Talk:Outlaw motorcycle club

Link to Outlaw Biker World

Outlaw Biker World is a website that has news articles (and More) for the Motorcycle/Outlaw community. I feel a link to it from this page is appropriate. The link is http://www.obworld.com: [23]

Chopperguy 21:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Usually we don't link to general news sources on a topic. I wouldn't actively object to this link, but I wouldn't particularly advocate for it, either. - Jmabel | Talk 02:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Motorcycle club

This article has been full of unsourced statements, innuendo, and half-truths for far too long. I redirected to the Motorcycle club article, which meets Wikipedia quality standards and covers the subject far better. Mmoyer 00:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Redirect has been undone. See discussion at Talk:Motorcycle club--Dbratland (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC started to discuss replacing Criminal Org Infobox with Org Infobox

Please comment on an RfC to replace Template:Infobox Criminal organization with Template:Infobox Organization for active motorcycle clubs. Thanks! --Dbratland (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What more is needed here?

The word outlaw carries a specific meaning which does not imply criminal intent, but rather means the club is not sanctioned by the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) and does not adhere to the AMA's rules, but instead, generally, the club enforces a set of bylaws on its members that derive from the values of the outlaw biker culture.

I have two sources here which specifically state that the word "outlaw" is not meant to convey criminal intent, and all the rest. The second source is even online; all you have to do is click on the link. But a fact tag was placed twice, with the edit summary "do not arbitrailly remove the fact tag until you can verify this claim - the reference provided later in this sentence does not".

What on Earth is the problem here?--Dbratland (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I just changed it slightly to say "The word outlaw carries a specific meaning within this subculture that is different from the mainstream use of the word. It does not imply criminal intent..." to clarify that outlaw still means outlaw for the whole rest of the world, of course. It's just their use of the word.--Dbratland (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The type of reference it is makes it not really reliable as a third-party source. Dulaney and Drew (the two authors) can not solely be considered reliable, especially considering that both authors have personal stake in the identity of the Outlaw MC. The change you made helps, but it is hard to say something does or does not imply a meaning to a certain group of people. Saying it isn't meant to is one thing, but saying it doesn't is both wrong and inaccurate (as it does to many people). We aren't here to provide a pro nor anti stance to Outlaw groups, and that sentence very much so tries to "soften the blow" of the term Outlaw by using references that can't be trusted. Removing the entire reference about what Outlaw is or isn't meant would actually remove the issue. I made a tentative change that both removed the issue and reworded to make the entire AMA bit more clear to the average reader. See what you think of that. Hooper (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

What personal stake to Dulaney and Drew have?

I just reverted your edit because it consisted of your opinions, and those conflict with the cited sources. I will post a question on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard as to whether or not these two sources are sufficient.--Dbratland (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

From The Oregonian "Police define outlaw motorcycle clubs as gangs that band together, often with bylaws enforced by violence, and periodically commit crimes". I'll be working on this article soon, to better reflect the general view of outlaw motorcycle clubs. Just letting you know. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's great to include the definition the Oregon police use when they mean "outlaw"; that's a good citation to add. If your plan is to start deleting well-cited information because it represents a contrary point of view, I think that would be rather biased.--Dbratland (talk) 03:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

My intention is to remove the bias that you have introduced into this article since splitting it from Motorcycle club and leave it in a state that more properly reflects a neutral point of view. If merging it back into the main article will ensure that it is more likely to remain that way, I will propose it. In light of the rather obvious agenda you have shown in your recent edits and discussions, I have no interest in engaging in needless and disingenuous discussion with you here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure everyone, me especially, welcomes the participation of more editors. I have yet to make an edit which could not be improved in some way, so I'm sure the article will be better with the additional help and with the collaboration of multiple editors with a variety of points of view. I would hope that you could be a little less focused on me personally, and not use article talk pages to obsess over whatever flaws you perceive in me. If you do want to make this about me, then please do so in an appropriate venue, such as AIN, an RFC, or my talk page. Thanks!--Dbratland (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

We're not all criminals. Surely that's a generalisation which can be cast on any section of society?

Bigmumf (talk) 11:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)bigmumf

That isn't what is being said here. Please read WP:VERIFIABILITY. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you help me find which part of WP:V says articles should copy down everything law enforcement says, while ignoring or deleting all reference to published, authoritative citations that disagree with police press releases?--Dbratland (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I can't, but that hasn't been done here so it's really a moot point. Happy editing! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I want to add back a statement to the effect that, "The word 'outlaw' carries a specific meaning within the outlaw biker subculture that is different from the mainstream use of the word. For those who call themselves outlaw bikers, it does not imply criminal intent, but rather means the club is not sanctioned by the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) and does not adhere to the AMA's rules, but instead, generally, the club enforces a set of bylaws on its members that derive from the values of the outlaw biker culture." with five citations supporting it. Where in WP:V (or any other policy) does it help us understand why you keep deleting the statement? I would argue that including it is supported -- even demanded -- by the policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which says, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." Clearly the law enforcement perspective is significant and reliably sourced, and should be included. But the perspective documented to exist in the biker subculture is also significant and reliably sourced, and therefore WP:NPOV says it should be included as well.

In principle, I don't object at all to your desire to make the article overall more neutral. I don't believe any article is perfectly neutral, and I welcome the efforts of anyone who edits an article in ways that move it closer to the ideal of neutrality. But please tell me what policy statement justifies your deletion of the biker definition of "outlaw"?--Dbratland (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, you are grossly misrepresenting the sources you have and what they say and what that implys. Secondly, it is completely arbitrary, unneeded, and diverges from the subject. It should remain off. Yes, NPOV is very important and that particular addition is very much so POV. Hooper (talk) 01:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, since my attempt to resolve this at the reliable sources noticeboard ended with "no discernible RS question," perhaps arbitration would help in resolving this question.--Dbratland (talk) 03:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not how it ended. The Sources were noticed as not the problem, but the statement you are making with them as well as its' relevance to the topic and POV position. Just drop it, and it'll be fine. The article is not harmed by it not being included. Hooper (talk) 04:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're not required to participate in arbitration if you don't want to, and if there is arbitration I'm sure it can proceed without you. Leaving aside the question of whether this belongs in the article or not, perhaps we can just focus on what the sources say. Drew (2008) says, on page 277: "Outlaw Generally speaking, any motorcycle club that is not represented by the AMA. This term does not denote criminal intent." I know you have a problem because this author (or someone else named AJ Drew) wrote some books on the occult (this baffles me, but whatever), but did I misrepresent what this source said? If so, how?

We can work through the other sources in due course.--Dbratland (talk) 04:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You have one source that clearly states what you are trying to claim the others state. There are tons of sources claiming that it does denote criminal activity. Instead of us use those sources to place a line stating "outlaw is meant as outlaw" with every legal source ever behind it, we just leave out your one statement. Also, I do not personally have an issue with the author's work on Occult, I was just stating that his body of work shows that his "expertise" is not in Motorcycling. Please stop pushing your POV throughout wikipedia motorcycling articles. Hooper (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This is progress. We agree I accurately characterized Drew, the first of my five sources. Next...

• Dulaney, William L. (November 2005), "A Brief History of "Outlaw" Motorcycle Clubs", International Journal of Motorcycle Studies Quote...

  Finally, a point of clarification is in order. For the purposes of this essay the term outlaw is used to describe motorcycling organizations that are not affiliated with the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA), and the name of a specific motorcycling organization (i.e. the Outlaws Motorcycle Club). It is important to note that for the purposes of this essay the term outlaw does not, in and of itself, refer to the breaking of law. However, when used in the context of describing “one-percent” motorcycle clubs, which are defined in detail below, the term takes on a more ominous tone. It is not my intention to suggest that the term outlaw is synonymous with illegal endeavor; rather, I wish to outline important differences and commonalities between one-percent and outlaw motorcycle clubs.

Dulaney is saying that contexts do exist in which the word "outlaw" is not intended to mean criminal. He also says -- and I enthusiastically agree -- that in many cases outlaw does mean criminal, hence the need to cite the Idaho, Oregon, and other sources who say just that. WP:NPOV asks us to include all significant points of view, not just one. It's also patently unfair to cite only the accusers of these groups, and to delete what they have to say in their own defense. Readers are smart enough to weigh the bias of the sources, but not if you censor information from them.

Now. In my attempt to convey that the word outlaw can have a special meaning within this subculture (I'm open to fine tuning the wording in the article, naturally), am I distorting what Dulaney is saying? --Dbratland (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are very much so misrepresenting that. He states very clearly that that is only for the purpose of his essay. He states this so that the reader does not think that he himself is calling them Outlaws in the general sense, just using the common moniker. That clarification does not extend beyond his essay. Hooper (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's run with that. Why doesn't he want to call them outlaws (who break the law) in his essay? If the sense of the word outlaw as a non-criminal didn't exist, what purpose is served by Dulaney suddenly inventing a weird usage where he says outlaw but doesn't mean lawbreaker? Wouldn't it have been far easier for him to have just called them outlaws and said it means lawbreaker? And at then end, why does he distinguish between the (ominous) one-percenter context and other contexts? What other contexts, besides the essay?

I would think you would have a hard time selling your version of this to anyone, unless you can explain why Dulaney is twisting himself in knots here when, if he means what you are saying he means, he could have saved himself a lot of trouble. Would you care to clarify what you think Dulaney is up to here?--Dbratland (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not an appropriate forum to debate this issue. If there are questions about changes to the article, or about sources used, feel free to bring them up here, but stop trying to bait editors into having a debate about whether or not the general meaning of outlaw to be synonymous with criminal is justified. That is beyond the scope of Wikipedia. Thanks, and happy editing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it goes without saying, but I disagree. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and it functions by editors working together, and discussing their disagreements in order to find consensus. I could just as easily demand that you cease discussing the issue, accept that I am right, and perhaps start a blog. But it would be as absurd for me to attempt to get my way through bullying and stonewalling as it is for you. If you refuse to engage in discussion, it ought not surprise you when you fail to win consensus. You have exactly one (1) editor who agrees with you, and it seems to have gone to your head. I would request that you try to post constructive points in support of your position and stop insisting that I must accept it merely because you say so. --Dbratland (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. Wikipedia talk pages are not meant for philosophical debates. We should not be discussing "right or wrong" here, simply what can be properly sourced and verified. This is becoming disruptive. I'm letting you know that from here on in I will simply be removing your comments if they aren't directly related to the article, per WP:TALK. If you have an issue with this, feel free to start a thread at the appropriate message board. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I very much intend to continue to work to find consensus on the question of whether or not a statement as to the alternative meaning of "outlaw" belongs in the article. If you delete my comments on this topic, I will post a complaint about you to the Administrators Noticeboard.

Perhaps a better course would be to request arbitration. It seems obvious this is headed to arbitration anyway, so would you agree to go ahead with that? We could try mediation as well, but I suspect this is going to drag on unresolved unless we seek a binding resolution.--Dbratland (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

←I'm a stranger to the world of motorcycle gangs, but this reminds me of when I heard Puff Daddy explain his choice of name for his new record label, Bad Boy Records. He was asked (by Letterman, I think) whether the name was chosen to impart a literal "bad boy rap attitude" or for some other reason. Diddy responded that the name came from the record label's philosophy that people of all creeds, races and religions should be able to work together, despite how "bad" some parts of society considered that.

I remember thinking: yeah right, the first thought in people's minds when they hear "Bad Boy Records" is really gonna be social harmony.

Many groups, companies and organizations have their questionable rhetoric. We don't leave that out of articles, though. We just say "Company A says [such and such]", with no qualifier as to whether or not it's actually true. If Dulaney and Drew are involved in the gang, say so in the article when you present their opinions on the subject. Sources don't need to be 100% neutral in order to be reliable. If anything has been said to the contrary of these statements, they can be presented too.

That's my take anyway. Happy editing. Equazcion (talk) 01:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Note that both points of view are already presented in the article. This is not a content dispute. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

At ANI you say that he "selectively removed sources", that he is a "polite POV pusher", and that he "inserted references to support his position". That sounds like a content dispute to me. The intro of this article sounds rather like his point of view alone. Considering your views on the subject, don't you think discussion should continue in the interest of making the article neutral? Equazcion (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I would ask "why not", but this one-word response tells me you don't seem interested in cooperating. Your participation in this is of course your choice, but hopefully you can respect the fact that others would like to discuss the article's sources and content, and that's what talk pages are for. Equazcion (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I've already stated my intentions of rewriting the article to conform to our NPOV policy. At the moment, we have a single editor who is arguing for the inclusion of sources which are already in the article, and who even then seems unable to accurately represent what sources say. What's to discuss? If you're interested in actually getting involved here I suggest you carefully read through the existing discussion here and the WP:RSN discussions that I linked at ANI, and actually start looking at the content. Otherwise, more discussion about discussion isn't helpful. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

comment removals

No one involved in this dispute should be removing talk page comments of others involved. If one of you think the others' comments are violating policy, report them elsewhere and let someone objective make the call. Equazcion (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:TALK, talk pages are not for use as a soapbox or forum. Note that this isn't a content dispute at all and that I have made exactly 0 (zero) edits to this article. The issue here is the use of the talk page for a philosophical debate about the rightness or wrongness of specific terms being applied to specific groups. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Revised version

I have a new revision of the disputed content of that I'd like to suggest:

For some segments of the motorcycling subculture, the word 'outlaw' carries a specific meaning that contradicts the definition used by law enforcement authorities, and most of the mainstream press and the public at large. For those who call themselves outlaw bikers, the word is not intended to imply criminal intent, but rather means the club is not sanctioned by the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) and does not adhere to the AMA's rules, but instead, generally, the club enforces a set of bylaws on its members that derive from the values of the outlaw biker culture. In a broader sense, the word represents the biker club's alienation from society, and their belief that only through the outlaw biker lifestyle can true freedom be lived. This definition of the word is interpreted by critics as an attempt to whitewash the reality of organized crime by calling it an "alternative lifestyle."

Citations, with quotes:

• Wolf, Daniel R. (1992), The Rebels: a brotherhood of outlaw bikers, p. 4, ISBN 0802073638, 9780802073631, Technically the label 'outlaw motorcycle club' designates a club that is not registered with the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) or the Canadian Motorcycle Association (CMA), which are the respective governing bodies for the sport of motorcycling in the United States and Canada... Non-registered clubs are labeled 'outlaw' and considered as the 1 percent deviant fringe that continues to tarnish the public image of both motorcycles and motorcyclists. For it's part, the outlaw-biker community graciously accepted the AMA's 'one percenter' label as a means of identifying a 'righteous outlaw.'... page 9... Bikers make much of the point that the different treatment -- harassment -- accorded outlaw clubs by law-enforcement agencies runs counter to the basic principle of self-determination. They protest that a truly democratic society should be able to tolerate diversity and accommodate an awareness that drifting away from society's conventions is very different from opting out of society's laws. Somewhere between the convenient stereotype of 'criminal deviants' used by the police and the stylized self-conscious image outlaws have of themselves as 'frontier heroes' lies the story of real people. {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Unknown parameter |Publisher= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help)
• Drew, A. J. (2002), The everything motorcycle book: the one book you must have to buy, ride, and maintain your motorcycle, Adams Media Corp, pp. 193–203, 277, ISBN 1580625541, 9781580625548, Outlaw Generally speaking, any motorcycle club that is not represented by the AMA. This term does not denote criminal intent. {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
• Dulaney, William L. (November 2005), "A Brief History of "Outlaw" Motorcycle Clubs", International Journal of Motorcycle Studies, Finally, a point of clarification is in order. For the purposes of this essay the term outlaw is used to describe motorcycling organizations that are not affiliated with the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA), and the name of a specific motorcycling organization (i.e. the Outlaws Motorcycle Club). It is important to note that for the purposes of this essay the term outlaw does not, in and of itself, refer to the breaking of law. However, when used in the context of describing "one-percent" motorcycle clubs, which are defined in detail below, the term takes on a more ominous tone. It is not my intention to suggest that the term outlaw is synonymous with illegal endeavor; rather, I wish to outline important differences and commonalities between one-percent and outlaw motorcycle clubs.
• Joans, Barbara (2001), Bike lust: Harleys, women, and American society, p. 15, ISBN 0299173542, 9780299173548, The label 'outlaw motorcycle club' originally meant any club not registered with the American Motorcycle Association (AMA). A registered club receives a charter and rules of membership, which allow the members to participate in regularly sponsored events and the all-important motorcycle racing circuit. Non-registerd clubs are labeled 'outlaw' and called the 'one percent fringe.' It's this one percent most folks think of when they see a biker. {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Unknown parameter |Publisher= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help)
• Reynolds, Tom (2001), Wild ride: how outlaw motorcycle myth conquered America, pp. 43–44, ISBN 1575001454, 9781575001456, ...the stories that would come out of Hollister and Riverside were an affront to the responsible family image the AMA had always upheld. This is why the organization has been laden with a stuffy reputation by outlaw bikers who relish the fact that the AMA dislikes them so much.

  It is said that the term 'motorcycle outlaw' was coined shortly after the Second World War by the AMA to describe those riders who refused to participate in sanctioned racing events and simply bombed around any place they damned well pleased. By this definition, many postwar riders like the Boozefighters were probably outlaws, what with their beer-fueled runs in dried-up aqueducts, but the entire label was a little discomfiting beyond that. It would take a single incident [the Hollister riot] that would take the restless ennui of the war veteran motorcyclist and bring it to the public forum. {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Unknown parameter |Publisher= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help)

• Drewery, G (Spring 2003), "3 Skulls, Wings & Outlaws–Motorcycle Club Insignia & Cultural Identity" (PDF), Inter-Cultural Studies; A Forum On Social Change & Cultural Diversity, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 25–30, ISSN 1445-1190, The word 'outlaw' has its origins in the old English justice system and referred to someone who was punished by being deprived of the protection of law; literally such people were declared as 'outlaws'. It is therefore perhaps a misnomer to call a club 'outlaw' and in Australia there is no accepted definition of what constitutes an 'outlaw' motorcycle club. In Canada, however, the police have a definition derived from a number of court rulings and in the USA there is also a definition that is generally accepted by both outlaw and non-outlaw clubs. It would seem that in Australia, for a motorcycle club to be considered 'outlaw', it must be accepted as such by existing outlaw clubs. In other words, if a motorcycle club wears a traditional outlaw back patch and is prepared to staunchly defend the right to wear that back patch against any opposition, it would be considered to be an 'outlaw' club. ... The following year [after the Hollister riot], after some further trouble at Riverside, the AMA secretary at the time Lin A Kuchler said 'the disreputable cyclists are possibly one percent of the total number of motorcyclists; only one percent are hoodlums and troublemakers' (Zierl & Rebmann, 1998). The Riverside Police Chief described the motorcycle hoodlums for the first time in public as 'outlaws'. The non-AMA clubs, in the tradition of taking the insults of the enemy as a badge of honour, became 'outlaws' and those described by Koehler as 'one percenters' proudly wore a '1%' badge on their jackets and vests, a tradition that continues today.

Any suggested changes in wording? I don't know of any citations to support that any of these authors are themselves criminals, but such citations exist we should include them.--Dbratland (talk) 03:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Dbratland, but having earlier pointed out your problems with misquoting sources, and your problems with selectively quoting sources, I can not take your word for any of the content of the sources you have provided. Grabbing the first one that was online (Drewery), I found that the first paragraph says "The leading outlaw motorcycle gangs do not change, however; their dominance is reflected in the design of their insignia, and it is this design that other groups wish to copy," which seesm to invalidate its application as a reference for your statement. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

My credibility is irrelevant. Start an RFC about me if you want a thread about my credibility. I have more than enough diffs to rubbish your laughable allegation of bias.

Often I see the use of "outlaw motorcycle gang" to mean the criminal outlaws, while "outlaw motorcycle club" is used to encompass the subculture that is not necessarily criminal. The Boozefighters are a good example -- perhaps the primordial example. They are usually called an "outlaw club" but not an organized crime syndicate (like the Hells Angels are). --Dbratland (talk) 03:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been included at Wikpedia Talk:WikiProject Motorcycling--Dbratland (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Your credibility is completely relevant. While I believe in assuming good faith, you have shown that you are either incapable of representing references correctly, or you are deliberately attempting to deceive people here. I do not know which is the case, but without seeing the references for myself, I simply do not believe they say what you say they do. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

In reading Drewery, do you detect in there any hints that perhaps the word "outlaw" has more than one meaning, depending on time, place, speaker, and context? I kind of think that point is in there somewhere.

In addition to calling me biased, you accuse me of deliberately trying to deceive. Seems like you've escalated to personal attacks. Please stop that. Personal attacks against me aren't winning you any support. --Dbratland (talk) 04:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote. I haven't made any personal attacks. I can provide diffs for any accusation I have made. As for Drewery, he appears to use several different terms ("group", "club", "gang") interchangeably. For example, on page 29, he refers to the Hells Angels as an "outlaw motorcycle club" and a "motorcycle gang". Unless your other sources offer something more specific about the use of the term "outlaw", I don't see how this is anything other than original research. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 09:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that several other editors support including some version of the statement that "outlaw" does not always mean criminal, if you were to offer a reasonable compromise re-wording of the statement, I will try very hard to accept it. Then this would be resolved and everyone would be very pleased.--Dbratland (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Dbratland, I really appreciate your willingness to find a mutually acceptable solution, but I do not believe there is any need for anyone to compromise here. We are in complete agreement that if sources can be found to substantiate the idea that there is a generally recognized meaning of "outlaw" within the biker community that differs from the general meaning, then it should be included in the article. As I've tried to point out already, the article already contains this definition. In fact it makes up much of the first three paragraphs, which -- I hope you will agree -- gives it undue weight. This is one of the things I intend to clean up when I get a chance later in the week. Perhaps we could wait until then? That would be great. Also, you mention that "several other editors" support your proposal, but I am unable to see where - could you name them, or point me at the discussions? Thanks again! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

My problem is that nowhere does the article say "outlaw does not always mean criminal." That's what I want to add.

If some of this were moved out of the intro, down to, say, to the "Biker culture" section, would that satisfy you? I'm not insisting that the intro has to say "outlaw doesn't always mean criminal." I'd be happy to move the entire second and third paragraphs down to "Biker culture" and add a phrase like "outlaw does not always mean criminal when used by some members of this subculture".

And here's your diffs: [24], [25], [26], and Work Permit's proposal [27] also is an acknowledgment that Outlaw can refer to a "culture of wearing patches" as opposed to one of "breaking the law." Same sentiment here [28]. Yet another editor also tried to tell you that my viewpoint has supporters [29]. But maybe all that's moot, and a whole new debate on whether or not anyone agrees with me seems way too pointlessly meta. Do you like the new compromise? --Dbratland (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we possibly disagree on the level of support suggested by those diffs, but for now let's try to be positive and focus on your proposed change. You seem to have shifted from a position that outlaw has a generally accepted specific meaning in biker culture -- and, again, that's something I know very little about -- to a specific phrase. I think we are agreed that the general understanding of outlaw motorcycle club implies criminality if it does not denote it outright. I'm not trying to argue that this is a correct view, simply that we have no shortage of sources for this view. If you want to add that there is a dissenting, minority view, then we will need to find some solid sources. Thus far I haven't seen one. I am hoping other editors will weigh in on this. Please try to be patient. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Split

Why not split the article into Outlaw motorcycle club for the version you note above and motorcycle gang for the the gangs that are law-breakers? For these purposes, I assume you consider the Hells Angels, Vagos etc to be gangs.--Work permit (talk) 03:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to this idea, but I think the problem is it puts Wikipedia editors in the position of making a final judgment about who are the sheep and who are the goats. I think it's better for Wikipedia to inform readers that this is a topic where there is disagreement and telling readers who says they're criminals and who says they're just weirdos who hang around with criminals. Some of these are in a gray area, like Brother Speed. Multiple law enforcement agencies have them marked as a criminal outlaw gang, but there are no known crimes linked to them.--Dbratland (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the root of the problem here. We have multiple reliable sources which call Brother Speed an outlaw motorcycle gang, yet you persist in arguing about the applicability of the label. Wikipedia is not the place for this argument. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Along with saying law enforcement calls them a criminal gang, it would be fine with me if the page Brother Speed also included the fact that there are not any crimes linked to them. It's an interesting fact.--Dbratland (talk) 04:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, both facts should be cited. --Work permit (talk) 04:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the two articles would focus on two separate issues. One is the subculture of wearing patches, the other the subculture of breaking the law. The problem I suppose would be which article to link hells angels to. Maybe a club by club discussion, linking enough wp:rs to drive consensus for each?--Work permit (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Or link to both? For example, The Brother Speed Motorcycle Club is an outlaw motorcycle club that was formed in Boise, Idaho in 1969..... They are considered by Oregon's Department of Justice to be one of six outlaw motorcycle gangs in the state.--Work permit (talk) 04:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Three piece patch

I for one, question the accuracy of the statement that says only outlaw clubs utilize a three-piece patch, specifically since I belong to a club that wears a three-piece patch, but our membership consists of military and law enforcement. Osirisascending (talk) 04:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That's part what I was getting at in the last sentence of the intro to Motorcycle club, where I cited an interview with club members whose name and insignia ignored outlaw rules. And part of the reason I tagged it for original research and citation needed is the lack of good sources to support the dubious claims that the whole world has to follow outlaw club rules. Over on the Motorcycle club article there is a draft in the works to straighten out some of this, but still needing better sources.

I don't know what the answer is, other than maybe it should say there are some rules that some various kinds of clubs sometimes agree on, and sometimes they don't -- which sounds like weasel words. Sooner or later all of that has to be deleted if sources can't be found, which would be a shame because it's probably kind of correct, in a limited scope.--Dbratland (talk) 05:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to split article

I propose we split the article into Outlaw motorcycle club and outlaw motorcycle gang. The two articles would focus on two separate issues. One is the subculture of wearing patches, the other the subculture of breaking the law. Individual clubs would link to one or the other, with appropriate citations. For example, The Brother Speed Motorcycle Club is an outlaw motorcycle club that was formed in Boise, Idaho in 1969..... They are considered by Oregon's Department of Justice to be one of six outlaw motorcycle gangs in the state.--Work permit (talk) 04:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - The terms "outlaw motorcycle club" and "outlaw motorcycle gang" are generally considered synonymous. This is established by many of the references already in the article, but I will quote a particularly clear and succinct one from The Oregonian yet again: "Police define outlaw motorcycle clubs as gangs that band together, often with bylaws enforced by violence, and periodically commit crimes". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 09:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Question - How would this affect {{OutlawMotorcycleGroups}} and Category:Outlaw motorcycle clubs, Category:Motorcycle clubs and so on? Which categories would the new articles belong in? I think this idea might be worth a try but I'm concerned about how to organize and manage the articles. --Dbratland (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)