Talk:Bandidos Motorcycle Club/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Illegal activity

This article needs to more agressively point out the extensive illegal activity that this gang participates in.

I agree. Jonas Liljeström 16:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes indeed it does. From the looks of this article, this gang of thugs does nothing more than deliver stuffed toys to crippled children. Proxy User 16:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you are confused with some other topic...perhaps the Boy Scouts of America. The article makes no mention of delivering toys. BTW, doing so is often called a "toy run". I know of many clubs the engage in these types of socially beneficial activities. If you know of a Bandidos chapter that has participated, please do add this information to the article. War 07:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
This article tries to be about the club as a whole. It just like the article on the Catholic Church or the article about the Police emphasized the organization as a whole rather than the the countless illegal activities perpetrated by it's members.War 07:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Mixed timeline

The article says that the Bandidos left Canada in 2000, but later goes on to say they are no longer in Canada as of 2006. Both can not be correct.

8 banditdos from toronto (well, 6 and 2 asscoiates) just showed up dead in a Southwest Ontario cornfield this past weekend so... Mike McGregor (Can) 15:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
There are still a few Bandidoes left in Canada, but it is mostly Hells Angel's turf. 81 AFFA - 12 April 2006
Until 2000 there were no bandidos in Canada. Then the Rock Machine MC joined the Bandidos nation, and thus established some Bandidos chapters there. During the following years some chapters changed sides towards the Hells Angels. Finally there was only one chapter left. This chapter recently got almost completely exterminated in a mass murder with 8 people being killed. So now there are (almost) no Bandidos left in Canada again.
People Need to do some more research on the Bandidos Motorcycle Club they are not drug deelers I dont know where you get your info from but it is 100% wrong
Are you high? WiccaWeb 05:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Well the problem is that we don't know where the info came from, since there are few sources cited. Hopefully this will be corrected. Mceder 21:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

For a complete history of the Canadian Bandidos, I suggest that you check out a fascinating book by Edward Winterhalder titled "Out In Bad Standings: Inside The Bandidos Motorcycle Club; The Making Of A Worldwide Dynasty" (ISBN # 0977174700). He was the high ranking member of the Bandidos that was responsible for the assimilation of the Rock Machine into the Bandidos back in late 2000 and early 2001. The Bandidos still have an active chapter in the Toronto,Canada area in late 2006.

More information can be found in a July 2006 Seattle Weekly newspaper article[1] and a May 2006 Austin Chronicle newspaper article[2]. 19:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no doubt that there are Bandidos in Canada. War 06:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Gang vs.Club

I reverted the change in category from Motorcycle Club to Motorcycle Gang. The Bandidos are, in fact, a motorcycle club. The term motorcycle gang has no concensus definition. Mmoyer 02:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I am a member of this motorcycle club and 75% of what is stated here is not true and all made up will ill intent to be pointed. I am an active member and I am able to verify fact and non fact.

I have edited this page multiple time only to find some program vadal thing has reverted it right back to the untrue lies. I would like to be able to edit this page and have the information correct. I am also the webmaster and a member for the Bandidos MC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandidoperv (talk • contribs) 19:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is a great deal of innuendo in this article and we certainly welcome the presence of a subject matter expert to help. Can you itemize your issues here on the talk page? We can address them together in a way that conforms to Wikipedia standards (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). Meanwhile, I am going to tag a number of statements as unsourced. Mmoyer 01:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the facts as to the nature of the Bandidos as documented in the press and elsewhere strongly contradict your characterization of the Bandidos as some benevolent club. Of course, the Mafia claims the same thing... WiccaWeb 05:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
The press and other sources represents one-sided point of view. The press never hears about the disciplinary actions taken by the club on members that break the rules. All you (the public) see is a single side. The other side does not get published. Individuals like Bandidoperv are invaluable for contributing a point of view that is usually absent.War 06:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Bandidos Motorcycle Club

I am not sure who wrote this article about Bandidos,or what their agenda is.The purpose is definitly not to print the truth.The section that lays out recent events in Eureka Springs could not be farther from reality.It seems like the author is trying to inflame a situation by using derogatory verbage and insults.This is very childish.I wish the parents of these poor kids would issue some sort of restraints on the family computer.

I am a 25+ year member of the Bandidos Motorcycle Club.I have been a member of the Nomad Chapter for almost 20 years.Other Brothers in my Club have been in communication with members of the Hells Angels since this unfortunate incident occurred. From what I have heard and seen without exception is the consencus on both sides is to fix the problem.With the right attitudes and communication,anything is possible.Only people who live in the World of 1%Motorcyclism know what the commitment to this life entails.There is no possible way to observe from the outside looking in and even remotely begin to understand.

So try not to believe the fairy tails from people that have left our way of life to write books about how smart they are,and how they were responsible for so much in the short time they were around us.If you really want to know about a Bandido or a Hells Angel,just try asking us. BFFB Marshall 05:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Bandido Marshall 1%er Nomad Chapter

First, welcome to a Bandidos member! I can assure you that, as Wikipedians, we have only one interest, and that is in writing a verifiably accurate article. I am active in maintaining and improving this article (as my time permits) and I agree with you that the section on Eureka Springs needs some work, hence the "citation needed" tags for some of the more controversial statements. I welcome your input here on the talk page about how to improve this and other sections of the article. I can assure you that, as a biker with 30+ years of riding experience and some time around real MCs, I am somewhat in touch with your issues. However, I do not "own" this or any other articles (no one does), I merely collaborate with other editors (registered and otherwise).
If you explain each erroneous statement in detail then perhaps we can work together to write a good encyclopedia article. We are, however, constrained by some Wikipedia standards, the foremost of which is verifiability, and, secondarily conflict of interest. A few moments to taken read these links will help you understand how Wikipedia works. I am very interested in all input you can provide, and I look forward to improving this article with your help! Again, welcome! Mmoyer 18:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the facts as to the nature of the Bandidos as documented in the press and elsewhere strongly contradict your characterization of the Bandidos as some benevolent club. For example, a very cursory Google search: http://news.google.com/news?q=bandidos shows that Bandidos have been involved in a number of recent murders and drug racketeering cases (or perhaps all the cops are lying?) WiccaWeb 05:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
WiccaWeb, you have touched on the very controversy surrounding the Bandidos and motorcycle clubs in general: Because of their non-mainstream appearance, bad reputation from movies like The Wild One, and their general counterculture attitude, they get blamed for anything bad that happens in a fifty mile radius. Not to say that some bikers don't cause trouble or commit crimes, but the situation is akin to recent media reports about Catholic priests engaging in pedophilia: are all priests criminals as a result? If you are interested in reading more, this subject is explored in more depth at Motorcycle club. Have a Wiki day! Mmoyer 14:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Please don't patronize me with this kind of crap. I've been around bikers most of my life. Mostly Jokers, but the Bandidos don't stray far from that tree, their own public record simply don't support your flowery view. WiccaWeb 02:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Wiccaweb is obviously a shit stirrer, or police. As he has no idea what he is talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.99.131 (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Neither one, but like most intelligent people, I can read the newspapers. I'm only pointing out what various sources have confirmed with some pretty solid evidence. I'm sorry you feel you can STEAM-ROLL over views that you don't agree with, but if you insist in filling this article with POV Bias, I'll make a formal complaint . You can make childish insults all you wish, I really don't care. It reflects on your maturity to participate is reasonable conversation, or lack there of. WiccaWeb 18:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There are facts and there is speculation. Some news articles contains facts, some contains errors, and some contain pure speculation. Most articles on motorcycle clubs contain a huge amount of speculation. This is because clubs don't issue press releases and members usually do not talk to the press. The result of this situation is that many people come to the wrong conclusion about what a club is or isn't.

The fact is most people are in no position to know much about the Bandidos MC or any other 1% club. The people that are in a position to know are Bandido Marshall 1%er or Bandido Pervert 1%er or some other Bandido 1%er with equal or great knowledge. I know a little, clearly more than most but my knowledge pales in comparison to the formentioned experts.War 07:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Eureka Incident

I have researched numerous news accounts of this incident. Based on what is verifiable, I have rewritten the account of the incident in as neutral terms as possible, citing references. I removed the statements about surveillance and "afront" to the Hells Angels, neither which could not be verified. I did, however, include the speculative comment from the police about motive, attributed as such. Comments?? Mmoyer 00:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

I don't see what citing negatives news reports on individual members has to do with the club as a whole. It's common for those those that live on the fringe to get in trouble now and then. These news items are often slanted point as the club itself. When they do involve the entire club or a substantial number, that is fine but citing new about individual in this topic appears to be a mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by War (talk • contribs) 06:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, in the instances you removed, they were related to issues with the club, are they not? We are not here to determine if news items are "often slanted" or not, but to build up knowledge about the Bandidos, as reported by other credible sources. I agree with you removing the unsourced material, it should remain of until sources can be found.
If the individual and the event is related to the club, it should be reinsterted. mceder (u t c) 19:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
One items I removed is, "A member of the Bandidos in San Antonio, Texas, Richard Merla, was convicted of the murder ...." ... does this mean that all news items about catholic pedifiles should be added to the page on the catholic church? No...or how about the countless police officers that were conficted of breaking the law, should these news items but put on the topic on law enforcement? The other items I removed are less clear cut but I followed the standard of *not* including every single news item on a topic in the topic...unless it's noteworthy. War 06:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that, unless it is clear that the individual was acting on behalf of the club (either through court testimony, or circumstances of the incident), crimes committed by members of an MC should not be listed in the article about that MC. I also agree with War's reasoning above: unless the incident is notable in some other way, e.g. highly publicized or notable victim. This should apply to non-officers of the club. When club officers are arrested or convicted, however, it should be mentioned in the article on the club.
I congratulate you, War, for coming up with this line of reasoning! Which incidents should and should not be included in these articles has really troubled me for some time, and I have struggled with how to deal with it. So, then, what do you think about creating WikiProject:Motorcycle clubs to codify some of these guidelines so they can be implemented consistently across the motorcycle club articles? Perhaps it would help new contributors know what should and should not be included. It would also give us some written basis to cite for editing decisions. Thoughts? Mmoyer 15:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
That is an excellent idea. War 06:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It is IMPROPER to remove the Neutrality POV tag. Clearly there is an issue, and it's being glossed over by editors that have a bias of denying factual evidence of the nature of Bandidos MC in favor of a fictional description that ignores documented activities. Until it is PROPERLY addressed, the Neutrality POV tag stays. If it takes filing a formal complaint and bringing in an unbiased admin / editor to hash it out, than that’s the way it will be. Proxy User 15:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, "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". Other than some general statements, this has not yet been done. Can you please do so?
Additionally, WP:NPOVD states, "In a neutral representation, the differing points of view are presented as such, not as facts." Given that article states the following (with refs):
  • that the Bandidos have been designated OMGs per the FBI and CISC
  • the founder is in prison for murder
  • their involvement in the Shedden Massacre
  • their involvement in the Milperra Bikie Massacre
... the statement that the article contains a "fictional depiction of the Bandidos" does not seem entirely true.
As stated in WP:NPOVD, the person who places the tag should "Be active and bold in improving the article", so, as with all Wikipedians, you are invited do so, citing references where appropriate. Cheers! Mmoyer 01:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
As I predicted, you use meaningless centrifuge to restrict content of this article to your point of view (otherwise known as bias). In a week or so, I will add a section on Illegal Activities that will be well supported by proper references, and I will defend it and insure that it stays included. You say that "the statement that the article contains a "fictional depiction of the Bandidos" does not seem entirely true." which of course implies that it is in part true. Proxy User 06:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

POV tags removed

The POV tags were removed because there has not been a specific list of POV issues itemized on the talk page, just general statements like:

  • "this gang of thugs does nothing more than deliver stuffed toys to crippled children"
  • "Bandidos don't stray far from that tree, their own public record simply don't support your flowery view"
  • "you insist in filling this article with POV Bias"
  • "a fictional description that ignores documented activities"

The tag can be replaced any time a list of concrete issues is provided, per NPOV Dispute. Mmoyer 22:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This article suffers from POV. 75.172.38.233 02:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Please don't get angry. All Mmoyer was saying is that the article has no visible bias. Please do not engage in an edit war until this is resolved on this talk page. Thank you. Master of Puppets Care to share? 02:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
You're jumping the gun there. That Mmoyer if fine with the article does not mean that everyone it. In fact, the neutrality of this article IS TILL IN DISPUTE. POV tag stays. 75.172.38.233 02:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
What is? Please explain the reasons, pointing out which sections of the article is POV'd. Quote the article, and explain why that which you quote is POV'd. Otherwise, please stop replacing the tags. Gscshoyru 02:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The POV tag was removed due to the lack of bias in the article. If you want to reinstate the POV tag, present some actual evidence of POV (quote a passage that is biased, for example). Just don't edit war or your account will be blocked. Thanks! Master of Puppets Care to share? 02:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I dispute that there is a lack of bias in the article. Thus there is a POV dispute. Thus the POV tag is appropriate. Removal of the POV tag is VANDALISM. Please stop, or I will make a formal complaint against YOU. 75.172.38.233 02:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
If you dispute it, then show evidence, please! Otherwise we don't know why you think it's POV'd. If you would explain yourself, then we might be able to discuss and fix the issues, ok? Please explain, and once you do, then you can put the POV tags on, ok? Gscshoyru 02:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Requested admin intervention. And please stop reverting the main article until you can back up your claim. Thanks. Master of Puppets Care to share? 02:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a "policy" to revert POV tags when there is a POV issue? That doesn't make sense, you have it wrong. When there is a POV issue you add the POV tag, not take it away. You're confused. You show clear bias here... Proxy User 16:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No. But is policy to remove them when there is no POV issue. Or at least, when no one but the placer knows what the issue is, because he refuses to explain it. Gscshoyru 16:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I haven't explained the issue? You're being very selective in how you read things (perhaps a sign of bias?) In other words, what you are saying is it's your policy not to allow content in your article that you disagree with, and you don't consider that POV. Got it. Thanks for the clarification. When Wikipedia awards editors ownership of articles, do they issue a nice certificate? Proxy User 16:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
No, this is not what's meant at all. I'm saying that whatever content that has been removed has been removing has probably been removed because of WP:V and WP:RS. Wikipedians in general do not allow material that violates these policies in any article. Us reverting content in this instance is probably just a specific example of a specific wikipedian applying policy to a specific article. However, this conversation is purely academic. Why? Because you still have yet to provide a single diff that corroborates your statement that we're not allowing certain content in this article. So I have to guess what you're talking about, since I don't have the slightest of clues. What is your evidence of this? Please show us. Because currently all you're saying is that the article is POV -- and you're not stating why. Please give evidence that the article is POV'd. You've stated that both of us are preventing certain content from being in the article. Please give us evidence of this. Otherwise, your argument has no facts to back it up, and therefore is completely invalid. So unless you give evidence for your unsupported statements, they will be ignored. Gscshoyru 18:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The FBI and the News Media are not "reliable" and "verifiable" sources to you? Than who are? You spout this rule and that, but your application of them is improper. Flat out improper. Shows bias. POV. Proxy User 20:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
This is why I said the conversation was academic. Show me an example of someone removing content that sites that from the article; please show us a diff. Thanks! Gscshoyru 20:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Bandidos Motorcycle Club

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Bandidos Motorcycle Club's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto2":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

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

Louisiana contact

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

Louisiana contact

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

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)

Archive

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bandidos_Motorcycle_Club/Archive_1&oldid=1139741632"