a viable consensus on this title change for at least another month or so. Standoffs are very temporary. Encyclopedic articles are more enduring or historic. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This wikipedia article requires as much legal reference and regulatory background as possible, because the court case, the law regulations, and the enforcement of them are the focus of the entire dispute. All the protests and confrontations that happen over a limited time hinge upon legal or enforcement events. Both sides of the dispute focus upon the law. Covering all this makes it unbiased and informative. There is no limitation on the size of such a wikipedia article, and bandwidth of characters on a page is not so precious to require deletion of well-sourced material. Baleywik (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. These cases contribute to jurisprudence inasmuch as any court case for which a ruling is issued contributes to jurisprudence, but they would be wholly unremarkable had they not been the background for this standoff/confrontation/whatever we decide to call it. There are thousands of federal cases that get decided that no person would argue merit their own wiki, and in this case, quoting from the district court ruling: "In sum, in this most recent effort to oppose the United States legal process, Bundy has produced no valid law or specific facts raising a genuine issue of fact regarding federal ownership or management of public lands in Nevada, or that his cattle have not trespassed." The court documents are important as they provide background on the case - and, as stated by Baleywik the issue here is the enforcement of these otherwise uncontroversial rulings and the difficulties encountered therein. Dlk0606 (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not call for deletion of the infobox and its links, I called for it to be moved or split.

The article is titled Bundy standoff and the segment on "other cases" and the infobox throw of the balance of this article. This article is unbalanced, and the addition of "similar cases" doesn't even involve Cliven Bundy at all. What new name for this article could possibly capture all these aspects (some that don't involve Bundy at all)? The standoff is an event that would merit its own page by wiki standards anyhow, due to press coverage and notable government figures weighing in over the specific event with the armed characters on each side (similar to how the Battle of Shiloh gets its own article and isn't just folded into the American Civil War article).

Nor did I call for a deletion or even moving the summaries, but the info box is obviously about legal cases and not about the standoff. The "similar cases" do not even have Bundy in them as an important figure. The article is overburdened, unbalanced, and the infobox and the "similar cases" should be split off with appropriate links from this page to those.--Wowaconia (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose split Reminder, the title of this article is actively being discussed on this talk page. The title should not confine the material yet. Oppose the split of any parts of this article at this point revisit this spit issue in 3 months. See above. This is a brand new article. Baleywik (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Baleywik (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

After examining the links on the introductory sentences of the segment on similar cases it is clear that the link between them and Bundy is solely original research. While it may appear to us wiki editors that there is an obvious link, just because we have access to a computer does not make us notable experts. If this info, with the O.R. linking it to Bundy removed, was put in articles about the cases themselve than those articles could be included in a "See Also" segment in this article, and in "See Also" segments on each of the new articles about the specific cases.--Wowaconia (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose split IMHO, the existence of some material which hasn't been cited with the highest level of citation yet is not a cause for deletion of that material or spinning it off in a split. In legal/law articles such as this one, it is common to talk about and cite other lawsuits or legal decisions. I'm an advocate of trying to add better citations whenever possible (even when I'm not in agreement with the position taken) or else adding "citation needed" or "original research" tags. The material in question is only a week old. IMHO, when editing encyclopedic entries, it is beneficial to take the long term view. It is often difficult to search and add the most appropriate citations for legal issues. If a single cite doesn't meet the highest level of quality, editors should be given the benefit of the doubt. I personally agree that some of the US v Hage material that is presently in the section isn't quite as pertinent or similar to US v Bundy as the US v Gardner case is. However, having US v Hage as a part of the section is beneficial because it shows how similarly-situated Nevada ranchers in a very similar legal case had entirely different outcomes than US v Bundy. It shows that Bundy might have won a partial argument on some water-access issues if he had taken that position in his case. The essence of showing both cases is balance and values of being fair. Baleywik (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Baleywik (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose split The story is still developing, could really cause some edit conflicts; however. There are articles where a lot of extraneous material could be added and wikilinked Sagebrush Rebellion (in See Also). The Wikipedia article on The Taylor Act needs work, there is a Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 but I don't see an article or section on Taylor 1984. There is two articles on the FLPMA, Federal Land Policy and Management Act and Federal Land Use Policy Act of 1976. For a time-line, this blog appears to be pretty accurate www.ispmb.org/History.html. US v. Hage should probably have its own article, it is a landmark case and exposes corruption. For the State of Nevada's opinion on Public Lands see (NRS 321.596 Legislative findings and NRS 321.5973) at www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-321.html#NRS321Sec596. 009o9 (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I've been reluctant to support splitting this article, but after rereading WP:SPLIT I think it's a no-brainer to support the split. The guidelines on splitting an article are: 1) it's long, 2) the content seems to cover multiple, related topics. This article seems to fit both of those. It's so long as to be difficult for a reader to comfortably navigate and there are two distinct content areas: the 20-year dispute/legal battle, and the April 2014 protests/standoff. The former is about the fees, filings and rulings; the latter is about guard dogs, tasers and the 1st Amendment. There is no question about notability here. The 20-year dispute and the protests have both received more than enough press. I'm unaware of any special guidelines for court case notability, but I would argue that lack of precedence or a clear-cut case are not exclusionary to notability.

What needs to be resolved is what to call the two articles. United States v. Bundy might be too limiting for the 20-year dispute article. The standoff/protest article may have to wait until the smoke has cleared before giving it a permanent name. Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems consensus is for the information to remain rather than being split, there have been additions (made to counter O.R. worries) that more directly link these cases to the standoff. As the page is currently protected I have asked for the removal of the tags indicating there is an open discussion on whether they should be split.--Wowaconia (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree. A split of those small sections doesn't make since. I'll propose a split of the entire article below. Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Split proposal - Bundy standoff and Bundy-BLM dispute

No consensus for a split at this time. Most objections are based on recentism. Try again in a few weeks.

Proposal: Split the entire article into: 1) Bundy standoff, and 2) Bundy-BLM dispute. The wp:splitting guidelines on splitting an article are: 1) it's long, 2) the content seems to cover multiple, related topics. This article seems to fit both of those. It's difficult for readers to comfortably navigate the article, this talk page is unwieldy, and there are two distinct content areas: 1) the 20-year dispute/legal battle, and 2) the April 2014 protests/standoff. The former is about the fees, filings and court orders; the latter is about guard dogs, stun-guns and the 1st Amendment. (Note: This proposal grew out of a previous discussion) Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC) I don't think the split is necessary at this time. I suggest we wait until this issue dies off on the news cycle before attempting a split .Cwobeel (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC) The Bundy story will be off the headlines in a few days -- this split proposal discussion will likely run for much longer than that.Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Does not seem like. Cwobeel (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Suggest alternate title Nevada public lands dispute -- the story starts in 1864. The article could be curated without the Bundy media sensationalism, the split could be done after the media-cycle and emotions have cooled.009o9 (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Good points. Agree. Cwobeel (talk) 03:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC) There is already an article Sagebrush rebellion which covers that. The two new split articles can be linked-to from that article. If there is enough Nevada-specific content as part of the Sagebrush rebellion article, then maybe that could be spun off from there, but that should probably be discussed on its talk page. Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Actually the original Nevada Constitution has unique conditions attached to statehood. Additionally, because so much of Nevada was considered unusable at that time odd-ball land deals were negotiated and land earmarked for school-funding could not be sold. The Nevada story predates the Sagebrush Rebellion and Nevada content would quickly overwhelm the article. I'm sure a small section would be added to the Sagebrush Rebellion, but the Constitutional issues seem to put Nevada at the center of the State's Rights movement. Both US v Hage, US v Gardener and US v Bundy would be relevant to a "Nevada public lands dispute" article. Besides, do we really need 3 articles dedicated to single rancher's range conflict? 009o9 (talk) 04:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC) No, we don' need three articles; the proposal is for two articles. Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC) @Sparky82 see article Bundy militia. 009o9 (talk) 05:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC) It's flagged for deletion. Sparkie82 (t•c) 07:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Instead of curating/erasing the Bundy info from this article about Bundy, we can create a separate, general "Nevada public lands dispute(s)" article and transfer this article's two general sections (Grazing on US federal rangeland in Nevada & Similar federal grazing legal cases). KinkyLipids (talk) 04:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC) I agree, the "Nevada public lands dispute" article could also have a section regarding the closing of open grazing lands in Clark County Nevada, which is actually what we are writing about here. I just don't see how we can create anything useful (in the long run)while trying to deal with the current-event drive-by editors, BTW: I thought we had a block on IP editors? 009o9 (talk) 05:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Admins removed all protection on the same day. The IPs don't worry me as much as the 2-month long 1 revert rule. Before I knew it, I had already used up my 1 revert. KinkyLipids (talk) 07:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Oppose split. This is not two articles, or "multiple related topics", it's one topic with a long history. And without that historical context, the article could violate WP:NPOV, as it becomes more about a rancher stealing public grazing land for personal gain and supported by anti-federal militia types engaged in illegal actions against the federal government. And it won't make sense to a general reader. Every article in the press that I've read so far covers the history of this conflict, which I think is a fairly good indication of it's need for context and balance. At some point the US v Bundy situation will probably join closed history along with US v Gardner and US v Hage, and then some judicious merging might be in order. Maybe in a more general article about federal land grazing issues, along the lines of Sagebrush Rebellion. But I think it should stay as a single article for the time being. — Becksguy (talk) 05:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC) There are two different types of readers. The readers who are interested in the guard dogs and the stun-guns at the standoff are less inclined to dig through the legal details and those who are legal wonks may not want to wade through play-by-play of the confrontation. Sparkie82 (t•c) 07:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Oppose split. I agree with Becksguy. The present conflict is incomprehensible without the history, and the legal wrangling is fairly insignificant if not tied to the present conflict, which is likely to end fairly quickly. 06:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)06:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedperl (talk • contribs) The reason it's incomprehensible right now is because it's BIG. If it's split, all the content that ends up in Bundy standoff could be covered in a paragraph or two within the Bundy-BLM dispute and vice versa. Sparkie82 (t•c) 07:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC) If we split it, where should the content go? Put an "x" where you feel the content should go: Where Section Bundy standoff Bundy-BLM dispute comments Background x x United States v. Bundy x Legal actions 1998 to 2012 x Legal actions 2012 to 2014 x Grazing on US federal rangeland in Nevada x also covered elsewhere Federal rangeland laws x also covered elsewhere Federal rangeland grazing regulations x also covered elsewhere Federal rangeland regulatory changes in 1993 x also covered elsewhere Court judgements against Bundy's claims x Claim of inherited grazing rights x Claim of states' rights x BLM actions x Confrontations and protests in April 2014 x April 10 confrontations and protests x April 12 confrontations and suspension of roundup x Aftermath x Reactions by public officials x Reactions by media personalities x Reactions by Bundy and supporters x Legal and rule-of-law reactions x Political commentary reactions x Environmentalist reactions x Wild horse rangeland reactions x Bundy family background x Leavitt family connection x Abbott family connection x Similar federal grazing legal cases x also covered elsewhere United States v Gardner x also covered elsewhere United States v Hage x also covered elsewhere Sparkie82 (t•c) 07:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Oppose Rfc as proposed, Bundy topic does not merit additional article. Federal courts cite Taylor Act of 1934 for imposition of grazing fees on 14 Western States, Nevada Constitution 1864, does not make sense to only go back 21 years. 009o9 (talk) 08:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)009o9 (talk) 08:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Who said we want to only go back 21 years? The article about the April protest will include a background section up front touching on the U.S. purchase from Mexico, BLM's authority, unpaid fees, and court case -- enough to establish the context. It has nothing to due with "merit". The article is too long and there are two areas of content. The areas differ by audience, temporal scope, temporal granularity, and topic. Sparkie82 (t•c) 17:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Strongly Oppose The attempt to split the article seems extremely POV. Since the beginning, Bundy's supporters have tried to separate his decades-long refusal to pay grazing fees from the government's enforcement action. The two are inextricably linked. —Megiddo1013 08:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC) I have an opinion on this topic, but the split proposal is NPOV and based on the article being too long and it having two areas of content. Obviously the protest is linked to the dispute and of course the new protest article will have background to establish context as I explained above. Sparkie82 (t•c) 17:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Oppose The splits are not needed. The article already has all the information needed. Further bloat and issues are caused by pro-Bundy supporters trying to distort or hide revelations that undermine all of their original claims. 173.153.2.89 (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC) The proposal is not to add or subtract any information. It merely puts it into a form that is more readable and navigable. Sparkie82 (t•c) 17:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Oppose for now. We can reconsider after the news cycle cools down. Cwobeel (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC) The proposal has been up for just a few hours. Let's get more comments and discussion from a wider set of WP readers/editors. I'm sure those who have quickly opposed the proposal are acting in good faith and are willing to change their minds upon further discussion. Sparkie82 (t•c) 17:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Oppose for now. The page is long, but not unmanageable in its length, and I doubt that the Bundy-BLM dispute is notable independent of the standoff. bd2412 T 17:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Oppose and agree with BD2412 and others. Bundy is only noted because of the standoff. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Re notability: Prior to the standoff the dispute may or may not have had significant press coverage to gain notability, however, when the standoff happened, the press gave significant coverage to both the long-standing dispute and the protest. For purposes of determining notability, it does not matter what the motivations are as to why the press has decided to give significant coverage to a story, only that there has been significant coverage. The 20-year dispute meets the criterion of WP:N for notability. The term "independence" "independent" in the guideline relates to the independence of the sources from the subject, not to the subject's coverage being independent from the coverage of other subjects. Sparkie82 (t•c) 23:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC) Strong Oppose. There is clearly no split needed at this time. This article is not too long given the complexity and long timeline of the topic. We should at least wait for the result of the AfD on the closely related article Bundy militia before considering a split here, and it may also be best to wait for the media circus to die down as Cwobeel said. At that point, it may be worth considering a split, but I think, as others do, that it would be very difficult to establish notability for the dispute independent of the standoff. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC) I agree we should wait. Let's keep this proposal open for a couple of weeks. The AfD will probably have been decided in that time-frame. And by then maybe the smoke will have cleared somewhat and there will be more comments here other than objections based on recentism. Sparkie82 (t•c) 23:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC) Oppose - The two are fundamentally one and the same. The standoff wouldn't exist absent the legal case. I also oppose the construction "Bundy-BLM dispute" - if renamed to anything, it should be United States v. Bundy, in accordance with other Wikipedia articles about legal cases. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC) Oppose - Per Cwobeel, RedSoxFan2434, and Sparkie82. There's nothing to be lost, and perhaps perspective to be gained, in allowing the dust to settle for a month or two before making the decision. --ChetvornoTALK 18:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Strong Oppose. Per Cwobeel, RedSoxFan2434, and Sparkie82. The entire mess is about Bundy's claims that were dismissed by the courts and we don't need to create additional articles to cover one incident of criminal mischief.Wzrd1 (talk) 16:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Per Sparkie82??? I agree with Cwobeel et. al. that it's probably too soon to consider a split. We can try again in a few weeks when folks can be more objective about it. Sparkie82 (t•c) 18:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Accurate half truths

The second paragraph at present reads

"The ongoing dispute began in 1993, when in protest against changes to grazing rules, Bundy declined to renew his permit for cattle grazing on BLM-administered lands near Bunkerville, Nevada.[2]"

It is true that the dispute arose over "changes to grazing rules" but I think it will be important for posterity that those changes were the introduction of the very grazing fees at the heart of the dispute. Its such a key element in the whole plot that to describe the introduction of grazing fees as simply some change in the rules presents a very blurred view of what actually happenned. Im not much of a wikipedian to know the various rules regarding quoting external sources considered respectable by whoever decides their respectable and all that but I hope someone who knows all that stuff can change this as it does skew the whole story considerably to just describe this key aspect as "change in the rules" in one respect while stating bundy "refused to pay fees" on the other. The half truth here distorts the directness of the connection. Its a bit like saying boston tea partiers destroyed the kings property without even mentioning who harvested the tea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.250.93 (talk) 09:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the changes were not in the fees. In fact the fees have been pretty constant over the years (in the 2 dollar range per AUM)---see various governmental (BLM and CRS) references in this article and in Sagebrush Rebellion. The changes were I believe decreases in the number of AUM's allowed for the specific range area involved due to ecological/environmental BLM assessments (which they are statutorily required to do). Juan Riley (talk) 23:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Jerad Miller

This content was reverted as "original research", though I did no such thing and relied solely on the media sources.[1] The original plus some extra bits for those interested:

Las Vegas "revolution"

On June 8, Jerad and Amanda Miller simultaneously killed two Las Vegas police officers and a civilian before taking their own lives during a shootout with police. During the attack they shouted "this is a revolution", and they covered the bodies of the officer in a Gadsden flag and left a copy of a manifesto bearing a swastika. Their original plan may have been to take over a courthouse and execute public officials. Identified by Al-Jazeera as a rancher in its April 22 coverage of the Bundy protest, the Millers had moved from Indiana to the Las Vegas area in January. They were quoted on Reno television KRNV: "I feel sorry for any federal agents that want to come here and try to push around or anything like that. I really don’t want violence toward them but if their gonna come and bring violence to us, well, if that’s the language they want to speak, we’ll learn it." Miller commented on the issues involved in greater length in social media, and interviewed other protesters at the Bundy ranch.

Interior Secretary Sally Jewell reacted to the shootings, saying "It's very important to bring lawbreakers to justice. There's no question that my colleagues back here, the governors of Western states, do not want people riding roughshod over the landscape ... [Bundy] put our people in grave danger by calling in armed civilians from around the country, and that’s not okay." Carol Bundy said "I have not seen or heard anything from the militia and others who have came to our ranch that would, in any way, make me think they had an intent to kill or harm anyone." Bundy's son said that the couple had been asked to leave the ranch after a few days because they were "very radical" and did not align themselves with the protest's main issues.

Wnt (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

There's lots more coming out about this; I'll try with the new version soon for the heck of it. Wnt (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Not sure about this either in this article. Key phrase: not sure. It would seem at first blush to be more noteworthy in an article on the Miller/Las Vegas shootings...if such exists. Here it might be construed as painting Bundy with every nut case (homicidal or otherwise) who might have verbalized on the Bundy standoff. Juan Riley (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

So far there's no such article. I think it's fully appropriate to have here though, because the person was interviewed at the protests as representative of their demands, because the Interior Secretary has commented on Bundy in reference to this, and because the Bundy family has responded to that. Any one of these would be enough. I think it is even likely that these shootings will have a determining role in the outcome of this event - if the Bundy protests are really as they say the Tiananmen Square of the U.S., then this may be the equivalent of the point where some of the people in China attacked a military shipment and stole weapons, leaving the way clear for a severe reaction. Wnt (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

And apparently folks at the Bundy Ranch soon ostracized the Millers. And that latter part of your argument is indeed OR (to put it mildly). Juan Riley (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Which is why it's on the talk page. Unfortunately, the basic facts, that many sources describe this in reference to the Bundy case doesn't seem to be all that is being considered. I think I was pretty fair in including the Bundy reaction, though any future prowl through the news may change that overall balance of statements. Wnt (talk) 01:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, my sentence about the simultaneous killing of the two officers was based on the source. However, I admit that as I left it I wasn't clear that the civilian may have died at a different time. The first report I read called him a bystander, but now there is a version that he challenged the husband when he was coming into Walmart and the wife got him by surprise. Wnt (talk) 01:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Millers murders

I don't agree that Jerad Miller should redirect here. It deserves its own page. Cwobeel (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I set that up because it should turn up something. You're more than welcome to start an article on the shootings. Be aware though that whenever people start articles on recent events, they get swamped by some people who like to cite "WP:NOTNEWS" without reading what it actually says who think Wikipedia has to be out of date. I'll give you a vote when the time comes, but I can just about guarantee you it'll be an AfD fight. I know, it's annoying and stupid, I'm just telling you how I've seen it happen. Wnt (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

extra source?

http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/Federal_Land_Showdown_147565925.html

Is this useful? (I decline to be involved in this article myself, but I feel that this might be a useful source.) DS (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It shows that the goverment's re-filing of the 2012 case was done at the urging and request of the Clark County Sheriff's Office. This is an important fact given Gillespie's dereliction of duty in the 2014 confrontation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.236.94 (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Bundy's comment about blacks and slavery

Bundy's comments about blacks have nothing to do with the standoff, let alone worthy of mention in the summary, of which a significant portion is devoted. This article is titled: Bundy Standoff. It should remain true to its title. I'm disappointed the summary isn't allowed to be edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2:5880:0:68BC:309D:1BC3:7FAA (talk) 04:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

It was later revealed that the New York Times had selectively edited his speech, taking it out of context and focusing on Mr. Bundy's use of the word "Negro". I feel this should be noted, preferably after the last line in the opening which does appear to be of hostile intent to sour the reader's opinion of the subject before even reading the article.

216.145.88.33 (talk) 02:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree to the extent that it shouldn't be included in the lede, but should be included in the body.Skberry889 (talk) 11:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Why should it be included in the body if it has nothing to do with the standoff? Starchild (talk) 04:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Those citations though

This page has four [citation needed] notes, and yet in the intro there are eight citations for one paragraph. Maybe we could move some of them down below where we need more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:F00:19E:8199:27AA:529E:2C51 (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Mass grave?

Why no mention of the mass grave of dead cattle, (allegedly healthy cattle killed by BLM) that was found and dug up. There are multiple videos of it and dozens, if not hundreds of articles on it as well; one example found here. This is oddly absent from the article... - ^theWOLFchild 04:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Is the Bundy family history really relevant?

It's three paragraphs of family history that is neither important to the article or even on a wider historical scale. The article is already far too long as it is, so I believe this is a good candidate for deletion. 2602:304:CEEE:B700:485A:30F1:721C:45EB (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Should Cliven Bundy biographical material be split?

Cliven Bundy currently redirects to this article, which serves partly as a biographical article for Bundy. That's typical for people known only for one event, especially when that event is a matter of controversy. However, there is news now that Bundy's sons may be involved in another violent land dispute, although Cliven Bundy himself may not be. Should the material on Mr. Bundy's life outside the land dispute be split out to a full Cliven Bundy article? I'm in favor of a split, for the record, but I'd like to see what others think.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.98.115 (talk) 05:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Support split per nom. MB298 (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

"Support" split, suggest the new article be titled to refer to the Bundy Family rather than just Bundy himself as I suspect it will soon be filled with more information on his sons current activities. 4.15.125.75 (talk) 05:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Support - I too like the idea of a Bundy Family page. I believe Ammon Bundy is carrying the torch of his group and will deserve his own page soon, so a Family page seems apt for both Cliven and Ammon, et al. Leitmotiv (talk) 07:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose for now the topic is in the news cycle again, very difficult to get anything done in a fluid atmosphere and complexity increases with multiple articles to maintain. See also several failed split proposals above. 009o9 (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Subsequent mall shooting

The mall shooting two weeks later, perpetrated by two of the people involved with the stand-off. Why isn't this mentioned in the article? Am I missing something? --RThompson82 (talk) 09:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe that it was in at one time and reevaluated. The only connection turned out to be that they were asked to leave the Bundy Ranch and nothing places them at the standoff, only the ranch afterward. Las Vegas Shooting Couple Had Been Booted From Bundy Ranch as 'Too Radical' (ABCNews) 009o9 (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

name of the article is terrible

Certainly isn't how it is referred to any news report I've read. Let's get something more encyclopedic? 98.67.188.224 (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Updating unclear dates

Several sections of this article say things like "still" and "In April" without giving a date when it was written. April when? April 2015? Needs to be edited. (And I suggest avoiding using unclear language like this when adding dates here in future edits, and elsewhere on wikipedia.) I don't know enough about the details of this case to feel confident about editing, hopefully someone who knows more can clean things up.

4.15.125.75 (talk) 05:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The infobox (top right of the article) clearly states "Confrontation: April 5, 2014 – May 2014". These are likely also the dates of the BLM closure for the trespass cattle roundup. The word "still" occurs one time in the article body, but is not in context to a date and "In April" only occurs one time, in the section heading "5 Confrontations and protests in April 2014". I agree that the article is a train wreck, but not seeing where you are having a problem with identifying a year. 009o9 (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Permits section

There is information missing on why Bundy refused to renew his grazing permit. The article is currently getting tens of thousands of reads per day, I'm not interested in getting involved in a bunch of drama with a bold edit. I just thought I'd leave this here for review/consensus/historical -- this can certainly wait until the news cycle goes elsewhere. 009o9 (talk) 06:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Permits section

Under Bureau of Land Management permits first issued in 1954, Bundy grazed his cattle legally and paid his grazing fees on the Bunkerville Allotment until 1993. In that year, the BLM reduced his permit to 150 head of cattle for the coming decade on the 158,666 acre allotment, in protest, Bundy did not renew his permit. Bundy's refusal paved the way for Clark County to purchase all of the Gold Butte allotment grazing permits for $375,000, which where then retired, as authorized by the Clark County Habitat Conversation Plan, of which the BLM became a signatory of in 1991. In an April 9, 2014, town-hall meeting with fellow residents, Bundy stated: "I know without doubt that our Constitution didn't provide for anything like the federal government owning this land, and so when I pay my grazing fees -- if I owe any grazing fees -- I will sure pay it to the right landlord, and that will be to Clark County, Nevada." The BLM made several attempts to have Bundy renew the permit, the rancher declared that he no longer recognized the BLM's authority to regulate his grazing and he asserted that he had "vested rights" to graze cattle on the land. He also claims that the remedy to the government is to provide a fence, as per Nevada State Law. Federal courts have consistently ruled against Bundy, finding that he is a trespasser with no right to graze on federal land and authorized the BLM to remove his cattle and levy damages for unauthorized use. Bundy has since accumulated more than $1 million of unpaid grazing fees and court-ordered fines. The Portland Oregonian newspaper reported in May 2014 that the amount that Bundy owed stood in "stark contrast" to the situation in Oregon, where just 45 of the state's roughly 1,100 grazing permit holders collectively owed $18,759 in past-due payments to the BLM. Excluding Bundy's unpaid fees, the total of all late grazing fees owed nationwide to the BLM was only $237,000, the newspaper said.

Discussion of proposed changes to Permits section

I see why 009o9 wants to expand this section. There was an event that caused Bundy to stop applying for permits, viz: the BLM reduced the number of permitted cattle. What you wrote after that is an attempt to very briefly tell a confusing story. What I have gleaned is this sketchy knowledge:

• It is a fragile environment with an endangered species.
• The federal government and Clark County are collaborating on reducing the amount of grazing, the county buys up unused grazing rights and keeps them out of circulation.
• The number of cows grazing is not well known. The government relies on aerial surveys. Bundy does not keep track, many of the cattle are not branded but Bundy claims them if they graze in the same areas as his branded ones.

From reading the references you provided that seems to me to be the gist of it. It is not clear to me how much of this story to put in this article, or even if I have it right. The references provide a jumble of particulars. And a better article would put this in context. Did the reduction to 150 cattle cover the entire land that Bundy used, or only a part? What do Bundy's complaints about a lack of a fence have to do with it? The jumble of geographic names don't seem to refer to disjoint entities. I completely agree with you about adding this. I also feel more work is needed to find the encyclopedia synopsis of the story. M.boli (talk) 13:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@M.boli This is an extremely deep and interesting topic, at its core dating back to water-wars and the conflict between established cattle ranchers and nomadic sheep herders. What I've added above barely scratches the surface.

• Bundy was the "last rancher standing" by his own accord, I believe there were over 20 grazing permits for the Gold Butte allotment, where all of the cattle co-mingled (open range). I haven't found a source, but I'd guess the prior grazing permits allowed between 500-1000 head of cattle, so it is likely the allotment has supported grazing for 10,000 to 20,000 head of cattle. I believe that the entire roundup yielded less than 400 cattle, regardless of brand and they were all returned to Bundy. 150 head of cattle, on 150,000 acres of land seems pretty prohibitive and since it takes 2 to 3 years for a steer to reach market-weight, 50 sales will not support a ranching operation.
• Nevada's open land fence-out law applies to land owners who for instance want to keep open range cattle/horses out of their garden, it is the land owner's responsibility to provide a fence rather than sue the rancher. The reference I provided [8] from the University of Nevada Cooperative Extension is the most informative. The Federal government claims to own the land, but has also found that it is not bound the the state's fence-out law.
• There are many terms in this debate which are used interchangeably, when in fact they are not. The "Public Lands" and the "Federal Lands" are two different terms, the public lands are unappropriated lands that are available for sale (disposal to pay the federal debt), this largely refers to the Homestead Act. The Federal Lands have been appropriated for some other purpose, this is important because the terms of Nevada's admittance to statehood (and the other western states) grant the unappropriated lands tax free status, with the understanding that they would become taxable when sold/appropriated. Additionally, the government relies on the Property clause Article Four, section 3, clause 2 for it's ownership claims, but the clause clearly uses the term "Territories". Nevada is no longer a territory, the Nevada Territory was divided into several states. Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution describes the the types of properties that the Federal government may own, but more important than that is that is that the clause names "where" the Fed has jurisdiction.[2] The State of Nevada has ceded jurisdiction to the government sites that concern "Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;", however, the parks and forests are absent from those state laws that cede jurisdiction, so it is understandable why the citizens of the state feel that the BLM and the Federal Courts have no jurisdiction over these lands within their state. Here is a pretty good overview, but way too much to include in this article. [3]009o9 (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Righto. Thank you muchly!

• It seems to me it would be a useful addition to this article to explain about the economic pressure that was being put on Bundy by the decisions, that he was the last rancher, and so forth. Right now the article reads like his reaction to the 150 cattle restriction was an ideological decision. But if signing the lease 20 years ago would have put him out of business, it should be mentioned.
• Similarly, the reason for the restrictions on grazing could also be mentioned. It's not like the government made up an arbitrary limit possibly for the express purpose of putting him out of business.
• I wonder whether there is an existing Wikipedia article that covers most of the historical and legal context material? Maybe the grazing rights in Nevada article? If not, should there be one? And this material should be linked to in more places from this article?

M.boli (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

Closing this up, got kind of off topic, the law rather than this article 009o9 (talk) 06:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC) The above interpretation of the Property Clause is very novel and interesting, but not supported by any legal precedent. In fact, it's explicitly rejected by countless rulings of every federal court up to and including the United States Supreme Court. The Property Clause gives the federal government plenary power to own land - note the clear and direct phrasing Territory or other Property belonging to the United States and grants exclusively to Congress the power to determine how that land will be managed. Article I enumerates places where the federal government may maintain exclusive jurisdiction, but does not limit where the federal government may own and manage land in its own right. As for the fact that federally-owned lands are not subject to state taxes, the Nevada Constitution is not controlling here, and it has nothing to do with "unappropriated" or "appropriated" lands. Rather, the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution is – the Supremacy Clause has been interpreted to prohibit state taxation of federal entities for nearly 200 years, since the landmark 1819 case, McCulloch v. Maryland, in which the Supreme Court rejected an attempt by the State of Maryland to levy a tax on the Second Bank of the United States. Under the United States Constitution, the state of Nevada may not impose a tax on a federal government entity in any manner. Similarly, Nevada's "fence-out" laws do not apply to federal lands, because federal laws restricting uses of federal lands supersede any contrary state regulation, again in accordance with the Supremacy Clause. There may not be a state cause of action, but there may certainly be a federal cause of action for cattle trespassing on federal land. Nevada's laws cannot permit on federal land what federal laws or regulations have prohibited. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Laws can be changed, Congress can override Supreme Court opinions, which is what they are, opinions on the intent of the Framers or the Congress. The Sagebrush rebellion is an effort to get Congress to hear about the cases of overreach by Cabinet Agencies and clarify the intent of the law. Congress is the supreme body here and can override Supreme Court decisions, the President's veto and define what the meaning of "Unappropriated Public Lands" (per the disclaimer agreements) means. Anyway, we are here to discuss the article, not the law, I was providing the opinion of the dissenters for background. 009o9 (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC) BTW: there also has to be an example case to be heard before Congress, or the Supreme Court before they will act. Most just accept the ruling of the unelected agencies, Bundy is one of the few that has taken a stand and gotten the public's and legislator's attention. 009o9 (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Additional @NorthBySouthBaranof Here is an interesting FYI interpretation from McCulloch v. Maryland: "The States have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to impede or in any manner control any of the constitutional means employed by the U.S. government to execute its powers under the Constitution. This principle does not extend to property taxes on the property of the Bank of the United States, nor to taxes on the proprietary interest which the citizens of that State may hold in this institution, in common with other property of the same description throughout the State."[4] Emphasis mine. 009o9 (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC) See Van Brocklin v. Tennessee (117 U.S. 151) (1886) in which the Supreme Court expressly expanded the principle to state clearly that Property of the United States is exempt by the Constitution of the United States from taxation under the authority of a state. The argument that "laws and rulings can change" is true, but inconsequential to our writing of encyclopedia articles. It would be speculative crystal-balling to make up hypotheticals of what would be true if laws and rulings were other than as they are today. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC) This is probably the most authoritative answer, the DOI pays Payments In Lieu of Taxes (PILT). [5] For 2015, Clark County received $3,304,679 on a base of 4,820,723 acres, or $1.46 per acre for the year.[6] Curiously, the PILT began in 1976, the same year of the FLPMA and the end of the Homestead Act. More research is needed to see if there is a direct connection with the appropriation of the unappropriated lands. 009o9 (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC) Yes, Payments In Lieu of Taxes are a voluntary program enacted by Congress in recognition of the impact federal land ownership has on local tax bases. As it is a Congressionally-enacted program dependent on annual appropriations from Congress, the amount fluctuates year to year, notably when payments were reduced by the Congressionally-enacted sequestration budget cuts. But PILT could go away tomorrow and it wouldn't have any impact on the federal government's ownership and control of real property. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Bundy militia's demand(s)

Regarding our article about the Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge please consider commenting at that article's talk page on the question "Should we say anything more about Public Lands Privatization and demand feds cede ownership?"NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Citations in the lead

Why are sources needed in the lead? The information is basically repeated in the rest of the article. Besides, a lead is a summary. 100.12.206.17 (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• First, I don't understand the desire to take sources out of the lede. Material should be sourced, if you depend on people to search for the sources later in the article you are not doing them any favors. Especially in a long article like this.
• Furthermore you are leaving open the possibility that when the other parts of the article are edited, the material in the lede is rendered sourceless.
• I also note that this article is on a controversial and recent topic. WP:CITELEAD is pretty clear that these are good reasons to keep cites in the lede.
• Personally, I favor the style which moves the cites to the end of sentences or several sentences. I understand that they somewhat break up the flow of the text.

On the other hand, I can see how what you are doing improves the reading experience. Which is a good thing to want to do. So maybe we can gather up the cites and put them at the ends of paragraphs? Or maybe I am just being too much of an academic. M.boli (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@M.boli: Yes, this can work too, although the cites shouldn't only be in the lead. That is my main issue with the cites; otherwise, I am fine with them. 100.12.206.17 (talk) 04:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Criminal complaint with all six charges

I don't have time to add all six charges to the standoff article, but FYI here is the criminal complaint. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that, but the indictment only covers Cliven Sr., by name. There were fourteen more arrests made, including of two more sons, after Ryan and Ammon's arrests in Oregon. I'll post the article. Also, I was under the impression that Cliven Jr. was in prison in Ely, NV, for burglary and other offenses, during the standoff, but he is listed in the infobox. Activist (talk) 08:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

RSs regarding LaVoy Finicum

We know that Finicum made reference to the standoff after it was over, but was he there or otherwise supporting the standoff at the time? Does anyone know of RSs to verify this? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Bundy standoff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/04/the-not-so-jolly-rancher-106117_full.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2014/05/rancher_cliven_bundys_grazing.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/bundy-blm/blm-s-next-move-against-bundy-not-matter-if-when-former-officials-say
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.reuters.com/photographers-blog/2014/04/23/nevada-showdown/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.forbes.com/sites/jjmacnab/2014/05/09/context-matters-the-cliven-bundy-standoff-part-4/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/bundy-ranch-uncensored
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thenation.com/blog/179655/why-right-obsessed-castration
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2014/04/30/back-at-the-bundy-ranch-its-oath-keepers-vs-militiamen-as-wild-rumors-fly/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2014/04/30/back-at-the-bundy-ranch-its-oath-keepers-vs-militiamen-as-wild-rumors-fly/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2014/apr/20/bundy-no-victor/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140515130954/http://gawker.com/bundy-ranchs-armed-defenders-seek-welfare-to-sit-around-1574052982 to http://gawker.com/bundy-ranchs-armed-defenders-seek-welfare-to-sit-around-1574052982

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Racism discussion in lede

I have reverted a bold edit by Bongey (talk · contribs) which removed from the lede a graf discussing Cliven Bundy's racist comments and the impact they had on his public support. I think it's worthy of being discussed in the lede precisely because they did cause many one-time supporters to distance themselves from Bundy. However, if there's a general consensus that the material doesn't belong there, I will of course yield to that determination, so let's discuss the subject here and see what other editors think. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Details in the body, concise summary in the lead. Wikipedia SOP NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Because it is hearsay/off topic. The problem is the comments were not said during the actual standoff, and the article is about the standoff.The standoff officially ended April 12, 2014. Comments were made sometime after that in a press conference about the stand off. http://www.newsweek.com/us-officials-end-stand-nevada-rancher-cliven-bundy-246038 --Bongey (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Stockman letter

Is there any reason whatsoever to discuss Congressman Steve Stockman's letter? Congressmen write letters on all manner of topics, and there is no reason to believe that this one is particularly significant. No reliable sources even covered the letter. And a letter is less significant if written by only one member (as opposed to letters signed by a number of members, which often do get noteworthy coverage). Neutrality^talk 19:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality: I reverted a recent deletion. The sourcing that had been tagged as "questionable" is from Western Journalism, a Christian conservative site that gets a million daily hits, and is focused on news. It's a subsidiary of Liftable Media, which notes it has a staff of 70 persons. The cited story contains a clear copy PDF of the actual letter sent by then-Representative, Christian conservative Steve Stockman (currently awaiting a trial on 28 counts of fraud and campaign finance violations rescheduled until January 2018) to president Obama and Interior Secretary Sally Jewell. There's nothing inherently unreliable about Western Journalism and the deleted text contained a phrase from the first paragraph of the widely quoted letter. Activist (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The size of a publication's staff, the number of Internet hits, and a focus on news are all not relevant to reliability. ("Liftable Media" is also a self-described "a digital media company" rather than journalistic organization; the majority of their staff are presumably not reporters). (And this community college library-guide, for instance, indicates that "Western Journalism" propagates fake stories; this gives an example of the website promoting hoax stories.)

But in any case, the question is not just reliability (I don't doubt that Stockman genuinely wrote that letter), but WP:WEIGHT. This letter, from a single congressman, got no substantial coverage. I question how noteworthy it is on this topic. Maybe it is worthy of a mention at Steve Stockman, but not here. Neutrality^talk 19:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The comments from Congressional delegations are pertinent on their own, I think, but reflect a broader national issue and stayed in the article for years. Reactions to the Bundy standoff marked a deep public opinion divide. Nevada Republican Governor Sandoval downplayed the legitimacy of the federal government's role in something as basic as managing public lands in the public interest. Harry Reid on the other hand accentuated it. Two out-of-state congressmen weighed in on the issue, supporting the Bundy's, including Charles Stewart from Utah and Steve Stockman from east Texas. The congressman in the District, Democrat Steve Horsford sided with the government in 2014 and lost his apparently secure seat to a weak Republican candidate that fall in which their positions on the standoff may have affected the close outcome of the vote. His successor, Crescent Hardy, lost to a Democrat in 2016. Neil Kornze, the BLM Director, promoted from within in December 2013 before the standoff, is a native Nevadan who previously was a land issues expert on Reid's staff. Western Journalism certainly does have an ideological perspective, but the cited story was as straight reporting as a box score. The cite you gave for its problems (and thanks for looking it up) came from a longer story in PolitiFact, which rated the Florida "Sharia Law" vote to be "Pants-on-fire," untrue. http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2014/may/08/blog-posting/florida-democrats-just-voted-impose-sharia-law-wom/ I've regularly corrected reporters (and usually received thanks for my tips) from some of the biggest print and broadcast outlets. All media have a problems with the facts at times. Think "Saddam's WMD's" in the "paper of record," the NY Times, i.e., in which Judith Miller (with Michael Gordon sharing the byline) shared pure White House propaganda for a year or so, if memory serves. Things will get worse given their ridding themselves of copy editors. After your comment I brought the Stockman page current, by the way. I half expected that he might get indicted for campaign finance violations ages ago, especially after he hired a staffer from Western Tradition Partnership/American Tradition Partnership, back in 2013, which may have also involved nepotism. Activist (talk) 01:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bundy standoff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25395552/i-team-police-faced-possible-bloodbath-at-bundy-protest
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140507030809/http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25255522/political-cause-growing-in-bundys-dispute-with-blm to http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25255522/political-cause-growing-in-bundys-dispute-with-blm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Revert explanation

I have reverted this edit because it amounts to unsourced POV and speculation. There are no reliable sources which have reported any claim that any BLM employee acted wrongfully, much less criminally, during the standoff, and therefore it is entirely inappropriate to create the suggestion or intimation that such was the case. It amounts to a false equivalency which cannot be permitted here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

This comment was based on a 180 opposite reading of the revert history. I struck it after my error was pointed out. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)Statements that "X has not happened" or "There are no sources" must still comply with WP:VERIFICATION. I doubt very much that there any genuinely reliable sources which say "NewsAndEventsGuy has not yet been charged with pedophilia", and by the same token, I doubt there are any RSs which say BLM officials have not yet - repeat yet - been "charged with exceeding their Constitutional authority, reckless endangerment, or other crimes." Even if such RSs did exist, we still can't say stuff like that because of the restrictions in WP:BLP. Your text just waved hands and arms with ambiguous reference to "any" BLM people, but our article has the names of the main BLM players. What you meant was those specific people have not been charged....................yet. WP:BLPCRIME prohibits the imputation of criminal wrongdoing of this sort. Finally, please refrain from "casting aspersions", such as auto-accusing people of POV when you get reverted. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

You have this precisely backward. Every part of Wikipedia must be reliably sourced. The section I removed contains no sources, much less any sources which support the statement that there is any reason to suggest that any BLM officials did anything criminal such as "exceeding their Constitutional authority, reckless endangerment, or other crimes." The section I have removed is clearly intended to create such an intimation, by speculating about various possible alleged "crimes" that "nobody has been charged with" and which no reliable source has said anything about. Your hand-waving yet nonsense is just that - nonsense. There is no reason to mention purported crimes which have no foundation in fact or sources. Furthermore, I have redacted your disturbing personal attack by way of "comparison" - making any statement about a Wikipedia editor and the word you used is quite simply unacceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Apologies! My god you're right, I had it backwards. I thought I was removing the offending text but - dope! - I actually restored it after you already removed. Thank you for catching that. I also apologize for using your name instead of my own in making the rhetorical point why BLPCRIME is a problem. That was an illustration of the principle, not a NPA vio, but I did change the name to my own. Bottom line... guess I was working too quickly when I did this one. Apologies. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality

The article as written is badly biased in favor of the Feds by making the Bundys sound like simple scofflaws who do not have any legal justification for their actions. The fact of multiple state legislatures effectively agreeing with their position should be included in the lede of the article. I tried to add this material, but someone keeps deleting it. Starchild (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there should be some brief mention of Bundy's position in the lede (that the federal government doesn't have authority over public lands), but I disagree that it should be so extensive as to get into who has argued what on each side — that would very quickly get unwieldy, because we would then have to mention the numerous scholars and others who don't agree with their position. That's not appropriate for the lede - any detailed discussion should be in the body text; I suggest the existing Bundy standoff#Claim of states' rights section. Moreover, the fact is that Bundy's arguments — and all arguments like them — have been repeatedly rejected by federal courts for nigh on two centuries at this point. His claim is a fringe theory and if we mention it, we are required to mention that it is, quite simply, not in accordance with any jurisprudence of the modern United States. He can argue anything he wants, but the law says otherwise, and the multiple legal decisions against him are amply cited here. His worldview is discussed here extensively, but we cannot in any way, shape or form present it as if it has legal merit. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate you moving at least part of what I wrote to a different section and not simply deleting it altogether. However here you mention "federal courts", but in the article you refer to state AND federal courts rejecting arguments that federal ownership of lands for wilderness, grazing, etc. is unconstitutional. I deleted the reference to state courts as I found no mention of adverse state court decisions in the sources cited.Starchild (talk) 04:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarchildSF (talk • contribs) 04:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

By the way, it is unsurprising that federal court judges, appointed by the president of the United States, tend to side with the federal government. This should never be taken as proof that the claims about the lack of constitutional authority for federal ownership of vast tracts of land in the United States outside the District of Columbia are wrong. Starchild (talk) 04:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, yes, it is. Under the rule of law and the American Constitutional system, judges rule what the Constitution and the law means, and that ruling is legal fact. Some people may disagree with the ruling, but it is legal fact that the federal government has Constitutional authority over the federal public lands. We treat that decision as fact, while noting that some disagree. This is just as we treat the ruling in Citizens United v. FEC as legal fact, no matter whether or not we agree or disagree with its outcome. If you disagree with the judges, your argument needs to be in court, not on Wikipedia. Wikipedia relies upon reliable sources and treats arguments with the weight given to them in reliable sources. Reliable sources note what the courts say, and so do we. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Being "legal fact" is not the same thing as being historically correct, fair, or true, and these things should not be falsely conflated.

As evidence of the article's bias, I note the inclusion in the lede of a paragraph about Bundy's racist remark (which another commenter here says was taken out of context, although I have not looked into that) that slavery would have been better for blacks than federal dependency, which had nothing to do with the article topic (and certainly was not relevant as part of a "brief summary of the article" as you say the lede should be). I moved it to a different section, although as noted it arguably isn't relevant to the article at all. Starchild (talk) 05:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, your argument needs to be with the courts, not with Wikipedia. Questions of law are determined by judges and justices in the American Constitutional system of government. Whether or not a law is compliant with the Constitution is a subject for judicial review, and there's two centuries of unbroken jurisprudence on this subject. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs that you perceive somewhere. We document the world as it is, not as some people wish it to be. I'm sure Bundy sincerely believes what he believes. But what he believes is simply, as a matter of law, wrong. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with Wikipedia, only with those contributors who may disagree with me. There is a difference between a court's opinion being legally binding and that opinion being legally correct. Courts for many years upheld racial segregation in the U.S., but although their decisions were viewed as legally binding at the time, they are now seen as having been legally (as well as morally) wrong and a violation of Constitutional rights. Starchild (talk) 05:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

”Effectively agreeing”? I’m on my exercise bike and iPad so can’t write much, but we need sources that mention the standoff or we are doing original research, which we of course can’t use in the article and shouldn’t be arguing here. Doug Weller talk 06:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Starchild, in this edit you got some legal terminology wrong, and it's key to why the argument you're making doesn't mean what you think it means. The ruling refers to "jurisdiction," not "sovereignty" and those words mean different things. The Enclave Clause refers to areas of federal exclusive jurisdiction, in which states have no regulatory or police power, such as military bases, etc. It is correct that federal "enclaves" cannot be created without state permission. However, the vast majority of public lands are not claimed as such enclaves. Rather, they are areas of concurrent jurisdiction, where the federal government is a proprietary landowner within a state. This means that states have jurisdiction over criminal law, wildlife management, etc. on such public lands so long as they do not conflict with federal law. However, as the proprietary landowner, the federal government has plenary power to determine what to do with that land - whether to sell it or keep it, whether to allow or forbid any activity or action, how to manage it, etc. This power is without limitation under the Property Clause and states cannot supersede such regulations because, of course, the Supremacy Clause makes federal authority superior to that of the states. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@StarchildSF: Skimming thru the dialogue, I noticed your statement above that "This should never be taken as proof that..." This succinctly flags the core problem here. Wikipedia editors are not concerned with "proof". To be concerned with proof means sifting through stuff and arguments and writeups and making a by god decision what the truth is. As Doug already mentioned, we are forbidden from engaging in WP:Original research of this sort. Instead, we neutrally report what reliable sources of say. Often we use inline attribution and try to watch out for stating facts in WP:Wikivoice. Anything else is using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX. In a nutshell then, see our essay Verifiability, not truth. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Constitutional authority to manage public lands owned by the state

I'm a little confused. I've been attempting to clean up the article for foul language, but I'm getting flak from certain individuals who seem to not understand the Constitution. Article I, Section VIII, Clause XVII states the following:

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;

I'm not sure how this exactly applies to what is happening in Nevada. This section applies only to the seat of the government. It actually clearly states that it cannot be used for the purposes of "Exclusively Legistlating" in other federally owned lands, only the 10x10 square. My edits were removed, and I'm going to add them back in, but I want to hear from people on how the Constitution provides this freedom. The article mentions the supreme court, but lists no verdict. If there was a verdict, it would be supreme law of the land in the absence of Constitutionally provided powers. This crisis is getting more relevant in the current information trends, so it is important to be clear on this issue.

But yeah, don't revert my edits if you're not going to back up your claims. I backed up mine, show some respect. I'm getting tempted to become vulgar. And another thing, stop being rude when referencing Cliven Bundy, this website demands NPOV and I will see to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:6520:2AB:4164:E378:5AB7:E1D1 (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Your argument is not supported by any case law, and has in fact been explicitly rejected by an array of Supreme Court cases. Wikipedia is not the place to argue your personal point of view. Please read the cited sources which explain the issue in detail. Any additions to the article need to be supported by reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

To be specific, Cameron v. United States is on point. The section of the Constitution you cite refers to areas under exclusive jurisdiction; that is, outside of any state jurisdiction. Meanwhile, the Property Clause gives Congress the power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.. This clause gives Congress plenary authority over lands owned by the United States (property) - to sell them or to make rules about how they can be used. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that, Baranof, but you just simply don't understand. I know the process, I try to fix it, you revert it, I try again and get banned from making edits because you have a name (And likely a reputation to uphold). I cleaned up the vulgar attitude people were using in certain parts of the article, but you want them in there, for what purpose I don't know. Thank you overlord Baranof. With your help, a large portion of Americans will be alienated from the norm for believing in the act of National Defense through the Militia under 10 U.S.C. §311. You help make America less prepared, defensively speaking.

It really shows your character when you simply revert. You display the lack of ability to comprehend and modify my other arguments. The article mentions Sovereign Citizen Movement, which initially only existed in the minds of the FBI and DHS, but now exists as a CONCEPT in the minds of millions of Americans. You didn't need a source for that, even though I could give one to you. So yeah, I'm just gonna get a little vulgar and simply state "********". And yes, at least we both agree that "The section of the Constitution you cite refers to areas under exclusive jurisdiction; that is, outside of 'any' state jurisdiction.". Thank you for restating my point. You simply forgot the 10 square miles part, and also the seat of the government part. What federally owned land is approximately 10 square miles and is host to the seat of the government? I'll give you a hint, it's on the main land.

I respect portions of your wisdom, regardless. I can't express enough, however, how depressed your candor makes a person such as myself feel. I started #OperationTorchLight, for example, as a way to identify hatred and bigotry that the group Anonymous was using to rally further support. I soon realized that the mechanics I was observing in human-human communications were generic, so I localized the target information streams to a few subject keywords. Namely, anything to do with populism, Anonymous, and other small facets of reality. By "joining" the group Anonymous (There is no joining, there is only be, or be not) I was able to unravel the false truth the hacktivists within it were trying to propagate, in that there is not always something wrong with something that seems so evil. The operation, of course, is over, but in this way I am more experienced than you. I have seen people repeat the stupidest baloney that they hear on TV, and then augment it with more stupid baloney they themselves come up with, further locking it down. They think it's their thoughts they're thinking (Sorry for the tongue twister), but I swear to god it is not the truth of the matter. It's a goddamned fact, but you won't see that on Wikipedia.

Operation Torch Light is the root of the reason I am here. You just don't know what you're doing, even though you have facts to corroborate certain nonsense. NPOV is, by all evidences, a way to silence the truth. So "**********" again. You won't be bothered by me anymore, and I know it is a relief for you, but I sincerely hope you reflect on this. There IS a need to battle in the cyber environment, to defeat all enemies in the virtual battlespace, because of the victimization created by others and effected heavily by users such as yourself, though perhaps through no fault of your own. You display to me how victimized you are. I have that wisdom. You have yours. I hope you can at least take the time to understand the points I was attempting to make, and seeing as you are the only one able to edit this Wikipedia article currently, perhaps augment and correct the information I was battling with.

You will forget me in an hour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:6520:2AB:5977:755F:381A:BFB0 (talk) 05:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, consider this a good-bye present - http://thewashingtonstandard.com/bombshells-bundy-ranch-case-government-witness-confirms-bundys-claims/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:6520:2AB:5977:755F:381A:BFB0 (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm back, and please consider this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#In_response_to_the_Bundy_Standoff_article

Just know that I'm happy to debate this with you in the name of the truth. Don't take me for uneducated. You simply got me with the property clause, something I'm willing to admit. Nothing else you corrected is something that should have been corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:6520:2AB:ED40:86EE:8769:A539 (talk) 02:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

You appear to be arguing about social theory and political philosophy, not the contents of this article. You haven't presented any sources contradicting claims in the article, or questioned the validity of any sources used to support claims in the article. You haven't pointed out any specific claims in the article that violate a neutral point of view. This isn't a forum to discuss the issue, it's a place to discuss how to improve the article. Your own personal opinions and ideas on the subject are not important. Unless you can point out some specific issue, backed up by reliable sources, the POV tag should be removed. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm detagging it, its clear the consensus here is there is not a neutrality issue. Unless the IP can come up with specific examples and sources to back up why its not neutral, there is no evidence its required. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The link to reference #12 has changed to this: https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/local-nevada/environmentalists-bunkerville-rancher-bundy-is-freeloading/

The following reference to third party work in the article strikes me as retarded (In the cynical sense): “The issuance of a grazing permit does not confer any right to graze or right to own the land,” they wrote. “The Secretary (of the Interior) is free reasonably to determine just how, and the extent to which, ‘grazing privileges’ shall be safeguarded in light of the Act’s basic purposes.

Do as you will. Obviously the permit was restricted, just saying. - Percy

Correct placement of article as reference

Would it be better to place the following reference to the release of Ammon Bundy in this article, or the Malheur refuge takeover article, or both? I don't want to rock the boat, I just think it should be added: http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2017/11/ammon_bundy_free_on_house_arre.html

Under the title of "2016 Burns, Oregon standoff" I think it should clarify if it was Clive, Ryan, or Ammon that wrote onto Facebook? Confusing under the statement that all share same last name.208.53.115.151 (talk) 08:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Reverted removal of material

I have reverted the undiscussed and poorly-justified removal of longstanding, reliably-sourced material from this article. There is extensive discussion in reliable sources of links between the events, and the perpetrators were briefly *resident* at the Bundy compound. The claim that the events are entirely unrelated is simply refuted by the cited reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

It reads as a smear attempt. It attempts to tie one person's actions to the previous actions of another person, and nearly 5,000 bytes are dedicated to it. That's a ridiculous amount of space to give something that is, at best, tangentially related to the "Bundy Standoff." BudJillett (talk) 06:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

That may justify some trimming and tightening of the section; that wouldn't justify removing it entirely. Your view of it as a "smear attempt" isn't supported by anything in the reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

It reads as a smear attempt due to its placement and weight given, not necessarily because of the sources. I agree it *at least* needs some trimming. BudJillett (talk) 06:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

It's in a section entitled "Events following April 2014 cattle gather," which it clearly did. Where would you move it to?

Having read over the section, I can't see anything that should be removed, other than perhaps "Their original plan may have been to take over a courthouse and execute public officials," which is perhaps superfluous in this article. Everything else is relevant to the events and the linkage between the two events. We include a quote from the Secretary of the Interior, and a balancing quote from one of the Bundys. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I was hoping to avoid the balancing approach because it starts to read as tit-for-tat, or litigation. Thanks for reading it over, and for your consideration. I guess just leave this here and see what others say? BudJillett (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it would good to edit that section so it starts with an explanation of how Jared and Amanda Miller are related to the Bundy Standoff? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 07:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done unless someone doesn't like how I did it.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy's edit is considerably more neutral, perhaps even one I could live with, though I'm personally not in favor of using the SPLC as a reliable source. I haven't read the source material yet, and I might tweak the edit after doing so, but overall this is very well written and much more in line with what I expect to read on Wikipedia. BudJillett (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks glad to help here. BTW, SPLC is excellent and that's both my own opinion plus a ton of other RSs talking about them. Thats rather besides the point though since as you can see, the modified violates either WP:Neutrality or WP:Verification because I used inline attribution, not WP:WIKIVOICE. The article now only says SPLC said those things, and that's quite true - they did. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Disputed edit to the lede

Both myself and Leitmotiv have reverted edits to the lede of this article made by Clepsydrae. I have reverted those edits because they are objectionable - they present a false dilemma and misrepresent the state of Constitutional law. The Property Clause of the United States Constitution has repeatedly and invariably been interpreted by courts to mean that the Congress of the United States has plenary authority over property owned by the federal government, including land. That power is not diminished or modified by the Enclave Clause - they are separate authorities. The Enclave Clause merely permits the Congress, with consent of affected state legislatures, to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over certain enumerated areas of federal property. Public lands are not under exclusive jurisdiction - they are under concurrent jurisdiction, which means that such areas are considered part of the state, and to the extent not pre-empted by federal law, are part of state civil and criminal jurisdiction. The federal government merely owns the land, as any other landowner, and Congress has Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.

The edit's deceptive presentation of the wording "Nevertheless, while", combined with selective quoting of the Enclave Clause to omit its full statement and context - Congress shall have power * * * To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings. acts to create the implication of a contradiction which does not exist in settled Constitutional law. For that reason, it is not beneficial to this article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, using law is original research. We don't know if the edits are biased (in this case, most definitely). Are we ignoring other law (NorthBySouthBaranof says yes)? If we want to discuss law, we need a source that is 1. reliable, 2. neutral, and 3. showing how law is applicable on this article - meaning it should discuss the standoff specifically. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Good point. There are a couple of sources cited (High Country News, the American Constitution Society, etc.) which discuss the legal analysis - we could always add more. Here is a study from the Congressional Research Service on Federal Land Ownership: Constitutional Authority and the History of Acquisition, Disposal, and Retention. Here is a paper from the Hastings Law Journal written by John Leshy, distinguished professor of real property law at Hastings College of Law. There's plenty to be had. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Clepsydrae: @Leitmotiv: Specific to this question is Kleppe v. New Mexico (opinion here) decided by a unanimous Supreme Court in 1976. In pertinent part, the ruling states:

But while Congress can acquire exclusive or partial jurisdiction over lands within a State by the State's consent or cession, the presence or absence of such jurisdiction has nothing to do with Congress' powers under the Property Clause. Absent consent or cession a State undoubtedly retains jurisdiction over federal lands within its territory, but Congress equally surely retains the power to enact legislation respecting those lands pursuant to the Property Clause. And when Congress so acts, the federal legislation necessarily overrides conflicting state laws under the Supremacy Clause.

That ruling has not been overruled, and remains settled Constitutional law of the land. One may choose to believe that the Enclave Clause prohibits federal ownership of other lands, and we do discuss Bundy's worldview that such is the case. However, Wikipedia policy requires us to avoid false balance and include and describe [fringe] ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world. Clepsydrae, I am sure you hold in good faith the viewpoint that American public lands are unconstitutional. But that viewpoint is a fringe minority and holds zero legal standing at this time. Established scholarship, law, and the beliefs of the wider world demonstrate that American public lands are constitutional. Wikipedia is required by policy to reflect that status. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Clepsydrae: You could quote the entire law of the United States but it does nothing to further the article. Inserting law and its interpretation is original research and not allowed on Wikipedia. You're effectively saying, "I interpret this law to mean [this], and I'm and applying it to the article", but without necessary context. As I said before, you need sources that have interpreted the laws (and the application to the Bundy Standoff) for you as a Wikipedian. Until then, this whole conversation is meaningless. Leitmotiv (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Despite your penchants for alacrity and verbosity, I am very well aware of Supreme Court decisions, including the 236 times they overturned their own decisions during their 2+ centuries of existence. Meanwhile, the Constitution remains a very straightforward document, intended to be read by those of middle-school age and beyond, printing to just 8 pages of 4,532 words in Times New Roman 12 pt type. Frankly, I find it astounding that we sit here 233 years later arguing volumes over 215 highly self-explanatory characters comprising a mere 35 words. Did it ever occur to you such a self-contradictory judicial body, one with a highly biased and vested interest in preserving federal power in violation of the Tenth, not to mention the aforementioned clause, just "might" have made an error in judgement, perhaps under heavy federal pressure? I take no count of argument as cherry-picked from the entirety of rendered opinion as any prosecutor's arguments I've ever seen when the 35 words of the original remain unbroken. There are four simple truths, here: The first simple truth is that our Founding Fathers never intended citizens to need a law degree to navigate the supreme Law of the Land. They intended it to be read "as is," as clearly evidenced by more than a few of their some 50,000 letters available in the Library of Congress. The second simple truth is I posited my edits in good faith and you chose to refute them. The third simple truth is your response, while navigable, remains convoluted and several times removed in case law from those original 35 words, perhaps in legal justification and obfuscation as only a not so disinterested and not so third party can. The fourth and final simple truth is the real world beckons for my real-world attention, so case closed and I bid you a good day, gentlemen.Clepsydrae (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

That's just it - my personal opinion about whether the Supreme Court might have made an error in judgement is irrelevant, as is your personal opinion of such. Our personal opinions don't belong in Wikipedia. That would be textbook original research. By foundational policy, we write articles based upon what is published in reliable sources, and reliable sources unanimously state that the Supreme Court has repeatedly and without exception ruled the concept of federally-owned and -managed public lands to be consistent and compliant with the Constitution. If and when that established fact changes, then and only then can Wikipedia make a change. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Concur with NorthBySouthBaranof. The constitution is a WP:PRIMARY document, which is easy to misread, as evidenced by the endless stream of lawsuits raising constitutional questions. As an aside, I also note that the courts have already held that they have the final say-so about how the constitution applies. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

What is the initial source of irritation to Bundy and what are the facts?

I have read a fair amount of this Wiki-article but not all of it. Mostly, from the 1st 10 pages or so.

Yet, I found nothing regarding what specifically changed in the BLM contract with Bundy regarding the difference in the DOLLAR amount BLM was asking for, any difference in payment schedule from the previous 20 years of his payments, etc. This, it seems to me, is highly relevant for basic perspective. For example, was the BLM only asking for a 5% increase per acre or 50%? Was there a schedule of increases proposed over the next few years? Was there any explanation offered for why the land adjacent to HIS property was chosen and / or why other areas were not available or even considered? Was the new contract more of an ultimatum than a reasonable negotiation between lifelong business agents?

Secondly, was one of the sources of irritation and resentment with BLM management that OTHER Departments of the Fed Government were interfering? Thus, this amalgam of bureaucracies enforcing arbitrary, abrupt, and significant changes in a contract long held a source of irritation?

Third, what about the need for, veracity, reality, and significance to the overall local view of ranching and living in this desolate land of making a desert tortoise's life more enhanced vs the cost to manage this land dispute? The BLM, Forest service, et al, and various enforcement agencies and courts have spent, likely, millions of dollars these last 20 years handling this debacle. Their actions against one rancher had a highly leveraged effect to the extent that it galvanized radical supporters from around the United States to show up on this remote area-- resulting in human deaths. The question begging for answer is: Would the BLM, if knowing in advance their actions to assistance the Forest Service and Environmental groups would cause human deaths, have agreed to force this policy on Bundy, et al? The gain certainly was not worth it at all as the tortoise is no better off now than before but human deaths have resulted in this action.

Granted, all the facts regarding the case and prosecution are likely documented here but the initial background I describe seems lacking. It seems this information should be added; and that, I feel, is a reasonable suggestion. It is important to be fair in the statement of the initial situation from all points of view. Otherwise, it appears that Bundy, et al suddenly and with little rational reasoning chose to stop the legal and peaceful process he had been doing for 20 years. Beschreib77 (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)Beschreib77 (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Infobox Goals Contradictory

The stated goals within the infobox seem to contradict one another and are written with poor grammar. I can't tell who or what entity is rounding up the cattle and what the purposes and motivations are. It sounds like the BLM wants the cattle rounded up and prevented from grazing, but the second goal gives the impression the ATF is attempting to do the opposite and uphold the grazing rights of Bundy. Someone please edit for clarification. 66.91.36.8 (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Excellent example of NPOV in an article.

Having been through a large part of this article (not all of it), this is a great example of a neutral point-of-view on a controversial topic. Not just in what is covered, but also with fair amounts of emphasis. It should be shown to people who are editing information on other divisive incidents to demonstrate how to inform readers without taking a stance or trying to influence their opinion. I'm trying to see how to nominate it. EGarrett01 (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)