Talk:BAMN

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

Contents

[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.
This is my suggested text: The group has been accused of being a terrorist organization [1][2]. Jcmiller 02:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

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. Thier bias, however, leans on something which is portrayed in aggression as a first impression for those interested in thier literature. This stance is but one which the political right is fighting the left on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KenKut (talk • contribs) 23:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

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.

I think what the author means is that there was voter fraud during the elections. Your comment above shows bias against affirmative action, which should be left neutral. Whether it levels the playing field or not is the question. There is a study that compares Beverly Hills High School with Crenshaw High School (I would cite it, but I have trouble opening the journals).What the study showed was that Beverly Hills High School with a smaller population had more college preparatory courses than Crenshaw High School who has a larger population (mostly minority). Affirmative Action in my opinion tried to level the playing field in the wrong place because it should have pushed for a more equal K-12 education, so there would be no need for it at higher levels. Yes, The Civil Rights Act aimed to end discriminatory laws. How do we determine whether something is discriminatory or not? We can not say that everydody that applies to a university gets in solely on merit because most universities allow for legends. If you want to look up the study I think is part of Critical Race Theory Studies.

[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."

l —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.174.66 (talk) 12:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

http://www.bamn.com/doc/2008/080504-victory-Missouri.asp Citation in press of BAMN role in defeating petition drive in Missouri. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suryan207 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BAMN's statement of principles

Pursuant to WP:NPOV, articles must be phrased neutrally. An article should provide an encyclopedic overview of an oranization, it should not be an advertisement for that organization. BAMN's statement of principles essentially states that the organization promotes affirmative action. The article already contains that information. However, statements like "BAMN is committed to making real America's founding declaration that 'all men are created equal'" are neither neutral nor encyclopedic and amount to nothing more to an advertisement. In addition, per WP:V, we are supposed to use third-party sources. As such, please refrain from using information for which BAMN is the only source. Idag (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

claiming that a description of an organization's self stated principles should not be in the wiki does not make sense. other wiki pages such as the aclu wiki include self created mission statements. I understand there is disagreement about pov issues however cant we simply indicate that this is a self stated principle and leave it on the page.

It seems to me that including just one of the principles, number three in fact could balance the page which hardly seems neutral to me. BAMN was an active part of Grutter v Bolinger yet that has been minimized and distorted. BAMN's membership is mostly comprised of students, elementary, high school and college, but this is represented as a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.222.11.226 (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a verifiable non-BAMN source stating that BAMN submitted a brief or did anything else in Grutter v. Brollinger, then by all means include that information. I added information about the fact that BAMN was only one of 44 parties because everyone and their brother was a party in Grutter, so being a named party is not an accomplishment (especially considering the fact that BAMN's lawyers didn't argue the case in front of the Supreme Court). If you feel that other parts of this article are distorted, then please feel free to fix them (in a neutral way and citing verifiable third-party sources). However, the way to fix a POV imbalance is NOT to add what amounts to an advertisment for the organization. In addition, please stop putting in the statement of principles into the article until we actually have a consensus on that issue. Idag (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
As far as the other articles, the ACLU's mission statement is limited to one very short sentence and is not a full paragraph mission statement. The quote is necessary there because the ACLU does many things that can't be phrased as one category (it does affirmative action, criminal law, women's rights, free speech, etc.), so its more concise to include a very short quote from its mission statement. In contrast, BAMN only has one purpose: to promote and maintain affirmative action, so its more concise and neutral to simply summarize that purpose. Idag (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

it is inaccurate to say that bamn's only purpose is affirmative action. also we are talking about three sentences that i think are important to include. also i was in dc when the case was heard before the supreme court and yes bamn was represented in court. also at the trial which the court used as basis of their decision there was extensive testimony presented by scheff and washington attorneys.

BAMN is a civil rights organization that advocates equality. BAMN advocates for immigrants rights, smaller class sizes, better k-12 education. BAMN organizers work at the elementary, high school and college level. The inclusion of principle 3 would certainly better express BAMN's different campaigns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.222.11.226 (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The language of principle 3 isn't even close to neutral. If you can find verifiable third party sources stating that BAMN does the things that you have just described, then please feel free to include them. Idag (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Looking again at principle 3, it doesn't mention ANY of the things that you just mentioned. It has some generic language about equality, but the only policy it actually mentions is affirmative action. Idag (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the aclu wiki again and it includes a long section of aclu principles. I am starting to think I am talking to a right wing nut and not a "neutral" party. Leave the darn principle up their. In fact there should be a longer section on bamn principles. Isnt this an encyclopedia? I think you are being dishonest with me. I looked at other pages and not all content is third party marked. This page should include the principle #3 at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.222.11.226 (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and refrain from insulting other editors; I have extended that courtesy to you even though Geolocate implies that you are probably a member of BAMN. For Wikipedia's code of conduct, it may be helpful to read WP:Good Faith and WP:Civil. In addition, Wikipedia policy explicitly states that "[a]rticles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." WP:V(emphasis added). Other articles may violate this policy, but two wrongs don't make a right. Finally, if you add new facts to this article, you need to support each of those facts with a verifiable source. Please read WP:V in its entirety to examine the necessary requirements. For a good example, take a look at the durian article and notice how almost every sentence in the body of the article has a footnote after it that provides the reader with an outside source where that information can be found. Idag (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I listed BAMN's principle and identified it as BAMN. I am a bamn member and dont see any problem with an encyclopedia listing a true thing about an organization like what its principle is . The current page lacks neutrality being simply a list of criticisms and misrepresents BAMN as a single issue organization. This is a problem that needs to be addressed.

It is a fact that BAMN principle #3 is as stated on the page. It is a further fact that BAMN is not a single issue organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suryan207 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

At the following link is an interview that talks about the campaign to keep Detroit Public Schools open. This is a BAMN campaign. http://www.wdetfm.org/article/civil-rights-group-sues-the-detroit-public-schools —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suryan207 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

First, please do not remove tags until you have a consensus. With your recent edits, you've added references to the article, so I'll agree with you that the unreferenced tag can go. However, since you are a BAMN member editing a BAMN page, you have a conflict of interest and that is why the Conflict of Interest tag needs to stay. As far as the statement of principles, I agree with you that it is true, however, my issue is not with its truthfulness but with its neutrality. Purusant to WP:NPOV, articles must convey information in as neutral way as possible. That statement of principles only really states that BAMN wants a "national policy of affirmative action". The "equality for all" language doesn't really convey anything (there's millions of different ways to go about achieving "equality for all"). I think the very language of this Statement of Principles is too self-glorifying, which is why it shouldn't be here, but if you want to paraphrase it to neutrally convey information and add other reliable sources discussing what else BAMN does besides affirmative action, I wouldn't have a problem with that. As a sign of good faith, I'll leave the statement of principles up there for now, but we do need to address these issues soon. Idag (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)