This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
LaVoy Finicum article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please remove the statement indicating he was a militant. He was not affiliated with any militant group. He was my father in law and I know he was not affiliated with any of these groups. Also, it is not necessary to mention a bankruptcy or income. This has nothing to do what what you are writing. Also, the statement "When asked if he would rather be killed than arrested if the occupation turned violent, Finicum replied, "Absolutely ... I have no intention of spending any of my days in a concrete box."[10], he never said that. You need to look at the source. He never said those words. Also, saying he was trying to bypass the roadblock is speculative. He was trying to avoid hitting the trucks that were blocking the road. You indicated that information that is biased will not be included. Remove this please. The statement that he "briefly" held his hands above his head is not accurate either. He raised his hands multiple times, not briefly. And please indicate that when he dropped his hands it could have been to reach for a gun shot wound, and not a gun, which is what I believe. Also, the statement that he received medical treatment 10 minutes after he was shot is inaccurate as well. He did not receive medical treatment for over an hour after he was shot. [1] Also, the gun that was apparently found on his person did not come from a step son. [2] Also, in regards to the rally's please give the accurate numbers. The accurate number of rally's was over 45 all over the U.S. during that weekend alone. [3] There is so much more that I could write on issues I have with this biased information. Please start with making these changes and I will add more later 67.214.242.50 ( talk)Tom Tenney~~ —Preceding undated comment added 22:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
References
Much of the information listed baled up by sources that portrayed the occupation from a biased standpoint. How can biased information be accepted as a verifiable source? Why are sources that support lavoy not considered acceptable? Cdmoose ( talk) 07:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
The wiki describes LaVoy as a militant. While this term was used by main stream media outlets LaVoy was never a part of any militant organizations. He is also referred to as an American patriot by thousands of supporters. It would seem the terms occupier, or protestor would be most factual. Cdmoose ( talk) 07:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Manner of death is listed as gunfire. The official autopsy report lists the cause of death as homicide. Cdmoose ( talk) 07:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
The autopsy use of technical language is different than the common usage. Homicide in autopsy just means he was shot, not self-inflicted. It does NOT mean it finds the officer guilty of homocide. So copying this technical language is very bad form for the wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:116C:6500:F8B1:5E33:4A9D:5D09 ( talk) 04:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy, you wrote that Finicum's publication of a book that described the overthrow of the US govenment, a few months before he tried to start what he called the "Oregon Revolution" did not help to describe Finicum's background before Malheur and "isn't backgroud." Could you please explain why you think there is no notable relationship between his book and his actions such that his writing of this book should be thought of as irrelevent to Finicum's mindset or "background" before he became a spokesman for The Malheur Occupiers? Yes, the book is listed as a "Finnicum work" below, but that separate listing doesn't seem to me to substitute for the helpful wording, weaving it into the article's background section.
Finicum was obviously a man who had the overthrow of the US government firmly in his sights before he went to Malheur. Why do you seem to find evidence to that effect to be irrelevent? Thanks, Scott P. ( talk) 05:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Focus on the content, not the editors please. Scott, what secondary sources discuss this book at all? Your edit only included Buzzfeed, which is not generally considered reliable. If there isn't anything better, I suggest running it by WP:RSN for review in-context. Thanks! VQuakr ( talk) 01:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
In the main thread, and at other venues, Scott has asserted that Finicum's goal was the "overthrow" of the government or "revolution" ( e.g., here).The RSs however are all about the ownership of federal public lands. For example...
None of these RSs say anything about Finicum wanting to "overthrow" the gov't or instigate a "revolution" in the sense of a Secession nor a Coup d'état. They all say it was part of a long running land grab effort regarding federally owned public lands. See also Sagebrush Rebellion, Wise Use Movement, and overview article from High Country News "Forty years of Sagebrush Rebellion".
Finally, there is speculation about the privatization advocates who may have financed all this, but so far there aren't any RSs I know of that relate to this article
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
When one searches on the title of Finicum's book, especially in a Google News search, one finds a lot of secondary sources. Methinks the book pass Notability muster and could be an article of its own. Provided, of course, that its based on truly reliable secondary sources. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 02:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
We haven't done a good job explaining the Mormon context. For an opinionated and non RS source... to be used as background for eds wanting to do research in this area....see Chris Zinda's Sept 1 2016 column "Journalism and the Cowboy Myth: Bite the Bullet" in Counterpunch, and other sources cited by him. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Add a bit about rate of speed (I've seen RS for Finicum = 60 and pursuing trooper = 90) and dangerous driving while crossing the centerline. Also County attorney remark about the vehicle being used as a weapon and LEO belief Finicum would try to take out the roadblock injuring LEOs. Consider adding image or vid showing three shots taken as truck first approached. But not right now. If someone else gets to it, then thanks in advance. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 11:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
LaVoy Finicum knew about the traffic stop obviously; before driving away he told them he was going to go to meet with the county sheriff and if they wanted to stop him, they'd have to shoot him. He did not know about the OSP/HRT roadblock down the road behind a bend. Rounding the bend at a high rate of speed, he would have little time for any elaborate plans on dealing with the roadblock. A link to the OSP release of the FBI drone footage time synced to the cellphone video of Finicum's passengers would help understand this event. -- Naaman Brown ( talk) 07:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I've uploaded a new image that I may propose we use here. Using it here may or may not be a good idea, and we might find out we disagree eventually. But for now, I had a small doubt about the image being free of WP:OR problems, so I asked eds who are interested in that area of policy to comment. You can share you views too of course. The thread is here. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
This content dispute is about what we should say in the WP:Lead section. I was just reverted with an edit summary "very POV". (@ Parsley Man: Ouch. AGF, eh?) So let's talk about it.
Text of the two versions
Version 1
Version 2
Discussion
In my opinion, version 1 suffers from problems regarding time, BLP, WEIGHT, and factually following RSs.
Version 2 does not have those problems, so it should be restored. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 01:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or lede paragraph.
The lead is the first part of the article that most people will read. For many, it may be the only section that they read. A good lead section cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article, but not by teasing the reader or hinting at content that follows. The lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view.
The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. [1] The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Like in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.
Housekeeping...I'm guessing this will become used. We can waste it when we close the thread if its still empty
References
'Robert LaVoy Finicum (January 27, 1961 – January 26, 2016)[9] was an American foster parent, author, and cattle rancher involved in the 2014 Bundy standoff and the 2016 militant occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
In the last years of his life, Finicum was a professional foster parent who operated an Arizona cattle ranch even though the ranch did not produce income.[3] Following the 2014 Bundy standoff near Bunkerville, Nevada Finicum became outspoken against federal management of public lands. He self-published a novel shortly before joining the armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in January 2016. While traveling away from the occupation site, Finicum fled from a police traffic stop and was later shot and killed at a law enforcement roadblock.
MB298 ( talk) 01:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
In this edit the following sentence (which I added this morning) was reverted. In the lead, I had included an important detail about the shooting. The reverted text said
For a reference, I had included The Oregonian story "LaVoy Finicum's last moments echo earlier provocations".
I'd love to include the reason @ Parsley Man: stated in the edit summary but (s)he left it blank.
The text is intended to comply with the MOS:LEAD, which in another recent thread, Parsley quoted at some length. The quoted text describes how many/most readers only read the lead, and that it should therefore summarize the important points and controversies. It explicitly says "DO NOT TEASE". I don't care how we elaborate on the police shooting, but including my text satisfies the requirements Parsley earlier quoted much better than just saying police shot him. The alt-right radio agrees police shot him. Everyone agrees police shot him. So when we just stop the lead with "police shot him" we're failing to provide a lead that will "stand on its own as a concise overview" and we are not "summariz(ing) the most important points, including any prominent controversies."
I plan to restore the text unless someone provides a compelling reason why stopping with "police shot and killed him" makes the best article. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 01:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
After looking at this article, I was wondering of the possibility of renaming the article to shooting of LaVoy Finicum. It seems that Finicum only became this notable after getting shot and killed, and because of the protests from the right-wing community that followed soon after. Thoughts? Parsley Man ( talk) 01:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Moving does not mean deleting anything. In my mind, it's just a reorganization and presentation. The first thing to note is that Finicum is almost entirely known, and will remain known far into the future, because he was shot and killed in this particular context and set of circumstances . Everything else will will fade with time. What does "everything else" consist of, and what would happen to our coverage of the "everything else" if we make this move? Like I said, we'd keep it with some different organization. Let's compare the points supported by known RSs to the notability policy.
A. PACER contains a record of his bankruptcy. However, that doesn't count because policy says "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." Had his bankruptcy been a big deal of itself, there would be news coverage of the bankruptcy at the time (2002). There isn't. The only mention of his BK that I know about is found in 2016 articles that told us about the occupiers.
B. There's an RS somewhere about his time as apartment facilities worker in Milwaukee and somewhere else (Portland OR, if I remember correctly) but doesn't go deeper. Policy says " trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability" In addition, this only surfaced during the 2016 occupation (when Finicum was asked about this during a taped interview he laughed saying (paraphrased) "Those are some OLD memories!")
C. According to the
High Country News, "the public record on Finicum is thin prior to 2014."
[1] Now that's interesting.... Here's an RS that basically says before 2014 there's little to no evidence to establish notability.
D. We have a handful of RSs that say he "participated" in the 2014 Bundy standoff but do these establish notability? In my view, no. First the coverage was trivial in that none of them say what he actually DID at that time. Second all of the secondary sources I have seen are dated after the start of the 2016 occupation. This makes me doubt he was a significant player at Bunkerville, and maybe just popped over for coffee one day. Who knows? His participation was too insignificant to garner coverage. In flashing back two years, the 2016 RSs sound like they're repeating each other. With no details, and most especially no RS dated AT THAT TIME, I this was trivial coverage that does not establish notability.
E. Self published book. Do we have a secondary RS dated from before the occupation that talks about the book?
F. There's probably secondary RS about his late 2015 decision to stop paying grazing fees, at least from a local paper.
AND SO.....
1. Everything we know about Finicum before the occupation - which is very little - fits nicely in a Shooting of LaVoy Finicum Background section
2. The many RSs about what he did during the occupation fit nicely in a Shooting of LaVoy Finicum Occupation activities before shooting section, because these activities were all factors in law enforcement's approach to the arrest operation. Tarp man communicated - at least by implcation - that he'd shoot it out before he'd submit to arrest. So naturally, law enforcement moved to execute the warrant in a way that would be least likley to kick off a battle between small armies. All that stuff is prelude-to-the-shooting material
3. And the bulk of our article is about the arrest operation that resulted in the shooting, which is what he is mainly notable for. Note that policy says "Sometimes when a famous person dies, there is enough information for an article about their death, such as Death of Michael Jackson or Death of Diana, Princess of Wales." Finicum was temporarily famous as "tarp man" or for taking down the camera, but he achieved political immortality (or infamy, as you prefer) only through his death.
4. When the article is more complete at least 80% of it will be about the traffic stop and shooting.
NewsAndEventsGuy (
talk) 11:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
References
This could very well be true, but would someone please hold my hand by pointing out an RS that talks about a ricocheting bullet? Does an RS say that is how R Bundy was wounded? If not, then what is the relevance of the ricochet? Help please NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
This source says the shots were aimed at the truck, and one missed
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Parsley, the RS that says "shrapnel" does not define it, but I've had a bit of emergency med training, and in those contexts the word isn't limited to parts of the bullet or bomb. For example, in Better: A Surgeon's Notes on Performance By Atul Gawande it says
So we have an RS that defines Ryan's injury as shrapnel (not a choke hold or a punch or a direct gunshot). But unfortunately the RS does not explain the source of the shrapnel. Since we don't know it was from fragmentation of a bullet or bomb we shouldn't imply that it was by linking to it. But we can still say "shrapnel" as the RS does and let readers take it from there. Eventually we'll hopefully learn more when Ryan uses the pieces in his arm as evidence. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 02:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
"He was shot and killed by state troopers while moving his hands toward his pocket, where officers later found a loaded weapon." This is the most controversial fact surrounding Finicum's death and because of this I think it needs to be sourced. To leave this statement in the Lede just "hanging" creates the impression of narrative and not facts. I came here as the result of reading some online "push back" on the media narrative on his death, and this unsourced (or unattributed, whatever the correct term is) statement in the Lede gives the impression of bias. 2605:6000:6947:AB00:AD2E:C4D3:781E:7FE3 ( talk) 16:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
The description of the photograph of the attempted traffic stop reads "Oregon State Patrol." The agency's proper name is "Oregon State Police." -- NeedsGroup ( talk) 18:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
2016 refuge occupation and death: Flight and death. - After watching the aerial footage many times ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWLHiU8gYWY), I find the language surrounding the vehicle's crash problematic. While it is technically true that the vehicle did narrowly miss the person, it should be noted that the person ran out from behind cover towards the car. Reading the article without seeing the video makes it sound like he aimed for the FBI agent. "Finicum braked and steered his truck left into deep snow, narrowly missing an FBI agent." Could we improve this language or point out that the FBI agent was running in the direction of the oncoming vehicle? 73.254.86.71 ( talk) 08:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
LaVoy Finicum article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please remove the statement indicating he was a militant. He was not affiliated with any militant group. He was my father in law and I know he was not affiliated with any of these groups. Also, it is not necessary to mention a bankruptcy or income. This has nothing to do what what you are writing. Also, the statement "When asked if he would rather be killed than arrested if the occupation turned violent, Finicum replied, "Absolutely ... I have no intention of spending any of my days in a concrete box."[10], he never said that. You need to look at the source. He never said those words. Also, saying he was trying to bypass the roadblock is speculative. He was trying to avoid hitting the trucks that were blocking the road. You indicated that information that is biased will not be included. Remove this please. The statement that he "briefly" held his hands above his head is not accurate either. He raised his hands multiple times, not briefly. And please indicate that when he dropped his hands it could have been to reach for a gun shot wound, and not a gun, which is what I believe. Also, the statement that he received medical treatment 10 minutes after he was shot is inaccurate as well. He did not receive medical treatment for over an hour after he was shot. [1] Also, the gun that was apparently found on his person did not come from a step son. [2] Also, in regards to the rally's please give the accurate numbers. The accurate number of rally's was over 45 all over the U.S. during that weekend alone. [3] There is so much more that I could write on issues I have with this biased information. Please start with making these changes and I will add more later 67.214.242.50 ( talk)Tom Tenney~~ —Preceding undated comment added 22:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
References
Much of the information listed baled up by sources that portrayed the occupation from a biased standpoint. How can biased information be accepted as a verifiable source? Why are sources that support lavoy not considered acceptable? Cdmoose ( talk) 07:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
The wiki describes LaVoy as a militant. While this term was used by main stream media outlets LaVoy was never a part of any militant organizations. He is also referred to as an American patriot by thousands of supporters. It would seem the terms occupier, or protestor would be most factual. Cdmoose ( talk) 07:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Manner of death is listed as gunfire. The official autopsy report lists the cause of death as homicide. Cdmoose ( talk) 07:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
The autopsy use of technical language is different than the common usage. Homicide in autopsy just means he was shot, not self-inflicted. It does NOT mean it finds the officer guilty of homocide. So copying this technical language is very bad form for the wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:116C:6500:F8B1:5E33:4A9D:5D09 ( talk) 04:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy, you wrote that Finicum's publication of a book that described the overthrow of the US govenment, a few months before he tried to start what he called the "Oregon Revolution" did not help to describe Finicum's background before Malheur and "isn't backgroud." Could you please explain why you think there is no notable relationship between his book and his actions such that his writing of this book should be thought of as irrelevent to Finicum's mindset or "background" before he became a spokesman for The Malheur Occupiers? Yes, the book is listed as a "Finnicum work" below, but that separate listing doesn't seem to me to substitute for the helpful wording, weaving it into the article's background section.
Finicum was obviously a man who had the overthrow of the US government firmly in his sights before he went to Malheur. Why do you seem to find evidence to that effect to be irrelevent? Thanks, Scott P. ( talk) 05:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Focus on the content, not the editors please. Scott, what secondary sources discuss this book at all? Your edit only included Buzzfeed, which is not generally considered reliable. If there isn't anything better, I suggest running it by WP:RSN for review in-context. Thanks! VQuakr ( talk) 01:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
In the main thread, and at other venues, Scott has asserted that Finicum's goal was the "overthrow" of the government or "revolution" ( e.g., here).The RSs however are all about the ownership of federal public lands. For example...
None of these RSs say anything about Finicum wanting to "overthrow" the gov't or instigate a "revolution" in the sense of a Secession nor a Coup d'état. They all say it was part of a long running land grab effort regarding federally owned public lands. See also Sagebrush Rebellion, Wise Use Movement, and overview article from High Country News "Forty years of Sagebrush Rebellion".
Finally, there is speculation about the privatization advocates who may have financed all this, but so far there aren't any RSs I know of that relate to this article
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
When one searches on the title of Finicum's book, especially in a Google News search, one finds a lot of secondary sources. Methinks the book pass Notability muster and could be an article of its own. Provided, of course, that its based on truly reliable secondary sources. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 02:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
We haven't done a good job explaining the Mormon context. For an opinionated and non RS source... to be used as background for eds wanting to do research in this area....see Chris Zinda's Sept 1 2016 column "Journalism and the Cowboy Myth: Bite the Bullet" in Counterpunch, and other sources cited by him. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Add a bit about rate of speed (I've seen RS for Finicum = 60 and pursuing trooper = 90) and dangerous driving while crossing the centerline. Also County attorney remark about the vehicle being used as a weapon and LEO belief Finicum would try to take out the roadblock injuring LEOs. Consider adding image or vid showing three shots taken as truck first approached. But not right now. If someone else gets to it, then thanks in advance. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 11:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
LaVoy Finicum knew about the traffic stop obviously; before driving away he told them he was going to go to meet with the county sheriff and if they wanted to stop him, they'd have to shoot him. He did not know about the OSP/HRT roadblock down the road behind a bend. Rounding the bend at a high rate of speed, he would have little time for any elaborate plans on dealing with the roadblock. A link to the OSP release of the FBI drone footage time synced to the cellphone video of Finicum's passengers would help understand this event. -- Naaman Brown ( talk) 07:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I've uploaded a new image that I may propose we use here. Using it here may or may not be a good idea, and we might find out we disagree eventually. But for now, I had a small doubt about the image being free of WP:OR problems, so I asked eds who are interested in that area of policy to comment. You can share you views too of course. The thread is here. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
This content dispute is about what we should say in the WP:Lead section. I was just reverted with an edit summary "very POV". (@ Parsley Man: Ouch. AGF, eh?) So let's talk about it.
Text of the two versions
Version 1
Version 2
Discussion
In my opinion, version 1 suffers from problems regarding time, BLP, WEIGHT, and factually following RSs.
Version 2 does not have those problems, so it should be restored. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 01:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or lede paragraph.
The lead is the first part of the article that most people will read. For many, it may be the only section that they read. A good lead section cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article, but not by teasing the reader or hinting at content that follows. The lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view.
The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. [1] The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Like in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.
Housekeeping...I'm guessing this will become used. We can waste it when we close the thread if its still empty
References
'Robert LaVoy Finicum (January 27, 1961 – January 26, 2016)[9] was an American foster parent, author, and cattle rancher involved in the 2014 Bundy standoff and the 2016 militant occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
In the last years of his life, Finicum was a professional foster parent who operated an Arizona cattle ranch even though the ranch did not produce income.[3] Following the 2014 Bundy standoff near Bunkerville, Nevada Finicum became outspoken against federal management of public lands. He self-published a novel shortly before joining the armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in January 2016. While traveling away from the occupation site, Finicum fled from a police traffic stop and was later shot and killed at a law enforcement roadblock.
MB298 ( talk) 01:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
In this edit the following sentence (which I added this morning) was reverted. In the lead, I had included an important detail about the shooting. The reverted text said
For a reference, I had included The Oregonian story "LaVoy Finicum's last moments echo earlier provocations".
I'd love to include the reason @ Parsley Man: stated in the edit summary but (s)he left it blank.
The text is intended to comply with the MOS:LEAD, which in another recent thread, Parsley quoted at some length. The quoted text describes how many/most readers only read the lead, and that it should therefore summarize the important points and controversies. It explicitly says "DO NOT TEASE". I don't care how we elaborate on the police shooting, but including my text satisfies the requirements Parsley earlier quoted much better than just saying police shot him. The alt-right radio agrees police shot him. Everyone agrees police shot him. So when we just stop the lead with "police shot him" we're failing to provide a lead that will "stand on its own as a concise overview" and we are not "summariz(ing) the most important points, including any prominent controversies."
I plan to restore the text unless someone provides a compelling reason why stopping with "police shot and killed him" makes the best article. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 01:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
After looking at this article, I was wondering of the possibility of renaming the article to shooting of LaVoy Finicum. It seems that Finicum only became this notable after getting shot and killed, and because of the protests from the right-wing community that followed soon after. Thoughts? Parsley Man ( talk) 01:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Moving does not mean deleting anything. In my mind, it's just a reorganization and presentation. The first thing to note is that Finicum is almost entirely known, and will remain known far into the future, because he was shot and killed in this particular context and set of circumstances . Everything else will will fade with time. What does "everything else" consist of, and what would happen to our coverage of the "everything else" if we make this move? Like I said, we'd keep it with some different organization. Let's compare the points supported by known RSs to the notability policy.
A. PACER contains a record of his bankruptcy. However, that doesn't count because policy says "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." Had his bankruptcy been a big deal of itself, there would be news coverage of the bankruptcy at the time (2002). There isn't. The only mention of his BK that I know about is found in 2016 articles that told us about the occupiers.
B. There's an RS somewhere about his time as apartment facilities worker in Milwaukee and somewhere else (Portland OR, if I remember correctly) but doesn't go deeper. Policy says " trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability" In addition, this only surfaced during the 2016 occupation (when Finicum was asked about this during a taped interview he laughed saying (paraphrased) "Those are some OLD memories!")
C. According to the
High Country News, "the public record on Finicum is thin prior to 2014."
[1] Now that's interesting.... Here's an RS that basically says before 2014 there's little to no evidence to establish notability.
D. We have a handful of RSs that say he "participated" in the 2014 Bundy standoff but do these establish notability? In my view, no. First the coverage was trivial in that none of them say what he actually DID at that time. Second all of the secondary sources I have seen are dated after the start of the 2016 occupation. This makes me doubt he was a significant player at Bunkerville, and maybe just popped over for coffee one day. Who knows? His participation was too insignificant to garner coverage. In flashing back two years, the 2016 RSs sound like they're repeating each other. With no details, and most especially no RS dated AT THAT TIME, I this was trivial coverage that does not establish notability.
E. Self published book. Do we have a secondary RS dated from before the occupation that talks about the book?
F. There's probably secondary RS about his late 2015 decision to stop paying grazing fees, at least from a local paper.
AND SO.....
1. Everything we know about Finicum before the occupation - which is very little - fits nicely in a Shooting of LaVoy Finicum Background section
2. The many RSs about what he did during the occupation fit nicely in a Shooting of LaVoy Finicum Occupation activities before shooting section, because these activities were all factors in law enforcement's approach to the arrest operation. Tarp man communicated - at least by implcation - that he'd shoot it out before he'd submit to arrest. So naturally, law enforcement moved to execute the warrant in a way that would be least likley to kick off a battle between small armies. All that stuff is prelude-to-the-shooting material
3. And the bulk of our article is about the arrest operation that resulted in the shooting, which is what he is mainly notable for. Note that policy says "Sometimes when a famous person dies, there is enough information for an article about their death, such as Death of Michael Jackson or Death of Diana, Princess of Wales." Finicum was temporarily famous as "tarp man" or for taking down the camera, but he achieved political immortality (or infamy, as you prefer) only through his death.
4. When the article is more complete at least 80% of it will be about the traffic stop and shooting.
NewsAndEventsGuy (
talk) 11:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
References
This could very well be true, but would someone please hold my hand by pointing out an RS that talks about a ricocheting bullet? Does an RS say that is how R Bundy was wounded? If not, then what is the relevance of the ricochet? Help please NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
This source says the shots were aimed at the truck, and one missed
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Parsley, the RS that says "shrapnel" does not define it, but I've had a bit of emergency med training, and in those contexts the word isn't limited to parts of the bullet or bomb. For example, in Better: A Surgeon's Notes on Performance By Atul Gawande it says
So we have an RS that defines Ryan's injury as shrapnel (not a choke hold or a punch or a direct gunshot). But unfortunately the RS does not explain the source of the shrapnel. Since we don't know it was from fragmentation of a bullet or bomb we shouldn't imply that it was by linking to it. But we can still say "shrapnel" as the RS does and let readers take it from there. Eventually we'll hopefully learn more when Ryan uses the pieces in his arm as evidence. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 02:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
"He was shot and killed by state troopers while moving his hands toward his pocket, where officers later found a loaded weapon." This is the most controversial fact surrounding Finicum's death and because of this I think it needs to be sourced. To leave this statement in the Lede just "hanging" creates the impression of narrative and not facts. I came here as the result of reading some online "push back" on the media narrative on his death, and this unsourced (or unattributed, whatever the correct term is) statement in the Lede gives the impression of bias. 2605:6000:6947:AB00:AD2E:C4D3:781E:7FE3 ( talk) 16:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
The description of the photograph of the attempted traffic stop reads "Oregon State Patrol." The agency's proper name is "Oregon State Police." -- NeedsGroup ( talk) 18:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
2016 refuge occupation and death: Flight and death. - After watching the aerial footage many times ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWLHiU8gYWY), I find the language surrounding the vehicle's crash problematic. While it is technically true that the vehicle did narrowly miss the person, it should be noted that the person ran out from behind cover towards the car. Reading the article without seeing the video makes it sound like he aimed for the FBI agent. "Finicum braked and steered his truck left into deep snow, narrowly missing an FBI agent." Could we improve this language or point out that the FBI agent was running in the direction of the oncoming vehicle? 73.254.86.71 ( talk) 08:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)