Talk:BAMN

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)

The lack of neutrality and fairness in this article, as well as the talk pages, should give pause to those concerned about the oft-challenged (though scientifically upheld) reliability of Wikipedia. The inflamatory character of a "terrorism investigation" section, for example, begs the question (a logical fallacy), "Is BAMN a terrorist organization?". By my count, 19 of the 42 lines of text in this article (parts of the controversy, activism, and terrorism sections), as well as 2 subject headings (controversy and terrorism investigation) themselves are, by their implications, antagonistic towards BAMN. Where is the mention of BAMN fighting for Catherine Ferguson Academy, or for the four recently closed Detroit Public Library branches? Relative to the article on BAMN, Wikipedia articles on actual RIGHT-wing terrorist organizations should be considered apologetic. Obviously opponents of BAMN and its political views are being represented. My concern is about which changes or additions should I/we make in order to correct for the slant. 174.252.241.47 (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

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.

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)

I protest the biased character of this page. An encyclopedic section on BAMN should include its principles and activities.

The BAMN principle is not long and I protest that it has been edited.

The campaign to keep Detroit public schools open and to improve the quality of education is central to BAMN's activities. Equal, quality education. I had a listing of the campaigns BAMN is involved in and that too was removed. I would like to know why that was not okay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.222.11.226 (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's duty as an encyclopedia is to convey information, NOT to make BAMN look good. The parts of the principle that have been edited out simply contain self-glorifying language without conveying any information. The edits make the statement of principles at least somewhat compliant with WP:NPOV. The Detroit schools event will be put back up once the judge in that case issues a final ruling. The reason is one of convenience and readability: if we put it up now, the entire section will consist of one or two sentences and won't be particularly informative. Instead, we should put it up once the judge issues a final decision so that we can write up a detailed section using sources that will analyze that decision. As far as your remaining posts of BAMN's activities, you did not provide sufficient sources to back up those claims and they were therefore removed pursuant to WP:V. Idag (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

Principle #3 is essential to describing what BAMN is and what distinguishes it as a civil rights organization. Equality for all is what it is, let the reader determine the meaning for her/himself based on the whole description and the links. I think "self glorifying" is a hyperbolic description of the language. This is common language in American civil rights law. It is as ordinary in the law as saying separate can never be equal. I keep looking at other pages that organization are described in ways that include the organization's own self narrative. It seems that neutrality can be maintained while including organizations self created mission statements, principles and campaigns. In fact, I don't see how an organization description can be useful unless it conveys what the organization does and professes to believe in . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.222.11.226 (talk) 12:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've trimmed the language to make it more concise and neutral and I think its a good compromise lede. Idag (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the editing of principle #3. I prefer the principle be left whole. There are several groups calling themselves civil rights some are for continuing integration programs like affirmative action,, so for brown v bd of ed, others like connerly's group say they are for civil rights but have campaigned and litigated for the end to integration programs and wanted brown v bd to be overturned. Saying we are a group that includes latino, asian, arab, black and white is an important distinction and not fluff.

Who removed the school litigation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suryan207 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

BAMN's full statement of principles is a mouthful and it is clearly not neutral. I have compromised on the language and if we keep the other self-glorifying bits, then it would clearly violate WP:NPOV without adding anything substantial to the article. As far as the litigation, I removed it because there's currently not much to say in that section. The issue is under advisement by the judge, so I figure once the judge actually makes a ruling, we can put it back up with the judge's substantive commentary. Idag (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Re-Organization

Hi there; I agree with the tone of some criticial sentiments above: this article seems a minor collection of left-over ends and various bits of an un-productive editorial process lacking much sense, organization, presentation, style... Evidence of this is the fact that the very *definition* of the BAMN acronym was suspiciously hidden behind a Principle.... But BAMN rilly oughta be proud and up-front with it's in-yo-face thing, hmm? in re-writing I found many instances of distorted- as well wholesale failures- of sense, meaning, spelling, etc. Sorry if I'm steppin' on toes, but I've largely re-organized your material I found, adding critical points, including some unified style.

I rilly question the tone of the "Criticism" section. The act of busing high school students from one area [say, Metro Detroit] to another [BAMN rallies] is like, a fairly common act in the USA; it's the foundation of intramural sports as well as debate teams, and thus a legitimate tactic widely used throughout the political spectrum... AND it is consistent with BAMN's appeal to disadvantaged students. WHAT is the point of mentioning busing, Michigan?

Then there's this statement "Additionally "a BAMN leader" has been accused of displaying a knife during a disagreement." This reads very diffrent from the account in the WSJ [ at www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009275 ] making it appear this may be more mud than blood. Unfortunatley the entire "Crit" section reads as raw reaction- which I imagine might encourage BAMN loud-mouths . I've edited the Crit section much.

ME: Since 2002 I've been familiar with and followed both BAMN and their opposition on the UC Berkeley campus. never been able to connect 2 BAMN memberz. National leadership's narrow & strident at best; the local leadership are disappointingly unqualified around the better-funded robust arguments fed by the Feds to College Republicans. BAMN appear more about peer pressure than persuasion- much less about alternatives; a true political "party" with cool black-armband party favors. Ultimately BAMN appears green but possibly sterile due to a major lack in organizing within, or prominent empathy for, any working class. Hilarleo (talk) 06:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC) They can make a well-rowdy mob though. I hope my only agenda here is a more clear discourse. Hilarleo (talk) 06:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on BAMN. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928004411/http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/2298 to http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/2298
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051223102451/http://newstandardnews.net:80/content/index.cfm/items/2298 to http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/2298

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on BAMN. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150429125759/http://newstandardnews.net:80/content/index.cfm/items/2298 to http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/2298
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060530134437/http://www.statenews.com:80/article.phtml?pk=31230 to http://www.statenews.com/article.phtml?pk=31230

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on BAMN. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110727082307/http://www.michigannlg.org/Pubs/ITS/June2006.pdf to http://www.michigannlg.org/Pubs/ITS/June2006.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BAMN. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20110707210814/http://www.bamn.com/stopacri/ to http://www.bamn.com/stopacri/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Evaluation

Reading through the article I noticed a few of the citations cite the BAMN official website. This reference is biased and is a shoddy reference. The information in this article should come from an objective source and the BAMN official website is in no way capable of presently a clearly objective and academic view on their own organization. I will look for independent sources on the organization.

This may be nitpicky, and I apologize if it is, but citation 14 references Fox News. Fox News I don't think would qualify as an unbiased source and a more independent and objective source should be found for this section.

Citations are also needed for the second paragraph of the campaign section. As it is right now, that paragraph is unverified and cannot be considered encyclopedic in nature.

Conner Stapley (talk) 07:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello. WP:SECONDARY sources are always welcome, but primary sources can be considered for some info, such as non-controversial details, or as a supplement to other sources (such as responses to disputed claims). An overview of a group's objectives is encyclopedically significant if the group is, and the fact that the group has goals is not controversial. Of course, any claims about how effective they are, or how positive/negative those goals are would need independent sources to maintain WP:NPOV, but the goals themselves exist. Their own website seems sufficient for describing that. In other words, as long as the goals are not being unduly promoted, there's no big problem with primary sources.

While Fox has their problems, they can still be a reliable source depending on context, and their journalism is more reliable than their editorial content for statements of fact. The article you mention seems fine to me for the attached content. Grayfell (talk) 08:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Cult-like behaviour? Also, we probably need to protect this article.

I've just seen a video from Sargon of Akkad about cultish behaviour from BAMN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQwfTPqn5kc He links to an ex-BAMN blog: https://secretsurvivorsofbamn.wordpress.com/ I don't think there are sufficient reliable sources for inclusion, however it appears this may become important for this article in the future.

As Sargon is very public and has a big audience, I would suggest immediately that we put some sort of protection on this article. --Nanite (talk) 00:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with including information on their cult-like behavior. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

IP editor, please realize that wikipedia doesn't work by just throwing any old information onto an article, especially not when it concerns real people. No matter how bad BAMN may or may not be, the included things have to be sourced properly. --Nanite (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Felarca is a leader in BAMN, say primary and secondary sources

Primary sources from the BAMN website say Felarca is a leader of BAMN.

• "On March 20, 2012 BAMN leader Yvette Felarca slammed the political witchhunt against her and other Occupy Cal protesters."[3]
• The caption under the picture of Felarca says, "Defendant and BAMN leader Yvette Felarca."[4]
• Yvette Felarca, Occupy Cal defendant and BAMN leader.[5]

Secondary sources state that Felarca is a leader in BAMN.

• From the Guardian. "Felarca, a Berkeley teacher and longtime leader with the organization By Any Means Necessary (Bamn), was part of a group of activists gathered in Sacramento, California, on 26 June 2016 to protest a white nationalist rally."[6]
• From Berkleyside. "Yvette Felarca, the Berkeley Unified middle-school teacher who is also a leader of the group By Any Means Necessary."[7]
• This exact phrase is from the Associated Press and used by the Seattle Times, Washington Post, ABC News, and Ledger.. "Yvette Felarca is the name used by the leader and spokeswoman for the group By Any Means Necessary, but public records show her given name is Yvonne Capistrano Felarca."[8],[9], [10], [11]

Felarca's leadership role in BAMN, her alleged criminal activities done to further the mission of BAMN at a counter-protest she helped organize on behalf of BAMN, and the fact that her attorney is Shanta Driver, the National Director of BAMN,[12] make Felarca and Driver's inclusion into this article relevant and within the scope of this article on BAMN. Waters.Justin (talk) 05:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME and WP:PROPORTION say otherwise. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME only ask editors to "seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured." It does not prohibit the material from being included in the article. WP:PROPORTION requires balance, and a small section is in proportion to the news coverage on the incident. The policy warns that proportionality is at risk of being violated if "recent events that may be in the news" are given disproportionate "attention to their overall significance to the article topic;" however, this is not the case here. This incident has received notable news coverage for over a year and will continue to receive coverage as the case progresses. There is nothing keeping you from balancing this incident by writing on other activities BAMN participates in or by balancing the allegations of the District Attorney with Felarca and Driver's allegation of a political motive behind the charges. Waters.Justin (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. When/if a conviction is secured however, there should be absolutely no reason to include this information in the article. @Waters.Justin: has demonstrated that Felarca is indeed a BAMN leader, contrary to claims made by other editors. CatcherStorm ^talk `

A conviction isn't necessary provided the criminal charge is notable (otherwise we'd have to delete State of Florida v. George Zimmerman and O. J. Simpson murder case or at least the references to those cases in their respective articles.)

The ongoing coverage of just the charge itself beginning in July [13] and continuing through last week [14], with even-longer coverage of the incident, combined with the accused's public position make it notable and relevant. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

If you really think this is worth including, the burden is on you to include it in a neutral way which is proportional to those sources. Your edit absolutely failed that simple test. If you've read these sources, you know that there's a lot more context here, but you totally omitted all of it and simply labeled her as an accused criminal. Grayfell (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I gave my reasons for inclusion above. I avoided including additional information beyond the matter-of-fact charge to avoid undue weight. Your objection is that my edit excludes context - please propose the context you feel should be included so we can work towards something usable. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Your stated reasons are too thin to be workable. You cannot just say "it's notable", you have to indicate, in the article, why it's noteworthy, otherwise this is undue and a BLP problem. Your edit specifically chose "matter-of-fact" wording which emphasized the criminal aspect of the story without any of the surrounding context or reason. It also utterly failed to contextualize who Felarca is, in what capacity she is a leader, or why this local incident matters to a national organization. The two sources you link above barely even mention BAMN, and make no strong connection between this incident and the organization. The second half of the Guardian one doesn't even mention Felarca, instead focusing on the broad backlash against the charges as being over-reaching and politically motivated. If you don't understand why that is important context, than I'm not interested in helping you damage the article to prove a political point. Grayfell (talk) 05:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you asking why it's notable that a leader of a national organization was arrested and charged with "inciting and participating in a riot and assault likely to cause great bodily injury" ?

You say the charge is politically motivated but video of her assaulting a marcher was broadcast on national television as was an interview where she condoned any means, specifically including violence, to stop "fascists." These are her words and actions, recorded. I can't see how one could argue they've been trumped up for political ends.

This is the content I added:

• A leader of BAMN, Yvette Felarca, was arrested and charged with inciting and participating in a riot and assault likely to cause great bodily injury.

What context would you like added to make it neutral? (You can copy and paste or move the text to a section where we can develop it collaboratively.) James J. Lambden (talk) 06:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh please. That is extremely loaded to the point of being bald manipulation. If you sincerely want to collaborate, try to indicate that you understand what I'm saying. Your implied opinion that it's obvious why this would be notable has nothing to do with anything. We use reliable sources in context for this, not repetitious indignation.

The first two sources were dead, by the way, but I think they were to the exact same wire story. This is another sign that this isn't a big deal, since wire stories are considered a single source, and this reads as routine coverage.

"Leader of a national organization"? Is this incident the first time she's been identified as such? If she's a national leader, this should be explainable in the article with sources, right? The AP source gives no indication that Felarca holds a national position, nor explains what that position is beyond 'spokesperson'. It basically only mentions BAMN once if we lump the two single-sentence paragraphs together. The Huffington Post link just calls her a "member", and I think we both know Huffington Post isn't the best source if due weight is an issue anyway. Al Jazeera calls her an 'organizer', but describes Shanta Driver as "BAMN's national organiser". LA Times article from before the arrest only calls her a "counter-protester". According to reddit and Breitbart, she could be the most important part of BAMN and antifa, but we don't care about that, right? If BAMN as an organization is not central to the incident itself, why are we bending-over backwards to list the specifics of her criminal charges here? You didn't mention that BAMN's actual national leadership is representing her in court, or that she was herself stabbed by a neo-Nazi with a knife, or that the arrest took place over a year after the event, or that she was recorded as describing the goal as self-defense, or that the entire purpose was to prevent the recruitment of white nationalists... but police-speak gets included? How does this, alone among all this content about this event, reflect on the national organization? Why is listing the criminal accusation of a living person, by name, vitally important to understanding this national organization? Don't tell me you don't get why this isn't going to work. Grayfell (talk) 07:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

You make two points which I will address separately: (1) Her role in BAMN (2) The details of the incident.

Re: (1) I'm working from 5 sources. I left out Al Jazeera because I don't believe it's RS (although I think their work in some areas is excellent.)

The Seattle Times describes her as the leader and spokeswoman for the group By Any Means Necessary

Huff Po: a member of an activist group called By Any Means Necessary (BAMN)

The Guardian: a Berkeley teacher and longtime leader with the organization By Any Means Necessary (Bamn)

AP wire via ABC:  leader and spokeswoman for the group By Any Means Necessary (likely the same wire source Seattle Times used for their description)

LA Times: Counter-protester Yvette Felarca

None of these – activist, longtime leader, leader, counter-proteser and spokeswoman – are contradictory. Leader and spokeswoman are preferable because they're most specific. We don't have sources claiming she's not a leader or spokeswoman so we have no reason to doubt that.

(2) Your premise is that Felarca was acting in self-defense and our description should reflect that. I see 2 problems there:

(a) The group in it's stated principles and Felarca herself advocate violence as legitimate resistance to speech. This is fundamental to their movement and one of the reasons they're notable. It is not reasonable to assume this instance was a special case where they abandoned their principles, using violence only as a last resort to protect themselves. More importantly (where policy is concerned) there is no source that suggests that. In fact the LA Times quotes a counter-protestor (sympathetic to BAMN) saying the opposite: "They attacked each other without hesitation."

(b) Of the four sources only two (The Guardian and Huff Po) indirectly raise the possibility of self-defense and when they do they attribute it to Felarca: "Speaking by phone from Los Angeles, Felarca said she was stabbed in the arm and hit in the head, requiring more than 20 stitches. It took her weeks to recover, she said."; "They are organizing to attack and kill us [...] So we have a right to self-defense." Note that even she does not say she used violence in response to violence, only that she was (also) a victim of violence and considers violence in response to their organizing, "self-defense" – but this is not the usual (or legal) meaning of the word.

You list further concerns:

• (a) You didn't mention that BAMN's actual national leadership is representing her in court
• (b) or that she was herself stabbed by a neo-Nazi with a knife
• (c) or that the arrest took place over a year after the event
• (d) or that she was recorded as describing the goal as self-defense
• (e) or that the entire purpose was to prevent the recruitment of white nationalists

I have no objection to including any of this. (b) and (d) are duplicates; (e) is already in the section "a counter-protest against [...] a white nationalist group" (although I believe recruitment is only mentioned by Felarca.)

I propose the following revised text:

• In June 2016, BAMN led a counter-protest against a rally held by the Traditionalist Workers Party, a white nationalist group, outside of the California State Capitol in Sacramento. Violence at the protests resulted in nine people being hospitalized, seven with stab wounds. BAMN spokeswoman, Yvette Felarca, said their protest successfully "chased away the neo-Nazis and kept them from recruiting new members."

• In July 2017, a year after the riot, authorities announced they had arrested Felarca and charged her with "inciting and participating in a riot and assault likely to cause great bodily injury." Felarca, represented by Shanta Driver, attorney and national chair of BAMN, say the white nationalists were the aggressors and they (BAMN) have the right to self-defense. Further, that Felarca sustained serious injury in the riot including a head wound requiring stitches.

Comments? James J. Lambden (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

References

NewStandardNews

So I noticed that this source is being used for quite a bit of info in this article. The site apparently shut down 10 years ago, and doesn't appear very...reliable in what I'm reading, at least for statements of fact. Any thoughts before I go through and remove things referenced to this? Arkon (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know anything about The NewStandard, but evidently its Wikipedia article was deleted three months ago. I wasn't able to find any discussion about it at WP:RS/N.

The NewStandard article is cited three times in the article (footnotes 12, 15, and 16), all in a single paragraph. Is that "quite a bit"? In the first instance, it is one of three sources cited in support of a sentence or two in the article. I didn't parse every word, but I didn't notice anything in the NewStandard article that seemed to be out of line with the other sources, an FBI release and a news article from The State News (footnotes 13 and 14). So what exactly are you proposing to remove? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Anything that's supported only by that source, which is most of that entire section. I'd need to go back through of course to determine exactly what, but things like "The FBI acknowledged in the report that the Michigan State Police had information that BAMN has been peaceful in the past." and "In response to the monitoring of BAMN and other non-violent groups, the Executive Director of Michigan's ACLU Kary Moss said that the FBI "posed a 'threat to legitimate dissent.'", appear to only come from that source. At the end of the day the whole section might need to go as there might only be a sentence or two left. Arkon (talk) 12:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead and delete anything that's sourced only to The NewStandard. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Before I do that, the FOI doc is WP:Primary with no analysis or commentary, so anything not covered in the cited secondary source (even if it's somewhere in the Primary source), would appear Undue as well. This is getting into what I meant earlier when I said the whole section might need to go. We've got 1 secondary source for the whole thing, which would be maybe two sentences, if we remove the non-RS and Primary sources. Arkon (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Made some changes, let me know what you think. Arkon (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Press Releases

Looking through the ref's there are a few press releases in there from BAMN themselves apparently, if they aren't discussed elsewhere, should we be including them, or the text they support? At a glance the text seems quite promotional and puffy. Arkon (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Added tag. Arkon (talk) 01:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hope I didn't butcher it too much, but tried to remove all primary/press released sourced info per the above. Arkon (talk) 23:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Drum Major for Justice award

I removed this section as it was sourced only to the award page itself. I tried finding some notability for the award, but we seem to only cover it as a redirect to SCLC. Arkon (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Violent and far-left

I'm adding sourced information into the, frankly, fairly whitewashed lede. CordialGreenery (talk) 03:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV and WP:LABEL. The fact that you were able to find a newspaper article that describes the group as violent doesn't mean it gets defined that way in the opening sentence. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPOV and note that I'm citing a reliable, mainstream source. It's the Washington Post, not some blog. You don't like the description, and that's fine. But your opinion does not trump the facts. CordialGreenery (talk) 04:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Please stop making pretend that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines support your POV-pushing. They don't.

After you've had a chance to read and think about the policy and guideline I cited, please let me know if you'd like to discuss this further. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Violent is kind of implied by the militant part but far-left seems apt. How many non far-left outfits are militant? Here is another source for far-left if you like along with the Washington Post.[15] PackMecEng (talk) 04:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm citing every one of my claims with RS. Malik seems to be unhappy with the facts here. CordialGreenery (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Seems like editors are pretty quick to template other editors and report them, but kinda silent on the talk page. Can we divert some of our efforts into fixing this page?CordialGreenery (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• So how about this, we change "left-wing" to "far-left" supported by Washington Post, Berkeley side, Wired, and Fox. Some of those sources also support expanding the campaigns section of the article with various incidents as well. But to start with would that be a reasonable change to the lead? Given their noted tactics and history I do not think changing it to far-left is controversial. PackMecEng (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to start there. CordialGreenery (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Source it properly then. Currently the tag in the lede was sourced to something that doesn't mention the word "far-left" at all. Black Kite (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

'What about the sources PackMecEng provided? Those are acceptable. CordialGreenery (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

They weren't attached to that sentence though, were they? Black Kite (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

So instead of helping make Wikipedia better, and adding the discussed source, you decided to revert. Interesting. I'll revert with the source when I get back home. CordialGreenery (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. I was merely removing a contentious claim that wasn't sourced, which is, er, what we're supposed to do. Black Kite (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

...for biographies of living people. For organizations, immediate removal is not standard operating procedure; improvement is. No harm, no foul, though; someone found sources and added them. But asking for or finding such sources would be better, especially when the latter is a ten-second web search away. Calbaer (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Generally that would be in keeping with WP:PRESERVE but you should keep in mind WP:ONUS as well for new material. PackMecEng (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Political violence in the lede

I'm trying to flesh this article out a bit more, and I think it's important to include the group's encouragement and proclivity to political violence in the lede. I've presented multiple sources for the statement, and it's a defining feature of the organization. CordialGreenery (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I restored this statement in the lede, as it seems it got removed in the recent edit-war that seems to have been resolved. CordialGreenery (talk) 10:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Appears no consensus for this. Why do you view it as the defining feature? PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

A cursory Google search shows the overwhelming majority of news sites reporting on this group are reporting on their political violence. I cited one, I can site more. But the fact is, this belongs in the article and more importantly, the lede. CordialGreenery (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Please do cite more, actually, and expand on it in the body of the article before shoving it in the lede. The lede is a summary of the body. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Can you explain why the previously accepted and cited revision is not good enough? And can we get a consensus to delete an already accepted revision?CordialGreenery (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

You said you had more sources. Please provide them. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Can you explain why the previously accepted and cited revision is not good enough?CordialGreenery (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:LEAD. And WP:CONSENSUS. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Shabby's non-constructive comment aside, I've cited plenty and restored to the last accepted edit. We can put this to rest now. CordialGreenery (talk) 05:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The source added does not support the content. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

It does. CordialGreenery (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

There is no mention that BAMN 'participates in political violence' in the given source. Specifically, I am referring to The Daily Californian. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Violence that is politically motivated is political violence. The articles cited support this. CordialGreenery (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@CordialGreenery: Here's what the Daily Californian article supports - a person who is an organiser in BAMN was accused of assault. It does not support the violence being either politically motivated, that BAMN as an organisation engages in 'political violence', or even that the accused committed the violence. We cannot use that source to say what we are currently saying with it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. The leader of the political protest group committed assault during a rally at a political event, for political reasons, and you say that's not political violence? You're also choosing to ignore the other sources which, too, support the fact that this political group endorses and committed violence in the name of a political cause...CordialGreenery (talk) 02:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm talking about a specific source (the Daily Californian one.) We can't do WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and make conclusions that our sources do not.

Things you are asserting that are not in the source:

• The alleged violence occurred because of political reasons
• The alleged violence actually happened (for BLP reasons, we should not be claiming things actually happened if they are still only alleged)
• The alleged violence reflects on the activities of BAMN
• Yvette Felarca is the leader of BAMN (she is an organiser for it - feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here)

For these reasons and I am sure more, we should not be using the Daily Californian to support the content that BAMN 'engages in political violence'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@CordialGreenery: Please participate in talk, at least read the points above before you go reverting to insert that source again. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the disputed material - there's obviously no consensus for its inclusion at this point. Whether the organization itself engages in "political violence" is clearly a matter of some controversy; that a single person affiliated with the organization is charged (not convicted) of a crime of violence doesn't appear to me to justify such an unequivocal factual statement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted your blanking. This is a wildley sourced available bit of information and whitewashing it on the article is not constructive and is obvious POV-pushing. CordialGreenery (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

You don't have consensus and you can't simply ignore that fact and keep ramming your proposed edits through just because you believe they are the WP:TRUTH. You've violated 3RR already with that revert; if you revert again, I'll report you on the 3RRNB and you will almost certainly be blocked. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

No need. Editors who return from an edit warring block and continue to edit war get blocked. Blocked for 72 hours. Doug Weller talk 17:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The source added just says BAMN has been at the center of many of the violent clashes in the past few months. It does not actually say that it as an organization engages in violence. I agree with the rest of the people here that this is not well-sourced and am removing it. If reliable sources demonstrate that violence is a defining aspect of the group it can be included in the sentence defining it, but the source cited does not. nableezy - 16:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I thought this edit war was over. CordialGreenery, please drop the stick. – bradv🍁 16:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Violence

It seems violence has been removed with the edit summary stating that the removal of violence as one of the necessary means to achieve the aims of the group is "unsupported by cited source". The discussions above regard including this aspect in the lead and I doubt that it's necessary to include it in the opening paragraph but the fact that the group includes violence as part of their toolkit is well documented. Here is a link from my hometown newspaper that states "Yvette Felarca, from activist group By Any Means Necessary, says her group's violent reaction to a white supremacist rally at the California Capitol will help prevent violence against immigrants. She was later arrested and faces assault charges", and supports the assertion that the group uses violence. My suggestion is to include the group's violent methods but not necessarily in the lead paragraph. 173.87.169.150 (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

That actually does not support that the group uses violence. The quote you have is actually the caption to a video, a video where the person never says anything about their violence. Regardless, even putting aside that it was a caption and not the article prose, that still would not support a statement that the group engages in violence. It would at most support that one associated activist says that their violence is justified to prevent violence against immigrants. This is really very simple, a source that says flat out that BAMN engages in violence is what is needed to include that. Not some circuitous route to get there, but flat out says it. nableezy - 01:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)