![]() |
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
![]() |
On 2016-01-04, Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was linked from Google News (main page), a high-traffic website. (See visitor traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history. |
---|
![]() Archives |
---|
COWS
GOP Politicians Planned and Participated in Key Aspects of Refuge Occupation Leitmotiv (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Arrests and shooting
The narrative flow needs some work. There seems to be 2 or 3 accounts presented. TomS TDotO (talk) 05:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Really? It all looks clear to me. Would you mind specifying these accounts? Parsley Man (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- These are parts of the narrative:
-
- "Finicum exited his vehicle and briefly held his hands above his head. Two Oregon State Police officers armed with handguns stood to his right, while an OSP officer equipped with a Taser X2 walked toward him from his left. During a briefing, the OSP officers asserted that Finicum had a loaded handgun on the left of his torso. As the officer with the Taser attempted to move within the Taser's range of 15 feet (5 m), Finicum turned his body to the left, holding his jacket with his left hand and reaching for the pocket with his right hand, when he was shot three times in the back.”
-
- Then we back up to what happened earlier:
-
- "OSP officers fired three shots into Finicum's truck as it approached the roadblock, and fired three shots into Finicum. While Finicum was leaving his truck, an FBI Hostage Rescue Team member fired two shots, one of which entered the truck and rebounded, inflicting a minor shrapnel wound on Ryan Bundy.”
-
- (Did they fire three shots into Finicum while he was still in the truck?)
-
- And then we have another report of what happened:
-
- "Immediately after the shooting and arrests, officials stated that Finicum was reaching for a gun in his pocket when he was shot by a state trooper."
-
- Thank you for your work on this. TomS TDotO (talk) 02:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Nope, still clear to me. Parsley Man (talk) 03:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
-
Too long?
What else could we do to get rid of that Template:2L tag? I've done as much condensing and reorganization as I could, but nothing else seems to stand out as needing condensing or division. Parsley Man (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Reply - Well, ya know, we could create new articles for "Hammond arson case", "List of people involved in the Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge" and "Reactions to the Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge". --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- You really want that to happen, do you? I thought a lot of people were opposed to this? Parsley Man (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Lists are generally bad form, and the Hammond case is rarely the topic in mainstream media when discussing the occupation. They should be calved off. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Any suggestions how? These details are really important to the occupation. Parsley Man (talk) 01:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Reply - Many are opposed, but since the article is getting close to 200 kB, I thought I would bring it up again as an option, now that the article has been condensed as much as possible. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Lists are generally bad form, and the Hammond case is rarely the topic in mainstream media when discussing the occupation. They should be calved off. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- You really want that to happen, do you? I thought a lot of people were opposed to this? Parsley Man (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
The actual text = 126 kb, more or less. Note that per WP:SIZERULE articles should be under 100kb, but we don't count image captions, table of contents, refs, see also section etc. Just the text. Right now, the text (and image captions) runs around 126 kb. So the article isn't as crazy as some are saying when they cite the markup size which is around 200kb. Nonetheless, it still needs paring. For one thing, I see no important reason to keep the table of individual charges. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
In my sandbox is the beginning skeleton of a potential Hammond arson case article. Most of it is just copy-and-pasted from the main occupation article, but if we use my material and replace everything in said main article with basic summaries and such, it should be fine. What do you guys think? Parsley Man (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think the start of that article is great. I'm of the opinion that the arson case, despite the alleged impetus behind the occupation, has very tenuous connections because what was discussed by the occupiers thereafter very rarely mentioned the Hammonds. The Hammonds deserve a mention in the main article, but the details are best left off the actual occupation article. I like your bold edits, but the consensus discussed earlier seems to be at odds. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
@Leitmotiv: @Jax 0677: @NewsAndEventsGuy: Are you there? I am really considering creating that arson case article and I would like someone to review what I have right now in my sandbox to see if it's okay. Parsley Man (talk) 05:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Leitmotiv: @Jax 0677: @NewsAndEventsGuy: @Parsley Man: I made the mistake of reading a pathetically written article and am in the process of trying to clean it up, and have been spending an inordinate amount of time arguing about an article nominated for deletion (despite my subsequent considerable improvements) for what I feel are increasingly flimsy grounds, but I'll try to take a look at the current Malheur article and at your sandbox, Parsley Man, and get back to you. Thanks to all of you for your efforts to improve the important occupation and related articles. Activist (talk) 06:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Leitmotiv: @Jax 0677: @NewsAndEventsGuy: @Parsley Man: Parsley Man: I tried to access your sandbox and couldn't. Left message on your TALK page. Activist (talk) 08:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Does anybody know why I was pinged to this weird page, or was it a ghost in the machine? -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- (Edit Conflict) Something went wrong with the notification system. I got a "Parsley Man mentioned you on the Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge talk page in 'Too long?'." message even though I was not mentioned. If anyone else got notified, let us know so I can file a bug report. My working theory from the fact that Guy Macon and Roxy the dog were pinged is that the software is somehow detecting those users who are incredibly good looking and highly sought after by potential mates... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- I think Guy's working hypothesis is accurate in its characterisation of the victims, but far more likely is that somebody is picking on people who don't have accidents in Japanese cars, as my Mitsubishi is currently unmarked. -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- User:Parsley Man made a ping error explained at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Bogus alerts. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- My apologies, everyone, I didn't mean to ping you guys as well. Though I can't imagine how that could've happened. Parsley Man (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Removal of table
Considering how long this article is and the efforts to shorten it, I doubt there is an encyclopedic need to know the names of each militant involved and the specific charges they face. Any of that is already covered in the main articles for Ammon Bundy and Jon Ritzheimer. I suggest a complete removal of that table. Parsley Man (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- I don't agree with getting rid of the table of charges. Two considerations: first, there is otherwise nowhere in the article where we cover who has been indicted, and we are going into a legal process where there will be a lot of things happening - most likely plea bargains for the small fry and possibly additional charges for some of the others (don't forget, the investigation is still ongoing). Second, there seems to be literally nowhere - except probably in some FBI office somewhere - where all the charges are tabulated in some sort of at-a-glance format. That's why I created the table in the first place. We're in a unique position compared to the media, in that we can take a step backwards and look at the overall picture rather than just report on a piecemeal basis. Let's not lose the advantage of doing that. Nobody else seems to be providing such a summary for this case, so we can genuinely provide something unique here. Prioryman (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Prioryman. MB298 (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- But do we really need to know who all of these militants are? The only names that are recurring in the article are the Bundy brothers, Ritzheimer, Finicum, and the last four militants to surrender, and the others just come out of nowhere. Parsley Man (talk) 02:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Parsley Man: Yes. The reason they are listed there is because they don't appear anywhere else in the article. Another proposal could be to split People involved in the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge from the main article. MB298 (talk) 03:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- One further possibility, which I'd be open to, would be to create a spinoff article covering the legal proceedings, in which we could incorporate the table and summarise the case as it develops. There is going to be a lot of interest and a lot more material to come on that topic. Prioryman (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Reply - I concur with MB298 and Prioryman, in addition to a new article entitled Reactions to the Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that this table should be split from the article into its own. Lists are generally bad form for articles and should be subarticles or removed entirely. I think in this case, there is plenty of sources to support a subarticle. Leitmotiv (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- That does sound good. Let's do it? Parsley Man (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Parsley Man: Great! MB298 (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- That does sound good. Let's do it? Parsley Man (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- One further possibility, which I'd be open to, would be to create a spinoff article covering the legal proceedings, in which we could incorporate the table and summarise the case as it develops. There is going to be a lot of interest and a lot more material to come on that topic. Prioryman (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Parsley Man: Yes. The reason they are listed there is because they don't appear anywhere else in the article. Another proposal could be to split People involved in the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge from the main article. MB298 (talk) 03:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- But do we really need to know who all of these militants are? The only names that are recurring in the article are the Bundy brothers, Ritzheimer, Finicum, and the last four militants to surrender, and the others just come out of nowhere. Parsley Man (talk) 02:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Prioryman. MB298 (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Hammond arson case
Well, I just did a huge overhaul of the article so I could create an actual article on the Hammond arson case. I do hope that was okay. No hard feelings if lots of fixes are made or if my changes are ultimately undone. Parsley Man (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Recreate category
There are now 9 articles related to this subject, so I think a category could be recreated. MB298 (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)