Talk:MOVE

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Philadelphia Portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage and content of articles relating to Philadelphia, its people, history, accomplishments and other topics. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
	This article is also supported by WikiProject Pennsylvania.
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.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 So, what is MOVE? 2 Anniversary 3 defined 4 MOVE? 5 How neutral and factual is the statment about the killing of the officer James Ramp? 6 MOVE is not anarchist?! 7 The Mayor? 8 MOVE Disambiguation 9 "Roof is on Fire" origin 10 still appealing? 11 bomb delivery method 12 Aftermath 13 Merger proposal 14 Life Africa 15 Anthony L. Paul 16 Unreferenced content 17 protection 18 The bomb 19 Deletionists!

[edit] So, what is MOVE?

Shouldn't an article on MOVE actually explain what MOVE is, what they have done, etc.? The only ways the group is actually described is a short quote from CNN and that police found them a "public nuisance". Thats not really a good description.--76.112.67.33 (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anniversary

An event mentioned in this article is a May 13 selected anniversary

[edit] defined

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.154.65.1 (talk)

--Xperrymint (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)== 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)

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!

• MOVE was confrontational and did offend its black neighbors. There are photos of the MOVE armed and provocative. Who wants neighbors yelling M--F-- over bullhorns, composting garbage on their lawn, or letting their children run around naked? One must be careful not to whitewash MOVE's contributions to their own demise. That does not remove the responsibility of police and officials to exercise better judgement than shown by the MOVE. Handling a house containing women and children using C4, machineguns and teargas is just wrong, not matter what the adults were accused of. Naaman Brown (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Henry Ruth who reviewed the Treasury Dept Report on Waco for the government found parallels between the sieges on the MOVE and the Branch Davidian. Appendix G of the the report written by the chief historian of the federal law enforcement training center, Fredrick Calhoun, drew parallels with the siege on the Davidians and the SLA. Ruth claims that the sieges were mishandled and police training and tatics were improved as a result, so linking them (police sieges on 'cults') is not so far-fetched. Naaman Brown (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Why the Branch Davidian Link? from Henry Tyler: During the siege of the church of the Branch Davidians, Feb. 1 - April 18, 1993, public concern was voiced about the similarity of media rhetoric and hyperbole broadcast during that siege, to that broadcast preceding the MOVE bombing and incineration. In both cases, the premises were characterized as "compounds" in an effort to militarize the contretemps, and false propaganda was broadcast about the existence of _tunnels_ under the "compounds". The concern was fully justified, as events turned out virtually the same in both cases. Additional similarities are that children, who must be considered hostages in such situations, were present, and they were similarly victimized. Still another similarity is that both groups had a credo that was in stark opposition to the values of society at large. So did the Pilgrims, Puritans and Quakers. Xperrymint (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[Xperrymint, 23 May 2008] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xperrymint (talk • contribs) 18:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[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.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.154.65.1 (talk)

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)

• It is my understanding that the full name of the group was American Christian Life Movement and MOVE is a short form of Movement; that MOVE is not an acronym; and that members that did not take the surname "Africa" took the surname "Life" when they joined the group. Naaman Brown (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2008 (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)

+++You should do so Maziotis. This article is extremely bias with their "officially unoccupied" house description for the 1985 bombing and such. It also says that the bullet came from a gun in the house, and not that it came from a gun that fired the same caliber as the one in the house. I changed it a little, saying that some police also carried guns of that caliber. Also, this article, until I mentioned Delbert Africa on it, said nothing about violence inflicted on members. Instead it spoke of shooting, a bomb, but nothing to indicate that they were attempting harm on the members. However, it is held, with considerable proof (which is grand considering how underrepresented they are) that they were frequently assaulted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.113.175 (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• There appears to be a conflation of the 1978 Powellton Village siege (when Ramp was killed) and the 1985 Ossage Avenue siege (when 12 of the 14 MOVE members were killed). James Ramp may have been hit by "friendly fire" but the MOVE were armed and far from passive in both incidents. Naaman Brown (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2008 (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)

John Africa up here. the rest of MOVE down there. so hey believe in hierarchy. --24.61.45.243 22:39, 4 November 2007 (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)

Dear Wiki, I can assure you all that MOVE is anarchist. I said this to an audience once, while introducing Ramona Africa, but I qualified the statement (paraphrasing) "But they are not affiliated with any other anarchist group, nor any other group." Ramona agreed with this. It was around 1992. BobHelms (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• MOVE is lower-case anarchistic but is not part of any prior capitalised Anarchist movement. MOVE is one of a kind.Naaman Brown (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2008 (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)

• Definetly not make sense. I was living in Philadelphia at the time. He was the mayor, and his response to the situation during the time up until the day of the confrontation, had been one of restraint. He didn't want a repetition of the 1977 MOVE incident. Regretably, the whole thing spiraled out of control rapidly. -- Jason Palpatine 08:40, 31 January 2007 (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)

• Ramona Africa was awarded damages in a civil trial, the suit was initiated in 1996; USA Today had a major article on the MOVE Siege 20 years after in 2005, after the case was adjudicated. It is still an on-going legal controversy in Philadelphia.Naaman Brown (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2008 (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.

• I was watching the whole thing as it happened. It was done from a police helecopted hovering only a dozen feet above the house. The police officer leaned out the open side door holding it with both hands and let go. There was a time delayed fuse on it to let them get clear before it went of. It was only a small charge; they didn't consider the possibilty of such a massive effect. -- Jason Palpatine 08:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• The MOVE had a gasoline powered electric generator in a shed on the roof; it was known there was gasoline in that shed. The C4 ignited the gasoline, and the resulting fire not only burned down the 6221 Ossage AVe MOVE apartment, but the whole city block, making 260 people homeless. The C4 for the bomb was supplied by the FBI SWAT; the ATF helped the Philadelphia police acquire BAR light machineguns and a M60 belt-fire medium machinegun, which were fired into the house during the assault. This was sheer overkill fed by a crusade against "cults" that led from Ossage Avenue ultimately to Ruby Rudge and Waco. Naaman Brown (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• The bomb consisted of a filled 5-gallon gasoline can with 9.5 lbs of C-4 plastic explosive taped to the side. [John Ross]. Its constructors seemed not to understand the destructive power, or the incendiary nature, of the device, as events would prove. All that was desired was a hole in the roof so that tear gas could be lobbed inside. That, however, has its own perils, as tear gas grenades contain an explosive charge and are notorious for starting fires. Witness the SLA siege and inferno, and Waco. Also known for removing the hands of demonstrators who pick up the smoking objects and attempt to hurl them back.--Xperrymint (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC) [Xperrymint, May 23, 2008]

[edit] Aftermath

Where did the $12.8 million come from in the sentence "On December 1, 2005, U.S. District Judge John P. Fullam cut the original jury verdict of $12.8 million in more than half, to $6 million." This is the only time it is mentioned in the entire section Aftermath. Jeek X 07:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger proposal

[edit] Life Africa

The MOVE page mentions nothing about the many physical altercations between MOVE and the police before 1978. MOVE contests that they had several miscarriages and one live birth death due to police violence. it seems as though, because they were never able to press charges (because they preferred to stay outside of the system, were against it, and even when they went in it, they were shut down and never represented), that we should disregard that it actually happened. They have varying forms of evidence (pictures, police memorabilia, wounds, etc.). does wikipedia favor representing those in power and neglecting those who are oppressed and underrepresented? i mean, we are talking about police brutality to the point of death; is that not worth bringing up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.113.175 (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony L. Paul

I think that Paul's testimonial should be omitted on the grounds that it is one person's. If we are going to put his testimonial on, then we should counter it with one of the defense's. This is obviously bias. This article is claiming that the gun found in the house, in fact, IS the one used to kill Ramp. The most we can say is that it could have been the gun, but that there is no way to prove it actually was. Guns on both sides had the same caliber, and guns on both sides were fired. If it is not changed, i will change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.113.175 (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced content

This entire article has been tagged as unreferenced since May. Six months is more than enough time to reference the statements made in this article. I have removed the "story" content from the article. As always, editors may add whatever content can be sourced. Photouploaded (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] protection

Maybe this article should be protected somehow in order to prevent vandalism? There's a big difference between a "racist hate group" and an anarcho-primitivist group. 128.194.27.4 (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The bomb

First off there is no such thing as "military grade" C-4. Aside from that the time article clearly states that firefighters and police officers received fire from the MOVE house which thus prevented the firefighting operation. The claim that the Police and Fire chiefs let it burn maliciously as you had it worded is completely original research with no sources. Rastov (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not worded anything, nor could I had done it in a way that would suggest original research without having any sources. Your claim that this version is "original research with no sources" makes no sense. The very definition of "original research" deals with the way a source, or several sources, is used. Please read wikipedia:NOR

I do not dispute the fact that the article may need to be changed, in light of new sources, but we need to comply with basic encyclopedic rules. The source that you have referenced is a claim on the part of a police officer, and it cannot be exposed in the artcile as more than that. Please read wikipedia:verifiabilityMaziotis (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I never claimed it was OR I was simply stating the facts as presented in the article, the one cited source for the paragraph in question. Feel free to bring in other sources but until then by your own and wikipedia's encyclopedic standards the events mentioned in the Time article: I.E. MOVE members opening fire on firefighters should stay. Shockingly, you as an anarchism aficionado would rather the article commit libel against two governmental officials rather then the armed radicals who shot at them. Who would have guessed?Rastov (talk) 05:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Rastov, I am glad you are here at this article to help keep others honest - including me :-) - though I don't plan to contribute further. You are right that my reasoning was iffy, but the article could stand a lot of improvement. What I meant to convey is that the mainstream view of the government's behavior is decidedly negative. Many, most? at the time, like myself, and people in that TIME article questioned the sanity of the city government. I skimmed a scholarly book on MOVE and the incident years ago whose title I don't recall and which I don't believe is in the further reading (might have it in a box somewhere), that had a lot more about the commission's very, very critical report, so I give you my worthless? assurance that it is not just the anarchist POV that held that the city behaved even worse than MOVE, cf my last edit. The report and later scholarship based on it and other sources would probably be better for the encylopedia than the mainly journalistic sources the article is currently based on. John Z (talk) 07:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Rastov, why don't we leave personal attacks and ad hominem arguments at the door? I do not question that MOVE fired weapons, nor do I intend to solve that issue in here. We should not engage in journalist work in here. If there is a source which referenced a police officer stating that he heard gunfire in the afternoon, we should write: "Acording to officer X there was gunfire.." or "Officer X heard gunfire..", as opposed to "There was Gunfire..." Furthermore, you have reach conclusions based on the assertion that those sources were correct, which amounts to "original research".

Keep in mind that I have not wrtitten anything on the article. Simply, I would rather leave a vague comment on a fact with a "check tag" on it, than writing things for which there is no way of proving to be right.Maziotis (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletionists!

If you can't find what you're looking for in this article, it's somewhere in the History. This article has suffered several rounds of deletionists that have reduced it from a thorough coverage of the topic to a sorry state. To get useful information on the topic (besides whose songs to buy...) use the History tab and pick any of the versions with a large byte count. Since the deletionists seem to be breeding like flies, this may be the default way we all need to learn to use Wikipedia most of the time. Wnt (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)