Talk:American Motorcyclist Association

New Image Needed: AMA logo in Info box...
This page needs a higher/better res version of the AMA logo, the current image in the info box is heavily pixilated.(Sintauro (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC))
 * The problem is that Template:Infobox sport governing body forces all logos to 200px. You're going to get an ugly image if you stretch it larger than its native size, and this one is only 143px. It's unrealistic to assume we have access to any size logo image we want. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed! There was a previously undocumented parameter "logosize" in the infobox. I have changed the infobox documentation and made the appropriate change to the AMA logo. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Biker Biker and thank you Dennis Bratland, you are both gentlemen and scholars as well as brothers of the road. -Take care, ride safe.(Sintauro (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC))
 * Thanks. Funnily enough I just got back from an evening ride and did anything but ride safe. Sometimes it is nice to "ride it like you stole it". --Biker Biker (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

April 2014
American Motorcyclist Association

Please change the first section to this: The American Motorcyclist Association is a member-driven U.S. nonprofit organization that promotes the motorcycling lifestyle and protects the future of motorcycling.

With hundreds of thousands members, the AMA engages in advocacy for motorcyclists and motorcycling and acts as a sanctioning body for more than 2,300 amateur events each year.

It is the designated governing body of motorcycle sport in the United States by the world governing body, the Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme (FIM).

The AMA also operates the AMA Motorcycle Hall of Fame in Pickerington, Ohio.

In the INFO BOX, please change the following: Chair: Maggie McNally-Bradshaw

Please add these sections: AMA Origins

Founded in 1924 as the American Motorcycle Association, the AMA evolved from two earlier groups, the Federation of American Motorcyclists and the Motorcycle and Allied Trades Association.

AMA As A Member Organization

Rights – The AMA Government Relations Department tracks national, state and local legislation in such areas as mandatory helmet use, bike bans and rider-education programs.

The AMA has consistently fought to protect reasonable access to public land for recreational trail riders. This issue has taken on greater importance with the introduction of federal wilderness legislation and presidential national monument proposals in numerous states in recent decades.

In August 2011, AMA members won a significant victory for families who enjoy responsible motorized recreation when President Barack Obama signed into law a bill to allow the sale of kids' off-highway vehicles to continue, rolling back the ban imposed by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008.

Riding – Engaging road and recreational off-road motorcyclists is the day-to-day mission of the AMA Riding Department. In addition to overseeing AMA chartered club activities and sanctioned riding events, the department ensures members have the opportunity to be recognized for annual and lifetime mileage through the AMA LongRider program and to become more involved at AMA events as volunteers.

AMA As A Sanctioning Body The AMA has more than 1,200 clubs and promoters staging nearly 2,400 competitive and recreational events each year. Those events include 38 racing series/championships and 26 recreational riding events and series. <MotorSportsNewswire, https://motorsportsnewswire.wordpress.com/tag/ama-pro-motocross/. Retrieved April 1, 2014.

AMA Pro Racing -- In 2008, the AMA announced the sale of certain of its AMA Pro Racing properties to the Daytona Motorsports Group (DMG) based in Daytona Beach, Florida. The move was brought about by the need for the association to place the management of pro racing in the hands of a well-resourced motorsports entertainment company. Under the terms of the sale, DMG purchased the sanctioning, promotional and management rights to AMA Pro Racing. AMA Pro Racing website, http://www.amaproracing.com/about/. Retrieved April 1, 2014. AMA Publications American Motorcyclist magazine (street and dirt versions) ATVA News AMA News & Notes AMA Organizer News AMA Extra ATVA Extra Hall of Fame Insider

AMA Properties

AMA Vintage Motorcycle Days AMA International Women & Motorcycling Conference AMA Racing (amateur and pro-am) AMA Racing Championship Banquet AMA Congress All Terrain Vehicle Association AMA Roadside Assistance AMA Motorcycle Hall of Fame Museum AMA Motorcycle Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony AMA Motorcycle Hall of Fame Concours d'Elegance

Key Staff: Rob Dingman, president and CEO Bruce Moffat, Chief Financial Officer Sen. Wayne Allard, Vice President, Government Relations

AMA Jim (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The basic reason this edit request was ignored was that it's obviously a slighty reworded press release. Consider, "AMA members won a significant victory for families who enjoy responsible motorized recreation". This is not a neutral and encyclopedic way to phrase anything. In fact, the words are a direct copy-paste of an AMA press release. Technically a copyright violation; we don't copy press releases fair use as lazy bloggers do. The phrase "member-driven U.S. nonprofit organization"? What is a "member-driven organization"? That is not plain English; normal people do not speak or write that way. If your friend asked you what the AMA was, and you said that, you'd get a blank stare. It's marketing-speak.Wikipedia editing is all-volunteer, and there is a limited amount of time and effort available for any article. It's unlikely that many volunteer editors even kept reading past "member-driven organization". You see that weird, stilted language and you know what you're reading. Having to explain to a marketer the difference between a "clear and understandable formal tone, not "written using argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon that is unintelligible to an average reader" and marketing B.S. is time consuming and almost always pointless.Besides the tone, it's obvious that no effort at all was made to even briefly mention the other side of any of these events, for example, those who opposed the AMA's position on public land use, or those who have said that for many decades the AMA did not represent riders "from all walks of life". In histories written by experts not in the employ of the AMA, such as Kevin Cameron or Alan Girdler, you read that every major decision in the history of the AMA was made by Harley-Davidson, and Indian, and other US companies, and later other major brands like Triumph were given a say. Members? The companies of course tried to keep them happy, but members were not in charge. You simply don't read that members demanded creation of Class C racing, for example. I don't read objective soures today who describe the AMA as all about what the membership wants; I read stories saying the AMA stepped in to solve a problem on behalf of KTM or Kawasaki or H-D. They pay the bills, they control the board. There's nothing wrong with that, but Wikipedia isn't going to describe the AMA in the precise language the AMA wishes to see.I look at things like the 2008 Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act and ask myself where all money the AMA spent on lobbying went for such a silly law to have been written in the first place, and why it took six years to fix it. What a victory! My opinions don't belong in the article, but an effort should be made to describe these events from a neutral point of view.If the AMA signed my paychecks, I would find it very difficult to write objectively about my employer, as Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." It is much easier to edit topics that you care about but don't have a personal stake in. Trying to please both your fellow Wikipedians and your boss is a thankless task: one of the two is going to wish you did it differently. I recommend not editing on a topic one is closely connected to, but if you insist, don't expect it to be easy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on American Motorcyclist Association. 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/20081012080653/http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/gangunit/about/omgangs.html to http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/gangunit/about/omgangs.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090310085847/http://www.superbikeplanet.com:80/2008/Mar/080308a.htm to http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2008/Mar/080308a.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amaproracing.com/releases/r07141.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090510091328/http://www.superbikeplanet.com:80/2009/May/090506factoriesgone.htm to http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2009/May/090506factoriesgone.htm

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) 11:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on American Motorcyclist Association. 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/20080630210053/http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2008/Mar/080307z.htm to http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2008/Mar/080307z.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2008/Mar/080308a.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2009/May/090506factoriesgone.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Need my member id
How do I find my member I'd number Gloria grignon (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Outlaw and One Percentor Description
This section greatly goes against Wikipedia's neutrality mission and has been written by Norman Gaines and Dennis Bratland, as shown in the edit history of this inclusion. Looking at American history, we do not refer to American democracy as a white-only establishment despite the obvious history. The angle taken in that description is highly misleading and does not take in nuance, with the AMA including black motorcycle riders before actual federal and state segregation policies were abolished during the civil rights movement. Plus, the William B. Johnson membership in the 1930s undercuts the argument of whites-only, showing that it was not a central tenant of the organization's founding and thus something that should not be given such relevance compared to actual segregationist policies. Few organizations deserve to be described in such a flippant manner. Unless there is evidence that segregation was a founding creed, it is beyond circumspect to make such a damning claim.

In the 1990s, Ed Youngblood sought to reckon publicly with a little-known past, which was very progressive for the time. He also sought to make the AMA more inclusive despite the demographics of riders showing that black participation was low, similar to hockey. Not because of an actual impediment to black riders. In citing his op-ed it is misconstrued as a verdict on the past, rather than an acknowledgment of a systematic policy, which it wasn't. Norman Gaines' inclusion in that description as somebody who participated in a membership drive is erroneous. And he was also a frequent letter to the editor/columnist to the AMA at that time, who highlighted black motorcycle profiling. In his articles and letters, members came together in condemning any motorcycle profiling as it is an infringement on citizens' rights. This was an important revelation for members to acknowledge that rights extend to all riders, but not one that condoned in any way racism.

The cited links in the paragraph show that such a stark statement is invalid. I demand a citation that clearly states that the AMA, in its charter, pursued segregationist policies from 1924-1950 instead of a citation 44+ years after the supposed end of its segregation policy and taken out of context.

The extent that it lacks true and proper historical evidence makes the accusation void and of no merit.

The reference to one-percenters and the establishment of outlaw motorcycle groups is also voided by the admission that there is no citation and it is described as apocryphal, thus being not an established fact.

This is unbecoming of Wikipedia as a trusted source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotopolish (talk • contribs) 05:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding. Most or all of this is alien to me, so I have messaged one of the editors named who will be better placed to react to your comments and criticisms. Wikipedia has no registration for the other named by yourself, being Norman Gaines, so this must be an off-Wiki writer? Normally there should be good reason for deleting content and challenging sources, see WP:BURDEN in addition to WP:CENSOR which I have left in the edit summary.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I look forward to hearing a response. Kotopolish (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all, you have not given any justification for the wholesale deletion of the entire section. The section cites three different sources on the subject of racial segregation, plus two more on the topic of 1%/99%. If you want to argue that all three cited sources are entirely wrong, and that it's entirely false that the AMA was segregated, and that all the other facts here are wrong, the burden is on you to cite superior sources that contradict the facts stated. Per WP:NPOV and WP:RS, the burden is on you to give us better sources that show it's all false. Failing that, the burden is on you to show sources that dispute the facts here, so that we can present the two points of view fairly. Wikipedia does not look for middle ground between those who say the earth is flat and those who say it's round. It's just a fact that the world is round and we don't owe flat earthers any consideration. It takes more than just a fringe source to get equal time. Reliable sources have been given for the content we have now, meeting the standards of WP:BURDEN. Now that that standard has been met, you need to provide your own *reliable* sources to raise a dispute. Sources that contradict the ones cited, not just sources with a contradictory political lean on the topic of racial segregation in the US. Show us sources that say "the AMA was not racially segregated", and that the racially charged events described did not happen.On the other hand, if you're not disputing the basic facts of the three sources, and you're only quibbling with the wording of how we describe the facts in those sources, then wholesale deletion is totally inappropriate. See WP:Editing policy, specifically WP:PRESERVE. You need to read the cited sources and explain what specifically you have a problem with, and what changes you'd like to see to make our content more accurately describe the citations.You might not have access to all these sources online, but that's a question of WP:offline sources and FUTON bias. You can ask others who have access to answer questions about the content, or seek assistance at WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request and similar resources to get yourself access. If you still can't read the offline sources, then Wikipedia policy says you must WP:Assume good faith and trust those of us who have read the offline sources that we have done an acceptable job of accurately describing the content. You can't just claim we're wrong sight unseen, simply because you don't like the content. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

history and one percenter discussion
I expanded upon the source material with citations and added non-competition awards with links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotopolish (talk • contribs) 19:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)