Talk:Bureau of Land Management

message: This article incorporates text from the BLM website, and it shows. Parts of this article seem very PR-ish, such as this whole paragraph:
:Perhaps one of the Bureau's greatest challenges today is to develop more effective land management practices, while becoming more efficient at the same time. The BLM has taken significant steps to reduce administrative costs, streamline work processes, focus on customer service, and improve accountability to the American people.
This effectively says, in forward-looking-go-get-em-optimistic marketing style, that the BLM does its job. Well, one would hope so. Also, while the beautiful images are nice, I don't think they add as much to the article as, say, a map of BLM-held land would. -- Scott eiπ 10:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's our best source of info. And if it's not NPOV at least it's not attacking anyone. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't mean we have to adopt their wording. Besides, there are those out there who beleive that the BLM should not exist, and its lands should be realeased to private owners. They might consider a glowing article to be "attacking" them. I would also like to point out that the article at present is much more neutral then it was back in December. -- Scott eiπ 19:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PR language

message: I removed or reworded lots of POV language in this section. Articles must not assume the subject of the article is always right (by using wording such as "the BLM must..."). The section seems to appeal to authority quite often; sources must be specific if you want to give a better impression ("scientists say" - Who? Which scientists? All scientists? The scientists who work for the BLM?).
I also tagged the article for being unbalanced. The issue of killing these horses has raised a major public relations scandal, and yet that problem is not addressed anywhere in the article. This article must also stop relying on the BLM's website as the only source. This is does not seem to be systematic bias; but a direct attempt to suppress negative publicity; see the BLM's facebook entry for evidence of internet publicity campaign. In fact, the rest of the article has these very same problems. The use of language towards the BLM seems almost honorific. What is the point of the image galleries of the land the BLM administers?
The claim that "10,000 more horses is more than can exist in harmony with other resources" seems ludicrous when considering that hundreds of thousands (?) of cows also share the public "rangeland" - are mass cattle hordes native to the 'rangeland'? No. Also, open steppes are the natural environment of horses; the article implies that the presence of 'foreign' species to an environment is always harmful. What exists in that environment that isn't in their native habitat? What exactly are they harmful to? The article doesn't say.--IronMaidenRocks (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Wild Horses and Burros

message: Range War Incident
In April, 2014 following a years long legal dispute between cattle rancher Cliven Bundy and the BLM, some several hundred protesters gathered armed with various firearms to protect Cliven Bundy's right to allow his cattle to graze on public land. The protestors were successful, despite the BLM's employment of armed personell.  
76.212.144.71 (talk) 05:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 05:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2014 

message: Hi, I'm a wildlife biology student and I added a photo from the commons to show lands held by the BLM. I hope you all found this to be an appropriate contribution.
:Nice, thank you!  Montanabw(talk) 20:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo Added