| Revision as of 16:09, 10 October 2009 editDelicious carbuncle (talk | contribs)21,054 edits →What more is needed here?: Your veneer of politeness seems to be slipping.← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:34, 10 October 2009 edit undoDennis Bratland (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users61,245 edits →What more is needed here?: once again, please tell us what policy justifys your deletion of the alternate definition of outlaw?Next edit → | ||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
| ::Can you help me find which part of ] 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?--] (]) 15:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC) | ::Can you help me find which part of ] 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?--] (]) 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! ] (]) 16:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC) | :::No, I can't, but that hasn't been done here so it's really a moot point. Happy editing! ] (]) 16:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::::I want to add back the 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 ] (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<ref name=Drew2002>{{Citation |title=The everything motorcycle book: the one book you must have to buy, ride, and maintain your motorcycle|first=A. J. |last=Drew |publisher=Adams Media Corp |year= 2002 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=wWnBPAAACAAJ |isbn=1580625541, 9781580625548 |pages=193-203, 277}}</ref><ref name=Dulaney2002>{{Citation |last=Dulaney |first=William L. |periodical=] |url=http://ijms.nova.edu/November2005/IJMS_Artcl.Dulaney.html |date=November 2005 |title=A Brief History of "Outlaw" Motorcycle Clubs}}</ref><ref>{{Citation |title=The Rebels: a brotherhood of outlaw bikers |first=Daniel R. |last=Wolf |Publisher=University of Toronto Press |year=1992 |ISBN=0802073638, 9780802073631 |page=4 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=mgNRMZAg8N4C&pg=PA4&dq=%22Technically+the+label+outlaw#v=onepage&q=%22Technically%20the%20label%20outlaw&f=false }}</ref><ref>{{Citation | |||
| |title=Bike lust: Harleys, women, and American society |first=Barbara |last=Joans |Publisher=Univ of Wisconsin Press |year=2001 |ISBN=0299173542, 9780299173548|page=15 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=QEeaBjCKJvkC&pg=PA15&dq=%22The+label+outlaw+motorcycle+club&client=firefox-a#v=onepage&q=%22The%20label%20outlaw%20motorcycle%20club&f=false }}</ref><ref>{{Citation |title=Wild ride: how outlaw motorcycle myth conquered America |first= Tom |last=Reynolds |Publisher=TV Books |year=2001 |ISBN=1575001454, 9781575001456 |pages=43-44 }}</ref> supporting it. Where in ] (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 which says, "All Misplaced Pages 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 ] 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"?--] (]) 18:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:34, 10 October 2009
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Outlaw motorcycle club article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
 | Motorcycling C‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
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:
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 Misplaced Pages 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.
- 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 the 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 which says, "All Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)