Talk:Hells Angels

Vague

Talk about a moral panic is too vague to be included in an article like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.217.176 (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Karen Katz is behind the talk about a moral panic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.7.192.143 (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It is also a mater of opinion, and if it is to be included an explanation is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howardhugest (talk • contribs) 19:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you decided to discuss (although you did delete the content again. Convention is that you leave the article as it was until consensus is reached. So what is vauge and opinionated about the statement? It seems quite clear to me. --Biker Biker (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I changed it to specifically say the source was criminologist Karen Katz, and that her assertions were specifically about the Hells Angels drug crimes in Canada. It is a well sourced opinion by a recognized expert in a reliable publication. There are numerous other sources who note that the reaction to biker crimes is out of proportion to their actual impact and frequency, and consider it a classic example of moral panic. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. It is biased, suggesting public reaction to well known crimes committed by the Hell's Angels are not just. The term "moral panic" is controversial in itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howardhugest (talk • contribs) 21:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The appropriate response would be to cite your sources for this controversy. Even if you establish the fact that it is controversial is no reason to keep deleting it. Wikipedia articles are supposed to include significant points of view, even if they are not universally accepted.

It's very clear your edits are not intended to make a better Wikipedia article and if you persist you will very likely be blocked from editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

First of all the club did not launch, Hunter Thompson's career. Secondly, the so called "moral panic" is not unjustifiable. HA are the largest criminal organization in Canada. Ignorance of this fact is not an excuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howardhugest (talk • contribs) 22:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, that was fun, and for his efforts Howardhugest (talk · contribs) has now gained a permanent exclusion from Wikipedia. I suspect he will be back, that type always is. In the meantime an article has gained a bit of attention from other editors so perhaps we can look forward to some constructive editing and some new sources on the article. Thanks everyone. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The name

But it doesn't say why Hells Angels isn't called "Hell's Angels"?... I'm curious about that. :-) --95.34.149.128 (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Their website has some information on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.13.91 (talk) 10:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe they just don't know the difference?

The latest edition of their web-site speaks on the subject.

They say this is important to you but not to them.

Contradictions in membership section

This section says: "To become a full member, the Prospect must be voted on unanimously by the rest of the full club members." But then later seems to contradict that saying "Successful admission usually requires more than a simple majority, and some clubs may reject a Prospect for a single dissenting vote." Either it is unanimity or it isn't. Which? Valenciano (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow. You live in a black and white world. Some of the rest of us can appreciate shades of gray; many of my brothers and I see the world in Technicolor. Let me try to answer in a way that might make a bit of sense for you. It depends on which club; in this case we are talking Hells Angels, it depends on which chapter, and it depends on which time period. Some outlaw clubs used to just require a majority vote, others had/have different rules. People always make the mistake of looking at clubs the way they do a large corporation with a top down hierarchical structure, i.e. a National President being the equivalent of a CEO or corporate President. In actuality, most clubs started out, and some remain, more like an Assembly of First Nations, where they as a larger entity have many common goals and purposes, but each chapter has a certain degree of regional autonomy, again, depending on which club you are talking about (i.e. Hells Angels in this case), and what time period. Compare, for example, Hells Angels club structure of the mid-fifties where, for example, Frisco and Oakland operated quite differently from each other, to now, when, after several decades of influence from leaders such as Sonny Barger, power has been concentrated somewhat more as the club has grown in size, and as the club moved from relatively independent chapters sharing a logo and brotherhood, with some involvement in what one might refer to as disorganized crime, into a large, global, well organized criminal organization, but still with great regional autonomy, especially when looking at charters in different cities, states, provinces, nations. Take Quebec, for example. Please. Garth of the Forest (talk) 06:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)