Jump to content

Talk:Hells Angels/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Membership Requirements

I am having great difficulty believing there are no child molesters in the Hells Angels. I have what I am certain is unimpeachable evidence to the contrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.0.6 (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the article mentions if there are inuits in the Hells Angels, either. Why? There aren't reliable sources discussing it. tedder (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the point of the question. However, I will question my source a bit more thoroughly and do more digging - as well as look at the "sources" requirements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.0.85 (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't say there are no child molesters in the Hells Angels. It says, "The full requirements to become a Hells Angel are the following: candidates must be male, have a valid driver's licence, have a working motorcycle and cannot be a child molester or have applied to become a police officer or prison guard." We have no way of knowing -- nobody can know -- with absolute certainty whether every Hells Angel ever always met these rules. We do know they have been infiltrated by law enforcement, so right off the bat we know they are not omniscient in enforcing their membership rules. On a lighter note, the "have a working motorcycle" rule, often more honor'd in the breach than the observance, is good fodder for some tales about the antics of these bikers.

Please be very certain you have high-quality, reliable sources before adding any criminal allegations to Wikipedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Even though there are citations for the claim the HAMC is an organized crime syndicate, shouldn't it be pointed out that HAMC has never been convicted under RICO? 67.127.240.250 (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Tim

Sure, if you have a good source saying that is a fact. But the US isn't the whole world. Other countries have determine that they are an organized crime group. And court judgements aren't the sole criterion anyway. Wikipedia determines things like this based on the consensus of reliable experts, and there is little credible argument against the Hells Angeles being criminal in nature. There are other outlaw motorcycle clubs where you could cast doubt on their criminality, but the Hells Angels are a slam dunk. Significant minority opinions are given due mention, but the lunatic fringe is ignored. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Not only, but lso, the RICO trial was a flop.Acmthompson (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

There's currently a contradiction regarding race under this section. The beginning states "candidates must be a white male", while the end states "Contrary to popular opinion, the club was not established as a racially segregated organization[39][40] and consists of members from numerous ethnicities." Which is it? Both are sourced. 208.102.55.92 (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Kind of hard to say. Source [39] is not available online, and source [40] is a scanned Ebony magazine from December 1966 - which on page 66 specifically states that "We don't have any Negro (being the focus of the magazine, that's what the question presumably specified) members because we don't know any who could make it." But come on - that source is nearly 50 years old. How valid is it anymore?
I would be tempted to remove the latter sentence as being unreliably sourced, unlike the former statement that a member needs to be a white male, as that's a far newer source. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Not only that, but "must be a white male" and "we don't know any [Negroes] who could make it" are not even the same thing. The article should not be used as a source for that statement (although there's still good information in the article which can be used to support other claims about how the club operated at that time). Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
The "must be a white male" is from a different source, which is why you can't find it in the Ebony magazine. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Many members of the Hells Angels are not white, do you think those applying for membership in Japan are caucasian, or how about those in the Caribbean? You may stereotype bikers as being white males with beards dressed in leather, that doesn't make it true and neither does pseudo-journalism.27.33.143.93 (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
You have a good point. The single source used as a citation is a summary of a federal indictment of a single HA chapter that gives very little additional context. At the very least the statement must be amended to take this into account. Does anyone have PACER access or similar to see what the actual indictment says? Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't find that acceptable wording. The source is an apparent indictment, it is not proven true. The prosecutors could be trying to gain support for their case by playing a "racial game". The chances of that chapters members being all white is very high as most chapters are made up of friends/families and their friends of friends. No matter your skin colour, most people tend to have friends and family of their own ethnic background. The Hells Angels MC is a not a library, you do not go to a chapter and fill out an application form and then receive your membership card a week later. There is no actual proof that one of the chapters requirements was being a white male. If you go to Thailand the chances of their chapters being all Siamese is very high for the same reasons. Does that make being Siamese a requirement for membership? If you are going to make some racist wording like that, why exclude another Chapter like the Belfast Hells Angels which was started by those from the Chosen Few MC which was started by black Americans? Instead of creating propaganda of racism.27.33.143.93 (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
It's not the role of Wikipedia to resolve these kinds of picky disputes. Wikipedia is just a faithful summary of what is found in good sources. Government sources are generally reliable. The fact that the Hells Angels don't trust the government is their problem, and we aren't obligated to cater to paranoid fringe groups and the not credible theory that there is a vast conspiracy to frame an innocent group of motorcycle enthusiasts. We have good reason not to trust what the Hells Angels say about themselves.

So go do the work of reading the many, many published books about the Hells Angels and find an independent source that contradicts the claims of racial selectivity. If you're not willing to do that work, don't hang around whining that you want somebody else to do the work for you. Wikipedia doesn't work that way either.

Go to a library. Read books. Cite what you read. Problem solved. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

June 2011

Every time I put Dave Burgess and his conviction in the article, some one takes it out.
I have fully cited it to bikernews, so alleging lack of sources is a silly lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
See www.bikernews.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Bikernews.net is an unreliable blog. Better to cite the original newspaper where Bikernews pirates their copyrighted text from. Since the case is still working it's way through the courts, what is the urgency? Wikipedia is not a news site. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Since February 23, 2010, a 20-year-old female decoy of the Hells Angels is standing trial in Neumünster. She is accused having lured a Bandidos member in an ambush. The victim was killed with five shots.[114]

The guy wasn´t killed, every source I had a look into wrote that he was shot down but not killed. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).http://www.abendblatt.de/region/norddeutschland/article1394375/Rockerkrieg-20-Jaehrige-vor-Gericht-in-Neumuenster.html 89.246.8.211 (talk) 12:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

89.246.8.211 seems to be contradicting himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Or is just comparing words from an article, to his/her own...-- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 13:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
You are quite right, MelbourneStar1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.38.1 (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

David Hartlaub murder update / Hells Angels MC

David Hartlaub was murdered because he was mistaken for Jim Best, a member of The Outlaws MC from Sandusky, Ohio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.8.1.12 (talk) 15:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

This calls for proof. No doubt, the mistake and motive were mentioned at the trial of the three.

Criminal activities

Is it really necessary for this article to contain such a vast and detailed list of individual cases? I think a general overview, with representative examples, would be better. 86.176.208.18 (talk) 02:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

86.176.208.18 seems to have over-looked the fact that "vast" is a vague, comparative term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.127.78 (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with 213.120.127.78. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.37.43 (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
(OP) With all due respect, I think that is a feeble objection to my point. 86.160.210.161 (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Famous/Well-known members

Could a section of famous/well-known members be added? Of the top of my head, I can think of David LaBrava (FX's Sons of Anarchy), but I'm sure there are others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.177.73 (talk) 09:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Connecticut "Nomads"

There is a Connecticut chapter known as the Nomads. It is often said that their "bar" is Ruby II (2) in Bridgeport, CT. I'm not certain if that is accurate or not. Their leader, Roger Mariani, apparently made national headlines when he was murdered on I-95. Not sure how I could put this, anyone interested in sharing is more than welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twillisjr (talk • contribs) 19:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a story about Mariani in the "Hartford Courant". See a Google search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by New York Resident (talk • contribs) 13:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Punctuation

Does anybody know if there's an actual reason that their name doesn't use an apostrophe (Hells Angels instead of Hell's Angels), or is it just an incredibly pervasive example of poor punctuation?

MrBlonde267 (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

and the answer is: "Should the Hells in Hells Angels have an apostrophe, and be Hell's Angels? That would be true if there was only one Hell, but life & history has taught us that there are many versions and forms of Hell."source: http://www.hells-angels.com/?HA=faq in fact Sonny Barger in his auto-biography uses the apostrophe but states the it is only for writing/Acmthompson (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

That does not explain the lack of apostrophe. If there was more than one Hell then it would be "Hells' Angels". More likely either usage was established by people who didn't know or care that there could/should be an apostrophe, or the apostrophe was deliberately omitted because it was thought to look fussy. 86.128.5.251 (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Formatting/Deletion Errors

Can anyone with some experience please address the issues in the "Criminal Activities" section, specifically where there seems to be a mistaken deletion at the 'end' of the "Canada" section. I believe that text was mistakenly deleted, causing the Canada and (?Germany?) section to become messily merged under the "Canada" sub-header. This creates a section that is unreadable and confusing to the reader. Thank you.

I restored the info as well as I could. I think I may have removed one reference, but it was broken and incomprehensible. I left the cleanup tag in place for now, someone may want to check previous versions for the correct reference that was removed. The reference was in the 3rd paragraph under the "Lindsay and Bonnar trial" subheading under Canada. This seems to have started when a bot deleted 30k of text for some reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjseatter (talk • contribs) 06:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

age limit?

how old do you have to be in order to be in this group? --173.216.3.254 (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

nicknames

Regarding this edit. I understand why citations are asked for, though finding them may be a little harder. 81 is the simplest, it can be found on the HA web site and a few references to it here and there on the web. It's about as common as common knowledge can be in the biker world. The other two are a little harder. These may not be documented in what we'd think of as reliable sources. The terms are still used commonly however. In common biker parlance "HA" or just simply "Angels" is probably used more often than their actual name, though that might not be noted in the New York Times. At any rate, I'll leave it at that. If someone wishes to push the issue then so be it. – JBarta (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Great. Feel free to cite the ones you can find, leave the {{cn}} there for the rest, or add a cn to each term. Nicknames tend to get added by personal knowledge and expand like crazy. Leaving it to sourced nicknames helps avoid this. tedder (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Added a reference to the HA web site for "81". Moved citation needed to "Red & White". Left "H.A." alone as it's pretty self-explanatory/obvious and unlikely to be pushed for a citation. – JBarta (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The HA FAQ mentions both "Red & White", "81" and what 81 means. I figured that was sufficient to remove the citation needed template. – JBarta (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

This piece of news is very inportant and should be included with the Nevada hells angels this child porn transporter is the Nevada leader

Hell's Angel & Nevada brothel owner Dave Burgess convicted of child pornography PDF Print E-mail Saturday, 19 July 2008 Former brothel owner gets 15 years in child porn case Associated Press Las Vegas Review-Journal Jul. 19, 2008 http://www.lvrj.com/news/25644904.html CHEYENNE, Wyo.-- A former Nevada brothel owner has been sentenced to 15 years in federal prison for his conviction on two child pornography charges in Wyoming. David Burgess was sentenced Friday in U.S. District Court for possessing and transporting child pornography. U.S. District Judge Alan B. Johnson also sentenced the 55-year-old Hells Angel motorcycle club member to 10 years of supervision upon his release, lifetime registration as a sex offender and a fine of $20,000. Investigators found two hard drives containing thousands of images of child pornography in Burgess' motor home after a traffic stop last summer in western Wyoming. A jury convicted Burgess in April on both charges against him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Count Corrector (talk • contribs) 21:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

See the paragraph entitled "June 2011" above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.18.43 (talk) 09:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
There is much more detail in the site http://www.agingrebel.com/1079 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.176.152 (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Dave Burgess lost an appeal on about 29/5/2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.168.232 (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • But the question is why this item belongs in the article. Even if he is the Nevada chapter president, there are 229 other chapters with presidents. Why are we highlighting the wrong-doing of one guy? I'm sure a lot of Hell's Angels have been convicted of a lot of heinous things. Why does this one get special mention? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
    • One, because the charter specifically -- apropos of what? -- calls out that members can't be a child molester, and two, because the Hells Angles are primarily notable because of their criminal activity. The argument that the crimes of the individual members of the club don't represent the club has been discussed and rejected by Wikipedia editors many times. The reason there is a Wikipedia article is because they are an organized crime group, not because they are a motorcycle club. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • This article is about the club, not a bio. A member committed a crime (big surprise) and gets arrested. The fact that the club charter forbids it makes my point even more. This is incident about a person and the article is about the club. Considering all the crimes committed by members over the years, highlighting this one makes me suspect that either someone has an axe to grind or this is just a matter of convenience. Regardless, the claim that "The argument that the crimes of the individual members of the club don't represent the club has been discussed and rejected by Wikipedia editors many times" is not a matter of policy, guideline or even a commonly accepted point of view. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • A club is nothing more than a collection of individuals. The club, an abstraction, is incapable of taking any action -- only people do things. People who are members of the Hells Angels doing things are entirely what this page and Hells Angels MC criminal allegations and incidents consist of. If we had a rule that you can't mention the actions of any individual, what exactly would you write?

    As far as consensus, read the discussion archive yourself. Read the talk pages of all the other outlaw motorcycle clubs on Wikipedia. The kneejerk reaction of the each club's PR mouthpiece is to deny responsibility and claim the crimes had nothing to do with the club. If that were true, there would be no such thing as organized crime. Any club that has reliable sources saying they are an organized crime group is treated this way. Clubs that don't have reliably sourced statements that they are organized crime groups are treated as such. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

  • "A club is nothing more than a collection of individuals" In a literal sense, that might be true, but the individuals aren't notable. Using your rationale, if a janitor at a Kmart gets drunk and beats his wife up, we should put that in the Kmart article because the company is really just a collection of individuals. "The club, an abstraction, is incapable of taking any action -- only people do things." The club, however, is the subject and what is actually notable. Unless you can show his actions were a furtherance of the club's interests or something they sanctioned, then it doesn't belong in the article about the club. "If we had a rule that you can't mention the actions of any individual, what exactly would you write". Um, no. First, we're giving this incident undue weight. There is nothing I've seen so far saying the club santioned this, was profiting from it or supported it. This almost becomes a guilt by association issue and treads on BLP. Including this singular incident highlights it, implying that the club supports that activity and thus, so do their members. "As far as consensus, read the discussion archive yourself" No, you claimed it, you provide it. "Read the talk pages of all the other outlaw motorcycle clubs on Wikipedia" Aside from the fact that what one group of editors decides on a page doesn't become binding on all articles (especially when interested editors here didn't even participate), consensus is not written in stone. "The kneejerk reaction of the each club's PR mouthpiece is to deny responsibility and claim the crimes had nothing to do with the club". So? What does that have to do with this? Do you see me talking about what the club said? Or are you implying that I'm somehow editing on their behalf? I hope you're not that foolish. This isn't a RICO indictment where you can try to paint everyone with the same broad brush because of an isolated incident. Even with the RICO indictment, there has to be direct evidence that an activity was done in furtherance of the groups collective goal. Have you provided any evidence of that? Or are you just making the implication sans evidence? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Niteshift asked me to check in and see if he was off the reservation; I don't think he is. Even though the club is made up of individuals, those individuals' actions are typically not noteworthy for an article about the club, and I see no necessary connection between individual and club that warrants inclusion. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Contradictions in history section

I took out a paragraph because of its obvious contradictions, e.g. Sadilek's designing or not and a reference to an unnamed person "confirming the history as being basically accurate" when the history they refer to is confused and contradicting (i.e. 'which history is true'). It is also unreferenced.

I don't know the subject, so can someone else make sense of it? I think more attention on their history, sociology and influence would be worthwhile, rather than just making the topic read like a police charge sheet, e.g. early politics and counter-culture associations, why they actually became famous and the establishment of the 1% scene.

Love them or hate them one has to accept they have been influential.

BTW, wasn't the smaller, original logo called the "bumble bee" death's head, here ... [1]? I cannot find a reference for it. --Bridge Boy (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

... Frank Sadilek, who designed the original death's head logo ...
In an interview in September 2011, with one of the original "thirteen", the above history is confirmed as basically accurate. The person interviewed is perhaps the only one of the original thirteen still living. The youngest member would be aged mid-seventies at this point, and they all engaged in a life of reckless behavior. The group fell apart and was reformed in the summer of 1955 with thirteen living members. This is the group that continues today. The number thirteen was considered inauspicious by those in attendance at the formation meeting, so another member, known as "Crazy" was installed posthumously. Crazy was killed in 1954 when he rode his motorcycle off of an unfinished elevated San Francisco freeway. Frank Sadilek was the president of the group, which was formed in 1955. His wife Leila was secretary. Both held these offices until they moved to Hawaii in 1961. The Death's Head emblem was not designed by Sadilek. The emblem on the original Frisco Angels jackets was a copy of Rocky's Berdoo Angels jacket. The emblem used on the membership cards, which was a very detailed pen and ink drawing, was done by a man who was known as "Sundown". His signature could be seen in very tiny letters in the originally printed membership cards. He was one of the habitués who hung out in the pool hall upstairs in the building on the north east corner of 7th and Market Streets in San Francisco, which for a time was the common meeting place, both before and after the formation of the 1955 group.

Spamming

The spamming for Taiwan was put in on 15/2/2011, by Moxy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by New York Resident (talk • contribs) 14:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Should disambiguation be added for the 303rd Bomb Group aka Hell's Angels - 303d Bombardment Group

The following page refers to the WWII 303rd Bomb Group known as the Hell's Angels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/303d_Bombardment_Group and http://www.303rdbg.com/ 24.8.38.20 (talk) 07:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The Chosen Few MC

When reference was made to the Chosen Few MC, when they were offered to patch over to the Angels, it wasn't the black Chosen Few that offer was made to, but an unrelated white club with the same name. Hells Angels have always had a no blacks' policy, so they wouldn't offer to patch over a black club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.198.170 (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, it's a joke to quote an article from Ebony magazine in 1966 on the topic of blacks joining, during the height of racial segregation in the US. Ridiculous! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:1280:24EC:BD47:13C1:2371:EE1F (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the racial policy it has to be noted that this is restricted to the US only as in countries like the Netherlands there is no such policy being that the former of HA Holland, Daniel Uneputty, is of Molukkan origin. Runlevel0 08:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runlevel0 (talk • contribs)

Cossacks

The Cossacks are a Hells Angels "farm team". Should they have a mention here or their own article? Jbottero (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure that they have an article of their own in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D1arouet (talk • contribs) 17:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
A Google search on "Hells Angels Cossacks" will provide a great deal of information about the Cossacks in Texas. As they say in America, you have just volunteered as a writer of a Wikipedia article on the Cossacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D1arouet (talk • contribs) 17:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Karen or Kare?

(I see there is already some discussion here about "Karen Katz", in re: the matter of a "moral panic", but this does not concern that issue per se)

However, I don't think the click-through reference to "Karen Katz" is correct. Clicking on Karen Katz brings up a children's book author who, as far as I can tell, is not a criminologist. Furthermore, in the references section at the bottom of this (HAMC) page, it refers to her as "Kare", not "Karen". So, I'm guessing, not the same person.

The Wikipedia article on Karen Katz certainly refers to another. The name "Katz" is common, in certain circles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D1arouet (talk • contribs) 17:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The spelling "Kare" itself seems to be a mistake. There seem to be two with the same name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D1arouet (talk • contribs) 17:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Contradictions in membership section

This section says: "To become a full member, the Prospect must be voted on unanimously by the rest of the full club members." But then later seems to contradict that saying "Successful admission usually requires more than a simple majority, and some clubs may reject a Prospect for a single dissenting vote." Either it is unanimity or it isn't. Which? Valenciano (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow. You live in a black and white world. Some of the rest of us can appreciate shades of gray; many of my brothers and I see the world in Technicolor. Let me try to answer in a way that might make a bit of sense for you. It depends on which club; in this case we are talking Hells Angels, it depends on which chapter, and it depends on which time period. Some outlaw clubs used to just require a majority vote, others had/have different rules. People always make the mistake of looking at clubs the way they do a large corporation with a top down hierarchical structure, i.e. a National President being the equivalent of a CEO or corporate President. In actuality, most clubs started out, and some remain, more like an Assembly of First Nations, where they as a larger entity have many common goals and purposes, but each chapter has a certain degree of regional autonomy, again, depending on which club you are talking about (i.e. Hells Angels in this case), and what time period. Compare, for example, Hells Angels club structure of the mid-fifties where, for example, Frisco and Oakland operated quite differently from each other, to now, when, after several decades of influence from leaders such as Sonny Barger, power has been concentrated somewhat more as the club has grown in size, and as the club moved from relatively independent chapters sharing a logo and brotherhood, with some involvement in what one might refer to as disorganized crime, into a large, global, well organized criminal organization, but still with great regional autonomy, especially when looking at charters in different cities, states, provinces, nations. Take Quebec, for example. Please. Garth of the Forest (talk) 06:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Barger himself was puzzled to see photos of girl members of the Hells Angels in the late 1940's or early 1950's. There has always been a certain amount of variation in membership requirements and the like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.158.53 (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Well then it ought to say "some clubs require a unanimous vote, while others have less stringent requirements", not "it requires a unanimous vote to get into Hells Angels", followed a little while later by a contradictory statement about how SOME clubs require a unanimous vote, while others don't. Typical Wikipedia article. But I guess inconsistency isn't too much of a surprise from an organization who claims to be "outlaw" and to reject the mores of society, yet who files a trademark registration on their logo with the US copyright office and files lawsuits in the US courts to protect their "rights". The whole "we don't believe in your damn laws and regulations...unless they are in our behalf!" business.

64.223.160.117 (talk) 11:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Vague

Talk about a moral panic is too vague to be included in an article like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.217.176 (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Karen Katz is behind the talk about a moral panic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.7.192.143 (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
My mom is marcia sipe Steven j sipes wife going April first to rogers park be on the look out for her she’s blonde keep her and girls safe younger daughter briefer tall Michelle sipe eldest daughter Melanie also known as Madonna a veterans family near chase street and Ashland rogers park Chicago beware of son Jason ex heroin attic abuses mother and girls e while wife is divorced and children girls because of him the son domestic violence and drug abuse all over Europe in band mock salvation Jason David sipe repeat dangerous to women 2600:1008:B063:84CE:809:A89:F053:5244 (talk) 04:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

It is also a mater of opinion, and if it is to be included an explanation is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howardhugest (talk • contribs) 19:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you decided to discuss (although you did delete the content again. Convention is that you leave the article as it was until consensus is reached. So what is vauge and opinionated about the statement? It seems quite clear to me. --Biker Biker (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I changed it to specifically say the source was criminologist Karen Katz, and that her assertions were specifically about the Hells Angels drug crimes in Canada. It is a well sourced opinion by a recognized expert in a reliable publication. There are numerous other sources who note that the reaction to biker crimes is out of proportion to their actual impact and frequency, and consider it a classic example of moral panic. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. It is biased, suggesting public reaction to well known crimes committed by the Hell's Angels are not just. The term "moral panic" is controversial in itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howardhugest (talk • contribs) 21:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The appropriate response would be to cite your sources for this controversy. Even if you establish the fact that it is controversial is no reason to keep deleting it. Wikipedia articles are supposed to include significant points of view, even if they are not universally accepted.

It's very clear your edits are not intended to make a better Wikipedia article and if you persist you will very likely be blocked from editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

First of all the club did not launch, Hunter Thompson's career. Secondly, the so called "moral panic" is not unjustifiable. HA are the largest criminal organization in Canada. Ignorance of this fact is not an excuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howardhugest (talk • contribs) 22:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, that was fun, and for his efforts Howardhugest (talk · contribs) has now gained a permanent exclusion from Wikipedia. I suspect he will be back, that type always is. In the meantime an article has gained a bit of attention from other editors so perhaps we can look forward to some constructive editing and some new sources on the article. Thanks everyone. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The name

But it doesn't say why Hells Angels isn't called "Hell's Angels"?... I'm curious about that. :-) --95.34.149.128 (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Their website has some information on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.13.91 (talk) 10:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Maybe they just don't know the difference?
The latest edition of their web-site speaks on the subject.
They say this is important to you but not to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.109.117 (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Specifically, at the bottom of the FAQ: "Missing apostrophe in Hells Angels? Yes, we know that there is an apostrophe missing but it is you who miss it. We don’t."[2] Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
It's like when your cat falls of the couch and bangs his head into the bookshelf and then calmly licks his paw to say "I meant to do that!"
I have read that the missing apostrophe is deliberate, with a claim that there are multiple Hells and the Hells Angels represents all of them. I tried to find that claim again and could not. Anyone else hear or read that?
Perhaps but then it would be possessive plural and the apostrophe would go after the S. Either way they don't know or don't care about correct punctuation. And it's been that way for so long it would be embarrassing to fix it.Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I was told they spell it that way to rebel against social normalities such as using proper spelling, punctuation or grammer. 173.189.165.213 (talk) 02:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hells_Angels/Archive_3&oldid=1244669107"