Talk:Motorcycle club/Archive 2

Motorycycle club versus Motorcycle gang

Many, if not all, of the notable MC's articles link to this page: Bandidos MC, Boozefighters MC, Hells Angels MC, Mongols MC, Outlaws MC, and Pagans MC. Several of this a description in thier title such as, "The ____ is a one-percenter motorcycle club ..". Often this gets editted to "The ____ is a one-percenter motorcycle gang ..". I think there needs to be some concensus about whether MC's are actually "clubs" or in fact "gangs". It is my informed opinion that the "gang" designation is pajorative.

I'd like to address some of the arguments I've heard for the "gang" designation.

• The FBI has designated all of the big four as "gangs".

rebuttal: Government agencies are fond of labeling organizations in ways that increase thier chances of getting more public funding. I hope that we don't start looking to the US government to make decisions for us on issues of truth. What the FBI decides to call something has no bearing on what it is.

• Everyone knows they are gangs.

rebuttal: I think it's pretty clear that hearsay is worth pretty much nothing. Everyone that I know knows that they are clubs. Niether point of view is worth squat.

• They engage in gang-like activites.

rebuttal: According to [[1]] the top two definitions of a gang is:

  1. A group of criminals or hoodlums who band together for mutual protection and profit.
  2. A group of adolescents who band together, especially a group of delinquents.

rebuttal: As the vast majory or all MC members have never been convicted of any crime #1 doesn't wash. As most MC's have a minimum age requirement of 21 AND are composed of people much older #2 doesn't wash.War (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur 100%. These are clubs by actual name, which is to say that they are actually incorporated with "Motorcycle Club" as part of their official title. To change their description to 'gang' is perjorative and violates NPOV, since 'gang' has no consensus definition and the purpose of its use is to imply organized criminal behavior.

As for those clubs that carry the FBI designation of 'Outlaw Motorcycle Gang', each article mentions that fact so I don't see a problem there. Mmoyer (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

well, the Boozefighters MC is in no way, shape or form a gang, nor a 1%er club. the fort worth chapter has cops in it. i laugh when i hear people say that because the Boozefighters to me, are just a mom and pop riding club.65.68.204.184 (talk) 05:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)j.crowson

Article balance and accuracy of recent references

I am again concerned that this article is losing its NPOV. The reference from the Connecticut Gang Investigators Assn is questionable, for instance. This association still believes there was an actual riot at Hollister, and their website is full of rumor, innuendo, and unsubstantiated "facts".

Regarding the number of dead from the Quebec Biker War, the article states "which has involved more than 150 murders[22] (plus a young bystander accidently killed by an exploding car bomb), 84 bombings, and 130 cases of arson." Unless these are all solved crimes in which a biker was convicted for each, it is purely speculation on the part of the police that bikers were involved. The numbers included, therefore, are inflammatory and do not reflect actual fact.

This leads to my main point: Motorcycle clubs and their members, simply by virtue of being non-mainstream and having so many bad stereotypes, are easy targets for blame for every crime committed within 20 miles of their clubhouse. Just because the newspaper, police, FBI, CISC, DEA, or Interpol says they are responsible for such and so does not mean they actually are. This balance of alleged actions vs. facts proven in a court of law must be carefully stated and conveyed in this article for it to remain NPOV. Furthermore, even listing every alleged criminal act of a biker, even if stated as such, begins to upset the balance.

Remember, there are a great many motorcycle clubs (most of which are non-notable for purposes of Wikipedia), whose members, although not mainstream people, are law abiding citizens with regular jobs and families who would no more commit a crime than you or I. This article must maintain that perspective and balance.

I would much rather see this article expand on the rich traditions and culture of motorcycle clubs than watch it devolve into a detailed list of crimes allegedly committed by bikers.

I will attempt to give the article a good workover in the next week or so. Mmoyer 18:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

While I think I understand where you (user mmoyer) are coming from (i.e. an assumption of guilty by association should not normally be considered valid evidence to be used in convicting someone for an alleged crime, unless RICO or similar legislation can be applied), for balance we do also need to include information about the darker side of biker culture, for example, the drug dealing, extortion, and other organized criminal activities common to the outlaw biker world, as long as the information is reliably sourced. On this note I would be interested in opening a discussion (and seeing some source citations) for the (what I consider to be dubious) distinction being made in this article between a "motorcycle club" (MC) and a "motorcycle riding club". I know that user mmoyer has often been quick to correct any use on Wikipedia of the phrase "outlaw motorcycle gang" outside the context of the official post-1980 law enforcement definition (essentially thereby limiting the meaning to be only "The Big Four" and, perhaps, in some states and provinces, certain generally acknowledged rival and puppet clubs), when in fact it is actually quite common usage to refer to any "club" that wears a three piece patch and/or MC patch and/or one-percenter patch, or for that matter any group of people as a "gang" - i.e. chain gang, my gang, the old gang. The exception to be taken I suppose might be with the use of the word "outlaw" not the word "gang". Technically, unless the organization has been officially designated to be a criminal organization then the entire membership are not outlaws; only members with outstanding warrants and who are evading law enforcement should technically be considered outlaws. Some reasonable give and take with the word usage in the interest of maintaining a balanced POV is required here I think. Garth of the Forest 05:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently reading a book authored by anthropologist Daniel R. Wolf (he undertook a very detailed study of the Rebels MC in Alberta, riding with them as a full patch member for over three years), who, when referring to the North American experience, defines an outlaw motorcycle club as "technically...[any] club that is not registered with the American Motorcycle Association (AMA) or the Canadian Motorcycle Association (CMA)." He goes on to say "AMA or CMA registration further aligns the club with the legal and judicial elements of the host society; some clubs will go one step further and incorporate themselves as 'registered societies' with the local state or provincial authorities." So, I would certainly agree that a distinction does need to be made between 'outlaw motorcycle clubs' as per this technical definition, and those motorcycle clubs who are officially listed by law enforcement agencies as organized crime groups. The label typically used in this latter case is OMG (Outlaw Motorcycle Gang). So in that sense I understand the sensitivity with the use of the word "gang" because when combined with the words "outlaw" and "motorcycle" it takes on a different meaning than "outlaw motorcycle club". Garth of the Forest (talk) 06:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

As to Hollister, if it was not a riot (with which I would concur) then what word or phrase is more acceptable? Incident as currently used in references to the article about Hollister seems too much of a euphemism to me. From all the accounts I have read, it must have been a very, very long weekend full of incidents from a local law enforcement point of view, not a single incident. Hollister, while now fodder for Hollywood legend, was to me a perfect example of what can happen when the "one percent" are allowed to get totally out of control and overshadow the activities of the "ninety-nine" and the general civilian population. Garth of the Forest 05:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've just been browsing through the archives for this article and see that I may be needlessly and naively re-opening an old can of worms. At first pass it looks like mmoyer has done an admirable job of synthesizing information from older (now deleted) articles such as motorcycle gangs and outlaw motorcycle club, and, overall, I like the way this article is laid out. We just need to find a way to better incorporate some of the great ideas that user Pickle UK had indicated in the archives and that is to also better document, perhaps by using the artificial distinction of creating the article entitled motorcycle riding clubs to better include, for lack of a better way to describe it, the noteable clubs who do not conform to the "American style" noted here - aka organized hooliganism and/or the imitation/admiration thereof. Garth of the Forest 06:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Most American-style MCs do not engage in organized hooliganism or imitate/admire it. The media has created this perception. Nor was Hollister a riot. Yellow journalism and sensationalism have painted it as such, but the simple truth is that too many people showed up for an event and the town was not equipped to feed nor house them. No actual riot took place. It is exactly these perceptions that, through the use of proper references and careful writing, we are trying to ensure do not end up in this article. Garth, may I politely inquire about the nature of your first hand experiences with MCs? Mmoyer (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that riot is not the best term to use to describe what happened at Hollister on that July weekend oh so long ago. However, incident seemed like just too much of a euphemism to me. From a local law enforcement perspective, it must have seemed like an awfully long 36 hours (give or take) containing many incidents. General lawlessness is perhaps a more accurate description to describe that weekend. True, yellow journalists added fuel to the fire (i.e. the now infamous staged photo); however the fire already existed all on its own and it is certainly downplaying the events of July 4-6, 1947 in Hollister to characterize them as simply resulting from a shortage of food and accommodation. I don't think the seven local law enforcement officers called in an auxiliary force of 32 more to help set up tents and make chili. They were there to restore law and order, and THAT, my friend, is the "simple truth". I applaud your efforts to improve the quality of these articles and encourage us all to help this article (and related articles) maintain a NPOV with careful wording and appropriate references, but I honestly don't understand the need to downplay Hollister. I think part of the issue I was having with this article was the leading disambiguation link, which I see someone just removed with the most recent edit. We are getting there; let's work together to provide the needed checks and balances as we all strive to get this (and other) articles to GA (or even FA) status where warranted. As far as my own first hand experience with MCs, I don't want to go into too much detail here (original research is verboten anyway), but I will say that I've been riding since 1975 and the first (but not last) HA I met in 1979 was a member of the now defunct Laval chapter. Garth of the Forest (talk) 06:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ninety-nine percenters

I think the "Ninety-nine percenters" section, in general, adds balance to the article, but we must carefully avoid WP:POV issues here. The addition of the phrase indicating that one-percenters generally like to intimidate other riders is generally not true, and certainly will require some supporting references to remain in the article. Most of the people who have negative encounters with one-percenters have generally brought the trouble onto themselves. Mmoyer 15:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

One-percenters are self-identified outlaws. I think a better way to phrase your comment about negative encounters would be that most of the people who have NOT had one have gone out of their way to avoid it. You seem to be taking the not uncommon (and apologetic) approach of blaming the victim. As far as intimidation goes, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but c'mon - that is the one-percenters primary modus operandi. You yourself pointed out to us elsewhere that certain motorcycle riding clubs were in danger of having their patches forcibly removed by the dominant outlaw motorcycle gangs in some states, and some of the more noteable riding clubs specifically forbid their members (for their own protection) from wearing three piece patches, lower rockers with a designation (city, state, province, etc.) that could be construed by the dominant outlaw biker gang in the region as "claiming turf" - I mean - if that is not intimidation then what is? Garth of the Forest 06:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope that everyone keeps in mind that there are large differences between motorcycle clubs, between chapters within a motorcycle club, and between members of any given chapter. It's a mistake to over-generalize. Also, it's mistake to take events of the 60's, 70's, or 80's and think that they reflect the nature of a given club today. It just isn't so. It's also a mistake to assume that what the press publishes somehow reflects the reality of club life. It's just isn't so. 1% clubs are by definition secretive and protective of thier own. People that that don't understand this or don't understand how this is reflected in their attitude toward ordinary people often feel extremely uncomfortable and even intimidated. War 06:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it is a mistake to over-generalize. However, we are not talking just about events of the 60's, 70's or 80's, we need only look to events of the past few years to understand that outlaw biker gangs who use the threat of force to go about their daily business are as much (if not more) of a threat today as they were thirty years ago. If anything, they are more so because they have become more organized, and have had to become more sophisticated in their operations precisely because of the efforts of the media, law enforcement, and the general public, to curtail some of their criminal activities. I am an avid biker myself; however we must not kid ourselves about the primary purpose of today's OMG - they are not, as many of them would have you believe, simply "a bunch of people who like to ride motorcycles". I'm very much a believer in "live and let live", but we need to call "a spade a spade" (and of course provide a reliable source citation when doing so). :) Garth of the Forest 00:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I both and agree and disagree, and this is where the over-generalizing gets people in trouble. I've personally interacted with a 1% chapter that was heavily involved in drug trafficing. I also personally interacted with another chapter 3000 miles away that was activily involved in prostitution. Sounds bad so far. However, I've also been heavily involved with countless others that had no criminal intent or inclination at all. So which of those clubs/chapters/club officer/members do we use to characterize the nature of MC's? Which do we use to characterize thier "purpose"? MC's have a long history of criminal behavior, but so does the Catholic church, the US government, et al. This behavior is more a reflection of the type of person that is attracted to MC's than the MC organization itself. Most MC's work very hard to keep a lid on this aberrant behavior. I very much believe that the exception does not make the rule. Therefore MC's should be characterized by what they do most of time (ride, meet, stand around and talk, ride some more), not what some do sometimes.War (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Its definitely needed in some form. What worries me most about this article is someone with no knowledge of the subject would come away thinking that all motorcyclists are in criminal gangs. now rightly the article focuses on that issues as its a very notable issue of concern, but how do we give balance (in a cited way). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pickle UK (talk • contribs) 22:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Aha! I think you've touched on something here, Pickle UK! I will find some supportable numbers and add them to this section. Mmoyer 02:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a regional thing. I personally have never heard of anyone calling themself a 99%er. I've seen some stickers and patches that indicate as much but they clearly are meant more as a joke rather than membership in some organization. So..I guess what I'm saying is that this part of the article should probably be called something else. It reads like 99%er is a term that members of other motorcycle clubs identify with, which I do not think is the case.War 05:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

99 percenter is a made-up term. Someone put it in the article, and it seemed to fulfill the need for a section about non-one percenters, lending a much needed positive balance to the article. I am completely open to suggestion for a replacement. Mmoyer (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Here are some more problem statements in this section that need to be addressed:

• Many of the law abiding citizens referred to as ninety-nine percenters belong to riding clubs such as Harley Owners Group, Christian Motorcyclists Association and others such as law enforcement and firefighter groups.

Issue: This article is about MCs, not riding clubs, so we should mention actual MCs in this statement, not motorcycle riding clubs like HOG and CMA.

• Though possibly mistaken for OMG members, notable ninety-nine percenters who fight the actions of Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs (OMGs) ...

Issue: "fight the actions"?? This statement makes it sound like these clubs are actively at war with 1% MCs, which they most certainly are not. We could change this phrasing to talk about the nature of non-1% MCs, and mention some of the more notable ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmoyer (talk • contribs) 03:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've copyedited this section to address the two concerns noted, while still working in a few of the more notable riding clubs. Opinions? 76.114.242.235 03:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the above comment but my session had expired. Mmoyer 03:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Two further problems: It is suggested, but not stated, that "ninety-nine percenters" are people who are not "one-percenters". Is that true? (The math works out ;-> ). Also, the "one-percenter" paragraph, in its three meandering paragraphs, does not at any point define "one-percenter". It should do that in the first sentence. As a total outsider here (never even ridden a motorcycle), I couldn't begin to do this. I gather that bikers are a cranky lot, but can't somebody come up with a definition general enough to pass muster? In short, WHAT THE HELL IS A ONE-PERCENTER? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.89.65 (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hells Angels Membership

In the section of the article for membership, the last statement is false. I don't know how to cite it, but I have a copy of the movie, "Hells Angels Forever" (IMDB webpage for it: Hells Angels Forever). In the movie they have an interview with several members about the "SS" and Nazi regalia they sometimes wear and one member admits he is Jewish, just to prove that the club is not anti semitic in general, though some members may be. This starts at the 58 minute mark in the movie. (Rockabillykid 11:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)) Some Jews adopt anti-Jewish attitudes to cope with their origins.

There is also an interesting discussion on pages 38 - 47 of Sonny Barger's book Hell's Angel: The Life and Times of Sonny Barger and the Hell's Angels Motorcycle Club on how the Nazi regalia got started. He apparently got a "free belt" from a friend in the late fifties, which was brought back from Germany after the war. Put it in context; in the late fifties there was still lots of World War II era German paraphernalia available in flea markets, second-hand stores, pawn shops, and what not. He also mentions that they generally don't allow Nazi regalia in the clubs anymore because of their German chapters and the fact that all that sort of stuff is illegal in Germany now. In 1997 they took a vote to remove the lightning bolts from the "Filthy Few" patch as well. In this same source Sonny addresses the FAQs he often would get asked about the requirements for membership. User:Garth of the Forest 02:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I will work these changes into the article. Thank you both for the thoughtful insight on this topic. I clearly need to buy several books to fill in some blanks in my knowledge of this subject. Have a Wiki day! Mmoyer 17:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm in Canada and most of these books are available from the public libraries if you want to save a few bucks. Hopefully the same is true in your area. My next mission is to see if I can find copies of some of the early films, like Hell's Angels 69 and Hells Angels on Wheels. If you haven't already seen it you might enjoy the documentary Hell's Angels that was originally aired on the History Channel in 1998 - I also got that one from the local public library. Garth of the Forest 21:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

GA failed

This page needs to be completely regenerated to pass GA

• First up, the article is heavily under-referenced. Most parts are not referenced.
• Secondly, the references need to be filled out properly. At the moment, a lot of them simply consist of a link. They need full publisher, author, date details, eg see {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} and for an example, see Adam Gilchrist (which is an FA).
• Broken refs: 4, 10
• Ref 1 takes the example of one club and presents it as typical. This is an invalid conclusion.
• Lead is supposed to recap on what the main body says. In this article, some of the lead is not repeated in teh main body and some of is unsourced or appears to be original research. "Membership in a MC is much different than membership in a motorcycle riding club, or any other club, for that matter. A motorcycle club is the pinnacle of the counterculture biker lifestyle, where riding a motorcycle is not just a pastime or a hobby, but a way of life requiring a strong level of commitment to the club and ones fellow members. Membership is not automatic and may take more than a year to earn." and "hough they are grammatically correct, these clubs are not MCs in the strictest sense of the term, and members of MCs, that is, clubs who wear an MC patch, regard these other clubs as motorcycle riding clubs."
• History needs to be expanded.
• One sentence paragraphs in the bottom of "membership" needs to be integrated
• Dates should be wikilinked.

REgards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Too US centered

This article deals basically with MCs in US and US-related stuffs that are not worldwide. Like there's no news coverage about 1%ers or anything like that in here (somewhere outside US). Since most people here rely on motorcycles for daily travels (home to work and such), the image of 'bad biker' is mostly linked to any MC, not being know to a commoner about 99% Clubs, that image of 'good biker' being of any biker not in an MC. Plus, most stuff is too US centered to make the article enough informative to outsiders. 189.5.138.123 (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'd point out that this is likely due to these 5 factors: 1) A Majority of Global Motorcycle Sales were historicly in North America due to: a) the economies of Canada/USA after the depression and WWII (vs. Europe) provided the economics to market heavily to NA... even today bike profit margins are MASSIVE compared to sales of the same model in Asia. b) the geography of Canada/USA being vastly more expansive (and less populous) makes motor-vehicle transport more necessary/likely c) the traditional "wilderness" of central/western US reinforced sales of motorcycles, sports cars, trucks/SUV for similar reasons. d) Hollywood is in Cali, and hence movies are based on American culture... which is where pop-culture gets motorcycle club membership motivation and endorsement/mythology. e) Until recently, North America was the only real place one could use a motorcycle to navigate a continent. The Soviets never had a national highway system like we have in Canada/USA (they used air/rail), nor does China to this day (historically waterways), though that is slowly changing as they attempt to connect major cities with land-based shipping/commuting routes. Until that happens, Asia probably won't see the motorcycle as "freedom" on the open road but instead as a glorified Rascal or heavyweight moped. Image is what drives clubs... I don't see many chicken-farmer motorcycle clubs as of yet. ;)

So what's different now? a) Asia now makes up the BULK of motorcycle sales in the world... although profit margins are still highest in NA (which is why they still target and leverage the NA-motorcycle image). b) While most motorcycles in NA are simply recreational and in most places SEASONAL as well... many 3rd world and 2nd world countries use them as functional vehicles for transporting items to market or commuting. As incomes rise in China and India, more and more people will have purchasing power to access such vehicles, and eventually enough disposable income to consider one as a "toy" or weekend hobby... then you'll see clubs burst out everywhere. There are already a handful of club chapters in major asian cities due to the number of people alone and a few rich citizens who buy Harley's as status symbols (much like we do here... go check out any software company's motorcycle club (they all have one)... more bling than Sturgis and less combined riding experience than a 17 year old with a dirt-bike.

It is important to point out that many gangs, mafia, and organizes crime will utilize motorcycles depending on the area. Japan comes to mind where there were reports a few years back of Japanese Mafia using "motorcycle hit men" and roving gangs of motorcycle enforcers... but this was not a club or association that chose to commit crime, nor were all the members motorcycle riders, they were primarily organized crime who happened to use motorcycles. OMC's on the otherhand consider the motorcycle an integral part of the "lifestyle" which reportedly leads to conflict in the club whne outsiders are permitted entrance without a set of wheels. Such is the recent case of the Mongols' internal tension when obeying Mexican Mafia (prison gang) orders to accept latio street gang members to facilitate drug trafficing. Though they were all criminals involved in the drug trade, giving the street gangs Mongol colors was sitting bad with traditional members.

Motorcycle Clubs and Gangs are primarily american due to many factors, but the self-identity by Americans with such clubs dwarfs the similar opinions/scale accross seas.... for now.

Feel free to write a section on Japanese motorcycle clubs, Ozzie clubs, European Clubs, African clubs, Asian Clubs, etc... but I'm not sure just how much info you'll find or whether it would be true representation of current attitudes/realities outsie a small section of rich enthusiasts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.167.196 (talk) 11:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This is unhelpful

From the lead: "these clubs are not MCs in the strictest sense of the term". Says who? It's completely unreferenced, so looks like original research. 86.132.142.246 (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"Notable" MCs

The talk section discussing notable MCs has been archived but please read it before adding your pet MC and realize that we need to keep a tight reign on additions to the section.

Supersquid (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Chapter President / National President

The article states: "The president of the mother chapter serves as the president of the entire MC, and sets club policy on a variety of issues." This is almost never the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UpstateExec (talk • contribs) 21:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I've known a couple small clubs that have adopting this policy. But it certainly does not apply to the big ones. War (talk) 06:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Relationships between MCs

I like this section. 65.169.195.238 did a great job with it. Clearly an informed person. However, I just removed this statement: "The HA's (Hells Angels aka "red & white" or "81") are the only club that will not join the COC. The HA's act outside the organizational guidelines of the COC and most other clubs." I removed it because I've personally seen HA at all COC meetings I've been to. They participated in the meetings. Now, I do not know about the national COC meetings although it's not hard to find picture of those events on the internet that have HA members present. Perhaps this represent a regional policy and does not apply to all regions? Or perhaps this is a recent change in policy? Although I'd guess that it's regional.War (talk) 06:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Bias of this article

This article is heavily biased toward biker and outlaw clubs, not to regular motorcycle clubs that, the article claims, are 99%-ers. I suggest that it be broken into two articles, separating the two groups. Inasmuch as they represent two completely different approaches the organization of motorcyclists, I think this would be a logical way to treat them. Motorrad-67 (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Before you remove 75% of an article, you need to get consensus or at least wait for discussion. It may be so that there is too much emphasis on Outlaw Clubs (several article editors such as user:war are members of certain well know Outlaw Clubs), but you can't just delete all the existing content without a consensous to split or reorganize the content (I tend to agree with you). Please review WP:OWN. Proxy User (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Making false claims about editors will not furthur your cause. Myself and other editors may have first hand experiance with motorcycle clubs. Yet where does it state that I'm a member of one? I suggest you try to keep to the subject at hand and refrain from spreading mis-information.War (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't just blank it. I split it: see Biker club. So it's all still there. NOT vanadlism! Motorrad-67 (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

So, without discussion you think is's OK to make radical changes in the article? I disagree. Proxy User (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

riding associations vs clubs

An anonymous user has been removing clubs such as GWRRA and BMW MOA, stating "Removed 'Riding associations' whitch are not Motorcycle Clubs)" in his revert comment. The article itself states: "Large national independent motorcycle clubs, such as BMW Motorcycle Owners of America, BMW Riders Association, and the Gold Wing Road Riders Association (GWRRA), are abundant", which seems to state these are clubs. So either those statements should be removed, or the "riding associations" should remain as clubs. Comments? Tedder (talk) 00:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed the section. Any notability a club has should be explained in the prose of the article. MickMacNee (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Works for me! Thanks for the cleanup. Tedder (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

"Motorcycle Gangs" wiki redirects to "Motorcycle"?

I accept that bikers are by nature finicky about how they are percieved, and that image is the driving force in many's motivation to ride a death trap. :p

But seriously... can we get past this "association is not a club, a club is not a gang" trivialities and at least agree that A search for MOTORCYCLE GANGS should bring up THIS article and NOT the generic "Motorcycle" wiki? I'll give the benefit of the doubt that it was simply an oversight of a link that wasn't redirected when the Motorcycle Club page was created (instead of reading it as a nefarious attempt to eliminate the phrase "motorcycle gangs" from the wiki or world in general. :p

I don't imagine anyone could make a strong enough PC-case to refute this idea... but I'm willing to listen if anyone can put a real argument on it other than "I don't like the term gangs". Reality is that people WILL be searching for OMCs and this is the common phrasing they will use.

It is an attempt by certain editors to convince people that there is no such thing as a Motorcycle Gang. I fixed it. Proxy User (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the one-percenter section?

Hi all,

I notice that someone removed the section on one-percenters, which has broken links in several other articles. Is there any reason why this section should not be restored?

Webbbbbbber (talk) 22:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It was removed by Motorrad-67 last September without discussion or consensus when he dorked up the article by deleting half of it. I fixed most of it, but missed that part. I've replaced it. Proxy User (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks! (wonder what his damage was?) Webbbbbbber (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

He felt that this article focused too much on "outlaw" clubs like the Angels and such. I agree, but that opens up the "outlaw" groupies like User:War to continue trying to claim that gangs like the Angels, Bandidos, Pagans and Mongols - are just friendly groups of average guys who like to ride Harleys. User:War, by the way, is a Bandido Associate from Washington State. Proxy User (talk) 02:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Proxy User has used an Ad hominem argument. It's also known as a Red Herring. It is true that I know a lot about the Bandidos MC. But frankly that is true of many people that lives in a location dominated by a particular club. For example, I have a good friend that knows a lot about the Hells Angles..guess what..he lives in Sacramento, CA. My close friend does not know a lot about the Outlaws MC because...you guessed it. There are not Outlaws members in Sacramento! Knowledge and first hand information is not equal to bias.

Finally, User:Proxy User claims that I have claim that MC's are average guys that like to ride Harleys. I challege him to find any example of myself making such a claim. It's yet another example of him trying to divert attention topic at hand.War (talk) 06:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that User:War does not deny being associated with the Bandidos. Why is this relevant? Because it shows a conflict of interest in editing this as well as the Bandido article. He danced around this issue there as well. Proxy User (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Another diversion from the subject at hand. First of all, I don't know what a Bandidos associate is. I don't think you have any idea either. I've associated with Chemical engineers before and I can tell you quite a bit about chemisty. Does that make me a "chemistry associate"? It's ambiguous and absurd. I've "associated" with the Hells Angels before. Am I an associate? The claim is absurd and just another Red Herring. The more you continue on this line of reasoning the more your point of view will be likely discounted/ignored by other editors.

I suggest you get back on topic and stop trying to talk about me. I'm irrelevent to this discussion.War (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

So you are a Bandido Associate. This makes it a conflict of interest for you to edit that article. Are you as well a member of the Washington National Guard? Do your superiors know of your gang associations? Proxy User (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Where does it say I'm a member of the Washington National Guard? And even if it did, what does that have to do with this topic? Your continued efforts to divert attention away from your uninformed positions is becoming laughable. War (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say you were with the WANG. But I do believe you're a Bandido Associate, and that makes it a conflict of interest to edit certain articles. Proxy User (talk) 04:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm attempting get him to stop through WP:EAR. 06:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by War (talk • contribs)

Proxy, You are being annoying and are adding nothing valid whatsoever to this conversation. Your behavior actually borders on harassing.Lokri (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC).

Nonsense. Don't like my opinion? That's your right. But it's not the same as "harassment" unless your skin is as thin as tissue paper. You and User:War should maybe grow up and go back to editing Wiki articles instead of trying to bully people you disagree with. Proxy User (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Proxy, it is a conflict of interest if you have a law enforcement-esque view on motorcycle clubs, so be unbiased or dont write anything65.68.204.184 (talk)j.crowson

Conflict of interest? I am not permitted to edit if I hold any views consistent with LE? I think you misunderstand WP:COI big time! Anyway, I am not associated with Law Enforcement and share very few of "their" opinions about anything. You're barking up the wrong tree. Proxy User (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

99%ers and the Boozefighters MC

I just want to bring some issues to everyone's attention. I noticed that the Boozefighters MC was linked to "outlaw motorcycle gangs". with this i would have to laugh because they are in no way, shape or form an outlaw MC or even a 1% club. They were apart of the Hollister Incident in 1947, but so were several other clubs like the Pissed Off Bastards MC, which later became the Hells Angels. The Boozefighters, at best, are a mom and pop club and the Fort Worth Chapter has cops in it, so it would be hard to say there was anything "outlaw" about them. They actually disbanded because of the movie the Wild One. When they were reformed in the 1980's, they were a way different club and more family oriented. They just try to ride the Wild One's coattails to make them seem tough when they are absolutely not (i should know, im in another MC in fort worth). Also, even though you want to say the rest of the biking world is the "99%ers", i would strongly suggest not calling yourself that or wearing a patch with the symbol 99% on it. i saw a person get the crap beat out of them for wearing a 99% patch. it is considered highly disrespectful by the 1%ers. just a word of caution.65.68.204.184 (talk) 05:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)j.crowson

There's actually a 99%er patch out there somewhere? Someone was dumb enough to make one up? You've got to be joking... I doubt... In all my years of riding, I've seen candy-ass clubs forced to wear the AMA patch, some of the more reluctant have been known to sew it on upside down as a form of mild protest - but an actual 99%er patch? Never saw one. If it exists (which I doubt), then perhaps it must be a post-1980 Boozefighter's exclusive... LOL Garth of the Forest (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the Iron Pigs (if you can call them an MC) do... Proxy User (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

yeah, i saw one....with my own eyes. the guy (get this) has a diamond patch with a 99% in it, i laughed my ass off when i saw it. and he wore it to a rally in front of a certain 1% club and some support clubs. they told him to hit the road, and the dude stood up to them, and he got his ass whooped.66.142.191.225 (talk) 10:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)j.crowson

FAM (federation of american motorcyclists)

WANTED..Research material,such as photograph's,letters,awards,fobs,medals,"information" and any motorcycle souvenirs to be included in a historical documentary

F.A.M. 1903-1919,board track/motordrome racing,george hendee,jack prince,paul derkum,don johns,eddie hasha,fealess balke,perry mack,george n holden anyone who would like to contribute?.please let me know Also if you are looking for information regarding the FAM I may beable to help If you have family members or wondering about some awards,medals,fobs,etc relating to the federation of american motorcyclists?...I have alot of literature,photos,names of members,etc thank you (802) 885-6553 or cyclespast@vermontel.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.134.42.7 (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)