Jump to content

Talk:Stop Snitchin'

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jahenderson (talk | contribs) at 20:55, 28 January 2007 (→Spamming and External Links). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

NPOV

Am I the only one that see this article as an NPOV violation? Almost everything in the article is slanted against the stop-snitchin' attitude. I for one, support the refusal to cooperate with police if they feel that police do not treat them with the proper respect.

The "other side of the coin" can be expressed as community solidarity in the face of abusive, unresponsive and often unproductive policing. The popularity of the shirts is highest in places with the least community-oriented policing and conversely lowest in the places where the police have reached out to the community. That should be a sign that it's a product of external circumstances as well as internal dynamics. Wrath0fb0b 02:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a more cogent analysis than the one I provided, see http://www.popmatters.com/columns/hill/060224-1.shtml Wrath0fb0b 03:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize the very serious problem of police abuse in some places, and I don't mean to offend you, but from what I can see, the "Stop Snitchin'" attitude is horrifyingly wrong. It seems to me that it does absolutely nothing to solve the problem of police brutality, and instead trades it for utterly uncontrolled gang violence and vigilantism. HowardW
That's a reasonable opinion but NPOV requires all points of view. You are absolutely right that SS does nothing to stop police violence! I never claimed that. What I did claim that it is a *response* to the perception in some communities that the police do not serve their interests. It could be argued that it is a misguided response or a counterproductive one but it is a response nevertheless.
Furthermore, there are larger cultural precedents for the stop-snitchin movement. The blue wall of silence, union codes, the move to shield reporters from giving up their source and the mafia code of silence. IIRC, Brutus and Judas are in the ninth ring of hell.
Complicating matter even further is the fact that snitches are often criminals themselves that become informants for the police for protection, money, leniency, to eliminate rivals or settle grudges. The police become unwitting (and frankly, uncaring) accessories to the destruction of the community by encouraging every arrestee to turn on someone else in order to boost their numbers.
To make matters even worse, many of the overturned death-penalty convictions were the result of dishonest or outright perjurious testimony from paid or otherwise rewarded snitches. See Ellen Reasonover, Nicholas Yarris, Ronald Jones were all on death-row due to snitches that were paid or otherwise bribed to lie. A whole lot more are at http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=45&did=1149 (didn't have to time read too far into it).
I don't mean this as a wholesale affirmation of the movement but the issue is more nuanced than the article makes it seem and certainly more nuanced than "horrifyingly wrong". Hope this clears up my thought process. Wrath0fb0b 08:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I agree about the NPOV stuff - which is why I put my comment here rather in the main article. It's also true that this isn't the first instance of a subculture encouraging its members not to participate in the legal system, as you point out. What's more, I also agree that the desire to participate or promote something like this is complex.
However I still would say that this movement, as far as I can tell, is very, very wrong. In effect it's saying to the members, Don't even try to fight for your place in society, to participate in the greater society. Instead, give up, drop out, and allow the wanton violence of the streets - along with its vicious crime lords - be the source of legitimacy.HowardW


Well, for a start I'm not sure how relevant all of this is to the talk page. The article discussion is 'about the article, not the subject in its own right'. That does not mean, "forget about discussion"- though there are proper channels, including in the wiki community, for dicussion of topics rather than page content. However, it does mean a discussion about how the article should be presented, structured, and what perspectives it should note.
My comments on certain parts of the article are these:
  • Noting the courtroom actions doesn't, to me, seem like a breach of NPOV. Rather, it emphasises the controversy and noteworthiness of the subject. I don't think that the article glosses this enough, though.
  • There are certain choices of language: 'homicide', for example, that I think rather tastefully and, in accordance with the NPOV policy, at least attempt to avoid sensationalism iwth a more dispassionate attitude. I htink that should be the approach the article takes.
  • The final quote is a little dodgy- in fact i think it can be thought of as breaching NPOV in the other direction to the one first suggested: by not using direct quotation, and still insisting on words such as "when"- words which imply that their conditions and objects are 'objectively existing' conditions- the writer is implying that it is a fact that the government does not admit responsibiloiuty for its actions etc.
    • Perhaps that's a little unclear- I'll try to give an exaggerated example:
    • "John Johnson argues that baby-eating should stop when babies learn to stop being so scrummy-licious." The predicate is that he 'argues that they should stop when this condition is reached'- the emphasis is on this, not on the condition itself. As such, it imagines that this condition is one that need not be questioned- it is the axiom of the predication, as structuralists would say.
    • As such, I think that it should be replaced with direct quotation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bosola (talk • contribs) 17:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I am too guilty of using too many external links. When writing articles for Wikipedia, all editors must advise themselves that there is no place for Advertising, Opinion, Wessel Words and Spamming. I advise all users who contribute to this article to look at Wikipedia's not. Also look for Wikipedia's spam policy, keeping a neutral point of view and citing sources. This is a rule, in a nutshell. Please use this wisely and do not promote this advertising. This article is oozing with external links (spam) and nonsense. It's too irrelevant for the writers to clean up this article due to it's growing fan base. Prodominately this article look like it needs some efficient cleaning. LILVOKA 01:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing two of the three external links, and changing the language on the remaining one. The second two (Putin Stop Snitchin' and "Another Stop Snitching Detournment") are only sites for t shirt sales. That's classic advertisement, and not kosher with wikipedia. The third remains because the rap group seems to advocate that position (??), but certainly not under the headline "the official stop snitching movement site;" 1) see my arguments earlier about campaign vs movement, and 2) there's nothing official about TANGG buying the "stopsnitching.com" domain name. Thanks. Jahenderson 20:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added some info regarding the (earliest known) origins of the T-Shirts in Boston, MA. As well as some media updates, such as the America's Most Wanted episode dealing with the stop snitching issue. Also added some references and external links. Please add more if you can find them. Interesting subject.

Also, That DVD cover posted down below is not the original. That was one released in early 2005 that also had that Tangg the juice guy in it, with Young Geezy, Diplomats, etc. Also had some Boston OG's putting out court paperwork on rapper Benzino & his associates. The Original DVD was released by Skinny Suge Records, 2004. That would be the one that gained controversy. Here is the cover for that: File:Stopsnitching.jpg

--OToole 07:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the cover. I'll add. -Jahenderson 04:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like the person who keeps removing the info about the Diplomats making their own version of the shirts to stop removing it. Lionelxhutz 16:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have added more Boston info -- crime rate, fleshed out controversy, parodies, and other details. This story is unfortunately often reported just as humor without sufficient sensitivity to the community/crime context.

Thanks, your changes greatly improved the article. Rhobite 00:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! GroupX

Basically, it IS just humor, and that's REALLY obvious to anyone who knows anything about this. The reason they're banned in courtrooms is because they say "STOP SNITCHING" on them and in COURT you have WITNESSES who are supposed to TELL things to the JURY about CRIMES, NOT because of some community/crime/boo-frerking-hoo BS. I can't believe you're trying to imply that it's actually some kind of issue that, based on a ***T-SHIRT***, drug dealers might hurt you if you "snitch" on them. If you're in that situation to begin with, then the T-shirt probably wouldn't be telling you anything new, even if it were as threatening as this idiot seems to think it is (which it's not.) OH GOD WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO!! STOP SNITCHING??? OH MY GOD SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE!!!

WTF is wrong with you? Why is this even an article? God I hate hippies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.236.112 (talk • contribs)

thoughts on the discussion of the picture of the white dude, guys? I support that picture, especially given this here prior testimony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.115.59 (talk • contribs)

For someone who doesn't sign their name to a comment, you sure have alot to say. That was 5 minutes of your life. Was it really worth wasting it to voice your opinions? --TheSocialist 00:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- I took out the reference to omerta, because they in principal deal with different groups. Omerta refers to a policy of noncooperation among members of the mafia and their families. The stop snitching video discourages anyone who knows about a crime, regardless of their relation to the criminal enterprise, from cooperating. -Jahenderson 18:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movement

- I took out the characterization of the videos and shirt as a movement, substituting the word 'campaign.' That's cause the word movement suggests something more ... legal, or really something with a goal outside of witness intimidation for witness intimidation's sake. Compare the term "civil rights movement" with "stop snitching movement" for a second, and you'll get what I mean. -Jahenderson 04:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Someone care to enumerate what the problem is here that has led to an RfC? Which sections specifically do you see as being a problem? It needs some WP:EL cleanup, could use better sourcing, and needs cleanup (Omertà for example isn't a valid reference here, it should be in a "See Also" section. From an NPOV sense this article shouldn't support or oppose this effort, it should just explain what it is and if necessary show (with sources) some notable people who have supported or opposed it. Also, the Carmelo Anthony section should be removed unless someone provides a source.--Isotope23 20:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sourced the Carmelo Anthony references. I think the Skinny Suge claim should be removed asap without a source. Wikipedia shouldn't report that a living person is "currently incarcerated" without a reference. The tag has been there a few weeks, I wasn't able to see reference to any part of it accept at places like myspace, so it should be removed.Professor marginalia 22:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stop_Snitchin%27&oldid=103914598"