Talk:Gang/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Gang. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

I wrote a brief history using a journal article of mine published in 2001. Why have you removed it all? You did not remove my contributions to a street gang definition using the Eurogang research nor did you remove my contribution on an organised crime firm using quotes from Hallsworth and Young. So why when i have written a few sentences in my own words and also provided an authors name as a reference have you removed it? I did not copy the authors word for word, except for copying myself of course? damn this editor is fucking stupid and on a power trip it's pissing me off I enjoy contributing but why bother when some cunt will just remove it, some cunt who probably does not really know anything of gangs and social history and is just a BOT of wikipedia there to remove peoples hard work just to piss them off.

Fuck You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.24.81 (talk)

LOL, what do you expect? He is an editor on a power trip, it makes him feel authoritive and gives him a purpose, probably to make up for failings and inadequacies in the REAL WORLD—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.52.178 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, close enough. That's pretty much me in a nutshell. Congratulations on the nice observation and your spelling of "authoritive". Oh and 84 I think we discussed that below.--danielfolsom 22:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This artical is fraught with POV problems. Take this for example;

"extremist groups link visitors to other websites daubed with their own particular group, gang, or Nazi insignia where the gangs are then able to spread their ideologies, fuel racial hatred, cultural discrimination, and sexism, as well as acquire new recruits. Many of these gangs have fierce reputations for violence and are quick to attack 'outsiders' or 'newbies' who are easily identifiable.[15] Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino, states that the internet has become the primary recruiting tool of hate groups and domestic terrorists.[16]"

Extremist and terrorist are almost impossible to use without showing bias. I and no one else should be here to decide right or wrong. Present the facts and let people draw their own conclusions. Extremist and terrorist can be replaced with more descriptive non biased words fairly easily. Terrorist can be replaced with militia, paramilitary, rebel, or a number of other less biased words. Extremist can be replaced with links to specific groups that deviate from the the norm or could be replaced with "...violent off shoot of ..." If I find the time I will work on this, however I have other topics that I am more knowlageable in and care more about. To those who are passionate about this subject please contribute some time to help better it.

I think the POV problem is subordinate to another. The article has been heavily modified by 24.168.231.199; the first contributions were apt, noting that the term has application beyond the familiar urban street gangs specialized in the drug trade, but then expansions on the rather distant applications followed, and the article lost focus. While it is possible to find a few people who refer to political extremists and their organizations as "gangs," that's not the primary meaning, and the dynamics of such organizations are so radically different from those of financially-motivated urban street gangs that the article comes to be just about "groups most people fear." My view is, pretty nearly all that stuff needs to be sent over to another article -- for instance, hate group. DavidOaks 16:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The previous information was completely erroneous. It claimed the Norteños and Sureños were offshoots of the Crips and Bloods concept. The exact opposite is true however. For reference and more in depth information refer to the following information by Al Valdez, a District Attorney Investigator for Orange County, California. Valdez has a total of 21 years of experience with a special emphasis on narcotic and gang investigations and prosecutions. Currently, he is assigned to the North County T.A.R.G.E.T. (Tri-Agency Resource Gang Enforcement Team) Gang Unit for Orange County.

http://www.nagia.org/Hispanic_Gangs.htm

Joshua Castillo 1:50 pm 6/19/03

---

Gangs are a universal phenomenon. This article focuses mostly on Mexican-American gangs in California. This is quite interesting. Perhaps this could be part of an article on "Pachuco/Cholo" subculture (title it what you will), and a broader article on gangs can be made. -- Samo

---

Removed from article: Two of the largest street gangs in America are the Norteños and Sureños, the Sureños claiming blue and identifying themselves by blue clothing, and the Norteños wearing red, identifying themselves with red clothing. Norteños and Sureños are Mexican American gang members who identify with either the northern or southern part of California, with the imaginary line being somewhere around Bakersfield or Fresno, California. However, Norteño and Sureño gangs have established 'satellite gangs' as far north as Canada and as far south as Chile. These rival gangs formed as a result of a rivalry between northern and southern California Mexican American inmates at San Quentin, a state prison in northern California. The murder of Hector Padilla, a northerner, solidified the rivalry between both groups, both in the prison system and on the street.

The Mexican Americans from northern California formed Nuestra Familia (NF), a prison gang, in response to the conflict. NF was formed to protect the northern Californians from La Eme, whose membership was made up primarily of southern Californians.

Street and prison gang members from northern California began to use the number 14 as an identifier. It represented the 14th letter of the alphabet, the letter "N." The letter stood for Norteño, the Spanish word for northerner. The term norte was used to show that a person was from the north. Individuals from southern California were automatically considered rivals, inside and outside the prison system.

Southern California gang members began using the number 13 as an identifier. The 13th letter of the alphabet is the letter "M," and the word for this letter in Spanish is " Eme." Southern California gang members started using words like Sureño, which means "southerner." Often, this term was abbreviated as sur/SUR. Gang members also started to tattoo themselves with the number 13 and with the terms Sureño or sur along with the name of their gang, to signify their origin in southern California.

Inmates in the state prison system were given bandannas in a railroad print, and could select from two colors: red or blue. Mexican American street and prison gangs from northern California claimed the color red to identify themselves. They used this color because most of the southern California Mexican Americans in state prison had chosen to wear a blue-colored railroad handkerchief. The Crips and Bloods were not the first gangs to use red or blue to identify.

Much of this is taken directly from the above mentioned source. It may also have copyright issues. And the source it is taken from makes no mention of African-American gangs or comparison to African-American gangs to Hispanic ones. Rmhermen 01:48 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

This is still pretty minimal, isn't it? I think this deserves a lot more content, but I'm not sure I'm knowledgable enough to write it. Having listened today to a talk by Benjamin Melendez at the EMP Pop Conference, I just wrote a short article about the Ghetto Brothers. I'm kind of amazed that we have nothing on the Young Lords or the Savage Skulls, names that were known to everyone in New York 30-odd years ago. There would be a lot to say about the very different roles of females connected to the different groups (speaking of which, the article currently has nothing on girl gangs, and no mention of the fact that the gangs referred to in the article are nearly all all-male institutions). Also, there is nothing on the very complex interaction between gangs, more socially acceptable neighborhood associations, politics, the emergence of rap music, etc. I hope this is suggestive of some of where we might take this article. -- Jmabel 06:30, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

This website [1] contains useful information that can be added to this article. -- J3ff 23:10, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Recently & anonymously added: "Inland Empire Onterio SurX3 Black Angel gang".

1. Is this correctly spelled ("Onterio" vs. "Ontario")?
2. Is this actually a significant enough gang to merit mention? I've never heard of it, but this would be 1,000 miles from where I've ever lived. Does anyone have a citation to back its notability?

Jmabel | Talk 17:53, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

This could be referring to Ontario, California and the Inland Empire in California. — J3ff 23:20, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Clearly, sorry, I thought that was a given so I didn't mention it; a gang name could contain a deliberate misspelling so (even if this gang is notable at an encyclopedic level, which I doubt) the spelling of the town wouldn't necessarily tell us the correct spelling of a gang. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:24, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

It's spelled ONTARIO! I've never heard of it either. c2 aaronr | Talk 12:06, Sept 14, 2005 (UTC)

---

The gang that is mentioned above spells Ontario with an "e" thus writing it as Onterio. This gang is well known in San Bernardino/ Los Angeles county and has several members that are high ranking mexican mafia members. They are also highly respected by southern california chicano/ hispanic gangs.

1. OVS Black Angels [[2]]

2. City of Ontario Gangs [[3]]

3. Mexican Mafia Black Angels.[[4]]

4. Chart of top ranking LA EME members (which ironically the majority are from the Inland Empire area)[[5]]

User:JWATCH | Talk 12:00, Oct. 23, 2005 (UTC)

The foregoing appears to be by User:Jwatch, not User:JWATCH

Most prison gangs are now referred to as "STG"'s, or Security Threat Groups.

I don't have an account yet, but I'm a correctional officer involved with STG activity, so I'm going to add a link to STG next to the section involving "Prison gangs."

I also included in there some basic information on white and hispanic gangs, mostly because those two STG's do most of the name changes in prison, whereas most african-american STG's retain their street names.

FYI, this is me. Mason 18:23, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Recent anonymous addition: "The Philadelphia based Yale Street Gangsters". The article Yale Street Gangsters is a substub; I've never heard of them; does anyone know if they are actually significant enough to merit mention in the article? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:41, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

It's gone now. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:06, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

A recent anon edit turned "Some offshoots of the original Norteño/Sureños concept include Crips and the Bloods, African American gangs" into just "Some very well known gangs are the Crips and the Bloods." I don't really know anything about Norteños & Sureños, and there is no citation, so I am not reverting this apparent removal of material, but if someone else knows what's going on here they may want to step in. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:00, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

• I don't know much abput the norteños but i do know abou the sureños. They were originated in the rural areas of California. Thier most original memebers were originally from the Mara Salvatrucha. — — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.244.60.203 (talk) , 20 Jan 2008.

• The above comment was inserted inside the preceding comment by Jmabel, almost certainly by mistake. I have moved it outside. —Aetheling (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any citation for the claim about the Crips in Barbados, or was someone just confused by the term Caribbean Regional Indicative Programmes (CRIP)? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC). THE SUR WAS CREATED INSIDE THE PINTA,THE PENATENTURY COMPRISED OF MANY STREET VARRIOS FROM SOUTHERN CALIFAS. CREATED BEC AT THAT TIME CHICANOS HAD NO ACTION IN THE PEN SO UNITED RAZA WAS FOUNDED. IT WAS NOT TILL LATER DOWN THE ROAD WHEN THE WARDENS AND JUSTICE DEPT TRIED TO BREAK UP THE SUR BY TRANSFERING COUCIL MEMBERS AND KEY PLAYERS, HEFAS TO OTHER PRISONS UP NORTH. THAT CAUSED A DEVIDE IN THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH BEC THE BUSTERS DIDNT LIKE THE FACT OF THEM PUTTING IN WORK AND SENDING MONEY, TAXES BACK HOME. THEY FORMED THE NUESTRA FAMILIA, NORTHERN FAMILIA. ENIMEGAS. THE REST IS HISTORY. YOU WANT THE WHOLE STORY YOU CAN GET A MOVIE ON MI VARRIO CALLED AMERICAN ME. iM TELLING U TRUTH. TRUST ME i KNOW. PURO SUR X111 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.158.50.68 (talk)

Is there any citation for the claim about the Crips in Barbados, or was someone just confused by the term Caribbean Regional Indicative Programmes (CRIP)? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The two most prominent Chicago gangs of the 1960s were the Blackstone Rangers and the Black Gangster Disciples. Both deserve mention, and probably articles. - Jmabel | Talk 06:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Both certainly deserve mention here, but they do have their own articles: Black P. Stones and Gangster Disciples 65.42.89.232 00:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Al Capone was a real gangster. All these fake rap stars are just foney. A true gangster is someone who dresses in a fancy suit drives a nice caddilac and uses a tommy gun. Someone who dresses in clothes that are 10 times to big for them. Talks like they dropped out of the third grade. And cant carry their pistol strait is not a gangster. They are just fools trying to look cool. They are not tough. They are scarred little boys in a bad neighborhood. Dont get me wrong. I'm not saying a mobster is any better, but they are more admirable than the fools in the "hood". The police should arrest anyone gang-related and put them in millitary school, so they can accually learn to be tough and cool, and serve their country. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.148.168.64 (talk • contribs) 4 June 2006.

One word, "amen" ;-) (signed), User:pidgeonman

This is true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.42.89.232 (talk • contribs) 14 July 2006.

No foney tommy-gun toting scarred boys, these guys are now military-grade: [6] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.42.89.232 (talk • contribs) 14 July 2006.

'A true gangster is....' Please. The whole statement is hatred filled and bias. One word - research. Oh, and you may want to read up on currently active gangs such as the MS-13 or the Yakuza. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roguestate (talk • contribs) 9 August 2006.

"Foney" is incorrect it's spelled with a p-h. Fheo 18:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's true kids today think it is cool to be in a gang. Wel kids it is not cool it is real stuff you can get killed. Ohnestly the people who are in your gang dont even really care if you die or not they keep living there lves like nothing changed!

The two sentences that comprise the "gangs in schools" section are highly ambiguous and almost free of content entirely:

"Gangs are portrayed as integrated entities within the public school system of many states. Although this assumption is mainly superfluous, a few discerning factors have brought it to the attention of many households."

Who's doing the portraying? Integrated as in tightly internally linked? Racially integrated? Which states? Is superfluous really the word the author wanted, or did he/she mean something else, like "unsupported by evidence"? The phrase "discerning factors" is unintelligible. What specifically have which households noticed, and how do we know?

Does anybody else agree with me that this section should be deleted until it can be properly developed?

Franziska 18:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Adrianmander 01:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC) Edit: I went ahead and deleted the section. Adrianmander

This page should serve as the base / starting page - with sub-sections linking it to pages on gangs from different nations around the world. This page is talking completely from an American viewpoint and is not relevant across the world.

Is listing Motorcycle Clubs on a gang webpage proper??? I have to feel since the Hell's Angels and the American Outlaws don't hold down turf that they are a CLUB and not a GANG? JButera | Talk 02:52, 02 December 2006 (UTC)

Outlaw MCs, hold turf. Just try to start a Hells Angels Charter in an Outlaw state or a Pagan charter in a Bandido State. They just go for different revenue making ventures. Outlaw MCs run guns to the street gangs like the crips or MS 13, they sell Meth or other narcotics in large quantities, they traffic drugs as opposed to deal drugs. I think, this article should be renamed organized crime with similarities among the different "gangs" outlined and just add links to the articles about specific Gangs.

What is funny is this article does not even explain the teardrop tattoo in the picture. Discuss terms used by gangs in much detail. Have different sections about different types of gangs. Like Street Gangs of different ethnicities and locals. Crips/Blood, Hispanic, Asian, White Racist, Outlaw MC, etc.

This article is crap, really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon3800 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This should certainly take into account gangs from across the world. Many of the most widely known gangs in American do not have their roots within American society. Many of the gangs seen as the largest threats in particular are from south America80.193.52.178 18:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The article seems to me to be becoming more and more focused only on very current matters. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Among what I would consider inapproriate deletions:

Nearly every major American city was ravaged by gang violence at some point in its history, and it often had profound effects on the political climate and later development in general. Politicians themselves were often involved, funding gangs to be used in violent acts against political opponents. In New York, many gangs were centered in the infamous Five Points region, and included the Bowery Boys, the Shirt Tails, and the Dead Rabbits. Aside from their practice of regularly killing innocent people for money, the most notorious singular violent act committed by these gangs was the New York Draft Riots of 1863. The common tools of the trade were often blackjacks, lead pipes and daggers. Gang members could often be identified by the large plug hats that they would wear pulled down over their ears, usually stuffed with paper and rags to mitigate blows from attackers. In San Francisco, one of the largest and most influential gangs was the Sydney Ducks, which consisted of mostly immigrants from Australia.

Also, the article is very U.S.-focused.

Even given that, there is also no mention at all of the several U.S. gangs that in the late 1960s transformed themselves into aboveground political activist groups (e.g. the Young Lords and the Ghetto Brothers).

Also, while I'm not super-big on tracking this sort of thing lately, there are mentions of a couple of gangs that I question whether are notable enough to be mentioned here, and for whom I would like to see some evidence of notability... or even mere existence: K-Unit (particularly odd that the wording puts them on the same level as Crips and Bloods), Nigga Knights. - Jmabel | Talk 02:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be really helpfull if the gang violence section had more information because right now, there is one sentence which is pretty much common sense. Its pretty obvious when your on a page that is about gangs and in a section of the page on violence that it is going to mean the violent crimes that gangs committ. Maybe talk about some of the different violent crimes that are comitted by gangs, why,the prevolance of gang violence, and the punishments that they are given ... just a suggestion, because I am writing a paper on gang violence and this section was not very helpfull to me at all in my research

I have a suggestion of my own... Can someone please add more to this article? It's really pitiful.Fheo 23:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that this is already listed at the top of the page, but I'd like to reiterate the need to include some information about gangs' cultures and practices. Very specifically, I've been trying to find out where the practice of "pour out a little liquor" came from. This article has no mention of O.G.s or dons (I believe that is what the mafia head guys are called) or turf wars or anything of that nature. Greener grasses 00:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the idea that the subject does not merit an article of its own -- "gang" as a concept has an importance larger than any of the subsections, and requires exploration much greater than dictionary definition. However, I do feel that it needs to be locked from editing by new or unregistered users; it attracts almost daily vandalism, and the energy required to delete the nonsense probably discourages more substantial contributions. DavidOaks 20:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed the {{prod}} tag. The next step, if the proposer wants to take it further, is a WP:AFD deletion discussion. I don't think an AFD proposal would succeed though - the most likely outcome is "keep and improve". Zaian 08:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This article overlaps heavily with gangster. I think a merge might help (in the process of merging, unsourced and unsuitable material can be trimmed). Zaian 08:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I oppose merging with gangster. Gangsters are often much more organized criminals than gangs. A gang also can be a soccer team or ice hockey team, and musn't always refer to criminals. / J 1982 01:31, 10 February 2007 (CET)

I completely agree. "Gang" and "gangster" may share some commonalities but there are many more cultural and historical differences. --ElKevbo 00:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've removed the proposed merge tag. Zaian 06:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

People here might be interested to see this; someone created an article at Gang Stalking which was subsequently deleted. I don't know what happened to the content that was at that article. Click above for details. Joie de Vivre 18:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The pretty much daily vandalism is a major energy-drain, preventing improvmeent of this article. I propose adding the following code (invisible in surface version and de-activated in edit view, borrowed from "Amish," in turn adapted from "GWB"):

{sprotected2}}

That is, protection and a comment -- Vandalism to this page will be reverted within minutes. Please consider helping instead of damaging other people's hard work.

Thoughts? DavidOaks 04:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

What was the reason this line:

The top five cities containing gangs are Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, Houston, and Atlanta - each with different dominating gang cultures.

was changed to this line:

The top five major cities containing gangs are Los Angeles, Chicago, San Diego, Houston, and Phoenix - each with different dominating gang cultures.

and in the absense of any citation does anyone agree that we're better off without this sentence? Sirmob 14:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Detroit is a huge gang city, even the major is crazy. Fheo 23:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

While the recent extensions into discussion of Internet crime such as "warez" sites certainly belongs on Wikipedia someplace, it is stretching the notion of "gangs" pretty far: at this rate, we are liable to embrace all of organized crime under the term. Some of this information may better belong in other articles.

Also, I think we should be wary of synthesis that would not be acceptable to the sources cited. For example, we cite the FBI for "The definition of a 'gang' is no longer restricted to typical organized crime groups" (which should probably be explicit that this is the FBI's definition, not "the" definition), but then we use a definition in the article that is much broader even than the cited FBI definition.

I also think that when we use a source such as the FBI that stands to see its budget enlarged if the gang problem is seen as larger, our text should be very clear that the views expressed are the FBI's. As it stands, this is not even available in a footnote, because the citations are just blind URLs.

Also, recent additions are very U.S.-centric: e.g. "states" presumably means "U.S. states" but no such context is given. - Jmabel | Talk 20:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The "Historical Gangs" section appears to be lifted word for word from http://www.gripe4rkids.org/his.html Or vice versa. Rhsatrhs 03:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You are quite correct the whole section was copyvio so I removed it. Thanks for pointing that out. K1ng l0v3 04:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"Copyvio" is spelled "copyed". Please consider checking your spelling next time.Fheo 23:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

NO, "copyvio", shorthand for copyright violation, is spelled C-O-P-Y-V-I-O. Please consider reading the post a little more carefully. K1ng l0v3 23:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case i apologize. My mistake. :) Fheo 15:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I just majorly redid this article - it was in pretty bad shape. First, I removed a few random things - there was a signature at the end of one of the paragraphs, there were random periods ect. Second, I added sub headings rather than the confusing headings that looked like sentences - then I made the subsequent text into a sentence. Then I removed this majorly biased section that seemed like a huge joke it was so bad - it essentially said that white members were posers - and the lowest members of the gang, that latinos were protectors of the block, and that blacks were the violent members. Then I added a section on illegal immigration and gangs - which I feel is noteworthy given the significant press coverage.danielfolsom© 00:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop putting this silly template into this article. An article having a VERY SMALL section on immigration does not need a template that says it's part of the U.S. immigration debate. This article is about the meta-topic GANGS, not teenage immigrant gangs in the U.S.. This template is way to focused for the broad subject of this article and putting the template down in that tiny section on immigration is not only the wrong place to put a template but it makes the article look stupid.K1ng l0v3 03:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

After I re-added it the second time and told you about it on your talk page i haven't re-added it again danielfolsom 04:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Now I have since I noticed how you went about removing the link off the template - see your talk.danielfolsom 04:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason this bothers you? The talk page for the template indicates no consensus for inclusion. K1ng l0v3 04:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

iT doesn't bother me personally - I agree with you that it shouldn't be on here - but there was this one guy on the talk page, who i established consensus with on his talk page - and as I explained - I'd like to give him a chance to defend it - but it has been suggested on the talk page, and frankly, if he doesn't come within the next 3 hours (total=24) then we should just remove it and not worry about it.danielfolsom 13:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Gangs and immigration go hand in hand, i dont know what was here but immgration is very important to the nature and development gangs. This has been suggested proven and expained in numerous studies. This s particularly the case of gangs in North America and Europe. 80.193.52.178 18:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I essentially merged two sections that were essentially the same thing. The section "Gangs misunderstood" (which was badly titled) was about the controversy over the definition of a gang, while the section "usage" was two things - how people use the word today and the definition. i seperated the second said section - creating a section called "today" - and then I combine the remainder ( what was not included in "Today") with the first section. It's not great - but it makes a bit more sense - I'll work on it a lot later, but I'm running out of time right now (excuse the typos here). I also updated the to do list ... uhh, that's all i can think of right now. I'll be back later.danielfolsom 15:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

K1ng... - you removed a series of well cited paragraphs that also disrupted context (i.e. the quote you removed was lead into with details about the upcomming quote - when you took it out it looked like the guys said stuff he didn't). You thinking that a source is government propoganda is not backed by anything - and therefore you had no right to remove those sources. If you do this again, I will contact an admin.danielfolsom 03:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged this article for a rewrite. I'm almost of the opinion that the topic "Gang" is a little too overbroad for an article. This article even says that there is no consistant definition of gang and then proceeds to concentrate on the Untited State's prejoritive usage of the term referencing already extant articles. The articles mentioned by this one already cover their respective topics quite well. Could ths not be better handled by dropping the sections in this article and merging it into a section of Gang (disambiguation)? Sort of like the format at Boss. Any thoughts? Homefill 18:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Seems like it would be possible to write a reasonable synopsis at this location of the various definitions that have been put forth by those attempting to study gang activity. Uses of the term that didn't fit the pattern could be disambiguated at Gang (disambiguation). --Dystopos 18:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say gang is fine for an article - I mean, we have a Cars article - and we also have articles on specific cars, it's the same principle with gangs. We have a Gangs article - and maybe something on MS-13.danielfolsom 21:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, but Cars has an accepted definition. If you want this article to focus on American criminal gangs then the article name should be changed accordingly, and the info about the etymology of the word should be moved elsewhere. Homefill 22:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The idea is that it's building - it's not going to be just criminal gangs - and if you want to you could do the research and add more - but right now I'm really one of the only ones working on the article and I just haven't had time to expand it.danielfolsom 02:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You might as well be the only one working on it as you take great pleasure in removing anyone elses contributions. Even those added to provide a basis for further knowledge you remove them for their minor technicalities. user:EGA— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.24.81 (talk)

Sorry, copyright violation is not a "minor technicality" danielfolsom 19:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to pieces you have removed that you assumed were copyvio but inW fact were not. I dont disagree that copyrighted material should be removed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.24.81 (talk • contribs)

Oh my bad were they not? Well you can always go to the history and reget them - but nothing was cited, so it'd probably be removed soon anyway. Also even if you can get it cited you'd probably have to think of a better format - you had it almost in a list like thing - which is frowned upon on wikipedia. Lastly, please remember to sign your post with four tildes ~~~~ --danielfolsom 13:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Now wait a second - there's no way we're going to list every gang we can think of on here.danielfolsom 13:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

And lastly - consider this your warning for this edit.danielfolsom 13:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Like i said, i cited it, although in a haphazard fashion, which i was working on but had not completed. I did not intend to keep the list format, it was a basis to work upon to extend the section, what is the point though in attempting build upon the topic when it will be removed 24hrs later. I do not have the time to do it all at once as i have more pressing issues. I would sign my posts but i am not registered, and with regard to the warning should i be worried? lol

Ok i will leave this stub to you from now on as it is clear you have issues with anyone other than yourself making contributions. Enjoy geek, its clear you take great pleasure in being a wikipedia "teacher" like figure, you can have the topic to yourself from now on. I will eagerly await the day you quote/cite my work you cunt.

And whoever said anything about listing gangs?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.24.81 (talk • contribs)

Uhmm you did, with this edit. Do not violate Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks or you will be blocked. Remember to sign your post with 4 tildes (~~~~) - even if you aren't registered it still shows who you are - everything that you see after your comments I've had to add - you can do it with 4 tildes. But as to your edit - I don't see how you cited it - there were no ref tags whatsoever, and even then - I saw at least one copyright violation with the first paragraph - and while I didn't check if the rest of it was copyrighted - it was all uncited and in a list format, which made the article look bad and might have been originial research. I'm not going to go through and cite your work - however soon I am planning on adding a legitmate, non copyright vio, history section. --danielfolsom 20:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, you're an absolute liar - you said that some of what you did wasn't violating copy right - explain this google search of one of the bullets: [7]. danielfolsom 21:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I explained it, it was my work, my words, my article.

"Do not violate Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks or you will be blocked. Remember to sign your post with 4 tildes (~~~~) - even if you aren't registered it still shows who you are - everything that you see after your comments I've had to add - you can do it with 4 tildes"

I really am not bothered block me i have more important things to be doing instead of arguing with some arrogant graduate from the countryside. I do not work for Wikipedia it is just a silly unreliable source of encyclopaedic mess that anyone in the world can add to and it will never be accepted as a source of academic research. Your out of your depth, you may be a very good editor and a computer whizz but nobody likes a butkissing cunt who does everything by the book, tells tales, grasses on people etc... Get a life get some friends and do something other than spending your life on wikipedia. I mean come on you made a reply to me at 21:01 on a friday night? Get laid for fuck sakes. Anyways, cant be bothered with this anymore, enjoy your life with wikipedia, happy editing.

"Do not violate Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks or you will be blocked. Remember to sign your post with 4 tildes (~~~~) - even if you aren't registered it still shows who you are - everything that you see after your comments I've had to add - you can do it with 4 tildes"--danielfolsom 14:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't care if it was your work - it's still not allowed to have a copyvio.danielfolsom 14:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Folsom "Wikipedia welcomes material written by scientists, scholars, and researchers, particularly material published by peer-reviewed journals."

Does this mean the person who wrote the "haphazard history" was allowed to so? I can understand that he should have provided links or ISBNs to all the statements made and used quotations. If i can find these and re-write the section in a non-list style would that be acceptable? 18:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No, because there is a difference between basing info on material and completely copying material. Please avoid making attacks as you did in the above section, and don't sign your post with a fake signature, just place four tildes(~~~~ at the end of your post --danielfolsom 19:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, i didnt mean it as a personal attack, it was just an observation of how you come across on the discussion page and your talk page. And could you please advise me on content item 1 where i have attempted to begin writing the piece in the correct manner and whether i should bother to do it or not?

If i had begun to do it correctly then i would like to keep adding to it on the main page. Thanks 80.193.52.178 20:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what your talking about - what do you mean content item one? --danielfolsom 20:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

On this talk page there is a list of contents, the first item on it being History of American Gangs at the very top. I wrote a paragraph using information from a previous edit in a different format complete with citations and references. I was asking whether or not this is correct and suitable for me to do on the main page, or would it be removed?

82.198.230.230 06:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure - I mean that's like saying to a lawyer, "Is what I did illegal" - when you haven't told the lawyer what you did. I have no way of knowing whether it's correct or if it would be removed. Pretty much if there are no copyright violations and it is actually better than the first section- than you're fine, but if it's that major of an edit you should post it here first. --danielfolsom 23:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This is what i began writing, but i didnt want to carry on if i thought it would be deleted, i wanted to know whether i was going in the right direction:

When one conjures up an image of street gangs in the U.S. it is usually a reflection of films such as Colors. However, African-American gangs were not recognised as a social problem until the 1910s (Adamson 2000, p. 273). An exception was noted in 1853 Philadelphia (Davis 1982, p. 190) harv error: no target: CITEREFDavis1982 (help). The history of European-American youth gangs extends as far back as the 1780s although lacking a definition the gangs then were characterised by young people hanging out on street corners (Meranze 1996, p. 94).

Adamson, Christopher (2000), "Defensive localism in white and black: a comparative history of European-American and African American youth gangs", Ethnic and Racial Studies, 23 (2): 272–298.

Meranze, M. (1996), Laboratories of Virtue: Punishment, Revolution, and Authority in Philadelphia, 1760-1835, Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, ISBN 978-0807822777.

82.198.230.230 06:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok the first statement was a bit weird, Colors? - but the rest would probably be fine. As long as you wrote it yourself--danielfolsom 12:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Colors was a 1988 film depicting the Bloods and Crips gangs in Los Angeles. It was very stereotypical portrayal of the gangs. It starred Sean Penn and Dennis Hopper. This film is an example of why many people worldwide deny the existence of gangs in their locality because they do not fit these stereotypes. Also many law enforcement agencies throughout the U.S denied the existence of gangs because they were not like those on colors. This is film, holloywood, not real, but its influence on perception is tremendous. I have began to write up a section on American Street gangs. If you use a reference twice, how do you do it so it only appears on the reference list once, or does it not matter? 82.198.230.230 18:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I can fix the references - you use ref name, but again I can do that. The Colors film should be taken out, I understand where you're comming from, but it's unencyclopedic. Ummm what else ... oh yeah, when you do a ref at the end of the sentence, put the period before the ref, and don't do an inline thing (Adamson, Christopher pg 200) - it's just not needed.

Also, "the african american being recognized in 1910" .... sentence - I think that's kind of odd. I mean not to long before 1910 there was slavery - in which case gangs wouldn't be the problem.

Last thing - is there any way you can get links to web pages to cite the stuff - I'd like to take a look at some of the sources so I and others can clean up the section a bit.--danielfolsom 19:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I have found it difficult in finding the whole articles. I can find links for abstracts etc.. I have an old Athens account from my university days which still seems to work and so i download many of the articles i cite as PDFs from things such as Blackwell Synergy and Ingenta and Oxford/Cambridge journals etc. Other sources are books on gangs i have purchased over the years. Certain books can be accessed on a limited basis from amazon.com. I could email the journals to you as pdf's for you to read? I will also try to search for citations on google.scholar as an attempt to find weblinks. I tend not to use information straight from websites. Although if the website has quoted a source is that acceptable to use it? Im relatively new to wikipedia and still learning 82.198.230.230 19:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If you have the links to the pdfs or anything like that go ahead and throw them in there! And if I understand what you're saying - that if a source has a quote in it (like the New York Times having a quote from Hillary Clinton) - then yes, you can use it--danielfolsom 20:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The NY Times example, cool. The PDF links will not open the documents without someone first inputting their account name and pass? I think so anyway. Here is a link to an article by Malcolm Klein i have just accessed via Sage Publications, let me know if the link works

http://ccj.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/21/2/135.pdf

Im battling with wording and encycloaepedic style, im far too used to writing essays and reports at work. Im going to have a new attempt another day. I have tried to make the section more appropriate, but i think its best for me to leave it for a bit and come back later. I dont know how involved you are with gang research but i am a member of the Eurogang network (European and American gang researchers), http://www.umsl.edu/~ccj/eurogang/euroganghome.htm, you may find this interesting.

82.198.230.230 20:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This article would benefit from a good proofreading. Homefill 15:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Tag is now addressed on talk page, User:Danielfolsom, please do not remove any more tags. 15:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok sounds good - although a bit more detail would be nice. However I assume since you didn't address or re-add 2/3 of the templates, then you agree with me on those - so please don't re-add them again without discussion.danielfolsom 22:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing this: Gangs that use violence and threats of violence to achieve social/religious/political goals may be defined essentially as 'domestic terrorists' waging war against civilians in their own homeland. [2]

It doesn't help define gang, and the FBI page linked in the footnote is just a minor press release with a hate group ∈ terrorist subtext. Brock 18:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this article should be protected from unregistered users because they keep vandalising the page. Agtaz 04:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the Gangs in England, which I have support for mergining here (especially good considering all we have right now is gangs in the united states) needs major clean up - all help appreciated.--danielfolsom 23:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The England Gang section whilst interesting is compromised wholly of popular reading material and very basic and brief encounters of modern day gangs in English cities. The history of gangs in England does only extend as far back as 1970s, however, gang like groups in England have been in existence since the 17th century but were never called “gangs”. Also the post-war era saw a number of sub-cultures within Britain that could have been misinterpreted as gangs except for the fact the groups did not form for the purpose of committing crime, maybe one exception being the Rude Boys (West Indian dope dealers in 1960s/70s Britain, classed as a subculture).

In terms of Organised Crime Britian is famous more so for the east end gangster villains such as the Krays and Richardsons (im sure there will be a wikipedia article on them). However, modern day organised crime in Britain is made up of various nationalities including Turkish/Kurdish, Albanian, Triads, and modern day British criminals such as Curtis Warren.

Prison gangs are relatively unknown nationwide. However, there is much known of Liverpool crime families and how they operate in prison as well as London street gangs in Prison.Englandgangs 07:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Material includes links to verifiable and credible sources.24.168.224.213 21:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

With all the vandalism of this page, maybe it could be locked against these drive by vandals. If anyone knows how -- or has time to figure out how -- to get that going.... Carol Moore 02:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Vandals should be back at work within minutes. If they go back to daily vandalism someone else can feel free to go to this page and request page protection again... sigh.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection Carol Moore 14:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

I was wondering what type of gang the Bloods and the Crips and Latin Kings, and other gangs, were. Also, is the Mafia a gang? How about terrorist organizations? are they gangs too? If so, what kind? 204.52.215.107 (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I notice that this article explicitly includes "hate groups" such as the Ku Klux Klan and the World Church of the Creator. It is very good that it gives a sourced, well-known definition, "any durable, street-oriented youth group whose own identity includes involvement in illegal activity", but do these groups meet it? My impression is that both of those groups are practically geriatric clubs, not youth groups, don't spend the bulk of their time on the street, and only occasionally (and with much disavowal) are associated with criminal activities. Upon examination, it seems that definition is actually for a street gang or troublesome youth group, reasonably enough. But that leaves us back at the point where a gang is vaguely defined, and it would appear that any group with some criminal involvement is included.

Personally, I don't see street or youth involvement as a crucial distinction - if a mob group threatens a Web site with a denial of service attack using a botnet unless protection money is paid, this seems "gang-related" even if it is made up of old men indoors. But I would think there must be some boundary between gangs and political extremists based on the profit margin. I think that a group like the Weather Underground Organization can set off bombs and still be "radicals" rather than "gangsters", in common usage, because they are believed to be serving an altruistic political belief; but if they rob armored trucks for money that is another matter. But is there a source to agree with my perceptions? Wnt (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC) theeheee

I don't have time to work on this right now (I made some small edits), but it's just not very well written. One example, drawn more or less at random: "Because of the frequently ethnic minority dimension, to gangs, some studies of the sociology of gangs contend that gang culture arises and depends, at least in part, upon aspects of social marginality and deviance." What is the causality being asserted by "because" here? That the sociologists hold these opinions because they are biased against ethnic minorities? That gang members are deviant because they belong to ethnic minorities? Grammatically - and assuming the first comma doesn't belong, because with that comma it doesn't parse at all - the sentence could equally mean either; I'd guess the latter, in which case it seems to take at face value at face value that members of ethnic minorities are more likely to be deviant (than those in a majority ethic group, I presume), which seems to be little more than a statement of ethnic bias. - Jmabel | Talk 04:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention "gang experts know that a "Wanna-B" is a "Gonna-B" without early intervention." What the hell? - 28 Jun 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.33.139.99 (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this article is pretty awful Kingcobweb (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This should be mentioned. These are based on Race. See the History Channel documentary series Gangland, "Prison Gangs". Powerzilla (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I redirected Gangster to Gang (as requested a year ago), which will hopefully bring more attention and expansion to this topic. -RoBoTam^ice 19:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Valdivia MAY be a very qualfied expert, but we need to establish that before using this book because it is a self-published book. Lulu.com is a self-publisher. WP:RS says: "Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution, when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." At this point, that predicate hasn't been established yet. So a little research needs to be done here before a large amount of info from this self-published source is added. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Wait a second, are you Dr. Valdivia? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• You've now violated the 3R. I've posted an entry on the COI adminstrative noticeboard. I do not understand your refusal to discuss. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's the text that I've removed from the article until the COI issues are resolved. Smartse (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Another method of classification is offered by Steven D. Valdivia, noted gang expert, author and lecturer: From his book, "Forces...Gangs to Riots...why and how some communities erupt and how we may end it"

TRADITIONAL GANG: The first visible manifestation of community dysfunction in relation to structural elements of a host society, e.g. economic, social, political; usually a minority community; negative outcomes are related to type and degree of negative relationship over time; this gang is the vehicle for supplanting real needs that are socially deficient or unavailable with artificially created replacements in critical areas, e.g. home, community, economic, social, power, career, accomplishment, respect, etc. The gang is the vehicle.

HYBRID GANG: This is the "new" traditional gang. This gang consists of mixed groupings that cross race and ethnic lines to accomplish the same as the Traditional Gang but for a broader and more contemporary youth population.

SELF-HATE GANG: This is the largest in number and in area. These gangs are insular, consisting of single race/ethnic group members whose goal is to self-eliminate. This gang is the sociopath outcome of systemic dehumanization, exclusion and victimization by a host society over an extended period of time, usually over generations. They use obvious symbols (colors, turf, clothing, hand-signs, graffiti,) to facilitate the process. The symbols are "triggers" to conflict and not "causes" of conflict as many experts maintain is the case. Symbols feed a mechanism, albeit a violent one, for release and for self- punishment. The type and level of self-hate violence depends on degree, type and longevity of their negative societal relationship. These processes appear to be local cycles of violence but are part of a larger societal process. This gang is an anger-based vehicle that evolves from a deteriorated societal relationship. It also dissapates with improvements to that relationship. This group is the easiest to manage and control. It is also the simplist to solve. However, research and action, usually punitive, are directed at the individual and his group and not at the systemic sources of the group behavior.

HATE-GANG: Hate-gangs are those with a commonality of race, creed, color, religion, belief, politic, gender, etc., who band together, identify and fight a common enemy based on differences. These are gangs borne from our failure to successfully integrate various cultures, races and ethnic groups. In fact, laws and rules favoring some groups and punishing others give tacit approval for some hate-group’s activities. In other cases, groups teetering on the fringe of society act out against other groups seen as real or perceived threats to their tenuous standing. Their existence reflects bias and intolerance. These gangs can exist where social positioning, power and politics create friction among groups. Some form as a reaction to them, i.e. to defeat, to defend against or for protection from. This is akin to ethnic and religious violence in other countries.

PREDATOR GANG: These have formed mainly for business reasons. Predators AKA Mafias have preyed on their own people for eons, setting up illegal, usually commodity based operations within their insular communities resulting from group exclusion. They filled gaps left by a sectarian host society. They are an alternative for entrepreneurial goals. They use gangsters to conduct business, including enforcement. Predators are a heinous part of the gang world reflective of a group’s exclusion level within a social system. They formed as a sub-economic and social force to fill needs. They engage in various enterprises and serviced groups that were excluded from employment and from access to various markets and services. These were purveyors of certain commodities which created needed employment opportunities in those same areas. Predator is both a level achieved by members of the other two groups, self-hate and hate, as well as a separate class of gangs. The matured predators are a gang’s sociopath graduates who prey on anyone and everyone, removing them only as necessary for business reasons. These are often gangsters who have come to realize the uselessness of killing for no viable benefit (self-hate). Many former enemies formed gainful enterprises once they decided to make a go of their shared outcast status in life. Initially, they became active sub-sets of Traditional gangs. But they also formed into Mafia-like brotherhoods. There are levels of activity and involvement in this group which mirrors an economic system. Some handle procurement and distribution or sales and marketing or billing and collection. Some are independent contractors if you will, that have their own business model. These predatory groups are directly and indirectly responsible for a large amount of drug and property crimes. Oddly enough, they are also partly responsible for the relative peace in some gang communities since they strive to avoid the unwanted attention and interruption in profits that gang wars bring.

I'm liking this section less and less. Sundance Kid? Are we really going to let this turn into a long list of every cowboy outlaw, 20's gangster and thug we can think up? If that is the case, then it should be a seperate list article. It's really getting too long for this one. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I have improved this article as best as I can. I am trying to get this article in a good article status. I know, I am missing some information and references. I like your help and input. --Zink Dawg -- 21:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Good work, it's a lot better than it was! Smartse (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the following spurious etymology "The related word "mobster" is a term derived from Latin and Aramaic." based on evidence from my own knowledge and etymonline. Moreover, the reference cited was a mirror of this page which does not work as a reference. I will remove other uses of this reference if any. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkehrt (talk • contribs) 03:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There are different types of gang to what is described in the article, see for example http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8530000/8530932.stm

I saw an academic book recently that said the type of gang described in the article is the "classic" model of the gang that was researched in past decades; but more recent research shows that, among gangs, this type of classic gang is rare, and that gangs actually take different forms to that described.

I see there are lots of references, but I wonder how many of them are based on recent objective sociological research, rather than stereotypes from old movies and supposition? Even if the supposition is by law-officers.

Edit: The book I saw was "Street Gang Patterns and Policies" by Malcolm W. Klein and Cheryl L. Maxson. Hardcover, 320 pages, published in 2006. ISBN-10: 0195163443, ISBN-13: 978-0195163445. About gangs in the USA. It includes extensive summaries of previous academic research and includes up to date objective research. If anyone is serious about making a really good article, then this is what you want to read. Unfortunately I do not have the leisure time to do that at the moment. You can see most of it - from where I am anyway - on Google Books. 89.242.101.23 (talk) 11:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Since this is about gangs in general I don't think it makes sense to have a box on the top right of the page describing when gangs were "founded" since it makes it seem like the article is about one gang in specific. Perhaps it should say "Dates of emergence" etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.143.22 (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I dissagree with what you put I however will not edit it to be respectful. My gang gc is a local gang and to be accepted you must be a certin age but we have no real requirments but we dont let just anyone in.To be in a gang you must go though an initiation to be let in. Not only that a race card is always played--Ciscoofthegc (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC) CISCO

• That's why Wikipedia is written based on reliable sources and not just people's personal experiences. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This article has conflicting information about where and when in the US gangs first emerged. The United States gangs section says that they originated in Chicago during prohibition, but the History section says that they started on the east coast after the American Revolution. Should History of Street Gangs in the United States be created as a separate article? TraceySwans (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The current version of the article seems to be heavily slanted towards police perception of gangs. It is likely that more research on gangs has been conducted by police and criminologists than by traditional anthropologists, historians, and other sociologists, so much of the potential source material may have bias. However, this bias seems to have worked it's way into the article.

The final (run-on) paragraph of the Identifying section is particularly egregious. It's written in the wrong person and reads like a howto for police looking to identify gang members. I would wager that it's plagiarized from somewhere (and if not, is original research). This is what originally keyed me into the article's POV problems. The whole section is written from a law enforcement POV, which (on reflection) brought the fact that the entire article has issues into light.

Karatorian (talk) 08:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The pov in the Gang membership in the US military really needs to be fixed. Look at it and you should see why. 174.89.40.6 (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• What is POV about it? Niteshift36 (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm part of communication class and I will edit a few words to make a sentence clear. Let me know what you thinkCuffum321 (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason that a infobox should be on this article. Gang where around when civilization began, it wasn't made in the 1800's.Picaxe01 (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

"This article is about groups of individuals who share a common identity." No, at present, it seems to be purely about criminal gangs. The first line of the lede then goes on to say "A gang is a group of recurrently associating individuals or close friends with identifiable leadership and internal organization, identifying with or claiming control over territory in a community, and engaging either individually or collectively in violent or other forms of illegal behavior". The first clause would apply to all gangs, not just criminal ones; the rest of the sentance just to the criminal ones. I'm not sure if this article should discuss all gangs or just criminal ones ("criminal gang" is probably the primary use thse days), but if the latter, it definitely deeds a better introduction and disambiguation. (Gang (disambiguation) describes a gang simply as "A a group of recurrently associating individuals who share a common identity", but links here). Iapetus (talk) 11:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a list of gangs from say USA,Russia,New Zealand, Mexico and Australia. i think it would be good to have on this page it is just a case of someone finding the information and gang names. Does anyone else like my idea? and would someone be willing to create it? Mudak568 (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a long list in List of criminal enterprises, gangs and syndicates. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed that you removed gangs in the US military. Even though I provided links and references to the gangs I added. King Cobras gang members were in the US Marines. http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/gangs_2.htm and http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1gqShQTSDCM watch @2:38 . The White power Skinheads have been in the US Army and the US Marines Corps. TJ Leyden is a former White power Skinhead, and he was in the Marines Corps. Also Malcolm Wright Jr, James N. Burmeister, and Timothy Mcveigh were gang members of the Skinheads, and they were in the US Army. Here are some links to White gangs in the US military. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/21/us-army-white-supremacists_n_1815137.html and http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2008/winter/killing-a-brown. Next time read the references provided before removing info. Also what made you think these gangs had no history in the US military? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiTrollTerminator (talk • contribs) 07:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• I primarily removed your senseless overlinking. Nobody is disputing that any of them have had members in the US military. However, this article isn't only about gangs in the US and there's no reason to add every instance you can find. You're being myopic. entries should have significance.Niteshift36 (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I am currently attempting to bring attention to the presence of women in gang culture as part of a class project. In addition to the existence of girl gangs (which I am creating a separate article about), I aim to highlight the role of non-member women in gang life. Specifically, I will explore women’s involvement in gang-related criminal activities and use as “honey traps” (Taylor, 1993, https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=147359). I will also include numbers on the incidence of domestic and sexual violence amongst women affiliated with gangs under the heading “Gang Violence.” I would like to add the women’s involvement section under the heading “Associates or Affiliates,” but I realize that group of subheadings is based around the work of O’Deane and I don’t want to detract from that. If anyone has any suggestions for a relevant caption or existing section I could make my additions under, or any suggestions for my work at all, I would greatly appreciate it.

Hhoover42 (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Gang. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130509170434/http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs32/32146/appa.htm to http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs32/32146/appa.htm#Map1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130217085423/http://www.american.edu/ted/hpages/crime/Asian.htm to http://www.american.edu/ted/hpages/crime/Asian.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140524022922/http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs31/31379/gangs.htm to http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs31/31379/gangs.htm#Top

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)