Talk:Bandidos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Motorcycling Bandidos is within the scope of the Motorcycling WikiProject, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of motorcycles and motorcycling. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bandidos article.
Article policies
Maintained The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Mmoyer (talk · contribs)•War (talk · contribs)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1: coverage up to 16 November, 2007


Contents

[edit] Support Clubs

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)


[edit] Archive

I've archived the talk up to 16 November here.

[edit] External Links

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)

[edit] POV tag

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 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Also often called a 'bullseye'.War (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)