Talk:Juggalo gangs

Documents sourced to publicintelligence.net
This Article cites two documents cited to publicintelligence.net:. Per discussions at WP:RSN (see and ), 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 On this basis, since neither document can be cited as WP:RS (being unpublished, and therefore unverifiable), I shall shortly be removing the citations.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 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)


 * Lots of noise. And none backed up with anything of the slightest relevance to the article. Material from PI does not pass WP:RS, end of story- and we don't 'ignore all rules' just for the convenience of people who can't find proper sources for articles. (And btw, you aren't the only person to have suffered clinical depression - but I don't use it as an excuse for failure to comply with basic Wikipedia policy regarding article content). AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please will you both try to remain civil with each other. Nobodys intelligence should be being questioned. AnnerTown is clearly attempting to be productive and you should try to assume good faith.  STATic  message me!  21:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Productivity' would imply producing article content that complies with Wikipedia policy - including sourcing. I have repeatedly asked that this article be made to do so. If and when it does, I will be done here. I only got involved in the subject at all because it was apparent that those involved had violated multiple policies (including some gross WP:BLP violations, which can be seen in the article history). I have no particular interest in Juggalos (gang members or otherwise). If I've ever heard the Insane Clown Posse's music, I have no recollection of it. As a Brit, resident in the U.K. my interests in U.S. gang culture in general are limited to a general curiosity, combined with a background in the social sciences which perhaps makes me more aware of the complexities of such subjects than the general reader. Contrary to AnnerTown's gross mischaracterisations, I have no desire to see a legitimate and policy-conforming article on the subject deleted. I do however think that such an article should conform to policy, and see no reason whatsoever why we should 'ignore all rules' because contributors can't or won't comply with basic Wikipedia standards. Articles are supposed to be based on properly-cited, published, sources. There is no reason whatsoever to ignore such policy here, any more than there is with other articles. Indeed, given that the article describes living persons (gang members and otherwise), and includes allegations of serious criminal activity, it is more important than ever to ensure proper conformity with policy, and that is really all that needs to be said. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I was making a comment towards the conversation you guys were having not necessarily the article. Implying that someone should see a psychiatrist is not very civil, and I think you can agree with me in that. This article definitely still has some BLP and NPOV issues and IAR is not an argument in this case. These policies should especially be followed in negative articles such as on gangs, you are completely right with that. I give Anner props however considering how bad the article was when it was first started.  STATic  message me!  22:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could comment on the substantive issue - the sourcing of large chunks of the article to material hosted on unofficial websites. We have no way whatsoever of ascertaining whether they are genuine and true copies, and there has been no evidence whatsoever put forward to verify that they have been published at all. Contrary to AnnerTown's claims, not all U.S. government material is available under the FOIA - there are explicit exceptions for some material relating to law enforcement for example - and it is anything but self-evident that material only obtainable under the FOIA would meet Wikipedia's criteria as 'published' in any case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:51, 27 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)


 * PI is not a publisher. Material from PI and similar websites (e.g. cryptocomb.org which states that it welcomes the uploading of "open, secret and classified documents" ) does not pass WP:RS. If the material has been published by US government sources, cite them as the source, and include the relevant publication details. If the article can be made to conform to Wikipedia policies, my opinion of its merits would be irrelevant. Not that your rambling miscaracterisations have any resemblance to my opinion anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:02, 26 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)
 * 'Ominous' probably isn't the best word. However, as it stands I had to reread the paragraph about four times to understand it, could just be me Jonpatterns (talk) 09:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * AnnerTown, the 'not found' source was clearly the one with the broken link you fixed with this edit: . AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

"Juggalo gang expert Michelle Vasey"
This phrase, or similar, is used in several places. Do we have a reliable source that states that Vasey is 'an expert'? If we don't, we shouldn't be saying she is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Well there is this from ABC which definitly should be added to the article if not already. Assuming it is the same person she is a Arizona Department of Public Safety Detective.  STATic  message me!  21:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, we cite that - but I can't see where it states that Vasey is an 'expert' on the Juggalo gangs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes calling her an "expert" on the subject is definitely a stretch.  STATic  message me!  21:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've removed the assertion as unverified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard
I think that it needs to be noted here that User:AnnerTown started a thread on the dispute resolution noticeboard regarding this article, but after making the initial posting, made no further input whatsoever. As can be seen, the issue was once again the admissibility or otherwise of the material sourced to publicintelligence.net etc. Given the comment made by User:Noleander, the uninvolved volunteer at DRN ("Well, I'm not sure if AnnerTown is still participating or not (I'll ping them on their talk page). But if they don't reply, we could perhaps assume that AndyTheGrump has a point, and that those sources are not suitable for the article"), I think it is only reasonable at this point to assume that the sources aren't suitable, and proceed accordingly. Rather than gut the article entirely, it might be worth looking at a published source which came up at a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard, the National Gang intelligence Center 2011 National Gang threat assessment, to see what can be used as a replacement. This is going to involve considerable work, however, and frankly, after all the hassle I've had to go through so far, I'm not particularly keen in doing it myself. Any volunteers? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

This article is terrible and highly sensationalized.
It should really be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.163.73 (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Juggalos vs. MS-13
Whoever wrote that "That report does not say that juggalos are holding their own against the MS-13" is absolutely wrong. Here is an exact quote from the document:

"[redacted] stated the Juggalos are in a type of gang war in California with the MS-13 gang and are holding their own against them." — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnerTown (talk • contribs) 21:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It is utterly irrelevant what that 'report' says. Material uploaded to faygoluvers.net isn't a reliable source. Along with much of the other material cited in this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Articles Juggalo, Juggalos (gang) violate NPOV
(discussion copy-pasted from Village pump (policy) &mdash; rybec   01:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC))

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV states "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view." The ACLU is suing the FBI over the categorization of Insane Clown Posse's fans as a gang. There is no evidence linking music fandom to gang activity. The article Juggalos (gang) should be renamed "allegations of Juggalo gang activity" or deleted/merged, to correspond with factual data on the ICP fandom. http://www.aclumich.org/Juggalos

It should also be noted that allegations of gang activity connected to ICP fans have origin in racism, as pointed out by an interviewer here: http://steed.bangordailynews.com/2014/01/09/rachel-healy-of-the-aclu-on-why-the-civil-rights-advocacy-group-is-getting-down-with-the-clown/

Who states; "What makes me nervous is seeing these emerging reports about the changing nature of gang affiliation, where affiliations are becoming much more fluid and less rigid than they were even a decade ago. Based on this changing scene, and these blanket assumptions of affiliation, the FBI and other agencies could ultimately justify going after any black or Latino kid in urban areas based on a suspicion of affiliation by proximity."

Is this really what Wikipedia should be encouraging by labeling ICP fans as a gang in spite of factual evidence proving that they are not a gang and lawsuits from ICP themselves and the ACLU? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACLUSupporter1 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that there are also significant problems with citations in the 'gang' article - it has largely been sourced to supposed official documents from law enforcement agencies uploaded to file-sharing websites - making the documents (some of which are evidently internal and unpublished) unverifiable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's definition of "published" is "made available to the public in some form". I glanced at one of the documents; it says "UNCLASSIFIED FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION". Such documents are made available when someone files a request for them, are they not? &mdash; rybec   19:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Available on request? Not necessarily, no. Explicit exceptions may be made regarding such requests if they concern law enforcement matters. In any case, we have no way of knowing if the uploaded versions are genuine or have been tampered with, and accordingly should be citing verifiable documents, rather than uploaded files of unknown provenance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with "in any case". In case an open records request should be denied, then yes, we might not be able to verify the documents. In case a request were fulfilled, the person who filed the request could compare the copy provided by the FBI with the uploaded one. We're supposed to use primary sources with extra caution; taking a quick look at the "(gang)" article, I see in the infobox the claims "Membership: 1,000,000+ non-criminal Juggalos; 100,000–150,000 Juggalo gang members"; it is footnoted to one of the primary sources, as well as to a newspaper article which says "West Valley City Police Detective John LeFavor, who teaches a Juggalos class to police officers, teachers and social services workers at the Utah Gang Conference each year, said the majority of Utahns who define themselves as Juggalos are not violent. [...] LeFavor said police don't have a firm figure on the number of Juggalos in Utah, but said there are 'thousands.'"


 * The newspaper account alone doesn't support the numbers in the infobox. &mdash; rybec   22:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * For all intents & purposes, this is a content fork, much in the same way it would be if we had one article for Hamas to focus on their socio-political aspects, and Hamas (terrorists) to make all the other side happy with a highlight on that angle. I detest both the music and the fan base, but this is absurd.  Merge the stuff about the FBI and the gang classification into a paragraph or two of the main "Juggalo" article. Tarc (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This really needs to be moved to Talk:Juggalos (gang), as this is merely a content issue specific to this topic, and currently no one who has that or Juggalo watchlisted is necessarily aware of this thread. Note also the prior discussion at Articles for deletion/Criminal activity attributed to Juggalos. postdlf (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Numerous reliable sources document the gang designation. Reporting it is not a NPOV issue. Excluding it would be a NPOV issue. It's worth noting that in the AfD you linked to, they biggest opposition came from what was later shown to be a sockpuppet. And yes, that report was "published". It was uploaded to a file sharing site, but we've routinely allowed articles and reports hosted on other sites to be used as sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, we don't 'routinely' cite documents uploaded by persons unknown to file-sharing sites, with no alternative means of verification. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I wish that were true, but I've been at AfD and RSN discussions where the replication of a reliable source, loaded onto a site of unproven reliability, was allowed, even when I argued exactly what you're arguing now. Regardless, at least one of the reports in use here was debated at other articles. I actually have the report, so I cited it as an offline source. No different than citing any other book, newspaper etc that may not be readily available online. And what makes this one devoid of alternative means of verification? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The difference is that 'alternative means of verification' require proper publication details, not vague claims that the material has been made available to the public. So far, none have been provided. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There is nothing vague about what I said. Just in case you missed it, I'll repeat: It was available to the public on request. In the other discussion, I provided details on who produced it and when. I even provided info on how to request your own copy. Just because you can't click a link, doesn't erase these facts. And if it is no longer available for distro, that doesn't negate the fact that it was available (thus published). Every source isn't available forever. Do you have any evidence that it was never "made available to the public in some form"? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The onus is on those citing sources to provide the evidence. Do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And I have. The title, date, publishing agency, address.....all provided. The fact that I have never worked for the DoJ, yet was mailed the copy, disproves the claim that it is an internal document. I have the physical copy. It is on paper. I can cite it like I can cite any off line source. The author and publisher pass RS. Just because the report may no longer be available for request doesn't change the fact that it was available. I can't order an 8 track of Johnny Cash anymore either, but those were still published. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have the necessary publication details, why is the article citing uploaded documents? Why haven't you added proper citations? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you missed the part where I said the discussion was in a different article about the same source. It was never challenged here. I can tell you this: The upload is accurate. My changing this to reflect the offline source and removing the ability to see it online, in it's complete form, really doesn't strike me as an improvement. But if you want to insist on it, I'll help you make the information less easily available. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * All I am 'insisting on' is that this article conforms to Wikipedia policy on sourcing (and incidentally, I said that there is an issue with sources - plural. You now seem to be referring to a single source). AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I now seem to be referring to a single source? When I said " Regardless, at least one of the reports in use here was debated at other articles. I actually have the report, so I cited it as an offline source.", that should have been a strong indicator that I was presently talking about a single source. Then all the other "it" and "the" and mentions of a report in a singular form. I know you said "sources". I am addressing one at a time. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Niteshift36, can you continue to address the sources, or are you just going to leave things as is, where you've only addressed a single source and no other issues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACLUSupporter1 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Andy stopped and you're a SPA that has an agenda. What discussion is happening? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Niteshift36, can you please clarify what you mean by "Andy stopped"? You have repeatedly claimed that the material in question can be properly sourced. You have stated above that you intended to do so. Are you going to do this, or not? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I note once more that nothing has been done to rectify the improper use of unverifiable uploaded documents with no proper citations - accordingly I will be adding a template indicating the use of unreliable sources, when the current protection is removed. Please do not remove this until the issue is resolved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes to the article
I looked over the recent discussion, and all I wanted to add is that we should keep this as a separate article, because not all Juggalos are gang members or criminals. I do understand that some LEOs apparently believe that all Juggalos qualify as gang members, but most sources cited here support the idea that this is an entirely separate phenomena from the general Juggalo fan base.

I made the following changes to the article:


 * Added more criminal incidents regarding Juggalo gang members, in popular culture, and more police perspectives to the Juggalo gang classification.


 * Organized article into sections for better reading flow.


 * Fixed some citations and added several sources for the MS-13 gang war. We have this from two separate FOIA requests conducted by two separate sources as well as an article in the L.A. Times, so saying that it is "not sourced" is untrue. I re-added the faygoluvers ref as a secondary source, but we have this on a couple of other sites as well, including one which conducted an entirely different FOIA request than the one found on the faygoluvers web site.

A few of the citations still look sort of messy, but I'm tired and will fix it when I can.

I won't be able to respond for a day or two at the least, but I'll be around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnerTown (talk • contribs) 02:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * And yet again, I see that multiple WP:BLP violations have been added to the article - WE DO NOT ASSERT AS FACT THAT PERSONS CHARGED BUT NOT YET CONVICTED WITH CRIMINAL OFFENCES HAVE IN FACT CARRIED OUT SUCH OFFENCES. EVER. And where did this nonsense about a "former member" of the IRA come from? It isn't in the source cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Jumping in
"These gangs often use traditional gang initiation rituals such as "jumping in" members". I can guess what "jumping in" means, but honestly I have no idea and I would guess most people who lack background knowledge on this don't understand it either. Can someone clarify it for a general audience? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.17.69 (talk) 11:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The 'source' cited for this (which is one of the disputed uploaded documents discussed above) uses the phrase without clarification, and the only real contextual clue is on p.65, which in answer to the question "1. How can someone get into the gang?" says "a. Jumped in b. Born-in c. Commit criminal act" - clearly not enough to establish that it refers to "traditional gang initiation rituals". I'll remove the phrase as unsourced/WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Protection
I've full-protected this page to stop an edit war. Please bring your arguments here and agree a compromise, and I can unprotect the article. --John (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There is nothing to discuss when it comes to clear and unequivocal violations of WP:BLP policy. Assertions of guilt regarding an alleged murder based on a source which only describes 'arrests' is about as blatant a violation of policy as is possible. I have raised the matter at WP:ANI, and I fully expect the matter to be dealt with there. AndyTheGrump (talk)
 * What we should discuss there is how hard the boomerang should hit you for your misapplication of BLP as a shield for your edit warring. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, guess what? This is all fucking pointless. They were convicted.. Life without parole. Convicted in 2011. That took me 45 seconds to find. All this whining, bitching and teeth gnashing about BLP and you never bothered to look to see that it has already gone to trial, they were convicted and sentence. Can we PLEASE put this bullshit to rest now. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Completly agree. There is/was no BLP violation, we did not name the criminals, and as can be seen their was a conviction. I am sick of certain users trying to protect their obvious edit warring by crying BLP over and over. When three different editors revert you, you discuss the issue on the article talk page, not keep reverting and try to block one until the page is protected. STATic message me!   06:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP policy is absolutely clear over this, and there is no room for negotiation whatsoever: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". The source stated that the individuals had been arrested - it did not state that they had been convicted. If I see another violation of this kind I shall remove it - and if it is restored I shall report the violation. As for protection, I didn't ask for it, and if people had complied with policy, it would never have been necessary in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm equally sick of it. Stop trying to tell us why you were right a week ago. What reason is there to keep it out now? Today. If there is no valid reason, state it and we can get this handled.Niteshift36 (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You'll need to cite the original source (which makes the connection to juggalos) as well as the later one confirming the conviction, but I can't see any problem with adding it now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * How about this one, which does both: . It even calls them Juggalos in the headline. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting wording: "members of a subculture some view as a gang". AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Some do. Some don't. The article here already covers that. Some states and the feds call them a gang, Juggalos claim they aren't. Nothing new there. This is a primary source, but could be useful since it provides additional detail that makes the connection. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Another source that doesn't state that the killers were gang members I see. As for "some do, some don't", where reliable sources differ, Wikipedia policy is to give both points of view, ascribed to the relevant sources. Which suggests to me that we need to make clear in this case that it isn't certain the killing was gang-related at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * We adequately cover that some Juggalos dispute the gang status. We have an entire section devoted to the difference. What we need to say here is that 2 self-identified Juggalos lured a man to an ambush, killed him and have been convicted of it. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope. It isn't just that "some Juggalos dispute the gang status". The source you cited seems clear enough - it says that the killers were members of a 'subculture', and doesn't state that they were members of any gang. We cannot cite sources for things they don't say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We have sources calling the Juggalos a gang. We have sources calling the men Juggalos. We have sources showing they were convicted of the crime. Fine, we'll use two sources. Your objection was that they weren't convicted. We've proven they were. Your BLP concern is no longer valid. Do you have a conflicting RS that says explicitly states they're not Juggalos or gang affiliated? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You have no source which states that the killers were affiliated to any Juggalos gang. We have a source which makes clear that not everyone agrees that Juggalos constitute a gang. Accordingly, our article cannot state that they were definitively affiliated to a Juggalos gang - is that so hard to understand? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The ABC news source says "The two men arrested in connection with the attack on the 21-year-old called themselves "Juggalos.", then on page 2 is says " Juggalos are now classified as a gang in Utah, Arizona and Monroe County, Pa.". Guess where the murder happened Andy? Yes, Monroe County, PA. So ABC News (a reliable source) says: 1) The two are Juggalos. 2) The Juggalos are classified as a gang in Monroe County and then the Pocono Record (a reliable source) tells us 3) they were convicted. The source is actually specifying Juggalos in Monroe County. How much more specific do you want it to get? Do you have a source that refutes the claim that the Juggalos are considered a gang in Monroe County, Pa? There is no valid reason here to exclude this. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, You are suggesting that the Monroe County law enforcement authorities classify all Juggalos as gang members? That seems a rather implausible - and doesn't concur with what Detective Vasey says regarding Arizona: "I don't want people to go out there and look at every Juggalo and say, 'Oh, he's a gang member, he's got a machete and he's going to slice and dice everybody...'". In any case, the opinion of Monroe County law enforcement isn't the only one - and we have another source making it clear that the 'Juggalo = gang member' association is disputed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is absurd. I am not suggesting anything. I'm repeating the source. You're using a detective in Arizona to comment on what the authorities in Pennsylvania thinks. I no longer believe that you're acting out of concern for the article, BLP or anything like that. This is just a matter of you wanting to win. This will end up at BLPN (where it should have gone in the first place) and I'm betting the material ends up in the article after that.Niteshift36 (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to you getting outside input on this article - the more eyes on it the better as far as I'm concerned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. BDD's argument reveals problems with the existing name. It is hard to reconcile the title with the material in the article. If the text of article is correct then 85-90% of self-described Juggalos are peaceful, non-criminal music fans. There could be different ways of organizing the material and we can always hope for further progress. Crips is different because the opening sentence says that the Crips are a gang. It is implied there are no 'non-gang' Crips. If the title is changed to Juggalo gangs, that implies that there are gangs all of whose members are Juggalos (i.e. fans of particular music), which is consistent with what the article says. EdJohnston (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Juggalos (gang) → Juggalo gangs – God, how did I end up making another ICP RM? While I agree with some of the above discussion that having separate articles on the Juggalo subcultures and gangs is problematic, their size probably makes a merge impractical. We can at least come up with a better title for this one. My suggestion uses WP:NATURAL disambiguation. I believe it's compliant with WP:PLURAL. There isn't a single gang of Juggalos, let alone one called "Juggalos" as the current title implies. The the Bloods and Crips are both listed as Juggalo allies is indicative of the fact that the subject of this article is a group of distinct Juggalo gangs. Let's title it accordingly. BDD (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, the listing of both Bloods and Crips is probably more of an indication of how piss-poor the sourcing in this god-awful 'article' is than anything else. As for the move, if we are stuck with this festering heap of poorly-sourced sub-tabloid gloop, I can see the logic in your arguments. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. I'm not especially endorsing the present article contents, but the proposed new title represents a vast improvement in scope, which (one hopes) could lead to an article without some of the serious problems that have plagued this topic before. 172.9.22.150 (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't Support.


 * 1. By the same logic, Crips should be renamed to "Crip gangs", Bloods to "Blood gangs", 18th Street gang to "18th Street gangs", etc. Each of those articles is about a group of independent gangs that unite under the same general banner. It would make the most sense to follow the pattern set by other articles on gangs.


 * 2. There are sources that state that a gang using the name "Juggalo" is growing within the Juggalo subculture, as well as several Juggalo gangs that simply use the name "Juggalo".


 * 3. To answer AndyTheGangExpert's complaint, Bloods and Crips are not rivals in all areas, and have been documented working with the same allies even in areas where they are (e.g. Black Guerrilla Family).

AnnerTown (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hard to believe
It is hard to believe that the Crips and the Aryan Brotherhood are allies of the same gang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.110.144 (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Juggalo gangs. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130926071127/http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2013/05/bucky_rogers_alleged_minnesota_terrorist_is_a_juggalo_photos.php to http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2013/05/bucky_rogers_alleged_minnesota_terrorist_is_a_juggalo_photos.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927133243/http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2013/07/alleged_juggalo_terrorist_longed_for_cowboy_days_when_everyone_carried_a_gun.php to http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2013/07/alleged_juggalo_terrorist_longed_for_cowboy_days_when_everyone_carried_a_gun.php
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cor.mt.gov/Facts/stg.mcpx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140521192908/http://www.jrn.com/kgun9/news/blueprint-for-murder-juggalos.html to http://www.jrn.com/kgun9/news/blueprint-for-murder-juggalos.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

About the 2011 Assessment
I undid an edit by Revlastrite that claimed that a 2011 Assessment (cited in the Criminal activities section of the infobox) was inaccurate, as it disrupted the main article.

Criminal Activities are not specific or no Empirical data has been used. How many Juggalos of the approximate 8 million in their culture have committed the crimes listed. If less than 10% than that doesn't constitute gang activity. Also, how does this compare to other cultures i.e. Christians committing murder, i.e. other violent gangs. The Juggalo Culture admits that there are bad apples, every culture has one. However the actions of the 2017 Juggalo March does not depict activities of a violent crime. It has been called the most peaceful protest in 25 years. This article is propaganda to push an agenda. No empirical data has been entered to support claims of criminal violent "gang" activity. The 2011 Assessment was indeed that "an Assessment", which is the opinion of 1 or more analysts based on the data that is on hand. No fact checking has been done.

SelfCloak (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable sources
This article relies heavily on a 2011 FBI report and an assessment that was the basis of it. User:AndyTheGrump commented some time ago on the unreliability issue above and at the DRN. Cryptobomb certainly fails WP:RS and the Publicintelligence source was " disseminated for authorized law enforcement purposes only" and we should not use it directly. It formed the basis of the FBI's 2011 National Gang Threat Assessment that we do use, and that's the only FBI source that meets WP:RS. I have a similar issue with the List of Juggalo gang subsets article which relies on an the same unpublished report. Doug Weller talk 16:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a note to say I looked again and its sources look even worse. Doug Weller  talk 16:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Juggalo March article nominated for deletion
The Juggalo March article has been nominated for deletion. You can view the ongoing discussion here. Thanks, --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Juggalos are a piecefull family
Juggaloes are a piecefull family 216.180.190.141 (talk) 03:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)