Open main menu

Talk:ACLU, Minutemen trade accusations of misbehavior

why are there so may ppl who support the globalisation of capital, but not of labour...? ~The bellman | Smile 13:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I strongly support both the globalization of capital and labor, am in favor of NAFTA and DR-CAFTA and all kinds of free trade, and have no problems whatsoever with the immigration of Spanish-speaking Mexicans to the US in search of jobs or whatever. I do not however approve of illegal immigration. Also I dislike ACLU so I suppose I am ready to believe they are breaking the law down there *shrug*. DouglasGreen 00:32, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SourcingEdit

Vicente Fox is unrelated to this topic, and the Fox statement unsupported by sources. - Amgine 22:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article was rather hastily sketched, and you are right about the Fox stuff being unsupported by sources in the prior draft. After further research into that area, I decided that although it appeared to be true, the Mexican army's activities were insufficiently documented for me to weave it into the main story, so I dropped it. DouglasGreen 00:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Way over the POV line IMOEdit

This story has no alternative neutral line. It is entirely a radio show's views of the ACLU. Until it gets cleaned up it needs to be flagged. --HiFlyer 22:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Article has been completely revised. Flag has been left in place for now. Please review. DouglasGreen 00:34, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Article has been moved back from Main Page to Article Workspace until dispute is resolved. In general, I think that articles on the Main Page should not be flagged in any way. It's not good for Wikinews. DouglasGreen 01:33, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
DouglasGreen, what is wrong with this story can't be rewritten. The ACLU is not a group that goes into physical action on a border or anywhere else. They are strictly speaking a court-based action group. There is not a shred of supportable evidence that what this guy was saying on the radio program/Worldnetdaily page is true or even false. It is simply bogus. And I'm surprised that you published this story, DouglasGreen. I would suggest you voluntarily withdraw it in its entirety and rewrite it.
Your news bud, --HiFlyer 01:58, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well my response to that is: 1. The ACLU is not just a "court group" and they are in fact on the front lines observing and shadowing the Minutemen this entire month by their own admission. 2. Some ACLU activists may cross the line into illegal activity just like some Minutemen could; the idea that they could not is presumption, not fact. 3. I did not report this story as fact, merely the allegation of one person; see the title of the story, which has always read since I posted it, "says Minuteman". Sometimes the mere fact that someone raises an allegation is a story by itself. See for example the news release on ACLU's website which says of the Minutemen, "In the past, the Minuteman sponsoring organization is alleged to have engaged in activities that go beyond First Amendment-protected activity and that is intended to intimidate, harass or otherwise interfere with the rights of others. Many immigrant advocacy groups, including the ACLU, have expressed concern that members of white supremacist and other hate organizations will be participating and may trigger violence." Note that they provide not one shred of proof for their allegations. See also their second news release in which they call Barton's actions "unlawful imprisonment" although the sheriff's office investigated afterward and did not find that to be in fact the case. The reason I published this story is because if ACLU representatives are crossing the line into illegal activity, which is alleged to be so by a Minuteman representative, that is news every bit as much as if the Minutemen were. I have also reported on the Minuteman story in the past couple of weeks without controversy; see my story Minutemen gather to patrol US-Mexican border in April published April 1. I am simply following up. DouglasGreen 19:15, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Stories don't need an alternative neutral line. They need sources, and the reporting must fairly represent information found on the sources. If the topic covers radical behavior by Minutemen, the reporting has no choice but to report what happened.
This issue was addressed by ?Davodd? shortly before you tso became active. I vote to remove the flag and believe the consensus would also be to remove the article flag. -Edbrown05 02:21, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Edbrown--Maybe you misunderstood my first objection or maybe I stated it incorrectly...NPOV uses the word Neutral, that's what I meant. I know that this has been extensively rewritten by DouglasGreen and I am neutral on lifting the flag. I would not think we need to have the picture of Prez Fox tho.
My action does not imply consensus, however. Perhaps some others should have a say --HiFlyer 02:34, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Personal assessment: Either title or content are now inaccurate.Edit

The article is no longer about Minuteman allegations the ACLU is illegally helping aliens to avoid capture. This article should not report evidence supporting the Minuteman actions, or disputing their actions, but rather evidence supporting or disputing the actions of the ACLU. Under a different title, perhaps related to "ALCU, Minutemen exchange accusations, defend their own actions", the article might be considered NPOV as is. I would suggest limiting the discussion regarding the Bryan Barton - there are four paragraphs regarding that single element out of nine paragraphs total. - Amgine 19:30, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have changed the title per your suggestion (although not word-for-word the same as you have suggested), since I found it to be valid and helpful. Also you are quite correct that the article really should go into depth about the ACLU actions, however, the original story was written as a "world exclusive" and seems to not have been picked up by other sources; perhaps they consider it false or they are disinterested. I ran into the same problem in documenting the actions of the Mexican army. The news media in general seems far more interested in documenting any alleged misstep by the Minutemen than either the ACLU or Mexican army. The reason I went with the Bryan Barton stuff at length was because: 1. It is still rather "hot news" since it occurred within the past week or so. 2. It is a major aspect of the story, not yet covered by Wikinews although we have covered previous aspects. Both the Minuteman and ACLU had press releases on it, as well as known investigation. It is therefore the only well-documented piece of potential misbehavior that exists, otherwise, the two sides really are only trading unsubstantiated allegations. DouglasGreen 20:33, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion for follow-upEdit

Everyone, I have a suggestion to move this article forward. Why don't we contact both parties first, since it pertains to "hot news" in which people are still involved, and for which insufficiently documented public sources exist? Here are two e-mails, edit as necessary, then we can send one to the Minutemen, the other to ACLU. Differences in the two suggested e-mails (which have NOT at this moment been sent) are highlighted. Comments and feedback welcome. DouglasGreen 21:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note: emails have now been sent. Please NO more changes so they reflect actual e-mails. Thanks! DouglasGreen 18:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Email #1Edit

To: Fred Elbel <minuteman2005.REALLYNOSPAM@comcast.net>
Mr. Elbel,

I am an independent journalist with Wikinews. Our site is working on an article pertaining to recent comments by a Minuteman spokesman (draft version of our article is located at http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/ACLU%2C_Minutemen_trade_accusations_of_misbehavior).

In a recent news announcement on Joseph Farah's nationally syndicated "WorldNetDaily RadioActive" show, Minuteman spokesman Grey Dean reported to have made allegations about behavior of the ACLU (WorldNetDaily article is located at http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43812). The article states, "that ACLU monitors sent to the border to watch Minuteman activity and report civil-liberties abuses to authorities have begun flashing lights, sounding horns and warning off illegals and their 'coyote' human smugglers from entering territory patrolled by the volunteers. 'They are actively engaging in criminal activity,' said Deacon."

I have a few questions I would like to ask of you:

1. Can you please confirm your statements as reported above?

2. Do you have specific example of occasions when ACLU monitors have engaged in the activities you described above?

3. Have you gathered any evidence of the ACLU's behavior, such as pictures or video? If you have, would you be able or willing to allow Wikinews to publish any of this evidence?

4. Are there any other aspects of this story you think we should be covering, which we do not already have? That is, what else do you think is important?

I wanted to thank you for your time in considering this message,

Regards <Signed>

Email #2Edit

To: media.SOOKAYSPAMME@aclu.org
ACLU Media Contact,

I am an independent journalist with Wikinews. Our site is working on an article pertaining to recent comments by a Minuteman spokesman (draft version of our article is located at http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/ACLU%2C_Minutemen_trade_accusations_of_misbehavior).

In a recent news announcement on Joseph Farah's nationally syndicated "WorldNetDaily RadioActive" show, Minuteman spokesman Grey Dean reported to have made allegations about behavior of the ACLU (WorldNetDaily article is located at http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43812). The article states, "that ACLU monitors sent to the border to watch Minuteman activity and report civil-liberties abuses to authorities have begun flashing lights, sounding horns and warning off illegals and their 'coyote' human smugglers from entering territory patrolled by the volunteers. 'They are actively engaging in criminal activity,' said Deacon."

1. Can you confirm or deny the allegations by Grey Dean in the news report above?

2. Do you have any evidence or reason which show these allegations may be false, such as photos or video?

3. Are there any other aspects of this story you think we should be covering, which we do not already have? That is, what else do you think is important?

I wanted to thank you for your time in considering this message,

Regards, <Signed>

E-mail proposalEdit

I believe it was Pingswept who sent an e-mail with a request for comment concerning a psychiatric piece. The respondent declined to respond.

I support sending the e-mails. If both sides reply, it would be best covered as a new "news story". -Edbrown05 21:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll wait until tomorrow for the changes to settle, then send them, unless there are any objections or better ideas. I have suggested before that perhaps a reporting@wikinews.org e-mail submission/reply collection process might be helpful and prevent such e-mails from being ignored. DouglasGreen 03:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I remember that, and remember thinking it was a good idea. But for a specific article which in this case is yours, rather than general comments, you are in the best position to handle the delivery and understand the content of the receipt of an e-mail. The same was true in the Pingswept case. -Edbrown05 03:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
OK thank you all for your time in reviewing and improving this story, and for the improvements to the e-mails, which I am going to adapt for use as a standard e-mail template by me on my User page. I added the word "is" to "is reported" above and then sent each e-mail. I am also going to removing the NPOV tag and re-publish the story as is. The reasons are: 1. The article has completely changed since the original questions arose and is now more fair in giving time to both sides. 2. Several others besides myself have expressed an OK to NPOV 3. Edbrown05's suggestion that any reply be covered as a new story, so I am "clearing the deck" for that possibility. DouglasGreen 18:33, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


RepliesEdit

Reply #1Edit

------------------------------------------------------------------
minuteman2005@comcast.net 	10:34 pm (8 minutes ago)
Sir:
I have forwarded you inquiry to the cofounders of the Minuteman Project. The below website* posted a copy of the piece you referred to along with photos  showing ACLU-trained monitiors seemingly buring a couple, i.e. , smoking pot.   
Regards,
Mike McGarry           

    *http://searclub.com/?page=news-article&id=1671
------------------------------------------------------------------

I have examined the website. Although it does not document the actual activity of the ACLU observers described in the article, i.e. flashing lights and sounding horns to warn potential illegal immigrants, nonetheless it does show several photographs of what is apparently some ACLU observers engaged in interesting personal recreational activity (i.e. allegedly smoking pot). It also describes some aggressive personal behavior by some ACLU observers (apparently giving the middle finger, shining lights in faces, physically pushing a Minuteman, etc.) We will see if anything more develops. DouglasGreen 02:51, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If nothing more develops in a couple of days, I will close the book on this one. I deem this insufficient material for a follow-up article, however interesting it may appear, it does not address the larger issue which is at stake here, which is illegal immigration. DouglasGreen 23:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Return to "ACLU, Minutemen trade accusations of misbehavior" page.