![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I propose taking away the "orphan" tag on this article, as the page Grazing rights links to it. However, this "Bundy standoff" is rife with politicized coverage (and I googled it, and apparently conspiracy theorists are all over this stuff, it's a bit toxic), so I urge particular caution on further edits. Samcashion ( talk) 05:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I removed the "orphan" tag on the article. Biased or politicized or not, the "orphan" tag is used to denote a page with no pages that link to it. Grazing rights links to this page, so I removed the orphan tag. (Someone added "Clive Bundy" to the See also section of the page. His name is 'Cliven,' not 'Clive.' So I removed it altogether and added the link to Bundy standoff. NiklawskiMSTM traveled from the fourth dimension to deliver this text to you. Please thank him on his talk page. 16:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Good! I didn't want to unilaterally remove it myself, because I wasn't sure whether there were other things that needed to be done first. Thanks Samcashion ( talk) 23:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Someone with the IP address of 187.250.123.47 made a few edits that I deemed destructive. Here's a list of the edits, my action, and an explanation of my actions:
I haven't taken out the Infowars citations yet. I have second-hand knowledge that some things that are referenced from Infowars happened, as my friend's dad was down there and gave me live updates. So I'll be looking for alternative references.
Oh, and if you're wondering, I accidentally deleted some of the edits that actually were not destructive, including the conspiracy theory. They should be back up soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NiklawskiMSTM ( talk • contribs) 00:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Realiable sources. Excerpts from something someone allegedly said on TV should never be used unless you have a transcript or other recording to direct people to. Try to use publications which have a reputation for even handedness and good fact checking. Remember to include both sides of the argument. Right now, this article's kind of a disgrace IMO. 173.228.54.18 ( talk) 22:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
"Bundy is the trespasser, and is responsible for past fees, liable for damages, and must negotiate grazing and fees with the agency going forward"...this is a biased statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.71.24.90 ( talk) 22:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Referring to First Amendment Zones as unconstitutional is a biased statement. They have not been unambiguously ruled as such by the Supreme Court. Actually the court has ruled them constitutional so long as a set of criteria for their use has been met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.139.9 ( talk) 01:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Remove the term 'statist' from the phrase 'statist courts'. The meaning of the term statist is tied to one's POV, and as such cannot be used without creating ambiguity. In the Wikipedia definition any and all court is statist because the only form of society that is not statist is anarchy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.139.9 ( talk) 19:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Add a reference to the FAA No Fly Zone that was imposed over the area restricting access to "ONLY RELIEF AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS UNDER DIRECTION OF BLM" http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_4_1687.html
Add details from this original youtube video of the confrontation at the cattle coral. Note the frame that shows BLM snipers overlooking the scene. Note the protestors steadily advancing on foot and horseback on the heavily armed law enforcement personnel. Not clear if law enforcement is threatening over bullhorns to shoot. Note that the law enforcement withdrew and did not engage with the protestors. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD61YFxUga4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.22.176 ( talk) 22:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Recent edits and organization of sections have resulted in a significantly better article with much less bias. Neutral wording and the addition of factual material with cites have contributed to a more encyclopedic reading. This article will need to be improved more, especially by the addition of more cites on the protest section. Baleywik ( talk) 23:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
After several hours of cleanup, the page is starting to form into more of a wikipedia article. Editors should pay attention to the need for cites when new material is added. This helps to make it unbiased. Baleywik ( talk) 01:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I just wanted to say, kudos to the editors who've improved this article pretty dramatically over the last several hours. 173.228.54.18 ( talk) 04:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Trying to keep my language as neutral as possible: any coverage of this issue will be seen as biased by somebody. Report on it when it is history. 174.56.63.69 ( talk) 02:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Watch the videos and audio of the final confrontation at the gate. The BLM clearly state over the loud speaker that they (THE BLM) were going to shoot the American Patriots if they attempted to cross the BLM line. The BLM had military assault rifles pointed at the crowd and the BLM were hiding behind armored vehicles. 09:17, 14 April 2014 66.87.90.25 (talk)
You can add such material in a different paragraph or sentence if you have a written transcript of it you can point to, or if it is in print somewhere that you can cite a reference to it. However, you can't just change the previous entry that was written that has a cite reference already with an exact quote. If you persist it is vandalism to keep reverting it. Baleywik ( talk) 09:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Reported claims by media and Bundy that he is the last cattle rancher in Nevada or Bunkerville have been debunked. In fact, cattle owned by other ranchers were rounded up in the same pens as Bundy's. See the cites in the article for reference. Baleywik ( talk) 09:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
According to BLM records the Bunkerville 02005 allotment area has been officially closed to cattle for many years. Any livestock found on that land are there illegally. You can reference it easily in the BLM map system by going to the http://www.geocommunicator.gov/blmMap/Map.jsp?MAP=SiteMapper and in the Select Map drop down in the upper right select Rangeland, turn on all the sub layers, then zoom into the Bunkerville area. Here is a pdf of the listing https://www.blm.gov/workspace/ihtml/Request?DocUUID=0000010c1214c4b1-0000-691d-0a780c38&DocInstanceID=1&SectionName=&StatusID=0&Command=ExportPDF&FileName=&ObjectIDs=&Params=CurrentPageNo%7C1%7CCurrentPageNoH%7C1%7CCntSz%7C1037x674&BrowserURL=&HiddenParams= Too bad nobody cares about facts anymore. There are too many 'true believers' out there stirring up trouble, it seems, IMHO Baleywik ( talk) 22:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I fixed the family history section based on the source. Leavitt was only in Bunkerville for a few years, and Cliven's ancestors were quickly moved elsewhere. It also explains why Cliven's family didn't return to Bunkerville until after the 1930s. 70.8.177.67 ( talk) 18:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The Blaze is being used as a source in this article currently. That isn't really appropriate, seeing as The Blaze doesn't really have any reasonable pretense of being an objective source of information. There are obvious POV issues with anything coming from this site. We really should try to find other sources verifying what they say, or scrap the section using it as a source entirely. Last night I edited the section which was stating a dubious assertion by Carol Bundy that there were/are snipers in this conflict, as fact, and noted that (even within the article it says BLM spokeswoman Kirsten Cannon didn't confirm this) there has been no verification of what Bundy said. I'm not sure if that's enough though, because this still might mislead people. Samcashion ( talk) 23:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Twice now I have edited the first occurrence of the word Taser to have double brackets, thereby creating a link to the Wikipedia article on this device. And twice, different folks have steamrolled right over this helpful link, replacing whole paragraphs, leaving some readers in the dark as to what is being discussed.
My idea of helpful text is to have a few hyperlinks to other Wikipedia articles here and there as appropriate. Since Taser and especially tasering and tasered are not yet what I call common words, I consider it entirely appropriate to link the first occurrence for the benefit of readers.
If useful hyperlinks get carelessly removed, more articles would earn the dreaded "orphan" tag, and where would that leave us?
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Orphanage
What is the consensus on Taser? I certainly don't want to keep adding links that nobody wants. But I can't help but think that the folks who are editing this article every two minutes are well aware of Tasers, and have given no thought to the possibility that there might be readers who need to find out what one is. Megapod ( talk) 01:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I created this page because I am really interested in this. But this is Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia. We want to keep things as unbiased as possible. I'm not the best writer, so if you can put it in there in an unbiased fashion, that'd be great.
NiklawskiMSTM traveled from the fourth dimension to deliver this text to you. Please thank him on his talk page. 16:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to NiklawskiMSTM for creating this page. Elevated this section to top level instead of subsection. Baleywik ( talk) 00:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
www.infowarscom/breaking-sen-harry-reid-behind-blm-land-grab-of-bundy-ranch/ unreliable fringe source?
What about all the videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD61YFxUga4
Wikipedia is useless for anything other than non-controverial neutral info such as some basic biology or mathematics.
Xowets ( talk) 23:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
We don't need that kind of disinformation. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a sensationalist blog or tabloid. Baleywik ( talk) 02:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
"Ranch Stash" snopes.com. — goethean 18:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
As Bundy does not want the Federal Government to own the disputed land, has he made any comments regarding it being rendered private by being sold to the highest bidder? If this wasn't him would he be okay with removing his cattle off the then private property, because his principle is about fighting big government? Has any source asked him this question, as it would be good to add such a response to this article to indicate whether he is acting out of principle or self-interest.== Wowaconia ( talk) 22:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Very little sense to seems to be able to be hashed out of his stance on these things. I read all the court filings, and essentially he argues that the state of Nevada owns the land, not the federal government, but also that he has preemptive rights to graze on them (Not a shining beacon of internal consistency). At one point the government offered to help sell his cattle to the highest bidder at no cost to him with him receiving all sales of the proceeds. He flatly refused, so it doesn't sound like self-interest is the only thing motivating him. There have been a number of traffic accidents caused directly by his cattle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlk0606 ( talk • contribs) 06:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The ruling provided in the bottom of the US v Bundy summary box is part of a separate case against the guy from the 90s (different parcels of land). Most of those documents predate PACER so they would be harder to get, but I can pull what I can find; perhaps we should create two distinct boxes for the two cases to avoid confusion. Dlk0606 ( talk) 06:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Please add all 1998 transcripts to the same Infobox. They are the same court, just another round. Two infoboxes will make it much too bulky. IMHO Baleywik ( talk) 07:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
It is the same Court and the same caption (because it's the same parties litigating in the same district), but they are two distinct federal actions dealing with closely related but different causes of action; perhaps there is a way to create an internal distinction between the two? Dlk0606 ( talk) 12:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Specifically, we would be best served by noting the existence of the two cases and grouping documents from the two cases separately. Right now we only have the order from Oct. 2013 for the first action (1998), but I've gathered several additional pleadings as well as the pre-ECF docket sheet that I can load onto the wiki Dlk0606 ( talk) 13:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Since several other legal cases in Nevada seem to run parallel to the Bundy case, it is appropriate to make note of them in a top level section near the bottom of the article. They all involve US Federal lands and ranchers who were taken to court for cattle grazing permit violations or trespass cattle, and there were different outcomes in each of the cases. Baleywik ( talk) 19:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
This case is very similar to Bundy, in fact Bundy cited it in his case. It was argued and lost on states' rights. Baleywik ( talk) 19:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I am having a difficult time finding a reference that demonstrates similarity between the Bundy case and US v Hage. The Bundy case is about whether grazing permits are required at all. But Hage was about water rights, grazing incidental to those water rights, and the unfair denial of grazing permit applications. In Hage, the court ruled on the basis of expert testimony that grazing incidental to water rights was allowed within one-half mile of the water source. My understanding is that the ruling concludes that unpermitted grazing beyond that distance would constitute trespass, but that the government had acted unfairly in denying Hage his permits. The ruling orders that (1) the Hage estate will apply for permits consistent with those held before the government refused to renew them, that (2) the BLM and USFS will consider and approve those applications "in accordance with regulation and statute" (i.e., no jerking them around), and that (3) the Hage estate will pay the standard fees for those permits.
Those conclusions are described in pages 101 to 104 of this ruling. My understanding of the Bundy case is that Bundy rejects the assertion that any permits are required whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.17.128.88 ( talk) 15:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that the denial of E. Wayne Hage’s renewal grazing application for the years 1993–2003 was an abuse of discretion, as well as a violation of due process, as the only reason given for the denial was that the applicant noted near his signature that he did not thereby relinquish certain unidentified rights under the UCC, a superfluous condition that cannot possibly have affected the terms of the permit. It is this violation that has led to all of the allegedly un-permitted grazing to date and the BLM’s refusal to offer any permit to Hage himself.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Hage shall apply for renewal grazing permits consistent with those possessed by E. Wayne Hage before the refusal of the BLM and USFS to renew them, using standard application forms, and without attempting to add any conditions or commentary not provided for on the standard forms. The BLM and USFS must consider and grant the application(s) in accordance with statute and regulation, i.e., in accordance with those historical usages and preferences in the relevant areas existing as of the last date E. Wayne Hage or Jean Hage had such permits in good standing, and Hage shall pay the required standard fees.
"oo9", if you have ANY actual evidence, show it. You claim something found on May 23, 2013 - I can find no links that back you up. Either come up with evidence or go away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.236.94 ( talk) 14:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I added a citation needed tag. If the two cases are similar, and if the similarities are both noteworthy and relevant, then it should be easy for someone to find a reference that verifies this similarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.17.128.88 ( talk) 14:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I undid a revision that purported to establish similarity between the two cases. The only similarities that are well-established are that the government and a rancher went to court over a trespass claim. The paragraph about US v Hage does not emphasize that aspect of the trial; it emphasizes how the court ruled harshly against the BLM and USFS. In the Bundy case, courts have repeatedly ruled in favor of the government and against Bundy. I agree that the cases are similar insofar as they both involve trespass on federal lands. But there are substantial dissimilarities — one is about unfairly denied permits, and the other is about permits that a rancher refused to apply for. An authoritative, unbiased (or minimally biased) source is needed in order to verifiably establish how these cases are similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.17.128.88 ( talk) 15:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I nominated the file File:United States v Bundy - Answer June 2012.pdf for deletion at Commons; you can find the deletion discussion here. RJaguar3 | u | t 13:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
That's fine, it will probably be deleted eventually, due to the fact that it is in a gray area of copyright law that hasn't been adjudicated (copyright status of third party public court documents). The document is pertinent to the article here, and very difficult or elusive for most to access, so it was uploaded. The few days of it being available here might enable it to be made available at a more accessible web location. Baleywik ( talk) 19:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I opposed the nomination for deletion, although I recognize that there are legitimate arguments for deleting it. Given that court records are public and freely available for view or copy by anybody with a PACER account or who travels to the courthouse (or calls its clerk), and our use here is definitely for education, I doubt any legitimate copyright claim could possibly arise out of its being posted. Further, as the only federal case I know of addressing unauthorized copying of court filings on copyright grounds (White et al v. West Publishing et al) has concluded in summary judgment being granted against plaintiffs, it seems there should be little issue here. Of course, a full order complete with legal reasoning is still pending in that case, and West moved on the basis of fair use (which, I think, is not recognized here), so it's not apples to apples. That having been said, I think that if we wait for jurisprudence on this issue, ie wait for someone to file a copyright infringement based on not-for-profit use, we will be waiting for a very long time, as I can't imagine many people taking up federal causes of action against RECAP etc. - and we'll be doing the public a great disservice in the interim. I recognize WikiMedia's policies are stringent, but surely they too can be a target of reasonable interpretation by intelligent people. Dlk0606 ( talk) 13:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
[2] This is a good resource that should be incorporated sometime. 70.8.153.27 ( talk) 17:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The present section "Other Nevada grazing legal actions" is starting to take over the Bundy page. Already the bullet points and huge paragraphs full of legal issues regarding the Colvin and Hage case are way too off-topic for this Bundy page. It was fine when it was just a small paragraph about a background, but now it has legs of its own. It might be better to either de-emphasize the Colvin Hage section by moving it to the bottom, or else start a new page for it and just have a small paragraph on the Bundy page that refers to it. Baleywik ( talk) 18:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
In related news, a new article has been started on the Bundy militia, also known as Bundy's militia. The wikipedia article is /info/en/?search=Bundy_militia . It only has about 4 cites so far, but the general framework for the article is in place. Baleywik ( talk) 02:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC) Baleywik ( talk) 05:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Within an hour of the Bundy militia page going up, someone objected to its existence :) /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bundy_militia Baleywik ( talk) 02:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC) Baleywik ( talk) 05:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
The above entry regarding possible deletion or keeping of the Bundy militia article has been modified to be more unbiased than previously worded. To quote wikipedia guidelines on canvassing: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." Baleywik ( talk) 07:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
A good resource we can use to better this article is the 1998 US District Court ruling. It has been uploaded here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/218116757/1998-U-S-Dist-LEXIS-23835 I see right off that the Bundy Ranch did not start grazing in this area until 1954. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.230.34 ( talk) 00:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
[3] Reuters says that there were 1,000 in the militia with sniper rifles and the rest. It says that there were only a dozen rangers part of the BLM. Much of the IP vandalism and fringe sources are trying to suggest that there was a huge and armed Federal presence. That is clearly not the case. 173.153.10.44 ( talk) 22:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Does it deserve mention that the presence of Bundy's cattle on the land is an occupation protest to challenge the federal ownership of the land?
Efcmagnew ( talk) 23:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe; is he reported as having characterized it as such? Dlk0606 ( talk) 23:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
This article is seriously biased. I attempted to clean it up but somebody reverted back to the la-la-land version. Issues:
-- It's a fact that the stand-off began when Bundy stopped respecting US law and failed to pay his grazing fees. The editor who edits it back to the idea that the stand-off originated because the government was at fault just doesn't understand how rule of law works. -- The Harry Reid conspiracy theories at the end are ridiculous; the most recent stand-off is a consequence of a Nevada judge's ruling in 2013 that the 1998 permanent injunction against Bundy was valid. This has nothing at all to do with Harry Reid. -- Infowars, a cartoonish "news" fabricator, should not be cited as a source. -- I noted in my edits that the BLM argues that allowing Bundy to get away with not paying his grazing fees discriminates against the 16,000 who do. Whoever edited out that edit is turning this article into a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.250.123.47 ( talk) 01:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
The word "standoff" implies that two heavily-armed parties have each other in their sights, and both parties are potentially willing to escalate into violence.
While the government employees in the area were certainly heavily armed, there have been no reports that the Bundy family is heavily armed; and there have been no reports that the Bundy family was interested in escalating the situation into violence.
Even the first sentence of the article backs off from use of the word "standoff." It says "The Bundy standoff is a dispute", not "the Bundy standoff is a standoff".
Since it's actually a dispute, not a standoff, let's change the article name to "Bundy cattle-grazing dispute". 75.163.143.115 ( talk) 17:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Support move to Bundy cattle-grazing dispute. It is more descriptive as an encyclopedic entry, and the article covers an ongoing, more historic legal dispute rather than just a few days of protest or armed confrontation. If there needs to be a spin-off of the article regarding the armed protest and confrontation, it should be called Bundy armed confrontation or something.( talk) 13 April 2014 Baleywik ( talk) 19:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
This section is for proposed alternative article names. Baleywik ( talk) 00:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
We may want to hold off on any decisions about a name change until the split is decided. Sparkie82 ( t• c) 03:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
From the CNN cite - "To environmentalists and the feds, however, he's an outlaw of sorts who owes U.S. taxpayers more than $1 million in unpaid grazing fees."
Another citation is need or this statement needs to be changed to reflect the fact that the one million dollar figure is a POV of the environmentalists and the feds and is not stated as a fact by CNN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.161.120 ( talk) 04:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Bundy standoff has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the history of Nevada, the article states that the land in question where Bundy's ranch resides is public land that is part of Nevada. At the time of statehood, the land in question was part of the Arizona Territory and not included as part of the state of Nevada. Later in 1867, the land south of the border with Utah incorporated into the borders of the state of Nevada. This included all land south along the west bank of the Colorado river to the Calfornia border. Dlbkr2 ( talk) 21:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Bundy standoff has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under Reaction by media personalities, it should be clarified that Joe Walsh is a former U.S. Representative from Illinois (IL-8). Saying "Illinois Representative" sounds like he was in the state legislature, not Congress. Farolif ( talk) 04:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. Your suggested addition makes the sentence read slightly awkwardly, so I don't think it counts as entirely uncontroversial. Let's wait to hear what others think before enacting it. Best —
Mr. Stradivarius
♪ talk ♪
07:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Hey, I'll be restoring this page to its pre- vandalism state. The vandalism was perpetrated by someone with the IP address of 98.224.28.167. NiklawskiMSTM traveled from the fourth dimension to deliver this text to you. Please thank him on his talk page. 17:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Another vandal at 08:44, 14 April 2014.. The vandal's IP address is 66.87.90.25 . Others should out watch for that IP address because it is repetitive. Baleywik ( talk) 09:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Noting the 4th instance of IP address 66.87.90.25 vandalism. Baleywik ( talk) 09:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Noting the 5th instance of IP address 66.87.90.25 vandalism. Baleywik ( talk) 04:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Noting 5 instances of vandalism, deletion or blanking whole paragraphs, in the Family history section by a vandal at IP Address 204.48.45.32. on 15:58, 16 April 2014 and 15:56, 16 April 2014 and 23:46, 15 April 2014 and 18:01, 15 April 2014 and 17:14, 15 April 2014. Baleywik ( talk) 16:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Noting an instance of vandalism, deletion or blanking whole paragraph, in the Family history section, by a vandal at IP address 50.38.0.49 with same location as above IP Address 204.48.45.32. We should be attentive to this vandal and use the "Undo Vandalism" if/when it happens again. Baleywik ( talk) 18:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I will be restoring the following to Other Nevada grazing legal actions, anonymous user (173.153.3.126) has blanked the section and has already threatened to report me for edit-warring with only one revert. My reading of WP:NOT3RR indicates that reverting vandalism (i.e., blanking of relevant information) is not edit warring. The section in the article currently includes accusations against other ranchers in Nevada grazing cases, but the anonymous user appears to wish to censor the trial's outcome from the public -- citing original research.
Perhaps the quote box will make it more apparent that this is testimony and documented fact rather than original research.
Begin section revert:
The charges against Colvin were dismissed, [1] Chief Judge Robert C. Jones of the Federal District Court of Nevada found in favor of Hage concerning water rights, grazing rights and all but two livestock trespass charges in United States vs. Wayne Hage (2013). [1] [2]
Judge Jones found: [3]
- Congress prescribed grazing rights on federal lands were to be granted based on a rancher’s ownership of water rights established under local law and custom. [3]
- Hage has a right of access to put his livestock water rights to beneficial use, therefore the livestock could not be found in trespass. [3] [Within one half mile of water rights] [1]
- USFS employee Steve Williams was found in contempt of court and guilty of witness intimidation. [2] [1] [4]
- Tonopah BLM manager Tom Seley as found in contempt of court and guilty of witness intimidation. [2] [1] [4]
- Williams and Seley were held personally liable for damages with fines exceeding $33,000. [3]
- The Hage’s were found guilty of only two minor trespass violations and were fined $165.88 [1]
- Regional Forester Harv Forsgren was excluded from testifying at trial during witness credibility hearing for lying to the Court. [3] [4]
Chief Judge Robert C. Jones stated at the conclusion of the case:
Statement of Randy N. Parker for, The US House of Representatives, Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Water and Power, October 10, 2013
2:07-cv-01154-RCJ-VCF
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Wayne N Hage Testimony
In fact, Judge Jones accused the federal bureaucrats of racketeering under the federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations) statute, and accused them as well of extortion, mail fraud, and fraud, in an effort "to kill the business of Mr. Hage."
End section revert: I for one, find the trial outcome very interesting and highly relevant to the Nevada grazing rights issue. Regards 009o9 ( talk) 08:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Administrators, please see User_talk:009o9#WP_No_Original_Research 009o9 ( talk) 16:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Just a thought, if Mr. Bundy had been aware of the outcome of US v Hage, would he have chosen to pursue a remedy through the court rather a direct confrontation with government swat-teams? I don't know. It is very telling when an anonymous poster is engaged in promoting the criminality of one side while attempting to censor the criminality of the other. Censorship could very well be a contributing cause of the confrontation. I'm sure that this is not a concern for the "ends justifies the means" type mentalities though. 009o9 ( talk) 16:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:No original research
Original research isn't an issue of failure to provide a cite, its that the linkage doesn't exist outside of our, wikipedia editors, opinions. We are neither notable nor reliable as per wiki-standards. I am not saying there is an issue with the information on the cases in those segments, I am saying that only wikipeida editors are making any claim that these cases have a direct impact on the Bundy standoff, no one of notabality is saying this in a reliable and quotable medium.
While I or other wiki editors may hold that there are links, it doesn't matter what we think according to Wikipedia. Our humble opinions do not raise to the level of notable or reliable so if these segments are to remain on the page a reliable and notable source must be found that links them - the best I could find was blogs which also don't rise to notable and reliable under wikipedia standards. So short of finding someone notable to back up the opinion that there is a link, these segments have to go.
I would rather see them moved and given their own articles than just deleted, but in either case they can not long remain here in violation of wikipedia standards. The opinions of anonymous wikipeida editors is not encylopedic and wikipedia is not a blog for us to assert by our own authority that connections exist.-- Wowaconia ( talk) 20:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
For clarity let me say - I am not speaking about the infobox at this point, which does directly mention Bundy but rather I am speaking about this subsegment: Bundy standoff#Similar federal grazing legal cases. -- Wowaconia ( talk) 20:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The addition of a notable linking US v Hage to Bundy is from a reliable source and does remove concerns of O.R. from that part of the sub-segment.
The sources on the US v Gardner are all legal papers except for an article that lists the events of the dispute over Southwestern Federal land and does not link Gardnder's case to the Bundy standoff outside of chronology.
It does mention that Gardner and Bundy are friends that support each other, but there is no indication within the article that Bundy's strategy was affected by the Gardner case or that a notable thinks its instructive (as the notable cited for the Hage case did).
It is in effect like listing all the events of American History up to the Cold War and then saying that becuse the article mentioned the Declaration of Independence that this proves a major motive behind America's stance in opposing the USSR was the Declaration. It may well be true, but without a more direct linking it still remains speculation by anyonomous wikipedia editors asserting links that can not be backed up by direct quotation. If what was provided for the Hage case, can be provided for Gardner the objection of O.R. will be nullified for both parts. As it is, Hage can stay if that is consensus but Gardner still has to go.-- Wowaconia ( talk) 21:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The concern that the subsegments link to the standoff was resting only on OR has been nullified. The additions not only show their link but increase the readability of this part of the article. Well done.-- Wowaconia ( talk) 20:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The sub-segment under Reactions, entitled "Other reactions" is actually not a reaction to the events in this article at all. It seems that the editor adding them wanted to point out that elsewhere in the region there are concerns over land-development that involve Harry Reid. I have not examined any of the refs offered so I can not verify if they are notable or reliable, but right now I don't even see how this information is germane to this page. If the information about the environmentalists can be expanded while remaining on topic to this article perhaps it could be included but otherwise it seems it should be moved to either the Harry Reid page or to a page about the environmentalists themselves.-- Wowaconia ( talk) 22:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I moved this section to Coyote Springs Investment, a stub that seemed more relevant to this content. Mreed911 ( talk) 23:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
When this comes down from lockdown, there should be changes made to the "Reactions by Public Officials" and "Reactions by Media Personalities" to show both sides. As of now, it only lists people who support the Bundy side, not the BLM. It comes off as biased and poorly researched. Craigstealsheep ( talk) 22:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I think there should be description of the history of the disputed land, such as the fact that the Bundy family has owned the land since the 1800s, before Nevada even became a state. Now the government wants to confiscate the land, allegedly because cattle somehow threaten a tortoise, yet people unconnected to the ranch do offroad vehicle driving in that area all the time. You'd think the government would try to do something about that, but they don't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.150.252 ( talk) 08:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
The section was added today, to provide background on the Bundy family, relevant to the inheritance claims Bundy made in his legal cases. Please don't get too carried away on the whole family tree or offshoots of the clan, that are not really pertinent to the encyclopedic article. :) Baleywik ( talk) 22:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Bundy claimed inheritance of land rights, and there has been a lot of material appearing in the family background section about his Morman polygamist ancestors who are actually the ones he is claiming as the source of his "vested rights" or special rights. It seems that every time any of this material is added, with cites, a vandal at IP address 204.48.45.32 in Oregon blanks the section out. We need to watch for this vandal and restore. Wikipedia has proper methods to cite and support material or delete it if it is not appropriate. However, semi-anonymous blanking is not one of the valid procedures. Baleywik ( talk) 16:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Bundy standoff has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the first occurrence of Taser to read Taser. Please see Talk:Bundy_standoff item 16 for my reasons. I can see a need for automatically checking any edits which replace entire paragraphs to be sure that all pre-existing internal cross-references and citations are preserved. Megapod ( talk) 14:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC) Megapod ( talk) 14:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
In this case, I don't think we have a consensus quite yet. Megapod wants to keep the word "taser" (and link it), but KinkyLipids wants to use the word "stun gun". I can't see any useful way to judge which of these proposed edits has consensus - both are allowed by policy, and there is no obvious agreement between editors here. So I'm forced to answer this request as a "not done".
This brings us back to the point behind page protection - it is intended to make editors discuss their disagreements on the talk page, rather than edit warring on the article. Part of the reason things are not working so well on this talk page is that a few editors don't seem to understand that edits that are contended require discussion. This is how Wikipedia works, whether the article is protected or not. It is possible to have a very contentious article that is not protected - it simply requires the editors to discuss their edits whenever they disagree, and to keep discussing those edits until they come to an agreement. So let's discuss things a little bit more, both in this section and elsewhere on the talk page, and then hopefully I can start to actually enact some of these edit requests. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Bundy standoff has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The consensus appears to be no split concerning subsegments calling for discussion of such in the article, concerns over O.R. in these segments have been nullified by quotes and citations. I was the originator of the call for the split, and bow to consensus against me. I also raised the question of O.R. but an editor has improved the article and that is no longer an issue. Therefor please remove the tags seeking consensus about whether the subsegments should be split off. Thank you, Wowaconia ( talk) 20:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC) Wowaconia ( talk) 20:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
See Talk:Bundy_standoff#Question_of_whether_Info_box_and_links_to_court_findings.2C_briefs.2C_etc._should_be_moved_to_articles_on_the_court_cases for vote tallys. -- Wowaconia ( talk) 20:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Subsegments that are tagged are found at: Bundy_standoff#Similar_federal_grazing_legal_cases -- Wowaconia ( talk) 20:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
[4] This is Cliven's dad, from Arizona. Records show that the family was in Arizona until at least the 30s (birth records). The grandparents were also not from the area. They were never able to prove that the family had rights or deeds going back that long. This is why. 173.153.11.73 ( talk) 20:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Bundy standoff has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The statement that no shots where fired is factually incorrect. The BLM has stated that they shoot several bull cattle due to their perceived danger to the roundup. 97.124.171.118 ( talk) 19:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Nevada assemblywoman Michel Fiore was among those who maintained that BLM agents either killed cattle by either shooting them or running them to death during the Bunkerville incident. [...] A Fox News reporter, among others, who viewed the bull holding pens after the livestock were “euthanized” noted that any evidence of wild behavior such as damaged gates or fencing were not evident. [1]
Turns out the land that Bundy actually owns near Bunkerville was purchased in 1948 by his parents. He apparently got some water rights with that. The refs also discuss his family history, which at a glance is consistent with what is already in the article.
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25301551/bundys-ancestral-rights-come-under-scrutin
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25302186/an-abbreviated-look-at-rancher-cliven-bundys-family-history
As best I can tell, Bundy seems to be asserting that he has grazing rights because his mother's mother's father did. 99.184.74.183 ( talk) 22:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I've just posted a comment on ANI that I would like to repeat here.
In general, I find every editor that has contributed meaningfully to this article, including the nearly 50% IP editors, have done an impressive and remarkable job of producing a high-quality article on a topic that should be expected to be riddled with POV issues. My congratulations to all of you.
Also, and in light of my conclusion above, I am formally requesting that protection be removed from this page, unless some evidence of actual disruptive or contentious editing can be supplied. Eaglizard ( talk) 21:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, since I started this as a completely uninvolved and uninformed editor that didn't understand the need for full PP (even that is a specific remedy for content dispute), please don't make me look like an idiot (it's not hard, but still...). WP:BRD is your friend and any revert requires discussion. Semi-PP will be implemented if IP editors start reverting. -- DHeyward ( talk) 05:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
The various Reactions sections seem to be vastly tilted toward those reactions positive to Mr. Bundy. This doesn't seem to reflect the weight of those reactions among all reactions to the situation, regardless of catagory. I think we either need to pare down the pro-bundy reactions, or add additional opposing reactions. The article would seem to suggest that the overwhelming majority of reactions from the categories posted were pro-bundy, but that doesn't seem to match the general coverage of the event. I don't have a problem with any specific reaction/source (though some are potentially questionable in their notiability), just the lack of due weight. 204.65.34.237 ( talk) 21:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Reminding editors that this article is under General Sanctions, with 1RR per editor per 24 hrs. See Talk:Bundy_standoff/General_Sanctions Cwobeel ( talk) 22:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
In the subsegment entitled "United States v Hage" a county commissioner was quoted. A question of notability was raised concerning this.
Many news-sources are referring to the incident discussed in this article as being part of the Sagebrush Rebellion which was a political movement that came to the fore in the 1970s. (At least one reference to it being viewed that way was provided in the article, citing a reporter for the Christian Science Monitor, more could be provided if desired.)
The Sagebrush Rebellion was spearheaded at the county level, were they made resolutions declaring federal lands were now under the authority of the counties, one of the most famous incidents is cited in wiki's article on the movement...
"On July 4, 1994, Nye County commissioner Dick Carver plowed open a road that the National Forest Service had declared closed as a statement supporting county supremacy over the federal government. Carver and his supporters claimed that the federal government's ownership of 93% of the land in Nye County was illegal."
So a good argument can be made that an elected official at the county commissioner level in Nevada has notability on this topic and can be quoted.
-- Wowaconia ( talk) 00:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Simple: should the Hage material, which says that a local commissioner advised Bundy to study United States v Hage, be included?
That section may be violating WP:NOR? If there are no sources connecting Bundy's case with these other cases, Wikipedia should not be the one connecting them. See WP:SYNTH for an explanation. Cwobeel ( talk) 16:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
No idea how to add this stuff, but as it has been said by the person himself, it should be summarized [16] Cwobeel ( talk) 15:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
There is an overwhelming number of sources describing his comments as racist. Cwobeel ( talk) 04:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Cwobeel ( talk) 15:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, there was noting "racist" about what Bundy said. Had he said, blacks should have remained slaves 'because' they were black, that would have been much different. Bundy expressed a 'wonder' about blacks and slavery and cited a number of reasons, including the number of blacks dependent on gov, number of blacks in prison, etc. He also was concerned about their freedoms when he said "They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom."
Whether you agree with this view or not, his comments were not "racist". Many news sources, including the
New York Times,
LA Times,
Washington Times and
Fox News refer to them as comments about race and only report that some have regarded Bundy's comments as "racist". These news sources themselves do not say his comments were "racist". Anyone who actually takes the time to read his comments can see that they are not. Bundy only commented on what he thought was true. That is not "racist". --
Gwillhickers (
talk)
17:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
And so what I'm testifying to you is that I was in the Watts riots.
I saw the beginning fire and I saw the last fire. What I'd seen was civil disturbance, people who were not happy people who were thinking they don't have their freedom, they don't have these things and they didn't have them.
We've progressed quite a bit from that day until now and we sure don't want to go back. We sure don't want these colored people to have to go back to that point, we sure don't want these Mexican people to have to go back to that point.
And we can make a difference right now by taking care of some of these bureaucracies and do it in a peaceful way.
Regardless, how exactly are these recent and personal comments relevant to the land situation on this page? The comments were made yesterday, while the last BLM incident was near the beginning of April. Seems a bit over-extended, if not packaged into an agenda. Pushing for a review. 67.142.130.36 ( talk) 04:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
We can't engage in a discussion about if his comments were racists or not (although it seems quite obvious what they are given the repudiation by so many of these that supported him before), as that is not our role here. These comments where not "so called racist", the comments were called racist by the many sources available.
Cwobeel (
talk)
04:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
The map used in the "Grazing on US federal rangeland in Nevada" is not completely appropriate since it shows all federal lands including national parks and military facilities. The issue here involves lands managed by the BLM. A better map would be something like this one from The Economist, which shows BLM lands in a separate color from other federal lands. GabrielF ( talk) 21:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
User:009o9 recently added some commentary by Ben Swann on Bundy's racial remarks. [17] This material strikes me as giving undue weight to a minority opinion. I don't necessarily have a problem with including Bundy's positive remarks about Hispanics, but Swann's ideas are clearly out of the mainstream. We certainly shouldn't put the viewpoint that Bundy was "inarticulate" and "misrepresented" by the media ahead of condemnations of Bundy's words from figures such as Harry Reid, Dean Heller, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Reince Priebus and others. These condemnations represent the (overwhelming) majority view. Swann should not be the first citation for the factual content in this section - above the original NYTimes reporting. GabrielF ( talk) 21:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
A spokesman for Mr. Paul, informed of Mr. Bundy’s remarks, said the senator was not available for immediate comment. Chandler Smith, a spokesman for Mr. Heller, said that the senator “completely disagrees with Mr. Bundy’s appalling and racist statements, and condemns them in the most strenuous way.” A spokeswoman for Mr. Abbott, Laura Bean, said that the letter he wrote “was regarding a dispute in Texas and is in no way related to the dispute in Nevada.”
(No pun intended). The lead does not include the racially charged comments made by Bundy, which have been significantly covered by an abundance of sources, and some editors are replacing hos words about "the negro" with "African Americans" which was not what Bundy said. As this article is under 1RR, I will not revert these edits, but others may be breaching the 1RR limitation on this article, so beware. Cwobeel ( talk) 23:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I just re-read the article after the edits made today, and OMG, what a bloody disaster! This article now is totally un-reflective of what the sources say about the subject and has become an apologetic article about Bundy.
Cwobeel (
talk)
00:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
First I found that this section was being used to host a reaction by Bundy himself, obviously inappropriate as we have a section for that, this is for reactions by media personalities. Then I noted that the only 2 media personalities noted were right wing commentators - clearly pov so I've added a pov tag for the section. Dougweller ( talk) 10:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
The section Court judgments against Bundy's claims presupposes that Bundy will lose all future judgments and legal remedies. The section name also tends to slant the article WP:NPOV as these judgments are already covered elsewhere. There are sparse details about Bundy's "We the People" States Rights claims and nowhere to put them. I'm assuming that the BLM is going to take this issue back to court, Bundy is likely to have representation and this is possibly a SCOTUS case, due to the modifications in the Nevada State Constitution over the last few decades.
My thinking here is that a lot Legal content could be organized into a more appealing structure for the reader. As things stand, a lot of little factoids are being dropped off everywhere without much structure.
009o9 ( talk) 04:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC) 009o9 ( talk) 04:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
any particular reason my inquiry "Party Affiliation?" was deleted from the talk page??
not the article, mind u, but the TALK page! what gives?! 209.172.25.218 ( talk) 05:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't Cliven Bundy's (alleged) racism be on a page devoted to Cliven Bundy? The man is distinct from the standoff. If we had a separate page for the man, we might better be able to distinguish the two subjects. As it is, I feel it is becoming an uncomfortable and unproductive digression to a page about a standoff. 66.225.161.37 ( talk) 13:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
The wp:splitting guidelines on splitting an article are: 1) it's long, 2) the content seems to cover multiple 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: the standoff, and Cliven Bundy's personal views which were revealed some time after the standoff was ended. 66.225.161.37 ( talk) 21:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Cites are needed in the Confrontations and Protests section. At the present time, there is a lot of material in it that may be true, although some of it is badly biased. But, in any case, there needs to be some cites added to back up the statements, because otherwise the unsubstantiated stuff won't be believed a year from now. Please cite some reputable newspaper instead of tabloid style web lunacy. There are a lot of good newspaper reports covering the events, so it shouldn't be too difficult to find. Search is your friend.
Baleywik (
talk)
20:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
This article should be renamed "Battle of Bunkerville" as it is becoming popularly known as. Citations have been added within the article to reflect this. 209.33.216.162 ( talk) 22:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I know that we've been going back and forth between original source cites and secondary sources on commentary and propose this as a more neutral post of what transpired.
We'll look to administrators to even things out, but the snapshot of the current edition has incomplete or broken references and only gives a glossed over quote from a news commentator reported second hand information from a news site that hardly covered the story until later.
In the Confrontations and Protests section. It appears that an edit-revert content war erupted on 18 April, when an editor at IP address 70.8.153.27 tried to make edits on opinion or transcribed/intepreted commentary from a Youtube and/or CNN video about the protest confrontations. This talk page appears to have a discussion attempt by the editor IP address 70.8.153.27 contemporaneously but about another subject. It appears that the same editor at IP address 70.8.153.27 complained to admins after getting edits reverted, which resulted in the Article Protection lockdown of the article editing page at 16:50UTC 18 April. Protection information is as follows: 16:50, 18 April 2014? Barek (talk | contribs)(57,400 bytes)(0)(Protected Bundy standoff: Edit warring / content dispute ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (expires 16:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)) [Move=Allow only administrators] (expires 16:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)).
Please don't shoot the messenger. Baleywik ( talk) 19:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
No mention of Fox News direct involvement, especially Sean Hannity's. There is a multitude of sources to verify the incitement of Fox News' sensationalism surrounding the entire issue until completely bailing out on Mr Bundy immediately following his racist remarks. It is important to label this for what it is, and that does involve specific actions by media sources.
I can't add any without sounding biased. Seems to be no mention of the incitement brought on by media outlets as the reason for the comments made, ie, why one day Hannity was an ardent supporter and the next day calling him repugnant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanbroox ( talk • contribs) 17:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I have partially reverted this edit by an unknown IP user, as the edit introduces original research which is not supported by the source. The claim is made that "common-law system of easements" existed and that the law created an "easement bureaucracy." This is entirely unsupported by the citation given — the word "easement" appears only three times in the article and is not attached to any statement or claim that easements existed or that the act creates any easements. Original research is not permitted on Wikipedia.
The Cornell Legal Information Institute states that the definition of an easement is the grant of a nonpossessory property interest that grants the easement holder permission to use another person's land. The Taylor Grazing Act, as implemented in the CFR, states unequivocally that Grazing permits or leases convey no right, title, or interest held by the United States in any lands or resources. They are, under the law, revocable permits to use land, not legal interests in property. The word "easement" appears nowhere in the text of the law or the implementing CFR sections.
Before the claim that permits issued under the Taylor Grazing Act are "easements" is reinserted, it must be supported by a reliable source, preferably a legal court opinion stating such. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 05:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Please refresh your understanding of WP:NOR. We will not be publishing any information in this article that has not been reported by secondary and reliable sources, so this discussion may not be useful. Cwobeel ( talk) 20:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm got some questions about the source being used to support the statement about the right to graze on public domain land. At a minimum, it's being attributed poorly. Right now it says Samuel Western at the University of Wyoming. Per the bio on the page, Western is a freelance writer. Adding the university is not warranted. I'm also not totally sure about the statement being totally supported by the source. There's not much discussion about the legal rights, just a handful of passing mentions. Ravensfire ( talk) 01:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Then surely you can provide reliable legal sources which state that these so-called "easements" exist in the context of grazing on federal land. Of course, you can't, because they don't exist. Federal courts have repeatedly ruled that Bundy has no easement or any other right to graze his cattle on the property in question. He and his father have held a grazing permit since 1954 and nothing more.
Prescriptive easements and adverse possession cannot operate against the United States (hornbook law, discussed in this interesting case). Moreover, because grazing use prior to 1934 was allowed by law, it cannot be said to be "adverse" even if they did. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 02:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
The second sentence below is clearly false, and original research not supported by any cited source. The Property Clause refers to "Territory or other Property belonging to the United States", not "land within individual states" generally, and the enclave clause refers to ports and bases.
"Bundy also believes that grazing land in Nevada belongs only to Nevada, not the federal government. This is a contradiction, because the Constitution contains the Property Clause and Enclave Clause, both of which empower the federal government to manage and control land within individual states. citation needed"
I'm deleting it now (second sentence above only), since it's not NPOV, unsourced, obviously false, and about a living person. Perhaps a sourced statement about federal ownership of that land could replace it if desired. Al Bunker ( talk) 23:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
The Nevada disclaimer clause is essentially irrelevant, and extensive discussion of it is unnecessary.
As per U.S. v. Gardner, 107 F.3d 1314 (9th Circuit, 1997)
When Congress invited Nevada to join the Union in 1864, it mandated that the Nevada constitutional convention pass an act promising that Nevada would "forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States...." Nevada Statehood Act of March 21, 1864, 13 Stat. 30, 31 § 4. The state constitutional convention did so. Ordinance of the Nevada Constitution.[5]
Gardners claim that this clause is invalid and unconstitutional as an attempt to divest Nevada of its title to the unappropriated lands within its boundaries. Gardners cite to Van Brocklin v. Tennessee, 117 U.S. 151, 167, 6 S.Ct. 670, 679, 29 L.Ed. 845 (1886) for the premise that such disclaimer clauses "are but declaratory, and confer no new right or power upon the United States." Therefore, Gardners argue, Nevada could not have given the United States title to the public lands within its boundaries through the disclaimer clause.
Gardners are correct in their argument that the disclaimer is declaratory. However, the United States did not need the disclaimer clause to gain title to the public lands in Nevada. The United States already had title to those lands through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and the disclaimer clause was merely a recognition of the preexisting United States title, as opposed to a grant of title from Nevada to the United States.
As aforementioned, Congress' power under the Property Clause to administer its own property is virtually unlimited. See, e.g., Kleppe, 426 U.S. at 539, 96 S.Ct. at 2291-92. Indeed, the United States retains title to the public lands within states such as Nevada not due to "any agreement or compact with the proposed new State," but rather "solely because the power of Congress extend[s] to the subject." Coyle, 221 U.S. at 574, 31 S.Ct. at 693. The disclaimer clause, then, is declaratory of the right already held by the United States under the Constitution to administer its property, and as such is valid under the United States Constitution. Van Brocklin, 117 U.S. at 167, 6 S.Ct. at 679.
This is cited in the July 2013 ruling against Bundy - Bundy is incorrect in claiming that the Disclaimer Clause of the Nevada Constitution carries no legal force. See Gardner, 107 F.3d at 1320.
It is original research to suggest that removing the clause post facto changes anything about the status of lands owned and possessed by the federal government since 1848 - no such argument appears in any of the cited sources. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 05:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
NRS 321.596 Legislative findings.
|
---|
|
We don't need full passages in the article. Just summarize the points as reported in secondary sources and avoid WP:NOR. Cwobeel ( talk) 13:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
cud someone pls restore this section from the history files -- i do not know how to do it myself.
it was a legitimate enquiry on the talk page -- why on earth was it removed in the first place?! 209.172.25.201 ( talk) 02:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I propose taking away the "orphan" tag on this article, as the page Grazing rights links to it. However, this "Bundy standoff" is rife with politicized coverage (and I googled it, and apparently conspiracy theorists are all over this stuff, it's a bit toxic), so I urge particular caution on further edits. Samcashion ( talk) 05:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I removed the "orphan" tag on the article. Biased or politicized or not, the "orphan" tag is used to denote a page with no pages that link to it. Grazing rights links to this page, so I removed the orphan tag. (Someone added "Clive Bundy" to the See also section of the page. His name is 'Cliven,' not 'Clive.' So I removed it altogether and added the link to Bundy standoff. NiklawskiMSTM traveled from the fourth dimension to deliver this text to you. Please thank him on his talk page. 16:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Good! I didn't want to unilaterally remove it myself, because I wasn't sure whether there were other things that needed to be done first. Thanks Samcashion ( talk) 23:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Someone with the IP address of 187.250.123.47 made a few edits that I deemed destructive. Here's a list of the edits, my action, and an explanation of my actions:
I haven't taken out the Infowars citations yet. I have second-hand knowledge that some things that are referenced from Infowars happened, as my friend's dad was down there and gave me live updates. So I'll be looking for alternative references.
Oh, and if you're wondering, I accidentally deleted some of the edits that actually were not destructive, including the conspiracy theory. They should be back up soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NiklawskiMSTM ( talk • contribs) 00:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Realiable sources. Excerpts from something someone allegedly said on TV should never be used unless you have a transcript or other recording to direct people to. Try to use publications which have a reputation for even handedness and good fact checking. Remember to include both sides of the argument. Right now, this article's kind of a disgrace IMO. 173.228.54.18 ( talk) 22:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
"Bundy is the trespasser, and is responsible for past fees, liable for damages, and must negotiate grazing and fees with the agency going forward"...this is a biased statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.71.24.90 ( talk) 22:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Referring to First Amendment Zones as unconstitutional is a biased statement. They have not been unambiguously ruled as such by the Supreme Court. Actually the court has ruled them constitutional so long as a set of criteria for their use has been met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.139.9 ( talk) 01:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Remove the term 'statist' from the phrase 'statist courts'. The meaning of the term statist is tied to one's POV, and as such cannot be used without creating ambiguity. In the Wikipedia definition any and all court is statist because the only form of society that is not statist is anarchy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.139.9 ( talk) 19:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Add a reference to the FAA No Fly Zone that was imposed over the area restricting access to "ONLY RELIEF AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS UNDER DIRECTION OF BLM" http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_4_1687.html
Add details from this original youtube video of the confrontation at the cattle coral. Note the frame that shows BLM snipers overlooking the scene. Note the protestors steadily advancing on foot and horseback on the heavily armed law enforcement personnel. Not clear if law enforcement is threatening over bullhorns to shoot. Note that the law enforcement withdrew and did not engage with the protestors. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD61YFxUga4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.22.176 ( talk) 22:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Recent edits and organization of sections have resulted in a significantly better article with much less bias. Neutral wording and the addition of factual material with cites have contributed to a more encyclopedic reading. This article will need to be improved more, especially by the addition of more cites on the protest section. Baleywik ( talk) 23:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
After several hours of cleanup, the page is starting to form into more of a wikipedia article. Editors should pay attention to the need for cites when new material is added. This helps to make it unbiased. Baleywik ( talk) 01:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I just wanted to say, kudos to the editors who've improved this article pretty dramatically over the last several hours. 173.228.54.18 ( talk) 04:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Trying to keep my language as neutral as possible: any coverage of this issue will be seen as biased by somebody. Report on it when it is history. 174.56.63.69 ( talk) 02:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Watch the videos and audio of the final confrontation at the gate. The BLM clearly state over the loud speaker that they (THE BLM) were going to shoot the American Patriots if they attempted to cross the BLM line. The BLM had military assault rifles pointed at the crowd and the BLM were hiding behind armored vehicles. 09:17, 14 April 2014 66.87.90.25 (talk)
You can add such material in a different paragraph or sentence if you have a written transcript of it you can point to, or if it is in print somewhere that you can cite a reference to it. However, you can't just change the previous entry that was written that has a cite reference already with an exact quote. If you persist it is vandalism to keep reverting it. Baleywik ( talk) 09:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Reported claims by media and Bundy that he is the last cattle rancher in Nevada or Bunkerville have been debunked. In fact, cattle owned by other ranchers were rounded up in the same pens as Bundy's. See the cites in the article for reference. Baleywik ( talk) 09:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
According to BLM records the Bunkerville 02005 allotment area has been officially closed to cattle for many years. Any livestock found on that land are there illegally. You can reference it easily in the BLM map system by going to the http://www.geocommunicator.gov/blmMap/Map.jsp?MAP=SiteMapper and in the Select Map drop down in the upper right select Rangeland, turn on all the sub layers, then zoom into the Bunkerville area. Here is a pdf of the listing https://www.blm.gov/workspace/ihtml/Request?DocUUID=0000010c1214c4b1-0000-691d-0a780c38&DocInstanceID=1&SectionName=&StatusID=0&Command=ExportPDF&FileName=&ObjectIDs=&Params=CurrentPageNo%7C1%7CCurrentPageNoH%7C1%7CCntSz%7C1037x674&BrowserURL=&HiddenParams= Too bad nobody cares about facts anymore. There are too many 'true believers' out there stirring up trouble, it seems, IMHO Baleywik ( talk) 22:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I fixed the family history section based on the source. Leavitt was only in Bunkerville for a few years, and Cliven's ancestors were quickly moved elsewhere. It also explains why Cliven's family didn't return to Bunkerville until after the 1930s. 70.8.177.67 ( talk) 18:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The Blaze is being used as a source in this article currently. That isn't really appropriate, seeing as The Blaze doesn't really have any reasonable pretense of being an objective source of information. There are obvious POV issues with anything coming from this site. We really should try to find other sources verifying what they say, or scrap the section using it as a source entirely. Last night I edited the section which was stating a dubious assertion by Carol Bundy that there were/are snipers in this conflict, as fact, and noted that (even within the article it says BLM spokeswoman Kirsten Cannon didn't confirm this) there has been no verification of what Bundy said. I'm not sure if that's enough though, because this still might mislead people. Samcashion ( talk) 23:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Twice now I have edited the first occurrence of the word Taser to have double brackets, thereby creating a link to the Wikipedia article on this device. And twice, different folks have steamrolled right over this helpful link, replacing whole paragraphs, leaving some readers in the dark as to what is being discussed.
My idea of helpful text is to have a few hyperlinks to other Wikipedia articles here and there as appropriate. Since Taser and especially tasering and tasered are not yet what I call common words, I consider it entirely appropriate to link the first occurrence for the benefit of readers.
If useful hyperlinks get carelessly removed, more articles would earn the dreaded "orphan" tag, and where would that leave us?
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Orphanage
What is the consensus on Taser? I certainly don't want to keep adding links that nobody wants. But I can't help but think that the folks who are editing this article every two minutes are well aware of Tasers, and have given no thought to the possibility that there might be readers who need to find out what one is. Megapod ( talk) 01:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I created this page because I am really interested in this. But this is Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia. We want to keep things as unbiased as possible. I'm not the best writer, so if you can put it in there in an unbiased fashion, that'd be great.
NiklawskiMSTM traveled from the fourth dimension to deliver this text to you. Please thank him on his talk page. 16:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to NiklawskiMSTM for creating this page. Elevated this section to top level instead of subsection. Baleywik ( talk) 00:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
www.infowarscom/breaking-sen-harry-reid-behind-blm-land-grab-of-bundy-ranch/ unreliable fringe source?
What about all the videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD61YFxUga4
Wikipedia is useless for anything other than non-controverial neutral info such as some basic biology or mathematics.
Xowets ( talk) 23:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
We don't need that kind of disinformation. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a sensationalist blog or tabloid. Baleywik ( talk) 02:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
"Ranch Stash" snopes.com. — goethean 18:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
As Bundy does not want the Federal Government to own the disputed land, has he made any comments regarding it being rendered private by being sold to the highest bidder? If this wasn't him would he be okay with removing his cattle off the then private property, because his principle is about fighting big government? Has any source asked him this question, as it would be good to add such a response to this article to indicate whether he is acting out of principle or self-interest.== Wowaconia ( talk) 22:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Very little sense to seems to be able to be hashed out of his stance on these things. I read all the court filings, and essentially he argues that the state of Nevada owns the land, not the federal government, but also that he has preemptive rights to graze on them (Not a shining beacon of internal consistency). At one point the government offered to help sell his cattle to the highest bidder at no cost to him with him receiving all sales of the proceeds. He flatly refused, so it doesn't sound like self-interest is the only thing motivating him. There have been a number of traffic accidents caused directly by his cattle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlk0606 ( talk • contribs) 06:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The ruling provided in the bottom of the US v Bundy summary box is part of a separate case against the guy from the 90s (different parcels of land). Most of those documents predate PACER so they would be harder to get, but I can pull what I can find; perhaps we should create two distinct boxes for the two cases to avoid confusion. Dlk0606 ( talk) 06:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Please add all 1998 transcripts to the same Infobox. They are the same court, just another round. Two infoboxes will make it much too bulky. IMHO Baleywik ( talk) 07:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
It is the same Court and the same caption (because it's the same parties litigating in the same district), but they are two distinct federal actions dealing with closely related but different causes of action; perhaps there is a way to create an internal distinction between the two? Dlk0606 ( talk) 12:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Specifically, we would be best served by noting the existence of the two cases and grouping documents from the two cases separately. Right now we only have the order from Oct. 2013 for the first action (1998), but I've gathered several additional pleadings as well as the pre-ECF docket sheet that I can load onto the wiki Dlk0606 ( talk) 13:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Since several other legal cases in Nevada seem to run parallel to the Bundy case, it is appropriate to make note of them in a top level section near the bottom of the article. They all involve US Federal lands and ranchers who were taken to court for cattle grazing permit violations or trespass cattle, and there were different outcomes in each of the cases. Baleywik ( talk) 19:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
This case is very similar to Bundy, in fact Bundy cited it in his case. It was argued and lost on states' rights. Baleywik ( talk) 19:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I am having a difficult time finding a reference that demonstrates similarity between the Bundy case and US v Hage. The Bundy case is about whether grazing permits are required at all. But Hage was about water rights, grazing incidental to those water rights, and the unfair denial of grazing permit applications. In Hage, the court ruled on the basis of expert testimony that grazing incidental to water rights was allowed within one-half mile of the water source. My understanding is that the ruling concludes that unpermitted grazing beyond that distance would constitute trespass, but that the government had acted unfairly in denying Hage his permits. The ruling orders that (1) the Hage estate will apply for permits consistent with those held before the government refused to renew them, that (2) the BLM and USFS will consider and approve those applications "in accordance with regulation and statute" (i.e., no jerking them around), and that (3) the Hage estate will pay the standard fees for those permits.
Those conclusions are described in pages 101 to 104 of this ruling. My understanding of the Bundy case is that Bundy rejects the assertion that any permits are required whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.17.128.88 ( talk) 15:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that the denial of E. Wayne Hage’s renewal grazing application for the years 1993–2003 was an abuse of discretion, as well as a violation of due process, as the only reason given for the denial was that the applicant noted near his signature that he did not thereby relinquish certain unidentified rights under the UCC, a superfluous condition that cannot possibly have affected the terms of the permit. It is this violation that has led to all of the allegedly un-permitted grazing to date and the BLM’s refusal to offer any permit to Hage himself.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Hage shall apply for renewal grazing permits consistent with those possessed by E. Wayne Hage before the refusal of the BLM and USFS to renew them, using standard application forms, and without attempting to add any conditions or commentary not provided for on the standard forms. The BLM and USFS must consider and grant the application(s) in accordance with statute and regulation, i.e., in accordance with those historical usages and preferences in the relevant areas existing as of the last date E. Wayne Hage or Jean Hage had such permits in good standing, and Hage shall pay the required standard fees.
"oo9", if you have ANY actual evidence, show it. You claim something found on May 23, 2013 - I can find no links that back you up. Either come up with evidence or go away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.236.94 ( talk) 14:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I added a citation needed tag. If the two cases are similar, and if the similarities are both noteworthy and relevant, then it should be easy for someone to find a reference that verifies this similarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.17.128.88 ( talk) 14:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I undid a revision that purported to establish similarity between the two cases. The only similarities that are well-established are that the government and a rancher went to court over a trespass claim. The paragraph about US v Hage does not emphasize that aspect of the trial; it emphasizes how the court ruled harshly against the BLM and USFS. In the Bundy case, courts have repeatedly ruled in favor of the government and against Bundy. I agree that the cases are similar insofar as they both involve trespass on federal lands. But there are substantial dissimilarities — one is about unfairly denied permits, and the other is about permits that a rancher refused to apply for. An authoritative, unbiased (or minimally biased) source is needed in order to verifiably establish how these cases are similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.17.128.88 ( talk) 15:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I nominated the file File:United States v Bundy - Answer June 2012.pdf for deletion at Commons; you can find the deletion discussion here. RJaguar3 | u | t 13:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
That's fine, it will probably be deleted eventually, due to the fact that it is in a gray area of copyright law that hasn't been adjudicated (copyright status of third party public court documents). The document is pertinent to the article here, and very difficult or elusive for most to access, so it was uploaded. The few days of it being available here might enable it to be made available at a more accessible web location. Baleywik ( talk) 19:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I opposed the nomination for deletion, although I recognize that there are legitimate arguments for deleting it. Given that court records are public and freely available for view or copy by anybody with a PACER account or who travels to the courthouse (or calls its clerk), and our use here is definitely for education, I doubt any legitimate copyright claim could possibly arise out of its being posted. Further, as the only federal case I know of addressing unauthorized copying of court filings on copyright grounds (White et al v. West Publishing et al) has concluded in summary judgment being granted against plaintiffs, it seems there should be little issue here. Of course, a full order complete with legal reasoning is still pending in that case, and West moved on the basis of fair use (which, I think, is not recognized here), so it's not apples to apples. That having been said, I think that if we wait for jurisprudence on this issue, ie wait for someone to file a copyright infringement based on not-for-profit use, we will be waiting for a very long time, as I can't imagine many people taking up federal causes of action against RECAP etc. - and we'll be doing the public a great disservice in the interim. I recognize WikiMedia's policies are stringent, but surely they too can be a target of reasonable interpretation by intelligent people. Dlk0606 ( talk) 13:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
[2] This is a good resource that should be incorporated sometime. 70.8.153.27 ( talk) 17:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The present section "Other Nevada grazing legal actions" is starting to take over the Bundy page. Already the bullet points and huge paragraphs full of legal issues regarding the Colvin and Hage case are way too off-topic for this Bundy page. It was fine when it was just a small paragraph about a background, but now it has legs of its own. It might be better to either de-emphasize the Colvin Hage section by moving it to the bottom, or else start a new page for it and just have a small paragraph on the Bundy page that refers to it. Baleywik ( talk) 18:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
In related news, a new article has been started on the Bundy militia, also known as Bundy's militia. The wikipedia article is /info/en/?search=Bundy_militia . It only has about 4 cites so far, but the general framework for the article is in place. Baleywik ( talk) 02:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC) Baleywik ( talk) 05:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Within an hour of the Bundy militia page going up, someone objected to its existence :) /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bundy_militia Baleywik ( talk) 02:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC) Baleywik ( talk) 05:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
The above entry regarding possible deletion or keeping of the Bundy militia article has been modified to be more unbiased than previously worded. To quote wikipedia guidelines on canvassing: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." Baleywik ( talk) 07:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
A good resource we can use to better this article is the 1998 US District Court ruling. It has been uploaded here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/218116757/1998-U-S-Dist-LEXIS-23835 I see right off that the Bundy Ranch did not start grazing in this area until 1954. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.230.34 ( talk) 00:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
[3] Reuters says that there were 1,000 in the militia with sniper rifles and the rest. It says that there were only a dozen rangers part of the BLM. Much of the IP vandalism and fringe sources are trying to suggest that there was a huge and armed Federal presence. That is clearly not the case. 173.153.10.44 ( talk) 22:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Does it deserve mention that the presence of Bundy's cattle on the land is an occupation protest to challenge the federal ownership of the land?
Efcmagnew ( talk) 23:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe; is he reported as having characterized it as such? Dlk0606 ( talk) 23:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
This article is seriously biased. I attempted to clean it up but somebody reverted back to the la-la-land version. Issues:
-- It's a fact that the stand-off began when Bundy stopped respecting US law and failed to pay his grazing fees. The editor who edits it back to the idea that the stand-off originated because the government was at fault just doesn't understand how rule of law works. -- The Harry Reid conspiracy theories at the end are ridiculous; the most recent stand-off is a consequence of a Nevada judge's ruling in 2013 that the 1998 permanent injunction against Bundy was valid. This has nothing at all to do with Harry Reid. -- Infowars, a cartoonish "news" fabricator, should not be cited as a source. -- I noted in my edits that the BLM argues that allowing Bundy to get away with not paying his grazing fees discriminates against the 16,000 who do. Whoever edited out that edit is turning this article into a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.250.123.47 ( talk) 01:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
The word "standoff" implies that two heavily-armed parties have each other in their sights, and both parties are potentially willing to escalate into violence.
While the government employees in the area were certainly heavily armed, there have been no reports that the Bundy family is heavily armed; and there have been no reports that the Bundy family was interested in escalating the situation into violence.
Even the first sentence of the article backs off from use of the word "standoff." It says "The Bundy standoff is a dispute", not "the Bundy standoff is a standoff".
Since it's actually a dispute, not a standoff, let's change the article name to "Bundy cattle-grazing dispute". 75.163.143.115 ( talk) 17:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Support move to Bundy cattle-grazing dispute. It is more descriptive as an encyclopedic entry, and the article covers an ongoing, more historic legal dispute rather than just a few days of protest or armed confrontation. If there needs to be a spin-off of the article regarding the armed protest and confrontation, it should be called Bundy armed confrontation or something.( talk) 13 April 2014 Baleywik ( talk) 19:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
This section is for proposed alternative article names. Baleywik ( talk) 00:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
We may want to hold off on any decisions about a name change until the split is decided. Sparkie82 ( t• c) 03:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
From the CNN cite - "To environmentalists and the feds, however, he's an outlaw of sorts who owes U.S. taxpayers more than $1 million in unpaid grazing fees."
Another citation is need or this statement needs to be changed to reflect the fact that the one million dollar figure is a POV of the environmentalists and the feds and is not stated as a fact by CNN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.161.120 ( talk) 04:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Bundy standoff has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the history of Nevada, the article states that the land in question where Bundy's ranch resides is public land that is part of Nevada. At the time of statehood, the land in question was part of the Arizona Territory and not included as part of the state of Nevada. Later in 1867, the land south of the border with Utah incorporated into the borders of the state of Nevada. This included all land south along the west bank of the Colorado river to the Calfornia border. Dlbkr2 ( talk) 21:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Bundy standoff has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under Reaction by media personalities, it should be clarified that Joe Walsh is a former U.S. Representative from Illinois (IL-8). Saying "Illinois Representative" sounds like he was in the state legislature, not Congress. Farolif ( talk) 04:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. Your suggested addition makes the sentence read slightly awkwardly, so I don't think it counts as entirely uncontroversial. Let's wait to hear what others think before enacting it. Best —
Mr. Stradivarius
♪ talk ♪
07:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Hey, I'll be restoring this page to its pre- vandalism state. The vandalism was perpetrated by someone with the IP address of 98.224.28.167. NiklawskiMSTM traveled from the fourth dimension to deliver this text to you. Please thank him on his talk page. 17:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Another vandal at 08:44, 14 April 2014.. The vandal's IP address is 66.87.90.25 . Others should out watch for that IP address because it is repetitive. Baleywik ( talk) 09:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Noting the 4th instance of IP address 66.87.90.25 vandalism. Baleywik ( talk) 09:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Noting the 5th instance of IP address 66.87.90.25 vandalism. Baleywik ( talk) 04:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Noting 5 instances of vandalism, deletion or blanking whole paragraphs, in the Family history section by a vandal at IP Address 204.48.45.32. on 15:58, 16 April 2014 and 15:56, 16 April 2014 and 23:46, 15 April 2014 and 18:01, 15 April 2014 and 17:14, 15 April 2014. Baleywik ( talk) 16:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Noting an instance of vandalism, deletion or blanking whole paragraph, in the Family history section, by a vandal at IP address 50.38.0.49 with same location as above IP Address 204.48.45.32. We should be attentive to this vandal and use the "Undo Vandalism" if/when it happens again. Baleywik ( talk) 18:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I will be restoring the following to Other Nevada grazing legal actions, anonymous user (173.153.3.126) has blanked the section and has already threatened to report me for edit-warring with only one revert. My reading of WP:NOT3RR indicates that reverting vandalism (i.e., blanking of relevant information) is not edit warring. The section in the article currently includes accusations against other ranchers in Nevada grazing cases, but the anonymous user appears to wish to censor the trial's outcome from the public -- citing original research.
Perhaps the quote box will make it more apparent that this is testimony and documented fact rather than original research.
Begin section revert:
The charges against Colvin were dismissed, [1] Chief Judge Robert C. Jones of the Federal District Court of Nevada found in favor of Hage concerning water rights, grazing rights and all but two livestock trespass charges in United States vs. Wayne Hage (2013). [1] [2]
Judge Jones found: [3]
- Congress prescribed grazing rights on federal lands were to be granted based on a rancher’s ownership of water rights established under local law and custom. [3]
- Hage has a right of access to put his livestock water rights to beneficial use, therefore the livestock could not be found in trespass. [3] [Within one half mile of water rights] [1]
- USFS employee Steve Williams was found in contempt of court and guilty of witness intimidation. [2] [1] [4]
- Tonopah BLM manager Tom Seley as found in contempt of court and guilty of witness intimidation. [2] [1] [4]
- Williams and Seley were held personally liable for damages with fines exceeding $33,000. [3]
- The Hage’s were found guilty of only two minor trespass violations and were fined $165.88 [1]
- Regional Forester Harv Forsgren was excluded from testifying at trial during witness credibility hearing for lying to the Court. [3] [4]
Chief Judge Robert C. Jones stated at the conclusion of the case:
Statement of Randy N. Parker for, The US House of Representatives, Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Water and Power, October 10, 2013
2:07-cv-01154-RCJ-VCF
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Wayne N Hage Testimony
In fact, Judge Jones accused the federal bureaucrats of racketeering under the federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations) statute, and accused them as well of extortion, mail fraud, and fraud, in an effort "to kill the business of Mr. Hage."
End section revert: I for one, find the trial outcome very interesting and highly relevant to the Nevada grazing rights issue. Regards 009o9 ( talk) 08:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Administrators, please see User_talk:009o9#WP_No_Original_Research 009o9 ( talk) 16:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Just a thought, if Mr. Bundy had been aware of the outcome of US v Hage, would he have chosen to pursue a remedy through the court rather a direct confrontation with government swat-teams? I don't know. It is very telling when an anonymous poster is engaged in promoting the criminality of one side while attempting to censor the criminality of the other. Censorship could very well be a contributing cause of the confrontation. I'm sure that this is not a concern for the "ends justifies the means" type mentalities though. 009o9 ( talk) 16:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:No original research
Original research isn't an issue of failure to provide a cite, its that the linkage doesn't exist outside of our, wikipedia editors, opinions. We are neither notable nor reliable as per wiki-standards. I am not saying there is an issue with the information on the cases in those segments, I am saying that only wikipeida editors are making any claim that these cases have a direct impact on the Bundy standoff, no one of notabality is saying this in a reliable and quotable medium.
While I or other wiki editors may hold that there are links, it doesn't matter what we think according to Wikipedia. Our humble opinions do not raise to the level of notable or reliable so if these segments are to remain on the page a reliable and notable source must be found that links them - the best I could find was blogs which also don't rise to notable and reliable under wikipedia standards. So short of finding someone notable to back up the opinion that there is a link, these segments have to go.
I would rather see them moved and given their own articles than just deleted, but in either case they can not long remain here in violation of wikipedia standards. The opinions of anonymous wikipeida editors is not encylopedic and wikipedia is not a blog for us to assert by our own authority that connections exist.-- Wowaconia ( talk) 20:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
For clarity let me say - I am not speaking about the infobox at this point, which does directly mention Bundy but rather I am speaking about this subsegment: Bundy standoff#Similar federal grazing legal cases. -- Wowaconia ( talk) 20:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The addition of a notable linking US v Hage to Bundy is from a reliable source and does remove concerns of O.R. from that part of the sub-segment.
The sources on the US v Gardner are all legal papers except for an article that lists the events of the dispute over Southwestern Federal land and does not link Gardnder's case to the Bundy standoff outside of chronology.
It does mention that Gardner and Bundy are friends that support each other, but there is no indication within the article that Bundy's strategy was affected by the Gardner case or that a notable thinks its instructive (as the notable cited for the Hage case did).
It is in effect like listing all the events of American History up to the Cold War and then saying that becuse the article mentioned the Declaration of Independence that this proves a major motive behind America's stance in opposing the USSR was the Declaration. It may well be true, but without a more direct linking it still remains speculation by anyonomous wikipedia editors asserting links that can not be backed up by direct quotation. If what was provided for the Hage case, can be provided for Gardner the objection of O.R. will be nullified for both parts. As it is, Hage can stay if that is consensus but Gardner still has to go.-- Wowaconia ( talk) 21:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The concern that the subsegments link to the standoff was resting only on OR has been nullified. The additions not only show their link but increase the readability of this part of the article. Well done.-- Wowaconia ( talk) 20:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The sub-segment under Reactions, entitled "Other reactions" is actually not a reaction to the events in this article at all. It seems that the editor adding them wanted to point out that elsewhere in the region there are concerns over land-development that involve Harry Reid. I have not examined any of the refs offered so I can not verify if they are notable or reliable, but right now I don't even see how this information is germane to this page. If the information about the environmentalists can be expanded while remaining on topic to this article perhaps it could be included but otherwise it seems it should be moved to either the Harry Reid page or to a page about the environmentalists themselves.-- Wowaconia ( talk) 22:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I moved this section to Coyote Springs Investment, a stub that seemed more relevant to this content. Mreed911 ( talk) 23:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
When this comes down from lockdown, there should be changes made to the "Reactions by Public Officials" and "Reactions by Media Personalities" to show both sides. As of now, it only lists people who support the Bundy side, not the BLM. It comes off as biased and poorly researched. Craigstealsheep ( talk) 22:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I think there should be description of the history of the disputed land, such as the fact that the Bundy family has owned the land since the 1800s, before Nevada even became a state. Now the government wants to confiscate the land, allegedly because cattle somehow threaten a tortoise, yet people unconnected to the ranch do offroad vehicle driving in that area all the time. You'd think the government would try to do something about that, but they don't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.150.252 ( talk) 08:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
The section was added today, to provide background on the Bundy family, relevant to the inheritance claims Bundy made in his legal cases. Please don't get too carried away on the whole family tree or offshoots of the clan, that are not really pertinent to the encyclopedic article. :) Baleywik ( talk) 22:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Bundy claimed inheritance of land rights, and there has been a lot of material appearing in the family background section about his Morman polygamist ancestors who are actually the ones he is claiming as the source of his "vested rights" or special rights. It seems that every time any of this material is added, with cites, a vandal at IP address 204.48.45.32 in Oregon blanks the section out. We need to watch for this vandal and restore. Wikipedia has proper methods to cite and support material or delete it if it is not appropriate. However, semi-anonymous blanking is not one of the valid procedures. Baleywik ( talk) 16:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Bundy standoff has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the first occurrence of Taser to read Taser. Please see Talk:Bundy_standoff item 16 for my reasons. I can see a need for automatically checking any edits which replace entire paragraphs to be sure that all pre-existing internal cross-references and citations are preserved. Megapod ( talk) 14:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC) Megapod ( talk) 14:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
In this case, I don't think we have a consensus quite yet. Megapod wants to keep the word "taser" (and link it), but KinkyLipids wants to use the word "stun gun". I can't see any useful way to judge which of these proposed edits has consensus - both are allowed by policy, and there is no obvious agreement between editors here. So I'm forced to answer this request as a "not done".
This brings us back to the point behind page protection - it is intended to make editors discuss their disagreements on the talk page, rather than edit warring on the article. Part of the reason things are not working so well on this talk page is that a few editors don't seem to understand that edits that are contended require discussion. This is how Wikipedia works, whether the article is protected or not. It is possible to have a very contentious article that is not protected - it simply requires the editors to discuss their edits whenever they disagree, and to keep discussing those edits until they come to an agreement. So let's discuss things a little bit more, both in this section and elsewhere on the talk page, and then hopefully I can start to actually enact some of these edit requests. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Bundy standoff has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The consensus appears to be no split concerning subsegments calling for discussion of such in the article, concerns over O.R. in these segments have been nullified by quotes and citations. I was the originator of the call for the split, and bow to consensus against me. I also raised the question of O.R. but an editor has improved the article and that is no longer an issue. Therefor please remove the tags seeking consensus about whether the subsegments should be split off. Thank you, Wowaconia ( talk) 20:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC) Wowaconia ( talk) 20:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
See Talk:Bundy_standoff#Question_of_whether_Info_box_and_links_to_court_findings.2C_briefs.2C_etc._should_be_moved_to_articles_on_the_court_cases for vote tallys. -- Wowaconia ( talk) 20:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Subsegments that are tagged are found at: Bundy_standoff#Similar_federal_grazing_legal_cases -- Wowaconia ( talk) 20:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
[4] This is Cliven's dad, from Arizona. Records show that the family was in Arizona until at least the 30s (birth records). The grandparents were also not from the area. They were never able to prove that the family had rights or deeds going back that long. This is why. 173.153.11.73 ( talk) 20:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Bundy standoff has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The statement that no shots where fired is factually incorrect. The BLM has stated that they shoot several bull cattle due to their perceived danger to the roundup. 97.124.171.118 ( talk) 19:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Nevada assemblywoman Michel Fiore was among those who maintained that BLM agents either killed cattle by either shooting them or running them to death during the Bunkerville incident. [...] A Fox News reporter, among others, who viewed the bull holding pens after the livestock were “euthanized” noted that any evidence of wild behavior such as damaged gates or fencing were not evident. [1]
Turns out the land that Bundy actually owns near Bunkerville was purchased in 1948 by his parents. He apparently got some water rights with that. The refs also discuss his family history, which at a glance is consistent with what is already in the article.
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25301551/bundys-ancestral-rights-come-under-scrutin
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25302186/an-abbreviated-look-at-rancher-cliven-bundys-family-history
As best I can tell, Bundy seems to be asserting that he has grazing rights because his mother's mother's father did. 99.184.74.183 ( talk) 22:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I've just posted a comment on ANI that I would like to repeat here.
In general, I find every editor that has contributed meaningfully to this article, including the nearly 50% IP editors, have done an impressive and remarkable job of producing a high-quality article on a topic that should be expected to be riddled with POV issues. My congratulations to all of you.
Also, and in light of my conclusion above, I am formally requesting that protection be removed from this page, unless some evidence of actual disruptive or contentious editing can be supplied. Eaglizard ( talk) 21:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, since I started this as a completely uninvolved and uninformed editor that didn't understand the need for full PP (even that is a specific remedy for content dispute), please don't make me look like an idiot (it's not hard, but still...). WP:BRD is your friend and any revert requires discussion. Semi-PP will be implemented if IP editors start reverting. -- DHeyward ( talk) 05:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
The various Reactions sections seem to be vastly tilted toward those reactions positive to Mr. Bundy. This doesn't seem to reflect the weight of those reactions among all reactions to the situation, regardless of catagory. I think we either need to pare down the pro-bundy reactions, or add additional opposing reactions. The article would seem to suggest that the overwhelming majority of reactions from the categories posted were pro-bundy, but that doesn't seem to match the general coverage of the event. I don't have a problem with any specific reaction/source (though some are potentially questionable in their notiability), just the lack of due weight. 204.65.34.237 ( talk) 21:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Reminding editors that this article is under General Sanctions, with 1RR per editor per 24 hrs. See Talk:Bundy_standoff/General_Sanctions Cwobeel ( talk) 22:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
In the subsegment entitled "United States v Hage" a county commissioner was quoted. A question of notability was raised concerning this.
Many news-sources are referring to the incident discussed in this article as being part of the Sagebrush Rebellion which was a political movement that came to the fore in the 1970s. (At least one reference to it being viewed that way was provided in the article, citing a reporter for the Christian Science Monitor, more could be provided if desired.)
The Sagebrush Rebellion was spearheaded at the county level, were they made resolutions declaring federal lands were now under the authority of the counties, one of the most famous incidents is cited in wiki's article on the movement...
"On July 4, 1994, Nye County commissioner Dick Carver plowed open a road that the National Forest Service had declared closed as a statement supporting county supremacy over the federal government. Carver and his supporters claimed that the federal government's ownership of 93% of the land in Nye County was illegal."
So a good argument can be made that an elected official at the county commissioner level in Nevada has notability on this topic and can be quoted.
-- Wowaconia ( talk) 00:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Simple: should the Hage material, which says that a local commissioner advised Bundy to study United States v Hage, be included?
That section may be violating WP:NOR? If there are no sources connecting Bundy's case with these other cases, Wikipedia should not be the one connecting them. See WP:SYNTH for an explanation. Cwobeel ( talk) 16:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
No idea how to add this stuff, but as it has been said by the person himself, it should be summarized [16] Cwobeel ( talk) 15:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
There is an overwhelming number of sources describing his comments as racist. Cwobeel ( talk) 04:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Cwobeel ( talk) 15:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, there was noting "racist" about what Bundy said. Had he said, blacks should have remained slaves 'because' they were black, that would have been much different. Bundy expressed a 'wonder' about blacks and slavery and cited a number of reasons, including the number of blacks dependent on gov, number of blacks in prison, etc. He also was concerned about their freedoms when he said "They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom."
Whether you agree with this view or not, his comments were not "racist". Many news sources, including the
New York Times,
LA Times,
Washington Times and
Fox News refer to them as comments about race and only report that some have regarded Bundy's comments as "racist". These news sources themselves do not say his comments were "racist". Anyone who actually takes the time to read his comments can see that they are not. Bundy only commented on what he thought was true. That is not "racist". --
Gwillhickers (
talk)
17:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
And so what I'm testifying to you is that I was in the Watts riots.
I saw the beginning fire and I saw the last fire. What I'd seen was civil disturbance, people who were not happy people who were thinking they don't have their freedom, they don't have these things and they didn't have them.
We've progressed quite a bit from that day until now and we sure don't want to go back. We sure don't want these colored people to have to go back to that point, we sure don't want these Mexican people to have to go back to that point.
And we can make a difference right now by taking care of some of these bureaucracies and do it in a peaceful way.
Regardless, how exactly are these recent and personal comments relevant to the land situation on this page? The comments were made yesterday, while the last BLM incident was near the beginning of April. Seems a bit over-extended, if not packaged into an agenda. Pushing for a review. 67.142.130.36 ( talk) 04:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
We can't engage in a discussion about if his comments were racists or not (although it seems quite obvious what they are given the repudiation by so many of these that supported him before), as that is not our role here. These comments where not "so called racist", the comments were called racist by the many sources available.
Cwobeel (
talk)
04:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
The map used in the "Grazing on US federal rangeland in Nevada" is not completely appropriate since it shows all federal lands including national parks and military facilities. The issue here involves lands managed by the BLM. A better map would be something like this one from The Economist, which shows BLM lands in a separate color from other federal lands. GabrielF ( talk) 21:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
User:009o9 recently added some commentary by Ben Swann on Bundy's racial remarks. [17] This material strikes me as giving undue weight to a minority opinion. I don't necessarily have a problem with including Bundy's positive remarks about Hispanics, but Swann's ideas are clearly out of the mainstream. We certainly shouldn't put the viewpoint that Bundy was "inarticulate" and "misrepresented" by the media ahead of condemnations of Bundy's words from figures such as Harry Reid, Dean Heller, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Reince Priebus and others. These condemnations represent the (overwhelming) majority view. Swann should not be the first citation for the factual content in this section - above the original NYTimes reporting. GabrielF ( talk) 21:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
A spokesman for Mr. Paul, informed of Mr. Bundy’s remarks, said the senator was not available for immediate comment. Chandler Smith, a spokesman for Mr. Heller, said that the senator “completely disagrees with Mr. Bundy’s appalling and racist statements, and condemns them in the most strenuous way.” A spokeswoman for Mr. Abbott, Laura Bean, said that the letter he wrote “was regarding a dispute in Texas and is in no way related to the dispute in Nevada.”
(No pun intended). The lead does not include the racially charged comments made by Bundy, which have been significantly covered by an abundance of sources, and some editors are replacing hos words about "the negro" with "African Americans" which was not what Bundy said. As this article is under 1RR, I will not revert these edits, but others may be breaching the 1RR limitation on this article, so beware. Cwobeel ( talk) 23:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I just re-read the article after the edits made today, and OMG, what a bloody disaster! This article now is totally un-reflective of what the sources say about the subject and has become an apologetic article about Bundy.
Cwobeel (
talk)
00:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
First I found that this section was being used to host a reaction by Bundy himself, obviously inappropriate as we have a section for that, this is for reactions by media personalities. Then I noted that the only 2 media personalities noted were right wing commentators - clearly pov so I've added a pov tag for the section. Dougweller ( talk) 10:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
The section Court judgments against Bundy's claims presupposes that Bundy will lose all future judgments and legal remedies. The section name also tends to slant the article WP:NPOV as these judgments are already covered elsewhere. There are sparse details about Bundy's "We the People" States Rights claims and nowhere to put them. I'm assuming that the BLM is going to take this issue back to court, Bundy is likely to have representation and this is possibly a SCOTUS case, due to the modifications in the Nevada State Constitution over the last few decades.
My thinking here is that a lot Legal content could be organized into a more appealing structure for the reader. As things stand, a lot of little factoids are being dropped off everywhere without much structure.
009o9 ( talk) 04:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC) 009o9 ( talk) 04:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
any particular reason my inquiry "Party Affiliation?" was deleted from the talk page??
not the article, mind u, but the TALK page! what gives?! 209.172.25.218 ( talk) 05:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't Cliven Bundy's (alleged) racism be on a page devoted to Cliven Bundy? The man is distinct from the standoff. If we had a separate page for the man, we might better be able to distinguish the two subjects. As it is, I feel it is becoming an uncomfortable and unproductive digression to a page about a standoff. 66.225.161.37 ( talk) 13:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
The wp:splitting guidelines on splitting an article are: 1) it's long, 2) the content seems to cover multiple 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: the standoff, and Cliven Bundy's personal views which were revealed some time after the standoff was ended. 66.225.161.37 ( talk) 21:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Cites are needed in the Confrontations and Protests section. At the present time, there is a lot of material in it that may be true, although some of it is badly biased. But, in any case, there needs to be some cites added to back up the statements, because otherwise the unsubstantiated stuff won't be believed a year from now. Please cite some reputable newspaper instead of tabloid style web lunacy. There are a lot of good newspaper reports covering the events, so it shouldn't be too difficult to find. Search is your friend.
Baleywik (
talk)
20:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
This article should be renamed "Battle of Bunkerville" as it is becoming popularly known as. Citations have been added within the article to reflect this. 209.33.216.162 ( talk) 22:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I know that we've been going back and forth between original source cites and secondary sources on commentary and propose this as a more neutral post of what transpired.
We'll look to administrators to even things out, but the snapshot of the current edition has incomplete or broken references and only gives a glossed over quote from a news commentator reported second hand information from a news site that hardly covered the story until later.
In the Confrontations and Protests section. It appears that an edit-revert content war erupted on 18 April, when an editor at IP address 70.8.153.27 tried to make edits on opinion or transcribed/intepreted commentary from a Youtube and/or CNN video about the protest confrontations. This talk page appears to have a discussion attempt by the editor IP address 70.8.153.27 contemporaneously but about another subject. It appears that the same editor at IP address 70.8.153.27 complained to admins after getting edits reverted, which resulted in the Article Protection lockdown of the article editing page at 16:50UTC 18 April. Protection information is as follows: 16:50, 18 April 2014? Barek (talk | contribs)(57,400 bytes)(0)(Protected Bundy standoff: Edit warring / content dispute ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (expires 16:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)) [Move=Allow only administrators] (expires 16:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)).
Please don't shoot the messenger. Baleywik ( talk) 19:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
No mention of Fox News direct involvement, especially Sean Hannity's. There is a multitude of sources to verify the incitement of Fox News' sensationalism surrounding the entire issue until completely bailing out on Mr Bundy immediately following his racist remarks. It is important to label this for what it is, and that does involve specific actions by media sources.
I can't add any without sounding biased. Seems to be no mention of the incitement brought on by media outlets as the reason for the comments made, ie, why one day Hannity was an ardent supporter and the next day calling him repugnant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanbroox ( talk • contribs) 17:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I have partially reverted this edit by an unknown IP user, as the edit introduces original research which is not supported by the source. The claim is made that "common-law system of easements" existed and that the law created an "easement bureaucracy." This is entirely unsupported by the citation given — the word "easement" appears only three times in the article and is not attached to any statement or claim that easements existed or that the act creates any easements. Original research is not permitted on Wikipedia.
The Cornell Legal Information Institute states that the definition of an easement is the grant of a nonpossessory property interest that grants the easement holder permission to use another person's land. The Taylor Grazing Act, as implemented in the CFR, states unequivocally that Grazing permits or leases convey no right, title, or interest held by the United States in any lands or resources. They are, under the law, revocable permits to use land, not legal interests in property. The word "easement" appears nowhere in the text of the law or the implementing CFR sections.
Before the claim that permits issued under the Taylor Grazing Act are "easements" is reinserted, it must be supported by a reliable source, preferably a legal court opinion stating such. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 05:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Please refresh your understanding of WP:NOR. We will not be publishing any information in this article that has not been reported by secondary and reliable sources, so this discussion may not be useful. Cwobeel ( talk) 20:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm got some questions about the source being used to support the statement about the right to graze on public domain land. At a minimum, it's being attributed poorly. Right now it says Samuel Western at the University of Wyoming. Per the bio on the page, Western is a freelance writer. Adding the university is not warranted. I'm also not totally sure about the statement being totally supported by the source. There's not much discussion about the legal rights, just a handful of passing mentions. Ravensfire ( talk) 01:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Then surely you can provide reliable legal sources which state that these so-called "easements" exist in the context of grazing on federal land. Of course, you can't, because they don't exist. Federal courts have repeatedly ruled that Bundy has no easement or any other right to graze his cattle on the property in question. He and his father have held a grazing permit since 1954 and nothing more.
Prescriptive easements and adverse possession cannot operate against the United States (hornbook law, discussed in this interesting case). Moreover, because grazing use prior to 1934 was allowed by law, it cannot be said to be "adverse" even if they did. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 02:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
The second sentence below is clearly false, and original research not supported by any cited source. The Property Clause refers to "Territory or other Property belonging to the United States", not "land within individual states" generally, and the enclave clause refers to ports and bases.
"Bundy also believes that grazing land in Nevada belongs only to Nevada, not the federal government. This is a contradiction, because the Constitution contains the Property Clause and Enclave Clause, both of which empower the federal government to manage and control land within individual states. citation needed"
I'm deleting it now (second sentence above only), since it's not NPOV, unsourced, obviously false, and about a living person. Perhaps a sourced statement about federal ownership of that land could replace it if desired. Al Bunker ( talk) 23:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
The Nevada disclaimer clause is essentially irrelevant, and extensive discussion of it is unnecessary.
As per U.S. v. Gardner, 107 F.3d 1314 (9th Circuit, 1997)
When Congress invited Nevada to join the Union in 1864, it mandated that the Nevada constitutional convention pass an act promising that Nevada would "forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States...." Nevada Statehood Act of March 21, 1864, 13 Stat. 30, 31 § 4. The state constitutional convention did so. Ordinance of the Nevada Constitution.[5]
Gardners claim that this clause is invalid and unconstitutional as an attempt to divest Nevada of its title to the unappropriated lands within its boundaries. Gardners cite to Van Brocklin v. Tennessee, 117 U.S. 151, 167, 6 S.Ct. 670, 679, 29 L.Ed. 845 (1886) for the premise that such disclaimer clauses "are but declaratory, and confer no new right or power upon the United States." Therefore, Gardners argue, Nevada could not have given the United States title to the public lands within its boundaries through the disclaimer clause.
Gardners are correct in their argument that the disclaimer is declaratory. However, the United States did not need the disclaimer clause to gain title to the public lands in Nevada. The United States already had title to those lands through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and the disclaimer clause was merely a recognition of the preexisting United States title, as opposed to a grant of title from Nevada to the United States.
As aforementioned, Congress' power under the Property Clause to administer its own property is virtually unlimited. See, e.g., Kleppe, 426 U.S. at 539, 96 S.Ct. at 2291-92. Indeed, the United States retains title to the public lands within states such as Nevada not due to "any agreement or compact with the proposed new State," but rather "solely because the power of Congress extend[s] to the subject." Coyle, 221 U.S. at 574, 31 S.Ct. at 693. The disclaimer clause, then, is declaratory of the right already held by the United States under the Constitution to administer its property, and as such is valid under the United States Constitution. Van Brocklin, 117 U.S. at 167, 6 S.Ct. at 679.
This is cited in the July 2013 ruling against Bundy - Bundy is incorrect in claiming that the Disclaimer Clause of the Nevada Constitution carries no legal force. See Gardner, 107 F.3d at 1320.
It is original research to suggest that removing the clause post facto changes anything about the status of lands owned and possessed by the federal government since 1848 - no such argument appears in any of the cited sources. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 05:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
NRS 321.596 Legislative findings.
|
---|
|
We don't need full passages in the article. Just summarize the points as reported in secondary sources and avoid WP:NOR. Cwobeel ( talk) 13:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
cud someone pls restore this section from the history files -- i do not know how to do it myself.
it was a legitimate enquiry on the talk page -- why on earth was it removed in the first place?! 209.172.25.201 ( talk) 02:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)