Talk:Ella Baker Center for Human Rights

message: I have removed a large amount of materia that was copied from here.  We need permission to have this info released under the GFDL if we want to use it.  However, It is not written in an encyclopedic style, and I would suggest rewriting the material rather than using the material from the website, even if we are granted permission to use it.  For example, as someone else has already brought up, the article sounds like an advert and may be a violation of WP:NPOV.  Articles should report facts on their subjects, not comment on them.  I'd suggest paring away all the commentary and stating only the facts.  Again, we will need to do this whether or not we're given permission to use the material.  For example, I'd change
When the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights started in 1996, we were small. Very small. In every conceivable way. We had one full-time staff person. We had one computer that co-founder Van Jones brought from his home. Our office was literally a closet, donated by the ever-generous Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights.
Not exactly an auspicious beginning.
Fast forward 10 years. We have a staff of 24 world-class human rights activists. We've graduated from a closet to a real office, from an office to a floor, and from a floor to an entire building in Oakland. And we've built a record as one of the most effective and innovative human rights organizations in America.
to:
When the Ella Baker Center was started in 1996, it had only a single staff person, one computer, and an office located in a closet donated by the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights. Ten years later, the center had an entire building in Oakland.
This removes commentary and pov language (e.g. "generous", "world-class"; use of the first person).  I suggest doing that with all the wording. I think the suggestion I have made may still be too close to the original text to use without permission, but we can use it if we do get permission. 
If I have removed any non-copyrighted info in my recent edit, please add it back in and accept my appologies! Let me know if there were any other problems with my edit. delldot | talk 21:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed links to the particular campaigns from the "see also" list because I'm not sure these things should have articles of their own.  I'd suggest keeping the text about them in this article.  However, if they've received significant press coverage by themselves, I could be wrong, in which case revert me. delldot | talk 21:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Looks good.  Here are a few suggestions:
*More references would be good. If all this is from the website, you can use the <ref name> formatting to cite it again and again (unfortunately, then the text is peppered with 1's or whatever, but you only need ot use it for factual statements like ones that could be disputed).  
*What does "opened payroll" mean?
*"and champion of students, sharecroppers, and everyday people" -- maybe we should change this to a more precice statement of what she actually did, so it doesn't sound like we're commenting.
*"The Ella Baker Center for Human Rights’ first large campaign for Aaron Williams. In 1995, San Francisco police officer Marc Andaya killed Williams, an unarmed black man."
**was for him, right? (maybe I should have done this one myself, but I didn't want to change your suggestion).
**How about "The Ella Baker Center for Human Rights’ first large campaign was for Aaron Williams, an unarmed black man who was killed in 1995 by San Francisco police officer Marc Andaya."  Maybe that makes it more awkward, but that wording prevents the reader from reading the first sentence and going, "who?"
**Citation definitely needed here.
*"Andaya led a number of cops in violently beating and kicking Williams"
**I'd use police instead - more formal, possibly less POV
**take out violently or replace with a more precice word - is there a nonviolent way to beat someone?
**Citation definitely needed
**If these factual statements are disputed, you could cast this as the Center's perspective rather than the official truth.  e.g. "The Center argued that..."
*rather than hogtying, I'd say what exactly they did - handcuffed his hands to his feet?  Wherever possible, just use bald facts rather than interpreting them. 
*"Even so, the San Francisco Police Commission dismissed..."
**I'd eliminate use of "Even so", which would imply an opinion.  
*"well-publicized police murder of Sheila Detoy"
**Again, I'd use bald facts and let the reader decide how to characterize it.
**This of course also needs citations.
*"Known for its “innovative, militant, non-violent direct action,” Third Eye Movement"
**Whom are we quoting here?  Citation would be needed, and rather than saying "known for", I'd say "so-and-so called it 'innovative...'" 
*I'd replace "Thanks in part to this movement" with "Due in part to this movement".
*Rename "Tough Times: 2000-2001" header to something more NPOV (maybe just "2000-2001"?
*I'd replace "This loss was followed by a period of “despair, mistrust and infighting” in the entire movement" with "Due to disappointment from the Proposition 21 loss, Third eye split..." Otherwise, again, say who's saying the quote and cite.
*"The organization refocused its efforts on creating a positive vision instead of being limited to reactionary mobilization."
**Reword to NPOV or remove
*"Let’s Get Free focused on police accountability in Oakland"
**is "police accountability" a commonly used phrase?  If not, I'd suggest saying exactly what they focused on.
*Just in general, whenever you're in doubt about whether a statement is NPOV, you can write "members of the Center believed that X" instead of just X.  Or some such.
Sorry, this is kind of massive.  Most of these points are pretty minor stylistic stuff, but of course the overall NPOV is very important.  We may need to take another look when the whole thing is written to determine whether we're giving a balanced view of the project.  If possible, we should include any notable criticisms the group has received, though that will be difficult since the main writer is sympathetic.  But anyway, I think the history revision is a vast improvement and it wouldn't be a problem to include in the article once the concerns I brought up have been dealt with or further discussed (as I said, some of them are just suggestions and don't positively need to change).  Jen3774  has said s/he is going to get more references for this, so that's great.  I still have to look at the original text to determine if it's still too similar and will be a copyvio (in which case we'll have to go about getting formal permission).  So let me do that before putting it in, but otherwise I think we're good.  Input from all other folks is welcomed.  delldot | talk 23:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey - I would like to continue to work on this article and gather references as well as try to improve POV and expand EBC's other campaigns. To do so, I've created a draft of the page here. I will be working on it there for the next few days and then be calling for outside input before I even consider moving it over here. I welcome input, criticism, questions, etc! Thanks -Jen3774 19:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on Potential History Section

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060726033942/http://www.eastbayexpress.com:80/Issues/2005-11-02/news/feature_1.html to http://www.eastbayexpress.com/Issues/2005-11-02/news/feature_1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20070213205035/http://www.zmag.org:80/ZMag/articles/martinezmay2000.htm to http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/martinezmay2000.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930014825/http://www.dailycal.org/sharticle.php?id=16943 to http://www.dailycal.org/sharticle.php?id=16943
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070124111754/http://www.bayarea1022.org:80/node/6 to http://www.bayarea1022.org/node/6
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061005001847/http://www.commonweal.org/programs/jjp-reports/budbullet05_15_06.html to http://www.commonweal.org/programs/jjp-reports/budbullet05_15_06.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cjcj.org/pdf/12-08-2006CJCJ_Bulletin_Winter2006.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cjcj.org/pdf/12-08-2006CJCJ_Bulletin_Winter2006.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070227211653/http://ellabakercenter.org:80/page.php?pageid=5 to http://ellabakercenter.org/page.php?pageid=5
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070210102310/http://www.statesman.com:80/news/content/region/legislature/stories/02//09/9reforms.html to http://www.statesman.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/02/09/9reforms.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified