Talk:Motorcycle club

Hells Angels Vs Hispanics

Just a question, If hells angels bars hispanics,who makes up the membership in HA chapters in Latin America? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.49.44 (talk)

Wherever did you get the idea that the Hells Angels bar Hispanics? One of Sonny's long time friends and associates (who also happens to be the current president of the Oakland Chapter) has Hispanic background. You can see his picture here http://www.hellsangelsmcoakland.com/ or in Sonny's Life and Times book. You can also read about some of his exploits during his early years as an Angel. Garth of the Forest (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The entry came from a quote from Mike Hoffman, spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, who said in an Associated Press article, printed up by MSNBC at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27296867 that the "Mongols had been recruiting members of Los Angeles street gangs to assist in their operations. The Mongols are primarily Latino and formed because the Hells Angels refused to allow Hispanic members."

So yes, you're right, and Hoffman is right as well. While the H.A. don't have an official policy against Hispanics joining, (and thus there have been a few Hispanic H.A. members in the U.S), many U.S. Hell's Angels made it so difficult for Hispanics to join that they created the Mongols. Malkintent, 27 April 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malkintent (talk • contribs) 04:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There are many different races and creeds of men throughout many of the worldwide chapters Yes, any race is permitted and accepted by the hells angels. They do not discriminate against skin color. Any man who wishes to become a member must go through the process and complete the program.Novaastarr (talk) 10:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Patriot Guard Riders

The term "MC" is rather loaded -- it can imply a 1% club, but this article is supposed to be about all motorcycle clubs, organizations, groups or whatever you call them. It includes brand owners clubs. Patriot Guard Riders is unquestionably a motorcycle oriented group, even if a bike isn't a membership requirement. Lots of brand fan clubs allow anyone to join too, whether they have a bike or not. And PGR has a discrete membership roster, and the main thing they do is ride, specifically at funerals and other occasions. So of course they should be mentioned in this article.

What would help a lot if is if this article wasn't so focued on outlaw clubs, making it seem like that is what this page is about. Removing PGR makes that worse, in fact.--Dbratland (talk) 03:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

What would help is getting it right. The PGR is not a club, its just not,,,,--Softail99fb (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Clubs that don't require motorcycle riding or ownership

There are lots of motorcycle-related clubs (or organizations or groups or whatever you like to call them) whose primary interests or activities involve motorcycles, but who do not strictly require that you ride. If these organizations aren't a kind of motorcycle club, what are they? Gardening clubs? You can be a boy scout without going camping. You can join an avaiation club without flying an airplane. The point is that the Patriot Guard Riders primarily participate in rides on motorcycles to provide their funeral escorts. It's not like a couple guys in the group happen to ride -- it is central to what they do. They began by using the noise of their motorcycle engines to drown out the protesters from Fred Phelp's church. To this day they primarily do their work on motorcycles.--Dbratland (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

To be a part of a motorcycle club you have to earn that right. To be a patch wearer you have to earn it. You are called a prospect while you earn the right to wear the back patch. A group of motorcycle riders that are organized for honoring or just out for fun is not a club. Do not mix the two up the MC’s don’t take very kindly to it! --Softail99fb (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

What's the difference between a club and group and an organization?

Who cares? A club is a group is an organization. It's pedantic hair splitting.

Yes, I'm well aware that certain "outlaw" clubs think they own the words "motorcycle club". But they don't.--Dbratland (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

A club earns their right to wear their patch out law or not. A organization buys their patch. There is a big difference. --Softail99fb (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You are both right; because you are referencing two different sets of values. To a member of a motorcycle club whose members wear the three piece patch, Softtail99fb's point of view is valid - it is a viewpoint held by members of that subculture. The patch is a prized possession that cannot be purchased, it can only be earned. However, to most members of the mainstream public the three words are almost interchangeable. I would even suggest that the word "gang" is almost interchangable with the other three as well - except that the modern usage of the word "gang" has a more negative connotation. The disagreement stems from the fact that there are so many riders out there who want a "tough guy" image - who want to be identified with the subculture - but who haven't earned it, so they try to buy it instead. Modern Boozefighters being prime examples. As far as ownership of the phrase "motorcycle club" of course no one "owns" the phrase. However, I would caution a bunch of motorcycle riders from grouping together, making up their own three piece patch, using the letters "MC" on it, and flying a lower rocker for their state or province in an area where one of the big four or their puppets operate. If you doubt this advice, try doing so and then ride on down to the local watering hole that has the most Harleys in front of it, and see how long it takes until you are offered a heaping helping from the knuckle sandwich buffet. Garth of the Forest (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you notice the article actually cites evidence of non-outlaw and non-MCC type clubs that in fact use the initials MC, or use a 3 piece patch? Listen to the NPR radio interview that was cited, for example. It's probably true that some MCs will harass or intimidate you for violating one of their rules (or for just looking at them), but Wikipedia needs to be careful not to believe everything these clubs say about themselves. They make up a lot of nonsense and pretend it's fact, they like to play hoaxes, and they try very hard to stage manage their media image. As I've said elsewhere, the bottom line is that there is nothing special about WP articles on motorcycle clubs/gangs/groups/whatever you call them. We need only follow WP:5, WP:V, WP:COMMONNAME, etc. etc., and if secondary sources have something to say about the importance of acronyms like MC or MCC, or the symbolism of various patches and colors, then we should say what those secondary sources say. It's no different than editing an article about geography or plants or politics or whatever.--Dbratland (talk) 19:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not delete the popculture section?

See Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles. I would reason that the most important cultural references already have articles, such as The Wild One and links to those articles are more than sufficient. The rest needs to go.--Dbratland (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Any objections to deleting the entire In Popular Culture section?

The most notable parts of the IPC section are actually redundant. The Wild One is already mentioned earlier in the article. Easy Rider has nothing to do with motorcycle clubs of any kind. It's two guys who ride motorcycles, and there isn't so much as a hint that they are members of any type of MC.

The more relevant Discovery Channel documentaries are cited in this article or in related articles. Same with Hunter S Thompson's books and Sonny Barger's and so on. What kind of circular logic cites a book or documentary in the article, then makes same source into the subject of the "In Popular Culture" section?

The rest of it is a list of trivia that grows longer by the day.

Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles gives good reasons why keeping this material is not constructive Alternatively, as WP:IPC suggests a separate article Motorcycle clubs in popular culture should be created to help maintain the quality of Motorcycle club. --Dbratland (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"In Popular Culture" is a synonym for "trivia". Proxy User (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed restructuring

I'd like to rearrange the structure of this article. The problem is the article gives too mucy weight to outlaw and criminal clubs, and barely mentions other types of clubs. I think “Biker” clubs and "Colors" belong at the same section level as One Percenters and Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs, and there should be another section (currently named Objectives and organization) devoted to a broader description of all types of clubs. The article can later on be balanced by expanding the material on non-outlaw clubs, and by moving some of the lenghthy details about things like the origin of 1%er etc into separate articles. I'll give some thought to how to approach it and probably put up a workpage.
Along the way, I'll add citations where possible and delete whatever I can't find sources to support.--Dbratland (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Patriot Guard Riders, part 2

The information calling us a Club is not correct. You have no idea how damaging this is by calling us a club. MC's earn their patch, that makes it a club. Organizations like the Patriot Guard Riders buy their patch. Please, Please do not call us a club this only causes problems for us with the MC's. Please let the changes be made, take us out of the club explination. Go to our web site and email our national leaders. We, are not a club please understand this information is damaging. If you really new the difference you wouldn't have said this about us. Thank you, Carl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Softail99fb (talk • contribs) 10:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I can see exactly why you would not want to be associated with "motorcycle club" in the sense in which it is most commonly used in the USA. In the rest of the English speaking world, it means something completely different – generally something positive, even charitable in the case of organisations like Freewheelers EVS and the Royal British Legion Riders Branch, which is also a veteran-supporting group and very much a motorcycle club. I think that confusion is right at the heart of some of the problems with this article. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Besides the fact that American English jargon is not allowed to dominate Wikipedia, even in the US, the words "motorcycle club" mean just what the dictionary says they mean for the vast majority of people. You really have to be deep in a small corner of motorcycle culture to believe the word "club" is that special. Wikipedia uses the ordinary definitions of words, in the way the terms are most commonly used by normal people. And the introduction of the article does explain the special jargon meaning that some -- only some -- motorcyclists use.
One of the links I provided was to a radio interview of members of the Cretins MC, who are not recognized by 1%er clubs and have nothing to do with their culture; they're more a rocker/cafe racer/rat bike group focused on Japanese bikes. But they go ahead an call themselves a "motorcycle club" and use the initials MC. And they interview a member of Women on Wheels, also a non-outlaw club, yet they use a three-part patch. They don't know about outlaw club rules and symbols, and they don't care.
The fear that outlaw clubs have the power to tell everyone else what they may and may not say, as if they were schoolmarms dictating politically correct speech, is proven false.
Carl, what damage can be done to Patriot Guard Riders by this article? Also, I've looked at the web site and I see nothing there that says PGR is not a club, or says anything about the term "motorcycle club" being a problem. Where is this information located?
I think part of this confusion will be cleared up if we can move most of the outlaw motorcycle club material to a separate page so the Motorcycle club article can have a broader focus.--Dbratland (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This type of "confusion" could be avoided if Motorcycle Club was split into Motorcycle Club and Motorcycle Gang or Outlaw Motorcycle Club, but this distinction was voted down by users that I consider to have bullied the issue until those wanting to make the split simply gave up. Proxy User (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia isn't a democracy, so they can't vote it down. But if anyone wants to argue one way or the other to build consensus on the topic, I have created two workpages to see how it would look and to help work out how to split the pages:

• Talk:Motorcycle club/workpage Needs expansion.
• Talk:Outlaw motorcycle club/workpage Needs an intro section. Needs copyediting to tighten up text.

--Dbratland (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

If you were a member of the PGR you would know what is going on right now over this miss understanding of us being miss represented as a MC. We are an origination and most of our members ride bikes, that is it. We are not and do not fall into the category as a MC. Please, email our National leaders on our web site and get your thoughts going in the right direction. Or, go to the COC, confederation of clubs web site in your state and let them explain it to you. Please you need to stop representing us as a club.

www.patriotguard.org email our national leaders, please let them get you on track.

I forgot to mention this, notice our web site does not say MC after our name, that is what I wanted you to see on our web site. If you truly understood what a MC is you would have known that, any MC memeber or anyone that knows would have known this. Thank you for understanding, I can't express enough how important it is we are not represented as a MC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Softail99fb (talk • contribs) 19:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'm having trouble believing it is really that important them if the Patriot Guard Riders doesn't publish anything saying it is so important to them. I think everyone understands that the words "Motorcycle Club" have a special meaning within the biker subculture. Are you aware that the rest of the US, and the world, do not think the word Club has such terrible importance? Can you give any reasons why Wikipedia should be organized based on the way a subculture uses special jargon? The usual policy of Wikipedia is to use the most common terminology, not the insider language of specialists or subcultures.

The policy is explained here: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). The titles of articles are things like Dog (not Canis lupus familiaris), or Pelé (not Edson Arantes do Nascimento). We call things what everybody else calls them.

Have you looked at the draft articles where we separate the outlaw groups to a different page?--Dbratland (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it's also really missing the point. No matter what Patriot Guard calls itself, it's original research. It isn't hard to find a random source calling it a club. And in any case, like many have already told you, Wikipedia uses the common name, meaning "club" is simply a group of people. tedder (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

How about sticking to the fact, the PGR is not a club. If you new the difference you would not hesitate to understand. A club member has to prospect to earn their patch taking up to 3 years to earn it instead of buying it off of a web page like we do ours. We are not a club. It has to be corrected, if you only understood, if you only understood! I can not express this issue any better than this, we, the Patriot Guard Riders are not a Motorcycle club. If this wikipedia uses facts, then get this fact straight. I am a Patriot Guard Rider, I am not a club memeber because we are not a club. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Softail99fb (talk • contribs) 23:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This is taken from our forums, I'm going out on a limb but you all need to read this. I will try find where to make a signature. This will be my last post on this subject. Read this and read it for what it is! You guys are wrong!

20 Mar 2007 11:42 PM Alert With the back patch. email your state captain to see if it approved for your state. The small patch on the front is OK

This is from the PGR FAQ PGR BACK PATCH

The PGR is NOT a Motorcycle or Riding Club. This back patch is not representative of, nor is it an indication that PGR is a Motorcycle or Riding Club. We do not earn this patch but purchase it from our store. Back patches representing M/C’s or R/C’s are earned by their members during the year or two in which they “prospect” or serve as a prospective member. They work hard to earn the right to wear the patch.

If you choose to purchase or wear the back patch please check with your state captain to make sure that he/she has contacted the COC in your state for approval of the patch BEFORE you purchase the patch. COC in some states are recommending that the back patch not be worn due to safety concerns for our members. Trust in their judgment, they are more aware of the attitudes of the individual M/C’s than we are. WARNING: if you are asked to remove the garment on which you are wearing the patch, please do so immediately, and without contention, for your personal safety.

For more information regarding the 1%’ers, M/C’s, R/C’s and their traditions and policies please go to M/C educational information --Softail99fb (talk) 00:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobody here disputes what is politically correct according to the private rules of the biker subculture in the US. But why should Wikipedia care if an article is politically incorrect by the standards of biker politics? Wikipedia is not censored.--Dbratland (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

As the entry for "club" stats, "A club is an association of two or more people united by a common interest or goal." There is nothing there about "prospecting" or patches. Proxy User (talk) 01:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Why should Wikipedia care, are you kidding? I used to read Wikipedia for the truth. Now after this I'm not to sure if I can believe what I read on Wikipedia.

When you use the word motorcycle and club in the same sentence it means a whole lot more than two or more people united by a common interest or goal.

Once again I thank you for keeping us out of the list of Clubs and ask that you never list us that way again. I hope you do see it how it is, and keep us from looking like something we are not. We are not and will never be a Motorcycle club. --Softail99fb (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how repeating yourself without offering sound arguments is going to change anyone's mind about this. I would suggest, if you've been thinking that Wikipedia is where you go for The Truth, to read Wikipedia:Truth. Also check out Wikipedia:Five pillars, the fundamental principles of Wikipedia, which clearly states that "the truth" is not the goal. Verifiability is really where it's at. What that means is that you are wasting your time here unless you can point to authoritative sources who support your claim that "club" means what you say it means. Otherwise, the names of these articles will follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions.
Look. Wikipedia editors don't show up at Patriot Guard rides and tell you to follow Wikipeida's rules. And you're dreaming if you think someone from PGR can demand that Wikipedia follow PGR rules. Probably you should pass this information on to the PGR leadership and let them decide whether they see a problem here or not.
I hope you can see that you have failed to get consensus from the other editors here. Please stop removing PGR from the list of motorcycle clubs and the motorcycle club article unless you are able to win consensus from other Wikipedia editors.--Dbratland (talk) 05:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I think I understand what Softail99fb is trying to say, and I think I found the argumet he is missing, after reading the Patriot Guard Riders article. It's in the first paragraph of the Origin section: "Because they were rather small in comparison to many of the Veterans organizations across the country they invited anyone and everyone they could think of, these included members of the VFW, American Legion, Leathernecks MC, Vietnam Vet MC and anyone who wanted to ride with them were invited to come along."The point is: you can be a member of the Patriot Guard Riders and, AT THE SAME TIME, be a member of a Motorcycle Club. If PGR were a Motorcycle Club, this would not be possible, since no MC would accept a member already belonging to another MC. I'm not sure how many of you editors are familiar with the MC culture, but it would be like playing in two different soccer teams at the same time: unacceptable. Therefore, I believe this is enough to remove PGR from the MC lists. --Sudias ^Hi! 18:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudias (talk • contribs)

There are verifiable sources calling Patriot Guard a "club". Period. The "I can only belong to one club" thing is unique among some clubs and is not the common usage of the term elsewhere.

Most editors around this article are avid motorcyclists. Trust me, we know what you are saying. Please look at WP:5P again. tedder (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The definition of "motorcycle club" is a group whose activites primarily involve motorcycles. It's just common sense categorization, the same as you would do for any other topic. It says involves, not requires. To take PGR out of the motorcycle-related category is absurd on its face.
There are also clubs -- both the vernacular kind of "club" and the MC kind -- that don't flip out if you are a member of more than one. The underlying flaw in this reasoning is that all motorcycling culture dances to the tune of the one-percenters. There's a reason they're called "one percenters" you know? And it is especially fallacious to say that Wikipedia must observe these customs.
We could just move "motorcycle club" to "motorcycle group" or "motorcycle organization" but where would that get us? Maybe PGR would pipe down, but then you'd have all the MC fans complaining. And then there's the people who are anti-crystal meth and anti-organized crime, who get mad if you don't call the criminal groups "gangs". Or people who bicker over what "outlaw" really means. It never ends. Wikipedia cannot be run according to the dictates of political correctness. You can't please all these people, especially since many of them exist expressly for the purpose of sowing conflict, or at least ostentatious nonconformity.
The only workable method is to stick to Wikipedia's general guidelines and treat PGR and the other motorcycling groups/clubs/whatever the same as WP treats every other thing in the universe.

It is also worth emphasizing that PGR's leadership has made no complaints about Wikipedia. This is just a few individuals who probably should be more concerned with PGR's core mission -- to honor the sacrifices of the fallen -- rather than pick nits over words. --Dbratland (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

In any case, I think it's about time to not feed the trolls. Enough has been said on this subject, yes? tedder (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm trying to teach my kid to type, so it's not totally wasted effort.--Dbratland (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I stayed a way hoping all understood. After posting our back patch rules I was sure all would understand we are not and never will be a MC. Using the word MC means more than just picking nits over words in this forum. Calling a Motorcycle Organization a MC In the motorcycle world is not just words. I have a friend at this time prospecting for his colors. He can tell you the difference between us and a MC!!!! Sadius thank you for understanding. I didn't know how to reply to you so I had to post here again.--Softail99fb (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I’ve been following this and felt it was time to respond, so I joined just now so I could respond properly.

Being a part of an Organization that wears a large back patch we too as the PGR needed to be approved by the COC to wear it. This permission was so there was not a miss understanding between us being an MC or a RC as well as the PGR, we are an Organization of motorcycle riding members, not a club just like the PGR. This organization I'm with was newly founded in 2008. I will not say who we are because I too wish not to be represented as a Club. We do fund raisers for helping charities and are all over the United States. Our large back patch has been approved by the COC in some states with the understanding we do not call our selves a Club, just like the PGR. What part of the PGR not bing a club can't some of you understand. A PGR member is trying to explain this to you and you can't see it. I respect the PGR for what they do and thank softail for his participation and back him up 100% that is the only reason I'm posting this. The PGR is not a club and you owe them the respect to represent them proper. --Hogstock (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You follow your rules. Wikipedia follows Wikipedia's rules. That's how it is.--Dbratland (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Could those of you posting from US riders' groups please remember that your viewpoint only reflects your own society. In most of Europe, back patch clubs do not object to the term MotorCycle Club being used to denote a group of like-minded sociable friends. The only marks of respect required in naming terms are that no club name should be similar to, or liable to confusion with, the name of a back patch club and that the abbreviation MCC is used, rather than MC.

The issue of Colours aligns very much with your own experience and although certain groups may wear a large single-piece badge, all two- and three-piece Colours are earned by the same level of commitment noted in your comments above.

Posted from work by User:DavidFRAS 217.34.41.57 (talk) 11:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

99 Percenters

Section was removed without discussion. Is that good or bad? Proxy User (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you give a link to the diff for the lazy? tedder (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I just tracked it down here. It needs more sources but I think they can be found. --Dbratland (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are pros and cons to the section. I noticed it was gone but don't feel very qualified to defend or criticize it. Clearly someone thinks the is such a thing, but I've seen discussion here that there is no such thing... Just thought I'd point out it had vanished. If it's a figment of imagination, then I suppose it ads no value. Proxy User (talk) 04:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed revisions, going once, going twice...

I haven't heard a whole lot of feedback on the proposed revisions in these two workpages:

• Talk:Motorcycle club/workpage
• Talk:Outlaw motorcycle club/workpage

Please get in there and make any changes in these you think are important, or speak up if you don't want to see Motorcycle club split apart with the outlaw stuff moved to Outlaw motorcycle club (currently it redirects). It would be so much easier if anyone wanted to complain to do it now rather than later. Thanks!--Dbratland (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Very nice work. Well thought out. My only thought is that there may be a need for a "disambiguation page" because people looking for Outlaw Motorcycle Club may end up at Motorcycle Club and assume that's all there is. I really think this will please a lot of folks (even though no one has commented). It makes sense. Some people will dispute inclusion in one group or another, but by and large, the major Outlaw clubs are happy with that designation, and the non-outlaw groups resent the association. Good show. =//= Proxy User (talk) 06:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. I have trouble generating a lot of enthusiasm for the topic, but it looks fine. tedder (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• • (June, 2010) The Fifty Nine Club of England is NOT centered around reliegion as you have written in your article here. It simply began as a church sponsored youth/charity organization and later developed into a motorcycle club for fans of 1950's Rock n Roll music and classic/vintage British motorcycles and cafe racers. And although it remains a registered charity, the actual motorcycle club section, aka 'Classic Section' has no religious affiliation or agenda, it is not a Christian Following type of club. Hope this clears things up abit. I took the liberty of changing your phrasing to a more accurate description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.190.14 (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Colors and/or Insignia

Colors and/or Insignia section was pulled for “very poor sources” but this is not my gripe. My problem is the lack of uniformity. Outlaw_motorcycle_club#Colors retains this section without any sources in the first paragraph. However, this section is handles correctly by adding the

notation. I hate the 1% groups but I would never dream of violating their rights by pulling an entire section, bad police agencies do this. I'm open for distributions on this section

Phoenician Patriot (talk) 13:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I though the content you added was good and concisely written. I do agree that the sources were poor, so it would be nice to get at least one decent source before reinstating. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I agree and I will work on it. Really good sources seem to be rarer and I will probably need to do some serious digging fact that support my claims. Phoenician Patriot (talk) 14:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The uncited material on Outlaw motorcycle club can't be allowed to stand forever; it's just that Wikipeida will keep old stuff uncited for a while, hoping sources will show up. At the same time, you don't want to make the problem worse by allowing even more uncited statements to be added, if you can help it. It is a paradox.

There is some evidence that the outlaw clubs use force and intimidation to make other outlaw clubs follow their rules about patches (they love freedom, see?), so there is reason describe what the rules are, and there some hope of finding good sources describing something that close to consistent. With non-outlaw clubs, they're actually free to wear anything they like, and that makes it hard to generalize. --Dbratland (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in the past I have known outlaw bikers and they all have claimed taking a patch or known of a patch taken back by force. For me it's all third party information which of coarse is not reliable. Also, I know the owner of a local shop that makes custom patches and he will not make patches for an outlaw group unless the order is in writing.

In the club I belong to only once has a member been asked to give up his colors and he gave up the patch willingly. I'm sure he could have kept if he wanted to. Of course, we shunned him in the same way any other organization would, no official communication from the club, can't attend official club functions that the general public can't and doesn't have access to the web site.

It really boils down to the fact that outlaw clubs do outlaw things dealing drugs, prostitution, gambling, and bar fights to get started. In that kind of environment it's not had to imagine committing assault to take a patch back. Law abiding clubs operate in the civilize manner expected of them. Phoenician Patriot (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I've posted the first revision of “Colors and/or Insignia” on the workpage. I am still treating it as a work in process. Phoenician Patriot (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's coming along nicely. You're on the right track but I would not cite answers.google.com, amicitia.co.za or urbandictionary.com, because they fall under WP:SPS -- people saying whatever they want anonymously on the internet, more or less. Your other citations seem OK, but those 3 are probably going to get zapped by other editors. Have you searched at Google books [23] and Google Scholar [24] ? There's quite a bit published on motorcycle clubs (outlaws get most of the attention, but still) and that might put this on more solid footing. I have some of these books on hand if you find something that isn't shown at Google books; let me know if I can help. Also, I'd size the photos with |thumb|upright| because vertical pictures usually come out too large if you only use |thumb|. --Dbratland (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, the article on page 25 of this journal has quite a bit of detail, tracing the history back to WWII shoulder patches, the jackets of the Flying Tigers, and so forth. --Dbratland (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I've posted “Rev 2” in the workspace and I believe it is pretty close to completion. I took your recommendations on a lot of what I've changed. However, I am still sifting through the information you supplied in hope to add at least one more tidbit. Phoenician Patriot (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be no more discussion on the subject of colors and/or Insignia. I have moved it to the article. Phoenician Patriot (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed Colors and/or Insignia from the workspace. Not enough sources for some people. Phoenician Patriot (talk) 00:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Patriot Guard Riders - club status again

One of the directors of Patriot Guard Riders is making changes to the article. I have requested that he engage at Talk:Patriot_Guard_Riders#Motorcycle_club_revisited, where I have pointed to the discussions that have already taken place on this page in 2009. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed......

.....additional citations needed, I think it's pretty well cited by now. --Bddmagic (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Elephant in the room

This article does not address the obvious negative perception that biker clubs have. I believe it is deserved but that is just a belief. Without addressing the issue this article is pure PR. 75.173.11.122 (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Did you read the section Motorcycle club#MCs and MCCs? Is there more that you'd wish to add to it? The main article on outlaw clubs is Outlaw motorcycle club. Another article, Motorcycle hooliganism, deals with loosely organized and non-organized anti-social behavior while riding motorcycles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about facts, not opinions. Generalities about perceptions are not facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.187.17 (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Not sure who told you that, but that's not the case. Advocacy or propaganda is not allowed, but as the WP:NOTOPINION policy says, "An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." Opinions can be as encyclopedic as "facts". Many disputes have one side saying the other side's "facts" are actually opinions, and vice versa. There's no simple rule for knowing what is a fact and what is an opinion. Instead, Wikipedia has several strategies for sorting these things, and giving them varying degrees of emphasis. This is explained at WP:WEIGHT and WP:OPINION. Broader advice is at Wikipedia:Describing points of view and Wikipedia:Writing better articles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)