Talk:BAMN
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] NPOV
Are they rightfully accused or are they falsely accused? Falsely sounds like POV to me. Invitatious (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Whether they are or are not a terrorist organization is of course a matter of opinion. But to say falsely accused is a POV issue for sure. The editor who keeps messing with that is not a registered user and only affects this article, probably a BAMn employee.
None of the news articles state that BAMN was accused of anything. At any rate, the exact reference to BAMN in the FBI meeting notes reads as follows: "Detective [________] presented information on a protest from February 8-10, 2002 in Ann Arbor, Michigan, by the group Any Means Necessary. Michigan State Police has information that in the past demonstrations by this group have been peaceful." Read the notes and see for yourself. To say that this reference is an accusation of terrorism is simply slander.
Mainstream media in the form of local newspapers reported an accusation that BAMN was a terrorist organization. The ACLU of course defends them, The ACLU being on their side does not mean that the accusation was not leveled. Personally, I believe that the ACLU may be right about this, but it does not change that the accusation is out there and that it is substantive enough to deserve a mention. Whether it is false or true is our POV, and should be left out of article.Jcmiller 21:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Under what circumstances can one say that something is not a terrorist organization? I've seen many accusations of certain individuals or groups being branded as terrorist™ without actually having any massive media support for the accusation, namely in the case of the Venezuela President accusing Pat Robertson of being a terrorist. What is the criteria for identifying such an accusation in a wikipedia article? I have personally heard a few people accusing BAMN of being a terrorist organization. Not that I agree with the statement, it's still an accusation that I have heard. So, at which point can that accusation be included in an article? mdkarazim 21:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
-
Those accusations that you personally heard should not be included in an article. It's not typical to include informal information into a fact-based work. It is not publically known that BAMN has ever been accused of being a terrorist organization. Because someone privately says, "I've heard people accuse BAMN of being a terrorist organization," is certainly not fact-based information. Not only is not true that BAMN is a terrorist organization but it could also be a myth that you even heard those allegations. Therefore, until those allegations are made public, they should not be mentioned in this fact-based article.
-
- More on terrorism: A BAMN activist in Kalamazoo was convicted of aggravated stalking of an anti-race preferences activist.
Luke Massie has been accused of intimidation for pulling a knife on someone from MCRI. He denies it though. I think she's looking into pressing charges. He's a white dude who supports reparations for Blacks. Just had to say it. --198.185.18.207 14:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lack of neutrality
the wording "standing up for minority voting rights by exposing the racially-targeted voter fraud committed by the so-called Michigan "Civil Rights" Initiative." shows blatant bias by the author in conveying skewed opinion on the matters of both the group and their actions.
For one, the MCRI has nothing to do with voting. It means to end affirmative action in the hiring of state jobs and agencies and in the admissions processes of state schools and universities. Currently, affirmative action gives special treatment by gender and ethnicity (to women and to anyone not asian or caucasian) simply by their genetic being. True civil equality would level the playing field for all persons giving no special treatment for anyone and basing all matters solely on merit. The Civil Rights of the 1960s aimed to end laws which discriminated by race and the result has been discrimination in the other direction. There is nothing civil, equal or right about that.
Simply put, BAMN has their reasons for wanting to continue affirmative action, but the debate itself is largely open to interpretation. BAMN's challenge has been heard and defeated in the Michigan courts already and they are taking it to Federal court, at the very least, to keep the matter tied up as long as possible.
If their aim was just, they would have nothing to fear from a vote of the people.
The entry, as it currently stands, amounts sloganeering and propaganda. More content should be added regarding the MCRI itself and Ward Connerly and to enlarge the matter being addressed.
[edit] Press citation
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051215/POLITICS/512150335
that's a link to a detroit news article showing the behaviour of BAMN at a State Board of Canvassers meeting in December of 2005.
Part of the article reads:
"The meeting was disrupted by an opposition group, By Any Means Necessary, which recruited students from Cody, Cass Tech, Crockett and Mumford high schools in Detroit and Oak Park High School to swarm the meeting and keep the board from voting.
Students chanted "no voter fraud" and "they say Jim Crow, we say hell no," danced on chair seats and made obscene gestures at the board.
At one point, many of the protesters rushed toward the board members, overturning a testimony table. Lansing police officers were called to restore order."
