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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
The article is evolving nicely, but too much emphasis is being placed on somewhat trivial news items. We should summarize sources carefully and avoid making this a news piece. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
We probably need to expand the Infobox. I added the methods used but we should also add goals and (possibly) the number of protesters. Off to try to find an image on the Commons. Eteethan (talk)🎄 19:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Why do we use flags on this article? This is not about states, and it doesn't help to identify the location. Both the governmental flags are weird. The FBI is a federal entity, so one could easily also use the US flag. And the flag of a self-identified groups seems also not too useful. L.tak ( talk) 19:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
The Facebook page cited as a source for the fact that the refuge is closed is an acceptable primary source in this case - it is a verified official page operated by the staff of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. That said, I certainly support supplementing or replacing that with a reliable secondary source as soon as that information is picked up in the media. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 23:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
The protest flag being posted by me is indeed the protest flag that others were using during the rally.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/03/us/oregon-wildlife-refuge-protest/index.html
I was there, but more importantly CNN video shows protesters using this flag. Pardon me, I am new at wikipedia, and getting frustrated trying to figure out how to edit this.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/oregon-malheur-ranchers-takeover-217304
Look at all the flags the protesters are waving — Preceding unsigned comment added by KK Metscher ( talk • contribs) 21:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
So include all four? I was putting the oregon specific one because it is not already a historically 'claimed' flag. The Gadsden, or rather 'Don't Tread on Me' is linked to a different history. The USA flag obviously is too. Clearly, this particular one has more meaning to protesters. I stumbled upon this flag about a year ago. I don't see the fourth one that you are referring to.
I am not trying to wage a war, and honestly thought that the image kept being removed because people were edited at the same time. I didn't even realize this page existed to talk about edits. I am learning. Just post the flag, doesn't need to link to my website. My intention is not to sell more flags and use wiki as a means to do that. My intention was to include the flag because it will most probably have significance.
Its a whole lot better than assuming the 3% flag is an accurate representation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KK Metscher ( talk • contribs) 21:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Thats a neon green sign,
I'll include all three flags than? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KK Metscher ( talk • contribs) 21:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
The prostesters from the march went to the refuge. I haven't found a protest wiki page. Of course the flag is fundamental to the 'encyclopedic' nature of wiki. It clearly shows what they stand for. People retain a lot more from images than from words, it sticks easier. The image helps solidify what is happening at the refuge. I can clarify that is was at the protest that the flags were waved. All three of them. Even the AP photo from the protest is linked to a politico article about the refuge takeover. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers
66.152.115.226 ( talk) is persistently vandalizing this page, it's kind of annoying. Thomasmallen ( talk) 00:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be added to the twitter hashtag part. It is trending more than #OregonUnderAttack and people are using this more now. AntiRacistSwede ( talk) 00:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I suggest we change the infobox to the military conflict infobox. Not because this is a military conflict but because infobox precedent generally says we should use whichever infobox is most appropriate to an article. The civil conflict infobox does not have a working "Strength" field and we have four wildly divergent reports of the militants strength (12 - Guardian; 6-15 Oregon Public Broadcasting; 20-25 Oregonian; 150 militants themselves). Doing a quick Google search of discussion on this topic that references this WP article there appears to be substantial confusion on this point which indicates both reader interest in the militant's numbers and readability issues regarding our current construction. Being able to succinctly present the various estimates of the militants strength in the infobox would be helpful for readers. LavaBaron ( talk) 02:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
The FBI press release [5] mentioned the "Hardie-Hammond Fire" and the "Krumbo Butte Fire". I created redirects here since I can't think of a better destination though maybe they deserve their own pages. Curro2 ( talk) 01:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
User:LavaBaron changed the map showing its location within Oregon to a map showing its location within the United States, saying in the edit summary, "changed map type in Infobox from Oregon to United States for benefit of non-American readers." I understand that, however feel a map of Oregon should be included along with a map of America to give readers from the Pacific Northwest a general sense of where it is. MB298 ( talk) 03:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
|map_type=
parameter to "United States#Oregon" would present viewers with the US map first, and radio buttons to show either the Oregon map or both simultaneously. Would that work?
Antepenultimate (
talk) 04:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Militia occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
URL for citation of refuge being closed:
http://www.fws.gov/nwrs/twocolumn.aspx?id=2147583082
50.247.87.43 ( talk) 05:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I labeled a USGS satellite image of the facility and added it to the article to deal with the lack of imagery we currently have. If anyone wants to take a crack at doing a nicer illustration, be my guest and feel free to replace my feeble attempt. LavaBaron ( talk) 05:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
I know this is an abuse of the Talk page, however, this is too good to ignore. According to the conspiracy website Rumor Mill News, the editors who have been working on this article are all secret agents in an elaborate psyop: "With the event barely 24 hours old there are so many entries and references that it could only be a planned psyop on someone's part." Also, in ref to our RfC debate about the term "rump militia" this is asked: "How Long Before the Gun Grabbers Start Parroting the New Psy-opp Term: ..."rump militias". Sounds like a strategically designed, specifically created emotional reactive moniker, to be parroted by the DC Crime Cabal talking heads." I even score a personal name mention as the puppetmaster in this elaborate black op. See: [6] LavaBaron ( talk) 05:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
|
Alright so a number of you living in Oregon, right? Am I imagining this or are the local TV news not reporting on this, or at least not very well? I haven't seen anything about it on any of the Portland (NBC KGW, ABC KATU, CBS KOIN) reports. -- RThompson82 ( talk) 09:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
This is most certainly an insurrection. The act of occupation by a militia is just a mode of this. It's descriptive, but not sufficiently substantive in the proper context, which is politics and security, and possibly law. There must be mention of the word insurrection in the lead, and in the form of "X is Y (class; in this case: an insurrection) that happened at a time&place Z". Also, using the word "takeover" in the lead is incorrect. There is already mention of occupation, so why dilute the lead with this diverging term. Takeover is an irregular seizure of some kind of power (usually power of the state), not seizure of property; it's more figurative than occupation and doesn't fit what's going on here.
If categorizing is your concern, we don't have a Category:Insurrection or Category:Insurrections. We do not even have an article on insurrection, since this is treated as a synonym of rebellion. We do have a category about Rebellion and several subcategories. Dimadick ( talk) 08:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Militia occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It seems to me that the term "rump militia" in the first paragraph should be linked to a page describing what the heck one of those is.
72.235.197.191 ( talk) 17:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 19:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
The first sentence in the lead says they - took control...in protest of the pending imprisonment of Harney County, Oregon ranchers Dwight and Steve Hammond. However, that's not the only reason that sources are reporting for the takeover of the building. In the body of this article (Occupation of refuge), it also says that they want - the federal government to relinquish control of the Malheur National Forest. Thoughts on including this other reason for the takeover in the lead as well. I think it should be included, this is not just about the Hammonds.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is mentioned in the "Environmental groups" section, but I am not sure most people would consider PETA as such. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Wouldn't that technically go under the "Organizations" section? MB298 ( talk) 00:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Is the map of Denmark particularly helpful? I find it a little distracting. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Militia occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the word "militia" in the first sentence to "domestic terrorist organization" 78.228.241.17 ( talk) 06:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Similar to the above section, Ammon Bundy currently redirects to Bundy standoff. Should it redirect elsewhere now, or should he even have a standalone Wikipedia article? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
It seems like everyone is intent on politicizing the armed protesters at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge for their own agenda as seen in Islamic State tries to use Oregon takeover to turn Americans against their government. by Jack Woby, Washington Post, January 9, 2015.
Another interesting article is Those Men In Oregon: Troublemakers, Terrorists Or Something Else? by Mark Mennot, The Two-Way, National Public Radio, Jan. 9, 2015. Paul H. ( talk) 01:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
The militia occupation and authority response sections seem to be so wound together they could be merged into a "Timeline" section with description in chronological order (I believe this was discussed somewhere above but don't know where). MB298 ( talk) 05:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
The "parties to the civicl conflict" section in the infobox is awfully long. Would it be more appropriate to merge the many counties into "Sheriff's offices of A County, B County, C County", etc.? Or, any other ideas? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Update: Marking this section as resolved since the infobox no longer has a very long list of parties. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
User:NorthBySouthBaranof deleted material from the Escalation subsection, but this deletion does not show up in the diffs. Here is one diff https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Militia_occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge&diff=698938715&oldid=698937599 and here is the next diff https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Militia_occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge&diff=next&oldid=698938715. You can see that an entire relevant, reliably sourced and NPOV sentence and supporting citation disappeared and that it does not appear in the second diff. Also note that according to User:NorthBySouthBaranof's user page, he or she is a Federal government employee. This should be looked into regarding how a deletion disappeared, as well as potential conflict of interest. Ghostofnemo ( talk) 11:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Unclear why not.
None of the militia groups in Oregon supported the reclamation of land by the collective. News agencies are quick to copy other news agencies... it doesn't mean they are usually correct...
I think that more valid references need to be produced in regards to the 'militia' label. -- JT2958 ( talk) 00:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
LavaBaron, have you taken a break from editing Flower Island to come pay me a visit? Thanks... This may be of interest, although it isn't in to scope of your cute little deluded policies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARpBS6O14FE
pls stop 66.152.115.226 ( talk) 01:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
The lead says: The takeover sparked a debate on the meaning of the word "terrorist"
However this component, the labelling component (who do we call a terrorist?) is only one component of the debate. The other is how people would react differently if the militia were Black or Muslim (both how the public would react and how the government / military / police / National Guard would react).
The question of "what if they were Black or Muslim?" is widespread and the NYTimes has documented it here: [8]. It should be added to the lead. Thanks. 98.247.93.88 ( talk) 22:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
In my personal opinion, this act does not really count as terrorism. Per our article on terrorism, the definition used by the United Nations involves acts "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants". What civilians have these militias killed or intended to kill? They do not exactly strike me as the American equivalent of the Irish Republican Army and the ETA, which have caused massive loss of life in their self-declared wars. Dimadick ( talk) 07:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I have removed this passage,
As part of a half-hour speech before the
House of Representatives, the local
Congressman
Greg Walden stated, "I know the Hammonds. I have known them for probably close to 20 years. They are longtime, responsible ranchers in Harney County," while harshly criticizing the various federal agencies which administer much of Harney County, especially the
BLM.
which was inserted by Tapered into the "Hammond arson conviction" section.
My concern is that it's nothing more than a politician's personal opinion of the Hammonds' character, and a criticism of federal land management agencies. The statement offers no particular insight into the Hammonds' arson convictions, and would open the door to introducing and inserting into that section a wide number of other competing political personal opinions about the Hammonds or land management agencies. Once we add one personal opinion about the Hammonds and land management agencies there, NPOV would mandate that we include other notable personal opinions from other perspectives in accordance with their prevalence in reliable sources. I'm not sure that belongs in this article - it might belong in another article more specifically about the Hammonds and reactions to them personally. Or, it might belong in a separate "Reactions to the Hammonds" subsection. At any rate, let's discuss it here. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 09:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Is it worth having a paragraph on reports of divisions among the occupiers? For example, this Guardian article talks of "signs that at least some in his militia want their controversial standoff to draw to a close." While this piece talks of one militia member going AWOL. Bondegezou ( talk) 14:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
At this point the difference between the occupation and the response has become artificial. It made sense early on to have two sections but the event is so singular and closely related it seems to me to make for a clumsy read now. I'd like to suggest we merge these two sections and then sub-section it by date, as though a timeline of events. Thoughts? LavaBaron ( talk) 07:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
This article asserts various statements as fact while relying on sources that are inherently one-sided POV, specifically legal briefs. Specifically, please see refs 29, 33, and 35 in this version. I'm fine with the gist of the text, I just think the text should be written to say these facts were alleged in the legal briefs rather than in wikivoice.
For those unfamiliar with court procedure, the purpose of a trial is to determine facts. Briefs either lobby for one view of the law..... or they lobby for one view of the facts. Thus, briefs alone are not RS for anything other than the fact one side in the lawsuit alleged these things. Whether or not the allegations are true is unknown, until a court rules. Even then, the best way to adhere to NPOV is to attribute such facts to court rulings.
Does anyone else choke when we use wikivoice to declare as true things said in inherently one-side legal briefs? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 19:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, sufficiently precise, concise and NPOV for now. Move protected for 60 days pending any radical change in circumstances Mike Cline ( talk) 11:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Militia occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge →
Armed occupation of Oregon wildlife refuge – While the current title "Militia occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge" is basically okay and sufficiently descriptive, it seems too specific to be recognizable by the average international reader. Non-local outlets tend to refer to the building as "Oregon wildlife refuge." See for example:
Int'l media refers to the occupation as well as taking place in "Oregon" or at the "Oregon wildlife refuge" rather than at the "Malheur National Wildlife Refuge".
Secondly, "Armed occupation" sounds less bumpy than "Militia occupation". If possible, a "fast-track" discussion would be great, as not just the event is in the news, but also the Wikipedia article ranks high at Google News.
PanchoS (
talk) 23:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
The article is evolving nicely, but too much emphasis is being placed on somewhat trivial news items. We should summarize sources carefully and avoid making this a news piece. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
We probably need to expand the Infobox. I added the methods used but we should also add goals and (possibly) the number of protesters. Off to try to find an image on the Commons. Eteethan (talk)🎄 19:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Why do we use flags on this article? This is not about states, and it doesn't help to identify the location. Both the governmental flags are weird. The FBI is a federal entity, so one could easily also use the US flag. And the flag of a self-identified groups seems also not too useful. L.tak ( talk) 19:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
The Facebook page cited as a source for the fact that the refuge is closed is an acceptable primary source in this case - it is a verified official page operated by the staff of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. That said, I certainly support supplementing or replacing that with a reliable secondary source as soon as that information is picked up in the media. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 23:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
The protest flag being posted by me is indeed the protest flag that others were using during the rally.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/03/us/oregon-wildlife-refuge-protest/index.html
I was there, but more importantly CNN video shows protesters using this flag. Pardon me, I am new at wikipedia, and getting frustrated trying to figure out how to edit this.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/oregon-malheur-ranchers-takeover-217304
Look at all the flags the protesters are waving — Preceding unsigned comment added by KK Metscher ( talk • contribs) 21:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
So include all four? I was putting the oregon specific one because it is not already a historically 'claimed' flag. The Gadsden, or rather 'Don't Tread on Me' is linked to a different history. The USA flag obviously is too. Clearly, this particular one has more meaning to protesters. I stumbled upon this flag about a year ago. I don't see the fourth one that you are referring to.
I am not trying to wage a war, and honestly thought that the image kept being removed because people were edited at the same time. I didn't even realize this page existed to talk about edits. I am learning. Just post the flag, doesn't need to link to my website. My intention is not to sell more flags and use wiki as a means to do that. My intention was to include the flag because it will most probably have significance.
Its a whole lot better than assuming the 3% flag is an accurate representation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KK Metscher ( talk • contribs) 21:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Thats a neon green sign,
I'll include all three flags than? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KK Metscher ( talk • contribs) 21:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
The prostesters from the march went to the refuge. I haven't found a protest wiki page. Of course the flag is fundamental to the 'encyclopedic' nature of wiki. It clearly shows what they stand for. People retain a lot more from images than from words, it sticks easier. The image helps solidify what is happening at the refuge. I can clarify that is was at the protest that the flags were waved. All three of them. Even the AP photo from the protest is linked to a politico article about the refuge takeover. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers
66.152.115.226 ( talk) is persistently vandalizing this page, it's kind of annoying. Thomasmallen ( talk) 00:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be added to the twitter hashtag part. It is trending more than #OregonUnderAttack and people are using this more now. AntiRacistSwede ( talk) 00:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I suggest we change the infobox to the military conflict infobox. Not because this is a military conflict but because infobox precedent generally says we should use whichever infobox is most appropriate to an article. The civil conflict infobox does not have a working "Strength" field and we have four wildly divergent reports of the militants strength (12 - Guardian; 6-15 Oregon Public Broadcasting; 20-25 Oregonian; 150 militants themselves). Doing a quick Google search of discussion on this topic that references this WP article there appears to be substantial confusion on this point which indicates both reader interest in the militant's numbers and readability issues regarding our current construction. Being able to succinctly present the various estimates of the militants strength in the infobox would be helpful for readers. LavaBaron ( talk) 02:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
The FBI press release [5] mentioned the "Hardie-Hammond Fire" and the "Krumbo Butte Fire". I created redirects here since I can't think of a better destination though maybe they deserve their own pages. Curro2 ( talk) 01:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
User:LavaBaron changed the map showing its location within Oregon to a map showing its location within the United States, saying in the edit summary, "changed map type in Infobox from Oregon to United States for benefit of non-American readers." I understand that, however feel a map of Oregon should be included along with a map of America to give readers from the Pacific Northwest a general sense of where it is. MB298 ( talk) 03:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
|map_type=
parameter to "United States#Oregon" would present viewers with the US map first, and radio buttons to show either the Oregon map or both simultaneously. Would that work?
Antepenultimate (
talk) 04:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Militia occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
URL for citation of refuge being closed:
http://www.fws.gov/nwrs/twocolumn.aspx?id=2147583082
50.247.87.43 ( talk) 05:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I labeled a USGS satellite image of the facility and added it to the article to deal with the lack of imagery we currently have. If anyone wants to take a crack at doing a nicer illustration, be my guest and feel free to replace my feeble attempt. LavaBaron ( talk) 05:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
I know this is an abuse of the Talk page, however, this is too good to ignore. According to the conspiracy website Rumor Mill News, the editors who have been working on this article are all secret agents in an elaborate psyop: "With the event barely 24 hours old there are so many entries and references that it could only be a planned psyop on someone's part." Also, in ref to our RfC debate about the term "rump militia" this is asked: "How Long Before the Gun Grabbers Start Parroting the New Psy-opp Term: ..."rump militias". Sounds like a strategically designed, specifically created emotional reactive moniker, to be parroted by the DC Crime Cabal talking heads." I even score a personal name mention as the puppetmaster in this elaborate black op. See: [6] LavaBaron ( talk) 05:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
|
Alright so a number of you living in Oregon, right? Am I imagining this or are the local TV news not reporting on this, or at least not very well? I haven't seen anything about it on any of the Portland (NBC KGW, ABC KATU, CBS KOIN) reports. -- RThompson82 ( talk) 09:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
This is most certainly an insurrection. The act of occupation by a militia is just a mode of this. It's descriptive, but not sufficiently substantive in the proper context, which is politics and security, and possibly law. There must be mention of the word insurrection in the lead, and in the form of "X is Y (class; in this case: an insurrection) that happened at a time&place Z". Also, using the word "takeover" in the lead is incorrect. There is already mention of occupation, so why dilute the lead with this diverging term. Takeover is an irregular seizure of some kind of power (usually power of the state), not seizure of property; it's more figurative than occupation and doesn't fit what's going on here.
If categorizing is your concern, we don't have a Category:Insurrection or Category:Insurrections. We do not even have an article on insurrection, since this is treated as a synonym of rebellion. We do have a category about Rebellion and several subcategories. Dimadick ( talk) 08:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Militia occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It seems to me that the term "rump militia" in the first paragraph should be linked to a page describing what the heck one of those is.
72.235.197.191 ( talk) 17:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 19:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
The first sentence in the lead says they - took control...in protest of the pending imprisonment of Harney County, Oregon ranchers Dwight and Steve Hammond. However, that's not the only reason that sources are reporting for the takeover of the building. In the body of this article (Occupation of refuge), it also says that they want - the federal government to relinquish control of the Malheur National Forest. Thoughts on including this other reason for the takeover in the lead as well. I think it should be included, this is not just about the Hammonds.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is mentioned in the "Environmental groups" section, but I am not sure most people would consider PETA as such. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Wouldn't that technically go under the "Organizations" section? MB298 ( talk) 00:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Is the map of Denmark particularly helpful? I find it a little distracting. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Militia occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the word "militia" in the first sentence to "domestic terrorist organization" 78.228.241.17 ( talk) 06:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Similar to the above section, Ammon Bundy currently redirects to Bundy standoff. Should it redirect elsewhere now, or should he even have a standalone Wikipedia article? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
It seems like everyone is intent on politicizing the armed protesters at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge for their own agenda as seen in Islamic State tries to use Oregon takeover to turn Americans against their government. by Jack Woby, Washington Post, January 9, 2015.
Another interesting article is Those Men In Oregon: Troublemakers, Terrorists Or Something Else? by Mark Mennot, The Two-Way, National Public Radio, Jan. 9, 2015. Paul H. ( talk) 01:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
The militia occupation and authority response sections seem to be so wound together they could be merged into a "Timeline" section with description in chronological order (I believe this was discussed somewhere above but don't know where). MB298 ( talk) 05:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
The "parties to the civicl conflict" section in the infobox is awfully long. Would it be more appropriate to merge the many counties into "Sheriff's offices of A County, B County, C County", etc.? Or, any other ideas? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Update: Marking this section as resolved since the infobox no longer has a very long list of parties. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
User:NorthBySouthBaranof deleted material from the Escalation subsection, but this deletion does not show up in the diffs. Here is one diff https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Militia_occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge&diff=698938715&oldid=698937599 and here is the next diff https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Militia_occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge&diff=next&oldid=698938715. You can see that an entire relevant, reliably sourced and NPOV sentence and supporting citation disappeared and that it does not appear in the second diff. Also note that according to User:NorthBySouthBaranof's user page, he or she is a Federal government employee. This should be looked into regarding how a deletion disappeared, as well as potential conflict of interest. Ghostofnemo ( talk) 11:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Unclear why not.
None of the militia groups in Oregon supported the reclamation of land by the collective. News agencies are quick to copy other news agencies... it doesn't mean they are usually correct...
I think that more valid references need to be produced in regards to the 'militia' label. -- JT2958 ( talk) 00:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
LavaBaron, have you taken a break from editing Flower Island to come pay me a visit? Thanks... This may be of interest, although it isn't in to scope of your cute little deluded policies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARpBS6O14FE
pls stop 66.152.115.226 ( talk) 01:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
The lead says: The takeover sparked a debate on the meaning of the word "terrorist"
However this component, the labelling component (who do we call a terrorist?) is only one component of the debate. The other is how people would react differently if the militia were Black or Muslim (both how the public would react and how the government / military / police / National Guard would react).
The question of "what if they were Black or Muslim?" is widespread and the NYTimes has documented it here: [8]. It should be added to the lead. Thanks. 98.247.93.88 ( talk) 22:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
In my personal opinion, this act does not really count as terrorism. Per our article on terrorism, the definition used by the United Nations involves acts "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants". What civilians have these militias killed or intended to kill? They do not exactly strike me as the American equivalent of the Irish Republican Army and the ETA, which have caused massive loss of life in their self-declared wars. Dimadick ( talk) 07:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I have removed this passage,
As part of a half-hour speech before the
House of Representatives, the local
Congressman
Greg Walden stated, "I know the Hammonds. I have known them for probably close to 20 years. They are longtime, responsible ranchers in Harney County," while harshly criticizing the various federal agencies which administer much of Harney County, especially the
BLM.
which was inserted by Tapered into the "Hammond arson conviction" section.
My concern is that it's nothing more than a politician's personal opinion of the Hammonds' character, and a criticism of federal land management agencies. The statement offers no particular insight into the Hammonds' arson convictions, and would open the door to introducing and inserting into that section a wide number of other competing political personal opinions about the Hammonds or land management agencies. Once we add one personal opinion about the Hammonds and land management agencies there, NPOV would mandate that we include other notable personal opinions from other perspectives in accordance with their prevalence in reliable sources. I'm not sure that belongs in this article - it might belong in another article more specifically about the Hammonds and reactions to them personally. Or, it might belong in a separate "Reactions to the Hammonds" subsection. At any rate, let's discuss it here. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 09:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Is it worth having a paragraph on reports of divisions among the occupiers? For example, this Guardian article talks of "signs that at least some in his militia want their controversial standoff to draw to a close." While this piece talks of one militia member going AWOL. Bondegezou ( talk) 14:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
At this point the difference between the occupation and the response has become artificial. It made sense early on to have two sections but the event is so singular and closely related it seems to me to make for a clumsy read now. I'd like to suggest we merge these two sections and then sub-section it by date, as though a timeline of events. Thoughts? LavaBaron ( talk) 07:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
This article asserts various statements as fact while relying on sources that are inherently one-sided POV, specifically legal briefs. Specifically, please see refs 29, 33, and 35 in this version. I'm fine with the gist of the text, I just think the text should be written to say these facts were alleged in the legal briefs rather than in wikivoice.
For those unfamiliar with court procedure, the purpose of a trial is to determine facts. Briefs either lobby for one view of the law..... or they lobby for one view of the facts. Thus, briefs alone are not RS for anything other than the fact one side in the lawsuit alleged these things. Whether or not the allegations are true is unknown, until a court rules. Even then, the best way to adhere to NPOV is to attribute such facts to court rulings.
Does anyone else choke when we use wikivoice to declare as true things said in inherently one-side legal briefs? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 19:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, sufficiently precise, concise and NPOV for now. Move protected for 60 days pending any radical change in circumstances Mike Cline ( talk) 11:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Militia occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge →
Armed occupation of Oregon wildlife refuge – While the current title "Militia occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge" is basically okay and sufficiently descriptive, it seems too specific to be recognizable by the average international reader. Non-local outlets tend to refer to the building as "Oregon wildlife refuge." See for example:
Int'l media refers to the occupation as well as taking place in "Oregon" or at the "Oregon wildlife refuge" rather than at the "Malheur National Wildlife Refuge".
Secondly, "Armed occupation" sounds less bumpy than "Militia occupation". If possible, a "fast-track" discussion would be great, as not just the event is in the news, but also the Wikipedia article ranks high at Google News.
PanchoS (
talk) 23:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)