Talk:Bandidos Motorcycle Club

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Support Clubs[edit]

I deleted the section on the "Los Perros" support club. I've never heard of them. That's not to say they don't exist. They might. I've lost track of all the support clubs out there. They are certainly not the largest or the oldest. Support clubs are an important part of the organization though. Perhaps there should be some words on them. They can be roughly divided into three groups, American, European, and Asian. I'm not sure how to handle this without it turning into a list. Thoughts? War (talk) 06:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

ive never heard of "Los Perros" either. There are so many support clubs out there, it would be way too many to list and probably somewhat impossible. One note that I would like to bring up though is the fact there are different types of support clubs. A true support club, or "farm" clubs as they are called around Dallas/Fort Worth, are clubs that have been created by the bandidos or a club seeked that status and won it from the bandidos. they usually operate out of the same club house, wear reverse colors, and have a huge circle support patch to indicate that "true" support club status. on the other hand, there are some clubs that are forced to support the bandidos or be disbanded. they are forced to wear a "citizens bar". its a rectangular patch that says "i support my local bandidos". sometimes there are clubs that ask to wear the citizens bar to stay neutral with the bandidos and some seek the support status but do not get it, so they are offered to wear the citizens bar. so i would have to say that there are some clubs that would be considered "supporters" by law enforcement but they are so because of intimidation or have a fear of being seen as rivals, so they wear a support patch. its another way for the 1%ers to enforce their will on other clubs and demand respect. other clubs want the approval because they believe in the bandidos cause. another last note is that many bikers that seek membership in the bandidos will often have to prospect with a support club first, do their time in that club and then prospect for the actual bandidos second. this way the bandidos can keep tabs on a person and at the same time keep them at a distance just in case they are law enforcement agents. if they do good in the support club after a year or two and they can be trusted, then they will be asked to prospect for the bandidos. thats why they are called "farm" clubs, kinda like the baseball term, many players will have to play minor league, before they hit the majors.65.68.204.184 (talk) 05:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)j.crowson november 10 2008

Support Clubs are not "forced" to do anything.They are NOT "puppets" or "ducks". They are a voluntary level of participation in social events, ideologies, and lifestyle according to physical, financial and chronogical ability. They are "required" to do nothing, legal or illegal. Much of what is read in these things is little more than law enforcements' onesided lies and propaganda and needs to be viewed with that scepticism in mind. Always consider the source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.112.54 (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a very valid point and a nuance well worth making. I have been troubled by the use of the term "puppet" or "duck" in referring to these clubs. These terms tend to be used by law enforcement and media to refer to support clubs in general. I am quite sure they would be viewed as derogatory terms (not unlike the discussion around the use of the word "gang") to members of those clubs. An additional distinction needs to be made as well. Was the support club formed specifically to be a "buffer" between the alpha club and the activities of the support club, as in the case of the Rockers MC in Quebec? Or did the club exist long before becoming a support club of the larger club, as in the case of the Grim Reapers in Alberta (now HA)? It might be accurate, however derogatory, to refer to the Rockers as a "puppet club" since they were created for the express purpose of supporting the Hells Angels in Quebec, but it is very inaccurate to refer to a regional club that was independent for decades, that is (or was) allied with a larger club, as a "puppet club". Garth of the Forest (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Archive[edit]

I've archived the talk up to 16 November here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmoyer (talkcontribs) 23:12, 16 November 2007‎ (UTC)

External Links[edit]

The book "Out In Bad Standings; Inside The Bandidos Motorcycle Club" listed in the "external links" is nothing more than link spam. It is not the best non-fiction print source, it's not even an "OK" source, it has consistently received sub par reviews at Amazon, and serves no other purpose than to raise the author's site in the Search Engine Optimization standings. Proxy User (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

People watch this space enough to chew my ass inside 2 hours if I put a POV tag up, I'm going to have to assume that lack of objections means I can delete the link. Honestly people, it's a wayyyyy substandard link that is almost certainly "link spam". So, voice your opinion now or watch it fly fly away. Proxy User (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I agree that it can be delinked, but given that it's one of the few books about the Bandidos, I would put the book in a "see also" section sans the link. Mmoyer (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
If it *must* be linked, linking to the Amazon listing provides a lot more information about the book, which as awful. But in my opinion, listing a book simply because it is one of a few is not really a good reason when it is a low quality book to begin with. Proxy User (talk) 05:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The books quality is up to the reader to determine. The book was written by a member of the club and is about the club, therefore it is relevant, regardless of quality (which is subjective). Just my opinion. Mmoyer (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I concede you're right, this book should be listed. I'm surprised that there are not more / better books or well researched articles available, The Bandidos are not exactly some small unknown Outlaw Biker gang. Proxy User (talk) 00:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

POV tag[edit]

My standard paste:

This concerns POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. From WP tag policy: Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag.

I'm just passing through on tag cleanup, but I'm not going to remove it here. I will point out that the above quote is from the WP policy pages on neutrality. And I will also point out that if one actually READS those pages they will find that simply saying, "I dispute that" is not enough. You must state reasons and recommendations for improvement. This is not an opinion, it is WP policy. Merely saying you don't like it or disagree is NOT a "POV dispute". We agree to disagree, here. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. Jjdon (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Club minor update:

made slight change in wording to reflect correctly were the 'cookie' is worn on the colors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xabachay (talkcontribs) 21:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Also often called a 'bullseye'.War (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I've readded the POV tag. *I* dispute the objectivity of this article, which clearly minimalizes the criminal nature (as well established by history as documented in the news media) of this "club". This is not a "fan" page, it is supposed to be an objective article about this -organization- which is clearly criminal in nature. There are several editors that seem to have bias and I suspect onflict of interestes due to personal relationships. It is inappropriate for people with such relationships to edit. The whole article is a mess, and nothing more than a Vanity Page for this so-called "club". It ***MUST*** be cleaned up. It is an insult to the "objectivity" of Wikipedia to have this kind of fanboi page for a biker gang. Sad. Very sad...
You must be more specific one what you object to. Your POV appears to be that the club in criminal in nature and the it's "obvious". I think an objective view is to look at the thousands of members with no records versus the relatively small number of multi-member criminal convictions. It paints a pretty clear picture. The vast majority of criminal activity is from people acting alone. This is no different than the bad cops in law enforcement, the pedafile priests in the Catholic church, or the steady stream of gov't curruption scandals. It's easy to be jaded and think that it represent the state of the whole. War (talk) 08:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
"Thousands of members with no records versus the relatively small number of multi-member criminal convictions"? Can you back that up with references? Sources? The sources I've provided seem to disagree. Proxy User (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

yep. it's just math. find as many references as you like, then subtract the number of members law enforcement claims there are. There you go. If you like you can look it up and learn about it here: Subtraction War (talk) 11:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You're the one making the assertion. You can’t back it up with facts because it’s not true. Have a nice day. Proxy User (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Club versus Gang[edit]

A couple of users (User:Proxy_User, User:War) are edit-warring about whether this is a gang or club. Please stop; instead, please discuss it here so we may reach a CONSENSUS on which it should be listed as. Tedder (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to discuss it. However, there is already a discuss on this issue on Motorcycle club that pretty much handles this issue. (It is the link in question that is being editted anyway). I also think it's up to the person that wants to change a designation to justify that change. For example, if I change "Federal Bureu of Investigation" to "Federal Bozos Inc". I better have a good reason for doing so. It's up to the editor to justify the change...which Poxy User has not done. I consider his work here to be vandalism otherwise.War (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
You are talking about this discussion. Good point. So that is the consensus- club should not be changed to gang. I'm with you now. Tedder (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
No, there is not a consensus. I disagree. Established reliable and trusted sources classify the Bandidos as a gang. This is *NOT* to say all motorcycle clubs are more accurately described as "gangs", however *THIS* club (along with several others) meet all the qualifiers for a "gang". Thus it is inaccurate not to classify it as such here. This is not the Bandidos fan page or personal history page; they have their own web site for whatever POV they would like to distribute. Furthermore, I wonder if it's appropriate for users who have WP:CONFLICT to edit this article at all - though this is a secondary issue. Proxy User (talk) 08:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I have no conflict of interest. The consensus I'm talking about was reached on the Motorcycle club discussion page (linked above). One disagreement doesn't change a consensus. Please stop reverting without providing a good reason. Tedder (talk) 11:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Consensus reached with respect to some other article is irrelevant here. There is, here with respect to *THIS* article, no consensus. In any case, it's impossible dispute that this group fulfills a number of the necessary qualities of a "gang" as discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang. Do you dispute the Wikipedia article on gangs as well? Proxy User (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Let me see if I have this right...you claim one article supports your POV but another should not be used against it. Wierd. Please get you argument straight.War (talk) 00:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
That the Bandidos are a gang is well accepted by everyone (including authorities on the subject) except Badidos associates and wanna-be's. You have a responsibility to disclose your conflict of interest. Which are you? Proxy User (talk) 06:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I have no conflict of interest. I am not a member of any OMC, nor do I want to be, nor am any kind of associate. I have the benefit of many years of experiance is all. Years of experiance means meeting and getting to know many people on both side of the fence. I know Bandidos. I know Hell's Angels. I know Mongols. I know police officers. Knowing people gives a window into thier world, but I don't live in it. This is no different than my contribution to Titanium Alloys, which I also have many years experiance with. In short, I'm not interested in what "everyone knows" or what the gov't decided to call something. I make up my own mind based on the evidence. And so far you have provided virtually no argument for your point of view.
I think we're still waiting for you to provide a rational argument for your stance.War (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment I believe consensus is not reached when the discussion involves only three persons and that the ratio is 2:1.
Change to gang per Proxy User In any case, I would have to stand by Proxy User because he has provided five sources as evidence to his claim. To my understanding from Motorcycle club#Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs, Bandidos is regarded as a gang. Sorry if I get this wrong (I know nothing about motorcycle clubs/gangs/whatever), but people are inclined towards those who have solid proof(s) to their claims. With this said, it's 2 against 2 - once again, I'd like to emphasise that consensus is not reached. — Yurei-eggtart 07:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The fact is, it is also racist to suggest that while there are black and Hispanic gangs, there is no such thing as a motorcycle gang (predominantly white with notable exceptions). User War and his associates have suggested exactly this. Proxy User (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The sources Proxy User provided are bogus. Try this: do a google search for "Bandidos Motorcycle Gang". You will get 3,310 hits. Now try "Bandidos Motorcycle Club". You will be get 9,730 hits. This suggests by a landslide that "Club" is the correct designation. I'm sure I could find in those nearly 10 thousand links a few that are just as relevant as the one's Proxy User found. He cherry picked to support is POV is all.War (talk) 06:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh and I completely agree that 2 out of 3 does not a concensus make. Furthur, I believe that that does not give the 1 any leverage to change what an organization calls itself. Exspecially when the change is pejorative.War (talk) 07:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Official reports from both the US and Canadian government are "bogus"? Numerous reports in the press are "bogus"? You've got an obvious POV that conflicts with the facts. As to what an organization calls itself, they can call themselves what ever they want, it doesn't make it any more true (certainly, they can call themselves whatever they want, but Wikipedia is about facts, not POV opinion). Also, with respect to a Google search, Google is the Wikipedia arbiter of fact? If Google says so, it's so? Maybe you should review Wikipedia standards for sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Random Google linkies don't seem to be on the list, though official government documents and respected news sources do seem to qualify quite well...
It is not surprising that a criminal gang would like to avoid having such a label, the Italian Mafia used to insist they were harmless "social clubs". That the Bandidos dislike being known as a gang does not change the facts, and describing them as such is not pejorative when it is factual. The Bandidos have a known criminal history that is completely consistent and meets all the points of definition as a gang. Now, as to you, it is improper for a person with a conflict of interest to edit an article in the fashion that you have. You also need to consider your activities with this article with respect to WP:OWN. Proxy User (talk) 07:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Finally we are getting somewhere. Thank you for taking the time to explain your point of view. I think your main argument is that the feds call it a gang therefore it is a gang. Is this correct or did I miss something? Do you have any other evidence or is this it? War (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Not so at all. "The Feds" (is that what they call them in Canada as well? The Canadians have your gang dialed in) certainly have a persuasive document. However, the free news press from around the world also describe the factual activities of your gang. Also, your edits, when taken in the context of the whole over the subject show clear bias to minimize the true nature of this group, and your bais connections to it. The fact is that news media and government sources tend to say the opposite of what you say. Wikipedia is not your soap box for your gang. This artical should be an honest and factual description of the Bandidos Motorcycle Club gang. Your POV bias edits stand in the way of that. Please review WP:OWN, WP:CONFLICT and WP:SOURCE. Proxy User (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
It's so incredible difficult to seperate your facts from your assumptions from your personal attacks. Please just present your evidence so everyone can make an informed decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by War (talkcontribs) 10:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I've read the report you cited earlier from the Canadian Gov't. Have you read it? Have you read the the previous reports? If you read them you'll see that they are mostly cut-n-paste copies of previous reports, time after time. They also make claims but don't back them up with evidence. Therefore I have a hard time taking them very seriously...and you should too.
As far as WP:OWN, WP:CONFLICT and WP:SOURCE goes. Sounds like the kettle is calling the pot black. All I've asked from the beginning is that you discuss your claims and that you cite your sources. That is bias?! Indeed it is. So far I'm still waiting for you to make you pov clear without the all the other pointless junk.War (talk) 10:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You make an awful lot of demands, yet you are in no position to do so. I myself have no facts at all (that would be original research, wouldn't it?), but there are a number of reliable sources that classify the Bandidos as a gang, and you can find these as the sources I list for my edits. Now, once again, perhaps you need to more fully understand WP:OWN? And for as much as you protest, you provide no substantive argument in favor of your view. Neither do you show that there is any factual issue with my sources, your comments here constitute hyperventilating and foot stamping but lack anything that contradicts the content of the sources I have cited with actual facts and sources that contradict them in any meaningful way. Proxy User (talk) 11:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

As I already pointed out... most of the arguments the rebut you points are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Motorcycle_club. I could cut-n-paste them but that seems like a waste of time and space. We're still waiting on you to support your point of view. BTW: when I say "argument" I mean argument. Not a personal attack.War (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I can not change the general bias against reality shown in the article you mention (though in fact, the Mororcycle Gang section tends to support my edits), and at any rate it is irrelevant. The facts of this article stand on their own. I have provided absolutely acceptable sources that fill all the requirements of reliable, established, and legitimate sources for Wikipedia. Your "argument" (such that it is) is for an unsupported personal opinion.
As to your comment in the edit history "revert vandalism disguised as source material", that is clearly POV bullshit. My sources are both government reports and respected news organizations, source types that are extensivly accepted and used at Wikipedia, and they are not "disguised" as anyhting but what they are: valid sources for accurate information. It seems as though you would like to have it both ways: Follow the rules as far as references and sources, but only if they agree with your POV. How disingenuous. Proxy User (talk) 04:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop reverting/undoing this article[edit]

User:Proxy User, User:War, I've added WP:3RR to both of your user talk pages. You have been fighting over this article for a long time now. Please do not revert the article further, even if it is changed by other editors. Leave it as it stands now and wait until a consensus is reached. This isn't a matter of POV, or ownership, or conflict of interest. It is simply an edit war at this point. Tedder (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2008 (ETC)

Reverting vandalism is perfectly legitimate, and well continue as necessary. Proxy User (talk) 04:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
According to the edit summaries, each of you is of the opinion that the other's edits are "vandalism". Odds are that, when this kind of situation arises, both such opinions are wrong. I'd advise talking it out peacefully and agreeing what to do before going back to it. A source of dubious or debatable quality is not "vandalism disguised as sources"; vandalism is useless edits like this. --tiny plastic Grey Knight 15:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Official documents of two different governments and numerous well regarded news organizations are not "dubious". Such types of sources are used throughout Wikipedia. The argument that User:War is using is exactly the same argument that the Italian Mafia used for years. No criminal organization likes to be publicly shamed with accurate descriptions of their nature, because their nature is not honorable and the know it; it's embarrassing. None the less, the facts point to "Motorcycle Gang" as an accurate description of the Bandidos.
But I guess I disagree that removing sourced material and replacing it with unsourced POV is not vandalism. Ah well... Proxy User (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Gang / Club[edit]

I give up any objections to referring to the Bandidos as a club rather than the gang they are. While I have won that battle here, it is unlikly that I can push that view on to the other Motercycle Gang articles, and I concede there should be consistency. Also I would like to promote more good natured editing associated with my account. Therefore, if War wishes to revert my edit on this point, I have no objections. Proxy User (talk) 08:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

My position is that you won nothing...but that is beside the point. I'm taking my hands off this article for awhile. I want to see how it evolves. I want to see if anyone else steps up to keep it honest, balance, and unbiased. So please, someone else jump in and fix it. The most obvious error is the "gang" reference. Proxy User is right in that if it persists here then it must also be in place in other MC articles. Most other MCs have a much larger and broader history of crime activities so it's a bit backwards right now.War (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, that being the case, I've had a change of mind, I'm very encouraged. I'm going to have to put together well sourced arguments for the other Motorcycle Gangs on my list. Thanks. Proxy User (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Club membership[edit]

Please tell the average joe how to become a bandidos back in my home town there where pisterilos and they claimed they were full and couldn't take new members so would you please tell me how to become one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.253.244 (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Opinion of one group and THE FACTS of THE BANDIDOS MOTORCYCLE CLUB...[edit]

I am new to this, so I will keep this short and sweet.

I am confused to the fact that some one has filled in a description of THE BANDIDOS MOTORCYCLE CLUB and they have never even talked to a Bandido...How does that make sence??? You can not describe a quarter if you do not look at both sides of it. This goes with every organization in the world. I am sure if I wanted to do a DESCRIPTION and HISTORY of the POLICE, I could find more than enough article to suppor that they are all baby rapers and sex offenders. Think about that. Does that mean that the entire police department does this, NO. So why would you classify every Bandido under one name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.248.202.142 (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello. One of the foundations of Wikipedia is to cite sources. If you come across facts in Wikipedia that are wrong (or even facts that are right!), find some reliable sources, then change the information, listing your new sources. In general, though, the banditos are classified as a gang by the media. tedder (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

First off, TEDDER, you spell Bandidos with a "t". WRONG Please do not use the media as a source, for one thing, you have threee different types of media, Left Wing, Right Wing, and those that are totally controlled by the government. That just tells me that you are using a source that has it's own opinion. How is that right? okcdozer 18 March 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 15:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC).

That' sjust how Wikipedia works. We do not develop our own opinions, do not do original research, we aren't scientists, sociologists or journalists, and we aren't insiders with exclusive knowledge. We just present the official points of view and some important minority votes. If you want do see your very own "insider knowledge" here, write a good book or article that can be published by a serious editor and we will cite it.--JakobvS (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Rivals?[edit]

The Bandidos MC is not rivals of the Outlaws MC or the Mongols MC. They have a very good realtionship with both and even consider the Outlaws MC to be a cousin club. They also co-own a bar in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.8.76 (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, but we need reliable sources. tedder (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Bandidos Mc has no "rivals." They have an open relationship with all "clubs." Please show where you have a "reliable source" that states that the Bandidos MC has any rivals. As for the Outlaws and Mongols, they have an open relationship with both of these clubs. Again, please show proof of anything different... And by the way "I am" a reliable source, because I have interacted with both of these clubs personally!!!!! okcdozer (okcdozer) 18 March 2009

Wikipedia requires reliable sources, which means they must be verifiable. Claiming expertise is not enough- see WP:COS. tedder (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I Wikipedia "requires" a reliable sources, please show me in writing where the Bandidos have claimed these clubs as rivals... okcdozer (okcdozer)

The source need not be the Bandidos themselves. The reliable source can be someone / something else. Yes, yes, yes, I know, the Bandidos are just a misunderstood community organization that distributes toys to disadvantages children... At least that's the line User:War was pushing awhile back. Proxy User (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Again, you are confused on your facts. Can we please have editors that know something about the articles they aggressively edit?? The Hells Angels are usually the ones the claim toy runs.[1] So, no...I don't claim...and never have (get you facts right) that the Bandidos distribute toys. Misunderstood? Absolutely... in the same way ANY organization that is secretive is misunderstand. Keep up the good and not so good work. I'm enjoying the show.War (talk) 07:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, the bottom line is that most reasonable and unbiased people understand that biker gangs in general, particularly those at or near the top of the pecking order, are criminal organizations. In any case, as you are associated with the Bandidos, perhaps instead of taking this section off-topic, you might expand on the subject of Bandidos "rivals". Above it was suggested that the Bandidos have no "rivals", though violence between the Bandidos and several other biker gangs is well documented, so I think in fact they do have "rivals". Proxy User (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
First off, I'm not associated with the Bandidos. But on the topic of "rivals"...that's a pretty complicated topic. The more I think about it the more it could probably make an entire article in itself. Rivalry between MC's in general has a long, and as you have pointed out, sorded history. Unfortunately, this is another topic for which references are difficult, if not impossible to obtain. Also, the relationships between MC's are constantly shifing and vary by region. For example, the Pagans MC and the Warlocks MC used to be "rivals" for the state of Florida. Are they today? Not really. Concerning Tedder's remarks. He is correct. But I think the term "rivals" misses the point completely. In the MC world there is are people the clubs consider to be friends ... and then there is everyone else. The Bandidos consider many clubs to be friends but that does not mean that everyone else is a rival.War (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
"Rivalries" between "notable" biker gangs such as the Bandidos and smaller "clubs" and between smaller "clubs" themselves amy shift, but the relationships between the Big Boys are for the most part known quantities. For example the Bandidos and the Angels (Interestingly, the Über Angels stay out of Texas because they know the Bandidos "own" texas and would beat their ass...). A discussion of the relationship between the Bandidos and the other notable "clubs" might be interesting indeed, and I don't see why a very abbreviated discussion should take more than a long paragraph (we need not cover all the little wanna-be / fanboy "clubs")
But I think the term "rivals" misses the point completely. In the MC world there is are people the clubs consider to be friends ... and then there is everyone else.
You're talking in semantics no one else is interested in. To most people, you have just described a "rivalry". I suppose I could do the research myself, if no one else is up to it... -//- Proxy User (talk) 04:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

s

Source Material[edit]

Interesting document here: http://cryptome.org/gangs/bandidos.pdf Might make good source material for this article. Proxy User (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Secondary Colors Image[edit]

Is there some purpose in a second image of the Bandidos "colors" when one already exists in the Info Box? Proxy User (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

References[edit]

  1. ^ http://www.motorcyclemonster.com/Events/description_pages/12-17-06-hells-angels-toy.htm

Accuracy dispute[edit]

Oh Please get your History straight on the Bandidos.Don Chambers was never in the Veitnam War.The colors did not come from the marines.It was the coral snake.The Bandidos did not start in S.A. Texas or San Leon,Texas It was in Houston.San Leon is were he went to a musem to study the Mexican Bandidos. He was the founder of this club March 4th 1966. And in the begining bandidos were spelled with a T he changed it when the FriTo lays came out with the little Bandito on the easer in the Frito packages.I know this because I'm his Daughter Donna Chambers

I just finshed setting his Headstone of what he wanted after 10years of pure hell from this club Gee the one he created which not be here if not for my Father. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.166.20 (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you share verifiable sources for this? It's important to understand that Wikipeida will only reflect what reliable and veritable sources say, regardless of what you know to be true. It might be helpful to read WP:Truth to understand that Wikipedia is not the place to look for "truth" about anything. That's not what Wikipedia is about. See also WP:5 for a more general explanation of what Wikipedia does.

If you still feel this article is causing harm, please read Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) and also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help. From what I can tell, the the accuracy of the facts about how the Bandidtos were founded or where the colors came from is not going to damage any living people; they are just historical facts which natrually are subject to debate. If you disagree and feel someone is being harmed, please explain. Thanks!--Dbratland (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

having lived in the clearlake area san leon(20) yrs I knew alot of the old guard most of whom are gone like don johnny (JJ) jefferson An d i can tell you for a fact on his wall till his death in the mid 90s JJ had an ORIGINAL CHarter signed by 13 members includiong don jj shorty echols (who i believe may still live in deer park the date on the charter (hand written) was aug 15 1964 I would bet his widow pam ar pat I dont remember after peggy died who he married but i lived with jj for quite awhile and my wife took care Home nursed peggy until she died

and you get yours straight eye witness having lived in the clearlake area san leon(20) yrs I knew alot of the old guard most of whom are gone like don johnny (JJ) jefferson An d i can tell you for a fact on his wall till his death in the mid 90s JJ had an ORIGINAL CHarter signed by 13 members includiong don jj shorty echols (who i believe may still live in deer park the date on the charter (hand written) was aug 15 1964 I would bet his widow pam ar pat I dont remember after peggy died who he married but i lived with jj for quite awhile and my wife took care Home nursed peggy until she died — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicbyd (talkcontribs) 22:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Could be true or not, is not reliable. You understand that? And others as well: if you have insider knowledge, don't take it to Wikipedia, take it to a publisher, then some day Wikipedia will cite it.--JakobvS (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Asians[edit]

According to this: http://www.bandidosmc.dk/ there is a "Probationary Chapter" in Thailand, thus one assumes that Asians can become Bandidos. Indeed, there are numerous photos at that site of Asians wearing Bandido colors. This being so, I've added "Asian" to the "Ethnic Profile" in the side box. =//= Proxy User (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Houston, Texas[edit]

The Bandidos Motorcycle Club was founded on March 4, 1966 in Houston, Texas... Not San Leon, Texas... San Leon is the town, where he went to study mexican bandidos... By the way, bandidos was also spelled with a T, then in 1968 he changed it, when the Frito Bandito was came out. Get your history straight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.54.188.10 (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources indicating this? tedder (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

According to his daughter is true. Reliable sources is hard to find. And please change the Donald Eugene Chambers site, he was born November 23, 1930 in Houston. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.54.188.10 (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability.--Dbratland (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Splitting of Bandidos MC[edit]

Does anyone know something about the splitting of Bandidos MC into 'Western Hemisphere' (North- and Southamerica) and 'Eastern Hemisphere' (Europe and Australia)? 95.223.197.175 (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bandidos Motorcycle Club. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

padre184.190.216.230 (talk)== contact in louisiana ==

–guys: i need a contact in louisiana - small task - my mobil 210 863 5886 - appreciate your call back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.190.216.230 (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

louisiana contact[edit]

gentlemen: i need a louisiana contact - small task - cell 210 863 5886 - please contact.

louisiana contact[edit]

gentlemen: i need a louisiana contact - small task - cell 210 863 5886 - please contact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.190.216.230 (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

History: Redundant and out of place website reference[edit]

At the end of the HISTORY section there is what appears to be either a reference or an unneeded and redundant reference to the Banditos motorcycle website. If this was an attempt to reference, it was done quite poorly and needs to be fixed. For the time being I will leave it, but will make it a comment. Satanhhh (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bandidos Motorcycle Club. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)