Talk:Minuteman Project/Archive 1

message: This article is extremely biased, the only part of the article that presents any supportive information about the minutemen is the one I just added about the Union endorsement. No other mention of how local border patrol agents have been totally receptive of the minutemen because it gives their operation the manpower it needs to do its job.
~ Micahel J. McGuirk (April 18th 2005)
:I also have removed the section "Renunciation by Minuteman leader James Chase" because it unbalances the article to the left-side and has a heavy liberal viewpoint. There were no sources or citations of any of these allegations and I felt that a single person does not have the authority of wrongly stereotyping the Minuteman Project. 165.111.2.149 14:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: Guys,
The Voz de Aztlan is a racist, separatist, anti-Semitic rag.  Even the whackos at the SPLC are offended by it, and they usually just pick on people for being white.
The t-shirt incident should be a one-line mention at most.  It is largely irrelevant to whom the MM are and what they do.  This must be one of the few entries this side of Pol Pot that is 70% criticism.
I have added two lines on the documented activities of the ACLU "legal observers."  You let them take potshots at the mmp.
Thanks.
SPS Sixpackshakur
:PS- you can sign your name automatically by adding four tildes (~) at the end. -Willmcw 22:07, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
*You are right that the Voz de Aztlan is racist, it should probably be removed and replaced by a more mainstream group's comments since there are quite a few that have criticized the Minuteman project. Why should the t-shirt incident be a one-line mention however? It is extremely relevant to whom the MM are as it shows that the attitude the group has while it undertakes its operations and how it views those it "catches". It might not be a part of the MM's written policy or stated mission but it is most definitely apt and relevant. Also needed in this article is some more info on how clergy, especially the Roman Catholic Church, has spoken out against the minutemen. -CunningLinguist 01:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While I think this incident is important only for the minor controversy it inspired, I also think that it is somewhat irrelevant and POV to mention anti-Semitsim and -Americanism in this article.  That would fit in better with the article on Voz de Aztlan.  I'll change it to just say the group's controversial.
I noticed this:
Project organizers, however, said they have a more restrictive policy that no contact at all can be made with suspects.
That's not entirely true, as far as I'm aware. My understanding is that no contact at all can be made with suspects unless they are in need of assistance, as in, they are in immediate need of food/water, medical attention, and so forth. --Jack (Cuervo) 03:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voz de Aztlan??  "T-shirt incident??" BIAS 

message: I reverted an edit by someone that stated the names of the two victims in the Garden Grove incident as Hawkeye and Boy. I know the name of one of the victims (check history) and I know it isnt Hawkeye or "Boy". However, if these are some sort of aliases or something, used by those people, then please explain so here. Otherwise it appears to be vandalism and I reverted it. -CunningLinguist 01:09, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert

message: Do we have a source for the U.S. Border Patrol Local 2544's statement supporting the Minutemen?  I'll look for the website. Theshibboleth 00:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a google search of their website, and there appears to currently be no mention of the Minutemen on that site.  Unless we can find a historical source for the information, preferrably from a reputable news source, I'm afraid we'll have to remove it.  I found the statement on a few blogs, and I may post a link to one of them as a source.  Hopefully though we can find a different source. Theshibboleth 00:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a reference to the statement on WorldNetDaily (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43910), so I will give that as the source.  There does not appear to be any evidence, however, that the statement ever was on the website although WorldNetDaily is credible enough that it probably was. Theshibboleth 00:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, WorldNetDaily isn't a terribly credible news source, check its wikipedia entry. Anyways, I did a bit of research and I couldn't find anything at the union's website either, and this seems like a group that wouldn't be too afraid to applaud the MMP publicly. There is an email address for press inquiries, so perhaps someone should email them to find out it the statement is accurate. Until then, I don't think the claim has support from reliable sources.68.103.42.250 17:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The WorldNetDaily article does not attribute the comments to any member of the union.  It only uses the generic  "agents decry", "they say", and "Another says".  In addition, as others have noted, that statement can not be found on the union's website, as the WND piece indicated (they should havel inked to it directly). The reference should not be included in the article. -Rafanetx 00:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. Border Patrol Local 2544 Statement 

message: *Supporters of the Minuteman dismiss this argument as a weak tactic being used to try to delegitimize the project by trying to imply that because some white supremacists groups have supported the organization, that the whole organization must have racist motives. Minuteman supporters have argued that opponents of the organization have struggled to find legitimate reasons to oppose the group, and have launched blind accusations of racism.
What are our sources for these comments by supporters? Thanks, -Willmcw 02:50, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
:: I haven't seen too many articles with writers summing their exact feelings of the group in short sentences, but I do have a few links:
::Tom Tancredo, probably the biggest supporter of the Minuteman who is a public official, said this 
:: "People who say it's racist to want secure borders are insulting the intelligence of the American people, and such charges betray an empty arsenal of serious arguments".
::I think that my addition was basically a paraphrasing of what Tancredo, as well as others, have said. Schwarzenegger's press secretary also said 
::It’s not racist to ask the federal government to enforce its laws
::While these quotes don't specifically address white supremacists, they are in a reply to some opponents of the project who claim it is racist because some white supremacist groups support the Minuteman, and I believe the implication is there. I'm a little flexible to editing my first sentence, but Tancredo's comments should be sufficient to back up the second sentence. --Ar57 04:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supporters say... 

message: Rchamberlain created a new article called Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, copy/pasted the content from this article and then turned the orginal article into a redirect. I have reversed this and left a message on Rchamberlain's talk page, requesting that the page is instead moved (if desired). Cheers TigerShark 10:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page move

message: I've put in a request to start developing an article on certain other border action groups, such as the Border Action Network and No Mas Muertes, but I think this would be a good place to mention them, since both were involved in observing the Minutemen in action.  I think it could serve for some interesting commentary since groups like BAN, NMD and MMP have such similar views about the core causes of these problems, yet such divergent ideas about solutions.--Ramon omar 00:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other border issues

message: I am ammused that someone mentioned the 200 strong minuteman rally at the Sacramento Capitol without mentioning the 600-800 strong counter-protest that accompanied it. I made sure to fix that. Viva Viva Anarquista!
As long as we mention the peaceful (read: violent) attempts some of the 600-800 "Anarquistas" to disrupt the rally, since a lawful rally is so bad you need to do that sort of thing. Oh, and it's 4 of these things --> ~ to sign your name. Orbframe 08:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did I ever say it was peaceful? I agree, there were attempts to break it up, and I don't feel like getting into a huge debate over justifications right now, but at the time I thought it was funny that the protest wasn't mentioned so I added that comment. Also, I didn't have an account when I made that comment, so....The Ungovernable Force 08:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rally at Capitol

message: I'll WP:AGF that it was simply poor editing that the 6 links at the end of the article (including one to a self-identified parody of the Minutemen) didn't contain a single one actually to the Minutemen's actual homepage.  That being said, can someone tell me why there are links to 
* Immigrant Legal Resource Center
* Southern Poverty Law Center
in the link section? Lawyer2b 02:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No use assuming good faith. This page gets vandalized all the time.  The SPLC's press release on "Racism in the MMP" was major news, so it definitely ought to remain.  But maybe we should split up the links in pro/con sections, like we do for controversial media personalities?  There's enough out there to populate the sections of both sides.--Rockero 04:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of separating pro and con links.  I've done that on several pages myself.  Regarding the SPLC, I think the link ought to be to that particular press release but not the main webpage of the center itself.  I think the same thing should apply to the Immigrant Legal Resource Center; have the link go directly to their material that references the MM Project, assuming they have some.  What do you think?  Lawyer2b 02:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me.  The SPLC article I was referring to was this one, and it's (obviously) still up.  But I'm afraid that many of the news-type links may have a limited shelf life (unless the site hosting them archives, in which case they'll just need to be moved later).  But its worth doing nonetheless.  Buena suerte, --Rockero 03:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question Regarding Links 

message: "Vigilantes" are people who assume the function of law enforcement. Considering that everything the activists involved in the Minuteman Project did was well within their rights and by no means outside of the law, it hardly makes sense that they and the project should be considered an example of vigiliantism. Seems more like an anti-project bias to me.
:many people including George Bush consider them vigilantes, see the discussion above. If others want to reopen the discussion, fine, but for now they are under the label. I personally despise the project and everything it stands for, but I wouldn't call my support of the term vigilante anti-project bias since I personally support groups that could easily be called vigilantes (ex: Zapatistas and black blocks). The Ungovernable Force 06:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You do not need to break the law to be a vigilante. From American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition: 1, One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.... The law provides, in some cases, that a private citizen may assume some functions of law enforcement. (See Citizen's arrest.) Thus a vigilante's actions may be legal; yet he is still a vigilante. John Reid 21:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you a vigilante when you call the police because your home is being burgled?  The Minutemen operate on PRIVATE property with the permission of the property owner.  When a tresspasser is found on that property owner's land, they hold the lawbreaker and call the police.  They are not enforcing the law, but calling the law enforcement officials.  If the Minutemen were operating on public property, you would perhaps be correct.  But that is not what they are doing.Benzapp 22:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe the Minuteman Project meets the definition if 'vigilante' as well.  An organized non-governmental force performing government functions on the border.  Abe Froman 22:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doens't matter whether or not they are vigilantes, what matters is that they have been accused of being vigilantes by a large number of people, including King George W. The category stays. The Ungovernable Force 22:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't understand why this is categorized in "vigilantes". 

message: I think the concern was with the accuracy of the term. George Bush is hardly noted for having accurate use of English, so I wouldn't be the least bit concerned with how he used the term. If the Minuteman Project activists weren't assuming function of law enforcement outside the bounds of their rights, it just doesn't make sense to label them as "vigilantes". People have tossed many terms around in application to either side of the situation, and my only concern is with the correctness in applying such terms. Is there anyone else who thinks the term "vigilante" is being used inaccurately? If not, then I suppose current majority opinion/consensus will stand. 6EQUJ5 14:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They may or may not be vigilantes. That is not for us to decide. All we can do is report that they are called vigilantes by notable people, and that they respond by stating that they are not vigilantes because do not attempt to enforce the law. -Will Beback 20:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy 

message: An anon rm from the lead section Senior law enforcement officers state that they fear the project will lead to vigilante violence. I substituted in its place Local law enforcement has expressed concerns about the possibility of vigilante violence and confrontations between armed volunteers and authorities; US Border Patrol has complained that volunteers trip sensors, diverting official manpower to false alarms.
This is supported by this reference. John Reid 21:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official concerns 

message: The offical name for this organization is the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps.  I propose a move to that new name, with Minuteman Project redirecting there.  Any opinion on this, folks? TheKaplan 04:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minuteman Project or Minuteman Civil Defense Corps (reprise) 

message: When I first loaded this page the first sentence called this group a Radical Racist Group.
The very first sentence.
It seems to have changed in only a few minutes to something less biased. 
But it says at the top "Current Event", but this article CLEARLY needs to say, "Contested".
BillyTFried
:The incident you mention was vandalism that was quickly reverted.  There are many people watching this page to counter such vandalsim.  The "Contested" tag is not warranted as the article itself is not Contested.  Thanks for your concern, though.  Any help or contribution you can make to help maintain the accuracy and NPOV status of this article is appreciated.--WilliamThweatt 17:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Article needs the "Contested" symbol added to the top of it 

message: I've been watching this page for many months now.  It's just become ridiculous.  As Kaplan says above in his "clean up" remarks, the Pro-illegal-immigration vs Anti-illegal-immigration rhetoric bloats this "article" beyond any recognition of anything remotely approaching encyclopaedic.  The article is full of unsourced statements, "citation needed" tags, and blatant soapboxing and POV pushing from both sides.  While I respect the contributors' time and efforts to edit this "article", the basic tenents of WP require editors to do their research and properly source their statements.  Accordingly, I intend to delete every unsourced statement (regardless of POV, left or right) in this article after a period of one week from today.  This page is edited very frequently, one week is enough time for serious editors to cite their sources (if you put in here, you should easily be able to say where you got it from).  It's pages like this that compromise the integrity of the whole of Wikipedia.
Of course, I welcome any comments, but I prefer that you spend that time and energy improving this article.  WP:NOT, WP:V, No Original Research.--WilliamThweatt 23:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notice of Intent

message: It seems that when i edit and preview the changes,some content goes to refernces links rather then where there supposed to be
:I suggest scanning for a stray or missing angle bracket. -Will Beback 21:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Code Problems