Talk:Outlaw motorcycle club/Archive 2

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

william queen did not infiltrate the mongols

read the book, Queen infiltrated the Angels, not the Mongols!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.119.21.2 (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed NPOV tags

I just deleted 4 NPOV tags after my request a week ago for an explanation on the talk page was ignored. Obviously this article has lots and lots of problems, but slapping NPOV tags all over it without giving specifics doesn't do anything helpful for those working on improving the article. I don't claim that the article is perfectly neutral, but I don't think it is clear which way each section is slanted and exactly how to fix it. What's needed is better sources.

If you think parts of this article are too POV, please provide some specifics. Which direction is it slanted? What should be changed? And please, offer a reliable source or two to support what you say. Without sources, it's just different people with opinions shouting at each other, but with good sources consensus is possible.--Dbratland (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I support this. Tags without explanation do nobody any good. They're helpful only if they are blatantly obvious or accompanied by discussion, but neither is the case here. -- Atama頭 19:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

First time editing

I would like to edit the section on "other patches", concerning the 13 or 13-diamond patch. The current article states that it is a reference to the 13th letter of the alphabet (M) and indicates that the wearer is a user of marijuana. It has two notations, both of which are rather old, historical references. The 13 patch(es) have also, in the past (alledgedly) been used as a reference to meth-amphetamine and/or murder. Today, however the 13 is most often used to indicate "motorcycle", "motorcycling" or "motorcyclism" as a way of differentiating between clubs which actually ride motorcycles and those who simply own them. Often one of these terms is included as part of the patch itself. I would like to update the page to reflect this, but I have no references to link to on this subject. I would appreciate advice on the proper "Wikipedia" way to procede. Thanks in advance.

HDave1369 (talk) 11:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Without getting too deep into it, you should take a look at Wikipedia:Five pillars and Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:Truth.

In short, it doesn't matter what the "true" meaning of 13 is. What matters is what you can verify, from reliable sources. If you have solid sources you can cite which say it means meth or motorcycle or Mickey Mouse, cite them. I'd probably include both definitions, since reliable sources disagree, and it's useful to learn that it used to mean one thing and now it means something else.

But if you don't have sources you can cite, and you're just talking about your personal experience or what you've heard from people you know, then forget it. That's original research. I know it can be frustrating, but if third party sources don't say it, then as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it didn't happen. But some day a book or newspaper or whatever will cover it and then the article can cite it -- you just have to take the long term view and be patient. And realize that Wikipedia is not the all-knowing oracle of all knowledge everywhere. It is only an aggregation of verifiable info. Hope that helps.

Personally, I'd be happy to delete every unsourced sentence in this article instead of having {{Citation needed}} tags all over the place.--Dbratland (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, welcome to Wikipedia. As an editor, at least (like me you may have been reading it for years before you ever wanted to edit it). We try to embrace newcomers, and always want (need) fresh input from people. This particular article has been a somewhat contentious one, where some points have been argued over endlessly. As such, many changes to this article will be seen as controversial and will want to be backed up by sources to verify the information.
In this case, you're wanting to replace information that is sourced with original research; in other words, your own personal knowledge. Wikipedia has a strong policy against that, because as an encyclopedia this is meant to be a resource that gathers data from reliable sources, not a place that is the source itself of original information. I would strongly advise finding some reference for the changes you want. -- Atama頭 18:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. I will try to find sources to confirm my info, and in the meantime, I'll just have to be patient. This is an interesting, if controvertial aritcle. Or perhaps, it is the controversy which makes it interesting. Thanks again for the help and advice. HDave1369 (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, just in passing and I don't know if it's considered reliable but the Gangland (tv show) episode on the Sons of Silence talks about the 13 patch and links it to meth. You should look into that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.36.119.57 (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think it is worth looking into?

The number 13 is supposedly unlucky, which gives it a spooky mystique. And lots of other spooky words begin with the 13th letter of the alphabet. If you see someone with a 13 patch, what does that prove, exactly? Personally I think the Lost numbers carry more import than a 13 patch. --Dbratland (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Criminal organization or criminal individuals?

I don't ride a bike or have any personal involvement in this subject, nor do I even know any bikers personally, but I'm oddly interested in it all the same. In the course of reading various books and articles, it seems OMC members are quick to point out that a club may contain individuals who commit crimes, but the commission of crimes is not the overaching purpose of the organization. Even if this distinction is a debatable one, shouldn't the article at least include it, in the interest of fairness?Pithecanthropus (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have a citable source, feel free to add the remark. - Jmabel | Talk 02:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
It's perfectly fine to say "The Justice Department says club X is criminal,1 and club X denies it.2" Or "reliable source Z denies it.3" But if you start adding "alleged" everywhere a crime is mentioned or anything like that, you're running up against the policy WP:No disclaimers in articles. Because it's already known that if you cite a source, the source is the one making the allegation -- it's redundant to say "The Justice Department alleges they are allegedly criminal, according to allegations by the Justice Department." No reader is dumb enough to need it said that way. Instead, the reader clicks on the footnote to know who is alleging it.

Brother Speed is an example of a one percenter club that Wikipedia once had classified as a criminal organization, but it was changed to a more neutral description because nobody was able to find a single instance of any members being convicted of any crimes, nor of any RICO allegations against the group. But the article does mention two law enforcement agencies who label them as "outlaw motorcycle clubs." --Dbratland (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Disputes

This page seems to be going all over the place in terms of disputes, even spilling over onto other noticeboards. There are accusations of bad faith being thrown around, edit wars, and other behavior that's not going to help this article. Even for someone who has been following these disputes it's difficult to figure out exactly what the specific problems are. So I think a good approach would be to define exactly what is being disputed and attempt to come to a consensus. Here is what I gather from the previous discussion:

  • The terms "gang" and "club" are for the most part interchangeable when discussing groups of motorcyclists.
  • Some motorcycle groups are criminal and some aren't.
  • The term "outlaw" is usually used in law enforcement to apply to criminal motorcycle groups, while the groups themselves may use it to declare an independence from the AMA and to also have a criminal "mystique" while not actually being criminal (this seems to be debated).
  • There is some dispute as to whether or not this article should refer primarily to criminal motorcycle groups.
  • There is some dispute as to the reliability of sources, particularly sources that declare the term "outlaw" to only mean independence from the AMA.

Have I missed anything? And does anyone dispute what I've listed above? -- Atama頭 16:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

At the core of much of this is a gross misunderstanding of what a reliable source is, and what a fringe theory is. Many of these attacks on sources are based on the circular reasoning that they must be unreliable or a fringe theory because they're "wrong" in someone's opinion. It doesn't work that way. The sources I've given more than meet the standards of WP:RS, and there are simply too many of them, from too many different sectors, to say this is a fringe theory.--Dbratland (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Dbratland, please stop falling into the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The above poster is correct.
@Atama, yes, you pretty much hit it on the point though there is one more: Some users are arguing that sources have been misrepresented and selectively chosen, while others have been slowly removed or belittled over time in the article.Hooper (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to finish discussing why you think AJ Drew is unreliable. Because your claim that because someone named AJ Drew wrote some books on the occult, and on SAS software, disqualifies them from writing about motorcycles is Exhibit A in your gross misunderstanding of WP:RS.
WP:IDHT refers to "sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it." Do you actually believe you have consensus? Numerous editors have stated that the alternate viewpoints I have offered belong in the article. Want to see the diffs again? --Dbratland (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
This particular reply above showcases your misrepresentation of things said by others, much like you do with your selective sourcing. No, I do not have consensus: BUT NEITHER DO YOU! That is why it should be left out until consensus is found. Thanks for finally joining us here in the think tank. Hooper (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Why is AJ Drew unreliable?--Dbratland (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


I stated that he is not an expert in this field, and that that may be what makes him unreliable. It was not a pro or against reasoning with the occult (he'd be a great reference for an occult article I'm sure). Why is BikerNews.net reliable in any way? Hooper (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I never added the BikerNews section in the first place and I don't object to removing it. Your wholesale deletion of other well-sourced material, is the problem. AJ Drew was a member of the Harley Owners Group for 20 years, which puts him deeply immersed in motorcycle culture. And he is a published author from a fact-checked publishing house. That meets WP:RS. Are you even sure that he is the same person who wrote about SAS software and the occult? And how does that matter anyway?
And why did you delete the reference by Barbara Joans, also immersed in Harley-Davidson culture, and a professor of anthropology? And Roland Brown, author of numerous motorcycling books and articles. Did you wonder for a second what it says on page 352 of Brown's Ultimate Motorcycle Encyclopedia before you deleted it? You're deleting things because you don't like them, not because you have a clue what the sources say or who the authors are.
How many of these books do I need to cite? You have offered ZERO citations, and I'm at 8 and counting. Yet I'm the one with the fringe theory? --Dbratland (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I did check what the source said actually, and it doesn't even matter - because it was branching and irrelevant to the article at hand. Also, I've been a HOG member for 20+ years as I've been a member since before I could walk. Does that make me an expert by your reasoning? No. Stop putting your own spin on references and become truly NPOV. Your comments above about what law enforcement vs. academic research is shows your POV clearly. Let us stick to the task. Reply down at the Definition of Outlaw section, as I'm thru with you here. Hooper (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
The book meets WP:RS. Wikipedia has standards for sources, and the standards have been met. Maybe on your own wiki you can have different rules, but WP:RS is what determines if AJ Drew's book can be cited. --Dbratland (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I need to ask another question. Do you think that just because (in your mind) I'm supposedly biased, that justifies deleting statements with good citations solely because of who put them in there? You do realize that WP:AGF still applies to me, right? You don't have the power to just unilaterally decide that AGF is suspended on your say so. You need to either show that the source is not reliable, or you need to start an RFC and get me banned. --Dbratland (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I haven't removed any edits by you (except your blatant and pathetic and false warnings on my talk page - which I'm allowed to do). AGF states that with proof you can showcase someone is editing in bad faith. This article's history if my proof. Hooper (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you did. That's a diff by the way. You need to use them if you're going to do this right.
Perhaps before we can clear up your misunderstandings about WP:RS, your misunderstanding of WP:AGF needs to be corrected. I don't see how dispute resolution is even possible with editors who are clinging to interpretations of WP policy that are simply bizarre, to say the least. AGF says "If you wish to express doubts about the conduct of fellow Wikipedians, then please substantiate those doubts with specific diffs and other relevant evidence so that people can understand the basis for the concerns." This "whole history of the page" nonsense is not how it works.
Have you noted that no matter how many times you accuse me of bias, it's still just you and Delicious carbuncle who believe it? You tried to show I was biased, and nobody was convinced, so drop it.
And once again, here are most of the diffs from various different editors who were not convicned by your argument, but who instead agreed that the alternate point of view belongs in the article: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. What you really need here is to try an RFC about me. Make your accusation, post your diffs, and lots and lots of other editors will be the judges. Until that happens, you should stop violating WP:AGF.
(And do whatever you want with your talk page, it's your page, and I only used it to send a message. If you would like to have formal AGF warnings instead, I'll post the formal ones if this continues.) --Dbratland (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, you will not. You want "diffs"? Here, this is my proof: this and this. I don't have time to waste on an RFC, just stick to the topics at hand and be NPOV and prove me wrong. Now, as far as your above given diffs. I clicked the very first one - that user is saying that this entire bit isn't needed and that your proposed writing would be misleading. Although he says the sources are fine to him, he agrees it is not needed and misleading. Stop misrepresenting what sources and others say. Good day sir, I consider this matter closed as it does not relate to improving this article. Hooper (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
This, my first diff, is only one of many third parties who say the sources are fine, but the wording needs to be improved. I'm totally fine with improving the wording. Why don't you offer any alternate wording to go with the citations? Instead, you revert and delete. That is not compromise.
Another way you could compromise is to address the supposed problem of undue weight by going and doing some research. Come back with citations that support the argument that outlaw bikers are all criminals. Edit that into the article and cite it. Supposedly it is trivially easy to find lots of sources for that.
You know, while you sit here and talk about me, I'm out getting more ammunition. Today I have a new book I haven't read yet, called Dueling Identities: The Christian Biker by Doreen Anderson-Facile. Check out the back cover: "examines the contradictions facing the Christian biker in regard to the conflicting cultural norms and values within the 'Christian" and 'biker' communities. The Christian biker faces the contradiction of maintaining both the 'bad boy' image and the 'Christian' image..." Sounds a lot like when I'm done reading this I might just have even more support for saying the "outlaw" biker is a complex, contradictory, nuanced thing, huh? Meanwhile, you post links to my whole edit history and think that's going to get you somewhere?
If you really think every edit I do is such a travesty, it should be easy to get me banned. Show my whole editing history and see how far that gets you. But if I'm not going to be banned, then what do you think is going to happen? You're going to sit here and stonewall forever?--Dbratland (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Yawn. This entire above TL;DR is sad. Just stop. Goodbye. Hooper (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think being childish is going to work either. But that's your choice. --Dbratland (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I would have to say that being a member of the Harley Owners Group (HOG) (of which I am a member in addition to an actual MC)and considering yourself an expert in motorcycle culture is like having made a paper plane and suddenly considering yourself a aerospace engineer. HOG while being a very good group to be part of if you want the benefits that go along with membership, is just one facet of motorcycle culture at that it is a riding group not an MC. I've been riding for over 15 years and know that there is still a great deal I do not know about. I'm sure HOG has members that are righfully experts, but I feel that one does not have to be a member of any club or group in particular to be an expert. Perhaps we can all agree that some parts of this article need to be addressed by people who are involved with that aspect of motorcycle culture, otherwise a great deal of conjecture will replace facts especially when it comes to clubs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.248.24.165 (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I want to apologize for forgetting to sign the last section, and clarify that solely being a member of any club or group, in my opinion, does not an expert make. I just pointed out HOG because it had been cited as someone's credential for being an expert. 204.248.24.165 (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)ama46

I have been a member of 2 1% MC's and I'm about to go for a third time, so that kind of qualifies me as an expert.

I'll be very clear about this. Unless somebody has been a patched member of an MC, they have absolutely no idea what it's about and never will. The only real information can come from somebody who has been there and lived it. Then again you will never get a true club member to talk about ANYTHING, and that anything else is pure speculation.

Most information that is gathered comes from the liberal media who is spoon fed by everybody for their sensationalism so that they can justify their existence, and if you think I'm joking just take a look at the history.

Whenever law enforcement makes these big arrests on MC's and their members it makes headline news. But when the trials are over more often then not they end up having a weak case that ends up with the minorest of convictions if they get a conviction at all. Yes, on a rare occasion you will find the isolated case where the heaviest of charges stick.

So, unless you have lived this life, you have absolutely no clue. BigAndNasty (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Naturally, anybody who wants to can go to a one perenter club's web site and get the truth straight from them, right? But what if two Wikipedia editors both claim to be club members and experts, but they disagree with each other? Doesn't it seem like you have to fall back on Wikipedia's policy of verifiability to resolve disagreements? --Dbratland (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, with the nature of the internet, Wikipedia, and editor anonymity we can't really take any editor at his or her word, which is why verification is critical. Remember that Wikipedia isn't really concerned with "the truth" but is rather concerned with what is considered general knowledge of a subject. That means that if there is a media bias on a subject, that bias is probably going to be reflected in an article. That's an unavoidable consequence, see WP:BIAS for other acknowledged shortcomings of Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 20:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a large body of verifiable information about 1% MCs. (Pun not deliberate, but I'll take it!) The footnote and reference sections of the various articles are the proof. This refutes 'Big and Nasty's assertion. His post is a long way of disputing this fact. In terms of Wikipedia's basic concept, his post is an empty refutation with no inherent Wiki validity. Tapered (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The Relationships among motorcycle clubs section is totally unverified and ought to be referenced or removed. Note that most it is unflattering to MCs. Tapered (talk) 02:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Some of the statements that need citation, are clearly described in german books. On top one that has been writen by the publisher of the "bikers news", a monthly magazine on MCs and bikers, that is highly reputated in germany among journalists and bikers likewise. Would that be a reference to quote? See http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocker and http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onepercenter for details. From Germany, Icedragon (rocker) (talk) 05:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Open wikis like de.wikipedia.org are not reliable sources, but you can cite books in other languages. See WP:RS. Just give the information needed so that others can verify it: book title, author, year, page number and so on. Using {{Citation}} makes it easier. --Dbratland (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes of course. I didn't want to cite the german wikipedia, but the books are quoted there. I'll see if I find the time to work on the english article as well (working on the german one currently). Icedragon (rocker) 17:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icedragon (rocker) (talk • contribs)


This whole article's authority level can be easily inferred by the "level" of the sources, like this pearl of banality and stereotypes cited at note [42]

http://people.missouristate.edu/MichaelCarlie/Storage/motorcycle_gangs.htm

and can be placed in the same cathegory as "all rock band members are satanists" or "communists eat babies"... :\ I believe that a frank, objective evaluation of a subject is the only way to make any praise or berating credible. The only thing that blatant adulation or slander achieve is to make any real, fact-based statement on the subject not credible as well... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.239.53.196 (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

other ranks

Are there other ranks besides the top six ranks ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.234.17.172 (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

There are literaly thousands of outlaw motorcycle clubs in the world, so this is hard to say. But most clubs seem to have those positions (some have regional ranks as well as "vice president europe" in larger clubs). But that seems not to be so important in the article. Icedragon (rocker) 18:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Not a funeral or a procession

The article contains these two sentences, the accuracy of which should be questioned. "Most states have special provisions for 'funerals and other processions' that allow the pack as a whole to go through a signal light as long as the first bike entered the intersection legally under the green." and "Organized runs with large numbers will usually include 'road guard' bikes whose responsibility is to block intersections and roads to allow the pack to enter/exit the highway or turn as a unit."

Just today, I saw a motorcycle group riding on a Kentucky public highway, using "road guards" (at least two of whom even had flashing blue lights on their motorcycles) to block traffic and intersections so that large groups of motorcyclists could travel through intersections.

I have written several of Kentucky's traffic laws, and I am familiar with traffic laws in other states. With some minor exceptions, Kentucky traffic laws are typical of other states. I am not aware of any laws from other states that authorize large, private motorcycle groups to ignore traffic laws.

The only type of "procession" authorized by Kentucky law is a "funeral procession" which "means two (2) or more vehicles accompanying the body of a deceased person when each vehicle has its headlights on or is displaying a pennant attached in such a manner as to be clearly visible to approaching traffic." KRS 189.378(1).

KRS 525.140(1) creates a Class B misdemeanor, when a person "having no legal privilege to do so he, alone or with other persons, intentionally or wantonly renders any highway or public passage impassable without unreasonable inconvenience or hazard." KRS 189.920 limits the use of blue lights to certain specified law enforcement vehicles, but motorcycle "road guards" are not mentioned.

So I checked WestLaw, which is a national database of state statutes, and I cannot find any state law in the nation which permits "road guards" to use blue lights, block traffic, or block intersections. There might be some generalized exceptions, but I, at least, didn't find any.

So perhaps the article should include a caution that individuals who block traffic and go through red lights, without lawful authority, create criminal civil liability for themselves, even if they are "outlaw motorcycle clubs." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.204.248.73 (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I just deleted it all because it was unsourced and unrelated to the section Relationships among motorcycle clubs. It belongs maybe on Motorcycle rally or Motorcycle safety, but without the how to advice and the legal advice, as covered by WP:NOT. See also WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

See also: Motorcycle and Motorcycling

I've reverted the addition of See also Motorcycle and Motorcycling from the outlaw motorcycle club articles. These generic see alsos just add clutter to the page. You might as well add "see also police" or "see also drug abuse". It needs to be more specific than that.

The other thing is that these pages are not linked in body of the articles, and there's a reason for that. The sources rarely if ever mention motorcycles or motorcycling in connection with these gangs/clubs. This tells us how little these clubs have to do with motorcycling. If you have a source that does connect a particular club with motorcycles, please cite it in the body text, and then link motorcycle or motorcycling there. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Outlaw motorcycle clubs engage in criminal activity? How insightful.

article says near the start: 'Some motorcycle gangs engage in criminal activity'. The title of the article is 'OUTLAW motorcycle club'. The first sentence of the article indicates that 'motorcycle gang' and 'outlaw motorcycle club' are synonymous (at least, that is what the article is stating). So, in effect, what is being stated is that SOME outlaw motorcycle clubs engage in criminal activity. Which does NOT make a great deal of sense. What would it mean for a motorcycle club to be 'outlaw' if it did NOT engage in criminal activity? An outlaw motorcycle club must by definition engage in criminal activity - that is the reason for outlawing the club. In any case, the article should contain a definition of what is meant by 'outlaw motorcycle club'. Wikipedia articles are about subjects - if those subjects are not defined, what is an article then about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.11.72.4 (talk) 08:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The term outlaw is sometimes used in the sense of "maverick" or "unaffiliated" -- specifically, a club that is not sanctioned by the American Motorcyclist Association, or more generally, rejects social norms and lives outside the mainstream. It is a testament to the flexibility of the English language, which you can verify by looking up the word outlaw in any decent dictionary. You'll find more than one definition. All of this is explained in the article and on the talk page. Perhaps it doesn't make sense but that is what reliable sources tell us and so that is what the article says. --Dbratland (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm just a nobody. All the same, I'd point out that we use the term "underground" in common speech the same way many people use the term "outlaw" club in reference to motorcycle groups. It's technically not possible to have an "underground" newspaper/song/magazine/etc. in a culture that guarantees freedom of speech, yet the term exists and is commonly used to distinguish a certain type of media or behavior, or sometimes belief system. The same can also be applied to "outlaw" in this sense. I have not read through the entire disaster area that this article turned into, but on this one point I'd agree with Dbratland's stance on the matter, and frankly, it's common knowledge among motorcycle enthusiasts. The simple fact of the matter is that in the motorcycle sub-culture, "outlaw" does not mean "criminal." The two are not synonymous in the vernacular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.150.207.190 (talk) 09:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I would like to point out "specifically, a club that is not sanctioned by the American Motorcyclist Association" would make the majority of M/C's outside of the USA 'outlaw', I belong to two clubs that by that definiton would be outlaw yet as a club there is no engagement in criminal activity, in my understanding the term outlaw means simply outside of the law, thus an outlaw club would be involved illegal activity. JMemonic (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


Words have different meanings depending on context, taking them deliberately at face value or in their most common meaning can lead to gross misunderstanding or even involuntary comical effect. "Outlaw", in this specific context, means "non-mainstream". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.239.53.196 (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, something to take into consideration is that most MC have a lot of affiliates. Some of them are bound, due to mere statistical probability, to be prone to lawbreaking. This doesn't necessarily make a "gang" of their MC, no matter what an organization like the ATF (which is in itself much more like a "gang" than many up front gangs) may say. For God's sake, the Catholic Church has its share of pretty unsavory criminals. Does this make a "gang" of it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.230.44.12 (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


Proposed distinction between "outlaw" and "criminal"

I would like to propose making a distinction between "outlaw" and "criminal" on this page. In this way clubs which have definitely been involved in criminal enterprises at a high level (such as the Pagans and the Mongols) can be distinguished from clubs which have not necessarily been involved in criminal enterprises at a high organizational level (such as the Hells Angels).

You're kidding, right? The long list of criminal activity involving Hells Angels at high organizational levels make the Mongols look like girls (which is incidentally the HA slang name for the Mongols). Garth of the Forest (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I do think both aspects should and can be usefully referenced on this page, as BOTH "cultural outlaws with their own lifestyle of freedom" and "criminal organizations" are popular connotations that go along with the phrase "outlaw biker".

There may never be full agreement on all the particulars of this distinction as applies to each motorcycle club, but it can nonetheless be useful to any reading articles on Wikipedia, even as a springboard for further study.

Thoughts? (Metasailor (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC))

That would certainly make our job easier, but unfortunately reality does't cooperate. The word "outlaw" is ambiguous, and the behavior of many outlaw motorcycle clubs is ambiguous. Often on purpose: on the one hand they don't want to go to jail, but on the other hand, they want to intimidate or impress others by making the public *think* they might be real criminals. Clubs like Brother Speed are "outlaws" in the metaphorical and cultural sense, and the Oregon state police describe them as an "outlaw motorcycle gang", but we have zero evidence of any criminal activity, and zero convictions. It is a verifiable fact Brother Speed is ambiguous in nature. The sources tell us so. If we were to pigeonhole Brother Speed definietly into either the criminal or non-criminal categories, we would be failing to adhere to our sources, and would be violating Wikipedia's policies of neutrality, verifiability, and no original research.

By telling the reader as much as we can about this ambiguous state of affairs, we are doing a good job. Readers must then decide for themselves what to believe. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, well I propose that in the best principle of "innocent until proven guilty", a motorcycle club not be considered criminal unless one or more of its top 3 members is convicted on some charge of using the club to further criminal activity. I might take a shot at editing this article along those lines and see how people like it. That way "Brother Speed", as a particular example, remains an outlaw club but in fairness not a criminal one. The fact that Illinois *suspects* it's a criminal gang is fair to notice, while it's also fair to notice that they have been unable to make this stick on the whole club. (Metasailor (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC))
I'm sorry, but your proposal is at odds with Wikipedia's policies. Please read WP:OR and WP:RS. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how my proposal is necessarily at odds with the policies you cited. This would not be creating new research, and it would be citing reliable existing research which I have not created. This would be based entirely on pre-existing research - citing which gangs have actually committed criminal action, and listing them separately on this same page. (Metasailor (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC))
The criteria you propose are entirely our own invention. That is original research. You need to cite some authority besides yourself. One problem is that a RICO conviction, for example, means nothing outside US jurisdiction. Canadian or German organized crime laws are different in significant ways. How do you go from a specific fact like a conviction to a generalization like "criminal"? It requires expertise, and even then it's only an opinion. If you do have an expert on outlaw motorcycle clubs who gives their opinion on which ones are criminals and which ones are not, then we should definitely cite that opinion. We should cite statements from law enforcement as to which groups are "gangs" or "criminal" or not.

The key is that we are deferring to their judgement in all cases. And respecting the intelligence of the reader. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Arranging information that already exists in a useful fashion is not invention. It is the purpose of encyclopedias everywhere. And, just so we're clear, I *AM* proposing to cite authorities besides myself. In re: your example of US law vs. German laws, I fail to see the problem. In that case, German convictions would of course be cited regarding German gangs in Germany. In re: going from "conviction" to "criminal" - how does that require expertise? It's a definition. If someone is convicted of a crime then they are a criminal. And I don't see how noticing a conviction requires "expertise". Either a certain conviction has been handed down by a certain court or not.
Further and perhaps more to the point, I don't see how deferring to the government's judgement in all cases is necessarily respecting the intelligence OR the informational needs of the reader. A lot of members of motorcycle gangs have rightly complained of excessive and unfair treatment from government and law enforcement. We certainly wouldn't accept the government's word regarding protest groups, would we? Perhaps you've heard of COINTELPRO?
But I think this entire discussion is now mired in specifics. I'm trying to resolve this issue, because the information would be of interest to me, and thus to other readers. I propose we find a way to solve it, rather than merely settle for the current situation because a solution might be initially difficult. What about if we stopped saying "no" to possible solutions, and instead found another way to fix this? Wouldn't that be worth doing? Metasailor (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
If you want to cite that a group or individual was convicted under RICO or under some other country's law, cite it. There's no reason to even have a discussion of that. As far as what you're proposing beyond that, I have no idea what you want. Give me a specific example of what you want the article to say and show me your citations, and I'll have an opinion. But once again, if the edit you propose to add doesn't contain anything not supported by your citation, go right ahead; no need to discuss. Are you proposing to write something more that what is stated in the cited source? If so, that's where I have a problem. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Thought. The article states that the Hells Angels is considered a criminal enterprise as defined by RICO by the FBI. If you want the article changed, please contact the FBI. Have fun. Tapered (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a suggestion

I see how you have been very precise in outlining all of the illegal events that have happened over the years regarding the Outlaws but I fail to see all the good and charitable things that they have also done over the years. Yes I know not everything the club does fals into the legal gudelines but that is so in the the general population, but wat happens here is all anyone publishes about the Outlaws is the bad making them seem like monsters which they arent. Most of them are very intelligent and hold down very good jobs, and actually are very friendly and would lend a helping hand to someone in need. Yes there are some Outlaw memebers serving time in jail and some did commit the crimes but there are alot of them in there now that were actually innocent but beause they were Outlaws they were considered guilty even before theit trial. It all comes down to one fact the Outlaws are going to protect and defend what they feel they deserve and if anyone comes messing around in their world yes they will deal with it in their way, they are not ones to ask someone else to fight their battles it is just their way about things. 1 other thing before I sign this off please stop referring to them as a "gang" because they are actually a motorcycle Club, gang again makes people associate them to only be monsters and bad for them. Maybe go talk to some of the neighbors of an Outlaws clubhouse and hear what they have to say about them you might be suprised. Well I have said my peace and let you all get back to your hard work and I would really appreciate to see some Positive articles regarding the Outlaws.

(Redsylo (talk) 02:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)). and proud to give my name Mary Clark

What's stopping you from fixing it? Go and find reliable sources telling all about the good that outlaw MCs do, describe it in the article, and cite them. It's easy to bitch and moan about what you don't like but if you're sitting around waiting for somebody else to do the work for you, then you're just as much a part of the problem aren't you? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Motorcycle Clubs are NOT gangs

As a longtime member of the Motorcycle Community, I must share a phrase we say and display consistently. "Motorcycle Clubs are NOT gangs." Please do not give in to the Hollywood hype and the disinformation of several federal agencies. Any group of any size has both people who adhere to the law, those who break law but do not engage in Criminal activity, (Yes Virginia, there is a difference.) and those who are criminals. Law Enforcement agencies are no exception to this and more of those are exposed regularly. Yet, when one cop breaks the law, we do NOT call all cops criminals, why the double-standard? Please remove the term Motorcycle Gang and replace it with Motorcycle Clubs or Groups throughout the article. BigDave Grizzly 19:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogroe (talk • contribs)

Strongly agreed. You are, of course, utterly correct. In fact, I'd go as far to say the only MCs which have been created specifically to carry out crimes where those bogus MCs which were started by police or intelligence agencies to infiltrate the scene ... which is somewhat paradoxical.
The politicisation of this whole area, and how the political parties and governmental agencies have used motorcyclists (Folk Devils and Moral Panics) has also been widely noted. ANother good reason why we should err on the side of caution and neutrality. --Bridge Boy (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Are all MCs OMCs?

One question, are all MC badged motorcycle clubs being considered to be OMCs?

In the UK where I am from, every "MC" club is an OMC, and any non-OMC club is a MCC. This appears to be a particularly British solution but one that was quite fiercely established. I know that there are other slightly ambiguous workarounds, such as "side-patch clubs" and RCs (riders clubs), but how is it working in the USA? For example, the Boozefighters claim they are an MC but not a OMC. How many, if any, of the AMA clubs wear an MC patch?

I am thinking of the section of women in OMC which I thought was pretty crappy. There are, of course, women's MC clubs nows ... are any of them considered OMCs?

There are several ways to view the term "outlaw motorcycle club" in North America, and depending on which definition you embrace, therein lies your answer. The first is that view which is commonly held by some members of law enforcement and the media - it being synonymous with the term "outlaw motorcycle gang" where all members are lumped in as criminals or apologists for organized criminals simply by virtue of wearing the three piece patch (logo in centre, upper patch has name of club, lower patch has region or "nomad" or other info, many variations include "MC" or "MG" patch near centre logo).
A second more widely used definition (that which by consensus we prefer to use for Wikipedia articles) is that an "outlaw motorcycle club" is simply any club which is not a member of the AMA or the FIM-affiliated equivalent in the club's home country. So this is fairly obvious. This comes from the early days when many clubs had members who participated in the racing events sponsored by AMA. The MC badge is not relevant to this definition.
However, by convention, if I were to form a riding club, whether or not I affiliate with AMA, and chose to use a three piece patch in a similar style to that used by the 1%er clubs, and used the MC or MG patch on the cut, I might put my members at risk of territorial aggression or violence at the hands of any nearby 1%er club. So, while there are likely some exceptions, you will see most riding clubs will use a one or two piece patch, and may use a MCC patch (less common in North America than UK), but will rarely use MC patch or three piece design to avoid potential conflict with any of the one-percenter clubs.
It is also dependent on which time period you are considering. In America in the fifties and sixties and in some regions even later, when most of the crime attributable to bikers was "disorganized crime", there were lots of independent clubs and lots of non-criminal members wearing three piece patches, MC patch, and living "The Life". As "The Life" came to mean, for younger members, more organized criminal activities, more about the proceeds of crime, and less about riding, and as the "Big Four" started to expand their territories and did a lot of friendly mergers with formerly independent OM clubs (or disbanded them if not considered the right material), there was less room territorially for any independent clubs wanted to remain "outlaw" but not "criminal". My view anyway, of how the landscape has evolved, for what it is worth, as an old timer. Garth of the Forest (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

"Historically White"

As a side issue, I also have to question the statement that OMCs were "historical white".

I know that from the early days there were Black MC in California and there still is a large and mostly undocumented world of black biking in the USA. If I was to say anything, I would say the Hispanic development arose after them and that it is far less notable. The way this is being posed, it is suggest that OMCs were by design racist which I would strongly argue against and can easily think of some references to support it. I would say it is simpler to suggest they reflected the societies they grew out of the the US in the 1960s was far more racially segregated than today or the rest of the world, segregation which was also manifested in labor divisions (e.g. OMC/motorcyclists arising out of White working classes which tended to engage in more industrial or engineering based).

I'd be interested in other's opinions before I spend time digging out the references to support this ... noting that there has always a whole load of stupid, prejudicial sh*t written about motorcyclists in general, and MCs in particular, which could be used against such an argument. --Bridge Boy (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


The charters of quite a few of the original OMC's specified that membership was restricted to white males only. In cases where there was no written charter, that rule was enforced by fiat decision on the part of the participants or founders. That particular definition has been stretched in a few cases to accommodate Latino and Asian members, but these are rare exceptions to the rule. In general- blacks and women are unable to become full-patch members of any of the "Big Four" OMC organizations. As of now there are no black members of any of the most prominent OMC/OMGs.

African-American MC's have existed throughout the history of motorcycling, as you correctly stated. However, few of these groups fit into the description traditionally attributed to 1%'er Outlaw Clubs. The black and white motorcycle world are in many respects separate societies. 

Veritost (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I trust you have a reference to back that up? Bridge Boy can't as he is no longer of this encyclopaedia. --Biker Biker (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your query. There's ample documentation detailing the structure, ethnicity and general sociological characteristics of OMG/OMC's in print and online that can be used as a reference to back all of that up. Also- there are numerous primary source accounts written by individuals actively involved in this aspect of motorcycling that address this issue in detail.

A quick search on a major search engine featuring the name of any OMG and the name of any (to use an antiquated term) race will hopefully provide further confirmation. One can also go ahead and ask a member of a club for a more ... direct answer, if you will. Ride on. 

Veritost (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Coalitions

Does anyone have any more specific references to this reference of coalitions in the USA? I know of stuff like NCOM and ABATE but these seem more specific to MCs. --Bridge Boy (talk) 06:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Missing the Point.

As a longtime member of the Motorcycle Community, I must share a phrase we say and display consistently. "Motorcycle Clubs are NOT gangs."-


This really is a silly thing to be disputed. Wiki is NOT an opinions website, it is for the FACTS Not if SOME do bad or SOME do good which everyone knows, more about WHAT they have done bad and WHAT they have done good.

Screaming at someone that you are a good person in a midst of evidence that you aren't only exhasibates your condition

Id suggest remove all the tedious after lines where contents goes from flowing naturally to some Idiot from this stupid club tries to lean in with the sympathy vote.

Simply put mate, no one cares about your club, they just want details. 86.175.178.109 (talk) 06:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on verifiable facts, and this trumps the truth every time. There are sources on the article, from the US Government agencies and others, which use the word gang in relation to these clubs. That is a verified fact, so it stays. --Biker Biker (talk) 06:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Toy Run

What is a toy run? There appears to be wiki page for it, so it needs clarifying here really Talltim (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Barger

Sonny Barger referred to photographs showing women in the Hells Angels in the late 1940's. His tone implied that this was something suprising. He joined them in 1957. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.1.208 (talk) 11:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:Copy violations

Removed the direct copy of the of the referenced material. Do not undo. It must be rewritten in your own words with some quoting allowed by not an exact unquoted copy. The case is clear cut according to WP:Copy. Please become familiar with it as I suspect there are some other cases in this article. Plagiarism is not allowed on Wikipedia. 208.54.35.201 (talk) 09:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Many "outlaw" bikers find a fulfilling self identity in their fantasy persona in the biker culture.

You recently reverted an edit without including a reason. I hope your reason is not because the statement does not portray the subject matter the way you would like it to. The statement may not be flattering to fans of the culture but it is correct. It is a statement regarding peculiar human behavior. Sociology editors should be invited into the discussion if you find it to be a non-objective statement to reach a consensus. The statement complemented the reasons people associate with this group and even has a notice asking for the section to be expanded. It is a good faith edit but I have let it be and brought it to the talk page for discussion by subject matter experts.

Many people assume other identities for psychological reasons and a psychological book could be written about the Outlaw culture. This group is predominantly represented by men past their prime years who feel a loss of power and importance and being part of the group helps restore that sense of pride. The similarity of participants over the world is not by coincidence.

The phenomenon is not peculiar to this group. Dungeons and Dragons and other fantasy personas are similar. Many internet gamers will also find the fantasy persona as psychologically fulfilling. The reasons are many among them are the sense of power given to people who otherwise feel powerless in their jobs and life. It can also apply to many wiki editors who believe they exert power and control over others as fulfilling themselves psychologically.208.54.40.234 (talk) 06:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I did not revert your edit, but if I would have seen it sooner, I certainly would have been quick to do so. First of all, it did not include a source. That alone is reason enough for a revert. Without a third party reliable reference, it is merely your opinion, which has no place inside the article. Secondly, by putting the word "outlaw" in parentheses, you demonstrate a lack of understanding of what we mean by outlaw motorcycle club. We are not talking about a bunch of fifty something RUBBIES (rich urban bikers) on full dress Harleys - lawyer or doctor by day, "outlaw" on the weekend. We are talking about people who actually lived or who are currently living "the Life". Lastly, as a first hand participant in the subculture when I was much younger, I can assure you, yours is a very uninformed and inaccurate opinion. This group (the outlaw motorcycle subculture), was, at its peak, predominantly represented by men in their early twenties. Hardly past their prime years. Different men join different clubs for different reasons. I participated because I loved to ride motorcycles and I loved to party. I was also a bit of a rebel in my younger years, and could "hold my mud". Yes, some of the current 1%ers are now in their sixties or seventies, but these are the old timers! They didn't join their club when they were "past their prime years" as you put it, but rather these are the die hards who stuck with the lifestyle for forty or fifty years! I was 18 when I first started hanging with the club. A bit younger than the average, which was closer to 23 and then later moved up to 27. Do some basic research before you edit an article! Your comments above contain a few pellets of truth surrounded by a stinking pile of what comes out of the back end of a male bos primigenius! Garth of the Forest (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

High Importance Questioned

Why is a motorcycle sub-culture that reflects a minority of riders considered high importance? Would not medium be much more realistic? I understand some have emotional attachments to certain subject areas but would it not be best to look at it objectively? 172.56.11.30 (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Good point. It would also be best to sign your posts, to not edit other contributors' talk page comments, and to stop editing in a disruptive manner, for risk of having the IP you are using blocked, to the possible detriment of others who actually have valid, well referenced material to add to articles rather than opinions and/or unsourced material.
The talk page is exactly where we want opinions, and discussion. About how to improve the article. Not about your opinions on the topic. Garth of the Forest (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The following "er" that some so-called biker patches have.

Never heard of 1%er? I don't know where they came up with the "er" but I won't wear one. 1% alone, I'll wear. Just for the record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:FFC0:2C:F166:ABCB:44DE:3080 (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Nobody (except maybe you, your old lady, and your club) cares what you'll wear. Please restrict your comments here for discussion of how to improve the article. Some clubs may have the "er" on the logo, perhaps some don't, I doubt you are an actual 1%er because if you were you would just accept the patch as awarded by your club. If you are not in a club, and choose to wear a 1% patch, how's your health insurance coverage? Just for the record, as an interesting side note, early in their history, the Bandidos patches used to have MG (for Motorcycle Gang) not MC (Motorcycle Club). I can just see you expressing your preference at a club meeting ... "excuse me, Mr. President, this patch clashes with my satchel..." Garth of the Forest (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Outlaw motorcycle club. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

One percenter - update sources

Concerning the sentence "The alleged AMA comment, supposedly a response to the Hollister riot in 1947,[1][2] is denied by the AMA, who claim to have no record of such a statement to the press": The website the references link to is down and can be replaced by an archived version. Is this the proper way to do it? [3][4]

I'm asking also because in this case the "original" source is not the archive of the San Francisco Chronicle but a website that contained a transcript of the articles.

PS: I wanted to check out the archive of the San Francisco Chronicle (cf. San_Francisco_Chronicle#External_links) but apparently the website of the library suffers from a https-misconfiguration and I rather don't want to fiddle with certificate exceptions in my browser right now. --Tom Pankow (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I now changed the references as suggested, I used the caption "Transcribed article of the San Francisco Chronicle". --Tom Pankow (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ Dougherty, C.I. (1947-07-05), "Motorcyclists Take Over Town, Many Injured", San Francisco Chronicle, retrieved 2007-10-24
  2. ^ Dougherty, C.I. (1947-07-06), "2000 'Gypsycycles' Chug Out of Town and the Natives Sigh 'Never Again'", San Francisco Chronicle, retrieved 2007-10-24
  3. ^ Dougherty, C.I. (1947-07-05), "Motorcyclists Take Over Town, Many Injured", San Francisco Chronicle, archived from the original on 2015-11-03
  4. ^ Dougherty, C.I. (1947-07-06), "2000 'Gypsycycles' Chug Out of Town and the Natives Sigh 'Never Again'", San Francisco Chronicle, archived from the original on 2015-11-03

Regarding the use of this image on this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlaw_motorcycle_club#/media/File:Vietnam_Vets_MC_colors.JPG)

I think we should remove this image as this article is about outlaw clubs and this image shows a non-outlaw, law abiding motorcycle club member. CommotioCerebri (talk) 12:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

This book sez "The listing of the Vietnam Vets MC as the sixth largest OMG in the United ..."
Yes, I see the club denies any of its chapters have gang connections. However, it seems this may be wishful thinking. Geo Swan (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Outlaw motorcycle club. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Outlaw_motorcycle_club/Archive_2&oldid=1028905876"