| Revision as of 20:32, 26 May 2014 editDennis Bratland (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users61,245 editsm →Question: typo← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:42, 26 May 2014 edit undoFactchecker atyourservice (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,476 edits →QuestionNext edit → | ||
| Line 244: | Line 244: | ||
| *Let's start here: . Did you read the source or not? You've changed it to imply that the NAACP ''alleges'' that they closed indoor service, and that fact is in disupte. In fact, the closure of indoor service is not in disupte. The motivation for the closure is what the parties disputed. You would know that if you'd read the source. Did you or did you not read the source?--] (]) 20:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC) | *Let's start here: . Did you read the source or not? You've changed it to imply that the NAACP ''alleges'' that they closed indoor service, and that fact is in disupte. In fact, the closure of indoor service is not in disupte. The motivation for the closure is what the parties disputed. You would know that if you'd read the source. Did you or did you not read the source?--] (]) 20:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC) | ||
| * you continue to violate ]. You're trying to cast aspersions on the source. And you change the fact that the rules were meant to stop bike rallies altogether to the less-factual "placed restrictions on bike rallies". Read the sources. They wanted no more bike rallies. You deleted the fact that Myrtle Beach specifically allocated money to fight NAACP lawsuits. Why? The sources made clear this fact mattered. Have you read the cited sources here? Please tell me whether or not you read the sources. --] (]) 20:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC) | * you continue to violate ]. You're trying to cast aspersions on the source. And you change the fact that the rules were meant to stop bike rallies altogether to the less-factual "placed restrictions on bike rallies". Read the sources. They wanted no more bike rallies. You deleted the fact that Myrtle Beach specifically allocated money to fight NAACP lawsuits. Why? The sources made clear this fact mattered. Have you read the cited sources here? Please tell me whether or not you read the sources. --] (]) 20:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :::Yes you hostile asshole, I read the source, which was an NAACP press release making NAACP claims about NAACP accusations made in an NAACP lawsuit. | |||
| :::Allegations made in lawsuits are allegations. The things they allege are only ''alleged'' facts. They don't become facts until proven. If never proven, they never become facts. | |||
| :::You either need to find a source stating unequivocally that that claim was factually true — since all you've got so far is an NAACP press release talking about ACCUSATIONS they made — or you need to stop arguing about the ''apropriate'' use of the word "alleged". ] ] ] 20:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * you deleted something you ] based on the tiresome, bogus use of "not notable". '']''. It's an irrelevant reason to scrub facts. It's also irrelevant to say it's "outdated". Misplaced Pages is not news. If it was relevant in the past, it's relevant now. --] (]) 20:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC) | * you deleted something you ] based on the tiresome, bogus use of "not notable". '']''. It's an irrelevant reason to scrub facts. It's also irrelevant to say it's "outdated". Misplaced Pages is not news. If it was relevant in the past, it's relevant now. --] (]) 20:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC) | ||
| * you changed the fact that the defendants paid $1.2 million ''including compensation, costs and attorney fees.'' And they agreed to stop doing all the things they were sued for doing. They had to quit what they were doing, pay damages, and pay the plaintiff's costs. The NAACP clearly won. The sources quoted in the Knight-Ridder article make clear that the NAACP ''got what they wanted''. We call that winning. --] (]) 20:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC) | * you changed the fact that the defendants paid $1.2 million ''including compensation, costs and attorney fees.'' And they agreed to stop doing all the things they were sued for doing. They had to quit what they were doing, pay damages, and pay the plaintiff's costs. The NAACP clearly won. The sources quoted in the Knight-Ridder article make clear that the NAACP ''got what they wanted''. We call that winning. --] (]) 20:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 20:42, 26 May 2014
 | Black Bike Week received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Black Bike Week article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | African diaspora Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Motorcycling Start‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | A fact from Black Bike Week appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 February 2010, and was viewed approximately 3,300 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
Seperation of Black Bike Week and Atlantic Beach BikerFest events
Black Bike Week as a whole is not the Atlantic Beach BikerFest. Black Bike Week takes place in the whole grand stand area "North Myrtle Beach, Myrtle Beach "South" Surfside Beach, Cherry Grove, etc" Don't not mix the Atlantic Beach BikerFest with Black Bike Week.
The Atlantic Beach BikerFest is an event hosted with in Atlantic Beach, organized by a company from Atlanta called Nda Game entertainment. These events are only part of the larger whole of the Black Bike Week events that take place in the Grandstand Area. there is the strip located in Myrtle Beach which attract a large amount of visitors, Stunt shows hosted in North Myrtle Beach Drag Strip, Multiple Night clubs hosted through our the entire grand stand area, Rides, and Events hosted by the Carolina Knight Riders clubs house in Longs, SC, and countless other events.
I fell that PR and Branding is being put into the article to try and make black bike week appear to be an event solely hosted in Atlantic Beach with their BikerFest events and attempts to give credibility to the event organizers, and various vendors of the event. This is not a sale brochure or marketing tool.
I remove and changed some of the Atlantic Beach BikerFest mentions in the Events section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.35.90 (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Events Section -
The event section is not correct. I deleted part of it, and explained why in a previous discussion.
Custom motorcycle builder, parts suppliers and motorcycle dealer are not a focal point for activities during Bikefest.
Also make sure the article separates or make a distinction between Atlantic Beach Biker Fest "a street event that take place during Black Bike Week", and Black Bike Week as a Whole "which take take in Myrtle Beach, North Myrtle, and the entire grandstand area"
Here is a list of some events that took place during Black Bike Week 2010 http://www.blackbikeweeks.com/2010/02/black-bike-week-events/ And many of these event had bigger crowds then the Custom Motorcycle builder, parts suppliers or motorcycle dealers, or wheelie machine. Calling something a focal point is a strong term. The true focal point is the "Strip" located on North Ocean Blvd in Myrtle Beach which attract tens of thousands daily in cars, on bike, and by foot "i have tons of video as sources LOL"
The story you are reading is about the event, and not Black Bike Week as a whole, please make a distinction.
also the Sun news "Myrtle beach newspaper" is very bias when it comes to black bike week. they are very anti black bike week. Now they are journalist and are suppose to be unbiased and fact oriented, but they are not. Be careful of the storys, or quotes you take from them. They have hidden agendas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.35.33 (talk) 16:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Removal of Content
We're at this again LOL. My updates draw no more of a draw conclusion as the quote you referenced by the Sun New about business being optimistic. That quote should be remove
I didn't find this quote ""Some motorcycle rally participants immediately booked rooms for the next year, while others vowed never to return to Myrtle Beach, instead favoring businesses outside the city limits"" At the source listed
Also the quote ""The 2009 event was at New Bern, North Carolina, and the 2010 rally is planned for the same location, two weeks before Memorial Day weekend"" Is false and leads to a 404 page
Where are you getting these article and sources from. I'm research and what is being place in the article is not from the source ???????????????????????
Seriously I respect you Internet research skills, but if you want to do a good and fair job, please do some research. If you need any questions answer feel free to reach out to me, and i can point you to the Source "ie Carolina Knight Rider President, Event organize in Myrtle Beach, North Myrtle Beach, Atlantic Beach" etc.
also i posted to long Discussions about the changes i planned to make, you didn't discuss anything, you just revert the article with out any discussion at all. Uncool
Since the removal of the helmet law and other ordinance these paragraph no long have a place:
Detail of every single court case doesn't not fit into an article about black bike week "there are numerous cases from the NAACP which could be quoted verbatim". Only thing that should be noted is: Myrtle Beach state it would no longer hold rallies Sept, 2008, Myrtle Beach Passed laws to stop rallies 2008, Supreme court removed those Law 2010.
"During the hearing in February, Justice Don Beatty said to Mike Battle, Myrtle Beach's lawyer, that, "I realize the issue is narrow here, but don’t pretend like we don’t know what’s going on. We read. We all know why the city," passed the ordinances, questioning whether the intent of the law was not to promote safety but rather to curtail motorcycle rallies. Justice Costa Pleicones told Viers that the city's interest in regulating noise, lewd behavior and nuisances was legitimate.
In defense of the ordinance, the city's court filings argued six key points, among them that their helmet law was constitutional and did not contradict the state traffic code. Myrtle Beach's attorney Mike Battle also argued that because the state law was silent on whether adults must wear helmets, only addressing riders under 21, that cities had the freedom to make their own laws with respect to those over 21. Battle also argued that the benefits of the helmet law were greater than the inconvenience."
These Paragraph are specific to the Harley Bike Week NOT Black Bike Week: Really you must be considerate, this is an Black Bike Week article, not Harley Bike Week, anything that doesn't pertain to Black Bike Week doesn't belong. "Note in the beginning the editor mistakenly confused the two events, and out of pride refused to removal them LOL"
In anticipation of the 2010 Harley Bike Week rally, a local Harley-Davidson dealership has said events would still take place for their bike week event, but on a reduced schedule of only 5 days, May 11 to 16, while the web site Myrtle Beach Bike Week, LLC says a full-length rally of May 7–16 will take place. Both sources say there will be no vendors inside the city limits of Myrtle Beach during the Harley Bike Week, and they both encourage attendees to boycott the city and patronize those communities and businesses outside the city which do support Harley Bike Week.
The Myrtle Beach Convention Center has ceased attempting to find a replacement for the Carolina Harley-Davidson Dealers Association, which has moved to Hard Rock Park. The reason for moving The Carolina Harley-Davidson Dealers Association event to New Bern in 2009 was that Myrtle Beach, "passed all these silly laws, they said we ruined their May, so we talked about it and decided to oblige them," said Gene Lummus, former president of the association.
Another proposed rally, a Harley Owners Group convention, would take place May 18–22, 2010, at North Myrtle Beach, about 15 miles (24 km) up the coast from Myrtle Beach.
These statement don't have a place in the Article "White Harley Week, not Black Bike Week
In subsequent years the rally was held in Cherry Grove, Jacksonville and Wilmington, North Carolina before returning to Myrtle Beach. The 2009 event was at New Bern, North Carolina, and the 2010 rally is planned for the same location, two weeks before Memorial Day weekend.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.35.81 (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- The fact that the SC Supreme Court disagreed with the city does not mean the city's opinions must be erased. Presenting only the winning side's arguments violates Misplaced Pages's policy of neutrality, and would leave readers wondering what the Myrtle Beach officials were thinking. The claim that it has "no place" in the article is your opinion, but that is not Misplaced Pages policy.
Similarly, you might have the opinion that the Harley Davidson rally has no place, but Misplaced Pages policy disagrees with you, specifically Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (summary style). That guideline explains how related topics and sub-topics are summarized in an article. As articles grow over time, the sub-sections are often spun off into their own articles. Some day there probably will be a separate article on the Harley rally at Myrtle Beach. In addition, nearly every major news outlet that writes anything about Black Bike Week mentions the discrimination controversy, and at the heart of that controversy is the claim that the black and white rallies get unequal treatment. You can't explain that to readers without telling them what the Harley rally is. Until a separate article exists, it makes sense to briefly cover it here.
As far as some of the opinions you inserted, all you need to do is name the reliable sources which share your opinions. If you can't find a source, then you need to leave your opinions out and let readers draw their own conclusions. Keep in mind that most readers are pretty smart and you can trust them to figure out what's going on. --Dbratland (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Addition and Sources Jun 28, 2010
North Myrtle Beach Times "North Myrtle Beach Official Newspaper" http://www.nmbtimes.com/nm/publish/news_405.html
Atlantic Beach Town Manger William Booker says his first Atlantic Beach Bikefest went better than expected and he is happy with the attendance and the event. << State that Atlantic Beach BikeFest was the first of it's kind, and clarify that it's a separate event from the 30 year Black Bike Week event.
"The annual motorcycle rally brought estimates of 300,000 to the area for three days of fun, food, concerts and family reunions." << Add estimate 2010 Numbers
“The weekend went extremely well and judging by the fact there were no fatalities and no serious injuries it was a safe weekend as well,” said Booker. “And that is good considering the number of people attending.” << Results from 2010 Bike Week "No fatalities or serious injuries"
NPR Nation Public Radio http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113535878
The city is trying to scale back rallies that bring hundreds of thousands of bikers to town.
One way they're doing it is by enforcing a city helmet law in a state where bikers have the right to go bareheaded.
South Carolina is one of a handful of states on the East Coast where it's legal for adults to ride without a helmet. Tired of the noise and constant partyers, Myrtle Beach passed a mandatory-helmet law for all bikers. << Justification for the importance of the helmet law
"The city attempt to scale back the rallies, Myrtle beach passed 15 new ordinance. One way they're doing it is by enforcing a city helmet law in a state where biker have the right to go bareheaded. This ordinance was stuck down by the South Carolina Supreme Court on June 6, 2010.
South Carolina Now http://www2.scnow.com/scp/news/local/grand_strand/article/myrtle_beach_council_makes_final_decision_about_rallies/15224/
All of the ordinances except one passed unanimously.
An ordinance requiring helmets and protective eyewear passed 5 to 1.
Councilman Randal Wallace voted against the ordinance.
"Of all the 15 Ordinance passed by the Myrtle Beach government design to curtail Motorcycle rallies, all of the ordinance except one was passed unanimously, the ordinance requiring helmets and protective eyewear was voted against by Councilman Randal Wallace" << Show that all of Myrtle Beach supported the Helmet Law which was stuck down
also I'm going to move some mentions of Harley-Davidson Week "aka white bike week" into it's own section title Harley-Davidson Week.
Sample:
Harley-Davidson Week
Harley-Davidson Week "aka white bike week" dates to May 1940, when a group of Harley-Davidson dealers created The Piedmont Harley-Davidson Dealers Association which became The Carolina Harley-Davidson Dealers Association when South Carolina dealers joined. The group's first event was a ride to Ocean Drive in Myrtle Beach, and included a drag race and dirt track race and other festivities. In subsequent years the rally was held in Cherry Grove, Jacksonville and Wilmington, North Carolina before returning to Myrtle Beach. The 2009 event was at New Bern, North Carolina, and the 2010 rally is planned for the same location, two weeks before Memorial Day weekend.
Myrtle Beach Ban Harley-Davidson Week
In anticipation of the 2010 Harley Bike Week rally, a local Harley-Davidson dealership has said events would still take place for their bike week event, but on a reduced schedule of only 5 days, May 11 to 16, while the web site Myrtle Beach Bike Week, LLC says a full-length rally of May 7–16 will take place. Both sources say there will be no vendors inside the city limits of Myrtle Beach during the Harley Bike Week, and they both encourage attendees to boycott the city and patronize those communities and businesses outside the city which do support Harley Bike Week.
The Myrtle Beach Convention Center has ceased attempting to find a replacement for the Carolina Harley-Davidson Dealers Association, which has moved to Hard Rock Park. The reason for moving The Carolina Harley-Davidson Dealers Association event to New Bern in 2009 was that Myrtle Beach, "passed all these silly laws, they said we ruined their May, so we talked about it and decided to oblige them," said Gene Lummus, former president of the association.
Another proposed rally, a Harley Owners Group convention, would take place May 18–22, 2010, at North Myrtle Beach, about 15 miles (24 km) up the coast from Myrtle Beach.
I will Also Create a Section for Supreme Court Case
Sample:
Myrtle Beach helmet ordinance
In 2008, the Myrtle Beach City Council announced it would no longer host motorcycle rallies, and approved a set of ordinances on September 23, 2008 that attempted to make Black Bike Week impossible. Fifteen laws were passed, restricting muffler noise, requiring helmets within city limits, limiting parking to two bikes per space, restricting loitering in parking lots, and more. ADDITION:"Major ordinance enacted to curtailing the motorcycle rallies was the ordinance require motorcyclist and their passengers to wear helmets and protective eye wear in a state that doesn't require motorcyclist over the age of 21 to wear helmets or protective eye wear"
The state Supreme Court had heard arguments on February 3, 2010 in a lawsuit by two groups of plaintiffs seeking to overturn the ordinance. One group of plaintiffs was made up of 49 motorcyclists who had been cited for not wearing helmets in Myrtle Beach. The second plaintiff was the organization Business Owners Organized to Save Tourism (BOOST) along with South Carolina State Representative Thad Viers. BOOST's mission includes ending "the practice of ‘selective tourism,’ whereby government entities and/or organizations welcome some individual and group tourists but discourage others." Viers, a Republican representing Myrtle Beach, said, "There's certain things cities can do, and making up their own traffic laws is not one of them. I believe the law and the constitution are on our side."
During the hearing in February, Justice Don Beatty said to Mike Battle, Myrtle Beach's lawyer, that, "I realize the issue is narrow here, but don’t pretend like we don’t know what’s going on. We read. We all know why the city," passed the ordinances, questioning whether the intent of the law was not to promote safety but rather to curtail motorcycle rallies. Justice Costa Pleicones told Viers that the city's interest in regulating noise, lewd behavior and nuisances was legitimate.
In defense of the ordinance, the city's court filings argued six key points, among them that their helmet law was constitutional and did not contradict the state traffic code. Myrtle Beach's attorney Mike Battle also argued that because the state law was silent on whether adults must wear helmets, only addressing riders under 21, that cities had the freedom to make their own laws with respect to those over 21. Battle also argued that the benefits of the helmet law were greater than the inconvenience.
Helmet Law Stuck Down
On June 8, 2010 the South Carolina Supreme Court overturned a Myrtle Beach city ordinance requiring all motorcyclists to wear helmets, on the grounds that the state law, requiring helmets only for riders under age 21, cannot be preempted by a city ordinance. The court ruled unanimously that in addition to the priority of state law, the local ordinance created undue confusion for motorists, and that the city itself had invalidated their helmet ordinance and some other ordinances also passed to suppress motorcycle rallies, in a subsequent amendment. The ruling took effect immediately, requiring that pending citations be dismissed, the records of those cited under the ordinance be expunged, and all fines collected be returned. REMOVAL "The ruling prompted speculation that motorcyclists would return to Myrtle Beach in greater numbers."
I will make the Changes later on, so please review and post your concerns. I will hear any concerns you have before i make any changes. I can be contacted at Clarence@blackbikeweeks.com for any questions.
Thanks,
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.35.39 (talk • contribs)
- Comment Please take a look at Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines. It's extremely confusing to try to follow what you're doing here. And please read Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style. You're making edits that make no sense at all, and it might help if you tried to get a better understanding of Misplaced Pages. You might also want to take a look at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest and think about whether your business interests at blackbikeweeks.com are in conflict with your editing of articles. If you have a vested interest in promoting Black Bike Week, it can be very difficult to be neutral, and you might want to think about contributing to articles on other subjects. --Dbratland (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Which particular Edit do you have an issue with??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.35.83 (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- The edits that I reverted.
The worst problem is deleting anything that might make the bike festival look bad, or that might arouse controversy. Deleting Myrtle Beach's defense of their helmet law was highly biased. You dislike seeing any mention of the Harley-Davidson rally. I've noticed that supporters of the Harley rally hate to mention the existence of Black Bike Week, and the sites promoting Black Bike Week like to pretend the white rally doesn't exist. That's their business, but this article has to discuss both.
It's clear that you work for a site that profits from promoting Black Bike Week, and that your edits consistently try serve that purpose. Please read WP:COI carefully and do not edit to promote your interests or your web site's interest. I think you should try to learn how to edit pages by reading the policies and guidelines. Please read WP:MOS.
You should also go back to using your previous account, ClarenceCM3 (talk · contribs), rather than various anonymous IP addresses. It's hard to see which edits are yours and to know if I'm talking to more than one person -- in other words, it looks like sock puppetry. --Dbratland (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
All of the the post are made by me ClarenceCM3, I just forgot to login, sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.212.54 (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Pretty heavy accusation Dbratland. I don't work for for the site, I own the site. I own a total of 3 sites, and few Social Media groups/pages dealing with Black Bike Week. Black Bike Week is my life, and i would have to say i am one of the most knowledgeable sources on the Event LOL. "why i initially created this Wiki Entry" The only issue i see, is the voice/fact/statements of the attendees of Black Bike Week are ignored, while the opposition "The myrtle beach government" POV are quoted, and cited. If history is to be written by the group that has control/access to the media "news paper, News show" then i feel sorry for the little guys. Maybe i need to follow the "source-able criteria" for my web-sites, so i can say what ever opinion i want "like sunnews.com, and be able to cite it properly on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.87.68 (talk) 08:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a fact that Misplaced Pages's policies on citing sources mean that blogs and social media and other self-published sources are not normally cited. Some people feel that this makes Misplaced Pages biased. If you feel the policy should change, you can discuss it at Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability.
If you want your opinions represented in the article, you can either get your opinions published or quoted in mainstream sources, or you can try to get Misplaced Pages policy changed. Or you can be satisfied that you already own 3 sites that express your opinions and there's nothing Misplaced Pages can do to stop readers from finding them. --Dbratland (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Old Link removed
There was an old link that was quoted in the article that was removed?
the source was put into the article "02/06/2010" and has been a part of the article and the cite played a key role in the article "after the helmet law, Black Bike Week is not canceled". The source was removed 03/2011"
Why after over a year has this link been removed? And why is update marked as spam?
Personal views should not be expressed in wikipedia, and personal beef between members should not influence an article of the sources used, or removal of sources.
The source withstood time, it's removal was because of personal reasons.
I reverted the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClarenceCM3 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Your personal blog is not a reliable source. You can't put your opinions on some blog and then use that to cite yourself as a source. See WP:SPS. Your numerous attempts to use this article for self-promotion, in violation of WP:COI, make it obvious that these links are advertising. --Dbratland (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Updates needed to this article
1. Someone changed the Article. They changed the event location from Myrtle Beach to Atlantic Beach? The Event "Black Bike Week" takes place in Myrtle Beach "focal Area" and spreads out over the entire Grand Stand. Myrtle Beach is the events location. 2. 2011 Black Bike Week Attendance was 500,000. 3. That many visitors makes the Event the Second Largest Motorcycle Rally "White or Black" in the world, not 3rd or 4th any more.
Great Job on this article guys — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.88.148 (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Unsourced claim regarding $1.2 mil settlement
Leaving aside the question of whether there is encyclopedic value in religiously listing off NAACP accusations and reported settlement amounts as if the article were an organizational press release, could we please find a source for this particular claim if we insist on including it?
Dennis commented "please show me where this has been debunked on talk page" -- not even sure what he means by that and in any event the burden is on the adding editor to show that a claim is well sourced. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- The main source for the $1.2 million settlement is a Kinght-Ridder news article I found via HighBeam. So I don't get where you're calling it "religiously" following NAACP accusations. There are multiple independent sources cited which support the NAACP's version of events. There are numerous sources which back up the claims of discrimination. And it's not an extraordinary claim; we have multiple examples of discrimination against black events int he South and across the US.
When you use the word "debunked" that means the claim has been disproven by someone. Who debunked it? Do you have any sources which dispute these facts? If so we can cite them in the article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- What I mean is that this article is basically a list of NAACP accusations, together with massaged prose implying guilt of the sued organizations and municipality, all crying out desperately for heavy editing or an NPOV tag or both.
- Since I never said anything about any claim being "debunked", and know quite well what the word means, I'm ignoring the remainder of your combative and sarcastic comments. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was referring to this where it was called a "deadlinked claim." I misread it as debunked. But see WP:OFFLINE. Many of the sources here are not offline. You have to WP:AGF and take advantage of the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Resource Exchange.
There are numerous high-quality sources which make it clear that the well-understood intent of the laws in Myrtle Beach was to stop bike rallies. There is a choice quote from a SC Supreme Court justice to the effect that "What do you take me for? Everybody can see what you're doing here!" I can give all the quotes you need if you don't have accesses to the offline sources here. There are numerous high-quality sources which tell us that racial discrimination in Myrtle Beach was, and is, quite real.
Changing facts in the name of pseudo-neutrality is not what NPOV is about. We follow the sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was referring to this where it was called a "deadlinked claim." I misread it as debunked. But see WP:OFFLINE. Many of the sources here are not offline. You have to WP:AGF and take advantage of the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Resource Exchange.
- Hi, on WP sources speak for themselves, we don't trump up BS based on what we think sources MIGHT say. So we can't be editorializing about what WP editors think about the alleged intent of municipal laws. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
2014 shooting
Obviously needs its own section. I nominate Dennis. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Why? The AP and Reuters and so on reported that it happened during the bike rally. That's all. No reliable sources have drawn any further conclusions, such as that black people's presence leads to shootings, or that bike rallies lead to shootings. It's notable, and it's indisputable that the shooting happened at the same time as the rally. But what more do you wish to add? We now have two sentences which state that the shootings happened and that violence is unusual during the rally. What more do we need to say? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't realize you had added anything. We can just wait for the analysis as it comes in, I suppose! I wonder whether it is the first shooting that has occurred during any Myrtle Beach motorcycle rally? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment though, I do notice we've got a big boldface heading for every aspect of the article that the implies evil racial discrimination by Myrtle Beach. Do you think that could perhaps be a sign that this article has NPOV issues? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Nope. Numerous high quality sources support the existence of institutional racism in Myrtle Beach. It's not an extraordinary claim: we know that such racist government action is quite common. I read the history of Myrtle Beach for this article, and racism is par for the course. It's why the Atlantic Beach ghetto exists, and why other bike rallies were segregated, like the Daytona Beach Bike Week.
I'd like to see high quality sources to support this counterargument. Who is credibly claiming there isn't racism in Myrtle Beach's police, businesses, and governemnt? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Nope. Numerous high quality sources support the existence of institutional racism in Myrtle Beach. It's not an extraordinary claim: we know that such racist government action is quite common. I read the history of Myrtle Beach for this article, and racism is par for the course. It's why the Atlantic Beach ghetto exists, and why other bike rallies were segregated, like the Daytona Beach Bike Week.
- Comment though, I do notice we've got a big boldface heading for every aspect of the article that the implies evil racial discrimination by Myrtle Beach. Do you think that could perhaps be a sign that this article has NPOV issues? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Well, thanks for giving a rather thorough explanation of the POV you are trying to push in clear contravention of WP guidelines. Shall we rename the article to Myrtle Beach is a bunch of racist crackers and here are some great examples y'all? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Read the sources. Read them. If you don't have access, ask any you can get access. After you've read the sources, then explain what the problem is. You're assuming that the claims of racism are hysteria, and that is extremely condescending. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Non-response, please see my comment below. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Read the sources. Read them. If you don't have access, ask any you can get access. After you've read the sources, then explain what the problem is. You're assuming that the claims of racism are hysteria, and that is extremely condescending. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Well, thanks for giving a rather thorough explanation of the POV you are trying to push in clear contravention of WP guidelines. Shall we rename the article to Myrtle Beach is a bunch of racist crackers and here are some great examples y'all? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Original research
Seems to be a lot, will list it here.
- 2nd para under "Myrtle Beach Ban" appears to be entirely OR and should be referenced or removed. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Question
Does anyone have a problem with enlisting editors from Misplaced Pages:WikiProject African diaspora and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countering systemic bias to assist here? I don't really think it should be my sole responsibility to fight off attempts to scrub evidence of racism from an article in the name of faux "neutrality". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Usually it's frowned upon to enlist friendly editors to participate in an edit war or NPOV dispute. Yes, I have a problem with it. P.S. I don't think much of your good faith either. Also, I'm not "scrubbing" any "evidence" of racism, I am removing misleading prose that attempts to give the reader impressions of racism without any actual substance -- that is the epitome of POV pushing editorializing by WP editors that is never supposed to see the light of day. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- You're saying there's no substance to the charges of racism in Myrtle Beach? Because that kind of POV pushing is exactly where there is a need for WikiProjects whose job it is to counteract the condescending attitude that we have to cast aspersions on claims of racism. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- That wasn't even a response. Now you're just slinging mud. Please see WP:TRUTH, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOR, and other core policies that all tell you WP is not a place to publish your personal feelings on any subject whatsoever. We report what sources say. We don't massage them so they fit your personal message. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Then this should be taken to a noticeboard for resolution by a third party. I'm slinging mud because you haven't read the sources. You are shocked by the level of racism that took place in Myrtle Beach, and instead of going and reading the sources to see if it's accurate, you're simply watering it down to whatever your comfort level is. We should go to the NPOV noticebord or the NOR noticeboard. Anywhere where we can find somebody willing to do the work of reading first and editing second. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Pardon me, I am removing claims that are not supported by any source, and I am modifying prose to track actual sources. I am removing unsourced editorializing that is not supposed to appear on WP in the first place. And I am attributing claims to the people making them. All of the above are appropriate in any WP article, and some are especially fit where an article tends towards controversy and is built primarily on claims made in lawsuits that never went to trial.
- Then this should be taken to a noticeboard for resolution by a third party. I'm slinging mud because you haven't read the sources. You are shocked by the level of racism that took place in Myrtle Beach, and instead of going and reading the sources to see if it's accurate, you're simply watering it down to whatever your comfort level is. We should go to the NPOV noticebord or the NOR noticeboard. Anywhere where we can find somebody willing to do the work of reading first and editing second. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- That wasn't even a response. Now you're just slinging mud. Please see WP:TRUTH, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOR, and other core policies that all tell you WP is not a place to publish your personal feelings on any subject whatsoever. We report what sources say. We don't massage them so they fit your personal message. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- You're saying there's no substance to the charges of racism in Myrtle Beach? Because that kind of POV pushing is exactly where there is a need for WikiProjects whose job it is to counteract the condescending attitude that we have to cast aspersions on claims of racism. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Find literally any edit I have made that is contradicted by a source or else please cease with your accusations of bias and sticking my head in the sand. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Let's start here: . Did you read the source or not? You've changed it to imply that the NAACP alleges that they closed indoor service, and that fact is in disupte. In fact, the closure of indoor service is not in disupte. The motivation for the closure is what the parties disputed. You would know that if you'd read the source. Did you or did you not read the source?--Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Here you continue to violate WP:SAY. You're trying to cast aspersions on the source. And you change the fact that the rules were meant to stop bike rallies altogether to the less-factual "placed restrictions on bike rallies". Read the sources. They wanted no more bike rallies. You deleted the fact that Myrtle Beach specifically allocated money to fight NAACP lawsuits. Why? The sources made clear this fact mattered. Have you read the cited sources here? Please tell me whether or not you read the sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes you hostile asshole, I read the source, which was an NAACP press release making NAACP claims about NAACP accusations made in an NAACP lawsuit.
- Allegations made in lawsuits are allegations. The things they allege are only alleged facts. They don't become facts until proven. If never proven, they never become facts.
- You either need to find a source stating unequivocally that that claim was factually true — since all you've got so far is an NAACP press release talking about ACCUSATIONS they made — or you need to stop arguing about the apropriate use of the word "alleged". Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Here you deleted something you don't like based on the tiresome, bogus use of "not notable". Notability does not limit content within articles. It's an irrelevant reason to scrub facts. It's also irrelevant to say it's "outdated". Misplaced Pages is not news. If it was relevant in the past, it's relevant now. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Here you changed the fact that the defendants paid $1.2 million including compensation, costs and attorney fees. And they agreed to stop doing all the things they were sued for doing. They had to quit what they were doing, pay damages, and pay the plaintiff's costs. The NAACP clearly won. The sources quoted in the Knight-Ridder article make clear that the NAACP got what they wanted. We call that winning. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)