Talk:MOVE
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
MOVE is part of the WikiProject Philadelphia, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Philadelphia and the Delaware Valley on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. |
An event mentioned in this article is a May 13 selected anniversary
Perhaps the description from the CNN article should be moved later and a better summary definition of MOVE! should be included earlier. --Daniel C. Boyer
- MOVE resisted all attempts to summarize them, yet in this situation we have to try. And frankly, CNN doesn't do such a bad job. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.154.65.1 (talk • contribs).
Contents |
[edit] Branch Davidians
This article links to Branch Davidian, and Branch Davidian links to here, with no explanation of any relationship in either article. What's the connection? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 00:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- I think its because they are both cult like groups that had confrontations with the government that ended in disaster. MechBrowman 05:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- That doesn't seem like a connection worthy of cross-linking. Might as well add Symbionese Liberation Army into the mix, for starters. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 23:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- I too agree. It should be removed, and I will do so. Jake b 15:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- That doesn't seem like a connection worthy of cross-linking. Might as well add Symbionese Liberation Army into the mix, for starters. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 23:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I think it's probably inappropriate the way some parts of this entry are worded, i.e. "The police -even- calculated the depth of the basement..." There's no need to qualify the event; if it happened, it can be mentioned, but the word 'even' makes that sentence sound like it's biased in favor of the police.
Actually, I would strongly disagree with you on that point. The characterization of -even- makes it seem that the police went to great lengths to try to make sure that no-one was hurt. In light of the major event, this attempt by the police makes the second event a even more stark event of police idiocy. stephen watkins
How about this? "MOVE began to pressure their neighbors". The FACT is that they terroized the neighborhood. They fouled the entire neighborhood with their filth (which the just tossed out onto the streets). They hurled verbal insults and obsceneties at anyone passing by, thru a bullhorn. There were reports of physical confrontations. They brandished arms when confronting the neighbors. The neighbors filed DOZENS of police reports, but the city took a 'hands off attitude'. This article is an apologist POV for a group of people who deliberatly provoked the system to violence thru their constant and ever escalating violence. And then they became counterculture folk heros to a bunch of clowns who didn't care about the facts behind the story. "Free Mumia?" Fuck Mumia! I hope he rots to death in a small dark cell. He's a cop killer!
[edit] MOVE?
Is MOVE an acronym or something? I think we ought to have an explanation as to why the organization's name is in all capital letters. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
It also seems strange to me that there is no explanation for why the group was named MOVE is there no information what-so-ever?--Tapsell 12:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- MOVE resolutely resisted any attempt to define it and went to great lengths to deny that the MOVE name had any status as an acronym.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.154.65.1 (talk • contribs).
-
- Can we get a reliable source to cite? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
>>As a longtime Philly resident (but not a reliable source), I can tell you that MOVE is not an acronym.
- If we can document this then it should be added to the article. RJFJR 16:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] How neutral and factual is the statment about the killing of the officer James Ramp?
The article says that it is "widely accepted that members of MOVE escalated the violence to gunfire and intentionally killed Officer Ramp". Can any of this be confirmed? I found on a website an account of the incident that eliminates this possibility completly. I don't know which one is true, but at least this version presents some facts.
During the assault, heavy equipment was used to tear down barricades surrounding the house, and police moved in while SWAT teams staked out every possible exit. MOVE members retreated to the basement, where they withstood fire hoses and water deluge guns. As the basement flooded, they held children and dogs above the rising water.
Suddenly shots rang out and bullets immediately filled the air as police throughout the area opened fire. Officer James Ramp was struck and killed by a single bullet.
MOVE adults came out of the house carrying their children through clouds of tear gas and were immediately taken into custody. MOVE never fired any shots and no MOVE members were arrested with any weapons. All were viciously beaten. TV cameras filmed police brutally beating Delbert Africa. (Three of the four police were brought to trial and acquitted despite irrefutable evidence.) The city bulldozed and levelled the house immediately that day, thereby destroying evidence.
The MOVE 9 were sentenced to 30 - 100 years each allegedly for the death of Officer James Ramp. Autopsy reports show clearly that the bullet that hit Ramp travelled in a downward direction; MOVE members were in a basement in their house below the street making it ballistically impossible for them to have fired the shot. - taken from http://www.spiritoffreedom.org.uk/profiles/move.html Maziotis 23:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Basically there are two things to consider: One is if indeed it was MOVE who "escalated the violence" and "intentionally killed Officer Ramp", the other is if indeed this version is "widely accepted". If no one steps to disccuss and confirm this, I will delete this part on the grounds of being just an opinion and not a perspective based on facts.Maziotis 10:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
For now, i will put the older version of the incident, since at least that version covers different possibilities without jumping to conclusions that have no support in facts. Furthermore, expressions such as "widely accepted" are very much POV, and should generally be avoided.Maziotis 11:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC) If anyone feels that has a better option, please discuss it on this page first. That is its purpose.Maziotis 11:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] MOVE is not anarchist?!
Someone took the category "imprisoned anarchists" out, claiming that MOVE is not anarchist. I suggest that person to do some reaserch. Here is a sort of manifesto taken from their website http://www.onamove.com/belief/
Almost all points in the manifesto defend the idea of equallity existing under natural law, and some points specifically attack this notion of the unnatural pathology of authority as taking shape of institutons such as government, laws, courts, police.
Since they are against hierarchy and the institutional elements that hold them, such as government, laws and the police; they are anarchists no matter what anarchist current you set as a ideological criteria.Maziotis 00:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
"We believe in Natural Law, the government of self. Man-made laws are not really laws [...] Man's laws require police, sheriffs, armies, and courts to enforce them, and lawyers to explain them. True law is self explanatory and self enforcing."
"We don't believe in this reform world system - the government, the military, industry and big business."
- Taken from "belief" section on MOVE's website.Maziotis 15:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Mayor?
"The mayor had, in response to pressure from the neighborhood that included a threat to use "vigilante justice," turned over the situation to Mayor Goode"
Unless there are two mayors, one unnamed in the article, that doesn't really make sense. Sharm 13:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] MOVE Disambiguation
This page should have a link back to the Move disambiguation page. Waarmstr 16:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Roof is on Fire" origin
At least two sources on the web claim that the Rockmaster Scott & the Dynamic 3 single "The Roof is on Fire" was recorded in 1984. If so, this makes the claim that the lyric "The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire (etc)" appearing in it is a direct reference to the 1985 Osage Ave. fire implausible.
http://www.jayquan.com/dynamic3.htm
http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=4991
[edit] still appealing?
In the section Aftermath it says the city is appealing the judgment for the 1985 events. That means 20 years later. is this up to date? RJFJR 16:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] bomb delivery method
how, pray tell, was a bomb "dropped" on the building?? i mean, i hear "dropped" and think of a plane flying low and releasing a device. anybody know whether it was helicoptor, mortar...?
- If I recall correctly, it was dropped from a police helicopter. This recollection would be from newscasts that I watched when I would have been 9 years old, though, and may or may not be accurate.
>>Yes. It was dropped from a helicopter.
