Talk:Minuteman Project/Archive 1

Koala

About Barton being editor of the Koala

1) The Koala is a newspaper, not magazine

2) The Koala is not pornagraphic. It's racist, politically incorrect, insensative, offensive, etc. but not pornographic. Did you bother reading of the issued they have online?

Citenewsauthor

I don't know how this citenewsauthor template works, but it doesn't seem to allow for disambiguations. The Paul Harris being linked to in this article is the wrong one. RickK 03:23, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Bias

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)

Hippies, please stop writing articles: BIAS

Criticism is three times more voluminous than praise or even general information about the Minutemen. You might have mentioned that the MM STOPPED the invasion of the US COLD in one of the most high-volume stretches of the border.

Stopped the invasion? Those "people" have no place there. They have no training, and no right to attempt to commit their own brand of justice. The should go back to their suburbs and look for the Osama bogey man under their beds. Or, here's a revolutionary thought... they can take all of their misplaced energy, spend some time reforming government and stop US meddling in South America, help strengthen their economies and remedy their polotical chaos... then they would want to stay in their own countries instead of coming to ours.

That might be too tough for our dear old Minute Men though, eh? They're weak.

They also caused the arrest of about 400 invaders.

Hmmm....I don't think hippies own computers. They live out in communes. But seriously....You are welcome to edit the article. If you want to add information, or edit information that is already there, please help in forming the content of this article. Kingturtle 16:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Oops. I see that you have been editing....it seems that the reverts of your entries were based on your choice of language, which seems quite POV (point of view). Read Wikipedia:POV to understand this issue better. Kingturtle 16:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I was going to suggest reading Wikipedia:Neutral point of view also. Your contributions are welcome, unregistered user, but please keep in mind Wikipedia's policy on point of view. Moncrief 18:07, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, but i am a hippy and i live in the middle of the forest and lsiten to Jimmi Hendrix and think Ken Kesey is cool. However ,I do own a computer, and I dont live in a commune, so HA!-A Concerned Hippy From La Honda

Don't you dare diss Jimi Hendrix. :p dposse 22:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Voz de Aztlan?? "T-shirt incident??" BIAS

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)

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)

Jack, you're correct

Revert

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)

Article is Clear Case of Bias

The contributors really need to read the text at Wikipedia:neutral point of view. As a casual and occasional reader of the Wikipedia, I am discouraged to see the display of bias presented in this article. The structure of the article itself, while seemingly making an effort to avoid bias, in fact encourages it. By having sections that represent 'Supporters' and 'Critics', the author(s) have set up a debate whereby only the most active contributors can win by overwhelming their opponents by mere quantity; indeed, the current content proves that this is exactly what is happening.

The 'CunningLinguist' above demonstrates how this happens. While I found the T-Shirt incident part of the article fairly benign (and for the record I support the MMP), the rationale CunningLinguist gives is derived from the simple stereotyping of an opposing point of view. Consider the statement, “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’.” How can a single incident (for good or ill) be extrapolated to be an attribute of an entire group and not be stereotyping? Would it be right for me to edit an article on environmentalists to include a section on the burning down of a Hummer dealership since it is an incident that “shows that the attitude the group (environmentalist activists) has while it undertakes its operations”? Of course not as there are many views within the community of environmentalists, some of which are extreme and destructive, but not all.

With the more subtle bias demonstrated above and with quantity of critical commentary in the article, one would believe that there is a small minority that support the MMP and their cause. But in reality the split is probably more difficult to ascertain with any reliability and more likely somewhat evenly split between those that view illegal immigrants as mere undocumented workers versus those that consider them illegal aliens.

I think most of the controversy section should go as should the ‘support’ section. The entire controversy section could be summed up squarely and honestly in two short paragraphs and a single sentence recognizing that there is controversy. One paragraph describing who the supporters are with their point of view and another paragraph on who the dissenters are with their viewpoint.

Most importantly, I will have to question the credibility of Wikipedia articles more closely. A shame people can’t really come together to write without trying to sell their politics.

Sbuttgereit 06:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • To reply to your claims, no one is claiming that any particular incident is indicative of an ENTIRE group, however, as you pointed out with the environmentalist example, singular incidents CAN be indicative of major currents of feeling or major strains of thought within an organization. I would be very surprised if the incident in which the Environmentalist group burned down a Hummer dealership in Southern California is not documented somewhere on Wikipedia. I personally beleive it should be in Wikipedia and it in particular should be in the Environmentalism article. Is it an example of how EVERYONE who is an environmentalist feels? Obviously not, but it is a good example of how there is a violent subgroup in the environmental movement. One of Wikipedia's policies is that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, we have (relatively) unlimited space. Therefore there is no need, and it is in fact against the entire ethos of Wikipedia, to simply boil down our articles into a simple sentence or two on how an organisation or what not, views itself or what its mission statement is. As a limitless encyclopedia we can go in-depth into historical events and document them very well. If you look at most of the articles on other organizations, they are not simple descriptions but rather in-depth articles. Similarly, your suggestion that we should merely state that there are supporters and detractors of the MMP is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. If you feel the article is long-winded or wordy, feel free to "boil it down" to a more concise version. However, the in-depth explanation of who supports/detracts the grup and why they do so, should remain as it has on every other Wikipedia article. Your claim that this article is biased because it is controversy/criticism-heavy while the majority of America supports the MMP also ignores all of history, there are countless social movements that garner extreme criticism yet were extremely popular. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, not equal, in other words, if their is much to be said about the criticism of a group, then the Wiki article will appropriatley be criticism-heavy. Your claims also plainly ignore another of Wikipedia's policies: that of documenting notable events. The mere fact that the 'T-Shirt incident' and 'Garden Grove incident' were well-documented in the media and culture merits their inclusion in the article. Furthermore, the way you put my name in apostrophes seems rather suspect, although I dont know what you are trying to imply :-P, please assume good faith. -CunningLinguist 08:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

CunningLinguist, I have to disagree. First, while space is technically unlimited, there's good reason to keep Wikipedia articles trim. In theory, we could include the bios of all members of this group as well as its protestors and a full timeline of the movements and activities of all the people involved over the lifetime of the Minuteman group. But that degree of information is inappropriate to a Wikipedia article. So logically, there is some point where we have to stop cramming information into an article.

Second, we have roughly 20% of the article devoted to two minor events. The most notable thing about these incidents is the strength of the resulting protests. They aren't otherwise notable. There's no significant injuries or harm commited. My take here is that the Minuteman group hasn't done much (during this period) to qualify for "extreme criticism" and frankly, I don't see that they received substantial criticism either. -- KarlHallowell 17:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

U.S. Border Patrol Local 2544 Statement

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Garden Grove Incident

The article states that video is available of the "Garden Grove Incident," but no links are provided. (I'll look for one.) Theshibboleth 01:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Did you follow this link? [1] I didn't download any but he claims to link to videos. -Willmcw 02:32, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I removed the link, I checked through it, and I didn't see any media specifically dealing with the incident. Speaking of which, is this section even worthy of this article? It doesn't really deal with the Minuteman organization, only an event that happened to occur after Minuteman gathering. It seems that some wiki editors want to stack this article so that the controversy section is longer than the rest of the article. I edited the section, which had extremely serious POV violations and only presented the incident from the accounts of protestors, but I'm still a little unsure about the whole section. --Ar57 10:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I;'ve also seen articles where the controversy sections have been enitely removed by supporters. Let's strive instead for NPOV. I renmaed the protesters, "protesters", and I added the link back. -Willmcw 20:25, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

The original article didn't actually say "protesters", it just said "approximately 300 attended", not saying who, so I added illegal immigration activists. The reason why I added the line in my edit was because I thought "illegal immigration activists" would describe the group more accurately than "protesters". I mean, the reason they are protesting the Minuteman project is that they believe in open borders (or a return of land to Mexico among some of the more extreme). I'm still not sure that the "Garden Grove" incident has anything actually to do with the Minuteman Project. It didn't exactly happen during the course of an operation of the Minuteman, so I have to question its inclusion. --Ar57 23:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it's safe to describe them as protesters if they are protesting. The "OC Register" called them "protesters". As for its overall relevance, the attendees were protesting the Minuteman Project. Also, I heard on the news about another protest last week, in Arizona I believe. -Willmcw 18:25, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Supporters say...

• 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 [2]

"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 [3]

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)

The minute men aren't anti-immigrant. They are anti ILLEGAL immigrant. They are also not racist since they have Hispanic members in their ranks.

Page move

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)

Minuteman Project or Minuteman Civil Defense Corps?

The Minuteman Project has been incorporated and officially renamed as the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, Inc. and should be noted as such. The Minuteman Project is a largely defunct title and it should be redirected to the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps.

Other border issues

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)

Rally at Capitol

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)

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)

Vigilantes

I have removed this entry from the category vigilantes as this is obviously a grossly-biased and distorted perspective on the group.

Aren't they seeking to act to assist law enforacement without having been asked or deputized? That would seem to qualify for categorization as vigilantes. Additionally the group has often been referred to as "vigilante". But maybe I'm missing something. How would you characterize their activity at the border? -Willmcw 20:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

"Vigilante" is a politically-charged epithet intended to smear the group. Vigilantes were judge, jury and executioner operating outside the strictures of the law. The MM simply summon law enforcement. I would characterize their activities as healthy and needed First Amendment activity within the strictures of the law. Categorization of a topic should not be based on what enemies have termed it.

"Vigilante" is the correct epithet to apply to those that meet this definition:

• One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.[4]

It is not clear that the group has ever actually enforced the law. While they may have advocated doing so, "vigilante advocates" should be a separate category. So, on balance, I am convinced that there is not sufficient evidence in the article to merit categorising the group as "vigilantes". Thanks, -Willmcw 02:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

even Bush considers them vigilantes.

Just because Bush says something that doesn't make it so. We could cite various notable critics calling them vigilantes, but it wouldn't mean that we'd automatically add them to the category. -Willmcw 02:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but bush is a mass murderer right-wing scumbag, and if he even considers them vigilantes, then it does matter. The fact is, many people do consider them vigilantes, so it should at least be mentioned that many people accuse them of that. Not to say there is anything wrong with vigilantes in general (the minutemen, however, deserve to have their fascist faces kicked in).

I have restored this item to the category Vigilante based on the comment of James Gilchrist, co-founder of the Minuteman Project, at a May 25, 2005 speech, to wit: "I'm damn proud to be a vigilante." From the Orange County Register, May 26, 2005 (fee required), cited in The Center for New Community Special Report October 2005.

That seems reasonable. BTW, category are often plural, unlike articles. Hence, vigilante, but category:vigilantes. -Willmcw 07:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Context, please. --Johnny (Cuervo) 10:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: James Gilchrist's comments: "James Gilchrist, co-founder of the Minuteman Project, at a May 25, 2005 speech, to wit: "I'm damn proud to be a vigilante." From the Orange County Register, May 26, 2005 (fee required), cited in The Center for New Community Special Report October 2005."

This statement by Gilchrist was definitely a tongue-in-cheek statement.

If, by the seemingly prevailing definition of vigilante, you consider the members of the Minuteman Project vigilantes, then members of local neighborhood watch programs are also vigilantes, by that same definition. Do you consider local neighborhood watch programs to be bad for our society?

There is one difference, neighborhood watch programs are usually sanctioned by the town and supported by the local police department. The Minutemen Project, however, is doing whatever they are doing against the wishes of the Border Patrol. -Rafanetx 00:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of this page

Wikipedia is not "open source" if people's contributions are deliberately vandalized. About half of the information on the "Minuteman Project" has been stripped from this article in 5 minutes--information that took hours of many people's time to gather, verify, and post.

This points to the great vulnerability of the entire Wikipedia experiment. The danger is not in too much information, nor is it in biased information. Wikipedia's goal, as I understand, is that in hearing all sides and gathering all information, the truth will eventually be discernable. When information is maliciously deleted, Wikipedia is no longer open and can no longer achieve its goal--in fact, it turns into its opposite, a conduit for Newspeak.

Which is what this article has turned into.

Thanks, Willmcw, for your patience through this

Question Regarding Links

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)

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)

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)

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)

I don't understand why this is categorized in "vigilantes".

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Accuracy

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)

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)

Official concerns

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)

Minuteman Project or Minuteman Civil Defense Corps (reprise)

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)

Cleanup

This article badly needs to be cleaned up. The brief description of what the group is, what it does, why it does it, etc. is lost amid a sea of criticism. I'm going to try to flesh out the who what when where why and see if we can't tighten down the criticism section, which appears to be pretty inflated. The dual "supporters say," "critics say" format is just an invitation to the LPOV vs RPOV bloating that can destroy a good article that really needs to be NPOV. TheKaplan 04:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Ungovernable Force, the "racist, fascist associations" mini-section doesn't belong in this article. The section itself says that the minutemen have no connection with any racists who claim to support the project, so the word "associations" is factually incorrect as well as misleading. The whole section seems to be trying way to hard to imagine a link thats just not there. TheKaplan 07:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Many people do not think that's true. I've seen neo-nazis at pro-minuteman rallies, including a guy who was standing next to the speaker. I also doubt Gilchrist is telling the truth based on a conversation someone I know had with him (they were posing as a member of the National Alliance at the time). Many people have made the accusation, including a former prominent member of the Minutemen. The fact is they are very popular with neo-nazis and several of the members are nazis, whether the people who run it want to admit it or not. I can find cites for it if you want. The Ungovernable Force 15:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

In that case, based on the examples provided (your own observations, your friend's conversation) it would seem to be covered under Wikipedia:No original research. However, if you provide those citations, we can resolve the issue easily enough. TheKaplan 18:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about citing those specific incidents (I know they are original research and wasn't going to add them). I was refering more to the fact that many sources have claimed they have neo-nazi ties, going so far as to say that Gilchrist attends meetings of various white supremacist groups. That can be cited. The Ungovernable Force 18:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, please do provide those citations. I would really like to see those articles, especially the one(s) that reports that Gilchrist attends white supremacist meetings. TheKaplan 20:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I found this AZCentral article, which says: "Gilchrist acknowledged that all the attention (The Minutemen has created) has attracted fringe groups, mainly three "violent" factions that are trying to co-opt the group's efforts: White supremacists, radical pro-Hispanic groups and "open-border fanatics." [5] Looks like Gilchrist threw a Nativist party and everyone, including the tinfoil-hat crowd, wants to come. Abe Froman 20:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I find Abe's left-handed analogy actually helpful in a way. These fringe groups are basically "party crashers". Kaplan's original objection was that the term "association" implies formal ties.--WilliamThweatt 23:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Gilchirst has joined the California Coalition for Immigration Reform which is considered a hate group by the SPLC Article about him joining SPLC list of hate groups in Cali. Not surprisingly, CCIR is based out of Huntington Beach which has a nasty white supremacist/nazi problem (the first obvious neo-nazi I've ever seen was there). Also, sorta unrelated but Simcox seems just a bit crazy [6]. The third page of the story has an excerpt of a speech he gave to the CCIR. I can probably find more later. The Ungovernable Force 23:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there reliable support (i.e. a credible non-partisan, non-axe-grinding, non-puff-piece source) for the notion that the Minuteman are associated with white-supremicism? If not, I'm going to remove it. Morton devonshire 00:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of whether they actually are, but whether people accuse them of it regularly (which they do). The Ungovernable Force 00:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I understand that, but I imagine that there's some sort of threshold that we should recognize for that, as those sorts of comments could be uttered by anyone at anytime about anything and therefore be true. For example, if you were the subject of an article, I could in the quiet of my office say that you were a Fascist, and blog about it on my personal blog, and it would be true that I said it and that it was reported, but it wouldn't be notable. I'm just looking for a neutral source that says that this is a common charge. Original research doesn't count. Morton devonshire 01:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

If a lot of people made the accusation it should be mentioned. The Ungovernable Force 01:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with that with a few quailifiers. If a lot of notable people made the accusation and backed up their accusations with some sort of proof, or basis then it should be mentioned in that context. If Joe Blow says he's a racist, it's not notable. If 100 Joe Blows say he's a racist, it's not notable. If 100 Joe Blows say he's a racist because on such-and-such date, he stated "all xxx people were xxxx and should be xxxx" and provide sources, then it becomes notable, otherwise it's just gossip and accusations.--WilliamThweatt 16:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I actually disagree with the basic premise that "It's not a matter of whether they actually are, but whether people accuse them of it regularly," (according to ungovernable force). That is appropriate reasoning for the inclusion of a statement such as, "The group, in particular the leadership, is often accused of having white supremacist ties and sympathies," in the criticism section. However, it is not appropriate reasoning for the inclusion of a "Racist, Fascist Associations" section, which would require the content of the accusations to be proven, rather than the existence of the accusations. TheKaplan 05:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Kaplan. That was the point I was trying (rather badly) to make further above with the "party crashers" analogy.--WilliamThweatt 16:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so make the section "Alledged Racist, Fascist Associations". There is however an abundance of evidence that many people from the far-right, White supremacist/seperatist, and neo-nazi movements have supported and taken part in minutemen related activities, regardless of Gilchrist's denouncing them. The Ungovernable Force 05:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

While that may (or may not) be the case, the fact that these fringe groups "support", or have shown up (uninvited) at, Minutemen related activities doesn't justify calling it an "association" or even an "alleged association". I also object to your lumping "the far-right" in together with the hate groups you mentioned. "The far-right" is a term that simply describes mainstream political conservatives, who, as a group, are neither racist nor fascist.--WilliamThweatt 16:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

See far-right. It is an alleged association because it has been alleged, by quite a few people I might add. The Ungovernable Force 23:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Why the axe Gov? Morton devonshire 01:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

William, although I agree with you on the proper definition of "far-right", Ungovernable is correct in his usage according to the wikipedia definition, which lumps it in with "radical right" and "extreme right". Perhaps we can take that up on the talk page of that article. For this article, the definition is a side issue. I believe that by now we can all agree that there are extensive allegations of an association with white supremacists that that have been levelled at the Minutemen. Whether or not the allegations are true has not been established, and thus a judgement on that, barring the introduction of any new evidence, should remain absent from the article. However, I believe that we can agree that the statement that the Minutemen have been accused of such should be included in the article. The issue that remains, therefore, is the whether this belongs in the list of criticisms, or whether it belongs in a separate section titled "alledged racist, fascist associations." I propose that it be included in the criticism section, perhaps in a sub-section titled "allegations of white supremacist associations". Of course, a lot of material still needs to be removed, just because it is so ridiculously inflated and convoluted. Sections of this article look like someone made a pov claim, and then instead of removing it, someone inserted a rebuttal, and then someone else responded to that, and someone else responded to that, and so on ad infinitum. Come on people, we can do better than that. This stuff is to wikipedia what pork is to a congressional appropriations bill. I'm talking specifically about pararaphs like,

"Critics of the Minuteman Project contend the organization is supported by Neo-nazi white supremacists. 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. Most groups that are critical of the Minuteman Project are race-based and civil liberties groups."

This stuff has got to go. TheKaplan 03:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This Article needs the "Contested" symbol added to the top of it

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)

Notice of Intent

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)

Some Code Problems

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)