Talk:Motorcycle club

message: The term "MC" is rather loaded -- it can imply a 1% club, but this article is supposed to be about all motorcycle clubs, organizations, groups or whatever you call them.  It includes brand owners clubs.   Patriot Guard Riders is unquestionably a motorcycle oriented group, even if a bike isn't a membership requirement.  Lots of brand fan clubs allow anyone to join too, whether they have a bike or not.  And PGR has a discrete membership roster, and the main thing they do is ride, specifically at funerals and other occasions.  So of course they should be mentioned in this article.
What would help a lot if is if this article wasn't so focued on outlaw clubs, making it seem like that is what this page is about.  Removing PGR makes that worse, in fact.--Dbratland (talk) 03:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A club earns their right to wear their patch out law or not. A organization buys their patch. There is a big difference.  --Softail99fb (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are both right; because you are referencing two different sets of values. To a member of a motorcycle club whose members wear the three piece patch, Softtail99fb's point of view is valid - it is a viewpoint held by members of that subculture. The patch is a prized possession that cannot be purchased, it can only be earned. However, to most members of the mainstream public the three words are almost interchangeable. I would even suggest that the word "gang" is almost interchangable with the other three as well - except that the modern usage of the word "gang" has a more negative connotation. The disagreement stems from the fact that there are so many riders out there who want a "tough guy" image - who want to be identified with the subculture - but who haven't earned it, so they try to buy it instead. Modern Boozefighters being prime examples. As far as ownership of the phrase "motorcycle club" of course no one "owns" the phrase. However, I would caution a bunch of motorcycle riders from grouping together, making up their own three piece patch, using the letters "MC" on it, and flying a lower rocker for their state or province in an area where one of the big four or their puppets operate. If you doubt this advice, try doing so and then ride on down to the local watering hole that has the most Harleys in front of it, and see how long it takes until you are offered a heaping helping from the knuckle sandwich buffet. Garth of the Forest (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Did you notice the article actually cites evidence of non-outlaw and non-MCC type clubs that in fact use the initials MC, or use a 3 piece patch?  Listen to the NPR radio interview that was cited, for example.  It's probably true that some MCs will harass or intimidate you for violating one of their rules (or for just looking at them), but Wikipedia needs to be careful not to believe everything these clubs say about themselves.  They make up a lot of nonsense and pretend it's fact, they like to play hoaxes, and they try very hard to stage manage their media image.  As I've said elsewhere, the bottom line is that there is nothing special about WP articles on motorcycle clubs/gangs/groups/whatever you call them.  We need only follow WP:5, WP:V, WP:COMMONNAME, etc. etc., and if secondary sources have something to say about the importance of acronyms like MC or MCC, or the symbolism of various patches and colors, then we should say what those secondary sources say.  It's no different than editing an article about geography or plants or politics or whatever.--Dbratland (talk) 19:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patriot Guard Riders 

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

message: Who cares?  A club is a group is an organization.  It's pedantic hair splitting.
Yes, I'm well aware that certain "outlaw" clubs think they own the words "motorcycle club".  But they don't.--Dbratland (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A club earns their right to wear their patch out law or not. A organization buys their patch. There is a big difference.  --Softail99fb (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are both right; because you are referencing two different sets of values. To a member of a motorcycle club whose members wear the three piece patch, Softtail99fb's point of view is valid - it is a viewpoint held by members of that subculture. The patch is a prized possession that cannot be purchased, it can only be earned. However, to most members of the mainstream public the three words are almost interchangeable. I would even suggest that the word "gang" is almost interchangable with the other three as well - except that the modern usage of the word "gang" has a more negative connotation. The disagreement stems from the fact that there are so many riders out there who want a "tough guy" image - who want to be identified with the subculture - but who haven't earned it, so they try to buy it instead. Modern Boozefighters being prime examples. As far as ownership of the phrase "motorcycle club" of course no one "owns" the phrase. However, I would caution a bunch of motorcycle riders from grouping together, making up their own three piece patch, using the letters "MC" on it, and flying a lower rocker for their state or province in an area where one of the big four or their puppets operate. If you doubt this advice, try doing so and then ride on down to the local watering hole that has the most Harleys in front of it, and see how long it takes until you are offered a heaping helping from the knuckle sandwich buffet. Garth of the Forest (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Did you notice the article actually cites evidence of non-outlaw and non-MCC type clubs that in fact use the initials MC, or use a 3 piece patch?  Listen to the NPR radio interview that was cited, for example.  It's probably true that some MCs will harass or intimidate you for violating one of their rules (or for just looking at them), but Wikipedia needs to be careful not to believe everything these clubs say about themselves.  They make up a lot of nonsense and pretend it's fact, they like to play hoaxes, and they try very hard to stage manage their media image.  As I've said elsewhere, the bottom line is that there is nothing special about WP articles on motorcycle clubs/gangs/groups/whatever you call them.  We need only follow WP:5, WP:V, WP:COMMONNAME, etc. etc., and if secondary sources have something to say about the importance of acronyms like MC or MCC, or the symbolism of various patches and colors, then we should say what those secondary sources say.  It's no different than editing an article about geography or plants or politics or whatever.--Dbratland (talk) 19:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: What's the difference between a club and group and an organization?

message: See Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles.  I would reason that the most important cultural references already have articles, such as The Wild One and links to those articles are more than sufficient.  The rest needs to go.--Dbratland (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "In Popular Culture" is a synonym for "trivia". Proxy User (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why  not delete the popculture section? 

message: The most notable parts of the IPC section are actually redundant. The Wild One is already mentioned earlier in the article.  Easy Rider has nothing to do with motorcycle clubs of any kind.  It's two guys who ride motorcycles, and there isn't so much as a hint that they are members of any type of MC.   
The more relevant Discovery Channel documentaries are cited in this article or in related articles.  Same with Hunter S Thompson's books and Sonny Barger's and so on. What kind of circular logic cites a book or documentary in the article, then makes same source into the subject of the "In Popular Culture" section? 
The rest of it is a list of trivia that grows longer by the day.
Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles gives good reasons why keeping this material is not constructive  Alternatively, as WP:IPC suggests a separate article Motorcycle clubs in popular culture should be created to help maintain the quality of Motorcycle club.  --Dbratland (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "In Popular Culture" is a synonym for "trivia". Proxy User (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any objections to deleting the entire In Popular Culture section? 

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

message: Section was removed without discussion. Is that good or bad? Proxy User (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give a link to the diff for the lazy? tedder (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just tracked it down here.  It needs more sources but I think they can be found. --Dbratland (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there are pros and cons to the section. I noticed it was gone but don't feel very qualified to defend or criticize it. Clearly someone thinks the is such a thing, but I've seen discussion here that there is no such thing... Just thought I'd point out it had vanished. If it's a figment of imagination, then I suppose it ads no value. Proxy User (talk) 04:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 99 Percenters

message: I haven't heard a whole lot of feedback on the proposed revisions in these two workpages:
* Talk:Motorcycle club/workpage 
* Talk:Outlaw motorcycle club/workpage 
Please get in there and make any changes in these you think are important, or speak up if you don't want to see Motorcycle club split apart with the outlaw stuff moved to Outlaw motorcycle club (currently it redirects).  It would be so much easier if anyone wanted to complain to do it now rather than later. Thanks!--Dbratland (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice work. Well thought out. My only thought is that there may be a need for a "disambiguation page" because people looking for Outlaw Motorcycle Club may end up at Motorcycle Club and assume that's all there is. I really think this will please a lot of folks (even though no one has commented). It makes sense. Some people will dispute inclusion in one group or another, but by and large, the major Outlaw clubs are happy with that designation, and the non-outlaw groups resent the association. Good show. =//= Proxy User (talk) 06:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: This article does not address the obvious negative perception that biker clubs have. I believe it is deserved but that is just a belief. Without addressing the issue this article is pure PR. 75.173.11.122 (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read the section Motorcycle club#MCs and MCCs? Is there more that you'd wish to add to it? The main article on outlaw clubs is Outlaw motorcycle club. Another article, Motorcycle hooliganism, deals with loosely organized and non-organized anti-social behavior while riding motorcycles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is about facts, not opinions. Generalities about perceptions are not facts.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.187.17 (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure who told you that, but that's not the case. Advocacy or propaganda is not allowed, but as the WP:NOTOPINION policy says, "An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." Opinions can be as encyclopedic as "facts". Many disputes have one side saying the other side's "facts" are actually opinions, and vice versa. There's no simple rule for knowing what is a fact and what is an opinion. Instead, Wikipedia has several strategies for sorting these things, and giving them varying degrees of emphasis. This is explained at WP:WEIGHT and WP:OPINION. Broader advice is at Wikipedia:Describing points of view and Wikipedia:Writing better articles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elephant in the room