Talk:MOVE (Philadelphia organization)/Archive 1

Archive 1

MOVE Disambiguation

This page should have a link back to the Move disambiguation page. Waarmstr 16:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.31.42 (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was merge Ramona Africa into this article. -- Groupthink 00:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC).

I propose that John Africa and Ramona Africa be merged to this page, because they chiefly derive their notoriety from MOVE. Groupthink 20:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a poor idea. Would you have George Washington's, or John F. Kennedy's page moved and consolidated to the United States of America page? John Africa, and Ramona Africa are noteworthy individuals, and marginalizing them like that suggests a racist mentality to me. I am white by the way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.221.64.35 (talk • contribs). — 71.221.64.35 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please read WP:AGF regarding that "racist mentality" nonsense. As for the rest of your point, you make a specious argument. No, I would not have GW's or JFK's page merged with the USA page. I would also not merge Martin Luther King with civil rights, Patrice Lumumba with Congo or Susan B. Anthony with women's liberation. That's because those individuals are notable in their own right. JA and RA, on the other hand, have no notability beyond their involvement with MOVE. Take a look at the John Africa page. 95% of the information there is regarding MOVE in general. The only significant info that pertains strictly to JA is his birth and death dates. Groupthink 20:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse merger: I don't see either of the two individuals being notable outside of their association with this organization. Leuko 20:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

So far, I have Ramona Africa pegged as a consensus/merge, and John Africa pegged as a no-consensus/no-merge. If you disagree, please post below. Otherwise I will be archiving the merge debates and merging Ramona Africa with this page tomorrow. Groupthink 07:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the John Africa merger debate wound up in Talk:John Africa and not here like it was supposed to; sorry about that. Groupthink 07:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

description

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel C. Boyer (talk • contribs) 10:09, 2 August 2002 (UTC)

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) 04:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.72.92.130 (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.14.2.172 (talk) 02:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

>>Yes. It was dropped from a helicopter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.67.104.4 (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

7 adults & 4 children, or 6 adults & 5 children?

Our sources differ on this, Time magazine cite says here "eleven bodies, four of them children"; USA Today cite here says "Five children and six adults". New York Times seems to consistently use 5 children & 6 adults, example here says "Last June, the city agreed to pay $2.5 million to the parents of the five children who died." I'm inclined to cite the Times story and also use it as a tiebreaker and say 6 adults & 5 children throughout. Any other thoughts? --CliffC (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

1978 Incident

The current version does not make any sense. How do we get from a negotiated end of a year-long standoff to a shoot-out? Was the stand-off the result of the shoot out? The cause of it? I don't know. Lot 49a^talk 14:25, 15 June 2009 (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! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.67.104.4 (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

• Parallels. Religiously and or philosophically motivated "cults" besieged by police (MOVE in Philadelphia, Weaver family at Ruby Ridge, Branch Davidians at Waco); allegations of tunnels that did not exist (MOVE, Ruby Ridge) or were exaggerated (Waco); fire fighting resources withheld by authorities after a lethal fire broke out (MOVE, Waco); "facts" in initial government press releases not matching evidence in eventual government investigations (all three); "dangerous cults" not as half as scary as the police besieging them or the media egging them on (all three); charismatic antigovernment leaders killed by the government (John Africa, Vicki Weaver, David Koresh); no deaths until the government took forceful action against the "dangerous cult" (all three); the "cults" claiming self-defense against illegal use of excessive force (all three). They are linked by these parallels even if they seem unconnected. Perhaps the link can be found in a statement by ATF director Stephen Higgins on Waco: "The day has long passed when we can afford to ignore the threat that is posed by individuals who believe that they are subject only to the laws of their god and not those of our government." -- Naaman Brown as 67.232.95.125 (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

By the account I read about the MOVE fire, which was not an account by a radical apologist source, but a journalistic attempt at an objective history, water hoses had been played on the house up to the dropping of the bomb, and it was a delibeerate decision by the siege commanders to NOT turn back on the hoses but to let the fire burn. Once the roof fire got under the roof, any chance to control the fire was lost even though the hoses were turned back on, too late: the fires had spread under the roof to the adjacent apartments and pretty soon the whole block was a raging inferno. People unsympathetic to the MOVE think they were handled badly: see the USA TODAY anniversary article. Naaman Brown (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

Agreed... seems to be a lot of references to compost piles and no mention of their beleifs, politics, ideas etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.248.247 (talk) 10:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

at the same time, regarding John Africa as the ultimate validator of "Natural Law". --24.60.200.27 (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2009 (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)

After having seen Ramona Africa speak last night (5/23/10) at a Judi Bari memorial event in Berkeley, I can say unequivocally that she is at least what you would call green-anarchist. Now, I don't know much about MOVE as an organization, but if her [Ramona's] comments are at all indicative of their [MOVE] stances, I think it would be safe to say the same of them as well. Though it's circumstantial, I think the fact that Ramona Africa and the late Judi Bari were personal friends is telling. After all, Judi Bari (next to Darryl Cherney, Alicia Littletree, and MAYBE one or two others) was probably the most notable member of the Earth First! organization. All one need do is take a quick glance at the Earth First! logo, with it's prominent half green and half black star, and it's a pretty easy guess what their politics are. Praxis1966 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.227.34 (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

28 Mar 1976, seven MOVE members were released from jail and went to 309 N 33rd St where a celebration was held. Police were called. A neighbor described the resulting melee as: "I think the police were provoked, but I think they were overreacting. I've never seen such brutality." Six cops were hospitalised and six MOVE members jailed. Life Africa, three-week old son of Janine and Phil Africa, was killed. There are sources documenting that MOVE members showed the dead child's body to city officials who took no action because officially there was no birth certificate for a "Life Africa". Covered in pages 11-14 of John Anderson and Hilary Hevenor, Burning Down the House: MOVE and the tragedy of Philadelphia, W.W. Norton & Co., 1987. ISBN: 0-393-02460-1. Naaman Brown (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"Firebombing"?

Is it appropriate to refer to the use of the explosive as a "firebombing"? My understanding is that the original use of the explosive was to destroy a fortified portion of the roof. By most accounts, the fire was an unintended consequence.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.229.171 (talk • contribs)

That's a good point. Unless there are objections, I'll just change it to a more factually accurate word. Bombing alone should suffice. Ford MF (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I've changed it. Just for the record, mitigating against a change from "firebomb" to "bomb" is the fact that the New York Times clearly and repeatedly referred to the event as a "firebombing". Ford MF (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Also there was a bunker on the roof with a machine gun correct? I feel that is a rather large part of the context. Also I think a cop was shot earlier that night? Right now it reads as if they were just minding their own business when suddenly the police bombed them for no reason... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.135.71 (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

No one in this mess was minding their own business or exercising good judgement, but facts are facts.

No reliable source claims a machinegun in the rooftop bunker. The bunker housed gasoline powered electric generator and water pump plus fuel (police had warned reporters and negotiators earlier not to smoke around the front porch of the house, because MOVE members had been observed hauling gasoline cans to the bunker). Police informants accused the MOVE of having pump-action shotguns and tube-fed .22 rimfire rifles, kept in a locked closet in the house, but no machineguns.

Officer Ramp was shot at the Powelton Village MOVE house in 1978, seven years earlier than the Ossage Avenue siege.

The MOVE were refusing to leave the apartment building, in defiance of a police ultimatum. Tear gas was introduced by blowing holes in the walls from the neighboring apartments, resulting in exchanges of gunfire. The helicopter bomb may have been intended to drive the MOVE out, but instead all but two were killed and a whole city block burned. --Naaman Brown (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.31.42 (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Located my source: originally American Christian Movement for Life (or alternately Christian Life Movement) shortened to MOVE, from John Anderson and Hilary Hevenor, Burning Down the House: MOVE and the tragedy of Philadelphia, W.W. Norton & Co., 1987, ISBN: 0-393-02460-1. Naaman Brown (talk) 23:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

from their website

http://www.onamove.com/belief/

THE NAME MOVE

The word MOVE is not an acronym. It means exactly what it says: MOVE, work, generate, be active. Everything that's alive moves. If it didn't, it would be stagnant, dead. Movement is the principle of Life, and because MOVE's belief is Life, our Founder, JOHN AFRICA, gave us the name "MOVE." When we greet each other, we say "ON THE MOVE!"

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 09:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

fact check needed

that the article says the leader John Africa was killed in the bombing in 1978 but according to Wikipedia, John Africa is still alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.35.48 (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are looking at. Both this article and John Africa say he died in the shootout/fire. -SummerPhD (talk) 04:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Survivors

The article says:

• "Ramona Africa, one of the two survivors, stated that police fired at those trying to escape."
• "...the only surviving MOVE member, Ramona Africa, was charged and incarcerated on riot and conspiracy charges."

Were there one or two survivors? Or did two people survive the fire, one of whom was a MOVE member? Pburka (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Good catch. The other survivor was Birdie Africa who was about 13 at the time. The text should identify Ramona Africa as the only surviving adult MOVE member. I'll make the correction. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Video interview of Ramona Africa describing what happened in the attack on May 13, 1985 including video of police dropping the bomb from a helicopter

I am arguing for the inclusion of the following reference under "In media -> Documentary":

The Empire Files: An Unparalleled Act of Police Terror is an episode of The Empire Files, a regular program on TeleSUR hosted by Abby Martin. Ramona Africa, the only adult survivor of the massacre, documents her account of the May 13, 1985 attack on MOVE's home.

SummerPhDv2.0 removed my edit where I added the above content stating, "One of numerous episodes of various shows about the armed resistance at the MOVE bunker."

My arguments for inclusion are:

a.) This is a good resource for this topic with lots of information that can be included in this Wikipedia article; b.) The entire show is about the topic of MOVE and the massacre including eyewitness testimony and lots of archival footage including footage of police dropping the bomb from a helicopter; c.) This is good investigative journalism. All episodes of The Empire Files have a common theme: "From inside history's biggest empire: Files logged by Abby Martin recording a world shaped by war and inequality." d.) There may be "numerous episodes of various shows about the armed resistance at the MOVE bunker." However, there is no other show that is listed in the Documentary section which is available for free online viewing. This show is documenting history. People should have access to it without having to subscribe to a video subscription service, providing that they can even find a show about this that they can watch.

Ubh [talk... contribs...] 05:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

An interview with Ramona Africa is a primary source, of virtually no value in improving this article. One person on one side of a hotly contested issue will clearly have their own POV. It is not our place to sort this out. Thus, our preference for secondary and tertiary sources.

That a source is freely and/or easily available is no substitute for other considerations. This article concerns living people. Our policy on such material is abundantly clear. Much as we should avoid calling the incident an "attack on MOVE's home" (or my intentional mirror "armed resistance at the MOVE bunker"), we should not be linking to unreliable source material.

With a bit of research, we could easily burden this page with an extensive list of episodes of various shows, articles in newspapers and magazines, books, websites, comic strips and jokes related to this incident. This would not be an improvement. This would be a indiscriminate collection. This particular episode, easily accessible though it is, is no better or worse than any of the others.

We include a link to our article on Let the Fire Burn because that documentary is notable. We do not include an inline external link as that is against our policy. That documentary is notable because it has won several notable awards and is itself the subject of non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. The current description we give ("...a documentary composed largely of archival footage, was released in the Fall of 2013.") is -- quite intentionally -- bland and factual. The add-on that MOVE has "promoted" the documentary is, IMO, out of place. It is based on a primary source and the interpretation that they "support" the documentary is a rather trivial matter. Looking through their site, I see no particular prominence afforded to this particular film, other than a laudatory page about it. (The link is to their homepage, which does not mention the film.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on MOVE. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120612050152/http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/MOVE-Phihladelphia-BombNYT14may85.htm to http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/MOVE-Phihladelphia-BombNYT14may85.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120612050152/http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/MOVE-Phihladelphia-BombNYT14may85.htm to http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/MOVE-Phihladelphia-BombNYT14may85.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Off-topic chat

off-topic chat

Move's Lifestyle The Move orgnaization had a set lifestyle style that affected the way they ate, formed romantic relationships and raised their families. Due to the teachings of John Africa it was believed that every life form is important. This led to their work on environmental justice and their raw diet that was enforced heavily on the children and less so on the adults. "JOHN AFRICA taught us that Life is the priority. Nothing is more important or as important as Life, the force that keeps us alive. All life comes from one source, from God, MOM NATURE, MOMA. Each individual life is dependent on every other life, and all life has a purpose, so all living beings, things that move, are equally important, whether they are human beings, dogs, birds, fish, trees, ants, weeds, rivers, wind or rain. To stay healthy and strong, life must have clean air, clear water and pure food. If deprived of these things, life will cycle to the next level, or as the system says, “die.”" "The diet of JOHN AFRICA gave us consists of fresh raw food... We acknowledge that some of us were raised on the system’s food, or “distortion”- as we call it. Doing the work we do can also put us under a lot of pressure when parent and child or husband and wife are separated by the system’s oppression. So it is not uncommon to see some of us eating cooked food on occasion. However, you will never see a committed MOVE member use drugs, cigarettes, or alcohol." Because they lived in a tight knit community and shared their resources the members of Move believed in raising children together. In an effort to raising their children together they believed that physical punishment should not be enforced and when the time comes when a child to be punished the entire community must come together and agree on what actions should be taken as a community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vpower13 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC) This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic. - SummerPhDv2.0 18:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC) References

Far-Left?

Can MOVE really be solidly aligned with any specific political position? Maybe one could do syncretic, but even that's a bit tough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.4.232.49 (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

External link tag

Hi every body. You may make the article eligible to appear on the main page WP:OTD box by resolving the External link tag. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Inconsistent spelling of Zackary/Zachary

The boy John Zackary Gilbride's name is spelled differently. Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.38.29 (talk) 21:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Mayor Rizzo not Goode in 1978

Under the section 1978 shoot-out "the police under Mayor Wilson Goode obtained a court order demanding MOVE members vacate" Wilson Goode was elected in 1984. Frank Rizzo was Mayor in 1978. The source cited is about the 1985 bombing incident. This section needs to be rewritten.

Another incident could be included. In 1976, a scuffle between MOVE members and police resulted in the death of the three week old baby of Janine Philips Africa, who would later be convicted in the 1978 shootout.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/25/move-9-black-radicals-women-freed-philadelphia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimmmk22 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The Move 9 conviction is not officially 'false'!

The conviction of the MOVE 9 is highly controversial, and while I appreciate that it is a widely held belief that the conviction is false, the phrase 'falsely convicted' (as used in the lead, until I shortly remove it) should not be used unless a conviction has been officially rescinded. The conviction has never been overturned by the US government, so to call the conviction 'false' is a matter of opinion, not fact, and must be left out or otherwise stated as such -- see WP:IMPARTIAL. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 15:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Another POV here. (Yes, pun.) Zezen (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Undue and more

Undue, weasel, POV:

Eyewitnesses, however, gave accounts suggesting that the shot may have come...

-> let us remove this prominwnt Guardian block quote. Zezen (talk) 06:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your argument is here. You say this brief quote providing a capsule summary of the issue is WP:UNDUE. I don't understand. It is clearly from a reliable source and which side killed him is obviously a significant issue in the case.

Next you say WP:WEASEL somehow applies. I am not sure which word or words Wikipedia is using (and where -- it can't be in the quote!) somehow unfairly give the impression that the quote is saying something it doesn't say. It seems self-evident that the quote does say exactly what it says.

Finally, you mention WP:POV. I think we neutrally represent what the source says when we are directly quoting the source. Yes, the quote does give the eyewitnesses points of view as well at the point of view expressed by prosecutors. Those POVs, however, are fairly represented by the quote. A POV problem would be if we were, for example, reporting on a critic's review of a movie and our summary made it sound like the critic loved or hated the movie when they did not. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2020

In the section about the 1985 bombing, the fifth paragraph states “the resulting explosions ignited a fire from fuel for a gasoline-powered generator” and the source for this sentence does t mention any of that. A later source [30] does mention it, but specifically states that the bomb could have caused the fire rather than any gas or generator and that the gas theory came from the police commissioner in charge and that it was part of his theory that MOVE intentionally wanted to start the fire that ended up killing them and their children.

This part is clearly poorly. At the very least you need to include the fact that the bomb did create enough heat to start a fire by itself or this article is deliberately misinforming people. 94.234.32.242 (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done, reworded to just "ensuing fire". ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)