Talk:Armenian Power

Proposal: Infobox crime listing
User:Niteshift36 has repeatedly removed extortion and witness intimidation from the crimes for which this gang has faced federal prosecution under RICO. News sources clearly state that these are notable among the many crimes allegedly committed. Nearly every summary mentions extortion because of the seriousness and prevalence of the allegations. Most also mention intimidation or witness intimidation. Examples:
 * Extortion
 * "The arrests stem from two federal indictments and state cases that charge a total of 113 defendants with crimes including kidnapping, extortion, bank fraud and narcotics trafficking."
 * "...Armenian Power, whose enterprise allegedly collected $20 million through kidnapping, extortion, bank fraud and narcotics trafficking."
 * Witness intimidation
 * "The alleged crimes include kidnapping, extortion, assault, witness intimidation, and drug distribution."
 * "Of the 19 defendants from Glendale, nine were charged with engaging in identity theft and loan, bank, and access card device fraud. Others named in the indictment face robbery and witness intimidation charges."

Proposal: include extortion and intimidation in the infobox.
 * Support. For reasons above. Jokestress (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The problem here is overlap and redundancy. The infobox is supposed to be a snapshot of information, not an entire article itself. What you are doing is listing everything that is being shown in a larger article without looking at them. For example, check fraud, bank fraud and credit card fraud are all still fraud. There is no reason we need to list all 3 when a single entry of "fraud" covers it. Witness intimidation is another thing that is a gray area. They actually commit crimes that serve to intimidate a witness. You can go commit an assault by itself. You can't commit a witness intimidation by itself. You have to DO something, like an assault, stalking, arson etc that then serves to intimidate them. It's not really a stand alone crime. Think of someone getting arrested with a kilo of cocaine. They get charged with possession of cocaine and possession with intent to distribute. They didn't really commit 2 different crimes, but the applicable laws overlap. Picture 2 AP members sitting around planning: Would they say "let's go commit a witness intimidation" or would they be more likely to say "let's go kick the crap out of the guy (assault) and he'll keep his mouth closed." The last one is extortion. I don't have a huge problem with including it, but extortion IS one of the most common rackets, (see the article on racketeering) so it seems fairly redundant. What I find interesting is that you are so bent on making this long list in the little infobox, yet have made no effort to list them in the body of there article. The source is a decent one and could serve as a foundation to expand what is a pretty skimpy article and the expansion would surely mention all of these things. But the easy way out is just trying to jam them into the infobox which, I again point out, is really supposed to be thumbnail of info, not an all inclusive list. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, the extortion is often used as a predicate offense to prove a more serious charge of racketeering, thus making is a lesser included offense. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Your fixation with removing sourced information from the article means that it appears nowhere in the article if your edits stand. I encourage you to create a complete list of all crimes charged and convicted (there are dozens), but it's clear that extortion and intimidation are primary aspects of the RICO charges against AP. The reason the DOJ has a 60-page report on witness intimidation is because it is a specific type of obstruction of justice. Extortion on the other hand involves unlawful gain and is one of the most common organized crime complaints. Both are serious, distinct, and an important part of this gang's m.o., after the fraud/financial crimes. Jokestress (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So I suggest that you put the info in the article and your response is essentially "you do it". The thing is, intimidation is a result of other crimes, not really a stand alone crime. Can you find anyone who has been charged with intimidation and not the underlying crime? They commit crime to get the result of intimidation. Thanks for the lesson, but I know what extortion is. I didn't skip that class at FLETC. As I said, and you apparently ignored, I don't have a huge problem with including it, but really, we should eliminate racketeering then. You fall back into listing the underlying offenses (the rackets), then listing what they add up to. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your credentialism and original research regarding jurisprudence are, as you probably know, irrelevant. Since you seem uninterested in making the article more comprehensive, I am happy to do so now. Jokestress (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My "credentialism" wasn't used as part of my reasoning. It was mentioned in response to your condescending remarks. Nor have I used any "original research regarding jurisprudence". I used some easily verifiable reasonings, some simple to understand examples and WP:COMMONSENSE to try to show you why your idea didn't make sense to me. If that makes you uncomfortable, then how about Help:Infobox instead? "They quickly summarize important points in an easy-to-read format." "...they are only supposed to summarize material from an article—the information should still be present in the main text, because it may not be possible for some readers to access the contents of the infobox." "Concise. Infobox templates are "at-a-glance", and used for quickly checking facts. Long bodies of text, or very detailed statistics, belong in the article body." seem relevant, among other parts. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What I am "uncomfortable" with is your removing sourced information from articles and marking good faith edits by User:Insommia as "vandalism." That kind of condescension drives new editors away from the project and is in contravention of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and other policies. Making articles less complete, especially ones tagged "not notable" as recently as this month, doesn't improve the project, either. Extortion had appeared in the infobox since September 2008, until your unilateral decision to remove it. I'm all for WP:BOLD, but please consider moving information rather than removing it completely from articles, and please don't label good faith edits as vandalism. I appreciate your working toward consensus, and I can accept the infobox as it stands if you can. Jokestress (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Insomnia has done this over and over, on numerous articles, and refuses to discuss any of it. He is NOT a new editor (nearly 1700 edits) and he has edited under more than one account. The single time I did get him to discuss, he kept insisting that because an article mentioned "contract killing" that it was separate from murder. He couldn't show anything to support that and I could show that there is no specific statute that applied. When an editor insists on listing "credit card fraud, check fraud etc" as individual crimes and totally refuses to discuss why a simple entry of fraud (which not only covers those, but other frauds) doesn't suffice.......and that editor does little else besides add crimes to infoboxes and add categories......and refuses to discuss it, then yes, I call it vandalism. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Syriously?
Saying that members of a gang support Syria is different than saying Syria supports the gang. I think it should be removed, despite the 3 linked references. Lollipop (talk) 02:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you : ) Lollipop (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)