Talk:Black Bike Week/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Needs expansion using sources listed

Please help expand this article. I've gathered a number of sources in the Refs section. There needs to be coverage of the numerous racial discrimination lawsuits that have happened around Black Bike Week, and the legal wrangling over crowd control and so on at Myrtle Beach. History of the other Black Bike Week at Daytona needs to be clarified too. I, too, will work on this when I can. --Dbratland (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Black Bike Week and (white) Harley Week at Myrtle Beach

There is a "Black Bike Week" at Daytona, which has already been mentioned so as to disambiguate. There is also a Harley-Davidson-centric Bike Week at Myrtle Beach which needs to be explained further, in particular with respect to the charges that the white motorcyclist event at Myrtle Beach was treated better than Black Bike Week.

Please help improve the article by contributing information based on reliable sources with citations. Thanks! --Dbratland (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Dbratlan, I may not know Wikipedia as well as you "Glad you are here to clean things up", but i do know Black Bike Week. I have been a sponsor and member for the last 6 years. The web site Myrtle Beach Bike Week.com has not affiliation with "Black" Bike Week at all. The dates are wrong: Black Bike Week Always takes place on Memorial Day weekend, always. As for a source for that, 6 years of personal experience LOL. You can't just go googling around trying to find info about an event or subject. Sometime you need to be part of it, and if not, be humble enough to take advise from those who were. The name: Bike Week, Black Bike Week, Myrtle Beach Bike week are commonly used to talk about different events. Bike Week can equal= Daytona, Harley or Black Bike Week. You have to take it in perspective. After White Black Week ends, then Black Bike Week at Myrtle beach begin on Memorial day of each year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClarenceCM3 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

That's nice. But please cite reliable sources for any edits you would like to make. --Dbratland (talk) 02:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sponsorship

As far as I can tell, Black Bike Week has never had official sponsorship or operated under the auspices of any organization, such as the AMA. It began as an informal gathering and remained mostly informal and spontaneous ever since. Harley-Davidson Week has generally had heavy corporate sponsorship, especially from Harley-Davidson. Is this correct and does anyone have good sources on it? --Dbratland (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Material sourced to Facebook and Yahoo groups

According to External links normally avoided, links to social networking sites and forums should be deleted. Wikipedia policy is to not include any such links. Further, as explained in Self-published sources (online and paper), information sourced from these kinds of web sites fails to meet Wikipedia standards and should also be deleted.

While an editor may personally have faith that what they find in forums and social networking sites is true, Wikipedia's standard is not truth, believe it or not. Wikipedia's standard is verifiability. In other words, Wikipedia is not all things to all people. Forums serve their purpose and Wikipedia serves its own purpose. --Dbratland (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Complaint

Dbratland said "According to External links normally avoided" The key word is normally. Links are present in every single wiki about the other variations to bike weeks event "check for yourself". They serve as point of reference. I will research Wikipedia complaint policy Dbratland. I have don't have an agenda to state un-verifiable fact, but Dbratland edit appear to be more of a battle then a honest attempt to gain facts. Dbratland: you can revert a page then ask a question if you have concerns. I made a post about this issue in the Black Bike Week Facebook group and received a lot of feedback. I'm sorry Dbratland but your edits are really incorrect. you still seem to have confusion between the various bike weeks. I thought Wikipedia was a group collaboration of documenting knowledge, and not Dbratland Authoritative opinions on a subject "isn't that what Wikipedia was created to eliminate "one source articles".

--- You can verify people are talking about going Black bike week, cause the group is call Black Bike Week 2010. The group has over 5000 verifiable members. The yahoo Black bikers groups has a combined total of 15k user. Starting that they are discussing something is verifiable by viewing their discussions. Also adding link to those discussion is a reference. it's news of event "of the protest" in progress.

Dbratland you are trying to push some agenda, and i don't know what it is, but you have turn this page into your interpretation of Black Bike Week, and you choose the sources you wants, while ignoring others.

This article has become bias due to me and Dbratland disagreements. I would like to request the article be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClarenceCM3 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with many Wikipedia policies myself, but I mostly try to follow them because it's simply too difficult to convince hundreds or thousands of other editors to change them, and I have other fish to fry. The exception to Self-published sources (online and paper) is when a recognized expert make a forum post about themselves, for example when Sarah Palin Twitters about Sarah Palin. You could try to make the case that these Facebook and Yahoo groups meet that criteria, but you might want to read WP:Snowball first.

You changed "fill in the blank week" to "Black Beach Week", which is a contradiction of the NYT story cited. Anyone can click on the link and see that it says "fill in the blank week" and nothing about "Black Beach Week" is mentioned. You really need to find a reliable source for that. Otherwise some other editor (not me -- I'm not going to edit war with you) is bound to revert it back to what the source says. There are many, many editors on Wikipedia besides me, and your dispute is more with them than just me.

Your neutrality tag is going to be removed by someone unless you can state in clear, simple words what you find so out of balance. Accusing me of "some agenda" and tagging the article NPOV doesn't cut it. Point out what agenda you see being pushed, and say what changes you would like to see to restore neutrality.

Articles are never deleted simply because one editor has a dispute with another editor. You should go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and read the criteria for deletion -- if you think you can make the case, by all means, please nominate it for deletion.

A much more constructive use of your time would be to expand the article using the many sources listed at the bottom of the page which still need to be cited inline. Perhaps adding more reliable sources will make it more neutral. I really think you're wasting your time trying to hang this on Yahoo Groups and Facebook -- Wikipedia simply doesn't care what is said on site like that. That's Wikipedia for you -- and remember Wikipedia isn't the whole world. --Dbratland (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

BIAS

This article which i start was edited by Dbratlan. The first edit were attempts to find verifiable sources, then they evolved into a wiki edit agruement LOL. I made mistake by including un verifiable source and made attempt to listen and seek corrections. Dbratlan made an initial mistake confusing Black Bike Week with other Bike Week Event "which is common for a person not familiar with the events, because the names are used interchangeably. But after being corrected Dbratlan still attempted to find reason to include his mistake, and all edit attempt after that resulted in a battle with Dbratlan changing any edit i would make. This article has become Dbratlan point of view Black Bike Week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClarenceCM3 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

First, new sections go at the bottom of the talk page. That's why I keep moving them.

Second, thank you for fixing the confusion about Black Bike Week and Harley Bike week. Fixing articles with problems is what it's all about.

Third, if we can stop dwelling on that, what exactly is the bias in the article? What is the thing that you feel is so unfair? --Dbratland (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Fourth... would it help if we had third opinions from other editors? Would you go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject African diaspora and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling and request editors from those projects take a look at the article and this discussion and offer their opinions? --Dbratland (talk) 06:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

ClarenceCM3, if you feel this is so unfair, you'll probably want to follow the dispute resolution steps. However, that isn't going to go very far. Especially with the attitude of "you don't know what you are talking about", "my external links are an exception", and wanting the article deleted. Please use this talk page to discuss the article, and perhaps spend more time trying to improve the article. tedder (talk) 06:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

BIAS

Emigh and Herring argue that "a few active users, when acting in concert with established norms within an open editing system, can achieve ultimate control over the content produced within the system, literally erasing diversity, controversy, and inconsistency, and homogenizing contributors' voices.

The Dispute is resolved. I will not try. The Article is yours Dbratland enjoy.

i just have to say this. I have attended Black Bike Week for the last 6 years, and will attend this year. I promote, work, breath, and live the event LOL. I have a tons of insight from personal experience and years of research, but none of that can compete with your ability to Google a few articles, cut and paste some text, and cite proper Wikipedia guidelines. If the ablity to Google, cut and paste and read Wiki guidelines is all it take to be able to create a "Factual" article for an encyclopedia article about an event "that you never attended", then i doubt the article will be worth anything.

At least journalist go to the location, or event they report about, because if they didn't who would take them seriously. The ability to follow a proper system of citations is great, but sometime you need first hand account or at least questioning someone with a first hand account "our at least looking at both side of a story"

I just have to say good luck, take care of the article, and i hope it turns out great.

"Wikipedia seeks not truth but consensus, and like an interminable political meeting the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices." - Oliver Kamm

—Preceding unsigned comment added by ClarenceCM3 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It's unfortunate you feel that way. I hope you change your mind and decide to explain what changes you think would address the bias in the article. --Dbratland (talk) 07:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You took the article, which was supposed to be about Black Bike Week (its history, events, community, and future)", and turned it into a race battle / legal battle article LOL. Only a brief history of bike week is discussed. The article seem to have become more focused around the race and the court case, and not the history, or experiences that 30 years of black bike week event have produce in the biker and black community. What you are doing is like taking an article about Christmas, except Dbratland only wants to discuss a pending court case where a groups try to ban Christmas LOL "and ignoring everything else unless it support Dbratland preference for his article (and scapegoating Wikipedia regulations to justify his actions)".

The article is bias due to your point of view of what the article should talk about. There is no discussion about the Black Bike Week community or the events that have taken placed "except a negative statement you added which was quoted from the New York Times". There is a wealth of history, events, etc that should be expanded on "which i tried".

Honestly, a Black Bike Week article can stand on it's on, without the need to reference Harley Bike Week or the court case. You diminishing the importance of the Black Bike Week event. You have let the court case influence your perception of the Black Bike Week article "there were 29 years of Black Bike Week before the court case". But that is understandable. It's hard to fully understand something without full experience of it. But you must be humble to learn, and you can't add to a full glass. But what I'm saying is probably going on deaf ears, and any attempt i try to make "even with cited source" will probably be removed. Honestly now I wish i never created the article LOL. The future generation will only see Black Bike Week as a court case about helmets LOL. A factoid: Black Bike Week use to be a starting point for people seeking for become future entertainment artist, they would go and promote "due the large amount of young African Americans", and few very famous artist got their start from Black Bike week. Also bike week has a long standing car show, bike design contest, Bar-b-que event, etc. Even a style of car was made famous at bike. Its influence on biker and black community is great.

This Article should be change to the “Black Bike Week Ban and Court Case” article

Please Delete all my comment about reading this. ClarenceCM3 out!!--ClarenceCM3 (talk) 12:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The article is written from a neutral point of view. I'm having trouble understanding your rant; given the reliable sources, what is missing? tedder (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• I don't disagree with ClarenceCM3. I wish you had just said earlier that this is what was bothering you. The article does need to be expanded in areas besides the Harley rally and the NAACP lawsuits.

  It is easier to find sources from yesterday than 30 years ago. And the media covers conflict more than festivals where everybody has a good time and nothing bad happens. So Wikipedia articles tend to reflect what is in the media. This is one of the limitations of Wikipedia and its one reason that you shouldn't think Wikipedia is the whole world. It isn't; it is a small part of the big picture.

  More importantly, Wikipedia is a work in progress. As time passes, articles improve. If you see an article that is missing material, fix it. I would think someone who has been going to Black Bike Week for 6 years can lay their hands on lots of good books and magazine articles and newspaper stories on the subject. It can't all be hidden away in Yahoo groups and Facebook.

  For myself, I'm working with what I have right now, which is lots of stories about the Supreme Court argument that happened yesterday. The book Myrtle Beach: a history, 1900-1980 has some coverage of the origins of Black Bike Week, but the section we need isn't online, so I had to order the book and wait for it to arrive. When it gets here, I'll have more material to work with. Not to mention the long list of references at the bottom of the article that have not yet been incorporated. Anyone who wants to help could read some of those articles and expand the areas that are missing. You don't have to wait for me to do it.

  So please calm down. Stop demanding to delete this and delete that and delete everything. Be patient. Go to a library (that's what I do) and gather up some sources. The missing history can be filled in and the article will keep improving, and the world isn't going to come to an end because when the article was all of four days old it was lacking in coverage in some areas. Four days! Give it some time. Some articles stink up the place years before someone fixes them. --Dbratland (talk) 06:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Dbratland your right i should calm down. The article is starting to take some great shape. to help improve the article i requested the help of members of the various black bike week groups: Black Bike Week 2010 @ http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=178986076955&topic=13703, CAROLINA KNIGHT RIDER'S MC FOUNDER'S OF BIKE WEEK @ http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=178986076955&topic=13703, plus around 30 other Bike Week / Black Bike Week/ Atlantic Bike Week / Black College Reunion groups etc. Hopefully they can bring insight, source, etc to help shape this article over time. Keep up the good work. Thanks. Hopefully with more people "not just me and you" we can help this article expand.ClarenceCM3 (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Muddled and confused in its current form.

My recent addition and deletions to the article have been "undone". I was totally unaware of the controversy on the discussion page prior to my actions. After reading them, I must say that I agree with the assertion that the article is no longer an entry on "Black Bike Week". It is however, 1) an article with disproportionate coverage of the controversy of Black Bike Week, and 2) a muddled and confusing narrative about two separate events - Harley event and Black Bike Week.

My suggestion is to create a separate entry (if one does not already exist) on the Harley Bike Week that references the controversy and how it impacted the Harley event. I do not think that the information concerning the controversy should be removed. It is a part of the history of the event and should rightly be included. However, it should no overshadow the history of the decades long event. Allowing the controversy to take up a disproportionate amount of space is akin to an article on the American south that focuses mostly on slavery.

Barring that, I agree with the suggestion of changing the name of he article to "Black Bike Week Controversy" because in its current form, 80% of the article refers to the controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnie360 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a 10 day old article. Also, splitting controversial material or negative material from an article, particularly when we have two editors whose goal is to present the subject in a positive light, is called a POV fork, which is not allowed. First expand the article with the missing information. Then, if the article has grown too large (a far off prospect), discuss splitting of some sub-setions. --Dbratland (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

New York Time Quote.

Honestly, does the New York times personal quote need to be in the article. It's seem more like a Point of View. That quote has no relevance on this article. I'm going to remove it. A personal opinion by a New York Time writer has no place in an encyclopedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.166.36 (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The mayor of Atlantic Beach said approximately the same thing, also quoted in the lead. If you read some of the articles at the bottom of the page, you will see the "exhibitionists paradise" assessment is shared by observers from Ebony to the Christian Science Monitor to Motorcyclist magazine. Jason Britton on his Super Bikes! TV show said the same thing. They describe it as a huge social scene, where people show off, and try to catch the eye of the opposite sex. So if it bothers you that it is only one NYT reporter being cited, I can pile on a half dozen other sources too. If that many sources agree, and that many of them think it is relevant to the topic, then it must belong in an encyclopedia. --Dbratland (talk) 04:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Dbratland, Christian Science Monitor LOL. i just felt the quote was a negative personal view on the event "with out stating that it was POV". The words seem to come from the point of view of someone against the event "i.e. the mayor who banned it". The quote would work in the context of "the mayor considers the event an exhibitionists paradise..." This way you get an idea of who is saying it, and a feel for their stand point "for or against". The way the quote first appeared seemed to be an over all description of the event, and not someones personal view of it. The event has 5 main parts: The biker shows, biker racing, the strip "the exhibitionist paradise", the night life, and bike community gatherings. The strip is the part where people show off, and try to catch the eye of the opposite sex, but it's only 1/5 of the event. I felt having it at the top "without reference to personal view" colored the total event.

I feel it does has a place "trust me it does LOL, the strip is an true exhibitionist paradise", but not all of Black Bike Week. I'm going to re add the quote.

Dbratland good work, the article is looking real good!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.252.54.132 (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The mayor of Atlantic Beach is a strong supporter of Black Bike Week; Atlantic Beach is one of the places that welcomed the bikers who were pushed out of Myrtle Beach. --Dbratland (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Helmet Law canceled by South Caronlina Supreme court +2010 Attendance

The Helmet Law was rescinded by the South Carolina Supreme court http://www.blackbikeweeks.com/2010/06/myrtle-beach-helmet-law-canceled/

http://www2.scnow.com/scp/news/local/grand_ strand/article/myrtle_beach_helmet_law_ deemed_unconstitutional/182432/

Numbers estimate for 2010 are 300k "Note don't confuse Black Bike Week numbers with the Atlantic Beach BikerFest event attendance numbers" http://www.nmbtimes.com/nm/publish/news_405.html

People, and Event promoter are expecting larger turn outs for 2011 http://www.blackbikeweeks.com/2010/06/its-going-down-in-2011-for-real/

That events section looks like propganda "Probably by Jason Riton". Custom motorcycles, Stunt shows and that wheel machine is not a major part of Black Bike Week LOL, nor is it a focal point LOL. There are event that attract way more people doing the weekend "ie motorcycle ride, night clubs or events, the strip on south ocean blvd "the true focal point", etc. A lot in that section doesn't have a place in this article. and looks like an attempt to give credit "and the sources to Super Bikes is to another wikipedia page". Marketing material has no place in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.35.83 (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

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,[32][33] questioning whether the intent of the law was not to promote safety but rather to curtail motorcycle rallies.[31] Justice Costa Pleicones told Viers that the city's interest in regulating noise, lewd behavior and nuisances was legitimate.[33]

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.[31] 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.[33]"

---

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.[27]

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.[28] 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.[11]

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.[29]

---

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.[10][11]

---

—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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia policy.

Similarly, you might have the opinion that the Harley Davidson rally has no place, but Wikipedia policy disagrees with you, specifically Wikipedia: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.[4] 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.[10][11]

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.[27]

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.[28] 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.[11]

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.[29]

---

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,[2] and approved a set of ordinances on September 23, 2008 that attempted to make Black Bike Week impossible.[26] 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.[2] 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.[27][31][32][33] One group of plaintiffs was made up of 49 motorcyclists who had been cited for not wearing helmets in Myrtle Beach.[31] The second plaintiff was the organization Business Owners Organized to Save Tourism (BOOST) along with South Carolina State Representative Thad Viers.[31] 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."[34] 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."[31]

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,[32][33] questioning whether the intent of the law was not to promote safety but rather to curtail motorcycle rallies.[31] Justice Costa Pleicones told Viers that the city's interest in regulating noise, lewd behavior and nuisances was legitimate.[33]

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.[31] 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.[33]

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.[27] 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.[30] 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 Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. It's extremely confusing to try to follow what you're doing here. And please read Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia biased. If you feel the policy should change, you can discuss it at Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia policy changed. Or you can be satisfied that you already own 3 sites that express your opinions and there's nothing Wikipedia 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)

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 Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora and Wikipedia: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.

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: [1]. 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)

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)

• 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)

(contribs) 20:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Attributing a claim of wrongdoing to the party that made the claim is not "casting aspersions on the source". The article is mostly built of accusations pulled from lawsuits. Attribution is highly appropriate.

I also removed the unsupported claim that the city made special rules for black bike week. The cited source says they enacted new rules for biker rallies. It doesn't say jack about "making black bike week impossible". Nor, if it did, would that be evidence of racism.

I deleted the point that the city allocated money to defend the lawsuit because it is utterly unencyclopedic. Defending lawsuits costs money. The defendant pays. When the defendant is a city, the money comes from the city budget. Nothing to see here, nor the slightest whiff of evidence of racism for me to "scrub". Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:44, 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". Wikipedia is not news. If it was relevant in the past, it's relevant now. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The mere filing of a lawsuit is not especially relevant, especially not enough for its own section, and even more especially not when the actual substance and outcome of the lawsuit are given plenty of discussion. I literally do not care about the lawsuit, hence I don't "like" or "dislike" it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:47, 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)

I didn't "change" the fact, I removed it for lack of source, Mr. Conspiracy. I clearly left in the mention that the restaurant agreed to settle the suit and implement changes requested by NAACP. Your complaint is pointless trivia.

Calling it "winning" implies guilt, and is POV-pushing editoralizing whether you like it or not. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

<out>I'm going to take a break to give you the chance to calm down and review the policy issues at play here. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I am responding after seeing the post on African diaspora. I have no doubt that the racism allegations are true, however, with any discussion of a lawsuit/court case on wikipedia, it's important to present the information neutrally. Personally, I'm not seeing a major difference in the content as it existed before and after centrify's edit, however, I feel like factchecker/centrify's edit fits more in line with wikipedia policies. When I write crime articles, regardless of how solid the evidence is, I always frame it in terms of who is making the allegation. So like, "the prosecution alleges he killed his wife" as opposed to "he killed his wife". I think the same should apply here. We can't really know for certain that that restaurant closed their doors, all we can know is that the lawsuit alleged it. I don't think there is a major difference in the content, but framing things in terms of what you can absolutely know is important in situations like this. I don't think it casts doubt on any of the statements made, it just errs on the side of accuracy Bali88 (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The question of whether or not the restaurant closed its doors was not in disupte. Both sides agreed that had happened, and third parties reported it as fact. You might as well say we can't know for certain Myrtle Beach exists, or we can't know for certain there was a motorcycle rally. What was in disupte was whether or not the outdoor-only service was inferior, and whether or not that constituted racial discrimination. It's fair to say "the NAACP alleged it was inferior and that it was racist", but the closure of indoor service, as well as things like the police using different traffic diversions during the black rally, are verifiable, and are not controversial. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm quite certain they did close their doors, but where is your independent source that Friendly's only opened the outdoor part? The part where factchecker added "allegedly" came directly from a NAACP press statement. He didn't add "allegedly" to the part where it says other restaurants closed their doors because there was an independent source relaying a statement by those establishments establishing that they had closed. If the source is a press statement by NAACP, "allegedly" is the correct phrasing. Bali88 (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2014 (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 Wikipedia: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)

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)

The middle ground, as well as the right way to handle a situation like this is to include the quotes, verbatim, and attributed to the author. Bali88 (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

New Info related to the Memorial Day Myrtle Beach Shootings

Suspect charged in shooting incident at Myrtle Beach motel during Bikefest http://www.myhorrynews.com/news/crime/article_91db9362-e612-11e3-b987-0017a43b2370.html

Chamber board votes to use tourism tax funds for police next Memorial Day weekend http://www.carolinalive.com/news/story.aspx?id=1052824#.U5MsLs9OVOl

Gang activity in Myrtle Beach triple homicide sparks closer look at Charleston County groups http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20140601/PC16/140609936/1006/gang-activity-in-myrtle-beach-homicides-sparks-closer-look-at-charleston-groups

Atlantic Beach mayor: "We don't plan to end Bikefest." http://www.carolinalive.com/news/story.aspx?id=1052561#.U5MlkPldWSo

Bikefest 2015 promotions underway http://www.wmbfnews.com/story/25695825/bikefest-2015-promotions-underway

With Bikefest, there's a social media battle for hearts and minds http://www.carolinalive.com/news/story.aspx?id=1054071#.U5MjYPldWSo

I'm going to be adding some info from the new sources to the 2014 Shooting/Violence Section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.36.3 (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)