Talk:Patriot Guard Riders

Fred Phelps/Westboro Baptist Church Reference?

Why is there no mention of the Phelps clan here? From what I can tell, the entire purpose of the Patriot Guard is to support families during funerals which are being protested by the Westboro Baptist Church(the godhatesfags people). Do they assist families being protested by any other groups? I'm not aware of any other groups which protest funerals. And, having considered this a bit further, it seems to me that, unlike what it says in the current article, the patriot guard are not disrupting "protests against the 2003 iraq war". The godhatesfags people are not protesting against the war, they are basically protesting against american society in general. I intend to change this article to reflect my understanding that the protests the patriot guard are disrupting are all by the godhatesfags group, unless someone tells me I'm wrong in this. --Xyzzyplugh 18:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I edited the entry to reflect the official statement of the PatriotGuard group. In Oklahoma and in a few other state they stood between Phelps and the family. In most states they have nothing to do with Phelps. They honor those who died while serving in the military both active duty and vets. Steve 05:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Their "official statement" is not a neutral statement. We have to use information from the media such as the AP to determine what they really do. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-2 05:31

I checked out their website. Their History section claims they were started to counter the Phelps protests. In their Media section which contains links to news articles about them, every article mentions the Phelps protests. Their Mission statement clearly says their purpose is to shield families from protests, and the only protests I can find any mention of anywhere are those by the Phelps church. Therefore, I am going to rewrite the article to more accurately match their purpose and behavior. If anyone disagrees with my edit, please discuss it on this talk page rather than just reverting it.

My question is, should we expand this article to explain more about the nature of the Phelps protests? Anyone reading this article currently would not really understand what was going on.--Xyzzyplugh 14:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Xyzzplugh is incorrect that there's "no evidence" of broader purpose. The group's site includes substantial documentation of attendance at funerals with no protesters, e.g. http://www.eacourier.com/articles/2006/02/22/local_news/news01.txt The news reports focus on Phelps because it's more newsworthy than a group of vets and bikers who attend quiet funerals. I've updated to to reflect the group's current broader focus as a change and acknowledge Phelps as the initial impetus. [unregistered user, PGR member johnnysquire 2/24/2006]

Reverted changes

I just reverted to a previous version of the article, as it was far more NPOV than what had been the current one. I attempted to include the quality changes which had been made since then. It is clear from all news articles about the Patriot Guard that their one and only purpose is to attend funerals which the Westboro Baptist Church is picketing and support/protect the family from the Westboro protesters. People keep making edits suggesting the group has a broader purpose, but there is no evidence of this. --Xyzzyplugh 02:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I am a PGR member. We do NOT soley show up for protested funerals. We attend all funerals of military members killed in action. We are the Patriot Guard Riders, not the Anti-Phelps Riders. When in doubt, read the WHOLE mission statement.http://www.patriotguard.org/OurMission/tabid/60/Default.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I am a ride captian for the PGR. I have helped put together missions for KIAs, Veteran funerals, Send-offs of troops, Welcome Homes for troops returning, parades, funerals for remains returned from WW2, Iwo Jima celebrations, and packing parties to send care packages off to troops deployed overseas. To say that you believe the PGR is only there to stand up to the phelps clan, is misguided at best. If you go to our website, you will see that there are consistantly 20-40 missions in the works around the country having to do with funerals, both KIA and Veteran. You will also see in the Help on the Homefront section missions having to do with Send-offs and Welcome Homes. If you are unwilling to take the time to check this truth out (around 2 minutes) you really should turn over the responsibility of maintaining this article to someone who cares enough to get it right. On a side note, we are not a motorcycle club. One of our previous State Captains in Arizone drove her truck to every mission. We have many motorcycles in the group, but since we are a website based organization, to call us a club highlights the fact you don't know the terminology very well. I've heard you are resistant to change that part of the description, and I can only think there is some issue of arrogance on your part. Pride shouldn't force you to continually get things wrong. Have a great day. If you really want to discuss these changes, I can be reached at — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azcraig (talk • contribs) 02:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm puzzled that you are commenting a talk page entry from 2006. If you read the article you will see it is made quite clear that PGR does more than just attend funerals. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I commented because it's the first thing that pops up on the discussion page, andd since I'm new to any wikipedia, I din't notice any date stamp on the post. I don't have any secret agenda that you might be alluding to. I saw some incorrect information, and I posted to dispute that. Once again, no hidden agenda here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azcraig (talk • contribs) 18:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit war?

There appear to be a series of back & forth reverts here between POV/NPOV (or at least, if the more recent revisions about the riders being an anti-Christian group with pending investigations into violent behavio are true, they lack citations)

No, they're very much libelous and defamatory statements made by either Phelps sympathizers or very far left-wing radicals. 130.184.184.77 17:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Changes made 27-May-2006

Hi. While reading a recent issue (May 8th) of Time (magazine), I noticed a good article about the Guard by David van Biema. I've edited our article to include a reference for the Time article, and made some other changes.

• "They attend every single U.S. Military funeral for which the family gives permission", not just casualties of the "War on Terror".
• They started in August 2005.
• The Guard "today claims 28,000 bikers and supporters".
• Deleted external link to http://www.ksat.com/news/9259506/detail.html?rss=ant&psp=news with text "possibly the Patriot Guard", because it was an unsubstantiated slur.

The text in double quotes is from the Time article. Time also says "in a culture in which a 24-hour news cycle and habitual political spin can make the most earnest public gesture seem tired or canned, they appear to be the real thing: a spontaneous mass movement." Anyone want to put this into the article?

(Incidentally, Time describes Fred Phelps as "an attention-crazed fanatic", "a kind of paleo-fundamentalist, gay-baiting performance artist" who took Pat Robertson's "already-troubling line" that 9/11 etc are God punishing America and "spun it past the boundary of the outrageous".)

I also copied the current mission statement from the Guard's website, complete with underlining.

Cheers, CWC(talk) 12:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Nicely done, CWC.  :-) --Beth C. 04:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

First person thoughts on a PGR event two days ago.

This memorial day, I was fortunate enough to participate in a PGR mission in rural Western Maryland for a fallen Army Officer. The PGR was professional, nonconfrontational to a fault, and dignified. I found it to be an elegant solution to the sometimes thorny and frustrating matter of unpopular speech. Phelps is clearly allowed to speak his mind (given a landowner who will let him use their space), and at the same time a family needs this at a funeral like they need a hole in their head. Nobody was squeltched, nobody got hurt, and a family was spared insane irrelevant vitriol. As a veteran, a motorcyclist, and a first amendment absolutist, I was honored to be part of this, and I will gladly ride with them whenever they are within my range.
This interesting comment was the first contribution of user 70.106.56.8 (talk • contribs). —CWC(talk) 12:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Motorcycle Club?

Motorcycle club category? They are not a motorcycle club. They are motorcycle related for sure, but motorcycles are not required, even many leaders don't ride. "Motorcycle Club" has a particular meaning, and Patriot Guards is not it. There is no probabtion. Most MCs require you to ride, and ride a HD. There are no colors. There is no territorial claim.

I suggest "Motorcyclists Organizations" vice MC. 129.53.219.20 00:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC) PGR member WhiteHat

I agree the Patriot Guard Riders are not a Motorcycle Club. We are a group of American Patriots, some who ride motorcycles, and some who drive cars/trucks. The term Motorcycle Club has certain definitions in the motorcycle community and Patriot Guard Riders is NOT a Motorcycle Club. If we were, then we'd risk loosing the support of those members who do belong to Motorcycle Clubs. I'd hate to loose that support from our Motorcycle Club members because of the comments made by misguided and uninformed reporters for the print, radio and television media groups have incorrectly labeled us a Motorcycle Club. PGR member and Regional Captain GHWinslow (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The term "club," when used in reference to groups of motorcyclists has a specific meaning. Motorcycle clubs usually require membership dues, confer voting rights on members, require ownership of a motorcycle, hold regular meetings, and often require long and arduous periods of probation or initiation. The Patriot Guard Riders does none of these things. Legally, the Patriot Guard Riders is a 501(c)(3) charitable, non-profit corporation with 5 members (its Board of Directors). Every other person involved in the organization is a volunteer. They ARE loosely referred to as "members," but do not pay dues, have no voting rights, and are accepted immediately as volunteers upon request. The proper term for groups such as the Patriot Guard Riders, when referring to these volunteers and their activities is "association." And finally, EVERYONE is welcome to join, whether they own a motorcycle or not. Joe Zinobile —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.99.174 (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Umm, I'm confused.

Am I supposed to just know what a hawk or a dove are? I mean beyond the usual understanding that they are both avians. It might be helpful if this could be explained to those of us that might not understand what is meant by being a 'hawk' or a 'dove.' Caladil 16:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hawk = pro-war, dove = anti-war. --67.180.56.14 06:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I just added links so that anybody else that doesn't know what hawk/dove mean in this context can click and find out. =) 152.23.196.162 02:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Whites only ?

Is it true that the Patriot Guards are "whites only" ??? (heard that couple of times) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.214.213 (talk) 10:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Not true. Cheers, CWC 08:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

NO, the PGR is not whites only. I'm a PGR member as is my husband and we are both American Indians. I know of one other American Indian PGR member here in Minnesota. I also know of at least one African American PGR member here in Minnesota. We've had a PGR member from Kansas who is Asian (not sure which nationality) come up for a funeral here in Minnesota when the soldier whose funeral we were attending was Hmong. Honeydog101 11:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Honeydog

Membership

Dragonwagon 12:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Membership is open to "ALL" who agree to the mission statement. No motorcycle required, no status as a veteran, or you do not have to be an American citizen. Just agree with the mission statement. WE are an almagamation of all who support our troops. You contribute what you can, no mandatory involvement.

DragonWagon PGR Ride Captain

Thanks Dragonwagon...

I wanted to add to your post

Im a member of the Patriot Guard Riders as well, a hoth coordinator. The Patriot Guard Riders is not a motorcycle club. We are a national organization made up of veterans,regular citzens (like me), folks who ride bikes, folks who do not ride bikes (we call those cagers because they drive 4 wheels) We have members of all sorts of motorcycle clubs. Race matters not. Gender matters not. Age matters not. All that matters is that you have a deep love and respect for those who wear this nations uniform. What does it cost join?...nothing, there are no dues....We simply ask for your dedication in standing for those who stood for us. We also provide support for heroes who have been injured,and our veterans We really enjoy being able to welcome and escort home a unit who has been deployed. The reunion with their loved ones is awesome!

Why do we do what we do?...While we were formed to protect the family from protestors or any other unwanted guest, sometimes that includes the media. Our main objective now is to honor the fallen and comfort their family. Its about respect and gratitude. Gratitude that there are still men and women of integrity who will willingly put on this nations uniform and defend freedom, even if it means paying the ultimate sacrifce.

I salute them!

Freebirdsnsc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freebirdsnsc (talk • contribs) 22:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

WP: Christianity?

Why is the Patriot Guard page under the purview of WikiProject Christianity? As I understand it, it's an inclusive organization that welcomes everyone, regardless of age, gender, national origin, vet status, and religion. —Micahbrwn (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it's been more than a couple days, and there's been no feedback as to why this page warranted an inclusion into WP:Christianity. Hence, I'll be bold and remove it.—Micahbrwn (talk) 04:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The project banner was added by User:John Carter, so, maybe asking him why it was included might help.--Vidkun (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Because it's included in the Category:Westboro Baptist Church, an explicitly Christian organization. Whether it should be or not is another matter, and not one I am best equipped to answer. However, if the ties to that Church are relatively tight, then the banner is probably relevant. This is not to say that others might not be as well, but just that that one banner would be if the categorization is particularly relevant. If it isn't, you might want to remove the article from that category. John Carter (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

But the Patriot Guard aren't affiliated with Westboro Baptist Church. This organization was founded in response to the hateful protests that WBC have staged (or attempted to stage) at funerals. Indeed, the Patriot Guard have made appearances at funerals that weren't even Christian to begin with, intending to shield the mourners from WBC. While I agree that Patriot Guard should be in the Westboro Baptist Church category, I disagree with the contention that simply because the two are linked in some way means that a Wikiproject should be involved with every single article pertaining to that topic. That's just my opinion, though. YMMV. —Micahbrwn (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No disagreement. However, in general, when articles are placed in categories, it's because there's a strong connection. One of the primary reasons I place any banners anywhere is to, eventually, ensure that all the articles get known to relevant projects and assessed. If this article isn't that relevant to that project, no objections to removal of the banner. But, in the event that there ever arise questions regarding the content where you'd want a number of outside voices to come in, it might be in your own best interests to find some project you do deem relevant, so that you can have a more focused point of contact if difficulties ever do arise. John Carter (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As a PGR member myself, I can assure you that we are not affiliated with the WBC in any way. However, it is true that our original mission was to provide some sort of barrier for grieving families in the face of WBC protests at military funerals. As the WBC is included in the Christianity category, we are just as appropriate to be included, even though - as someone has pointed out - we are open to members of any and all religions, races, creeds, and nationalities. Respectfully, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ballad of the Patriot Guard

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMyMBBzsDgA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alderete74 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Matthew Shepherd

Shouldn't this page make at least some reference to the funeral of Matthew Shepherd, since the tactics the Patriot Guard employ are essentially those first put into action against WBC by Romaine Patterson and the Angel Action protesters?--70.113.9.253 (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it might be OK to add a See also section listing Romaine Patterson, although I'd prefer if a secondary source were the one to draw the connection. You want to avoid a Wikipedia:Don't build the Frankenstein scenario, where you're making connections between A and B where you are out ahead of where the sources are leading you. --Dbratland (talk) 07:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Motorcycle club revisited

There has been some activity recently with two editors removing motorcycle club from the article, and two editors (myself included) reinstating this long-standing link within the article. In my opinion, Patriot Guard Riders seems to meet all the criteria for being a motorcycle club - it has members, the majority of whom ride motorcycles and sport the organisation's patches. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then chances are it's a duck. This has been discussed twice before at Talk:Motorcycle club, and the consensus seemed to be that it was indeed a club. Perhaps the two editors who changed this article could explain what they think has changed since the previous discussion. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The PGR is not an MC. We do not have dues, chapters, membership requirements, club meetings, etc. We are a 501c3 non profit that stands for our fallen heroes. Many of our members do not own nor operate a motorcycle. Labeling as a MC causes all sorts of issues within the biker community. I am on the Patriot Guard Riders Board of Directors so I know what I am talking about. Please quit editing motorcycle club back in. I have filed an issue with Wiki over this. Justcrusinby (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well let's see what other editors think about this. You clearly don't want to listen to me, or heed my warnings about conflict of interest and edit warring. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I have not violated any conflict of interest policy. The PGR is not a Motorcycle Club. Period. Please re-read the mission statement. Justcrusinby (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

As you will see, if you read the discussion at Talk:Motorcycle club, the term is not being used in the very narrow definition of motorcycle club recognised by some people in the USA. Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia read by people across the English-speaking world, and to the majority of those people the definition of motorcycle club that you are objecting to is not what they understand, nor is it what is portrayed by the motorcycle club article. You argument about some of your members not being riders is irrelevant as the same is also true of many motorcycle clubs who also have non-riding members. You have members, you were founded by motorcyclists, most of your members are motorcyclists, members on motorcycles attend your events, you have club insignia, from everything that I can see you are a motorcycle club. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources call it a club: "members of the motorcycle club the "Patriot Guard"", "hundreds of Veteran motorcyclists including the .. Patriot Guard .. Motor Cycle clubs.". As usual, Wikipedia articles aren't owned by the organization, they reflect what common usage is. For instance, see the naming policy for article titles. tedder (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Saying "That's how it is, period!" doesn't convince me of anything. Repeating "it is not an MC" 1,000 times proves nothing. Repeatedly saying it "causes issues" doesn't mean anything to me either. What issues? Not calling it a motorcycle club is political correctness, and Wikipedia is not politically correct.

Of course Motorcycle club and Outlaw motorcycle club can explain the special language that is used by a subculture in the US, but ordinary people are not required to bow to the whims of that subculture. It would be like using the definition of Work (physics) instead of work the way everybody understands it. And what happens when the next one comes along and says, "Well in my subculture the words mean something else, so now change it to suit us!" It's impossible to keep everyone happy that way but it is possible to use plain English consistently. --Dbratland (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, I should say again that the PGR site says nothing about whether it is a "motorcycle club" or not. The mission statement doesn't mention it. How can it be of such vital importance if they don't bother to make any announcements at all on the question? --Dbratland (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The PG is as much a MC as the Shriners are, and as little. That is, both are clubs with members who ride motorcycles. This label (MC) focuses on the tail of the elephant, ignoring the totality of the beast. htom (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of sources that do call the Shriners a club. And there are lots of sources that call PGR a motorcycle club, which is evidence that in everyday speech, that's what "motorcycle club" means to normal people. Is there a single source that says they are not a motorcycle club? It doesn't even say that on their own web site, and out of hundreds of news articles about them, not a single one quotes them denying they are a motorcycle club. If we at least had a single source to cite, we could state that disupte or confusion or disagreement exists. Anonymous editors on Wikipedia talk pages don't count as reliable sources. Many sources also say that the PGR is a Harley-Davidson club made up of veterans (reporters report what they see with their own eyes, after all), although at least on that point we can show that their web site denies it. --Dbratland (talk) 00:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Are there any that call the Shriners a motorcycle club? htom (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

All I can say is maybe take a look at WP:SPADE. I don't see a productive point here. If you have a source denying PGR is a motorcycle club, cite the source. If you don't have a source, you've got nothing. --Dbratland (talk) 02:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Their page doesn't say that they're not green alien space ducks, either. So they are? Say that the PGR is a club, leave motorcycle as one of their activites. Sorry I looked in. htom (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, the media refers to them as a motorcycle club. It's not up to us to decide. If the media starts calling them space ducks, we should say so here, even if the PGR club members object. tedder (talk) 04:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree - unless someone can provide a reliable reference that PGR are not a club they certainly fit the description Thruxton (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

There has been a lot of talk her about the PGR and the term Motorcycle Club. I recently edited the article and removed the term. First, and most importantly, it was totally contradicted within the same paragraph, which is poor structure. It makes no sense to state that the PGR is a "Motorcycle Club" and in the next breath say that they are not a MC.

There are many references on the PGR website and forums which state specifically that they do not consider themselves a motorcycle club. The Confederation of Clubs has very strict guidelines regarding what they consider to be a MC. The PGR does not collect dues, they have no regular meetings and they purchase their patches (motorcycle club members must "earn" their patch).

To say that an organization qualifies to be called a certain term because "the media refers to them as that" is ridiculous, inaccurate, and takes us down the wrong road. A professional article might contain the comment: "some mistakenly refer to the PGR as a motorcycle club", however to simply put that label out there just because one person thinks they are, is counter-productive to the mission of wikipedia.

We in the PGR have worked for 5 years with the Confederation of Clubs to earn their respect and allow our members in most states to wear their PGR patches without fear of offending local MC's. The COC fully understands and has ruled that we are not a motorcycle club and do not operate as such. We work hard to make sure our members understand the difference and to respect the COC and their member clubs.

Wikipedia should not be about egos or "who wrote what" or what someone "thinks" an organization should be called. It is about accurate information. The article, as currently edited, is accurate and we would request that it remain that way. Winger58 (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The description of PGR as a club on Wikipedia isn't beholden to what PGR wants to call itself. If PGR would like to be known as an "ice skating gang", it doesn't affect how the article is written. Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources describe something as. PGR does not own the article. Having said that, I removed the inconsistency- namely, the contradiction. tedder (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm convinced Patriot Guard Riders doesn't care if they are called a motorcycle club. All I ever see is a few editors pop up on Wikipedia insisting they're so right about this, using the royal "we" as if they were spokesmen for PGR, but they never cite a source. Please explain why PGR has never said one word about this if it matters so much. --Dbratland (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if PGR considers itself an ice skating gang, a motorcycle club, a motorcycle non-club, or anything else. tedder (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, because the real problem is that Wikipedia cannot change the names of everything to suit the politically correct language of each interest group. However, it would be fine to say "PGR does not wish to be called a motorcycle club" if only a source existed. I believe PGR doesn't care (or they don't care enough to bother saying it), and it's only a private obsession of a few Wikipedia editors who are pretending they speak for PGR. --Dbratland (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

So because I'm a third generation Texan, let me ask what may be some dumb questions. If the senior leadership of Patriot Guard Riders (PGR) say the organization is not a Motorcycle Club, but some misinformed reporters in the print, radio and television media claim that the PGR is a Motorcycle Club, then Wikipedia will let the misinformation stand? Is that a correct understanding on my part?

And why does an organization need to provide documentation that they are not something that someone else claims them to be?

And would it be considered satisfactory if the President of the Patriot Guard Riders send an email to whomever is needed, stating that PGR is NOT a motorcycle club, would that reference be removed from Wikipedia? If that is acceptable, please provide me with the contact information for that person and I'll ask the President of the Patriot Guard Riders to please correspond with them. GHWinslow (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct. Wikipedia is more than happy to let misinformation stand. The policy Wikipedia:Verifiability says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." It says that right at the top. If books, news, magazines, etc. say it's a motorcycle club, Wikipedia parrots that. That's the point of Wikipedia. As Indiana Jones says, if you want "truth", go study philosophy. Or join a church. You really should read that policy carefully because it's good to understand what Wikipedia is all about: it is a reflection of what has been published, not a judge of what you should believe.

The way to "provide documentation" is to get TV, newspapers, books, etc. to print it. PGR gets very good press. You can find 4,000 news articles about PGR and they are 100% positive. The media is in love with PGR. If PGR's spokesman cared, they would have told reporters to not call them a motorcycle club, but they clearly don't care. They don't even bother to post a press release about it anywhere on their web site. Instead of complaining here, you should be asking PGR's leadership why they don't care what the club is called.

But if they want to complain to Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Contact us. --Dbratland (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is it as an organization the Patriot Guard Riders must prove a negative, that they are NOT a Motorcycle Club when the five member Board of Directors and the nine Regional Captains, of which I am one, are in 100% agreement and have been since 2005 when the organization was started that they are not a Motorcycle Club? I know that James Davis, the Vice President of Captains and a member of the Board of Directors of the Patriot Guard Riders has made multiple attempt to correct the misinformation posted on this site about the Patriot Guard Riders. For his trouble he can no longer make edits on the Patriot Guard Riders page on this site. Here is a reference from the Patriot Guard Riders own website stating they are not a Motorcycle Club http://www.patriotguard.org/ALLForums/tabid/61/forumid/222/postid/758983/view/topic/Default.aspx GHWinslow (talk) 10:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

As you are so closely connected with the organisation you should be aware of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. As for the link a) it doesn't work and b) a forum is not a reliable source. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I guess you need to be a member to read the Frequently Asked Questions part of the Patriot Guard Riders forums, however, membership is free, so you can sign up as a member at http://www.patriotguard.org and then this link will work: http://www.patriotguard.org/ALLForums/tabid/61/forumid/222/postid/758983/view/topic/Default.aspx

So the Frequently Asked Questions posted on a 501(c)3 corporations own website is not a reliable source for information about that corporation? The Patriot Guard Riders controls what is posted in the Frequently Asked Questions area of their website as only 2 people have the rights to post to the Frequently Asked Questions, so it remains an accurate source of information about that 501(c)3 corporation. The Board of Directors has to approve all changes to the Frequently Asked Questions prior to their being posted. Under the Frequently Asked Questions section of the website there is a topic heading that states: "ARE THERE REGULAR CHAPTER MEETINGS?" In the paragraph immediately following this heading, it states among other things "The PGR is a volunteer organization not a motorcycle club." The Director of Operations last edited the Frequently Asked Questions on 18 Jan 2008, however, the above statement has been posted since early 2007 when the Frequently Asked Questions was first created.

And if you're suggesting I have a conflict of interest in wanting accurate information posted about an organization that I'm a part of the senior leadership of, then you're correct, I want only accurate information to be posted. And to be honest, I'm having a very difficult time understanding why there appears to be reluctance in correcting errors on the part of the editors here at Wikipedia as I know accuracy is important otherwise they wouldn't want to verify the content that's published on these pages. GHWinslow (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

As has been covered above, the problem with using primary sources (Patriot Guard) to discuss itself is covered at WP:PRIMARY and WP:COI. It's hard for a primary source to discuss itself objectively. Wikipedia relies on reliable secondary sources, not primary sources, and especially not self-published primary sources like a forum. Look up to DBratland's most recent post for more detail on this. tedder (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay how about these sources:

http://www.maxwell.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123226656 - Patriot Guard NOT a motorcycle club.

http://www.oregonlive.com/O/index.ssf/2009/12/patriot_guard_riders_make_sure.html - We are not a motorcycle club.

http://www.omaha.com/article/20100815/NEWS01/708159823 - It's not a motorcycle club.

http://www.vtxcafe.com/showthread.php?t=36198 - not a motorcycle club.

http://www.milforddailynews.com/news/x1593364074/Spitz-The-leader-of-a-very-proud-pack - we're an organization not a motorcycle club.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/patriot-guard-riders-attend-funeral-sailor-killed-iraq - We are not a motorcycle club.

http://october-country.com/folderol/doc-downloads/harley-ok-pgr-blog.pdf - not an MC.

http://www.bakersfieldlife.com/content/motorcyclist-help-local-veterans - not a motorcycle club.

So do these qualify at verifiable sources? GHWinslow (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added the sources from here that are reliable. I've added it to the end of the second paragraph, and stated PGR is rather "a group of patriotic individuals." It might need some wordsmithing; dbratland is better at that. Note, however, this doesn't change that those outside of PGR see a duck as a duck. tedder (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I've seen multiple references to seeing "a duck as a duck" (with different variations). Again, I checked the reference you supplied. This is what it says "The duck test does not apply to article content, and does not trump or even stand aside policies such as WP:NOR, WP:VER, WP:NPOV or WP:SYNTH.Hparsons (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break number 7

You guys site media outlets who, half the time, get the Patriot Guard name wrong. They have no special insight into the Patriot Guard. It's funny how the same people you hold up as the be-all, end-all of PGR knowledge, are the same people who spend 5 minutes interviewing our volunteers for their information. The simple fact that you are using terminology incorrectly, and then defending it makes wikipedia and this article suspect. You state we can't dictate how terms are to be used, and then you dictate how they are to be used. That is asinine. If you are really trying to enlighten the "entire English-speaking world", you would think you would also enlighten them on the correct terminology used by the very people your topic is on. I would be suprised if you could find one single PGR member who agreed with you, but you forge ahead anyway. Remember, the most brilliant minds of their time used to think the world was flat. It took someone who knew better to change their minds. I've been with the PGR for 3+ years now, and it's never been a club. I don't know why you fight this point so hard, but the fact that we do, should mean something to you. Since you have no vested interest in this point, why do you ignore the truth so hard. If it wasn't a big deal to us, we wouldn't be trying so hard to change your mind... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azcraig (talk • contribs) 02:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It's too bad you guys keep missing the point about truth. I can only lead you to the water; I can't make you drink.

But you know, this is nothing. Patriot Guard Riders is only one page. There's a whole Category:Outlaw motorcycle clubs who constantly have members coming around saying they can't be called "outlaws" and the FBI, police, and media are "wrong" to call them criminals. And that's only in motorcycling -- Wikipedia has thousands of controversial pages on huge topics. Terrorist organizations who insist that we call them "charities". What would you do? Change what things are called every time one of them complains?

If you want to use politically correct language to talk about yourselves, use your own website to do it. People are free to go there and you describe yourselves any way you like. Wikipedia has a consistent policy that applies equally to everyone, even if it doesn't make everyone happy.

I'm all ears if you have an alternate proposal, but it needs to be something that works across the board, not just for the one article you care about. --Dbratland (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

So yet another member of PGR pops up to make the same comment as all the others. I can only assume from this that there is some thread on the PGR forum right now directing people to register an account and mess about with the article. Do us a favour, read WP:COI and understand why your contributions to the article are inappropriate. If you care about motorcycling then why not look at all the other motorcycle-related articles on Wikipedia and contribute to those instead of remaining a single purpose account like all your colleagues? --Biker Biker (talk) 09:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Biker Biker, I have had an account on Wikipedia since before my first PGR mission, so dispense with the "like all of your colleagues" nonsense. It's interesting that in the back and forth on here, Wikipedia policies are often reference, sometimes even cited, and yet the policy against personal attacks in these discussions is ignored by those citing Wikipedia policies.

I suggest the following:

• Refrain from making assumptions about "some thread on the PGR forum" directing people to register and alter the article. It's simply not true. Wikipedia was mentioned as having the information discussed, but there were no directions given. Also, as I mentioned, I had an account on here long before I had one on the PGR forum.
• Refrain from making general statements about what motivates others. Personally, I've seldom used Wikipedia for motorcyling information, but then that goes to the heart of this discussion. I don't ride with the PGR because of a motorcycle affiliation, but because it supports our veterans.
• Refrain from the personal attacks. We are not trolls. We know how to read. Some of have read teh articles you refer us to 'and disagree with your interpretation'. We might be wrong, but that doesn't negate our right to defend our view, in spite of the disfavor it brings to the small group that are insisting we are a club. Disagree with us all you wish, but please, stop the personal attacks.

Hparsons (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You keep claiming we don't get it. What I don't get is how you can continually claim you know anything about a topic that you have no first-hand experience with. There is no post on our website encouraging us to come here. There was a post about someone's concern over the title MC, and I came here of my own free will. The only "agenda" we have is paying respect for those who have served our country. If you calling us an MC jeapordizes that, then it causes concern. You probably base your decisions off of some misplaced sense of power. We are basing our posts off of concern that something might stop us from doing what we can for families of the deceased. You may want to say that the culture of motorcycle clubs is small and insignificant to most of the people who come to this page. That may be so, but if one of those MCs decides that the PGR is breaking the rules, people will get hurt. Just because you don't agree, or don't believe it will happen, doesn't make it go away. It's a reality. So, if you aren't going to do the responsible thing and get first-hand knowledge of what you are controlling, and you aren't going to let people who know what they are talking about make a few changes, then the only avenue left is to post on here so people can read the truth somewhere. I don't have time to learn all the little games you can play with wikipedia, I use my time for missions in the PGR. So, you will always win the little posting wars. If that helps you get through the day, congrats. But don't claim we have some secret agenda to undermine your article. We don't have time. I'm sure that the majority of people who volunteer for the Red Cross drive cars, so we might want to call them a car club that helps people in times of need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azcraig (talk • contribs) 18:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Not a member of the PGR, so not all of the complaints are coming from their membership. Having seen them, at funerals for family members (thank you!) and at other functions, I've thought I'd be proud to be a member, though. Now learning that they're not a motorcycle club, I might join. How much of the insistence on the false - but - "reliably sourced" verifiable information is actually a repressed political agenda to conceal that part of the membership qualification? htom (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This kind of accusation seems sure to do nothing but draw out more unproductive bickering. Wouldn't it be better to either propose a change to Wikipedia policy on the policy talk pages, or else propose workable solutions here which is within Wikipedia policy? --Dbratland (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, but Wifione (talk · contribs) came up with a great version of the lede that covers both points: that it is a group of motorcycles (which people don't care happens to be called a club), but it isn't a Club or an outlaw motorcycle gang (which PGR members want to stress, with valid rationale). tedder (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with the lead at the moment. Although merely saying they are a "group of patriotic individuals" is misleadingly non-specific, since they do in fact have a distinction between members and non-members, even if membership is easy to obtain, and PGR has rules and a code of conduct, and lots of people are patriotic individuals without going to funerals to block protesters. It isn't as if anybody who is patriotic is therefore a PGR member. And not anybody gets to use the PGR logo and patch: they have taken legal steps to maintain control over it. PGR missions to funerals are not a gaggle of individuals doing as they please; on the contrary they are very tightly controlled and orchestrated events where individuals are expected to do as they are told. PGR uses the word "member" all over their website, and rules and regulations are legion.

For a normal person, and especially for non-Americans, we need to explain what this is all about -- why PGR doesn't want to be called an MC. Probably the pages Motorcycle club or Outlaw motorcycle club or Motorcycling might be the better venue. We need to expand the explanations of what a chartered "motorcycle club" is, in contrast to a "riding club" and an "owners group" -- and more generally, we need to explain to average people that in the United States (and some countries that imitate the US subculture), if you are one of a subculture of mostly over 50 years old, mostly male, mostly white, mostly cruiser style motorcycle enthusiasts who follows the outlaw/one-percenter subculture, then you have a parallel universe of special word definitions: motorcycle club, riding club, patched, owners club, etc.

We could rearrange several dozen Wikipedia articles to conform to these definitions, but it's such a small subculture that I think its unworkable, even if in a way it would relieve a lot of pain for us to just go along with the subculture's lingo. So instead we have to present everything in terms of "here is the vernacular definition" and "here is the special terminology that the subculture has".

But I hate how awkward that is and I'd love a cleaner solution. --Dbratland (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

If you want to use official terminology, how about the definition from wikipedia? "A club is an association of two or more people united by a common interest or goal. A service club, for example, exists for voluntary or charitable activities; there are clubs devoted to hobbies and sports, social activities clubs, political and religious clubs, and so forth.

Now, since you do not need a motorcycle to join the PGR, but you do need to show respect for the military and the fallen, shouldn't we be a military support club? Like I stated before, the Red Cross is full of people who drive cars, but I don't see you arguing to call them a car club. I'm really not trying to creat havoc, but calling the PGR a motorcycle club could cause us problems whether you think it should or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azcraig (talk • contribs) 21:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:DUCK requires that they be called a motorcycle club. It's simply delusional to say they don't have anything to do with motorcycles, which is why ordinary sources use their two eyes and their common sense to call them a motorcycle club. There are aviation clubs that don't require that you own your own airplane, or space travel clubs that don't require you to be an astronaut, for example. It's true they say it's not all about motorcycles, but they also say they're diverse. I'm sorry, but you can say anything you like, but that doesn't make it a fact.

And all this talk of "causing us problems" sounds awfully silly and a bit melodramatic, if you ask me. Besides the fact that Wikipedia frankly does not care about PGR's problems -- Wikipedia's goal is to create a good encyclopedia, not to make life easier for special interests. --Dbratland (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You say "calling the PGR a motorcycle club could cause us problems" - Bottom line, we don't care. Wikipedia is what it is - an online repository of knowledge, not a politically correct, censored work that panders to fringe theories, left or right wing dogma, local cultural interpretations of simple meanings, or indeed anything else. You don't own the Wikipedia article about your organisation. The idea that people from an organisation/association/consortium/company/glee-club/whatever may want to control their own article is exactly why WP:COI was written. If you are closely connected with the subject of an article then you should exercise extreme caution when editing it. And that's how this whole thread started - people who have a conflict of interest wanting to control an article. You've had a lot of bits of Wikipedia policy thrown at you in this thread. Perhaps the one you haven't read is WP:LAME. You should read it. You really, really should. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

First I'd like to apologize, we have very passionate members and at times it's difficult for them to wait while things get worked out.

We are not a Riding Club or Association, nor Motorcycle Club. In the motorcycle world these "titles" have real meanings. We have members who are a part of: a Motorcycle Club (MC); or Riding Club (RC); or Association, and some of those organizations have by-laws preclude them from taking part in our missions if Patriot Guard Riders are seen as either an MC, RC, or Association. In the past we've had long drawn out discussions with various groups and their ban on their members participating in our missions. Also, in order to carry out our missions, we need to cooperation from Police, Sheriffs departments and Highway Patrol officers and they don't willingly cooperate with Motorcycle Clubs. That is why we are so adamant about preventing the use of words like Motorcycle Club, Riding Club or Association in describing the Patriot Guard Riders.

I do appreciate the editors allowing my sources to be cited and adding the edit to the Patriot Guard Riders description. I would like to ask if it's possible to have the words chartered and individuals removed and the word Americans added so it simply states: Patriot Guard Riders' representatives state that they are not a motorcycle club, but a group of patriotic Americans. :Ideally I'd prefer changing the words Motorcycle Club to motorcyclists, which more accurately describes the organization, but could live with it with the edits I mentioned. GHWinslow (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That's entirely fair with me, it's a great compromise. I included "chartered motorcycle club" because I wanted to distinguish between group of motorcyclists (a motorcycle club) and an outlaw or chartered group (a Motorcycle Club). I'll wait for other thoughts, though. tedder (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Fine with me. Although since we have no plans to change motorcycle racing to motorcyclist racing, or motorcycle helmet to motorcyclist helmet, or motorcycle jacket to motorcyclist jacket, or potty training to pottyist training, I think we should stick with plain English motorcycle club. --Dbratland (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps not your best possible reply. htom (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

When I scrolled down to the bottom of the Patriot Guard Riders page, it listed some links, one of those was "Motorcyclists organizations" which took me to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Motorcyclists_organizations which says Category:Motorcyclists organizations. This category and classification seems exactly what is needed, so is it possible to edit the following so as to read: "The Patriot Guard Riders is a motorcyclist organization[1][2][3][4] whose members attend the funerals of members of the United States armed forces at the invitation of the deceased’s family.[5][6][7][8]"

Then you can delete "Patriot Guard Riders' representatives state that they are not a chartered motorcycle club, but a group of patriotic individuals.[9][10][11][12][13][14]" and everyone should be happy, as motorcyclists organizations is already an established category on Wikipedia. GHWinslow (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

So, you don't want to address the wikipedia definition of club? That's very convenient for your argument. You still like to tell people that know about the organization to not comment because they might know what they are talking about? That's also convenient for you. It seems like the rule you like to follow is, "If you don't know anything about something, you should write something about it." I guess that's why I've never wasted my time using wikipedia as any sort of a real source for information. I will admit this is the first time I've been on here. You win again. It must be great to finally be in charge of something. You claim that there are 4k news reports in favor of the PGR and you must feel really tough putting the PGR in its place. You feel good being able to tell someone "that's the way it is, I don't care what you think." Probably helps those lonely nights pass by. Since you don't want to use reality and logic, and would rather hide behind some links, I'm done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azcraig (talk • contribs) 04:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering if anyone has had time to read my last proposal two comments above? And if so, does it sound acceptable to the editors? GHWinslow (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This is turning into a filibuster.

Saying "organization" instead of "club" has the same problem as we have been discussing since square one: it contradicts the vernacular definition of "club" and disagrees with what the sources tell us. We have included mention that according to the special language used in one US subculture, "motorcycle club" means a different thing than what PGR is. It's important to tell readers about that special terminology, but Wikipedia policy remains to not use the language of subcultures. Wikipedia uses mainstream terminology.

I would expect that if anyone keeps posting repetitions of the same arguments, they might not get a reply, since it has been explained over and over and over. Repeating the same arguments is lame. Perhaps you should either drop it until you have new information to share, or else work to change Wikipedia's policy. A good use of your time might be to try to understand Wikipedia better, because that would give you ammunition to win your argument. Maybe read Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat as a starter, to explore the idea of where Wikipedia stands on mainstream and fringe (i.e. subculture) versions of the "truth". --Dbratland (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Dbratland on this and I'm getting really bored of the PGR COI aspect of this "discussion". --Biker Biker (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

February 2011

I am reading the comment about WP: DUCK requires that they be called a motorcycle club. The PGR is not about motorcycles. It is about honoring a service member, LEO, Firefighter that has lost his/her life in the line of duty, or a veteran that has recently passed away. Please explain to me where the PGR is about motorcycles. I myself do not ride; I drive a car with 4 wheels. So does that mean that I and other members that drive cars are a car club. According to your definition we are. A motorcycle club is an organization that is charted and recognized by the Confederation of Clubs. (Rfor2005 (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)).

For one thing, the PGR mission statement says, "We have one thing in common besides motorcycles..." That says they have two things in common. One of those things is motorcycles. The other is "unwavering respect for those who risk their very lives..." etc. So right there in the mission statement it tell us that they are about motorcycles. They then say they don't care if you ride, which is fine, but still, motorcycles are one of the two things they have in common. Plus the name: Patriot Guard Riders. Where did the word "riders" come from? Why is it there? If they have no connection to motorcycles, why aren't they called Patriot Guard Drivers? Or just Patriot Guard?

Much more important than that is what independent media say, because Wikipedia is nothing more than a reflection of what is out there in independent media, and those sources, as cited, call PGR a motorcycle club. Nobody said anything about all members having to be motorcyclists; you made that up. As far as the Confederation of Clubs, the problem there is that independent news, books, and other media sources don't care what the Confederation of Clubs thinks. They are a fringe group which fails to meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability as a source.

Please don't be offended if your comments are ignored; this discussion has been very repetitive and comments that repeat old arguments will probably be ignored.

If you have a new issue to raise, please start a new section on this talk page. --Dbratland (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

March 2011

I've read all of this back and forth among the various pages. It would appear that 2 or 3 folks from Wikipedia not only are controlling the content of the pages in question, but now want to control the discussion as well. Those of us responding are not "trolls", and that should not even enter the discussion. We are trying to clarify an outside organizations characterization of our group. That said, I'll address a few of the things I've read.

Use of the word "club". This seems to be at the heart of the discussion. The definition for "club" from Wikipedia was given as, "A club is an association of two or more people united by a common interest or goal." Excellent, we now have an understood definition which we can use. If those controlling Wikipedia content are convinced they must define the group as a "club" though, it should not be a motorcycle club, since that is not the predominant common interest shared by those united people. Nor is promoting motorcycles the goal of the organization. The goal is to honor those who risk their lives for America’s freedom and security. All of those involved in the organization share this goal; however, not all of those involved ride motorcycles.

The notion that "club" and "organization" mean the same thing is silly, and can easily be shown as false by considering OPEC, the 'Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries', which is obviously not a club.

It's important to note, that when one "joins" the PGR, all they are doing is joining the web site. There is no other mechanism for joining. So, in that sense, "membership" is only to the web site. An individual can show up at any PGR event without joining the website. At these events, they would be free to participate in the event as well as purchase (and wear) patches. In short, there is no membership requirement to the events or missions, because it is not a club in any traditional sense of the term. By Wikipedia's standards, it may be a club, but as mentioned earlier, if that is the standard to be used, it would not be a motorcycle club, but rather a patriotic club. Of course, that doesn't sound quite right, since the general public doesn't often use those terms together (for a reason); thus it might make more sense to call them a patriotic organization - which would exactly describe what they are, would include all of those that participate, and would calm the concerns of thoe involved. For what it's worth, I've ridden with the PGR for over 4 years, have attended dozens of missions, and don't call myself a member. I simply state I ride with the PGR.

I've seen numerous attempts to state that the PGR "doesn't care" if they are referred to as a "club". This is simply not the case. There have been a number of discussion on the national PGR website stating that the organization is not a club. Further, there have been several sources given stating that the organization is not a club, though a negative is very difficult to cite. If it will make any difference to the DBratland (who seems to be the most vociferous in this position), I will be happy to provide citations from the PGR web site as well as statements from the national leadership; however, there is no point if once it's done, the response is "It doesn't matter, it still looks like a duck". DBratland, if you will address this and state that such information is relevant, I'll be more than happy to provide it.

It would seem that "patriotic organization, primarily consisting of motorcyclists" would better, and more accurately, define the group. Plase, citing "reliable sources" that incorrectly report the information should not be a qualifier, since many of those "reliable sources" also routinely get the name of the group wrong - we seem to frequently be referred to as the "patriot riders" which is way off the mark, and often the "patriot guard".Hparsons (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Most of your points have already been discussed, so I won't go into it again. Comments on forums are considered self-published sources -- as you point out, anybody (including me, btw) can create an account at their web site, read, and post any opinion they choose. Wikipedia generally ignores forums, social media, and similar sources.

However, if you will cite official statements from PGR on this topic, that contribution would be much appreciated. Regardless of whether we start using the Association, Group, Organization, Riding Club, Owners Group and Motorcycle Club scheme to organize articles, it would be excellent to cite what PGR has to say about itself. Help in citing sources is at Wikipedia:Citing sources, or you can post what you have here and we will work with you.

Please also read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to see the what your options are to resolve this with more editors besides myself and members of WikiProject Motorcycling. --Dbratland (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

My response about the statements by the PGR was to counter the "they don't care" claims that were made. Yes, the national PGR website is very much a forum; however, that is the only mechanism for joining anything on the PGR. That said, this is from the FAQ on their website (not the forum, but the FAQ section):

Q. ARE THERE REGULAR CHAPTER MEETINGS?

A.No. The PGR is a volunteer organization not a motorcycle club. We do not hold regular meetings however many folks organize informal area or state get-togethers and meet-n-greets. You will find information regarding these in your State Forum.

I think the official statement from their website that "The PGR is a volunteer organization not a motorcycle club" says it all, and definitely shows that they care about the differentiation. The url is http://www.patriotguard.org/PGRFAQ/tabid/250/Default.aspx Hparsons (talk) 03:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Great. PGR cares about what they are called. That doesn't impact much for this article, though. tedder (talk) 03:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

So, we now see how this game is played. Make statements with no backing. Get proven wrong. Then state that it doesn't matter. I pretty much figured that was the way it would happen. So if it never mattered that PGR does care, why did Dbratland keep insisting they did not? Of course, when those of us that find the truth to be important question those on here that seem to be in control, we're called "trolls". What should "impact this article" is that the PGR is not a club in any common use of the term. There is no real membership - the only joining that is done is on a web forum. There are no dues. There are no meetings. There are no elected officers. It is an organization, but it is not a club. It is most definitely not a motorcycle club. Newspaper articles claiming it is does not make it so. Neither do the same newspaper articles claiming they are the Patriot Riders make that so.

Bottom line, I was asked for an official statement from the PGR stating they were not a club. Took me about 5 minutes to find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hparsons (talk • contribs) 05:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected. PGR cares what they are called, and doesn't want to be called a motorcycle club or a riding club. Thank you for providing the citation I requested. My reasons for making an issue of it were explained above, as well as why it was tangential to the question of what terms Wikipedia uses, so I won't repeat what I said. I would suggest either offering reasons for changing the article that meet Wikipedia's guidelines, or else taking a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Dbratland (talk) 05:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Self-Published & "Reliable" Sources

I've seen references to the PGR's website as a self-published source, and that it therefore should not be as a citation. I'm sorry, but I disagree. I've read the information about self-published sources, and I do not feel it applies. The PGR website is not promoting itself as an authority on the PGR; it is promoting itself as an official resource of the organization. The argument can (and probably should) be made that the "reliable sources" that call them a motorcycle club have not properly vetted that information, since it is contrary to what the ogranization itself claims; thus the sources do not have reliable information. I am anxiously awaiting a screening of the documentary that has been done by Ellen Frick to see if it contains information stating that the PGR is indeed not a motorcycle club. This documentary - The Patriot Guard Movie - is an independent documentary, and neither done by nor officially endorsed by the PGR. Maybe information from this award-winning documentary filmmaker will suffice as a source. Possibly, since she and her staff spent months researching the PGR it will be accepted as a more reliable source than a reporter using his/her own judgement in deciding the make-up of the organization after a five minute interview concerning a particular mission.Hparsons (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:V and especially WP:PSTS to see why primary sources are less valued than how others describe an organization. tedder (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You're going to have to help me out. I read both sections, and the other sections they linked to, and I found nothing that said anything remotely similar to "how others describe an organization". The closes I've seen to something like that, which would apply in this instance, would be the statement that secondary sources rely on primary sources for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them. However, there are to important facets of this:

1. This does not preclued aprimary source (in this case, the PGR website) from being used. As a matter of fact, the section specifically states Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source (my emphasis added). This would appear to support the position that the PGR's website, stating in the FAQ that the organization is not a motorcycle club, may be used. It is a straightforward descriptive statement, and any educated person would be able to very that information is indeed supported by the source.
2. The section referenced talks about Wikipedia relying more on secondary sources, stating the policy - Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may make analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source'; however, in the example we're discussing here with the referring to the PGR as a "club", the reporters are not analyzing, but are reporting facts that are in error.

If I'm misunderstanding this, please feel free to point me to something that describes things differently. Unfortunately, at this point, the more information I'm given by you Wikipedia folks, the more I'm convined the error is in leaving the information that the PGR is a club. You have multiple sources that say so. You also have multiple sources that say differently. All are secondary sources, citing their personal view. The primary source states it is not a club. If multiple secondary sources (that should be getting their information from the primary source, according to Wikipedia policy') are at odds in regards to whether or not the organization is a club, it would seem that the primary would be the deciding authority.Hparsons (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Secondary sources are preferred because they have a distance from the source of the information. Let's suppose you were a multi-level marketing company that claimed to be in "the direct-sales people business". However, most newspaper articles written by people and organizations independent of the company consider the business "a multi-level company selling eating utensils". Wikipedia's article reflects the commonly-held view that you are a multi-level utensil company. It might be worth mentioning what the company considers itself to be, but that isn't the main focus. The MLM fork company is not the "deciding factor" on how it is presented.

This is very common on articles about companies, people, religious topics, you name it. The point is that how the article's source wants to be described doesn't necessarily dictate how it gets described. In this case, PGR owns their own website, but not the article on Wikipedia or an article in the Wall Street Journal. As this says, "Our job as editors is simply to present what the reliable sources say." In this case, the reliable sources are neutral secondary sources, which are preferred over the non-neutral and less-verifiable primary source.

I'm not going to reply on this endlessly, as it doesn't appear you are looking for a productive discussion. If you wish to argue further, you'll probably want to request feedback through the Dispute Resolution process. tedder (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that is exactly what I intend to do; however, I do appreciate the feedback you, and others, have given, as it adds to the information that can be provided.Hparsons (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to get the last word or anything, but since I went to the trouble of writing this out, I'm going to post it. But don't let that stop you from taking one of the options in the Dispute Resolution process. If this can be put to rest, I would be very happy, no matter how it turns out. Here's some food for thought:

Here are just a small sampling of examples of why we are guided by independent sources when describing what an organization is: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]. There are a lot of PGR people who want to change this article, but it's really small potatoes compared to the outlaw motorcycle gangs who want to use Wikipedia to tell only their version of reality. Not to mention the marketing flacks from numerous companies who want to write their own Wikipedia articles with nothing but press releases.

This isn't only about PGR. If we changed this one article and that was the end of it, I'd say fine, change it. But if we did we'd just have some other group come along and change it back. And we'd have even more of a mess to sort out, since it would blow yet another a hole in the shaky categorization we have.

The classification of Associations, Groups, Riding Clubs and Motorcycle Clubs (example [39]) isn't even used in all of the United States, let alone the rest of the world. For example, the February 2000 issue of Motorcycle Consumer News has a "Motorcycle Club Special" with 3 articles: "Joining a Club","Starting a Club" and "National Club Comparison". What is a "club" according to MCN? The AMA is a club. Get that? The AMA is a club! ABATE is a club. ABATE? Yup, club... Gold Wing Riders Association is a club. Honda Riders Club of America? Club. BMW Motorcycle Owners Association? Club. Harley Owners Group is a club. Also clubs: Honda Sport-Touring Association, Blue Knights, Retreads, Christian Motorcyclists Association, Concours Owners Group and Moto Guzzi National Owners Club. All clubs. Also: Southeast Sport Bike Association is a club, and Desert Runners of Arizona. On and on and on.

The point is, MCN is using plain English and not getting caught up in hair-splitting political correctness. Because they don't accept advertising, they don't care whom they offend. Since Wikipedia doesn't have to be politically correct either, we also don't have to worry about offending anyone because we didn't watch our language according to some fringe group's rules.

And of course, we have the UK, Australia, and millions of other English readers in India and all over the world, and none of them have any idea what this "Motorcycle Club" fussyness is all about. Wikipedia is not only for Americans. --Dbratland (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a good example of why Colleges and Universities ban Wikipedia as a reference source. Wiki-editors state that something is a "fact" simply because the media says it is. This is where Wikipedia loses all credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.141.18 (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Who told you that anything on Wikipedia is a fact? Wasn't me. Wikipedia is useful to those who have made the effort to understand what Wikipedia is and what it isn't. If you haven't made that effort? Well, you know, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

(When I started college, years before Wikipedia, my professors would have laughed me out of the room if I'd cited World Book or Encyclopedia Britannica in a paper. Nothing new on that score.) --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

External links

I respectfully request additional information in External links. Suggest Official website be changed to Official website of the Patriot Guard Riders (PGR). I am a Copy-Editor and think it looks incomplete because it doesn't indicate whose official website. Also suggest (PGR) be added to the Title because it is part of the Patriot Guard Riders name. I will not Be Bold and make these changes because I am a Patriot Guard Rider (PGR). I prefer to discuss. Tiyang 08:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiyang (talk • contribs)

QUESTION

Is it a Conflict of Interest for me, an Editor and Patriot Guard Rider, to rate this article? Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You're a topic matter expert and your opinion is valued, and you're an involved member and have a conflict of interest. So you should be allowed to note errors, but not praise. ;) The name thing is beyond stupid, but like lots of other Wiki-nesses, is going to be there until doomsday. :( htom (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, htom. I have rated the page objectively (three stars for Complete because there are gaps in the Article). I made my living as a Copy-Editor, and there are many edits I could make to improve this article. It should be noted PGR is a Non-Profit organization. Total membership is 243,964 and climbing. The Infobox does not include our Canadian and Belgium members, nor is it mentioned anywhere that Canada and the United States work together to honor fallen servicemembers. PGR's Fallen Warrior Scholarship Fund has helped many young people continue their education. Young people are our future; hence the Foundation's Mentorship Program. If I said anything that can be used to improve this article, would someone please incorporate it into the article? That would be nice. One more thing: I am going to post something at the PGR Website about the Rate this page feature. Very respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

not a "Club"

PGR IS NOT A MOTORCYCLE CLUB. Period. It has no membership. It has no meetings. It has no dues. It has no entry requirements. It has no exit requirements. It has no prescribed apparel. It has no rules. It is not a club. It is simply an association. Calling it a club would be like calling people who see each other on their way to work on the tube a "club", or workers in a company who go out to pick up trash together. It is simply not a club.

Relying on some published articles that are also in error on this does not make it so. I belong to many clubs and organizations, none of which operate in the manner of the PGR. It also doesn't matter what non-US English speakers consider the definition of a club to be, the PGR is based in the US and goes by the American English language. Should the US insist that MAnchest United be called a Soccer Team because after all, not all English speakers are from outside the US? That is such a ridiculous argument. The final argument for this is that the organization itself EMPHASIZES that they are not a club. Get off your fricken high pompous ass horse and give in you dickheads.

Calling the PGR a club puts them in jeopardy from real clubs who are territorial. Stop being irresponsible and stop insisting that something is true because you alone want it to be such. The people who KNOW are all telling you that you are wrong. The PGR is in no way "a club" in the US.

====================================================================================== 72.74.81.57 (talk) 07:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

PGR is not a club it is at most an association. I present the following as facts to support my position. 1, there is no requirement to have a motorcycle. 2, there is no prospect period. 3, they do not have an mc anywhere on their colors. 4, they do not practice exclusivity for their members. The list goes on... While I personally support the PGR and have ridden as a PGR member. I am exclusively a member of an MC which prohibits me from being a member of any other MC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luthereugene (talk • contribs) 17:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you read the rest of this talk page. According to your very narrow US-centric definition of motorcycle club then no, it isn't a club. However, Wikipedia is a global encyclopaedia and in other English-speaking countries the term motorcycle club has a wider meaning, so the term motorcycle club is user here in the global sense. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

And actually, the four sources cited that call PGR a motorcycle club are from the US. The MC culture isn't really dominant even in its country of origin. Conversely, there are bikers in the UK, German, Australia and all over the world who imitate the US MC culture. Nonetheless, it's a minority definition and reorganizing the whole encyclopedia for one subculture's politically correct rules would be impossible. And, right in the second sentence, it says PGR is "not a chartered motorcycle club". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

None of the six References for the second sentence in the lede mention "chartered". Will someone please remove that word from the article (I am a Patriot Guard Rider). Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 08:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Done, albeit in an untimely fashion. Since the sources do not use the word "chartered", and it has been challenged, WP:BURDEN applies. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, AzureCitizen. GBU. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 05:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Official IRS Filings

I've gone into the IRS database and the PGR has been approved as a 501(c)3 non-profit honor guard. Their own website states they are not a motorcycle club but an honor guard. The problem with the media in the US is that the reporters see motorcycles so it's automatically assumed it's a motorcycle club. I have corrected my own reporters about this in their coverage. I have added references to both PGR's site and to the IRS database. I hope we can put this to rest and leave the article as-is in it's current content. Jms011 (Jms011) 13:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.195.179.49 (talk)

That's fine that PGR considers itself an honor guard. Wikipedia articles aren't driven by primary sources. See WP:42, WP:V, WP:RS, and all of the archived discussions on this topic. tedder (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Still, the government designation of what the group is supersedes a moderator's personal thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.195.179.49 (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia reflects what other people refer to the group as. As the top of WP:V says: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." See WP:SOURCES for a good rundown on sources. Feel free to post to WP:RSN if you object to using a consensus of published third-party articles over the first-party source and an IRS filing. tedder (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have moderators. It has consensus. As for what the government says PGR is, take a closer look at the very same link that you posted. Some of those 501(c)3 non-profit organisations have "club" as part of their name - which blows part of your argument completely out of the water i.e. you can be both a club AND a 501(c)3 non-profit. --Biker Biker (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Honor Guard

I added both 501(c) and honor guard to the infobox which hopefully should keep everyone happy ... but can I just say that,

a) I think the PGR are a motorcycle club,

b) the older daughters from the Westboro Baptist Church are the hottest fundamentalist chicks I've seen in a long time, and

c) God hates me even if I am not a fag, and I am going to go to hell. I just hope it is not the same hell. --Bridge Boy (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

How Am I A Member of a Motorcycle Club When I Don't Own A Motorcycle???

This is the first time I have ever posted to Wikipedia, so please bear with me. I've read through most of the discussion about whether or not the Patriot Guard Riders is a Motorcycle Club. Some editors have cited the "DUCK" test for classifying it as a Club. I'd like to offer a slightly different point of view.

I have been a member of the Patriot Guard Riders since August 2006. I drive a Support Vehicle (aka "Cage") transporting flags, water and supply to PGR Missions in my Saturn Ion. In February of this year I was elected to serve a two year term as the Corporate Treasurer of the PGR, Inc. My term began 01MAY12.

A previous poster suggested the PGR talk to the Press to dispel the notion that the PGR is a Motorcycle Club. We have and are happy to do so whenever possible. But how do you suggest we handle the instance of the Reporter who files a story without ever interviewing a Member or Leader? How do we refute the Reporter who continues to call the PGR a Club even after they were specifically told during the interview that it is not?

Yes, a majority of the Flag Line Members are "Bikers" and ride motorcycles, but there is a significant number who don't. There are no official statistics, but I would estimate at least 15% and as much as 25% of the Flag Line Members do not own or ride motorcycles.

So, even though I am a "Primary Source," I very respectfully ask the "Editors" of this page the following questions...

How can you call me, an elected officer with fiduciary responsibility to the PGR, Inc., a member of a Motorcycle Club if I do not own and have never owned a motorcycle in my life?

If they have never owned or ridden a motorcycle in their life, how can you call 15-25% of the Patriot Guard Riders members of a Motorcycle Club?

I appreciate any respectful responses.

With Greatest Respect & Honor, Lee "PieMan" Anderson - Treasurer - PGR, Inc.

PGRTreasurer (talk) 03:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

So what are you actually, then, if not a biker club? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I am a member of two motorcycle clubs in the UK, both of which are part of the British Motorcyclists Federation, yet both clubs openly welcome people who don't own or ride motorcycles. Are they also not clubs under your definition? --Biker Biker (talk) 06:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

To Baseball Bugs- In a nutshell, the PGR, Inc., is a (my term) "Patriotic Support Group." Primarily, we attend funerals for Service Members or First Responders (Law Enforcement, Fire, EMT) who have been Killed In Action (KIA) or Killed In the Line of Duty. Our secondary "mission" is to pay respect to Honorably Discharged Veterans who have died under circumstances other than combat related.

We only attend services when the family extends an invitation and requests the presence of the PGR to honor their loved one..

The PGR also provides Welcome Home or Send Off Escorts and/or Flag Lines when requested by Military Units.

To Biker Biker- According to the basic rules of "due process," the burden should not be on the PGR, Inc. to prove to that we are not something you claim us to be.

The burden, Sir, is on YOU to prove that we are indeed what you say we are.

The two organizations you are a member of apparently self-identify themselves as clubs that "openly welcome people who don't own or ride motorcycles."

The difference between your "clubs" and the PGR is that, since it's inception in 2005, the Leadership of PGR, Inc. and the Members of the Flag Line have repeatedly and publicly declared: We are ***NOT*** a motorcycle club.

It goes back to the age old question of: "How can I prove to you I'm not something you say I am?"

For example, if you say I'm a Visitor from Outer Space, an Angel or Satan himself, how can I prove to you I am not? I can't.

The burden, therefore, is on YOU to prove that I *am* a Visitor from Outer Space, an Angel or Satan himself.

Conversely, if *I* were to claim that I'm a Visitor from Outer Space, an Angel or Satan himself, the burden would be on me to prove that I am.

In this case... the burden is on you to prove that, as a member of the PGR, I am a member of a Motorcycle Club. You can't.

In other discussions, posters cited stories in the press which stated the PGR is a MC. Unfortunately, any sources cited by the press who state the Patriot Guard Riders is a Motorcycle Club either did not conduct due diligence or ignored what they were told and published the statement anyway.

With Respect, Lee

PGRTreasurer (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Motorcycle club revisited again

Why doesn't everyone just allow the 258,00 members of the organization describe what they are rather than looking in from the outside and telling them what they are. That would be the most adult, respectful and mature thing to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.226.127.130 (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

We go by sourcing. Google [patriot guard riders motorcycle club] and many entries come up, including their own website. They don't explicitly use the word club, but their description says, "The Patriot Guard Riders is a diverse amalgamation of riders from across the nation. We have one thing in common besides motorcycles. We have an unwavering respect for those who risk their very lives for America’s freedom and security." They're an organization of motorcyle riders. In short, a motorcycle club. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the website needs to be modified. And maybe not. Why can't the "sourcing" be the entries that appear in these talk pages by the President of the Board of Directors? Also, when you refer to "we"in your first comment, to whom are you referring? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.142.75 (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia's 5 pillars. "Sourcing" is shorthand for reliable and verifiable sources. Primary sources are generally seen as inferior to secondary sources, especially when there's a wealth of the latter. The discussion of reliable/verifiable is summarized here: Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. Note the discussion of "independent', which is related to Wikipedia's policies about managing conflicts of interest; clearly, primary sources suffer from an obvious conflict of interest or lack of objectivity. Finally, it may be important to understand the difference between encyclopedic verifiability and truth. In other words, Wikipedia is less concerned about The Truth and more concerned about verifiable information. This keeps Wikipedia from being driven by what feels right and instead by what is verifiable.

Finally, I'm not Baseball Bugs, and I've rarely played him on TV, but "we" generally refers to Wikipedia's collective consensus and policies. tedder (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Tedder. So if the national website were modified, would this be considered reliable? There also appear to be a wealth of sources that contradict the definition as it currently stands.(e.g. see the many citations G Winslow lists in his responses on these pages). What a travesty that the definition remains as is when the "reliable" sources that are cited are from the news media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.142.75 (talk) 11:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

If the national website were modified it would make no difference (as a primary source). I will look at the other sources, but if the essence of what they state is "we are not a motorcycle club in the American sense of the word" then it makes stuff all difference because Wikipedia is a global encyclopaedia and takes into account that motorcycle club in the rest of the world means something completely different. Personally I find it ludicrous that a motorcycle club setup by motorcyclists that called itself "Patriod Guard Riders" would say we are not motorcyclists. --Biker Biker (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Patriot Guard Riders. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://somd.com/news/headlines/2007/5419.shtml

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)