Dennis Bratland (talk | contribs) →What more is needed here?: I think mediation or arbitration is inevitable. |
Delicious carbuncle (talk | contribs) rm attempt to continue OR debate, please discuss this on your own talk page or off-wiki, thanks |
||
Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
::::::::::::::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. --[[User:Dbratland|Dbratland]] ([[User talk:Dbratland|talk]]) 22:26, 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. --[[User:Dbratland|Dbratland]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Delicious carbuncle|Delicious carbuncle]] ([[User talk:Delicious carbuncle|talk]]) 22:45, 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. [[User:Delicious carbuncle|Delicious carbuncle]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|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.--[[User:Dbratland|Dbratland]] ([[User talk:Dbratland|talk]]) 23:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==Three piece patch== |
==Three piece patch== |
Revision as of 23:19, 12 October 2009
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[citation needed], 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.[1][2]
- ^ 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
{{citation}}
: Check|isbn=
value: invalid character (help)- ^ Dulaney, William L. (November 2005), "A Brief History of "Outlaw" Motorcycle Clubs", International Journal of Motorcycle Studies
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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[1][2][3][4][5] 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.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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?
- 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)
- 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...
- 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)
- 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, William L. (November 2005), "A Brief History of "Outlaw" Motorcycle Clubs", International Journal of Motorcycle Studies Quote...
- 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.
- 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?
- 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)
- 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 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)
- 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 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)
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)
- ^ 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
{{citation}}
: Check|isbn=
value: invalid character (help) - ^ Dulaney, William L. (November 2005), "A Brief History of "Outlaw" Motorcycle Clubs", International Journal of Motorcycle Studies
- ^ Wolf, Daniel R. (1992), The Rebels: a brotherhood of outlaw bikers, p. 4, ISBN 0802073638, 9780802073631
{{citation}}
: Check|isbn=
value: invalid character (help); Unknown parameter|Publisher=
ignored (|publisher=
suggested) (help) - ^ Joans, Barbara (2001), Bike lust: Harleys, women, and American society, p. 15, ISBN 0299173542, 9780299173548
{{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
{{citation}}
: Check|isbn=
value: invalid character (help); Unknown parameter|Publisher=
ignored (|publisher=
suggested) (help)