Talk:Hollywood Stuntz gang assault/Archive 1

Archive 1

Another name change suggested

[Removed OR personal criticisms of living person per BLP]

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1832905/undercover-policeman-charged-after-film-of-road-rage-attack-on-alexian-lien-goes-viral/?cs=12 says: "Seven motorcyclists have been arrested ... Mr Lien has not been charged with any offences." Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. If they consistently describe Lien as a victim and not a perpetrator then Wikipedia's editors should not say the opposite based on their personal opinions, theories and original research. The motorcyclist who is a police detective has also been charged. It's unusual for law authorities to side with a civilian in a conflict with a policeman. This isn't just a wealthy man against oppressed people. Your comparison to the Trayvon Martin case is absurd for several reasons. The media was widely against Zimmermann and he was charged with murder but aquitted by a jury, not by the media or authorities. Considering Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons also applies to talk pages, I wouldn't object if somebody just removed your post. I was tempted to do it myself but only redacted the worst parts. PrimeHunter (talk)

I have removed the OP's diatribe. We don't make accusations of this sort against individuals based on personal OR. μηδείς (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Biker's name

Does anybody have a good source for the name of the Biker Allred is defending? Sources say Meises and Mieses. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Google News only gives me 8 hits on "Alexian Lien" "Edwin Meises" and 11400 on "Alexian Lien" "Edwin Mieses", so I assumed the latter was right and corrected the article in [1]. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

She can't be defending him because he hasn't been accused of a crime relating to this incident (yet). Other than holding a press conference, I don't know what services she provides her clients who suddenly find themselves in the news, nor do I know if she's admitted to the bar in New York, but I imagine Mieses is going to sue Lien. Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

External links section?

Should there be an External links section? No doubt a link to the helmet cam video would go there. In this NBC News Web article, this YouTube video is embedded, and judging by the date it was uploaded and the number of views it has (more than 7.1 million), it's the original one. I heard on the news that a Facebook page called "Justice for [the rap name of Edwin Mieses]" was created; if anyone can find it, it could go there, too. Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 01:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits, DS. I think maybe we should lay off on the external links for now, as they will be heavily POV laden. What we could use is a good paragraph of background on the Hollywood Stuntz bikers and their coordinated activity blocking highways as described by the police in the NYT source in the article. μηδείς (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced theories

Let's please not add various unsourced theories of the incidents. It's WP:OR at best, and violates {{WP:BLP]] at least. μηδείς (talk) 03:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The term "Motorcyclist"

I may be picking nits here, but using the term "motorcyclist" in this article to refer to members of the gang of thugs that just so happened to have the skills required operate two-wheeled motor vehicles without (unfortunately) killing themselves is an affront to anyone who is a real motorcyclist. I, along with thousands of other people, am a motorcyclist. The motorcyclists I know are the most helpful, thoughtful folks on the planet. They would be the first ones to pull over an lend a hand if someone was having an issue. Almabes (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Just because you don't like the riders in question or how they behave, doesn't mean that they are no longer motorcyclists. 'Motorcyclist' is the word that describes the persons in question, riders of motorcycles, without using a word that necessarily imparts a point of view, such as 'biker'. I ride, and I agree with what you are trying to say... those riders from this NYC incident are SQUID jerks... but 'motorcyclist' is still the most applicable term for use in an encyclopedia article on the subject. I have reverted your changes. Tom (talk) 03:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Dude...even the Hell's Angels disapprove of their behavior.

http://nypost.com/2013/10/04/hells-angels-rip-biker-gangs-west-side-highway-beatdown/ Almabes (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The sources call them bikers, motorcyclists and cyclists. It is normal to vary usage to avoid repetition. The only thing we shouldn't do is remove the term in front of those who were biking, or it makes them look like bystanders or pedestrians. μηδείς (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Only one source (BBC) makes a single reference using the term 'cyclist', and that source is not local to where the event occured. The vast majority of the references refer the the riders as 'motorcyclists'. The term 'cyclist' should not be used in this article. Tom (talk) 05:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Why should the term not be used? It is a perfectly valid synonym. We simply do not need to use only the word "motorcyclist" over and over--it's bad writing, not to say absurd. μηδείς (talk) 01:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

A cyclist rides a bicycle, not a motorcycle. 'Cyclist' is *not* an acceptable synonym for 'motorcyclist'. I agree with you that other terms besides 'motorcyclist' should be used for variety in the language, but 'cyclist' is not an acceptable replacement. Tom (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

This is simply wrong. Our article titles are not reliable sources for usage. The American Heritage Dictionary lists cyclist as meaning someone who travels by bike or motorcycle or a similar vehicle. μηδείς (talk) 17:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

No; you are mistaken. I already addressed this on my talk page where you brought it up the first time. Tom (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

To summarize here: There is consensus that 'cyclist' refers to operators of human powered vehicles and is thus inapplicable for use in this article. Your single reference is contradicted by around fifty references in the cycling article. The cycling article or its talk page are more appropriate venues for your quest for the term 'cyclist' to apply to motorcycle riders. Tom (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that cyclists are usually bicyclists and was even seriously confused on another site that primarily referred to them as cyclists.89.217.12.218 (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree and disagree, simultaneously. I agree that "motorcyclist" can be used as a generic term for an operator of a motorcycle much the same as "pilot" can be used as a generic term for an operator of an airplane. These two terms however imply a level of respect and responsibility toward their respective activity. I believe that Christoper Cruz and Reggie Chance are "motorcyclists" just as much as Mohamed Atta was a "pilot".

Exactly. The word 'motorcyclist' or 'pilot' makes no comment on their intentions, just their capability to operate the vehicle. Tom (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is my opinion. Almabes (talk) 02:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Misinformation

"A fifty-block (two-and-a-half-mile) chase by Cruz's companions ensued" it was a rally attended by hundreds of Motorcycle riders, this implies they knew each other and chased Lien after Contact with Cruz which is not true, part of the group chased Lien just because he ran-over some of the riders, no other reason.

"The wife of one of the bikers involved claimed he was left paralyzed by Lien" This isn't a "claim", it's a well known fact and can be seen in the video.

Incident This whole section is false and full of misinformation. This case is still under investigation and even from what is publicly known now it is false. Just remove or drastically revise this whole section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.20.2 (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The claim is "paralyzed". The inline reference [2] starts "A motorcyclist who may be paralyzed", and later quotes his wife for "They broke it in two different places, so he will be forever, forever paralyzed." PrimeHunter (talk) 01:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing inaccurate at all about referring to the gangers as Cruz's "companions". Whatever may have been wrong with the "incident" section at the time you wrote this comment, it's clear that your attempts to "fix" it were little more than transparent attempts to introduce misleading "spin" to the article. It was a bad faith edit. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Naming suspects

Someone has placed a "who" tag asking for the several suspected policemen to be named. The press has been saying there are more than one, and at least one other policeman was named as being involved in the chase. But in accord with BLP I think we should be careful in naming suspects who themselves are otherwise not notable. The suspects I have named so far in the article are only the ones who have reportedly voluntarily surrendered to the police. μηδείς (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

BLP merely counsels us to consider the possibility of not naming these suspects. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't include the full list of 9 or so bikers that have been charged with violent crimes. Meanwhile the notability guidelines merely tell us we shouldn't devote an entire article to each perpetrator. Thoughts? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent Changes

Relatively recent by 86.20.35.175 introduced some rather strong POV changes. (History at 08:08 8:32 and 9:26, 27 December 2013). They were almost immediately partially backed out 76.218.201.102 and 207.237.161.64 (12:19 and 15:02 respectively).

My question is one of the correct handling of the change, it seems to me the entire change should be backed out, instead of reverting 344 words of the 354 word change?

The remaining changes are uncertainty adjectives to sentences (apparently and allegedly) and a sentence about the injuries to the motorcyclist (which I think is a repeat) StarDolph (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I removed the words unnecessary adjectives and rewrote the sentence to better fit with the article StarDolph (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Incident section

I read this section twice and still cannot figure out the sequence of events. Somehow a paralyzed biker is assaulting a vehicle after he was hit and paralyzed? When did he get hit, when did the car get damaged, when did the chase occur? Rmhermen (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

There were two "accidents". In the first, Cruz is shown on tape on the highway slowing his bike down intentionally in front of the liens, and getting bumped by the SUV. He's been charged with reckless driving. The bikers then chased Lien to the 178th street exit of the highway, where they surrounded his vehicle. Attempting to escape, bikers attacking his SUV he ran over Mieses who had blocked his escape (see [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hw36sZAeb24 J Meezee) who supposedly has a broken back and paralysis. His window was then shattered and Lien was drug from his SUV and beaten and his family attacked until bystanders intervened. μηδείς (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Is there a source that substantiates this claim: "Motorcyclist Christopher Cruz was "brake-checking" Lien, which means intentionally braking and slowing to taunt Lien". Reference #4 does not actually mention either "taunting" or "brake-checking". If the claim is not substantiated in any source, I suggest amending the sentence to the more factual report in reference #4, which states "The first crash occurred as a rider slowed to a near-stop in front of the S.U.V." As is, this appears to violate the wiki policy on original research.

Further, in the same section, "The damage they inflicted on the Lien SUV included the puncturing of the front passenger-side tire". It is not clear when this damage was inflicted. If this is during the initial altercation, that claim is not substantiated by the cited sources. Again, going back to source #4, "One of the riders smashed the Range Rover’s driver side mirror, the police said." Are there any sources that claim otherwise at that point? If this refers to a subsequent altercation (my understanding, there were 3 altercations at different points in time), the article should make that clear and cite the appropriate source. Timuralp (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

There are numerous sources out there saying that Cruz brake-checked the SUV. I'm not sure where you're going with the other comments but I'd be happy to take a look at whatever you find. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The issue is that still no sources are cited in the article that state that as a fact. So far, it is an unsubstantiated claim. Please read the sources cited by the article. They do not claim that the initial altercation -- before Lien escaped and injured a motorcyclist in the process -- amounted to more than the smashed "driver's side mirror" (the NYTimes article cited as source #4). If there is other information stating other facts elsewhere, the sources should be added to the article. As-is, the points I raised in the section are speculative. Timuralp (talk) 07:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

if there are numerous sources, provide one that states that Cruz was 'brake-checking'. None of the ones attached to the article contain the phrase 'brake-checked', 'brake checked', 'brake-checking' or 'brake checking'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.245.59.11 (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

for example: http://nypost.com/2013/10/02/da-wont-charge-bike-assault-thug-in-suv-beating/

Please don't aggressively scrub content without checking the cited sources carefully, and where something appears unsourced, also making at least a cursory check for sources yourself. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 06:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

1) that article was not in the references 2) it uses the words 'supposedly' and 'allegedly' and merely speculates that Cruz may have been brake-checking. it's simply your own conclusion that he was 'in fact' brake-checking and therefore should not mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.245.193.3 (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Please learn basic WP policy, which does not support your edits. I'm again reverting your POV-pushing rewrite. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Please don't be a hypocrite (apparently with an insecurity-driven superiority complex). I suggest you follow the advice you've stated on this talk page and on your Wikipedia page. Based on your comments here, and on a few of your contributions, you're clearly a "sneaky, agenda-oriented, POV warrior." No one likes someone who--when confronted with a view contrary to his own--gets on some high horse in an attempt to make himself seem more legitimate and his opponent in the wrong. If he's wrong, provide sound, solid evidence, not sophistry and 'persuasive'/bullying language99.92.91.155 (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox where you can let the world know that the media and mainstream society are getting their facts all wrong. What you want is called a press release. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Moved

I moved this from the original long title to Alexien Lien beating in analogy with the Rodney King beating as much more natural. If it takes on a name in the press I won't mind moving it again. μηδείς (talk) 03:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Article Too bias against bikers

This article deliberately mutes all facts in support of the bikers. Facts like eyewitness testimony that Lien hit another biker prior to the video starting, that lien hit cruz because he was driving aggressively and following too close, and that lien was NOTin fear for his life because he hadn't locked his doors (something that frightened people do). And the claim that the bikers slashed the SUV's tires is pure speculation. Even though this is a regurgitation of news media speculation. The video doesn't show this detail and its commonly known that the tire went flat from running over the motorcycles.

Any article on Wikipedia needs to show all sides on the issue.

65.12.192.254 (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be very easy to fix this if you can give us some links to articles in the papers that report what you say. μηδείς (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Nobody takes those claims seriously, so they have not really been reported. Mostly they pop up in axe-grinding comments from individual users on news websites, Facebook pages, etc. WP articles don't touch that kind of stuff. What you see is a reflection of what has been reported in the mainstream media. We'll need to see some reliable sourcing for any "alternative" viewpoints. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Imo, such a viewpoint IS pretty far in the minority. BUT the article was way too biased the other way. The article shouldn't have a POV that sides either way. Presenting these guys as thugs is just as bad as presenting them as victims. Present the facts neutrally and let the facts speak for themselves. It included statements like "Motorcyclist Christopher Cruz was "brake-checking" Lien, which means intentionally braking and slowing to taunt Lien." We don't have proof of that, so we can't present it as fact. In fact, most people who commented on the event seemed to think he was trying to slow him down, not taunt him. We can't know his true motives, so best case scenario, we can only say what he said about the incident or what someone else said about the incident. Also, the statement about "They were annoyed Lien didn't clear the highway for them to do so on the busy Sunday." How do we know that? It's entirely possible that it's true, but you need to include a quote supporting that they were annoyed. You cannot factually state what someone was feeling at any given moment. All you can factually state is what they say about how they're feeling.

Having said that, personally, I think it would be reasonable to post some quotes from bikers about how they feel about the incident and the legislation for the sake of completeness. If anyone finds any, I think it's reasonable to include some quotes by bikers.Bali88 (talk)

Yeah I pretty much agree. I should also confess that by reverting some of the more outrageous additions by IPs, I was restoring some content that was itself objectionable. I didn't have the time or will to do a real re-write and so I was just putting band-aids on a badly written article and propping up a WP:WRONG version -- though at least it was less "wrong" than what I was reverting, IMO. Sorry to all Wikipedians involved. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

"Hollywood Stuntz", the motorcycle group

I haven't yet looked at the stated source, but the prose suggesting that this is merely one rider's name is at odds with what I recall being widely reported.

It's also definitely untrue: Hollywood Stuntz is a biker group. They have their own jackets and everything. I've seen them hanging out in various bars in NYC, multiple dudes with the same jacket which reads "Hollywood Stuntz". It is a stylized logo that looks vaguely like the logo for the restaurant chain Planet Hollywood.

It was reported that Jamie Lao uses this name because he is the founder or leader of the group. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no doubt that some of them know each other or hang out, but there does seem to be a difference between these guys and, like, the hells angels, for example. Their main thing seems to be the stunts as opposed to dealing drugs or whatever. Can you find any sources for this? I'd like to have accurate information, but I cant' cite "factchecker's memory" in the article. lol Bali88 (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This Slate article seems like a good source synthesizing news coverage which has, by and large, referred to "Hollywood Stuntz" as a group of people rather than as the online handle of one member. The second-to-last paragraph specifically mentions Lao by his "Hollywood" nickname, but adds language clearly describing a group of motorcycle riders that go by the name.

This Business Insider article also seems fit, and opens with a reference to a NY Daily News piece quoting the NYC police commissioner referring to it as a group of stunt riders. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

NBC calls Holllywood Stuntz an event, which is probably just as true as calling it a group or Lao's handle. It's all three, in the sense that it only exists in so far as a bunch of guys show up and participate. It's very much like a flashmob. NBC also enumerates the specific differences with outlaw motorcycle gangs, citing Federal law enforcement sources:

• Grown out of the proliferation in sport bikes from 1990 to 2008 [The race replica motorcycle came on the market in the mid-80s. Outlaw MCs trace their roots to the 40s/50s/60s and only ride Harley-Davidsons or (rarely) British motorcycles]
• Organized via Twitter and FB
• Motorcycle hooligans are "not true bike gangs in the old-school sense of the word"
• ..."not rooted in neighborhoods" i.e. no territory
• ...do not deal drugs
• ...don't have feuds with other gangs [no drug trade -> no territory -> no reason to fight rivals for market share and territory]
• Outlaw MCs often use violence like shooting and stabbing to achieve their goals and maintain a fearsome image
• Outlaw MCs usually white
• Motorcycle hooligans are racially diverse

I would add that when outlaw MCs are non-white, they are affiliated explicitly with another race, e.g. Bandidos and Vagos MC, often precisely because they were not allowed to join the Hells Angles. Black Bike Week and National Bikers Roundup have a little more background on the racial divide here. It's very rare for outlaw MCs to ride anything except Harley-Davidsons, and unheard of for them to ride Japanese motorcycles. If motorcycle hooligans are not on Japanese sportbikes, they're on European sportbikes, except the case of groups like the 12 O'Clock Boys, who ride Japanese dual-sport motorcycles, which are also well adapted for stunting. Outlaw MCs are not known to ever race or stunt their Harleys. Outlaw MCs have a heavy presence in prisons, and often recruit from ex-cons, as well as recruiting ex-military members. Politically, they tend to be ultra-nationalist. Motorcycle hooligans have no politics. As I mentioned above, outlaw MCs have a charter, officers, and strict membership boundaries. Prospective members spend a long period on probation doing various challenges to earn membership. Which is a far cry from seeing a tweet and just showing up and riding along. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but the only sourcing for this "Hollywood Stuntz is not a group" nonsense is a single self-serving claim made by Mr. Lao in an interview with New York Magazine. That shouldn't be presented as contradicting what is widely reported in actual newspapers. If it's mentioned at all I'd say it warrants heavy textual attribution. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

They're a group of some kind, or an association. They obviously involve multiple individuals, but they're an ad hoc group, that's all. Although it's also not true that none of them ever met before. The point is that these groups/flashmobs are nothing like outlaw motorcycle gangs, that's all. Whether that helps Lao or not is debatable. Trying to pull of something as complicated as taking over a public freeway with a bunch of strangers who were recruited five minutes ago is all the more irresponsible, isn't it? You could show that any reasonable person would know ahead of time that chaos would ensue and somebody was bound to get hurt. Riding from A to B safely with a large group of motorcyclists is known to be a complicated affair that requires planning and organization, and you have to exclude the screwballs. Law abiding motorcycling groups have been doing it for years and they can attest to this. Regardless, we shouldn't be worrying about what does or doesn't serve Lao or anybody else. I want the article to accurately describe established facts, and that means a less muddled picture of what sources have stated about the nature of this group ride.

The article is improving, I'll say that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so per wikipedia guidelines on how to deal with differing accounts by reliable sources, I will present both viewpoints and compare and contrast. I changed it slightly so it reflects who is asserting what and that there is a debate in this arena. Will that be suitable? Bali88 (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so I found this article, which says that law enforcement states it's a rally, not a gang. I haven't been able to find any official statements s to such though. Anyone in the mood for some web sleuthing?Bali88 (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Still going to need to reflect the widely reported view of these people as a group. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions? I thought the article, as written, expressed that. The beginning of the paragraph reads:

"It was commonly referred to as a biker gang, more specifically, "Hollywood stuntz gang" in the news"

So far I haven't read anything that is more conclusive or even assertive in that direction aside from casual references of it in news articles as a gang. In other words, the news reports say "he was attacked by Hollywood stuntz gang", but then others said "it's not a gang, just a rally", but no one has said in the news "No, guys, it's really a gang and here's the proof", that I'm aware of. So I'm not sure how to address that aside from just saying "the news reports refer to it that way". I feel like the statement "it was referred that way in the news" is about the best we can do unless you can find a news article featuring a survey of some sort proving that most people view it this way. Does that make sense? Do you have any ideas? Bali88 (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I've mentioned a number of times, stop using weasel words. Don't say "some say this, some say that". Don't say "There was much discussion about what they were...", etc. Say, "NBC and Slate wrote analysis saying that this group was not a traditional outlaw motorcycle gang. Federal law enforcement sources told NBC that the differences between them are...". Don't say "he was attacked by Hollywood Stuntz". Say "Lien was attack by participants in the ride." Say "Gawker calls the ride event 'Hollywood Stuntz', but sources X, Y, and Z say the group is called Hollywood Stuntz. But Lao says that is actually his nickname".

We don't need anything conclusive. We don't need to know (or care) what THE TRUTH™ is. All we need to do is relay what X said, what Y said, and what Z said. Say what the sources agree about, and say what they disagree about.

I would also decrease the level of detail in the Incident section. We don't need to recite blow by blow every single thing that is alleged to have happens, especially since the precise details are in disupte. By analogy with a movie or novel, WP:PLOT says we should briefly summarize the events, and not attempt to get every single bit of it into the article. A news event is not a novel or movie, but the underlying principle of making a good article is the same: 'summarize', don't try to recite all of it.

Keep in mind that there have been no convictions, acquittals, or appeals. To the official 'truth' still has yet to be determined. And finally, it's one more reason not to run out and start a new Wikipedia article every time there's a big news event. Instead, work it into the context of existing articles and let it grow organically. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Tell ya what, why don't you just rewrite the article the way you want it.Bali88 (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Rally POV?

Thirty cars driving down the street is called "traffic". Who said that the motorcyclists were "an unapproved rally"? Rmhermen (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Lots of reliable sources say rally. Try a simple Google search like Alexian Lien rally. Considering the normal car to motorcycle ratio, if I see thirty motor cycles next to eachother then I would never think it might be random traffic and they aren't driving together. But something like "unofficial rally" may be better than "unapproved". PrimeHunter (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The bikers have been showing up on Sundays in Times Square. It is viewed as an unauthorized event like a parade without a permit. I don't have the details of the law regarding this, but that's the way the press has been reporting this before and after the lien incident. μηδείς (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Source for the article, please. Rmhermen (talk) 04:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The following source is already in the article: "Biker Christopher Cruz charged in New York road crash 2 October 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24374473" Kartavyam (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

More like "operating a parade without a permit where the police specifically told you not to proceed with your dangerous parade and set up roadblocks to try and stop you". Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The unauthorized gathering and the lack of a permit is described in the Wall Street Journal article which includes a map illustrating each altercation. "Behind the Biker Chase on the West Side Highway 4 October 2013 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304176904579113700752402182.html" rk633830 3:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. The Times link in the Article goes into some detail about the gang, their activities, police response, and what they were trying to do that made them so aggressive toward Lien. Not sure when I can get to that. μηδείς (talk) 05:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes that article does a good job of explaining the event - which was a rally of hundreds of unaffiliated bike riders, not a ride by a gang so the whole story of "police infiltrating a gang" doesn't hold water. Rmhermen (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't call them unaffiliated. Based on what I remember learning through the news media, each biker was a member of one motorcycle club or another, and while the various clubs are normally rivals, they came together to enjoy to the fullest what was presumed to likely be the last Sunday of the year with warm enough temperatures for riding (that is, riding without the need for cool-weather clothing, I assume). Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 01:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

And once word spread that the police were prohibiting the ride due to the previous year's incident, all the bikers who planned on attending that rally that day stayed home and baked cookies, and it was of course a completely different group of hundreds of bikers that caused the mayhem that day, they were of course unaffiliated with the organized ride and had no knowledge of it. Also WTS swampland in New Jersey, please message me on my talk page. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I lol'd at the image of the bikers baking cookies.Bali88 (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course news sources are biased, because journalists drive cars, and not bikes. Why should 50 bikes be a "rally" or a "parade", while 50 cars are just "traffic"? It's common sense, just think about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.182.66.71 (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

News is biased, that's a given, however, I don't think there is any reason to assume this is random "traffic" on the basis that Lao admits to organizing a rally on that particular day. Of course he claims he went home and the bikers went ahead with it on their own. But regardless of where he was, he still thinks it's the people who gathered for his block party rally in that video on that day. If the guy who organized the rally thinks it's the rally...I don't think there's any reason to think that this was a completely different group of bikers who weren't intentionally traveling together. The unauthorized part is where they rode into times square. Based on the fact that it happened last year, it's reasonable to assume that he was planning to do the same this year. I would, however, like to include some statements from the small, but very vocal minority who believe that Lien is the perpetrator here. If you'd like to contribute to the article, I think some quotes could fit very well. Post them on the talk page and I'll see what I can work into the article. :-) Bali88 (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Start class

Is the article still start class? Does it need anything else before being rated beyond start class? Bali88 (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The title is still a travesty. The writing is a train wreck. There is too much original research and a patchwork of POV pushing at cross purposes. The reader is expected to somehow read between the lines to guess which parts were written by anti-bikers and which by pro-bikers.

The reason it is start class is that we don't have a lower rating for an article over stub length. The best solution is still to redirect to Motorcycle hooliganism in order to cover this topic in an encyclopedic way, which is to say, in context. Short of a redirect, it needs a complete overhaul by a calm and detached editor. But start with the name. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I was the major editor for the rewrite and I thought I managed to maintain a neutral stance and an encyclopedic tone (but of course I'm open to suggestions, which is why I posted this question in the first place). I even deleted a whole bunch of stuff that read anti-biker because of the bias. Aside from the few edits that the "pro-biker" editor made a few days ago (like saying Mieses was walking away), what else about it feels biased to you? Do you have any more specific suggestions aside from "train wreck"? I agree that the title isn't perfect, but so far we haven't reached consensus. Also, I was the one who posted the blurb about the topic on Motorcycle hooliganism, and when I did that, I just copied and pasted from this article and then trimmed it down, cutting out some extraneous info. So I'm not sure how reading the same content, almost verbatim, on another page would help clarify it for the reader.Bali88 (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Take "On September 29, 2013, a group of motorcyclists were participating in an annual unsanctioned rally organized by a man named Jamie Lao, who goes by the title 'Hollywood Stuntz'". You can't call an article C class with writing like that. Change "a man named Jamie Lao, who goes by the title 'Hollywood Stuntz'" to "Jamie 'Hollywood Stuntz' Lao." You don't need to explain that his name is his name. You don't need to explain that he is called by his nickname. A nickname is not a title, anyway. If you're really worried that someone will think Jamie is a woman's name, then say "Jamie 'Hollywood Stuntz' Lao, who is male." Though I'd only do so if there is verifiable evidence that anyone outside Wikipedia thought he was female.

There's no explanation for what an "unsanctioned" rally is. Lacking a city permit? Lacking sponsorship by a motorcycle club? Just how are these groups organized? What is meant by "a group of motorcyclists"? Two motorcyclists? Three? About the same as the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally, 600,000 or so?

The whole paragraph on "biker gangs" is totally unsourced. A paragraph like that without a single footnote must be deleted. Not a single source has made any connection between outlaw motorcycle gangs, as described by California Department of Justice, and this loosely organized group of riders. MCs like the Hells Angels "utilize their affiliation with a motorcycle club as a conduit for criminal activity." Almost none of their criminal activity occurs while riding motorcycles. An MC's membership and territory are strictly defined, and they have a club charter and dozens of strict rules. That's nothing like Hollywood Stuntz, which has no defined membership, no defined territory, no charter, no written rules or formal officers, and whose only crimes are directly related to motorcycle riding. Besides being much younger, and more racially diverse, than traditional MCs from the 1960s.

All of the descriptions of what happened in the viral videos are violations of WP:NOR. People don't agree on what happened in those videos. Wikipedia can only report what good sources say happened in them. Wikipedia editors who go watch the videos themselves and compose their own description are giving their personal opinions. And we have many good sources that describe the contents of the videos. There's no excuse for original research here.

I could go on. This article has miles to go before it rates a C. Sorry to be harsh, but this article is a gross violation of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policies. This kind of carelessness does real world harm to real people. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

You do not have to apologize for criticsm of the article or voicing an opinion that it is not up to par. I asked for feedback, so I'm certainly not going to be angry with someone for giving me feedback. I don't necessarily agree with all of your complaints. I'll explain some of the reasons i went the way I did:

Why is pointing out that Mieses was walking away not worth mentioning. The point is that Mieses couldn't have avoided the car, because Lien didn't claxon. Isn't that crucially important? It's like a cop shouting "stop or I shoot" versus the cop shooting without saying anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.182.66.71 (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Jamie Lao...the issue isn't that I thought someone might think he was a girl. The issue is that there was widespread misinformation regarding what "hollywood stuntz" was. People thought the "biker gang" was called Hollywood stuntz. It's not. It's the guy's name and the ride was organized by him. Sort of like saying Evel Knievel's block party. I thought it gave the events significant context. Who he is aside from that is irrelevant.

• The biker gang comparisons wasn't unsourced, although thanks for pointing that it appeared to be. I initially wrote it as a single large paragraph with the citations at the end. Then someone went back and split it into two paragraphs. I just corrected the problem, so that the citations are on both paragraphs.

• I haven't found any sources on the number of bikers, which is why I didn't add them. If you have found any sources, please post them. That would be a welcome addition.

• I called it an unsanctioned rally because there was significant effort by the police to prevent it and the entry into Times Square was not legal and they did not have permission to do so. It was also called "unsanctioned" many times in the news. Lao, in an interview said there were police gathering at all the meeting points. However, I will grant you, it may be unclear. If you can think of another way to get across to the reader this information, please do so. If you think it might be better to simply go with "rally" because the reader might be confused, I think there may be an argument to that point.

• do you have any specific examples of the points at which descriptions of the video diverges from a very basic description of the video? All of the descriptions of the video came directly from news articles. Bali88 (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• The central point of the two sources you added regarding outlaw motorcycle gangs are that this incident was not related to them.[3][4] Yet the paragraph begins -- with no context -- by describing what an outlaw motorcycle gang is, then adding weight to that by saying some of the riders had criminal histories, then, incongruously, walking it back by saying (with weasel word) that "many pointed out that the bikers who gathered on that day do not have any affiliation with each other aside from participating in the ride." It's a confusing paragraph that barely makes sense and very likely leaves the opposite impression than was intended. Why did you repeat this exact phrase from the paragraph directly above? Why do you keep removing the wikilink to outlaw motorcycle club?

  I don't want to have to keep going over ever single issue point by point. It's terrible writing, and it is misleading. A Wikipedia article on a controversial news issue should calmly and objectively relay the known facts, and it should be explicitly clear who is making each assertion. The only claim this has to neutrality is that it's so confusing that you can at least hope that readers will simply not understand it and therefore not be left with too many false impressions. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm fully willing to change this article to help people understand the subject material if it's confusing, but I think we need more input on how confusing it actually is. I got several compliments on it and not one person said part X, Y, or Z was confusing, so I feel like we need more opinions to come to a consensus.

The reason I put in the fact that they had criminal records was that it was widely covered in the news and some reporters made it out to be an outlaw motorcycle gang. I wanted to point out that yes they did have criminal records, but they committed these crimes on their own and not as part of a collaborative effort within the gang. I pointed out that yes there was intimidation, but again, they were just there for this ride. I emphasized those points because the press did. I wanted to say that yes, they had two elements of an outlaw gang, but because they only associated with these guys for that ride, this *wasn't* an outlaw gang.

"Why did you repeat this exact phrase from the paragraph directly above? Why do you keep removing the wikilink to outlaw motorcycle club?"

I don't know what you mean by these...when did I do that? If I removed a wikilink, I did it unintentionally. I certainly don't remember removing it once, let alone multiple times. Second, when did I repeat an exact phrase? Is there any way we can get more people to give their opinion? Bali88 (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Identifiable violations of BLP and other policies are a sound basis for criticizing an article. Concern over the potential for negative publicity for "motorcycle clubs" is not. At some level you're going to have to forgive the mainstream public and media outlets for their improper application of the term "biker gang" — including casual use of that term to refer to a group of scumbags on motorcycles who go around terrorizing and assaulting people on the streets but are not affiliated with organized crime groups that are traditionally associated with motorcycle riding. Perhaps the article could have a brief section explaining the distinction in terminology, complete with references to LEO discussions on this incident which were reported in the news, and linking to the article which addresses that topic at length. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking to me or the other editor? I couldn't care less about negative publicity for motorcycle clubs and I'm not criticizing them for referring to these guys as gangs, what I was attempting to do is explain to the reader who these guys were and what was actually going on here. There IS a distinction between these groups who congregate to do stunts and groups like the Hells Angels, who are organized for different purposes. Anyone who terrorizes other motorists and creates a safety hazard on the roads is a thug in my opinion, so really I don't care if someone wants to call them a gang, but when I'm reporting on events, I want to have the facts straight. Upon further reading, I can see the other editor's point about the lengthy description of their criminal records. It confused him and made him think I was going off on a tangent so I deleted it. Is that section of the article still confusing? And btw, if you think you can explain it in a way that is more concise, by all means do so! I want this to be a good article. It doesn't have to be *my* article

Also, do you find any instances of BLP violations? I can't think of any, so you'll have to be more specific. Bali88 (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, should have been clear that I was directing the comment to Dennis. From my perspective, it seems like he has identified, perhaps, a few faint BLP concerns and not much else. I don't think the dramatic critical language he uses is justified. I believe the work you have done is fundamentally sound. Cheers. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with protecting outlaw motorcycle gangs. If someone claimed the Hollywood Stuntz incident had something to to with Al Qaeda, I'd say, no, that's a different nest of vipers. Not because I like Al Qaeda. One of the phoniest aspects of "motorcycle" gangs is how little involvement they actually have with motorcycles, primarily because they refuse to ride anything but Harleys and there's little you can do on a Harley except ride slowly from A to B. And a lot of these guys are old -- El Forastero Motorcycle Club has quotes from a newspaper that marveled at their antics: Indicted El Forastero Larry D. "Eight Ball" Williams was at age 60 a "card-carrying member of AARP." Sheehan said, "My deepest concern is that we are stuck in a psychological rut. We are determined to live in the 1960s when motorcycle gangs were cool." It's sad, really, and I wish they'd all just retire.

The sport bike hooligan groups are even more of a problem for me personally, because they put terrible ideas in the minds of drivers when they see me on my bike. If one of them gets road rage for something they think I did, they're likely to hit the gas and run me down and ask questions later. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

We already have some prose indicating the published comments by LE officials that this group is not like the Hell's Angels, etc. I can't even tell if you are suggesting something more. What is your concern? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I was responding to the suggestion that this has anything to do with helping the image of outlaw MCs. The article has changed since my previous comments, so there's no point in going back and showing diffs of which version I was complaining about. The current version is better, though still quite muddled. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The comment was that, by seeming to suggest an extensive discussion of why this group is not a traditional outlaw MC gang, you seemed to be unduly concerned for the image of this group of riders. I.E. the Hollywood Stuntz, or the group of otherwise "unaffiliated" riders who sometimes convene together for dangerous play-in-traffic games. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't get that at all from his comments. I agree with him that it's an important part of the article. This incident brought to light this new type of "biker gang" that is distinct in a number of ways from outlaw gangs. By the way, is there any way to archive some of the talk page discussions? There's so much here that it's getting hard to read. Bali88 (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Name Change

I think the name of the article should be changed. The "beating" was only one facet of the incident and the title should reflect that. I'm not coming up with any super great ideas, but perhaps "Hollywood Stuntz Range Rover incident"? How about "Hollywood Stuntz Road Rally Indicent"? Ideas?Bali88 (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice to get the victim's name out of the title but I'm at a loss to come up with something that is sufficiently descriptive. The name of the organizing biker group seems a little bit peripheral to the resulting mayhem. I also imagine the group would object to having its name used in this way, despite the reported affiliation. I'm not sure which way the BLP needle points on this one. But, I can't think of anything that really seems proper. Best I can come up with is "2013 New York City biker assault", with "Hollywood Stuntz" redirecting to that article. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It's definitely a tough one to come up with a title for. I'm not a huge fan of Lien's name being in the title for a few reasons. For one, it doesn't seem like he wants a ton of press. He isn't out there doing interviews and is trying to stay off the radar. I know taking his name out of the title is only a marginal change in the other direction but it just feels sort of disrespectful to put it in there. "2013 New York City biker assault" isn't bad. I'd rather call it something like an altercation because the physical assault on him was just a small part of the event. Thoughts? Bali88 (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• I understand the victimization concern here. But there are various justifications for the current title. First, this is not the story of one criminal with many victims, where it would be improper to focus on one victim. It is a rather anomalous case with one victim who was the focus of many bad actors.

Second, Lien's name is not unknown--it's te name most associated with the story, and Lien is in the midst of a lawsuit against NYC. The natural way this is being presented is "Alexian Lien, who was beaten by bikers who dragged him out of his SUV in Washington Heights, is suing..." and not "The victim of the 'Washington Heights SUV Beating' (no hits for this verbatim phrase at google), Alexian Lien, is suing..."

Third, there's simply no concise and natural alternative to the title. We'd be in the position of creating an inelegant and forced synthesis like (no offense) "2013 New York City biker assault" which is clunky yet not specific, while Alexian Lien beating uniquely identifies the act in most readers' minds.

Given the title is concise, natural, and in common use, and given that the victim is the actual focus, and is not being outed or victimized again by our usage, I think it's fine as stands. μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point. How about Alexian Lien assault? Assault encompasses a lot of possible acts. I think the entire event could be termed an assault. Yelling at him, beating on his car and spiking his tires is assault. I think that would be more descriptive than "beating", which is only one aspect. Bali88 (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem with assault is it is not clear if he assaults or is assaulted--it's like "Amanda Knox Murder" {which verbatim gets 5 million hits) rather than "Rodney King beating" where it's clear from normal usage that he was the one being beaten. I am not ideologically opposed to a better title if we can think of one, but at this point I think what we have is concise and okay for BLP/Victim given the way the case has been reported. μηδείς (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I would just add that this incident would likely not be notable if it only involved an "assault". The focus of the incident, and the aspect that most made it big news, was the rather serious battery that it ended with. Of course, this draws my own suggested title into question. I'm not sure what to think. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It is a huge waste of time to even be discussing any title with the victim's name in it. WP:VICTIM and WP:BLP1E don't leave any room for such a title. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion Dennis? Bali88 (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hollywood Stuntz incident, maybe. Anything without the victim's name in the title is a big step forward. But there is no good title for an article that is not a fit subject to be a separate article. This keeps happening: there's a big news event, and somebody runs off an creates a new article about that one event. It's always a mistake, and endless hours are wasted cleaning up the mistake. The encyclopedic approach is to put the one event in context. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, however, we all voted on it and decided that it was a big enough case to have a stand alone article. Bali88 (talk) 19:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the name of the article should be changed to "attempted murder of Edwin Mieses". Isn't the fact that Edwin Mieses will spend the rest of his life sitting in a wheelchair more important than a couple of bruises on a guy who drives over people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.182.66.71 (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Dude, you have to have sources for this stuff. You can't just keep writing "walking away from it" in the article without sourcing that statement. Find me a reliable source where it says he's walking away and we'll put it in the article. Even an interview with him where he himself says he was walking away and it can be included. Bali88 (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Paring down talk page

This talk page is quite long and I believe some of these discussions have been resolved. Does anyone care if I delete some of these? Bali88 (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Personally I don't think it's that long and would leave it as is. That said, I almost didn't see your message because it is at the top of the page, whereas new messages are customarily placed at the bottom. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk pages should be archived, not blanked. Rmhermen (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I added an archive bot with the default parameters. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, bro. Bali88 (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Why did they brake check this particular vehicle?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What happened before the video starts, that makes them choose to stop him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.21.222 (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you have the answer to this? If you have a reliable source that would add to the article, that would be great. Bali88 (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

No but I've heard the same rumour being told multiple times, and there is said to exist another video, that I can't find, of what's preceding the known video. I'd be surprised if there was no reason for stopping that car, especially when watching their whole videotheque. They're menacing, but no random attackers (like A clockwork orange). I've been attacked on the street multiple times by unknown people and these bikers aren't similar to those hooligans at all. Also you can see they are stopping in a shock like state, when the bunch stops the SUV, it's not for fun. I haven't listened to their interviews, maybe they say something about what lead them to this.85.230.21.222 (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The consensus on the situation by all the talking heads and even some other riders seems to be that they weren't trying anything but to slow him down so they could get ahead of him and all the traffic to do their tricks. Clearly Cruz misjudged the distance and the speed. I seriously doubt he *tried* to hit Lien. I'm sure there were numerous videos. Attaching cameras to helmets seems to be the thing to do. I'm not sure if any of them has been uploaded online though. You have to consider what various bikers saw and perceived from the vantage point they had. They may not have seen that the collision was the biker's fault even though it was obvious to everyone watching the video later. I'm still not prepared to conclude that Lien was somehow at fault for this when every bit of evidence points the other way. I think Mieses has/had a page on facebook. Perhaps they could point you to the second video or shed some light on what you're asking? Bali88 (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to interfere with this! I've asked several (third-party) rumour spreaders on Youtube without getting the right answers. Suggestion: if someone goes through all the interviews, it is possible to write "according to NN they stopped the SUV because...". The articles shouldn't be A VERDICT anyway, just noting various people's opinions where there is disagreement, this is how all media works, you let both sides talk if there are different points of view.85.230.21.222 (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Basically all the news media is reporting it as biker bad suv good, which puts us in a tight spot because there basically is no reliable coverage that focuses on the other side of it. I'm all about neutrality, though, so if there are sections of this article that seem biased, I'm more than willing to work on that. If you can find news articles that will show these things, definitely post them. The more reliable sources, the better. Some quotes from bikers would be a welcome addition to this article if you can find them. Post them on the talk page and I'll see if I can work them into the article. ;-) Bali88 (talk) 02:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

What were the bikers doing to the Range Rover driver before the assault? Why did they edit the video to omit those events? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion of recent edit war

Hey guys. An editor recently reverted a content change and suggested the involved editors take it to the talk page. I couldn't agree more that some extended discussion is warranted here. On the one hand, we've this incident pretty well-described from the point of view of mainstream society, in which Alexian Lien was an innocent victim who hurt some bikers through no fault of his own. On the other hand, we've got the view that it doesn't really matter what the bikers were doing and that Lien should be charged with a crime because some bikers got hurt.

Wikipedia policy doesn't leave much room for views that are overwhelmingly rejected by mainstream society. So what can we do about it? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by "we've got the view"? Got it from where? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to talk it over with this IP editor and have gotten nowhere. I think it's time we semi-protect this page (is that what it's called?). Does anyone know how to do that? Bali88 (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

You go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection or use the Twinkle gadget. I agree these unsourced criminal accusations against Lien violate WP:BLP, and so page protection and/or blocks of IPs are in order. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you take care of it since you've done it before. I'm still a relative newbie and am afraid I'll mess it up. Bali88 (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Alexian Lien beating. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe full protection? LOL. I see the torches burning bright on this one. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Guh. I can't fully understand why our request was declined last time, but this is an ongoing problem. smh. Bali88 (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it's partly a volume issue. Admins don't want to trouble themselves over a few disruptive IP edits a week or less, and if they swing the hammer any more freely it would create a very large class of articles needing regular supervision or review. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)