Talk:Outlaw motorcycle club/Archive 1

Link to Outlaw Biker World
Outlaw Biker World is a website that has news articles (and More) for the Motorcycle/Outlaw community. I feel a link to it from this page is appropriate. The link is http://www.obworld.com:

Chopperguy 21:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Usually we don't link to general news sources on a topic. I wouldn't actively object to this link, but I wouldn't particularly advocate for it, either. - Jmabel | Talk 02:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Motorcycle club
This article has been full of unsourced statements, innuendo, and half-truths for far too long. I redirected to the Motorcycle club article, which meets Wikipedia quality standards and covers the subject far better. Mmoyer 00:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect has been undone. See discussion at Talk:Motorcycle club--Dbratland (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2009 (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) 20:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What more is needed here?
"The word outlaw carries a specific meaning which does not imply criminal intent, but rather means the club is not sanctioned by the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) and does not adhere to the AMA's rules, but instead, generally, the club enforces a set of bylaws on its members that derive from the values of the outlaw biker culture." I have two sources here which specifically state that the word "outlaw" is not meant to convey criminal intent, and all the rest. The second source is even online; all you have to do is click on the link. But a fact tag was placed twice, with the edit summary "do not arbitrailly remove the fact tag until you can verify this claim - the reference provided later in this sentence does not".

What on Earth is the problem here?--Dbratland (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I just changed it slightly to say "The word outlaw carries a specific meaning within this subculture that is different from the mainstream use of the word. It does not imply criminal intent..." to clarify that outlaw still means outlaw for the whole rest of the world, of course. It's just their use of the word.--Dbratland (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The type of reference it is makes it not really reliable as a third-party source. Dulaney and Drew (the two authors) can not solely be considered reliable, especially considering that both authors have personal stake in the identity of the Outlaw MC. The change you made helps, but it is hard to say something does or does not imply a meaning to a certain group of people.  Saying it isn't meant to is one thing, but saying it doesn't is both wrong and inaccurate (as it does to many people).  We aren't here to provide a pro nor anti stance to Outlaw groups, and that sentence very much so tries to "soften the blow" of the term Outlaw by using references that can't be trusted.  Removing the entire reference about what Outlaw is or isn't meant would actually remove the issue.  I made a tentative change that both removed the issue and reworded to make the entire AMA bit more clear to the average reader.  See what you think of that. Hooper (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What personal stake to Dulaney and Drew have?


 * I just reverted your edit because it consisted of your opinions, and those conflict with the cited sources. I will post a question on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard as to whether or not these two sources are sufficient.--Dbratland (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * From The Oregonian "Police define outlaw motorcycle clubs as gangs that band together, often with bylaws enforced by violence, and periodically commit crimes". I'll be working on this article soon, to better reflect the general view of outlaw motorcycle clubs. Just letting you know. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's great to include the definition the Oregon police use when they mean "outlaw"; that's a good citation to add. If your plan is to start deleting well-cited information because it represents a contrary point of view, I think that would be rather biased.--Dbratland (talk) 03:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My intention is to remove the bias that you have introduced into this article since splitting it from Motorcycle club and leave it in a state that more properly reflects a neutral point of view. If merging it back into the main article will ensure that it is more likely to remain that way, I will propose it. In light of the rather obvious agenda you have shown in your recent edits and discussions, I have no interest in engaging in needless and disingenuous discussion with you here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure everyone, me especially, welcomes the participation of more editors. I have yet to make an edit which could not be improved in some way, so I'm sure the article will be better with the additional help and with the collaboration of multiple editors with a variety of points of view.  I would hope that you could be a little less focused on me personally, and not use article talk pages to obsess over whatever flaws you perceive in me.  If you do want to make this about me, then please do so in an appropriate venue, such as AIN, an RFC, or my talk page.  Thanks!--Dbratland (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

We're not all criminals. Surely that's a generalisation which can be cast on any section of society?

Bigmumf (talk) 11:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)bigmumf
 * That isn't what is being said here. Please read WP:VERIFIABILITY. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you help me find which part of WP:V says articles should copy down everything law enforcement says, while ignoring or deleting all reference to published, authoritative citations that disagree with police press releases?--Dbratland (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I can't, but that hasn't been done here so it's really a moot point. Happy editing! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I want to add back a statement to the effect that, "The word 'outlaw' carries a specific meaning within the outlaw biker subculture that is different from the mainstream use of the word. For those who call themselves outlaw bikers, it does not imply criminal intent, but rather means the club is not sanctioned by the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) and does not adhere to the AMA's rules, but instead, generally, the club enforces a set of bylaws on its members that derive from the values of the outlaw biker culture." with five citations   supporting it.  Where in WP:V (or any other policy) does it help us understand why you keep deleting the statement?  I would argue that including it is supported -- even demanded -- by the policy Neutral point of view which says, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."  Clearly the law enforcement perspective is significant and reliably sourced, and should be included.  But the perspective documented to exist in the biker subculture is also significant and reliably sourced, and therefore WP:NPOV says it should be included as well.


 * In principle, I don't object at all to your desire to make the article overall more neutral. I don't believe any article is perfectly neutral, and I welcome the efforts of anyone who edits an article in ways that move it closer to the ideal of neutrality.   But please tell me what policy statement justifies your deletion of the biker definition of "outlaw"?--Dbratland (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly, you are grossly misrepresenting the sources you have and what they say and what that implys. Secondly, it is completely arbitrary, unneeded, and diverges from the subject.  It should remain off.  Yes, NPOV is very important and that particular addition is very much so POV. Hooper (talk) 01:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, since my attempt to resolve this at the reliable sources noticeboard ended with "no discernible RS question," perhaps arbitration would help in resolving this question.--Dbratland (talk) 03:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, that is not how it ended. The Sources were noticed as not the problem, but the statement you are  making with them as well as  its' relevance to the topic and POV position.  Just drop it, and it'll be fine.  The article is not harmed by it not being included. Hooper (talk) 04:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you're not required to participate in arbitration if you don't want to, and if there is arbitration I'm sure it can proceed without you. Leaving aside the question of whether this belongs in the article or not, perhaps we can just focus on what the sources say.  Drew (2008) says, on page 277:  "Outlaw  Generally speaking, any motorcycle club that is not represented by the AMA.  This term does not denote criminal intent."  I know you have a problem because this author (or someone else named AJ Drew) wrote some books on the occult (this baffles me, but whatever),  but did I misrepresent what this source said?  If so, how?


 * We can work through the other sources in due course.--Dbratland (talk) 04:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You have one source that clearly states what you are trying to claim the others state. There  are tons of sources claiming that it does denote criminal activity.  Instead of us use those sources to place a line stating "outlaw is meant as outlaw" with every legal source ever behind it, we just leave out your one statement.  Also, I do not personally have an issue with the author's work on Occult, I was just stating that his body of work shows that his "expertise" is not in Motorcycling. Please stop pushing your POV throughout wikipedia motorcycling articles. Hooper (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is progress. We agree I accurately characterized Drew, the first of my five sources.  Next...


 * Quote..."Finally, a point of clarification is in order. For the purposes of this essay the term outlaw is used to describe motorcycling organizations that are not affiliated with the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA), and the name of a specific motorcycling organization (i.e. the Outlaws Motorcycle Club). It is important to note that for the purposes of this essay the term outlaw does not, in and of itself, refer to the breaking of law. However, when used in the context of describing “one-percent” motorcycle clubs, which are defined in detail below, the term takes on a more ominous tone. It is not my intention to suggest that the term outlaw is synonymous with illegal endeavor; rather, I wish to outline important differences and commonalities between one-percent and outlaw motorcycle clubs."


 * Dulaney is saying that contexts do exist in which the word "outlaw" is not intended to mean criminal. He also says -- and I enthusiastically agree -- that in many cases outlaw does mean criminal, hence the need to cite the Idaho, Oregon, and other sources who say just that.   WP:NPOV asks us to include all significant points of view, not just one.  It's also patently unfair to cite only the accusers of these groups, and to delete what they have to say in their own defense.  Readers are smart enough to weigh the bias of the sources, but not if you censor information from them.


 * Now. In my attempt to convey that the word outlaw can have a special meaning within this subculture (I'm open to fine tuning the wording in the article, naturally), am I distorting what Dulaney is saying?  --Dbratland (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are very much so misrepresenting that. He states very clearly that that is only for the purpose of his essay.  He states this so that the reader does not think that he himself is calling them Outlaws in the general sense, just using the common moniker.  That clarification does not extend beyond his essay. Hooper (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, let's run with that.  Why doesn't he want to call them outlaws (who break the law) in his essay?  If the sense of the word outlaw as a non-criminal didn't exist, what purpose is served by Dulaney suddenly inventing a weird usage where he says outlaw but doesn't mean lawbreaker?  Wouldn't it have been far easier for him to have just called them outlaws and said it means lawbreaker?  And at then end, why does he distinguish between the (ominous) one-percenter context and other contexts?  What other contexts, besides the essay?


 * I would think you would have a hard time selling your version of this to anyone, unless you can explain why Dulaney is twisting himself in knots here when, if he means what you are saying he means, he could have saved himself a lot of trouble. Would you care to clarify what you think Dulaney is up to here?--Dbratland (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not an appropriate forum to debate this issue. If there are questions about changes to the article, or about sources used, feel free to bring them up here, but stop trying to bait editors into having a debate about whether or not the general meaning of outlaw to be synonymous with criminal is justified. That is beyond the scope of Wikipedia. Thanks, and happy editing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose it goes without saying, but I disagree. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and it functions by editors working together, and discussing their disagreements in order to find consensus.  I could just as easily demand that you cease discussing the issue, accept that I am right, and perhaps start a blog.  But it would be as absurd for me to attempt to get my way through bullying and stonewalling as it is for you.  If you refuse to engage in discussion, it ought not surprise you when you fail to win consensus.  You have exactly one (1) editor who agrees with you, and it seems to have gone to your head.  I would request that you try to post constructive points in support of your position and stop insisting that I must accept it merely because you say so.  --Dbratland (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood me. Wikipedia talk pages are not meant for philosophical debates. We should not be discussing "right or wrong" here, simply what can be properly sourced and verified. This is becoming disruptive. I'm letting you know that from here on in I will simply be removing your comments if they aren't directly related to the article, per WP:TALK. If you have an issue with this, feel free to start a thread at the appropriate message board. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I very much intend to continue to work to find consensus on the question of whether or not a statement as to the alternative meaning of "outlaw" belongs in the article. If you delete my comments on this topic, I will post a complaint about you to the Administrators Noticeboard.


 * Perhaps a better course would be to request arbitration. It seems obvious this is headed to arbitration anyway, so would you agree to go ahead with that?  We could try mediation as well, but I suspect this is going to drag on unresolved unless we seek a binding resolution.--Dbratland (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

←I'm a stranger to the world of motorcycle gangs, but this reminds me of when I heard Puff Daddy explain his choice of name for his new record label, Bad Boy Records. He was asked (by Letterman, I think) whether the name was chosen to impart a literal "bad boy rap attitude" or for some other reason. Diddy responded that the name came from the record label's philosophy that people of all creeds, races and religions should be able to work together, despite how "bad" some parts of society considered that.

I remember thinking: yeah right, the first thought in people's minds when they hear "Bad Boy Records" is really gonna be social harmony.

Many groups, companies and organizations have their questionable rhetoric. We don't leave that out of articles, though. We just say "Company A says [such and such]", with no qualifier as to whether or not it's actually true. If Dulaney and Drew are involved in the gang, say so in the article when you present their opinions on the subject. Sources don't need to be 100% neutral in order to be reliable. If anything has been said to the contrary of these statements, they can be presented too.

That's my take anyway. Happy editing. Equazcion (talk) 01:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that both points of view are already presented in the article. This is not a content dispute. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * At ANI you say that he "selectively removed sources", that he is a "polite POV pusher", and that he "inserted references to support his position". That sounds like a content dispute to me. The intro of this article sounds rather like his point of view alone. Considering your views on the subject, don't you think discussion should continue in the interest of making the article neutral? Equazcion (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would ask "why not", but this one-word response tells me you don't seem interested in cooperating. Your participation in this is of course your choice, but hopefully you can respect the fact that others would like to discuss the article's sources and content, and that's what talk pages are for. Equazcion (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've already stated my intentions of rewriting the article to conform to our NPOV policy. At the moment, we have a single editor who is arguing for the inclusion of sources which are already in the article, and who even then seems unable to accurately represent what sources say. What's to discuss? If you're interested in actually getting involved here I suggest you carefully read through the existing discussion here and the WP:RSN discussions that I linked at ANI, and actually start looking at the content. Otherwise, more discussion about discussion isn't helpful. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

comment removals
No one involved in this dispute should be removing talk page comments of others involved. If one of you think the others' comments are violating policy, report them elsewhere and let someone objective make the call. Equazcion (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:TALK, talk pages are not for use as a soapbox or forum. Note that this isn't a content dispute at all and that I have made exactly 0 (zero) edits to this article. The issue here is the use of the talk page for a philosophical debate about the rightness or wrongness of specific terms being applied to specific groups. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Revised version
I have a new revision of the disputed content of that I'd like to suggest: "For some segments of the motorcycling subculture, the word 'outlaw' carries a specific meaning that contradicts the definition used by law enforcement authorities, and most of the mainstream press and the public at large. For those who call themselves outlaw bikers, the word is not intended to imply criminal intent, but rather means the club is not sanctioned by the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) and does not adhere to the AMA's rules, but instead, generally, the club enforces a set of bylaws on its members that derive from the values of the outlaw biker culture. In a broader sense, the word represents the biker club's alienation from society, and their belief that only through the outlaw biker lifestyle can true freedom be lived.  This definition of the word is interpreted by critics as an attempt to whitewash the reality of organized crime by calling it an 'alternative lifestyle.'" Citations, with quotes:



Any suggested changes in wording? I don't know of any citations to support that any of these authors are themselves criminals, but such citations exist we should include them.--Dbratland (talk) 03:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Dbratland, but having earlier pointed out your problems with misquoting sources, and your problems with selectively quoting sources, I can not take your word for any of the content of the sources you have provided. Grabbing the first one that was online (Drewery), I found that the first paragraph says "The leading outlaw motorcycle gangs do not change, however; their dominance is reflected in the design of their insignia, and it is this design that other groups wish to copy," which seesm to invalidate its application as a reference for your statement. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My credibility is irrelevant. Start an RFC about me if you want a thread about my credibility.  I have more than enough diffs to rubbish your laughable allegation of bias.


 * Often I see the use of "outlaw motorcycle gang" to mean the criminal outlaws, while "outlaw motorcycle club" is used to encompass the subculture that is not necessarily criminal. The Boozefighters are a good example -- perhaps the primordial example. They are usually called an "outlaw club" but not an organized crime syndicate (like the Hells Angels are). --Dbratland (talk) 03:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been included at Wikpedia Talk:WikiProject Motorcycling--Dbratland (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your credibility is completely relevant. While I believe in assuming good faith, you have shown that you are either incapable of representing references correctly, or you are deliberately attempting to deceive people here. I do not know which is the case, but without seeing the references for myself, I simply do not believe they say what you say they do. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In reading Drewery, do you detect in there any hints that perhaps the word "outlaw" has more than one meaning, depending on time, place, speaker, and context? I kind of think that point is in there somewhere.


 * In addition to calling me biased, you accuse me of deliberately trying to deceive. Seems like you've escalated to personal attacks.   Please stop that.  Personal attacks against me aren't winning you any support.  --Dbratland (talk) 04:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please re-read what I wrote. I haven't made any personal attacks. I can provide diffs for any accusation I have made. As for Drewery, he appears to use several different terms ("group", "club", "gang") interchangeably. For example, on page 29, he refers to the Hells Angels as an "outlaw motorcycle club" and a "motorcycle gang". Unless your other sources offer something more specific about the use of the term "outlaw", I don't see how this is anything other than original research. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 09:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keeping in mind that several other editors support including some version of the statement that "outlaw" does not always mean criminal, if you were to offer a reasonable compromise re-wording of the statement, I will try very hard to accept it. Then this would be resolved and everyone would be very pleased.--Dbratland (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dbratland, I really appreciate your willingness to find a mutually acceptable solution, but I do not believe there is any need for anyone to compromise here. We are in complete agreement that if sources can be found to substantiate the idea that there is a generally recognized meaning of "outlaw" within the biker community that differs from the general meaning, then it should be included in the article. As I've tried to point out already, the article already contains this definition. In fact it makes up much of the first three paragraphs, which -- I hope you will agree -- gives it undue weight. This is one of the things I intend to clean up when I get a chance later in the week. Perhaps we could wait until then? That would be great. Also, you mention that "several other editors" support your proposal, but I am unable to see where - could you name them, or point me at the discussions? Thanks again! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My problem is that nowhere does the article say "outlaw does not always mean criminal." That's what I want to add.


 * If some of this were moved out of the intro, down to, say, to the "Biker culture" section, would that satisfy you? I'm not insisting that the intro has to say "outlaw doesn't always mean criminal."  I'd be happy to move the entire second and third paragraphs down to "Biker culture" and add a phrase like "outlaw does not always mean criminal when used by some members of this subculture".


 * And here's your diffs:, , , and Work Permit's proposal  also is an acknowledgment that Outlaw can refer to a "culture of wearing patches" as opposed to one of "breaking the law."  Same sentiment here .  Yet another editor also tried to tell you that my viewpoint has supporters .  But maybe all that's moot, and a whole new debate on whether or not anyone agrees with me seems way too pointlessly meta.   Do you like the new compromise?  --Dbratland (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we possibly disagree on the level of support suggested by those diffs, but for now let's try to be positive and focus on your proposed change. You seem to have shifted from a position that outlaw has a generally accepted specific meaning in biker culture -- and, again, that's something I know very little about -- to a specific phrase. I think we are agreed that the general understanding of outlaw motorcycle club implies criminality if it does not denote it outright. I'm not trying to argue that this is a correct view, simply that we have no shortage of sources for this view. If you want to add that there is a dissenting, minority view, then we will need to find some solid sources. Thus far I haven't seen one. I am hoping other editors will weigh in on this. Please try to be patient. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Since we've had one editor after another chime in saying alternative points of view should be included, not deleted, can we move forward? The consensus is that what you've deleted from the article needs to go back.  If you won't make any counter offer on what the wording should be, I'll just put it back in.  After refusing to collaborate, negotiate, or compromise in any way, I don't think anyone would approve of you reverting it.


 * On the larger issue of improving the article overall, and making it more neutral, you make some good points and it would be worthwhile to move on to working on the other problems with this article.--Dbratland (talk) 05:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I find this whole discussion very perplexing and, if you will forgive me for saying so, quite unnecessary. To make it very simple: The complicating factor in this discussion is that Dbratland appears to be intent on pushing a certain point of view about outlaw motorcycle clubs which is contrary to the general opinion. The discussion often strays from adding verifiable information into soapboxing about the correctness of labels applied to outlaw bikers by law enforcement. I attempted to cut one such discussion short but was chastised for it at ANI. Since then I have been as cooperative as possible but it is unlikely that this will be resolved by any amount of discussion between Dbratland and I if it is simply more of the same. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't deleted anything from the article, since I have never edited it.
 * I have pointed out several times that the definition of "outlaw" favoured by Dbratland is already in the article.
 * Dbratland has, I believe, agreed that it is actually over-represented and given undue weight.
 * I have repeatedly stated as clearly as I can that I have absolutely no objection to the inclusion of the material providing it is properly sourced.
 * The only other editor who has been involved in this discussion in any substantial way (User:HooperBandP) has actually been opposed to the changes proposed by Dbratland.
 * When this came up at ANI, I asked for other editors to get involved, but nothing constructive came of it.
 * Dbratland has been pointed at other ways on resolving this (eg WP:3O) but has not taken advantage of them.
 * I've reverted this edit which seemed to be a cut and paste of the citations Dbratland offered earlier in this thread, with no attempt to format them correctly. After all of the discussion here, it was a bit surprising. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Without making any attempt to discuss this, Dbratland reverted my reversion noted above. He then left a comment on my talk page labelling my edit as disruptive. I have reverted this text dump again and hope that discussion here will resume. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Round three: again with no discussion, Dbratland reverts, then warns me for "disruption". I have asked him here, in my edit comments, and on my talk page to discuss these changes, but to no avail. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You've talked this to death without once offering an alternate version of the wording, or any other form of compromise or collaboration. Consensus is that this information belongs, so the only thing to discuss is what the wording should be.  You can still offer an alternate version of the wording if you wish.  If there is a formatting mistake that you don't know how to fix yourself, point it out and someone else can fix it.--Dbratland (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am quite capable of fixing simple formatting errors, but there is more to it than that, as you know. I don't wish to reiterate my points yet again - they are very clearly stated in the existing discussion. I sense that you are frustrated, but there is no reason to edit war over this. Other avenues have been suggested to you (eg WP:3O), perhaps you should explore them. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Split
Why not split the article into Outlaw motorcycle club for the version you note above and motorcycle gang for the the gangs that are law-breakers? For these purposes, I assume you consider the Hells Angels, Vagos etc to be gangs.--Work permit (talk) 03:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to this idea, but I think the problem is it puts Wikipedia editors in the position of making a final judgment about who are the sheep and who are the goats. I think it's better for Wikipedia to inform readers that this is a topic where there is disagreement and telling readers who says they're criminals and who says they're just weirdos who hang around with criminals.  Some of these are in a gray area, like Brother Speed.  Multiple law enforcement agencies have them marked as a criminal outlaw gang, but there are no known crimes linked to them.--Dbratland (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the root of the problem here. We have multiple reliable sources which call Brother Speed an outlaw motorcycle gang, yet you persist in arguing about the applicability of the label. Wikipedia is not the place for this argument. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Along with saying law enforcement calls them a criminal gang, it would be fine with me if the page Brother Speed also included the fact that there are not any crimes linked to them. It's an interesting fact.--Dbratland (talk) 04:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, both facts should be cited. --Work permit (talk) 04:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the two articles would focus on two separate issues. One is the subculture of wearing patches, the other the subculture of breaking the law.  The problem I suppose would be which article to link hells angels to.  Maybe a club by club discussion, linking enough wp:rs to drive consensus for each?--Work permit (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Or link to both? For example, The Brother Speed Motorcycle Club is an outlaw motorcycle club that was formed in Boise, Idaho in 1969..... They are considered by Oregon's Department of Justice to be one of six outlaw motorcycle gangs in the state.--Work permit (talk) 04:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Three piece patch
I for one, question the accuracy of the statement that says only outlaw clubs utilize a three-piece patch, specifically since I belong to a club that wears a three-piece patch, but our membership consists of military and law enforcement. Osirisascending (talk) 04:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's part what I was getting at in the last sentence of the intro to Motorcycle club, where I cited an interview with club members whose name and insignia ignored outlaw rules. And part of the reason I tagged it for original research  and citation needed is the lack of good sources to support the dubious claims that the whole world has to follow outlaw club rules.  Over on the Motorcycle club article there is a draft in the works to straighten out some of this, but still needing better sources.


 * I don't know what the answer is, other than maybe it should say there are some rules that some various kinds of clubs sometimes agree on, and sometimes they don't -- which sounds like weasel words. Sooner or later all of that has to be deleted if sources can't be found, which would be a shame because it's probably kind of correct, in a limited scope.--Dbratland (talk) 05:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree on the potential split. It'll just become a soapbox of opinionated editors trying to place a MC on one page or the other, and we'll be right back where we are now. Hooper (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to split article
I propose we split the article into Outlaw motorcycle club and outlaw motorcycle gang. The two articles would focus on two separate issues. One is the subculture of wearing patches, the other the subculture of breaking the law. Individual clubs would link to one or the other, with appropriate citations. For example, The Brother Speed Motorcycle Club is an outlaw motorcycle club that was formed in Boise, Idaho in 1969..... They are considered by Oregon's Department of Justice to be one of six outlaw motorcycle gangs in the state.--Work permit (talk) 04:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The terms "outlaw motorcycle club" and "outlaw motorcycle gang" are generally considered synonymous. This is established by many of the references already in the article, but I will quote a particularly clear and succinct one from The Oregonian yet again: "Police define outlaw motorcycle clubs as gangs that band together, often with bylaws enforced by violence, and periodically commit crimes". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 09:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Question - How would this affect OutlawMotorcycleGroups and Category:Outlaw motorcycle clubs, Category:Motorcycle clubs and so on? Which categories would the new articles belong in?  I think this idea might be worth a try but I'm concerned about how to organize and manage the articles.  --Dbratland (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What would you suggest? I think Outlaw motorcycle gang is a subset of Outlaw motorcycle club--Work permit (talk) 04:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Hello - I've followed this page for some time, and this seems like a good compromise that addresses both issues. Dbratland provided quite a few reliable sources that evidence the differences between how the police and public regard the term 'outlaw' and how the motorcycle subculture views the nuances in the term.  I give a tentative support, although I would like to see how the organizational issue is addressed.  -- >David  Shankbone  15:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The categorization is fine then. Just to complicate matters, we should consider whether this split would create a POV fork.  In some ways this could be seen as making two articles about the same thing, one which casts them in a negative light and the other which does not.  If that were the case, it would be better to present the negative and the not so negative (I hesitate to call any of info positive) on the same page.  Either way, Content forking should be read and given due consideration.--Dbratland (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you proposing? Are you proposing two articles, one to deal with the criminal element, and the other to deal with the club/patch element; or are you arguing to keep it one article to explain the nuance.  I'm having trouble figuring out what you want.  -- >David  Shankbone  03:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * My point was that this could turn into a POV fork. That is, splitting the article risks creating a pro-outlaw article and an anti-outlaw article.  If that were the result, then we wouldn't want the split and I would propose keeping a single article.  There seems to be overwhelming support for the current article including all authoritative points of view, so a balanced article is possible.  Maybe the split is possible without creating a POV fork, but I'd need to hear the details of how that was going to work.--Dbratland (talk) 04:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This would fall definitely into the POV forking area, and should be avoided. Hooper (talk) 04:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Question - Where does the distinction come from, regarding clubs and gangs? I know that generally, the word "club" implies a group of people who share an interest and is rarely applied to criminal groups, while "gang" implies an organization whose main purpose is some form of criminal activity. But from what I can determine, the two terms are interchangeable when referencing motorcycle clubs/gangs. By making this differentiation as a convenient compromise, we're introducing original research unless we have a reliable source making the distinction. Absent such a source, it's probably best to have the criminal organization/activity be a subcategory of this article and if a fork is needed due to excessive size, a name such as Outlaw motorcycle club (criminal), or Criminal activities of outlaw motorcycle clubs may be more appropriate. --  At am a  頭 21:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There are many reasonable references to define "gang", for example the National Alliance of Gang Investigators’ Associations (NAGIA) defines a gang as "a group or association of three or more persons with a common identifying sign, symbol, or name who individually or collectively engage in criminal activity that creates an atmosphere of fear and intimidation." However, I admit after much research the term "club" and "gang" as applied to outlaw motorcycle clubs/gangs are often interchangeable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Work permit (talk • contribs)
 * If we want to go with that definition (which I'm not for or against at this point) why not just Motorcycle gang? If the word "gang" means "criminal", isn't the word "outlaw" redundant? --  At am a  頭 01:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Dbratland claims with citations that "outlaw motorcycle clubs" are not (necessarily) criminal. They are "outlaws" only in that they are not sanctioned clubs.  Delicious carbuncle (with citations) claims outlaw motorcycle clubs ARE criminal. --Work permit (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't make any claims. WP:NPOV unambiguously requires that all significant views must be represented.  Copious reliable, independent sources report that groups exist who call themselves "outlaws" and don't consider themselves criminals.  An avalanche of sources report that the origins of  the term"outlaw motorcycle club" and "one percenter" date back to a split with the AMA.  Anyone can verify these facts with the sources I've given, and even more if you care to look.  It's not me claiming anything; I'm citing what the sources tell us.


 * It is not helpful for a Wikipedia editor to say he knows who is a criminal and who isn't. A good editor would cite that someone has or has not been convicted of a crime, and would quote or cite authorities from all sides who have opinions about what that conviction (or lack thereof) means. When you announce to the world that they're all criminals it just calls into question your understanding of verifiability, neutrality, and WP's strict standards regarding negative information about living people.


 * The fact that we do have authorities who report conflicting opinions about both terminology and the people means that a balanced article should pass on this conflicting picture to the reader, rather than try to settle the question.  A balanced article needs to also explain this varies with time.  The "outlaw" Boozefighters of the 1940s seem rather quaint and harmless compared with the vicious Pagans MC or Hells Angels of the 90s.   And so just point out that "gang" and "club" are used variously, and point out what the intent is by various sources, with good citations.  Not our job to judge what is true.


 * I truly WP:DGAF which of these pinheads are "real" criminals and which aren't. I'm editing according to WP:BLP, WP:V and all the rest, that's all. --Dbratland (talk) 02:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If you "truly WP:DGAF" about it then why are you pushing for it and misrepresenting your references and what they say? Also, above - no one tried to say you were claiming something.  It was more of a figure of speech.  You just took a hard protective stance for someone so DGAFish. Let us stop discussing how we each feel or what we want, and let us discuss sources.  Actually, let us first start with: who cares?  No one.  Leave the article as is, and just accept the fact that not everyone shares your opinion that one percenters aren't criminals.  Going through the history of this article brings up a disturbing trend by editors with a POV trying to completely remove or belittle the criminal aspect, when it is very prevalent and what most users are probably actually wanting to read about. Hooper (talk) 05:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * My opinion? See how repetitive this is?   First you try to walk back Delicious carbuncle's accusation as a "figure of speech" (how convenient), then you turn around and repeat the exact same accusation. I cited sources that give a definition and an origin of "one perecenter".  If you have sources with a different definition, cite them too.  Simple.  And then you accuse me of misrepresenting sources on the silly grounds that sources like AJ Drew don't count because someone by the same name wrote other books on different topics?   It's pure nonsense.  You also accused Drew of being a criminal himself, once.  Still no source for that?  Do we just get to make up whatever we want here or do we come up with something to back it up?


 * I'm running out of patience with this nonsense. Does anyone have an argument that trump's WP:NPOV's requirement that all significant views be included?  If not, this issue should be put to rest.--Dbratland (talk) 05:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Since my name was mentioned in this discussion, I want to correct the mis-perception that I was expressing a personal opinion about the criminality of outlaw motorcycle clubs. I wasn't. What I was saying was that, in general use, the terms "outlaw motorcycle club" and "outlaw motorcycle gang" are synonymous. It is trivially easy to find references from law enforcement and newsmedia to support this. On the other hand, there seem to be a small number of references which suggest that the term "outlaw motorcycle club" is viewed differently within the biker community. If this is to be included in the article (and I have no objection if the sources check out) then it is necessary as a minority view that it appears in proportion to the general view and that it is identified as such per WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How about if you actually do this "trivially easy" thing you speak of, citing some sources to back up what you're saying? I'd like to see exactly what these supposed sources you claim to have actually say.  Bluffing is not going to cut it.


 * Law enforcement's job is not to conduct social studies or to exonerate unpopular groups. The police don't spend their time learning too many details about non-criminals.  It's outside of their scope and they deal only with actual criminals.  It colors their perception.  And of course they're going to insist "everyone we call an outlaw is a criminal." Why would they ever acknowledge anything else? They're not required to, and if they did it would just make it harder to win convictions.  Academic researchers take a broader view, and don't have the built-in bias that comes from having to worry that a defense attorney is going to use their words to get someone acquitted.


 * But even then, we're talking about apples and oranges. Law enforcement is saying "Groups A, B and C are criminals."  The academics, journalists and authors I'm citing are saying "Groups C, D, and E" define the word "outlaw" differently.  These statements are orthogonal.  One is an observation about how a subculture uses language. The other is an accusation by police.--Dbratland (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * @Dbratland - How do you "know" that this is how law enforcement agencies are? Hmm.... OR sir.  Stop putting your own spin on the merits and go by policy. Also, thank you for admitting your POV above - finally. Hooper (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus seems against, I'll remove the banner--Work permit (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The edit warring needs to stop now.
I just undid this utter sillyness. The edit warring needs to stop until this is resolved.--Dbratland (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Explain to me how that was in any way an edit war. I hadn't reverted anything you recently added, and I had a valid reason in removing it.  The only thing that made it an edit war was YOUR edit.  Stop YOUR madness. Bikernews.net is not reliable, period. Hooper (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Definition of Outlaw
Let me put it simply:
 * 1) Not even necessary for the article, except to promote a pro-OMC pov
 * 2) The wikipedia entry on Outlaw already defines the term (and even links here!)
 * 3) Every possible definition that isn't from a particular pro POV in one slight fringe theory defines the word in the same basic way

So, why should we be swayed to allow an unnecessary sentence to be added with weak and misrepresented sources? I'm listening. Sale the idea to me. Hooper (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think what needs to be decided is simple. What is this article about? Is it about the term "outlaw motorcycle club"? Since Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, we don't have to adjust the article to fit the name, which is what I believe everyone has been trying to do. First, figure out what the article is about, and then if the name doesn't fit the article, change the name. Frankly, I think the name of this article is a bad one. It's unnecessarily ambiguous and divisive, and is causing an unnecessary dispute between people who think that it should belong to criminal groups and non-criminal groups. There must be a term that applies only to non-AMA MCs who aren't criminals. This whole quibble about the name is completely unnecessary. It's almost like going to a pet shelter and trying to find a dog that would fit the name "Sparky". --  At am a  頭 18:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sadly, though you have a great recommendation, there really isn't a term that signifies one over the other. This is the common term for all groups.  Some people just wish to remove one side or the other or promote one version or the other.  Outlaw motorcycle gang already redirects here.  I'd be hardpressed to find a term suitable to just criminal or non-criminal Outlaw MCs.  I say the best course of action is to leave the name, because this is what it is about.  However, the already stated and references sections that showcase not all outlaw MCs may be criminal should be more than enough to keep both sides happy, imo. Hooper (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The explanation is actually right at the top of the article:"...Besides their connection with motorcycles and the one percenter subculture, criminal motorcycle gangs are 'unique among crime groups in that they maintain websites; identify themselves through patches and tattoos; have written constitutions and bylaws; trademark their club names and logos; and have publicity campaigns aimed at cleaning up their public image.' * *"Biker gangs are somewhat unique -- not entirely unique -- but somewhat special or unusual in the way they stage manage their public image. They overlap with mainstream culture. For example, if anyone has read Brown and McDiarmid (2000) on p. 352, it discusses the way a large swath of motorcyclists imitate the styles of the criminal element on the "fringe" (Brown's word) of motorcycling.   The exhibition The Art of the Motorcycle and the exhibition's accompanying books (two of them!) say the same thing -- that "outlaw biker" is not a simple thing, but rather that society has a love/hate relationship with them.  Basically a continuation of the old west gunfighter hero/anti-hero. It might be a bullshit myth, but thousands upon thousands of people participate in it and that is what makes it worthy of study.  See also:  many different authors writing at the International Journal of Motorcycle Studies.  And by the way, David Mann (painter), who was a member of a one percenter club whose members were required to deliver methamphetamine monthly, and many went to prison.  Yet Mann was inducted in the AMA Hall of Fame?  That doesn't usually happen to common criminals!  How unusual!


 * I can pile on more and more and more sources that say the same thing. Outlaw bikers are not just ordinary gangsters who happen to ride Harleys. There are some special characteristics that are well-noted in the literature and that makes it encyclopedic.


 * Maybe a better name would help, but the point is that these are not merely your run of the mill criminal gangs, and the public has good reason to have trouble telling the difference between real crooks and those who dress like them. That's where the story is.  --Dbratland (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Now we can agree, a bit. The definition of who they are is already there.  The term outlaw is the common term.  It is not our job to try to railroad the reader one way or the other over the seemingly or self-appointed ambiguous nature of that term. Just leave it be, and it is fine. Hooper (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's another suggestion then. Perhaps a good thing to do is try to make the article as neutral as possible. I'm sorry Dbratland, but as the article stands the lead seems very POV to me. It's almost exclusively a defense of outlaw motorcycle gangs, insisting that they aren't criminal. That doesn't seem to be a valid use of the lead section. Also, an opinion about the irony of groups like HOG emulating the outlaw style doesn't seem warranted in the lead. The lead is supposed to be a good summary of the rest of the article. I think fixing the lead will go a long way toward resolving some of these problems. --  At am a  頭 21:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * One way this whole dispute can be resolved is by doing some actual editing instead of just clicking the undo button and deleting whatever one doesn't fancy.


 * I have repeatedly asked for wording changes. Too POV?  Rewrite it.  I am entirely open to any alternative versions of the wording.  I kept rewriting it myself and was ignored every time, so why should I keep trying? Someone offer a different version and I will probably be happy with it.


 * And I already said that I am happy with moving some of that out of the lead. I'm open to all of these compromises so why not go ahead and try one of them?  All I'm seeing is deletions and reversions.


 * Too much time defending outlaw MCs? Well I'm told it is "trivially easy" to find citations that show how they're all just criminals.  Why not go get some of these citations and expand the article?  One of the benefits of splitting it from Motorcycle club was to allow it to expand and go into more depth.


 * So by all means, lets edit away. Edit the article, or put it up a draft on a workpage and lets fix the POV problems.  But I will object if this pattern of simple deletion of sourced material goes on.  --Dbratland (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done so. Basically I've trimmed out the watered-down wording, such as "considered to be criminal organizations by law enforcement authorities". I've just said that some outlaw motorcycle gangs commit crimes, which helps balance the POV. I've also removed the redundant statement that they don't represent all outlaw motorcycle gangs, that should be evident already. I reworded the statement about HOG to be less of an opinion. I feel that fixes the problems I saw with the POV of the lead without changing the meaning too much. If you disagree with any of the changes please say so. Also, if Hooper thinks that more needs to be done, I'd be interested to know. --  At am a  頭 22:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, let me say that a statement such as "I'm told it is "trivially easy" to find citations that show how they're all just criminals" is hyperbole and a straw man argument. Nobody has suggested that everyone who dresses up a certain way and rides a motorcycle is a criminal. I understand becoming frustrated in a prolonged dispute where civility has been at least strained, but that kind of talk isn't productive. I think we can work out something that satisfies everyone, don't give up yet. :) --  At am a  頭 22:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me! I think technically "It has been said..." is liable to get nailed as WP:WEASEL.  Could change it to "Anthropologist Barbara Joans, and authors Roand Brown and Mac McDairmond have said that..."


 * Might be too wordy to include the background on who is saying it, but it could be moved out of the intro to allow more room.


 * And it's great that you're objecting to faulty arguments. Straw man arguments are indeed not helpful and the talk page should be limited to civil, adult contributions that help to create consensus, like "TL;DR". --Dbratland (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:WEASEL addresses exactly the point you made, which is that it would be too "wordy" to name everyone. Moving it out of the intro might be fine, and will allow us to expand it, but I'm not sure where to move it to. --  At am a  頭 23:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Can we take another step forward by looking at the sentence, "Related to the term outlaw is one percenter, which is also derived from the historical rejection of the AMA and what it represents." What does this sentence need to clear the citation needed tag?  Rewording?  Other citations than the ones we've already reviewed?  Moving it to another section?  --Dbratland (talk)


 * It really isn't necessary. Perhaps putting a link under a See Also section to that article, but the sentence isn't necessary and begins to fork away from what this article is about.  Other than that, if you wanted to keep the sentence, I would remove the "also derived" bit as that gives the impression that Outlaw is derived solely from the AMA bit (which as seen above - it doesn't so that becomes some OR and POV issues).  However, once you remove that part - the sentence is completely unnecessary - so in the end, I'd just remove it. Hooper (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't work Hooper. Firstly, there is a whole section in this article called "One Percenters". Are you proposing that the section be removed? Also, the one percenter article is just a disambiguation page which links back to this article, so putting it in See Also would just be a circular link. I think that the current version of the article, which includes the One Percenter section but omits it from the lead, is a decent compromise. --  At am a  頭 18:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In trying to comprehend the latest MC gang snit (feel free to help if you know the solution) I came across "...'one-percenter' club - a slang term meaning the group consists of outlaw bikers." here, which is just one of any number of quotes you can find saying the two terms are connected. Many, many sources trace the origin to the split with the AMA, Hollister, and all that business.  It is overwhelmingly the mainstream view, and it is well cited.


 * I would call any other version of where one-percenter comes from a fringe theory, but I don't object to including some other version as long as it is cited. In other words, if anyone wants to write something else as to what 'one percenter' means and where it comes from, please, please, please do so, and cite it.--Dbratland (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This could be interpreted as a threat {"Please let it end here because they won't if you don't"). I've left a message on the IP's talk page requesting clarification. That kind of talk just isn't cool. --  At am a  頭 20:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that that is the version it comes from, all I'm stating is that the way it is worded is just odd and comes across badly in the intro - as well as is unnecessary. The section below covers it so just leave it be.   We don't have to try to touch on everything in the intro, it is after all just an intro. (i was unaware we didn't have an article dedicated to it, but in retrospect it makes sense where it is and why we don't). Hooper (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Dbratland, do you agree that the "One Percenter" sentence can be removed from the lead? It's actually mentioned later on in the lead anyway, and of course is given its own section below. I'm going to be bold and make a change that might work. If anyone doesn't like it, revert with my blessing and give your reason for objecting on this page. --  At am a  頭 23:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is fine with me. Although we should remember that the lead is supposed to "summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies," according to Lead section.   At this point I'd like to return to putting back the sections that were deleted at the beginning of all this -- that for some the word "outlaw" does not equal "criminal".  Since so many sources address this question, it seems to be one of the notable controversies surrounding the topic.   Would anyone like to offer their own version?--Dbratland (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you define for me exactly how the definition of the word outlaw is notable? Hooper (talk) 03:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say that since this article was created as a differentiation from Motorcycle club, if the definition of outlaw isn't "notable" that it's at least important to this article. :) --  At am a  頭 06:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And it is constantly discussed. I've mentioned six sources that cover it already.  The book on Christian bikers that just I started reading, Dueling Identities,  begins talking about what "outlaw" means on page 1, and puts the word in scare quotes throughout.  Why?  Why does Dulaney bother to give the word a special definition?  When is the meaning "outlaw" not notable?  Questions and controversy about it are everywhere.


 * You could say that about everything I've added to this article. I'm being guided by what I find -- these are the things that are being published and WP should reflect that.  If this is a request for more citations, I'll pile them on.--Dbratland (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If you wish to add it, you need to make sure that the sentence is worded in such a way as to make sure no reader could mistake that it is defined differently by these members or supporters of the group, and that their own self-definition may not be shared by outside sources (i.e. law enforcement). The previous version was very very POV. Hooper (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That sounds fine, more or less, but can you offer citations for the claim that anyone who doesn't echo what law enforcement says is a member or supporter of outlaw groups? What I'm seeing here is that you are pushing the POV that the police must not be questioned, and that what they say is the mainstream, accepted view.  Evidence, please?  And then when anyone suggests that the threat of outlaw motorcyclists has been exaggerated by the media, you simply discount them as being sympathizers.  If you're going to make that accusation, where is your proof that they are supporters or members?  I think we can agree there is zero evidence that AJ Drew, for example, was ever a member of an outlaw club/gang/whatever.


 * I can and will post citation after citation that many researchers think media hype is party at work here. At the very least, can you even cite one law enforcement source that disagrees with the criticism that the media has exaggerated this issue?  I would say once again that most of what law enforcement is collecting information on is orthogonal to the wider social aspects.--Dbratland (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree strongly with your final sentence, and most of what you're saying before that is off topic in a way. Right now we are discussing your insisted inclusion on a submeaning of the word Outlaw.  Atama put it in such a way as I must admit it made sense to put a quick blurb in the article, however the only citations needed would be the ones making the claim.  I do not have to make a claim as to what the definition of outlaw is in the mainstream world, because its the definition of the word.  If you wish, just pick anyone of these to provide that.  With that in mind, the sentence should be very clear that the word's "definition" is only being "altered" by and from these clubs and a minority group. This does not mean that people are outright challenging the outlaw term's definition in this context because the accepted definition is so common it isn't even an issue.Hooper (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You think that the job of law enforcement is to conduct social studies on every single aspect of motorcycle gang culture?  I'd have to see evidence of that.


 * Your links provide many definitions of outlaw that completely destroy the claim that it only means criminal: "c.  A rebel; a nonconformist: a social outlaw.", "(adj) illegitimate, illicit, outlaw, outlawed, unlawful (contrary to or forbidden by law) 'an illegitimate seizure of power'; 'illicit trade'; 'an outlaw strike'; 'unlawful measures"  -- It's here that is the source of "outlaw" being used for clubs not affiliated with the AMA.  The OED gives several variants:"spec. Chiefly N. Amer. and Austral. An unmanageable horse. U.S. slang. A prostitute working without the protection of a pimp. Of, belonging to, or designating an outlaw or outlaws; characteristic of an outlaw; illegal, renegade, or (in weakened use) unorthodox. Also: (of an animal) wild. Of a strike: without the authority of a trade union; an unofficial strike. Cf. WILD CAT n. Compounds."
 * I will try to write something that takes all this into account. It would be much easier to do if I had some citations that would directly counter the claim that "not all outlaw motorcyclists are are criminals".  I'm trying to write a balanced statement between A and B but you haven't given any B.  I think the reason is that law enforcement doesn't comment on the question because it isn't relevant to their job of catching crooks -- it's orthogonal to crime fighting.  But if you can cite it I'm happy to insert it into the article.  And if you can cite that any of these sources have loyalties or sympathies for outlaw gangs, we can mention that too.--Dbratland (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have not once said that all outlaw motorcyclists are criminals and this is now the second time and second user to have to tell you to stop straw manning with that exact same statement. Let me try to make this simple: The only claim being made is by you, with a couple of sources, that Outlaw is implied to mean a specific thing in this context.  Therefore, the only sources needed are those.  However, the previous way this was put was misleading, and the rewording of it should definitely make it clearer and not be POV.
 * Thus, we have the claim you are trying to make, and Atama has put a valid reason for its inclusion. Now, all we need is neutral wording that doesn't mislead from what the source say nor imply that this contextual definition of outlaw is universal.  Something, say, like this: "Outlaw MCs who identify with this subculture are not necessarily criminals, with members expressing their outlaw status on a social level, and not necessarily equating the word outlaw with criminal activity." Now, obviously that sentence can be tweaked quite a bit, but its a start. Hooper (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's slang. Just as "bones" mean something different to gamblers, "outlaw" means something different to motorcycle clubs than it does to most people. It literally means "outside of the law". The problem is that motorcycle clubs use to the term to mean "outside the law of the AMA", while people unfamiliar with them assume it means "outside criminal law". Further adding to the confusion is the fact that many outlaw motorcycle clubs really are criminal. It's not unlike the white rhinoceros; while I'm sure that many of them are a very pale grey or even truly white, they're generally of a darker grey color. But most people are going to assume that white rhinos are white just from the name.


 * I don't think defining what the general meaning of "outlaw" is will be necessary. We can safely assume that a reader who has a good enough skill level in the English written language to read Wikipedia articles will know what that meaning is. We should only be concerned with letting them know that the term "outlaw" doesn't automatically equate to criminal for these clubs. I think Hooper's suggestion goes a long way toward achieving that. --  At am a  頭 18:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside all that other stuff, I'm good with saying "Outlaw MCs who identify with this subculture are not necessarily criminals, with members expressing their outlaw status on a social level, and not necessarily equating the word outlaw with criminal activity."--Dbratland (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added the sentence discussed above to the Biker culture section. I'm probably going to expand this section with more material on outlaw culture, leaning heavily on Wolf's book The Rebels and other sources.  I hope we've finally established that these sources are reliable and this subject belongs in the article.I very much hope that if there are any more neutrality disputes, they will be backed by sources rather than vague accusations, and that specific changes or suggestions will be made.  Just clicking the undo button is not very constructive and violates the basic obligation to work towards consensus.  Simply trying to block the work of editors you have a problem with is a huge time waster.  There is very little actual difference between the version from one month ago  before all this started and the current one .  The wording has been made tighter and more specific; something that could have happened in minutes if my repeated offers to collaborate to adjust the wording had been taken seriously. I want to emphasize how unsatisfied I am with the quantity of discussion it took to get from the version of October 3 to today.  Attempts to repeat this episode over future disagreements will look very much like disruptive editing to me.  And for what?  Just to change a few words which could much more easily be done through cooperation. Atama's help has been invaluable and many thanks for all the hard work.--Dbratland (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and I'd like to point out that if you ever check out WP:LAME, by comparison the discussion here may as well have been thoughtful debate regarding the fate of humanity. --  At am a  頭 18:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)