Finally a one-place compilation of information-

With all the media, much of it with an agenda, covering this story, finally there is a compilation of facts, and text of court cases on the situation. It is in a new Wikipedia article.

We imagine Fox News and others in the media are pouring over it right now. 😉

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff

Tagged with:
 
avatar
About The Author

Ralph Maughan

Dr. Ralph Maughan is professor emeritus of political science at Idaho State University with specialties in natural resource politics, public opinion, interest groups, political parties, voting and elections. Aside from academic publications, he is author or co-author of three hiking/backpacking guides.

43 Responses to Wikipedia article on “Bundy Standoff”

  1. avatar Kristi says:

    Wow, his own Wikipedia listing! Now he really has hit the big time. He might squeeze out 30 minutes of fame now. I’d like to point out that the author used the term “grazing rights”…Bundy does NOT have the right to graze his cattle there, or anywhere else.

  2. avatar JEFF E says:

    I was thankful to see this piece. It puts it all together and makes clear that Bundy is little more than a snake oil salesman

    • avatar Ralph Maughan says:

      I think the facts destroy the Bundy claim of his immediate forbears grazing the area of the revoked grazing allotment from the 1870s until 1993.

      It was more of the case that some of his ancestors grazed some and did other things in the general area beginning in the early days.

      He and his father had a permit to the Bunkerville allotment off and on beginning in 1954, not continuously since the start of the permit system under the Taylor Grazing Act.

      He lost the very claim he has been trumpeting in court cases in 1998 and 2013.

      “There appear to be no records of any inherited grazing rights, pre-emptive rights, special rights, or grandfathered federal land use rights ever held by the Bundy family or Bundy’s ancestors.[7][8] Bundy lost his special rights arguments in the United States v. Bundy cases.[7][8] Bundy had only base property and normal AUM grazing allotment permits like the permits of thousands of other ranchers throughout the western US.”

      And almost all of the media and his supporters swallowed his story about his forbearers with no investigation on their part! What if someone gave their life to uphold a mythic and false chronology?

      • avatar Reno Gal says:

        Have you ever been to the place where the Mountain Meadow Massacre occurred. It’s bleak.
        Dudley Leavitt was involved in that Massacre. His own granddaughter, Juanita Brooks, wrote the first definitive piece on the event. Yep, this is the legacy of many LDS families still living around Bunkerville, including Bundy.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mountain_Meadows_Massacre_(book)

      • avatar Scotus says:

        I first heard of this story while listening to a conservative talk show, with Cliven Bundy as the guest (he makes an…ummm…”interesting” guest). He began with his tale of woe and I immediately didn’t believe him. Something in my gut told me he was lying, and what he was describing to me sounding like freeloading. I knew nothing of grazing rights or his claim to inherited rights, but he also told the host he didn’t believe in the authority of the United States government over Nevada. Your original article (with Ken Cole) filled in all the blanks and confirmed my suspicions. The wiki article is a great resource toward which to direct my misguided, reactionary, and so-called conservative friends.

  3. avatar Ida Lupine says:

    Wikipedia usually comes with a disclaimer for accuracy, but it seems fairly even-handed. I found this interesting:

    United States v Hage

    In a similar[citation needed] case to Bundy, ranchers in 2007 were sued by the Justice Department for trespassing on federal lands in Nevada. The ranchers are alleged to have repeatedly grazed livestock without federal permits despite repeated trespass notices from the BLM and the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service. The court found in favor of the ranchers for all other charges, including water rights, grazing rights and all but two livestock trespass charges in United States v. Wayne Hage (2013). In the ruling, the judge said, “government officials … entered into a literal, intentional conspiracy to deprive the Hages not only of their permits but also of their vested water rights. This behavior shocks the conscience of the Court and provides a sufficient basis for a finding of irreparable harm to support the injunction described at the end of this Order.”

    I’m amused by reading both predictable extremes: the Liberal media is playing the race card and name-calling, and the Conservative media has all the conspiracy theories that just might be on point. Couldn’t anybody find the disgruntled ranchers that resent Mr. Bundy not paying his fair share and interview them? The farmer or rancher from WI that Peter linked to seems like a different case altogether.

  4. avatar CodyCoyote says:

    It has been suggested that the titans of mainstream media such as CBS’ ” Sixty Minutes” should circle back around and revisit this sordid Cliven Bundy debacle, this time with proper context and solid history ( in other words, THIS WikiPedia compilation). Then they should broadcast/publish it prominently, factually , expressly while it’s still fresh …

    … if only this were a perfect world. I’m probably hallucinating.

  5. avatar Reno Gal says:

    If you go to wikipedia and search for Dudley Leavitt, you will learn all about Cliven Bundy’s relative on his maternal side who was involved in the Mountain Meadow Massacre and was a good old time polygamist. And Cliven is mentioned so he’s been on Wikipedia before.

  6. avatar Jameson says:

    I’d be willing to bet the media would be “poring” over it and not “pouring” over it.

  7. avatar snaildarter says:

    My question is what Liberal media? It certainly no longer exist if it ever did. Conservatives often confuse the word liberal with the word intellectual

    • avatar Immer Treue says:

      Conservatives look at anything to their left as liberal. Studies have been made that demonstrate the media, in general is slightly to the right of central… So if you are a staunch conservative, the media appears liberal. No winning there.

      • avatar Scotus says:

        I’m a conservative; however, this isn’t a left/right issue. FOX News and others have made it so, but it’s a Rule of Law vs. Mob Rule issue. Those calling themselves conservatives who support Cliven Bundy and his fellow anarchists certainly aren’t true conservatives.

    • avatar Clutch says:

      Snaildarter.

      Your failure to recognize a liberal slant in much mainstream media is remarkably similar to conservatives finding no slant in FOX news or O’Reilly’s “Fair & Balanced” evening programs.

      But as a guy with feet in both pastures, I would say you are both half right. 😉

  8. avatar Harley says:

    That’s pretty amusing that there is so much stock here put into a Wikipedia article. Is it accurate because it reflects what you all think? If it reflected contrary, putting Bundy in a good light, I’m sure it and Wikipedia would never have been mentioned or would have been used as an example for mis-information. If you want to prove your case, I would suggest you use something other than Wikipedia because I surely would not allow my students to use this as a source, most teachers will not either.

    • avatar DLB says:

      Harley,

      After reading posts on this site for years, I can honestly say that I have never read one post from you of any substance. Don’t mistake that with me claiming you make derogatory or insulting posts, because you haven’t that I’ve seen.

      You can’t even be labeled a moderate. From an opinion perspective, you’re a nothing on these issues.

      • avatar Harley says:

        Feeling the love DLB, feeling the love. If I’m going to be labeled something, I guess a nothing will work!

        Thanks for the feedback!

        • avatar Louise Kane says:

          Harley don’t let it get to you there are some serious pedants posting here sometimes. That was a personal attack that was unwarranted, cruel and unnecessary.

        • avatar Ida Lupines says:

          I agree – pay no attention. You are a moderate, and we need that view.

          • avatar Harley says:

            Thanks guys! That was an unexpected surprise and greatly appreciated.

            • avatar Nancy says:

              Harley – I seem to recall a few choice comments from you a few years ago re: coyotes 🙂

              Glad you’ve taken the time to research and form good, strong opinions, pro & con, with regard to wildlife & what’s left of their habitat.

              • avatar W.Hong says:

                I spend over 20 hours a day on the internet ad can say, taht wikipedia is probably the most unreliable source there is, those in control approver editors only approve those who post information tat they believe. If you want accurate repots, don’t depend on user edited pages.

              • avatar Harley says:

                Coyotes still trouble me. I get a thrill when I see them but they are also not a good mix with your average suburbanite so therein lies a conflict. But… we won’t rehash that one. Suffice to say, I very much enjoy all the wildlife around my small corner of the world.

    • avatar JEFF E says:

      it is the footnotes that one has to pay attention to and they back up the substance of the article pretty well

    • avatar Clutch says:

      @ Harley,

      “That’s pretty amusing that there is so much stock here put into a Wikipedia article…If you want to prove your case, I would suggest you use something other than Wikipedia because I surely would not allow my students to use this as a source, most teachers will not either.”

      Harley, thanks for that reminder, I am guilty of this myself.

      I am new to this forum and I have found it useful because there is some cross-section of contributors. Apparently some long-time readers prefer a forum of “preaching to the choir”.

      • avatar Nancy says:

        Clutch – What’s really great about this site is the “choir” is always open to new thoughts 🙂

    • avatar CodyCoyote says:

      Harley- I’m very glad none of my friend’s kids attend your school or take your classes. If you honestly believe that WikiPedia is not a trusted source of commonwealth knowledge , what would you say about Encyclopedia Britannica?

      A few years back they tested the veracity of Wikipedia against Britannica. Wikipedia was more accurate.

      personally , I find WP indispensable. Especially since every entry is usually wallpapered with footnotes of sources and attributions. WP also calls itself into question if it thinks an article comes up short or needs more sources. I seem to recall that registered users can view the log the editing history of any particular page/topic at WP.

      If only we could do this with Fox News or any other red-shifted source of ” news” —-[ select your own euphemism here for ” right wing disinfosphere ] .

  9. avatar Harley says:

    Actually, I think maybe you are missing the point of my post and probably past posts as well. All I was pointing out is if you want to make legit claims as to Bundy’s bad position, don’t use a questionable source.

    Enjoy the rest of tour day

    • avatar MJ says:

      While I disagree strongly with Bundy and his use of force to resist a legal court order, and pretty much his entire position, I agree that Wikipedia by design is written by individuals who often have agendas or are at least very subjective.

      It is more an exercise in free speech than a source of objective and reliable data, this is important when credibility of factual sources matters. Especially when an issue is controversial, credibility is key to reaching a meaningful solution. Our media is often a circus competing for ratings.

      I would love to see information that truly meets the scrutiny of meeting scientific integrity brought to the mainstream and presented so the majority can understand and see the whole picture. A lot of pro-wildlifers such as myself are very frustrated with the politics that trumps science.

      • avatar Brian Ertz says:

        Scrutinizing Wikipedia for being compiled and edited by collective participants ignores a number of things.

        It’s an attack on the forum, not the propriety of the actual content. If you have a qualm with any of the information published on the Wiki page, cite that qualm. If there is a fact that is not true, point it out. If the tone bothers you – explain where and why. Attacking Wikipedia itself is an intellectual shortcut – it’s not a legitimate argument against the value of the information presented.

        All information, and all publications, are subject to questionable practices with respect to the integrity of the information presented. The views of academia and other mainstream media, sources which I suspect those critical of Wikipedia would prefer to hang their hats on, are subject to any number of their own biases which similarly implicate the propriety of delivered facts, tone, ideology, etc. The question is: What solid sources are included and to what degree are the biases transparent ? Usually, with the vast majority of our media – there aren’t any reliable sources that are open to scrutiny – at least nowhere near the transparency that Wikipedia provides. That’s an important distinction – the Wikipedia page on Bundy includes primary sources in support of propositions – public sources that you or I can click and read for ourselves. See ‘Notes’ and ‘References’ sections including a number of official court cases, statutes, administrative documents and other sourced material corroborating the information presented.

        Wikipedia is certainly a controversial source of information – it’s different than sources for which we have become accustomed. That fact does not render the information less credible.

        Let’s start here: What about the Bundy page is inaccurate ?

        • avatar Louise Kane says:

          +1

        • avatar MJ says:

          The question of Wikipedia being a credible source is the issue, and the answer I think is “sometimes”. An article could be accurate today and then edited again tomorrow, or never accurate to begin with. It will still be posted. It’s a product of free speech, with good and bad. It’s valuable, but should be understood that there are flaws.

          I find myself using it to read the summary of the issues with a grain of salt and then the references below to verify their credibility, but not accept the story at face value.

          Many heated debates on political issues now are rooted in arguments that have been strongly influenced by propaganda campaigns. It’s mass mentality and mob rule. The design of our system where the voter can remove unwanted policy and leadership needs to coupled with access to accurate information, and the knowledge to discern.

          In answer to the original question, I have seen a number of “Monster Wolf” -like entries on Wikipedia with some outright ridiculous statements in more than one article, eg wolves eating children in Russia. Maybe they were sourced from the Onion as a joke, but they were probably accepted as proof by a number of people.

          As I read the Copenhagen Zoo main page following the Marius killing, Wikipedia was used as “proof” that Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore the Animal Rights movement was formed by psychopaths who want to kill animals and save the animals. The Wikipedia article did verify that Hitler was a devout vegetarian who preferred the company of animals. (Not true) He was not a vegetarian, he was a great propagandist, who in response to the popularity of Mahatma Gandhi, intentionally put out rumors that he was a vegetarian as he was working his way into popularity. This is my criticism of Wikipedia.

          Does mainstream media deserve the same scrutiny? Yes. Fox (also called Faux News), vs. CNN (also called Communist News Network) both are criticized but then watched again, the way Jerry Springer was criticized as he received record ratings.

          The point I am looking to make is that we need to read all sources with somewhat of an open mind but understand that we need to verify the source.

          • avatar MJ says:

            “the Animal Rights movement was formed by psychopaths who want to kill animals and save the animals”

            should be “the Animal Rights movement was formed by psychopaths who want to kill humans and save the animals”

        • avatar MJ says:

          “Hunting proponents argue that wolves with no negative experiences of humans are more likely to encroach upon human settlements and attack people, citing for example the differences in attitudes toward the public distribution of firearms in America and Eurasia as examples as to why nations on both continents have differing accounts of wolf aggression.[22] Hunting wolves is reasoned to maintain shyness in wolves,[100] an idea which is correlated by a modern account demonstrating that wolves in protected areas are more likely to show no fear toward humans than ones in areas where they are actively hunted.[2]

          Historical and recent accounts indicate that individual wolves or wolf packs that turn man-eater typically do not stop until hunted and destroyed.” [100]

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_hunting

  10. avatar Harley says:

    Thanks MJ. Coming from someone who is more nothing will probably hold more weight than my comment.

  11. avatar Mareks Vilkins says:

    The Internal Revenue Service formally designates certain individuals as potentially dangerous taxpayers (PDTs)

    +++

    so the question goes – have IRS already designated C Rambo B as PDT?

    or maybe IRS are afraid of one more Joe Stack III destroying IRS office in Carson City or Las Vegas? so they will let him go off the hook like BLM have done

  12. avatar Angus says:

    Jon Stewart covered the Bundy drama this week on at least three occasions, including this latest one covering the revelation that “Grazing Fee Denier” Bundy is actually “a Professor of Negro Studies”. This is rich!

    The Daily ShowGet More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

  13. avatar Angus says:

    Since the embed didn’t work, here’s the direct ling to the short segment: http://on.cc.com/1tJCZQQ

    • avatar MJ says:

      Funny segment, John Stewart may have more credibility than some of the “straight man” news sources.

Calendar

April 2014
S M T W T F S
« Mar   May »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  

Quote

‎"At some point we must draw a line across the ground of our home and our being, drive a spear into the land and say to the bulldozers, earthmovers, government and corporations, “thus far and no further.” If we do not, we shall later feel, instead of pride, the regret of Thoreau, that good but overly-bookish man, who wrote, near the end of his life, “If I repent of anything it is likely to be my good behaviour."

~ Edward Abbey

%d bloggers like this: