Talk:Bundy standoff

Reverted removal of material

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disputed edit to the lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Infobox Goals Contradictory

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

Excellent example of NPOV in an article.

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