Talk:Bundy standoff
Page contents not supported in other languages.
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theBundy standoff article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL |
Archives:1,2Auto-archiving period:12 months  |
 | This article was nominated fordeletion on 3 May 2014. The result ofthe discussion wasspeedy keep. |
| This article must adhere to thebiographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced orpoorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentiallylibellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue tothis noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please seethis help page. |
 | This article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that animage orphotograph ofBundy standoff beincluded in this article toimprove its quality. Please replace this template with a more specificmedia request template where possible. TheFree Image Search Tool orOpenverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images onFlickr and other websites. | Upload |
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)[reply]
Done unless someone doesn't like how I did it.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk)17:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Both myself andLeitmotiv have reverted edits to the lede of this article made byClepsydrae. I have reverted those edits because they are objectionable - they present a false dilemma and misrepresent the state of Constitutional law. TheProperty 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 theEnclave Clause - they are separate authorities. The Enclave Clause merely permits the Congress, with consent of affected state legislatures, to exerciseexclusive jurisdiction over certain enumerated areas of federal property. Public lands are not under exclusive jurisdiction - they are underconcurrent 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 hasPower 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)[reply]
Federal Land Ownership: Constitutional Authority and the History of Acquisition, Disposal, and Retention.Here is a paper from theHastings Law Journal written byJohn Leshy, distinguished professor of real property law atHastings College of Law. There's plenty to be had.NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)17:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
might have made an error in judgementis irrelevant, as is your personal opinion of such. Our personal opinions don't belong in Wikipedia. That would be textbookoriginal research.By foundational policy, we write articles based upon what is published inreliable 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
.svg)