Talk:Juggalo gangs

Sources

It seems to me that this article relies far too much on primary sources (police/FBI website material etc), contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. This needs correcting, and material needs sourcing properly from WP:RS secondary sources - not least to establish the the article meets Wikipedia notability guidelines, which cannot be established via primary sources. Note also that most YouTube videos shouldn't even be linked (see WP:YOUTUBE), never mind used as a source - I've had to remove on already as an almost certain copyright violation. If evidence cannot be established from mainstream reliable sources, it may be necessary to nominate the article for deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Here are some Police, schools watching ‘Juggalos’ - Classified as gang in Arizona

Member of Juggalo Rydas sentenced to 15 years for shooting up vacant apartment

Escondido police crack down on Juggalos

American Juggalos: Graffiti artists tag themselves as family, not gang-bangers (responding to some other article I'm not going to pull) Shii (tock) 06:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The NGIC material reports on and analyzes the firsthand experiences of police officers, making it a secondary source for the most part. It does analyze and report on other secondary sources, so it has elements of a tertiary source as well, but it's certainly not "encyclopedic".

I apologize for the YouTube thing, as I wasn't aware that was considered copyright infringement. My bad. I'm still getting used to Wikipedia.

AnnerTown (talk) 06:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Documents sourced to publicintelligence.net

This Article cites two documents cited to publicintelligence.net: [1][2]. Per discussions at WP:RSN (see [3] and [4]), and per WP:RS policy, publicintelligence.net clearly cannot be cited as a source. Furthermore, the National Gang Intelligence Center document on Juggalos is clearly an internal document - no evidence has been provided that it has ever been published, or is in any way available to members of the public short of a FOIA request - and as such cannot be cited as a source, if for no other reason than that we have no means to verify its authenticity (note also that WP:RS states explicitly that sources must be published). Though the second document has not yet been discussed at WP:RSN, I can see no reason to assume that the same arguments should not apply (The document states that it is "Confidential - Sensitive Data Law Enforcement Use Only"). On this basis, since neither document can be cited as WP:RS (being unpublished, and therefore unverifiable), I shall shortly be removing the citations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, I would argue that the Public Intelligence sources should stay. The document comes from the National Gang Intelligence Center, which is a reliable source, and according to the link that you provided me, Public Intelligence is generally not allowed as a source due to the fact that it aggregates files from many sources, some of which may not be reliable, and to quote, "If there is anything of value it can be traced back to its original publisher, author etc." The National Gang Intelligence Center (from which this document originates) is a reliable source on U.S. street gangs already cited in several articles. The NGIC did not release the report via their web site and it is not available at any other web site at this time, meaning that this may be an important exception to the rule, as it cannot be traced back to the agency (which was recently disbanded). This document can be confirmed as legitimate, as the FBI cited and quoted it in their 2011 National Gang Threat Assessment. Removing the link would negatively impact the article, and changes nothing at the end of the day, so I feel like this is one of those times when a PI document would be helpful to keep.

As far as being published goes, PI published it, and they can, as non-classified government documents are not protected by copyright, if I remember correctly. Regardless, I think that any document you can order directly to your house by filling out a form would fall under the definition of "published". It's not any different than ordering a book that wasn't marketed to bookstores. If it wasn't "published", you wouldn't be able to get it via FOIA. The government has a word for "internal unpublished documents", and that word is "classified". "Sensitive" is not at all the same thing as "classified". You can get "sensitive" information via the FOIA if you know the name of the document. If it were legitimately "classified", then you wouldn't be able to get it via FOIA, and then it would fall under the policy that you specified. To remove the document would have a chilling effect - any government information that isn't explicitly posted on their official web site would need to be removed, and I really don't think that this was the intention of the policy in question, so I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one.

The point is moot, though. The NGIC was recently disbanded by the Obama administration, and it couldn't be an "internal" document of an agency that does not exist.

AnnerTown (talk) 06:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"The point is moot, though. The NGIC was recently disbanded by the Obama administration, and it couldn't be an "internal" document of an agency that does not exist". That has to be about the most batshit-crazy argument I've seen on an article talk page. Since we aren't supposed to give medical advice, I'll refrain from suggesting that you see a psychiatrist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It's obvious that you'd like to see this article deleted, but you're clearly not interested in improving it, and now you're grasping at straws to try and make your little wish come true. That's despicable, immature behavior. Now that you're resorting to personal attacks, which is a genuine violation of Wikipedia's policies, I see no reason to continue to assume good faith with your sorry ass. You've already accused me of being a troll and spouted some anti-Juggalo conspiracy theory nonsense, which I chose to ignore, because I assumed that you were just an idiot. Now your malice has become obvious; I can't chalk it up to stupidity at this point. If you're as well-versed as you claim to be in Wikipedia's policies, then there is no excuse for your unprofessional and downright disrespectful behavior. There is a fine line between "grump" and "impossible, counterproductive douchebag", and you have now crossed that line, sir. If you have a source that can be added to the article that would solve whatever problem you apparently have with it, feel free. I'm trying to make this article as unbiased as possible, and if you can help me out with that, great, but if you're just going to use ad hominem attacks and make false claims about the article's sources (which have been by the RS noticeboard at least twice), you can fuck right off. I've tried being civil with you, but it's clearly not working. I'm done with it.

By the way, I do see a psychiatrist. In the last five years, three of my family members have died of cancer, two from other reasons, two have cut off contact with me, my girlfriend completely disappeared (never found her), my best friend was sent to prison for something he didn't do (framed because of the color of his skin), and adverse reactions to psych meds that I didn't need rendered me psychotic and unable to work for several years. Depression is a terrible issue that millions of people deal with, and only a genuine, certified asshole such as yourself would see any reason to make light of it. To use such a tasteless joke as the basis for an ad hominem attack over a Wikipedia article is disproportionate, heartless, and ludicrously immature. Kinda makes me wonder which one of us is really the "troll" in this situation. AnnerTown (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I made several changes to the article

1. This phenomenon has been documented by the FBI, the NGIC, Wired magazine, and news stations around the country. Requirements for eligibility have been met, so I've removed the box at the top of the page. 2. The article's sources question contain both tertiary and seconday sources, so I've removed that box as well. Secondary sources can be found throughout the article in the form of news reports and reports on law enforcement's firsthand experiences with Juggalo gangs. The government reports analyze and report both on second-hand open source reporting (which qualifies them as tertiary sources) as well as first-hand reports (making them secondary sources as well). They're certainly not "encyclopedic" and focus on analyzing the first-hand experiences of law enforcement officials more than news reports. 3. Added information about the documents recently released by the FBI in response to ICP's lawsuit. 4. Fixed some sources and tried to make some of the article more clear.

AnnerTown (talk) 06:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

This article is based on non WP:RS sources. It violates multiple policies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

No. The PI sources have been by the RS noticeboard at least twice (they were published by reliable sources initially), none of the sources at all (as far as I can tell) are missing, and there are plenty of sources documenting this phenomenon that aren't hosted on PI (someone removed a bunch of the excess sources earlier, because apparently, we had too many!). I'll add those when I have a minute, but I don't think that it'll help you feel any better, because your goal is clearly to have this article deleted, not to improve it. I don't believe for one minute that you actually care about the article's sources or Wikipedia's policies, and that will also become apparent to anyone who reviews this article for deletion. It's interesting how you seem to conveniently forget all about the non-PI sources that are already in the article any time you bring up the subject of the article's sources. There is a name for this sort of behavior - I call it the "fallacy of exclusion". Regardless, this subject has been covered by the FBI, the NGIC, Wired magazine, and dozens of reliable news publications. Furthermore, if you look up at the top of this screen, you'll find even more sources that Shii has generously donated for use in our article. I will get around to adding those, and re-adding some of the older sources (if that will make you happy - it won't) as soon as possible. In any case, feel free to nominate the article for deletion or do whatever you feel the need to do in the meantime. This article is staying, and your efforts to destroy it will amount to nothing in the end, no matter what you do. If I were you, I'd count my losses and find something better to do. Unless, of course, I was a troll, in which case I'd probably fight this illogical fight to the ends of the earth and get big a kick out of it. (But I still wouldn't be able to delete the article, regardless.) I'm not responding to you again until you learn to be civil and respectful. I cannot be respectful to you when your manners (or lack thereof) are so atrocious. This is Wikipedia, not my old middle school fucking locker room. Cut it out. AnnerTown (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Traditional gangs paragraph

The paragraph doesn't flow very well. Here's a possible rewrite and it shorter and more to the point- The wider Juggalo subculture has some features in common with traditional gangs, including throwing hand signs, wearing matching clothing, and getting matching tattoos.[3] However, the criminal Juggalo subsets have more ominous similarities with traditional gangs that include initiations, handbooks for rules and punishments, formal leadership structure, colors, and may engage in organized patterns of serious criminal activity.[1][3][5][7]Jonpatterns (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The paragraph is sourced to three documents failing WP:RS and one which is 'not found'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Andy, which source is "not found" exactly? Jon, I personally think that use of the word ominous would violate NPOV since it's a subjective term. Also, I don't think that "may engage" should be included, as this article is based on the criminal element of the Juggalo subculture. I'm trying to make the differences between Juggalo gang members and Juggalo music fans as clear as possible so as to not damage the reputations of innocent Juggalos. By definition, the Juggalos that we're writing about here are engaging in criminal activity. AnnerTown (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)