I think the term "Minutemen (vigilantes)" is POV as the term vigilantes has negative overtones in English. I think it would be better to list the article under the title "The MinuteMan Project".
Thoughts, comments, flames?
Rob
On Apr 3, 2005 7:52 PM, Robert Brockway rbrockway@opentrend.net wrote:
I think the term "Minutemen (vigilantes)" is POV as the term vigilantes has negative overtones in English. I think it would be better to list the article under the title "The MinuteMan Project".
Thoughts, comments, flames?
Rob
I agree completely. I wasn't aware of this before, but I'll "be bold" and make some changes. Since they claim to be engaging in nothing other than observing and making reports to the Border Patrol, characterizing them as "vigilantes" is biased.
--Slowking Man
On Sun, 3 Apr 2005, Robert Brockway wrote:
I think the term "Minutemen (vigilantes)" is POV as the term vigilantes has negative overtones in English. I think it would be better to list the article under the title "The MinuteMan Project".
Excuse me following up to myself.
dictionary.com gives the following definitions for vigilante:
1. One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.
2. A member of a vigilance committee.
I don't see how the MinuteMan Project members could qualify as vigilantes since all they are doing, as directed by the group, is to observe and advise legitimate authorities. In this regard the group is acting in a manner similar to a Neighbourhood Watch.
This is not to say that individuals in the group could not act as vigilantes but I don't see any evidence the group is advocating this.
Thoughts, comments, flames, rebuttal?
Rob
On Apr 3, 2005 10:02 PM, Robert Brockway rbrockway@opentrend.net wrote:
On Sun, 3 Apr 2005, Robert Brockway wrote:
I think the term "Minutemen (vigilantes)" is POV as the term vigilantes has negative overtones in English. I think it would be better to list the article under the title "The MinuteMan Project".
Excuse me following up to myself.
dictionary.com gives the following definitions for vigilante:
One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.
A member of a vigilance committee.
I don't see how the MinuteMan Project members could qualify as vigilantes since all they are doing, as directed by the group, is to observe and advise legitimate authorities. In this regard the group is acting in a manner similar to a Neighbourhood Watch.
This is not to say that individuals in the group could not act as vigilantes but I don't see any evidence the group is advocating this.
Thoughts, comments, flames, rebuttal?
Rob
I suppose if we allow definition 2 above, then members of a Neighborhood Watch group would be vigilantes. However, I've never heard the word used that way. Of course, that's just me, and maybe others have heard the other usage. Still, I think the name change is in order. Make sure we disambiguate Minutemen as appropriate.
-- Rich Holton
en.wikipedia:User:Rholton
On Apr 3, 2005 8:28 PM, Richard Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
I suppose if we allow definition 2 above, then members of a Neighborhood Watch group would be vigilantes. However, I've never heard the word used that way. Of course, that's just me, and maybe others have heard the other usage. Still, I think the name change is in order. Make sure we disambiguate Minutemen as appropriate.
-- Rich Holton
There's actually another article titled [[Minuteman Project]]. I'm in the process of merging the two.
--Slowking Man
On Apr 3, 2005, at 8:02 PM, Robert Brockway wrote:
On Sun, 3 Apr 2005, Robert Brockway wrote:
I think the term "Minutemen (vigilantes)" is POV as the term vigilantes has negative overtones in English. I think it would be better to list the article under the title "The MinuteMan Project".
Excuse me following up to myself. dictionary.com gives the following definitions for vigilante:
- One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's
own hands.
Such as enforcing who may or may not be allowed to cross a border, with the use of armed patrols?
Here's part of their slogans (from their website header): "Americans doing the jobs Congress won't do." "Operating within the law to support enforcement of the law."
- A member of a vigilance committee.
Vigilance, keeping watch....
I don't see how the MinuteMan Project members could qualify as vigilantes since all they are doing, as directed by the group, is to observe and advise legitimate authorities.
A watchman (keeping vigil, see "vigilance") sounds the alarm, yes.... and that's part of what makes them (MinuteMan project) vigilantes.
In this regard the group is acting in a manner similar to a Neighbourhood Watch.
My Neighborhood Watch doesn't actively roam around and set up "observation camps" in the middle of my local street intersections, while carrying guns and looking for trouble.
I don't know about yours. :)
Advocating that they are similar to a Neighborhood Watch is *their* POV (lifted straight from their website, no less), the obviously clear differences between the two notwithstanding... them (MMP) claiming to not be vigilantes is not entirely unlike white power groups claiming that they are not inherently racist... it's totally non-sensical, an attempt to legitimize their actions.
This is not to say that individuals in the group could not act as vigilantes but I don't see any evidence the group is advocating this.
Check out their website... their whole purpose is about taking into *their own hands* the patrolling function of law enforcement on the borders. All that being said, the article itself points out that they are considered vigilantes, regardless of what the title is.
All of the above is *my* POV, though... I'm in favor of changing the article name, so their POV and my POV can become NPOV, :)
-Bop
On Apr 3, 2005 8:49 PM, Ronald Chmara ron@opus1.com wrote:
Such as enforcing who may or may not be allowed to cross a border, with the use of armed patrols?
They claim to be armed (and not all of them are armed) merely for self-defense.
All of the above is *my* POV, though... I'm in favor of changing the article name, so their POV and my POV can become NPOV, :)
Which is what I'm doing.
--Slowking Man
I disagree.
If the usage of the words "terrorism" and "terrorist" is NPOV (which has been decided through polls on en.wiki - since when is something NPOV if more than 1/3rd of those polled say it isn't? lol), then so is the usage of "vigilante".
Sure, "vigilante" has negative connotations. But we're operating entirely within the definition here. They are keeping vigil (they don't mention going further than just that, but others do), and thus they are vigilantes.
In my experience, "vigilante" does often mean somebody who takes justice into their own hands, often violently (ie, a man who murders people who have been proven to be rapists but got away from jail time due to a technicality), but it can also mean somebody who keeps watch well, somebody who is vigilant.
How can this be compared to terrorism? Because of our double-standard. If terrorism is an act, against civilians, intended to strike fear into the hearts of the populace, then I would generally say the events of 11.9 qualify. I would also say the nuclear bombings of Hirosima and Nagasaki qualify. Was that not the intention? So why don't we mention prominently in /those/ two articles that they were terrorist acts? Because we choose to restrict our in-group definition to only those acts perpetrated by people who are not part of the military of a nation internationally recognised as sovreign? Do we realise how sillily fine the line between those two categories is? The only reason we keep it separate is because we want to believe that Us attacking Them is not Evil ("terrorist" can often be used as a synonym for evil in modern American society), while Them attacking Us is. We demonise the British role in the war for American independence, yet we glorify the role of the Union in the American civil war which occurred for strikingly similar reasons. Both were cases of wars seeking to gain independence for a region, the Colonials and the Confederates were both the disgruntled, both wanted to break away, yet the Colonials are good but the Confederates are bad. Some say it's because they had slaves. Then why do we perpetuate the personality cult of George Washington who was a slaveowner?
Double-standards obviously exist within society, but we should keep them out of Wikipedia.
And as a general guideline, if more than 1/4th of the people involved in a discussion say the text is POV, it probably is POV but you just can't see that.
Mark
On Apr 3, 2005 8:49 PM, Ronald Chmara ron@opus1.com wrote:
On Apr 3, 2005, at 8:02 PM, Robert Brockway wrote:
On Sun, 3 Apr 2005, Robert Brockway wrote:
I think the term "Minutemen (vigilantes)" is POV as the term vigilantes has negative overtones in English. I think it would be better to list the article under the title "The MinuteMan Project".
Excuse me following up to myself. dictionary.com gives the following definitions for vigilante:
- One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's
own hands.
Such as enforcing who may or may not be allowed to cross a border, with the use of armed patrols?
Here's part of their slogans (from their website header): "Americans doing the jobs Congress won't do." "Operating within the law to support enforcement of the law."
- A member of a vigilance committee.
Vigilance, keeping watch....
I don't see how the MinuteMan Project members could qualify as vigilantes since all they are doing, as directed by the group, is to observe and advise legitimate authorities.
A watchman (keeping vigil, see "vigilance") sounds the alarm, yes.... and that's part of what makes them (MinuteMan project) vigilantes.
In this regard the group is acting in a manner similar to a Neighbourhood Watch.
My Neighborhood Watch doesn't actively roam around and set up "observation camps" in the middle of my local street intersections, while carrying guns and looking for trouble.
I don't know about yours. :)
Advocating that they are similar to a Neighborhood Watch is *their* POV (lifted straight from their website, no less), the obviously clear differences between the two notwithstanding... them (MMP) claiming to not be vigilantes is not entirely unlike white power groups claiming that they are not inherently racist... it's totally non-sensical, an attempt to legitimize their actions.
This is not to say that individuals in the group could not act as vigilantes but I don't see any evidence the group is advocating this.
Check out their website... their whole purpose is about taking into *their own hands* the patrolling function of law enforcement on the borders. All that being said, the article itself points out that they are considered vigilantes, regardless of what the title is.
All of the above is *my* POV, though... I'm in favor of changing the article name, so their POV and my POV can become NPOV, :)
-Bop
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Mark Williamson wrote:
If the usage of the words "terrorism" and "terrorist" is NPOV (which has been decided through polls on en.wiki - since when is something NPOV if more than 1/3rd of those polled say it isn't? lol), then so is the usage of "vigilante".
If such a result exists it would reflect the ravings of a self-appointed clique of POV pushers. Such polls are held with such regularity and frequency that it is impossible to isolate those which have real meaning. If a person isn't directly active in the affected areas the polls will go by unnoticed. If you are suggesting that the rest of us who were not previously aware of the vote should now go to cast our ballot, please give the article name where this is happening so that we can vote that the term is indeed POV. In any event I don't see how a vote can remove the 200 years of connotations that have built up around the word "terrorism"
Sure, "vigilante" has negative connotations. But we're operating entirely within the definition here. They are keeping vigil (they don't mention going further than just that, but others do), and thus they are vigilantes.
In my experience, "vigilante" does often mean somebody who takes justice into their own hands, often violently (ie, a man who murders people who have been proven to be rapists but got away from jail time due to a technicality), but it can also mean somebody who keeps watch well, somebody who is vigilant.
There is more to a word than its dictionary denotation. "Vigilante" does not escape so easily from its lynch-mob past. To say now that we can go back to literal root meanings is akin to the defence claim of not knowing the gun was loaded.
How can this be compared to terrorism? Because of our double-standard. If terrorism is an act, against civilians, intended to strike fear into the hearts of the populace, then I would generally say the events of 11.9 qualify. I would also say the nuclear bombings of Hirosima and Nagasaki qualify. Was that not the intention? So why don't we mention prominently in /those/ two articles that they were terrorist acts? Because we choose to restrict our in-group definition to only those acts perpetrated by people who are not part of the military of a nation internationally recognised as sovreign? Do we realise how sillily fine the line between those two categories is? The only reason we keep it separate is because we want to believe that Us attacking Them is not Evil ("terrorist" can often be used as a synonym for evil in modern American society), while Them attacking Us is. We demonise the British role in the war for American independence, yet we glorify the role of the Union in the American civil war which occurred for strikingly similar reasons. Both were cases of wars seeking to gain independence for a region, the Colonials and the Confederates were both the disgruntled, both wanted to break away, yet the Colonials are good but the Confederates are bad. Some say it's because they had slaves. Then why do we perpetuate the personality cult of George Washington who was a slaveowner?
You've just made the point that "terrorist" is POV, and yet seem to agree to its use. This is inconsistent.
Governments can indeed be terrorists. When the word was first used it was applied by Edmund Burke to the Reign of Terror in France, not to some rag-tag cluster of insurgents. If I were to single out any historical person from the US Civil War to call a terrorist it would be General Sherman. To judge George Washington on the basis of his being a slaveowner is anachronistic; it applies the standards of another era to a time when slave ownership was not seriously questioned. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to see a list of US presidents who owned slaves at any time in their lives. It is also notable that objections to slavery were already on the rise, particularly in Virginia. As Thomas Moore observed in 1804, Who can, with patience, for a moment see The medley mas of pride and misery Of whips and charters, manacles and rights, Of slaving blacks and democratic whites, And all the piebald polity that reigns In free confusion o'er Columbia's plains?
Double-standards obviously exist within society, but we should keep them out of Wikipedia.
And as a general guideline, if more than 1/4th of the people involved in a discussion say the text is POV, it probably is POV but you just can't see that.
A POV is far less obvious when it is held by a large majority. I recently saw a quote from H. L. Mencken to the effect that Americans most trust those politicians who tell them lies, and distrust most the ones who say the truth.
Ec
How can this be compared to terrorism? Because of our double-standard. If terrorism is an act, against civilians, intended to strike fear into the hearts of the populace, then I would generally say the events of 11.9 qualify. I would also say the nuclear bombings of Hirosima and Nagasaki qualify. Was that not the intention? So why don't we mention prominently in /those/ two articles that they were terrorist acts? Because we choose to restrict our in-group definition to only those acts perpetrated by people who are not part of the military of a nation internationally recognised as sovreign? Do we realise how sillily fine the line between those two categories is? The only reason we keep it separate is because we want to believe that Us attacking Them is not Evil ("terrorist" can often be used as a synonym for evil in modern American society), while Them attacking Us is. We demonise the British role in the war for American independence, yet we glorify the role of the Union in the American civil war which occurred for strikingly similar reasons. Both were cases of wars seeking to gain independence for a region, the Colonials and the Confederates were both the disgruntled, both wanted to break away, yet the Colonials are good but the Confederates are bad. Some say it's because they had slaves. Then why do we perpetuate the personality cult of George Washington who was a slaveowner?
You've just made the point that "terrorist" is POV, and yet seem to agree to its use. This is inconsistent.
I don't agree to its use. But if we continue with the idea that "terrorist" is NPOV, then why do we say "vigilante" is POV? It's a double standard, and that was my point.
Mark
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org