Talk:Hells Angels/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Orthography...

we name in proper English would be, of course, "Hell's Angels", denoting the Angels of/in Hell. But being "proper" is obviously, exactly what Hells Angels don't want to be! So out the window goes the apostrophe in their "official" terminology, e.g. patches, colors, etc. I suggest that Wiki contributors try to be exact when referring to the name of the motorcycle club itself (they spell it "Hells Angels") and literary references to it, where it is usually spelled in "proper English", e.g. Hunter S. Thompson's book about them. The Gnome 07:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Source: http://www.hells-angels.com/faq.htm "Should the Hells in Hells Angels have an apostrophe, and be Hell's Angels? That would be true if there was only one Hell, but life & history has taught us that there are many versions and forms of Hell."

Shoot me - but I've tried...

I have no affiliation with the Hells Angels or any other motorcycle club - I am interested in the biker culture - its good aspects and its bad.

I am particularly intrigued by the Hells Angels, purely from a sub-culture point of view, and I believe the public will be well served with an article that is neither complimentary, nor insulting, but objective and unbiased.

There has been a lot of discussion over the article - I think if we steer clear of inflamatory language (such as citing the club as an "outlaw" motorcycle club) and stick to VERIFIED information, we are able to produce a useful reference in the spirt of Wikipedia... without p***sing anyone off.

Since no-one seemed willing to spend the time to organise and research the article, and take the big controversial step, I decided to do so.

This may not be politically correct - I'm not a wikipedia veteran - however - I am open to discussion and would appreciate any sensible, unemotional comment and correction on the rework.

I've spent a few days doing research and trying to verify many of the statements made in the article in an unbiased and objective manner.

I have therefore made edits accordingly, reorganising information, keeping every piece of information which was verified, cited or referenced in an attempt to create a unbiased, objective article. Dzstudios 08:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Major kudos for your efforts, Dzstudios!! The rewrite and reorganization is a significant improvement on the article. I am going to make a couple of changes, however, including removing the giant list of chapters (just too many to be useful), and clarifying some of the finer details with correct terminology (you might give the Motorcycle club article and its refs a detailed readover). Again, bravo for your efforts!! Mmoyer 03:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

A pleasure - and thanks for your input!Dzstudios 02:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Request removal of 'biased' and 'rewrite' tags

I would appreciate your comments on the rework - and your opinion on removal of the rewrite/biased tags.

I will remove the tags, also. Mmoyer 03:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I ran out of time and was unable to get to it  :( Mmoyer 14:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Nomads

The article is wrong when it states that the Nomads are a "puppet club" of the Hells Angels (or any other bike club for that matter).

Puppet clubs are junior to the established clubs.

The Nomads are a separate chapter that is not related to any geographical area, hence the name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CaligulaJones (talk • contribs) 20:46, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Fixed. Thanks for catching that. Mmoyer 03:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

To be even more clear. The Nomads are a seperate chapter that "officially" is not related to a geographical area. However in practice many Nomad chapters are, in fact, geographically located. Confusing? Not really.... Often what is going on is that they are located in regions that are dominated by another OMG and so to avoid possible complications they are designated "Nomad" chapters.War (talk) 06:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Green Tanks

I am wondering if anyone can verify the statement in the 'History' section of the 'Hells Angels' article. The last sentence of the section states that one of the original lower rocker patches was 'Green Tanks', in reference to an area of Oakland, California. I can find no information to corroborate this statement, and the only reference I could find on the 'net for an area called 'Green Tanks' was for a fishing guide description (www.thelog.com/news/newsview.asp?c=1683). However, this reference does not refer to an area of Oakland, but of San Diego. It references a 'Point Loma' and a lighthouse, both of which I could find in San Diego. It sounds as if this 'Green Tanks' is a physical description alluding to some kind of Storage or Refinery tanks which happen to be green in color. Not being a resident of California, I don't have any other way of verifying this information. The article states that it needs a citation, of which I would agree. I believe that, if no proper source is found which can verify the statement, it should be removed from the article. Comments? CrowdedWords 21:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if we can find a reference for the actual rocker text then we can add a statement to the article that its unclear what the location actually refers to. Also, I wonder if the rocker text is in any of the printed materials even if it's not in an online source. I would say to let it ride until someone can check the printed materials, such as Bargers book. Mmoyer 18:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Info reads:

The first Oakland group, ca. 1956, before Sonny was involved, had the name "Green Tanks" as the lower rocker jacket patch. Green Tanks is a section of Oakland.

It's been a month and I did a fair amount of searching for anything even close to supporting this and could find nothing, so I removed it per WP:V. Mmoyer 03:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

IGNORANCE IS BLISS

Most of the urban legends surrounding the H.A.M.C. are just that, urban legends. When it comes to trusting the organized crime organization known as the Department Of Justice, don't be misled. This article had some accuracies, however, to me it was laughable. I could compare the writing of this article to that of a virgin teaching a sex ed class. Two of the biggest reasons modern day Angels get the reputation they do is this: 1) most people cannot tell the difference between some maniac in leather on a motorcycle and a true Hells Angels member. 2) human beings in general fear the unknown... What I do know is this, angels are the most loyal and respectful people I have ever met. Being an ex-Marine who has seen a lot of combat action, I truly understand the idea of brotherhood... I would and do completely trust them with my life without question... How many people can you say that about? Your local congressman or senate rep.? Your commander in chief? Your local law enforcement? Your friends and peers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.48.157 (talk) 22:05, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

To use your analogy, trusting them with your life could be compared to the virgin teaching the sex ed class. In my hometown, where I grew up (the local biker gang became full patch members of HA in 1997), putting a virgin in charge usually meant that someone was about to get screwed! I take it you are a member or a wannabee? Hardly NPOV. The only criticism I would currently provide for this article is that it needs a bit more work on the "history" section, without regurgitating either too much of the BS from Sonny Barger's book, or buying into other popular mythology. One of the best references I've seen is Jerry Langton's description of the Hells Angels origins on page 18-20 of his book "Fallen Angel". It's fairly well rounded. While you are at it you might want to read the rest of his book - it certainly wasn't the U.S. Department of Justice that was blowing up 11-year-olds with car bombs and putting recently murdered victims into sleeping bags and dumping the bodies into the St. Lawrence River. Garth of the Forest 07:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

While it doesn't apply to all Hells Angels or motorcycle enthusiasts in general, the links that group has to crime are well known and documented. Perhaps it's a case of a few bad apples spoiling the whole crate. --Lendorien 04:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the HAMC's links to organized criminal activity are well documented; however I also am of the opinion that the various governments involved are on shaky ground with legislation like RICO and Bill C-95 in Canada, which, it could be argued, both infringe on the citizen's right to freedom of association. See this article I wrote recently for what I think is a neutral point of view related to this concern. If for example, my brother commits a murder, should I be put on trial simply because I am in his family and wear a similar jacket to his? Of course not - not in a liberal democracy, anyway. But because law enforcement and our intelligence agencies have been so inept at, well, doing their jobs in gathering the required information for prosecuting members of organizations like the Hells Angels for actual crimes that some members have committed, they've convinced legislators to pass sweeping laws such as RICO, and the Patriot Act, for example. It is a slippery slope, my friends. Just ask anyone you know who was in Germany between 1933 - 1945...Garth of the Forest 08:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

To address the comment about Angels blowing up 11 year olds etc.. What you are doing is holding a group accountable for guilt by association. That method of reasoning and understanding is nothing but useless. If we were to take a look at members of our governments (Federal, State, and Local), we would see a laundry list of people convicted of crimes. Some of those people continue to serve in a position of privelage. What it boils down to and why I feel the article submitted is inflamitory is this. When we as humans choose to put our faith in something we tend to follow it blindly. Most people would argue that, especially the blindly part, but if you are truly honest with yourself you may have a different opinion of things. I.E. Most Americans feel they do their part by voting to choose their elected officials. On the flipside most Americans will try to find a way out of jury duty because they see it as an inconvenience. In turn, although we know the legal system is flawed and biased, because it was established and run by human beings with emotions, we tend to trust them to tell us how things are. Any good researcher know there is no knowledge like first hand knowledge. Onelast thing on this matter. As far as judging the entire motorcycle club for the instances you pointed out, do you take that approach with everything in life? It reminds me of another story. It would be fair to say that the modern Bible used in Christianity is based on the works of the Catholic religion, like it or not. A religion that has killed how many millions of people and for what purpose? But does that mean we should question the sanity of anyone who puts their faith in the Bible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.44.32 (talk) 12:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I take your point, and agree with you (up to a point); however the main difference between the Hells Angels and the Catholic Church is that the former organization's current raison d'être is to profit from the proceeds of criminal activities, while the latter - the Catholic Church's primary raison d'être - was (and is) to promote (and live a life guided by the teachings of) the Christian faith, a relatively worthwhile cause I would argue as long as it is done in a peaceful and tolerant manner by those who truly believe. True, due to human failings of many members of the Church over the centuries, and simply by how long it has been in existence compared to Hells Angels MC, there is more blood (when measured in pure quantity versus on a per capita basis) on the hands of members and former members of the Catholic Church than on the collective hands of the Angels. But you are also talking about billions and billions of people in the case of the history of Catholicism and hundreds or perhaps a few thousand over the relatively brief existence of the HAMC. Hardly a reasonable comparison. On the more specific issue where you suggest that the article is inflammatory I suggest that if you take issue with any specific content then you need to be more specific and provide some references to provide verifiable reason for disputing the existing content - many people have worked very hard here to present a neutral POV - my task has been primarily to object when others try to gloss over or downplay the HAMC's obvious and well-documented connections to organized criminal activity, while at the same time (see my other notes above) agreeing with you that simply wearing a particular jacket or having a particular tattoo is not in and of itself a crime.

As to your comment about the value of original research, while true, you need to be aware that original research is not acceptable as a primary source for Wikipedia content. You need to provide verifiable, reputable, third-party resources for any content you wish to add to an article, and you should also do the same to justify the removal of any content. Garth of the Forest (talk) 07:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Too many headings

This article has far too many headings to be useful. Is there some way to consolodate things a bit? --Lendorien 04:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Too many headings leaves little room for actual prose. The article is a recitation of facts, not an actual article. Mmoyer 15:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

International criminal organization

I reverted the addition to the opening paragraph that the HA are regarded by many countries as international criminal organization because the two supplied references only mention two countries (Canada and Denmark), and only the Canada reference contains a specific legal designation (which will probably be overturned IMHO). The Denmark ref contains no such official designation.

Generally speaking, such a statement in the opening paragraph is highly biased (see WP:POV) and goes to the heart of the controversy (already mentioned in the opening paragraph) about the HA: Are they just a misunderstood motorcycle club whose members sometimes do bad things, or are they a criminal organization? Well, it depends on who you ask. According to a former Bandidos member (Winterhalder, methinks), these 1% clubs aren't engaged in organized crime; Instead it's more like disorganized crime, where certain members and/or chapters decide independently to engage in drug dealing or whatever. I think that the "Controversy" section is a better place to discuss these assertions.

Also, I'd like to encourage User:67.43.141.158, who made these edits, to create a Wikipedia account and join the discussion on how to improve this article. We certainly welcome new editors! Mmoyer 23:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a well-documented fact that the Hells Angels are an organized crime syndicate (this transition having taken place gradually over time, but more specifically after certain events that occurred in the summer of 1965). While Winterhalder's descriptive term "disorganized crime" is very apt for describing the behaviors of many of the various independent outlaw motorcycle clubs that existed from the late forties until the mid-nineties, and could arguably also be used to describe the behaviors of the most inept of the HAMC membership and its various puppet clubs, since the mid-eighties there has been a series of mergers and acquisitions on a global scale that has, at least in Canada, given the Hells Angels arguably an even larger organized criminal reach than was previously enjoyed here by the Mafia.Garth of the Forest (talk) 06:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You're talking to deaf ears, Garth, most of the editors on this article are HAMC gang members and wanna-be's. Attempting to inject any reality in to the fantasy of this article is a waste of time. Never mind that the Criminal Activity section quite stout... Proxy User (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible true..but pure conjecture on you part. I've seen no evidence that this club is a syndicate of any kind. Thier members are known for living on the fringe and getting into trouble a lot. Those are facts. A syndicate? Not a chance.War (talk) 07:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sheldon Jay Bishop

I removed the following from the Membership section:

"The most notorious member of the Hells angels would have to be Sheldon Jay Bishop, known as Slaughter House. Slaughter House is the most dangerous member of the Hells Angels. He has taken down over 40 opposing gang members, and up to 25 civilians. The location of Sheldon Jay Bishop is currently unknown. He lived in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, he than ran off, never to be seen again. He is currently number 8 of the most dangerous, organized crime members in the United States."

... for the following reasons:

• No supplied references.
• Google search for anyone named Sheldon Bishop, Jay Bishop, or Sheldon Jay Bishop, or Slaughterhouse or Slaughter House in association with the HA yielded no results.
• Number 8 on some unnamed list is not supportable.

Mmoyer 22:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like the ramblings, and chest thumping, of one "SJB", in a vain attempt to create notoriety. CrowdedWords 20:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Second paragraph needs more work

While I understand the intent behind the most recent changes, I am concerned about the wording of, in particular, the last sentence of the second paragraph. I believe that it gives the reader, very early in the article, a wrong impression of what "one-percenter" means in the biker subculture. I also question the use of the word "clause" in that paragraph - suggest we try, at the very least, a re-write of that last sentence in the second paragraph. Garth of the Forest 02:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Go for it on the last paragraph. Clause isn't quite the word I was looking for, but it did the job at the time. In fact, simply saying one-percenter with a disambiguation link may be the best idea, as wiki-linking is there to let people go find out about unfamiliar concepts in the appropriate article (rather than having to explain everything in this one). I am not familiar with biker subculture, so I went with my understanding as informed by the linked definition in the main motorcycle club article. But the first sentence doesn't need any altering, and I have more refs to back up the details if you find them necessary. VanTucky ^Talk 02:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Good job. That was the wording change I was looking for. Well done. Garth of the Forest 18:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

I have assessed this article as B class, given its level of detail and organization, and of low importance as I do not feel that it plays a strong role in the understanding of the history of Canada. Cheers, CP 03:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur with B class assessment (we are hopefully moving in the direction of A class, three steps forward, two back, lather rinse repeat); however I believe this article to be of high importance for understanding the recent history of organized criminal activity in Canada. I suppose if your focus is on the first few hundred years of Canadian history (ie pre-cold war era), then this content is of low importance, but if you are focused on the last twenty or thirty years it is very important to understanding the changes in our approach to policing and understanding organized criminal activity that have taken place in Canada over the last few decades. Garth of the Forest (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Filthy Few Patch

There needs to be a citation regarding the "in reality the patch is only awarded to those who have, or are prepared to, murder on behalf of the club." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.85.197 (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Further yet, I boldly decided that a re-wording (which I've done) was necessary because this "reality" is a very subjective one and in violation of WP:NPOV - it is a belief held by many law enforcement officials and it may be true but this belief is disputed by others who may have a much less subjective point of view.Garth of the Forest (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

And other patches...

According to the paragraph on their colors,

The term Full-Patch refers to the complete four-piece crest, including the 'Death's Head' logo, two rockers (top rocker: 'Hells Angels'; bottom rocker: State or Territory claimed) and the rectangular MC patch below the wing of the Death's Head.

AFAIK, the MC cube is NOT considered a seperate patch in terms of it being "four piece". HA may do things differently but according to the article on Motorcycle clubs, it's usually just called a three piece. The Cube is considered part of the logo even if it's a technically seperate piece of material. If any HA say otherwise I concede but until then it seems truer to call it a three-piece. --72.23.28.29 (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hells-angels-logo.jpg

Image:Hells-angels-logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

— Save_Us_229 20:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Uncited content

There seems to be a lot of uncited and poorly cited content that has snuck in over the last few months. This stuff needs to be refernced or it should go. And free geocities webpages are not credible sources for wiki articles. Macutty (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Good points, both. Will you please be more specific about which unreferenced content (or poorly cited content) you feel should be removed unless better sources can be found? Otherwise I fear my former brothers-in-arms and I may have to go find our rusty old armour to polish up in case some dragon comes along and starts being overly bold, thereby terrorizing, perhaps unintentially, some of the local villagers. Garth of the Forest (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The whole Hells Angels North Chapter section is based on a geocities website for starters.....I'll sift through more of the article later. Macutty (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Also thwe whole section on Downtown Toronto Hells Angels Clubhouse, Ontario has no valid citations. They are either dead, or dont cite the information written in the article. Either new citations should be found or the info removed. Macutty (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as no one has provided any alternate sources for the info (and I have not been able to find any backing up the claims made) I'm taking down the info that does not have current or valid citations. Macutty (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not do that. Do not just arbitrarily remove information from an article just because it is poorly referenced. Rather, insert the appropriate tag(s) i.e. "citation needed", for example. If you have a valid reference that refutes any claim made as factual, then please provide the appropriate reference(s), and if you wish to be bold then change the wording of the article to suit the new reference(s). But don't just arbitrarily remove content just because you can. Garth of the Forest (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Its not a matter of poorly referenced, its a matter of the referneces either not being available, or not containing the info writeen in to the article. You cant make up details, provide a false citation, and then say "leave it until we find other sources." You need to find a verifiable source BEFORE you add content. If no citations exist then the info needs to be removed. I didn't just rush out to delete the info, I gave well over a week for anyone to provide other sources (and tried to find other sources myself) but they do not exist. Macutty (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This statement is false there are plenty of references for the material you removed you have not made an effort to look. I will not revert your changes right now but I will be re-inserting some of the relevant content in future when I have more time. Recognize that people are busy they have RL commitments and some of us follow many topics not just HA. You should not just arbitrarily remove content just because it doesn't suit your POV. You wouldn't be a patched HA or a hang-around by any chance, would you? Anyway, the geocities website you mentioned is all accurate information I've read several books that confirm it and reputable Canadian media have covered this material in the past, but I agree that additional references are desirable for the sections you removed. But they already had some references and you did not provide evidence to the contrary that the material was false. Recognize that adding good references takes time and a bit of research effort is required. Please note it was not me who originally added the content you removed but I protest its removal. There were references provided they perhaps just weren't exhaustive enough to suit your tastes, and I understand that you took issue with some of the wording. But if you are going to change wording then you need to provide your own references, and/or rationale, not just decide unilaterally to delete mass sections of content just because it doesn't suit your POV pushing. You need to give other editors more than a week to respond some of us are very busy in RL and only get on here every week or so. Again, don't be too much of a dragon or you will have a legion of knights swarm you. Well ... okay ... I admit ... maybe just one or two while the rest hide behind trees. But I'm a powerful knight I've got truth and references to back me up. Now was that smoke coming from your nostrils or are you just glad to see me? Garth of the Forest (talk) 09:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, the info i removed had was not referenced. Period. The links provided did not substantiate the info contained in the wiki article, or did not exist at all (as in the case of the torntofokus website which is dead). And if you have read books, or watched news stories, thats great, reference those. But you cant just say "I heard this somewhere so I'm going to add it and hopefully someday, someone will provide a citation for it." Nothing I did is POV, it simply removing uncited content. I didnt add new material from a POV, just removed the info that was uncited or miss-cited. And a geocities website, regardless of whether it is accurate, does not meet the wiki standard for a reference. And to your comment: I am a software salesman. The only affiliation or connection I have to this or any motorcycle group is what I read in the paper, or see on the news. I've never even been on a harley....there are just some folks out there who dont like seeing the one sided POV pushing on these kinds of subjects. I dont take issue with relevant, factual, properly cited info....but you cant take a news story, reference it, and then add a bunch of facts, dates, details that are not contained anywhere in the news story. Thats called OR and it isnt permitted on wikipedia. i know you havent added the info, but someone did and this is exactly the process they followed. Macutty (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

And to your comment "But they already had some references and you did not provide evidence to the contrary that the material was false." the burden of proof is on you (or the contributor) to provide proof the information is factual and correct, not on me to prove that it is false. Macutty (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. It was not my intent to start a revert war here which is why I haven't touched what you've done (yet). I come across a lot of really good content on wikipedia which is either under-referenced, not referenced at all, or has POV issues. My approach is just a bit different from yours and certain other editors whose approach leans towards "when in doubt, speedy delete", whereas the approach I prefer is to add tags to the article or section indicating that certain "facts" found in the article need to be referenced, or cited in a more scholarly fashion. These may be facts which I may already know are true, if it is a topic I am very familiar with, or in other cases perhaps I simply don't know enough about the topic yet to be able to decide if the material in its present form is worth keeping and just needs additional references, or if it needs to be removed or completely rewritten. I then, as time permits, for the material I have the most interest in, go out and and seek references to either support the content, or to provide my justification for removing it or modifying it. Others take an approach like yours - if the content isn't referenced, they give it a week or so (or in some cases I have seen, a few hours or minutes) and then just unilaterally delete it without adding any tags or warnings or seeking opinions of other editors who have invested a lot of time and effort in getting the article in question to its current state. I find this approach overly harsh, counterproductive, and not in the spirit of Wikipedia, which is to assume that all contributors have good intentions, they just maybe haven't yet taken the time required to bring their contributions to content to a "FA" quality, or don't know how, they need to rely on the gnomes. I appreciate that you at least served notice of your intentions here on the talk page. And the beauty of wikipedia is that the information that you deleted is still there. I will make an effort to squeeze out a bit of time in the future to go and get that content you removed, and provide you with the references that you seek, before adding any of it back in to the article. The book I'm reading now indicates that there are "thousands of pages" of police intelligence reports that have been entered into court records relating to the content that you removed, so I should have no trouble getting you references for the content. Garth of the Forest (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, funny thing because the content you took out, I found in five seconds using Google, ever look up Project Tandem? Google gives you at least 923 Hits on Project Tandem Raids. I found at least 50 Plus WORKING sources on the Downtown Eastern Avenue Club House Raids on Google. Reverting back old info. User: Comm 23:55, 27 September (UTC)

Thank you, Comm. I've been too busy with RL commitments to get to this, but I hadn't forgotten. Your chivalry is appreciated; I'll review the changes you've made in closer detail as time permits and supplement with additional references whenever possible. Garth of the Forest (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

News Story About Them Plotting to kill Mick Jagger

You might want to mention that. I don't have the time, but I just saw it on the Yahoo front page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.50.162 (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Meredith Hunter

See the talk page of Meredith Hunter's article, where further info is shown, with Hunter taunting the Angels, as well as firing at them. This is from the "Times", based on the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.236.174 (talk) 10:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There are also eyewitness accounts and evidence to the contrary that question whether Hunter even had a gun, and that Sonny and his boys "produced" the weapon at a later date to help get their brother off from the charges he faced. There is also evidence of police corruption and that money changed hands to help promote the "self-defense" theory and bolster the story that eventually led to an acquittal. Other eyewitnesses and researchers have concluded that the Oakland Hells Angels who were there that day (and near Hunter at the time that his fatal injuries were inflicted) essentially got away with murder. I've read and watched material from both points of view which, frankly, in the final analysis, leave me with more questions than answers about that fateful day. Truth be told, we will probably never know the real full story of what happened, even those of us who were there or have watched and/or read much of the material on this subject. What we do know is that the prime suspect was tried and the self-defense theory held up in the American legal system. Just as with the Kennedy assassination and other turning points in history, there is still much doubt that all the facts came out or ever will come out - I personally believe that there were very likely other HA who also stabbed Hunter that day but only one was charged, and there was conflicting evidence as to which wound proved fatal and much speculation as to who delivered it. Garth of the Forest (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

To Garth:

As progenitor of this article, I resepct your efforts. However, I cringe upon reading your above posted diatribe. Pay offs? A "prodcued" weapon? Cite your cources, please. The words "I personally believe" are not relevant. Numerous cites in this article are from Law Enforcment sources. In keeping with that lineage, I would produce the below article copyright, The Associated Press, May 25th, 2005.

"Alameda County Sheriff's Sgt. Scott Dudek said Wednesday that after a renewed investigation over the past two years, authorities concluded Passaro, who died in 1985, was the only person to stab Hunter and did so only after Hunter pointed a gun toward the stage.

Enhanced footage from the film shows Hunter brandishing the gun before Passaro leaps from the stage and stabs him, Dudek said."--Unquietminds (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Read #28, Langton's book, for starters. The "official" investigators into the Kennedy assassination concluded he was killed by a sole gunman who fired a "magic bullet" (or two) - this does not make this the only valid theory. Wikipedia allows room for alternative viewpoints in articles as long as they are well referenced and widely held, not fringe theories. This is not, by the way, required on discussion pages. What we are all guilty of here is straying off topic; if there are any proposed changes to content for the Meredith Hunter article, these discussions should have all taken place on that talk page. Garth of the Forest (talk) 10:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hunter's gun is clearly visible against a white back-ground in the film. Patty Bredahoff said, "Don't shoot any one." Her remark implies that Hunter had a gun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.33.187 (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

She was also grabbing both his arms. This implies that Hunter had a weapon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.33.187 (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

See http://www.morethings.com/music/rolling_stones/images/hells_angels/index.html

This shows Hunter holding a gun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.51.112 (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

"This shows Hunter holding a gun." Um, sorry no. I've looked through all those photos and they do not clearly show any such thing. The best evidence for the existence of a gun, at the scene, in the possession of Hunter prior to his death, was the film. And of course the statements by the Angels who were nearby. And yes there was a gun produced several days later by individuals who had a conflict of interest and who claimed it was the gun. I agree that odds are good that Hunter did have a gun, but the evidence is not 100% conclusive, only plausible. Garth of the Forest (talk) 07:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7v9WcwTbErw shows the incident.

Yep, it sure looks like a gun in that video. Was Hunter left-handed? Garth of the Forest (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added cites and expounded content to the article, using inline format { } —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unquietminds (talk • contribs) 18:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Founding Date and location?

Okay, I know there are varying accounts of how the early groups formed, and what, if any, knowledge they initially had of each other, but we need to have the article reflect the best consensus for which was the first chapter and when it was founded. This article currently states it was 1948 in Fontana and other sources I've been reading say it was 1948 (some sources say 1947) in "Berdoo" (San Bernardino). Which is it? Is this just my limited knowledge of California geography coming through or is there a current debate as to which was the earliest chapter, what year it was founded, and where? Garth of the Forest (talk) 05:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Acquittals and convictions

While we certainly don't want this article to devolve into a list of all the court cases won and lost by the many lawyers who represent the HA members and their associates, it is important to include the most important ones. I would like to thank user Macutty for adding the most recent info and references from the BC case, much appreciated, however I have removed the last sentence he added because it struck me as being both inaccurate, and neither properly cited or NPOV. Law enforcement officials and the Canadian legal system have already established the Hells Angels in Canada to be a criminal organization. Yes, the decision in this case was a set back for law enforcement and the law abiding general public, but only from the perspective that the Crown did not produce enough evidence to convict the HA member of the primary crime he was charged with, so logically he could not be convicted on the secondary charge on its own. The purpose of the criminal organization label in both Canadian law (Bill C-95) and American law (RICO) is not to gain convictions in and of themselves for simply being a member or an associate, but to be able to give stiffer sentences when members of these organizations are convicted of crimes and have shown a pattern of being involved in organized criminal activity. A better route (IMHO) would be for us to simply do a better job of toughening up sentencing for the actual crimes committed, regardless of who commits them, whether you are talking about HA members or associates or just another generic pack of shiftless street punks, the sentences need to be reflective of the crimes, the circumstances, and take into consideration the criminal histories of each perp, not be overly concerned with what logo they happened to have on the backs of their jackets at the particular point in time when they are arrested. To do anything else is discriminatory - in my opinion a punk who is a member of a native gang and commits a violent murder or shoots a two-year old in a drive-by incident should certainly get at least as hefty of a sentence as a HA member who knowingly blows up an 11-year old with a car bomb. Garth of the Forest (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Garth. I encourage you to read the citations provided as it was within the actual media report that the last statement was sourced (about the blow to law enforcement), not from my own research or opinion. I also think we need to revert the title back to its original as the main issue which made this case significant is not that of trying a particular member of the club, but rather the fact that the Crown had attempted to establish the Hells Angels as a criminal organization in BC and failed to do so. Additionally, I think you will find that the previous conviction (Lindsey/Bonner) does not in fact designate the Hells Angels as a criminal organization across Canada. There are even questions around whether it will hold in Ontario. Further, the justice since has declared that this classification does not remove the burden on the crown to prove this circumstance in each and every case with which the crown attempts to try an individual under this statute.Macutty (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Macutty. I've given this further thought and I believe a quote from another contributor is relevant here (you may recognize this): "Look. The material I removed was not referenced. Period." If it was included in the material you refer to as citations then add the reference, and add the content back. The sentence I removed was not referenced. And the heading you chose for this section was perhaps appropriate for selling (some shade of yellow) newspapers, but not for an encyclopedia. It was inaccurate, and untrue, and I stand by this position. Unless/until the anti-gang laws are struck from the books, and/or this specific organization is removed from the lists, the Hells Angels in Canada remain a criminal organization as per law and legal definition. What was in question in this case was, did the crown produce enough evidence to convict the member in question of the crime he was accused of committing - the legal answer was "no" so the secondary charge of possession for the benefit of a criminal organization also logically needed to be an acquittal. I do however also want to re-iterate that I did take your point that the talk pages are intended for discussions specific to improving the quality of the articles so in future I will do my best to refrain from expressing personal opinion and stick to just discussing the proposed changes or additions to the article and what additional actions, if any, would best improve them, and which would not. Good day.Garth of the Forest (talk) 03:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

On another note, I’m a little concerned with your position on this subject as from your statements (pretty much using the talk page as a soap box) it is clear that you are not NPOV on this subject and I worry this POV is leaking in to your edits if even subconsciously. This page has had serious issues with public opinion affecting the content rather than the subjective facts that are appropriate here on Wikipedia. We need to ensure personal views, thoughts, opinions are not having any impact on the content added or removed.Macutty (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a particular position on this subject; just a passing interest like many motorcycle enthusiasts; perhaps I should go as far as to say it was a path contemplated but not fully traveled. Currently, I'm neither a member of law enforcement nor of the outlaw biker subculture. I'm sorry to hear you feel that way about my contributions, although I do understand your position, because I do tend to keep my opinions confined to the talk pages, with the intent of encouraging the kind of debate we see there, precisely for the reason of keeping personal opinions out of the articles and to debate proposed major changes prior to them being made. If you actually checked the history, you'd find I've made very few contributions to this particular article (it was in pretty good shape before I came on the scene) and the contributions I have made have tended to be pretty minor ones - correcting spelling, grammar and some of the word usage. I have removed the neutrality tag (believing it to be added by you or someone seeing our back and forth here) and have decided to keep this article on my watchlist but only for the primary purpose of vandalism patrol. If the tag was added by anyone else for another reason then please forgive me and add it back. Garth of the Forest (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not clear if David Burgess's 15-year sentence is a maximum or a minimum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.51.240 (talk) 11:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be easy to find out but what does it matter? I don't think this article benefits from adding those sort of details about an individual convicted of a crime that appears to be completely unrelated to his membership in this organization. Matter of fact, on those grounds, maybe the section about him should be pulled entirely? Just a thought.War (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, War. I'd even take it a bit further and say that even if the conviction were related to his membership in this organization, it also needs to be notable enough conviction to warrant mention here. The major police sting operations are (arguably) notable to mention, if they lead to charges or convictions against a significant number of members, but individual convictions, in and of themselves, are not notable enough (and too numerous) to warrant mention in this article. Garth of the Forest (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

War: I concur that compiling a "list" of various and sundry convictions against inidividuals whose activities are unrelated to the club or membership will bog this article to infinity. Laughlin is pertinent. Atltamont is pertinent, but I question its inclusion under the current heading. Also, why begin with 2001? Why not list every incident since the club's inception?

Also, why not include the numerous multi-million dollar settlements the club has won against various State and Federal agencies? A droll recitation of well published newspapaper articles concerning the club's alleged "crimes" elevates this topic no higher. Governments of many countries have stated the club is "organized crime". So what? Virtually every major Federal attempt to shut them down has failed. Beginning with the famous Lynch Commission in California to the ill-fated and unraveled "Operation Black Biscuit". More members have been exonerated than jailed.

The club calls itself a club. In every aspect, it is. It is incoporated, has numerous web sites and sells trade-marked merchandise. Like any club, membership is exclusive and by invitation.

I protest efforts by some to hyper-edit this article in order to fill some ill defined agenda by attempting to sensationalize every known instance of individuals who are also club members in an attempt to paint with a wide brush, the entire body of the club.

Why not include the fact for example, that in 2005 at the "Queen's Jubilee" a well-known member was both applauded and hailed by both Prince Charles and the Queen? Why is every insert made,though factual, deleted when it poses the "threat" of painting the club in some other light?

Why not include the cultural phenomenon of the club's beginnings to include acceptance by Janis Joplin, The Grateful Dead, Ken Kesey, Allen Ginsberg,the Beatles, Willie Nelson, Johnny Paycheck? Why not include the historic disruption of the 1965 Berkley anti-war protests by Sonny Barger and other club members? Why not include the fact that the Hells Angels paid for and posted anti-drug billboards all over California to combat the rise of lethal overdoses by "main lining" hard drugs?

Why were my additions under "Altamont" (which should not even be listed under "Criminal Activities" since no one was convicted), deleted? Who is "guarding" this article to ensure it maintains a certain flavor?

If you're going to have a heading entitled "Acquittals and Convictions", it presupposes the view that the entity known as Hells Angels exists solely for the purpose of furthering criminal activity. Incidentally, you'd have far more acquittals.

Let us not continue to be under delusion. This is history, not a fan club nor a rap sheet. SIGNED> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unquietminds (talk • contribs) 21:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Infiltrations

I came to the Hells Angels page to read about infiltrations, particularly Tony Tait . . . . . . but could find nothing about any infiltrations. Nothing. Zip. Nada. There is no need for me to read a page on the HA and just get the basics that most people already know. Perhaps a secondary page on "Infiltrations, Convictions & Acquittals"???? The current page on the HA in Wikipedia is pretty useless, just lists bog standard stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.158.108 (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Non-Existent Images

The description of the logo/patch references pictures that have been removed from the article. I'm not sure I'm familiar enough with the material to rewrite the section. Any ideas? I'm thinking about just removing the references. Specifically the section "insignia" says: "(refer to image at right, top)" and "(refer to image at right, lower)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.90.112 (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

While the insignia is a copyrighted trademark, is there a "legal" way to include a facsimile of it? Perhaps a good photograph of a garment that has the patch (such as in the Bandido article?) Proxy User (talk) 06:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

there's no such thing as a "copyrighted trademark" suggest you check out the articles on copyright, trademark, and fair use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.102.214 (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

In Europe

Should't there be more mentioned about the European Hells Angels? I know they're an American assosiation and are mainly base in the US but there are many Hells Angels in Britian, Scandinavia, The Netherlands and Germany. Most of the stuff here is about the American and Canadian Hells Angels. --WölffReik 14:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to note that all Italian chapters are in the north of the country. Completely absent in the south. Tapered (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Disney in the LEAD paragraph??

Why on Earth is the bit about the suit the H.A. filed against Walt Disney Pictures in the lead paragraph? It's not even that important.

"In March 2007 the Hells Angels filed suit against Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group alleging that the film entitled Wild Hogs used both the name and distinctive logo of the Hells Angels Motorcycle Corporation without permission."

Thoughts?—DMCer™ 02:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Moved it to the "Insignia" section. Proxy User (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sam Cutler

--Deadhead63 (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Hi, Can somebody tell me why the edits I put in yesterday were reversed? I'm a bit new at this. I've been writing an entry for Sam Cutler, the Rolling Stones Manager at Altamont. His book was published on October 1, 2008. I actually helped him edit it. The edits I made yesterday clarify the story from the Horses mouth. He did NOT hire the Angels to provide security. He said they could drink some of the back stage beer if they parked near the generators. I referenced his book. Why was my edit reversed? Sonny Barger himself actually read and approved Sam's version of the events before it was published. I know this because I read the correspondence between Sam and Mr. Bargers attorney. I would like to encourage the editors to put my entries back in. Poor Sam's taken 40 years of this BS story. He has now published the truth. Mr. Barger has approved it. It is fact. Facts are important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadhead63 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Further information, I was able to find a copy of my edit in the cache. It is as follows:

Sam Cutler, the Stone's tour manager who had arranged to pay the Hells Angels has said their role was "to park their bikes near the stage, protect the generators, and share in the staging area beer. This was confirmed by the Hells Angels as well as others connected to the event. In Sam Cutler's book, "You Can't Always Get What You Want"[18] it is explained that in the Bay Area, the Hell's Angels traditionally parked their bikes next to the generators to protect them. There was beer in the staging area, and the Angels were simply invited to share in the beer--there was no formal agreement for the Angles to "provide security for the Stones or the crowd".

The person responsible for reversing this edit should check the new book, or just call Sonny Barger.--Deadhead63 (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the source for this? Aside from needing a bit of a rewrite for clarity and grammar, if it can be referenced with a source "acceptable" to Wikipedia, it seems OK to me. I can see one problem, maybe it strays to far into minutiae? But I was thinking: Should the Altamont "incedent" be split into a separate article? Proxy User (talk) 07:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Deadhead: Vintage original posters advertising the event clearly indicate towards the bottom of the poster "Security By The Hells Angels". It is highly probable these posters were printed PRIOR to the event and the implication is clear. Of course there was no "formal agreement", anymore than Hunter S. Thompson had a "formal agreement" to write his story. One thing is clear, however. They did in fact act as security. In a well documented radio call in show, Mr Barger says "I was told I could drink beer and sit on the stage". In his book "Hells Angel", he also states that motorcycles were parked in such a manner as to provide a barrier between the crowd and the stage. Formal agreement or not, the above are well cited facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.176.59.40 (talk) 04:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a fallacy. There were no posters for Altamont made before the show. Here is one quote that describes what happens. The text is from and is in reference to someone asking about the worth of their Altamont poster.

"Good question! This is more controversial than you might expect! See, because they changed the free show to being held at Altamont only 48 hours before the gig, there were no posters for the show. There were posters printed (generally for sale in head shops) shortly afterward, and this might be one of them. Truth is, while there are some people who will pay over $100 or so for Altamont posters, most people tend to stay away from them. Thus, to answer your question, and considering the condition shown in the picture, this one might go for $10 - $15."

I would change it myself, but I just don't care enough about the quality of Wikipedia. Maybe someone will read it here. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Wikipedia doesn't work. 76.94.205.82 (talk) 09:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Hells Angels crime in the news..

This article should probably be integrated: [1] and [2]. Tedder (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Both links are dead. Can you provide new ones? Proxy User (talk) 06:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Rolling Stone Article

I remember a 1978 feature article in Rolling Stone magazine that did portray the Angels as criminals. According to the article, the Angels had a "sweetheart" deal with the Oakland police department in that the police would lay off of them if the Angels delivered up leftist activists (eg, The Weathermen)to the law. This was the late 60s, 1970s, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.156.43.8 (talk) 13:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

recent edit

are there no sources for the information recently removed here?

there are plenty of sources; however I do like the flow of the intro better without this extraneous info, so I vote for it to be left out. One of the best sources is Sonny Barger's book, where he describes how early on there was an informal association of "one-percenters" but how the Angels quickly distanced themselves from this because they felt the primary allegiance should be to other HA members, and that the other "one percenters" weren't worthy. This is why many of the early HA members had one percenter tatoos or patches, but it really is an outdated and over-played label. Garth of the Forest (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

This article has deteriorated significantly to little more than an attempt to smear this group. First of all, investigations and resulting charges should not be listed unless the outcomes of those trials are also included (which they were at some point, put the POV pusher's don’t like including the fact that most of the Canadian charges are stayed or Angels are acquitted ).

I believe in its current state it needs an NPOV tag.

206.108.31.34 (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Major investigations are certainly "relevant". But if in any case the investigations didn't result in charges or convictions and these (possible) facts are not mentioned, feel free to include those (possible) facts, as long as you can supply acceptable source references. The best way to "correct" an article you feel is "incorrect" is to pitch in and edit the article. As long, of course, as you can find acceptable source references. Proxy User (talk) 06:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

As a first-time reader, I have to agree that this article degenerates into a laundry list of bad acts. So they are rough and some of them do bad things.. Why the exhaustive list? Without more history, culture, current events it sticks out as what I see as arm chair law enforcers making a court case against the group. My personal take? There have always been rough men and there is crime in the streets. A brotherhood of bikers who arent bound on one side of the law, but are not bound on the other either, is live and vital and free. I am not one and I dont want to be one, but my opinion is that this article is weighed down by a repetitive list, outweighing its usefulness, and missing the forest for the trees. And no, the trees are not "they are all a bunch of xxx yyy zzz's" There is a fuller story here. This is not a good article as it stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.120.194.232 (talk) 06:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"degenerates into a laundry list"? As stated above, major investigations are certainly "relevant". If the Angels don't like the reality of how they are portrayed, it is of course within their power to change their ways, turn over a new leaf, take the high road, and so on. If they don't like their history as criminals, they can always stop doing crimes. Proxy User (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

See, you say it yourself right there - "they can take the high road" and then we wont say bad things about them.. They dont take the high road, and are unapologetic about it.. thats what makes them what they are... I claim this article ought to be gutted.. the bias of the writers, plain and simply, shines through with a disproportionately long, repetitive list of "official charges" ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.175.39.68 (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

So, you're saying we should whitewash the history of the HAMC because it's ugly? We should hide the unembellished truth because it's not nice? =//= Proxy User (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur that the sanctimonious tone of some commentators skew the article which in fact does render it pointless. The Hells Angels are iconic. To the person who suggested "if the Hells Angels don't like it they can turn over a new leaf"- I seriously doubt any member of the club wouold even read this article. But in accordance with Wikipedia standards; it totally blows. I am serving two week notice- I will gut this thing myself and rewrite it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.176.59.40 (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with the NPOV theory. I'm uninvolved and totally neutral on the topic (obviously this is just me saying so, but decide by yourself) and opened this article just to get some information, and was struck by how blatantly it is just a "bash the Hell's Angels" entry. I was trying to get some info but it's obvious I can't trust much of what's written here. I don't doubt that the Hell's Angels may have committed crimes but the text tries to imply that about anything and everything is Hell's Angels fault. For example in this brief quote:

"On July 17, 2009, a passer-by discovers a glittering silver object under a black BMW in Eberswalde. Reports say the object was a homemade bomb and the car belongs to Rene H., who is the President of the local Chicanos. Police reports say the greatest rocker gangs in the world wage a fierce battle for East Germany. The region serves as a strategically important springboard in prosperous countries such as Poland, Czech Republic, the Baltic states and Russia. Countries, where people disappear every day.[122]"

the source is quoted at the end of the paragraph, giving the uninformed the impression that ALL what is stated there is from a reputable source, and that involves the Hell's Angels, who surely put the bomb and that are involved in people's disappearances in eastern Europe. If you actually click the link you can see the only thing the original article proves is that a bomb was found under the Chicanos' president BMW.

As said, I'm quite convinced that Hell's Angels members have committed crimes. The Hell's Angels are a vast community, and they are bound to have their quote of black sheeps. Just as an example: Japanese are a very law abiding and respectful people. But if I were to write an entry about Japan which quotes every single major crime committed in Japan, I believe a lot of people would end up believing Japanese are an unruly, thuggish, violent mob of bloodthirsty criminals... Maybe somebody should take all this and rewrite it in a more credible way. After all, this looks a lot like a shamelessly biased slandering, which makes even the references to real faults less believable and easy to discount like the usual prejudice. Just my two cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.239.53.196 (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite

In my opinion (so take it with a grain of salt), this article could use a complete rewrite. I'm not talking about the content, if it is POV/NPOV, fact or fiction, but the writing itself and the format / layout / structure. It's a mess. Bandidos is a mess, too. Proxy User (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, sign me a non-affiliated, casual user —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.175.39.68 (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The article, like the "club", is a steaming pile. It needs help, but I don't think there are any interested parties. Proxy User (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, people (and apparently corporations, so why not clubs) are innocent until proven guilty. This article states that lots of HA members have done criminal things, but the organization has not been proven in a court of law to be a "criminal organization." So I removed that statement today —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.112.122.206 (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The citations saying the Hells Angels are a criminal enterprise meet Wikipedia's standards, and there is overwhelming consensus for that on this talk page and elsewhere. See also WP:SPADE and WP:DUCK. --Dbratland (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

HAMC & the AB

Reading over the sources provided, I'm not convinced that placing the Aryan Brotherhood as part of the "Allies" of the HAMC is factually correct. According to FBI documentation made public on this, the connections between the two seem profit-driven, in that members of the two groups will occasionally collaborate in drug trafficking and the like. That seems to imply that the relationship between HAMC and AB is no more substantial than the Aryan Brotherhood's connections to Asian crime cartels they are known to collaborate with when it comes to importing heroine from countries such as Thailand, for example. Maybe we need an additonal sub-category such as "associates" to place the AB in? That's the term the references are actually using instead of "allies", at least. Malik047 (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

In Sweden

While certainly kept close tabs on, motorcycle gangs are not banned in Sweden, and the cited New York Times article (reference 5) does not make any such claim either.

213.115.59.220 (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The schmoe who made this change obviously didn't read the article. Will revert and warn the editor. (In the future, please start new discussions at the end of the page. Thanks.) Quaeler (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry. I edited because The Hells Angels aren't banned in Denmark either. We have a law that allows the police to restrict certain people access to certain buildings. The law is commonly known as "Rockerloven". While this might allow police to close certain clubhouses, the motorcycle gangs aren't outlawed in general. The law is stated in danish at [3]. Thus I mean that the mentioning of Denmark in the opening paragraph is uncorrect. 90.184.126.134 (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, depressing if true to see that the NY Times botched this. While the translation of that law does indeed not say that gangs are outlawed, it would be really nice to have something official-ish (or at least of equal 'status' to the NY Times) saying "motorcycle gangs are not outlawed in Denmark". Any hope of finding that? Quaeler (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

.......................... Either the Hells Angels or the Banditos (who had some different opinions) are banned in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Iceland or finland. I.m sort of a regular biker, not attached to neither of the organisations.My personal impression is that a lot of the things media reports is a lot of rubbish. Most of these people are nice and regular with family and kids. But media is media, got somebody bad, all is bad!! Well check out any goverment!! How good or bad are they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.32.171.129 (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

History of the US charters?

Hello. Looking to find some info on what was the first and second

charter (town and state ) started in U.S. outside California.

Thanks, Bigdaddy.

Can email me at

4bigdaddy@verizon.net 3/17/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.123.164 (talk) 03:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sydney Airport

You have Anthony Zervas as a member, he wasn't. He was a club associate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilma10106 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25266808-5001021,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilma10106 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Forking of content

I personally suggest we fork the "illegal activities" section into a new article. As it stands, it takes up over half of the article, and easily enough to make its own article. The content itself is notable. Any thoughts? Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Once you strip away the illegal activity, there isn't much left. Proxy User (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL Garth of the Forest (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Citations re: David Burgess

See http://www.bighousecrew.net/index_files/burgess.htm Admittedly, http://www.bikernews.net is suffering from computer difficulties now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.6.188 (talk) 08:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Notability (people). In order to include anything on Wikipedia, you must support it with references from reliable secondary sources. Particular care must be made when it comes to living persons. Neutrality requires not giving undue weight to people or events. In other words, do you have newspaper, magazine, or journal articles that explain why this particular man's convictions are notable enough to deserve special mention in this article?--Dbratland (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I put the 15 years back in again, only to have it taken out because of alleged lack of sources. Note that www.bikernews.net is working again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.30.71.244 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

RfC started to discuss replacing Criminal Org Infobox with Org Infobox

Please comment on an RfC to replace Template:Infobox Criminal organization with Template:Infobox Organization for active motorcycle clubs. Thanks! --Dbratland (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

My mother was a Hells Angels woman in the late 1930's in Oakland, California

My mother was a Hells Angels Motorcycle gang woman in approximately 1937 in Oakland, California. She was in a lot of trouble all the time and her boyfriend was Ernie. She was Mary. I don't know what their gang names were. The family stories say that Mom and Ernie had a baby in 1937 that died or was given up. I cannot find any newspaper articles in the Oakland newspapers unless I pay a fee to become a member. I wanted to find out more about this troublesome group and to find out if they all were really as bad as labeled. My mother and Ernie have both passed on. My mother never wanted to tell me how bad she was. I just wanted to know the truth. I cannot prove or disprove what the family said about mom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Svenskasandy (talk • contribs) 20:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC) The article implies that the Angels were founded on the 17th. of March in 1948, which is well after 1937. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.109.137 (talk) 10:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds to me like this is most likely genealogical myth (similar to urban legend). Most family histories are boring, so stories get invented. Unless you have some valid evidence that she actually rode or hung out with "outlaw bikers" of that era, it sounds suspect to me. She and Ernie might have got in some trouble, that doesn't make them members or hangarounds of the Hells Angels. The Angels weren't founded until 1948, their predecessors like the POBOB didn't get much press until after Holister, most of the early members were still in diapers or not born, or at least not "gone bad" yet as early as 1937. Garth of the Forest (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Criminal activites section is too long, too much like a list, and should be spun off

The criminal activities section is basically a list. It is too long, and it is very repetitive. It needs to be condensed into something more intelligible. As per Wikipedia:Summary style, this list of crimes should be summarized in a way that is accessible to the general reader, and then copied over to a new List of Hells Angels criminal activities. The new list page can then go on and on and on and on and on to its heart's content without sandbagging Hells Angels.

Alleged crimes which are still pending a guilty or not guilty verdict are probably non-encyclopedic and should be scrutinized to ensure they are notable enough for inclusion. If there is a final conviction and appeals are exhausted, there is plenty of time to add it. The list is plenty long enough already without having to mention every single arrest and investigation.

Support? Oppose? Alternative? --Dbratland (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The section - "list" - is repetitive but only because the nature of the activities is consistent and on-going. I don't see a clear benefit to splitting the crimes off, nor a negative for keeping them here. Can you expand on your thoughts about this? As to alleged crimes, if they are related to a specific incident that has garnered a lot of press, I think they should stay as they are part of the "larger story" of the particular incident. But it's a fine line, allegations are not convictions. For example if there was some incident involving some out of control fight with a lot of people in a public place, or there was a police bust related to some on-going investigation, alleged crimes are relevant. But, if some HAMC member is accused of knocking over a convenience store or ripping off someone's bike, those might not rise to the level of inclusion. Also, a consistent format / re-organization is a good idea. =//= Proxy User (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The basic reason is that in its current state, who would want to read it? Wikipedia:Article size#Readability issues goes into more detail as to why. Pages can be split apart when they are at about 30kb, and they should be split when they reach 50. Hells Angels is at 58kb. The criminal activities section alone is 33kb and it does not form a cohesive section. The general reader needs to first see a summary, something that collects together the information and says what it amounts to, what it means. For example, is this roll of crimes long? Long in comparison to what? Is it significant? In comparison to what? Where do these criminal activities fit in the big picture? What is the pattern? That's what people most want to read. After you've given them that, then they might ask for details. You give them that by letting them click on List of crimes... and that brings up the full telling of the events.

Once again, Wikipedia:Summary style explains how this works, using the example of the topic World War II. Nobody wants to see just a recounting of this battle, then this battle, then this battle then this battle... They want the big picture, then the parts of the big picture, then the parts of the parts.

Currently, this section works by a kind of bombardment, or Ad nauseam. It doesn't tell you what the crimes add up to or what the overall meaning is; it just dumps a long, long, long recounting of crimes, perhaps with the intent of impressing the reader with the sheer bulk of it. That's the opposite of Wikipedia:Summary style. Plus, it doesn't work, because I contend most people stop reading before they get past the first couple paragraphs of it. --Dbratland (talk) 00:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, now. Sounds like a good idea to me. The current state is indeed a mess. =//= Proxy User (talk) 01:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe such an arrangement could be applied to Bandidos as well, I don't think any of the other Outlaw Motorcycle Gang articles are at that point yet. =//= Proxy User (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Whites Only?

The statement "candidates must be white" is not true. There have been many Mexican American, Native American, and Asian American full patched Hells Angels. Charters that have, or have had, non-Whites as members: Dago, Frisco, Daly City, Oakland, Tucson, New York City, Chile, and some of the Netherlands charters. Oakland had an Asian American president at one time, and one of the Dutch charters has an Asian Dutch as president.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.234.215 (talk • contribs)

You can also add the Cleveland charter, and some of the Nevada charters up there with that non-white list.

I went ahead and edited out the "white" requirement. I have personally seen many non-white HA in different southwest US charters (CA, AZ, NV).71.10.230.146 (talk) 14:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I reverted you edit because the cited source says otherwise. Please to not add what you have personally seen to Wikipedia. That is original research and Wikipedia does not have any use for original research. All you need to do is find a reliable source that can be shown to be a better source than the one cited, and then use it. That's how it works. Help can be found at Wikipedia:Reliable sources.--Dbratland (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I have re-deleted, and the justification is at this site: http://www.hellsangelswindsor.co.uk/memorial.htm maybe in Britain it's different?Acmthompson (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

-Yeah, its a crock that HA only allow whites. This article must have been written by Law Enforcement, since they always try to portray the HA as racist rednecks. I'm pretty sure every chapter in California, except the LA and Orange County chapters has, or has had non-whites. Just look at the memorial web-pages for the HA's that died, or are locked up. They show HA's that look to be of Mexican, Asian, and South American descent. Some are really dark skinned too, like one from the Dago chapter (Chato)that is on the memorial page, so detractors can't claim that they only allowed light skinned minorities in. The Dago and Oakland chapters have had non-whites in it since the 1960's. A recent book by Jay Dobyns state that one of the Arizona Angels is a Mexican that can barely speak English. I think the HA's will patch in anyone that is willing to put the club and the brotherhood literally before any thing else in their lives. I'm sure their are racist Angels, and probably even racist all white chapters, but when the chips are down, all Angels are going to back up any of their brothers, regardless of race. Backing up the club and your brothers is a main requirement, in order to be HA.66.189.12.185 (talk) 07:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Source for Non-White Hell's Angels- Hunter S. Thompson, Hell's Angels, Ballantine Books (NY, 1966). On page 44 it identifies at least one unnamed Chinese-American member of the Oakland Chapter. He is identified as a mechanic for Harley Davidson. Granted this was 1965, but this is Hunter freakin' Thompson. This is Hell's Angels. If this source is not reputable, I'll eat my hat. It's more than reputable. It's practically definitive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.38.60 (talk) 12:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the fact that many Hells Angels have racist tattoos and symbols sways people. Some of the non-whites have them too. I think they are used just for shock value with most members. But I am sure some members are into white supremacy. But one thing I know is that you can't peg a Hells Angel member as one thing. Some members are actually 100% law abiding citizens, some members, sell drugs and kill, some members are racist, some aren't. But one thing that is for sure, they will all back up the other members and club no matter what. I think that's how some of the law abiding ones end up in in jail or prison. They end up backing up others Hells Angels in fights, and getting locked up over it. The only sure things about a true Hells Angel, is that the member is not a cop, turncoat, or coward. And that the member will back up his "brothers" no matter what the cost. And that the member is truly into outlaw motorcycle lifestyle. All this can probalby be said of most of the outlaw bike clubs like the Bandidos, Mongols, and Outlaws too. But I think there are a lot of racist whites-only outlaw motorcycle clubs too (I think the Pagans, Warlocks, Peckerwoods MC, and Breed MC are racist-not sure though). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.37.156 (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The trick here isn't what's true. dbratland has a source that says it's White's Only. Of course, the source is wrong, but it's a source. What you need to find is an Angel, law enforcement officer or reporter who went on record identifying the organization :as non-White's Only. Or you can do what I did, and find one really good source who specifically identifies a non-white member. Otherwise dbratland can claim to be arguing from a position of authority while you are bringing new research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.38.60 (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Wanganui New Zealand chapter are not whites only. Also, according to HAMC official website, they have recently founded a charter in Turkey. Bit hard to find members for a whites-only MC in TUrkey, really. Please either substantiate the "whites-only" statement, and when you realise this is not possible, remove it.

Depends on your definition of "white". I think by "whites only", most here mean "no Blacks or Hispanics". But what do I know... =//= Proxy User (talk) 04:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This is just a ridiculous argument now. HAMC most definitely allow non-whites in as full patched members. You can use about 50% of club web pages as citations, since there are loads of non-white members featured on them (most notably the Chilean charter). In fact, Sonny Barger's two non-fiction books (sources from a ACTIVE HIGH RANKING Hells Angel) mention full patched HA's of Mexican, Filipino, and Hawaiian heritage. Someone already provided a source that includes an Angle of black African heritage. Doc Cavosos' book also mentions the Mexican Hells Angel that was murdered by a Mongol in San Diego. I think there doesn't need to be a citation for white only, since it is common knowledge that there are non-white Hells Angels. On the other hand,that whites only statement is fueled by apocryphal stories and thefact that HA used to wear Nazi symbols. 98.176.116.217 (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, I think that the information supplied by Sonny Barger in his books completely trumps the information supplied by the article in Canada.com, that is being used for the "whites only" source.98.176.116.217 (talk) 08:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I remember watching a Donahue show in the late 70's or early 1980's that featured several Hell's Angels, and the last question from the audience, which they didn't have time to go into, unfortunately, was "Can a black person become a Hells Angel?" One of the members answered "No". I don't know if this person had authority to speak for the whole club, but it would seem that at some time, at least, that may have been an understood policy. Just something for someone to check out, if they're interested.Codenamemary (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• HAMC pretty much lets anyone in who isn't black. Black people seem to be the only ethnicity barred from membership. There were two black HA's at one time. One in Canada, and one in England. In both cases, the chapters were originally a different club that patched over to HAMC. The Black men rode with these clubs, and were patched over when the clubs became HAMC, so they didn't prospect. The Canadian HA was hidden by the other HA's in that patched over chapter, until HA's in the US found out about him. The Black HA from England died before an international vote could be taken on his expulsion from the club. His English brothers sent support letters asking other chapters world-wide to allow him to continue his membership with the club. Those two were the only know black HA's. HAMC took a international vote to disallow any Blacks from joining the HAMC shortly after the revelation about the two Black HA's. The vote passed, and Black men are no longer allowed into HAMC. All of this info can be found in Yves Lavigne's books, which include undercover transcripts of club meetings. I think Sonny Barger also touches on it in some of his writings, saying that Blacks have their own clubs. However, other non-white ethnicities are allowed membership: Natives Americans, Maori and Pacific Islanders, Chicanos/Latinos, Middle Easterners, and Asians. Some of the Native American HA's wear patches signifying Native American blood ("Indian" side patches). Maybe the section about membership should make not of this..."Members can be of any heritage other than Black...," or something to that effect.98.176.233.118 (talk) 09:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

IF Hunter Thompson's book counts as an acceptible source of information -- not "original research" -- I recall him mentioning at least one Asian-American club member in the mid-60s and, as I recall, I don't have the book at hand, at least one Mexican-American member as well.

He also quotes Barger as saying that they wore the German/Nazi insignia to set themselves apart from the masses and be confrontational with mainstream society rather than for any sympathy with Nazism as a system. (71.22.47.232 (talk) 06:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC))

Please help

I tried to remove an unrelated category, but it ended up deleting ALL backlinks instead. This edit is not visible on the 'history' page, and I do not know how to get to any "backlinks" area, because I was using a toolbar which does not go to that page. Can somebody please restore them for me? Thanks.                     ~Rayvn 12:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

references

The artilce and its references need to be reviewed. There are several blogs, and other unreliable sources used and much of the info is little more than acccusations. I get that there are those that would like to use the page to wage some sort of campaign against the club but this is an encyclopedia, not a mouth piece for law enforcement or others who would like to advocate against the club. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.244.173 (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. But I think most of the 1%MC, gang, and mafia/mob pages have been written by LE anyways. It would be nice to get a completely unbiased author for this page.71.10.230.146 (talk) 14:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

By all means, present verifiable countervaling information on any articles concerning criminal enterprises. Tapered (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's remove the flags

I see no credible challenges to the footnotes in this discussion. The article is well verified from sources that don't seem fringe or original. At this point they give the appearance of an attempt to discredit negative public relations. 04:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapered (talk • contribs)

Agreed. Garth of the Forest (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The apostrophe thing

We really need to properly deal with the apostrophe: "hell's angels" is an English phrase which can be capitalised. "Hells Angels", without the apostrophe, is deliberately misspelled gibberish. Some authors use the gibberish phrase when writing about this organisations, but the most influential, HST, clearly didn't, instead silently correcting spelling mistakes, as is standard practice. If we really want to give the gibberish phrase credence by using it as an article title, we still need to explain our choice, and point out that the name contains a deliberate mistake; we also should move this article to HELLS ANGELS, since it would be nothing but an attempt at graphically copying the appearance of the logo, rather than actually parsing it as words.

If there is no usable secondary source providing significant reason for using the incorrect spelling, as I suspect there isn't, let's please just move this back where it belongs.

109.250.57.43 (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a made-up name. As such, it should be spelled how the Angles spell it. Which seems to be "Hells Angles". =//= Proxy User (talk) 04:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Really??? The way to spell it is 'Hells Angles'? What kind of angles are they? Right angles, 45 degree angles? Hmm??? Please learn to spell! The word is spelled A n g e l s - Angels! The English word 'angel' comes from the Greek word 'angelos' meaning 'messenger'. Once again, please... either learn to spell or use spell check before you post! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.188.22.51 (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The explanation can be found at WP:COMMONNAME. --Dbratland (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

from http://www.hellsangelsriverside.com/faqs.php "Should the Hells in Hells Angels have an apostrophe, and be Hell's Angels? That would be true if there was only one Hell, but life & history has taught us that there are many versions and forms of Hell." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.46.23.149 (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Overlinking? (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Estonia)

Yesterday I added links for those countries. The links were removed with reference to "overlinking".

I disagree. Links would be a convenience for many English-speaking readers who are unfamiliar with small European countries, like those who ask me, "Denmark? Is that the capital of Stockholm?"

Also in the interest of consistency - the very next section includes a link to the Netherlands, which is much larger and better-known than Estonia.

Unless there are objections I'll restore the links tomorrow. RenniePet (talk) 10:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The guideline at WP:OVERLINK crystal clear, "Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia, including plain English words, the names of major geographic features and locations, religions, languages, common professions, common units of measurement". Most readers of English are not confused about whether or not Denmark is a country; keep in mind that Wikipedia is not just for United States readers but for all English readers, and in most countries geography is still taught.

If you disagree with the manual of style, you should suggest changing it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (linking). Until the guidelines change, we should do our best to be consistent with Wikipedia's house style.

I've removed the link to Netherlands (see WP:OSE). --Dbratland (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

History of name. Ethnicity

The history section was full of irrelevant loosely documented material on the history of the name, covered in other articles + an accompanying picture. It's been removed. The white designation in the 'title' box was removed because it was unsupported by the reference cited. Tapered (talk) 06:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

German influence

The section on Criminal Activities in Germany is full of German influence. I suppose that that is inevitable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)