Talk:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

Anti-Government Militias

I question the neutrality of "anti-government militias." Who's declaring them anti-government, but their detractors? For example, on the "About" page of the III %ers website at http://www.iiisecurityforce.com/about.html the group discusses how militias are often viewed as anti-government, but that they don't consider themselves to be so.

So, if this article is neutral on that point, why are we using the words of their detractors but not the words of the militia group itself?

Also, what defines "anti-government?" The groups, though many people may not like them, organize and govern themselves. They have leaders, protocol, and a hierarchy. What is that but government? BudJillett (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

We base what we say on what reliable sources say in preference to what the militia group says about itself. This is basic Wikipedia policy: see WP:V and WP:NPOV. Bondegezou (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Bodegezou, for the guidance. I checked WP:V and found "The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments." So, if an article is written about a militia group calling it "anti-government," but the militia group's "About" page states that it is not anti-government, wouldn't this be bad fact-checking? And therefore not a very reliable source? BudJillett (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The militia group's own "About" page is a primary source and there are lots of problems with primary sources: see WP:PRIMARY. If a newspaper article (or a Wikipedia article) contradicts a primary source, that could be for very good reasons and we trust reliable sources to make those judgments. Wikipedia is very clear in its policies: we use reliable, secondary sources over primary sources. Bondegezou (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Bondegezou, for the informative dialog. In reading some of the source articles, it seems to me that the term "anti-government" originated from opinion rather than fact. Be it the opinion of the local Sheriff, or of the reporter herself. However, I see that following Wikipedia's guidelines makes it totally legit for it to appear in the Wikipedia article, and does not seem to be against policy as you've pointed out. I often see biased terminology from sources that most (including myself) would consider reliable, such as CNN, TIME, even REUTERS on occasion slips up and uses biased terms. I wonder how we, as a community, can keep mainstream media bias (where it might occur) from migrating into Wikipedia? BudJillett (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

We can't. By foundational definition, if you believe that all mainstream media are biased, our articles will reflect that bias because our articles are based upon what is verifiably published in reliable sources. We have a responsibility to reflect multiple points of view, but we are required to put due weight on viewpoints based on their prevalence in reliable sources. That is, fringe viewpoints will not receive as much space or credence as mainstream ones. The idea that armed militias taking over government facilities are not anti-government is, charitably, a fringe one. Therefore, our article will reflect the mainstream consensus of sources. If you object to that, you quite simply object to the very idea of Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

An alternative response would be... Go take this matter up with CNN, Time, Reuters etc. rather than here. Bondegezou (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it's generally accepted that all media is biased to varying extents. Bias sneaks in everywhere, and often unintentionally. I agree that those biases are reflected in Wikipedia articles. I think it's natural for that to occur. This particular article seems to have a higher degree of bias than others on Wikipedia, which I have usually found to be pleasantly neutral. "Anti-government" stood out to me. Especially at "By late fall, local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies had become aware that members of anti-government militias had started to relocate to Harney County." This left me with the impression that the militia groups had formed around a professed anti-government agenda, but in reading their pages I found this not to be the case. In fact, the Three Percenters go into detail about why they are not anti-government. I understand we can't quote the militia's web page because they are a primary source. Still, I believe we should remove the misleading adjective. It leads people to believe the groups are self-proclaimed anti-government groups when they are making no such proclamation. BudJillett (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomenclature

@NorthBySouthBaranof:Twenty of the articles from reliable sources cited in the Wikipedia article on the Occupation use the word, "Militant" in their very titles, to describe the occupiers. Allowing the article to be scrubbed and sanitized by instead calling the militants "protesters," is simply absurd. Many carried pocket copies of W. Cleon Skousen's bizarre interpretations of the constitution with them. In my opinion, that ignoring of over 230 years of jurisprudence constitutes a prima facie case for their position as "anti-government." Activist (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: The main article does refer to the occupiers as militants, which you seem to be in agreement with. The word "protesters" is used only in reference to what was imprinted on the signs by the roadblocks. BudJillett (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I am in agreement with referring to the militants as "militants." However, an IP editor from Dover, NH, twice replaced the term "militants" with "protesters" over 100 times in the article's text. After editor NorthBySouthBaranof reverted those changes, twice, I registered my concurrance with the long-time editor's restorations. Activist (talk) 08:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I counted the citations and indeed 20 of them refer to the occupiers as "militants" in their very titles. Only 11 refer to them as "protesters" (or Bundy as "protest leader") and only 11 refer to them as "group," so I see where "militant" wins out. BudJillett (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Page protection warranted?

@NorthBySouthBaranof:, @BudJillett:, @MB298:, I think this article could benefit from autoconfirmed editor page protection. The last two edits that were made by IP editor 67.169.209.150, from the vicinity of Corvallis, OR, were vandalism, otherwise known as "good faith" here at Wikipedia. The six prior IP edits were made by an edit warring IP editor from the vicinity of Dover, N.H. Activist (talk) 13:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Activist: I have requested semi-protection. MB298 (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. I kinda like Wikipedia's generally open policy. I checked the edit history and I don't see the page is being edited all that much. I also have no problem with assuming good faith, at least on the more recent edits. I agree the reversions were warranted since the edits did not accurately reflect the cited sources, and the editor offered no new citations to backup his or her edits. The comment in the edit summary was a bit dubious (in addition to being a bit cryptic!), but I still tend to write it off as a user under-educated about Wikipedia's policies. Maybe if that IP does it again, offer some education on his or her talk page? I've got this page on my watch list so, if I catch it, I'll try to point that person to the correct Wikipedia policy. BudJillett (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree in large part, because it's not hard to register a username and become involved. Registering doesn't make Wikipedia not "open". It's still free and super easy. But let's face cold hard realism: 99% of anonymous IP editors are hit and runs. They aren't looking for consensus, they aren't looking to cite reliable sources, and they aren't following established procedure. If they really have an invested interest in Wikipedia, they can register a name and get involved.

One thing I've learned about being around the great outdoors of the west, is that the general public has no respect for anything that is accessible and convenient. Make it one step harder (in this case, still easy by registering) and you will weed out 90% of those who are looking to vandalize and deface. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

All reasonable points. I wonder, though, how do they apply specifically to protecting this page, as opposed to making registration a requirement for Wikipedia as a whole? I've spent the last few weeks doing some patrolling as a way to learn more about Wikipedia, and during that time I've seen several egregious cases of obvious vandalism. Sometimes these were repeated onslaughts to a particular page over a number of days. But I just don't see that here. BudJillett (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I was an editor of this page, in some function or another, from its inception, and if my memory serves me, it had vandalism/revert wars. What I suspect this page will go through is much like other articles now - because the content is politically charged and controversial, people will routinely come in to edit it to suit their personal views rather than take the due diligence to back it up with reliable sources. This article has seen that consistently, if not in any inundating way recently. I think this article is similar to other hot button articles where it would behoove the editors to lighten their work load by enforcing protective measures against the never-ending onslaught of anonymous editors who have no intent of improving wikipedia, but bending wikipedia to their own views. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof:, @BudJillett:, @MB298:, Thanks for making the request. I disagree about the need, obviously. There are editors on Wikipedia who are little more than graffiti artists, "taggers,"interjecting vulgarities here and there, for instance. It's obvious what they're doing and that's not what's happening here, of course, but it shares a spectrum with what is. There are others who share an unreality and feel that by erasing reliably sourced, but unpleasant to them text, that they somehow have put things right. Finicum's unfortunate death was classic "suicide by cop." All those erasures and substitutions (and they've been going on for a while), won't change that. Autoconfirmation won't stop that but presents some impediments, especially for those impulsive readers/posters, that will make that situation a little more difficult, so should be welcomed, in my opinion. Registering as a confirmed user isn't all that big a burden. Activist (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for clarifying. Does moving forward with semi-protecting this page, for the reasons so far given, square with WP:PREEMPTIVE? BudJillett (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

This goes beyond vandalism and falls mostly under content dispute - the two most common examples are changing "militants" to "protesters" and often changing the facts surrounding Finnicum running away from the barricade and reaching into his jacket, to some other conspiracy theory nonsense. It's an ongoing issue. I foresee that it will not change. Semi protection for a year would help and it could be reevaluated at that time on trial basis. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Occupied or Seized

Clearly, use of the term "seized" rather than "occupied" in the lede is a far more accurate descriptor of what happened at Malheur. I am reminded of the term, as defined in Wiktionary, "terminate with extreme prejudice" which was substituted for the accurate "assassinate," "execute" or "murder" during the Viet Nam war. Activist (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, neither one seems very loaded to me. They seem like synonyms and I don't see wildly differing connotations.

wikt:seize: To deliberately take hold of; to grab or capture. Or, to take possession of (by force, law etc.).

wikt:occupy: To have, or to have taken, possession or control of (a territory). VQuakr (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Seized UPDATE see later comment below. Original comment read.... (A) Lots of RSs use seized; (B) Each have various connotations. The context for this article is, in broad strokes, political direct action. I've been around that culture a bit, and the common language I am personally familiar with talks about "occupying" offices that are acknowledged to belong to some authority and the premise of the action is to return control of those spaces to those authorities at the actions conclusion. In this case, the militants stated purpose was to wrest control of the lands from the federal government and (re)distribute them to the locals. That's their own stated goal as reported in the RSs. Very different from some college kids "occupying" the university president's office over divesting from fossil fuels. Example "In a sign of growing tensions, students occupied and shut down the university finance building last week and said there could be “no more business as usual whilst the university remains complicit in the destruction of the planet and vulnerable populations across the globe”." https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/apr/23/cambridge-university-urged-again-to-end-fossil-fuel-investments In such actions there is no intention of keeping such spaces or putting third parties into control. The occupiers return control and acknowledge the rightful "owners". So no, I don't think are equivalent terms at all. Yes I know other RSs say "occupy". Where we have competing words supported by different RSs we should use our judgment to describe the militants stated purpose - take control, keep control, pass control to others. Er go, "seized"...."and get lost, feds)"... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof:, @BudJillett:, @MB298:,@Possums:, @L.Tak:, @NewsAndEventsGuy:. If the words were simply synonymous, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Without going all "Alice/Humpty Dumpty," here, the terms were more synonymous in Old Latin. Today, they'e not. When the Nazis occupied northern France, it was a seizure. The French had little choice in the matter or the description, though they were allowed to remain. One can "occupy" a flat, with an agreement with the landlord, or and uninhabited or unclaimed island or deserted building, perhaps. But the refuge was taken over, "seized" by heavily armed interlopers with no intention of surrendering it back to government stewardship. The legitimate occupants were expelled. Visitors, by virtue of the confrontation, were unwelcomed. If someone, with no legitimate claim to possession, came to your home and threw you out, would you say they had "occupied" your home, or "seized" it? Activist (talk) 00:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the email and ping... FYI in such short threads, I usually assume the other parties have pages watchlisted, and that's how I find out about new stuff posted on this one. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd call it "occupied" by squatters, but "seized" by a judge. In other words, "seized" connotes a legitimate albeit unpleasant formal seizure, whereas "occupy" connotes an illegitimate unwelcome occupation of the premises. Also note that the article is called "Occupation of…", not "Seizure of…" — JFG ^talk 01:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I fully agree with JFG. It is exactly this connotation that made me prefer occupied. Occupation is a fact, but seizure depends on whether you think is a legitimate power. If you think the occupiers have, it is an occupation and a seizure, if you think the central government has the legitimate power, it is "only" an occupation. I therefore think the word occupy is the neutral term to use; and also the most used term to describe the conflict. L.tak (talk) 03:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Checking how this event is described: 132 counts of the word "occupation", "occupied" or "occupiers" in the article, including 73 in titles of cited sources. "Seizure" or "seized"? 1 source in Boise Weekly. Nowhere in article text except the contested lede wording, and a guy who had his camera seized. Case closed. — JFG ^talk 04:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

To me the key difference is the presence of firearms. Students occupying university buildings are almost universally unarmed. Occupy wallstreet was unarmed. The Bundys & co were bristling with firearms. So to me seizure is more appropriate. That's why I changed it in the first place. Possums (talk) 07:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• seized and occupied If we had to pick just one, then my earlier comment's reasoning still stands and "seized" more neutrally described what actually transpired. Although the dubious WP:GOOGLETEST made by another editor can tell us what is popular, that how-to guide tells us it is not how we decide. Rather, our goal is neutral description of actual events. Alas, there is no bright line of dictionary definitions to help us, and so we have this mostly opinion-based debate. What are neutrally-minded Wikipedians to do? Reliable sources to the rescue... many use both terms, e.g.

At 9:15 p.m. the day it all started Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward gave the following statement "After the peaceful rally was completed today, a group of outside militants drove to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, where they seized and occupied the refuge headquarters." (emphasis added) https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/drama_in_burns_ends_with_quiet.html

Finally, although we can't cite our own articles as RSs note that the first sentence of our own article Reactions_to_the_occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge also says "seized and occupied".NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

There having been no additional comments, I went ahead and changed "seized" to "seized and occupied". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Resolving confusion as to fatal shots

I've read differing accounts about which officers fired which shots. In the trial of FBI Agent Astarita, however, the account is sworn testimony. It said that "Officer 1" who was at the fatal roadblock, fired three shots with an AR-15 into Finicum's truck, then two into his back, after he got out of his truck. Then another, "Officer 2," also fired, hitting Finicum in his back at the same time. Activist (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the contributions

@Alan G. Archer:, @Parsley Man:, @LavaBaron:, @NewsAndEventsGuy:, @Neutrality:, @Kgstewart1:, @Bondegezou:, @Prioryman:, @Scottperry: Dear Wikipedia editors who worked on this article. I think it is an example of excellent collaboration to produce an article that does justice to the aims of Wikipedia. I'm pinging those editors who comprised the "top ten" in terms of their additions to the articles, without singling out any individual from that list. In addition to the content, I particularly liked the layout, with which I had little to do except for a minor change. Activist (talk) 03:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Same goes, @Activist! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Also @Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz: should get some credit as a contributor of 4.7% of the text added. I've added 3.5% as the 10th top contributor. I'll give myself a single pat on the back. Thank you for all your work guys and your vigilance. Leitmotiv (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

stray cite

This was just floating at the top of the article with no context.

{{cite news|last1=Moore|first1=Wanda|url=http://www.ktvz.com/news/refuge-occupiers-settle-in-concerns-mount-in-burns/37249044|title=Militia leader explains takeover, says group has name|date=January 4, 2016|work=|accessdate=June 7, 2016|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160104211508/http://www.ktvz.com/news/refuge-occupiers-settle-in-concerns-mount-in-burns/37249044|archive-date=January 4, 2016|publisher=[[KTVZ]]|last2=Lerten|first2=Barney|location=Bend, Oregon|orig-year=1st pub. January 3, 2016}}

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)