The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep (non-admin closure) This is an issue of content, not notability. The article is well sourced and shows notability. TheMesquito^buzz 02:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bundy standoff

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason

Hopelessly slanted attack piece, redirects to the article, name the subject, so this is a thinly disguised WP:ALIVE.
Very well sourced attempts at editing for WP:BALANCE balance have resulted in either WP:OR challenges and source credibility challenges.

(We've even had Glen Beck allowed for one viewpoint and then dictated not allowed for the other.)

Primary concern What remains of good faith edits are reworded to be unfaithful paraphrases of source. There is just too much content to verify that all edits now are a fair representation of the source.
Hopelessly deadlocked strongly suspect professional COI, maybe we can try again in a year or two.

Why is this important? This is an attack the messenger piece to try to deflect from the message. The grievance in this issue is not who owns the land, it is who manages the land within the State's borders. The 11 Western State are unique at to some of the conditions that were placed upon them at statehood. Nevada has changed their Constitution and has been wating over 20 years to be heard before Congress.
The courts are are a dead issue in this matter, the Judges assume that the challenge is about the ownership of the land, the State's want more input on the management of the land.
Mr. Bundy has risked his entire livelihood on getting this before Congress and not slapped down in the lower courts. There was basically no other way to accomplish this. The media is doing a pretty good job at changing the subject to attacking the messenger, it would be nice if we could see though this and not allow the Wikipedia to become a victim of it.

009o9 (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator has not shown a valid reason for deletion. To the extent the issues described by the nominator are legitimate, they can be resolved through the editing and discussion process. (As an aside, the blockquote paragraphs in the nomination may run afoul of WP:SOAPBOX.) RJaguar3 | u | t 14:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Crappy writing is not a reason to delete an article on a notable issue. Instead, re-write/fix issues, block troublemakers if necessary. 74.207.250.159 (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, of course. The article is meticulously sourced and relevant. Cwobeel (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Obviously-notable topic. The fact that the article is not written the way he would like it to be is not a valid reason for deletion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Nominator's reasons are opinion based. JuanRiley (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - pretty obviously notable topic. It's not an attack piece. I would suggest to you that the facts just aren't flattering in and of themselves. Greg Bard (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per RJaguar3, 74.207.250.159, Cwobeel, NorthBySouthBaranof, JuanRiley, Gregbard. — goethean 17:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like an interesting way to try to manipulate the debate, by deleting a well-cited article... Stan (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. — goethean 18:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not seeing a Wikipolicy reason to delete. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a well cited article, my problem is that I'm becoming aware of instances where the editing no longer not represents what is cited. Additionally, after what I though what concensus, the insistence of leveling the debunked racism charge in the lede prevails and been a primary concern. Sure, that is an opinion, but a reasonable person wound not allow this to persist with such high visibility.

At first I thought that this was just poor writing skills, I am convinced now that there is very subtle sabotage occurring here. My edit, attempting to add alternate perspective to this paragraph. The rewrite is unreadable and become meaningless to the reader, but meanwhile writer display enough talent to clarify and improve the writing in the alternate.

I'm coming to realize that this is becoming repetitious, a technique rather than a mistake. I don't know how compromised the article is, but I'm tempted to write an Essay concerning the technique.

"After making remarks about black people maybe being better off as slaves than under government subsidies, Bundy was repudiated by Republican politicians and talk-show hosts that had previously supported him, forcefully condemning his remarks as racist.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] Ben Swann examined Bundy's comments in broader context and found that Bundy was not given a truthful representation,[18] the American Thinker revealed that Bundy was speaking to the consequences of Government welfare on black families and stated, "He is no more a racist than is E.W. Jackson, Thomas Sowell..."[19] David Brock of Media Matters for America confirmed that they themselves were the source of this news. [20]"

"After making remarks about black people maybe being better off as slaves than under government subsidies, Bundy was widely condemned in mainstream media, and was repudiated by Republican politicians and talk-show hosts that had previously supported him, many of whom forcefully condemned his remarks as racist.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] Ben Swann[18] and the American Thinker stated that Bundy's comments had been taken out of context, but defended them as being truthful.[19]"

The first paragraph spends more time defending Bundy than it does discussing the allegations. When the sources clearly demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of public sentiment viewed Bundy's comments as racist and inappropriate, it is undue weight to write 37 words about the allegations and 47 words quoting two marginal sources claiming it was no big deal. The information about Brock was sourced only to a right-wing political opinion blog, which is unacceptable on Wikipedia.

It is black-letter policy that Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. The view that Bundy's comments weren't racist is indisputably a small minority view and does not deserve the space or prominence accorded to the view that they were racist.

You seem to be bound and determined to use Wikipedia as an alternative media source to present your opinions that Bundy's legal theories are correct, some sort of desert tortoise conspiracy exists against him and that his views about African-Americans and slavery aren't racist. Whereas the overwhelming majority of reliable sources available discuss the fact that Bundy's legal theories have been rejected in court, there is no evidence of a desert tortoise conspiracy and that virtually everyone of any consequence has condemned his views as racist. Wikipedia must reflect the preponderance of reliable sources, no matter if you think those sources are all part of the conspiracy.

More to the point, a debate about article content belongs on the article Talk page. It's not a legitimate reason to delete the page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The majority view is that media spin has no relevance here, this in one reason MSM's competition is doing so well. Racism requires the fundamental belief that one race is superiour -- so the racism allegations fail, this was not what was expressed. 009o9 (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is becomingWP:TEND. You need to stop the nonsense and the time wasting like this silly attempt to an AFD. Stop wasting editors' time. Cwobeel (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I looked at one editor's user page and it is pretty clear that COI cannot be avoided. Thanks for everyone's input, maybe I'll have more luck now that I recognize the technique.009o9 (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This is not the way to resolve editing conflicts. I am One of Many (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, I feel this nomination is politically motivated.--Loyalmoonie (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)Chris[reply]
Speedy keep. None of the arguments presented in the nomination are valid for deletion; as others have said above, this is an issue of content and should be resolved by consensus on the talk page. There is no doubt at all about notability. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.