Talk:MS-13/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about MS-13. 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

Archive 3

Edit request on 2 April 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove footnote # 37. ^ http://wn.com/New_Haven_CT_Vietnam_Veterans_Memorial_Hit_AGAIN_MS-13_gang

Skywink (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Why? Celestra (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Spread to Europe

Misspellings

Maras as political actors

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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Mara Salvatrucha → MS-13 – Per WP:COMMONNAME. A bit over a million Google hits for "Mara Salvatrucha" -wikipedia. 364 million for MS-13 -wikipedia. I don't think the official name does much good here when the gang is commonly known as MS-13. --BDD (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

re-direct MS-13 here, but the the name change doesn't seem needed. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Support. I agree with BDD. We can bend the rules this time and allow the change. I don't feel strongly towards keeping the name or moving it, but you have my support. ComputerJA (talk) 03:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Since MS-13 now redirects here, do we need to bend the rules? People searching for either term will end up here. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I noticed that the move was made once I had posted. Thanks. ComputerJA (talk) 13:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Which rules, exactly, would we be bending? --BDD (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Does it really matter? Both terms bring them here at this point. Leaving it as the existing (and actual name) presents no problem at all. So why are we intent on "fixing" something that isn't broken? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

That's just what we do. Do you disagree with this move, for example? --BDD (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"That's just what we do"? That is hardly a persuasive reason. As for your example....wow, could you find something any less on-point? The current title here is not some acronym that nobody understands. It's a fairly common use. I understand that you have some affection for the WP:COMMONNAME guideline but that doesn't mean everything needs "fixed". Again, you've given no real reason to change something that isn't broken to something that already leads here except "cause we do". Niteshift36 (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I can be more formal. The nutshell summary of WP:AT: "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." The Google hits certainly suggest that MS-13 is predominant in reliable English-language sources. More formal analyses may use the gang's full name, but the same could be said about the established WP:COMMONNAME examples, such as Bill Clinton, heroin, caffeine, and Nazi Party. Mara Salvatrucha is an official name, which is not the best choice for an article title when common alternatives are available. You may be very familiar with that official name—I see you're interested in (serving in?) law enforcement, so that makes sense. But plenty of other people are just going to hear about MS-13 on the news and may never hear the full name. I only encountered the full name during the course of some research. You may not like the Fort Dix example, but it's apt. People familiar with the US military may know what JB MDL Dix is, but most people just hear "Fort Dix." "Fort Dix" existed as a redirect to JB MDL Dix before that requested move; the existence of redirects is a poor reason to ignore the WP:COMMONNAME policy. --BDD (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice try. Cutting and pasting a large about of a policy I've already read doesn't really further your cause. I know you have a huge affection for that policy but your argument boils down to "because it is there". While the Ghits may be a bigger number, bigger numbers aren't what drives everything. Mara Salvatrucha is NOT an uncommon term. Well over a million Ghits proves that. It is not ambiguous. In fact, there would be no other "mara salvatrucha". There are, however, other uses of MS-13. It is consistant with use in reliable sources. So there really isn't a prblem with COMMONNAME at all.Since typing MS-13 in the box will lead you here, any fears of people not finding it because it isn't "common" enough are unfounded. And no, the Ft. Dix example really isn't that relevant. We are back to you insistig that we fix something that really isn't broken and the reason is "because it's there". Sorry, ain't buying it. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Support The arguments posted above have convinced me that MS-13 is the best title, and I'm not dissuaded by the argument that MS-13 already redirects here so it doesn't matter anyway. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:12, 12 July 2012 (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.

Editrequest

Etymology Numbers

Edit request on 12 October 2012

M16 "high powered assault rifle'

Where does this membership number come from?

External links modified

Major Crimes

Europe/Spain?

13 seconds to join

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2017

This edit request to MS-13 has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to add information about the more recent sanctions imposed by the United States on the three imprisoned leaders of MS-13 (José Luís Mendoza Figueroa, Eduardo Erazo Nolasco, and Élmer Canales Rivera). While these men are in prison in El Salvador, they continue to give orders. As a result the United States Department of Treasury has places further sanctions than those created in 2012. In 2015, the United States claimed the Department of Treasury would seize all assets controlled by these men and any business with these assets would no longer be allowed.

^[1] ^[2]

These changes differ from those made in 2012 (linked bellow) in that these most recent sanctions name the names of the leaders of Mara Salvatrucha and also creates clear guidelines for violations of the sanctions.

^[3]

In addition to these proposed changes, I would like to add that the current President of the United States has made at the most recent NRA meeting. He has said, " For too long, Washington has gone after law-abiding gun owners while making life easier for criminals, drug dealers, traffickers and gang members. MS-13?" ^[4] This quote suggests some government action coming from the United States but none has been passed. Tcramer70 (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

References

The citation to the NYT will probably be sufficient for the prior statement, but the rest of that is either primary or speculation. --Izno (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: First statement added, second statement is WP:SYNTH. – Train2104 (t • c) 02:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Ms "13"

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2017

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2017

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2017

Archives Search results

Edit request 8/16/2017

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2017

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2017

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2017

This edit request to MS-13 has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change:

Illegal immigration and human smuggling

According to The Washington Times, MS-13 "is thought to have established a major smuggling center" in Mexico.^[1] There were reports by the Minuteman Project that MS members were ordered to Arizona to target U.S. Border Patrol agents and Minuteman Project volunteers.^[2]

Robert Morales, a prosecutor for Guatemala, indicated to The Globe and Mail that some Central American gang members seek refugee status in Canada. Superintendent of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police integrated gang task force, John Robin, said in an interview that "I think [gang members] have a feeling that police here won't treat them in the harsh manner they get down there."^[3] Robin noted that Canadian authorities "want to avoid ending up like the U.S., which is dealing with the problem of Central American gangsters on a much bigger scale".^[3]

The gang is violent to migrants on the southern border of Mexico.^[4]

To:

Illegal immigration and human smuggling

According to The Washington Times, MS-13 "is thought to have established a major smuggling center" in Mexico.^[5] There were reports by the Minuteman Project that MS members were ordered to Arizona to target U.S. Border Patrol agents and Minuteman Project volunteers.^[6]

Robert Morales, a prosecutor for Guatemala, indicated to The Globe and Mail that some Central American gang members seek refugee status in Canada. Superintendent of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police integrated gang task force, John Robin, said in an interview that "I think [gang members] have a feeling that police here won't treat them in the harsh manner they get down there."^[3] Robin noted that Canadian authorities "want to avoid ending up like the U.S., which is dealing with the problem of Central American gangsters on a much bigger scale".^[3]

The gang is violent to migrants on the southern border of Mexico.^[7]

A diaspora is a group of people who are united by ethnic or cultural ties. It is a branch of transnationalism, which is a group of ideas coming from outside different nations or countries. A diaspora “is not a discrete entity, but rather it is a combination of contradictory convergences of people, ideas, and their cultural considerations”. ^[8]

According to Danielle Renwick, tens of thousands of refugees from The Northern Triangle ( Salvadorans, Guatemalans and Hondurans) came to the U.S seeking asylum from their violence ridden countries, many of them with children. Those countries that belong to the Northern Triangle were in the midst of civil wars in the 1980s.^[9]

Since their migration from the 1980s, MS 13 grew in power in the United States during the 1990s. At this time, towards the end of Clinton’s Presidency, the U.S. intervened to get these foreign individuals out of the country. To do so, foreign born residents that had varying criminal records were deported back to their homelands. The U.S. deportation policy were at an all time high, thereafter starting the trend of MS 13 influx to and from the U.S. and El Salvador.^[10]

The strict deportation policies created to target MS 13 and other gangs like M 18, created a “Revolving Door migratory pattern.” (1) The migration of MS 13 from Central America to the U.S., and being deported from the U.S. back to Central America, created an ideology that was strengthened throughout that migratory pattern. This was possible because people who fled Central America were able to come together as a group and adapt to a new way of life in the U.S. This brought about their knowledge and involvement in extortion, kidnapping, turf protection, human trafficking, and illegal drug marketing. These ideas were brought back and forth through the “revolving doors,” and they consistently found ways to improve in these areas. This was the start of their diaspora and became a source of great concern.^[11]

According to Paul Liquorie, “We have seen time and time again people who have been deported returning back to the United States because they are already networked into the criminal element that is running the human smuggling routes.”^[12] Operez93 (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

References

[1]
"Al Qaeda seeks tie to local gangs". Washington Times. The Washington Times, LLC. September 28, 2004.
[2]
"Gang will target Minuteman vigil on Mexico border". Washtimes.com. March 28, 2005.
[3]
Mason, Gary (January 7, 2008). "Canada is a haven to gangsters on the run". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved January 7, 2008.
[4]
Feldman, Megan (July 26, 2007). "El Tren de la Muerte (the Death Train)". Dallas Observer. Retrieved July 27, 2007.
[5]
"Al Qaeda seeks tie to local gangs". Washington Times. The Washington Times, LLC. September 28, 2004.
[6]
"Gang will target Minuteman vigil on Mexico border". Washtimes.com. March 28, 2005.
[7]
Feldman, Megan (July 26, 2007). "El Tren de la Muerte (the Death Train)". Dallas Observer. Retrieved July 27, 2007.
[8]
Quayson, Ato (2013). A Companion to Diaspora and Transnationalism. New York: Wiley Blackwell.
[9]
Renwick, Danielle. "Central America's Violent Northern Triangle". CFR.org. Retrieved 16 January 2016.
[10]
"MS 13". InSight Crime. Retrieved 9 March 2017.
[11]
Franco, Celinda. "The MS-13 and 18th Street Gangs: Emerging Transnational Gang Threats" (PDF). FAS.org. Retrieved 30 January 2008.
[12]
Dorer, Kiyo. "MS-13: The Rise of a Deadly Gang in US Suburbia". dw.com. Retrieved 9 February 2017.

@Operez93:

Not done. Two things.

Why do you think the article needs this change?
I don't know if this is the rule but the tendency is to avoid making truly large edits via these requests. The idea is, you can edit this article. Just not yet. Once your account is four days old and you've edited ten times from it, you'll no longer be restrained by semi-protection. You created this account a few weeks ago and you're at three edits. Would you mind finding a less controversial article and contributing to it? That way, you learn through experience what to do, what not to do, how things work, and so on. Once you've got more edits, you can come back here with a little more know-how and you won't need to go through this process. CityOfSilver 03:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe that this edit makes this article stronger. I could add a subcategory if that is better? I am doing this as a school final project that's why I have chosen this page. I understand the the topic is controversial but what is being said, I do not believe is controversial. (Operez93 (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC))

Seems you have more than 10 edits and 4-day account. You should be able to edit the article no. If you still can't, ask to be confirmed at WP:PERM/C. And know that any controversial changes may be reverted, and you have discuss its relevance and verifiability before restoring. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Sanctions

Please correct.

Please update membership number

Not human but violent animals.

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2018

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2018

Map of MS-13 presence

I'm requesting an edit for image in article.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The article should cover Trump's MS-13 rhetoric

One of the primary reasons why people know about this organization and check on this article is due to the rhetoric of Pres Trump. The organization clearly plays a major role in his anti-immigration rhetoric, with Trump concocting a number of falsehoods about the organization and Democrats' alleged support for the organization. The Wikipedia article should cover Trump's rhetoric about MS-13, and outline all the falsehoods that are out there in public discourse as a result of the Trump's rhetoric. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:23, 10 July 2018

No of this is relevant, I've known about ms13 since I was child, just because you uninformed doesn't mean most are. Wikipedia isn't the place for bias. Keep that for your fake news.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.53.89.175 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Absolute BULLSHIT. Classic example of fascist left’s infiltration of every aspect of online content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.229.47 (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Look guys, this is Wikipedia, not the Youtube comments section. This is for factual information that is presented without bias and backed up by citation. If you dispute a claim, fine. If the claim doesn't have a citation, fine. If it has an unreliable citation, then that can be noted. Everyone needs to calm down and present facts with supporting documentation. "Trump a rasceist!" is not a fact, and neither is "Fake noos libtards!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.53.222 (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Remove the extremely biased section about the republicans and trump,half the citations are opinion pieces and have really nothing to do with a page about a gang, i cant find another gang page that includes political positions taken by either party so why is it here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.228.247 (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

You literally put in the page topic that MS-13 uses younger affiliates, i've also known about the ms13 for some time. The "falsehoods" noted are completely subjective and have no backing. There's actually evidence to the other side of the argument. If you have some factual evidence to prove your point then display it, otherwise take this nonsense propaganda out of here. It's not our fault that the person who commented first was ignorant about the gang until it left trumps mouth. Not to mention this is about the horrors of ms-13 not what trump says about them, also it's a terrorist group from what i recall none of what trump said was a falsehood aside from alleging democrats supported the group THAT is the only relevant point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.213.26.100 (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Kyran's Peer Review

Areas of concentration

Canada presence

Geographic portals

Temporary status as Republican talking-point

Problem with this process

Quality of the article

This article needs a major revamp to improve the quality. The most obvious problem is that most of the lede focuses on the use of the group by Trump for political purposes. The group is over 30 years old, why is this tangential thing from the last 2 years such a focus? It warrants a single sentence at most in the lede, and a larger analysis in the main article. But the main problem with the article is how disjointed it is. Most of it is just stating vague facts, almost always based on NPR shows or newspaper articles. To improve the quality of the article, I believe it should be sourced more from reliable (hopefully academic) texts studying the topic. Looking at this talk page, I see that the topic is highly politicized. That is unfortunate but understandable. So, I ask that all editors remember the policies of Assume good faith, WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Ashmoo (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing preventing you or other editors adding additional content about MS-13. The fact that the party which controls the government in the world's largest democracy has made MS-13 a core part of its messaging in elections and uses the gang to justify family separations, mass deportations and calls for a closure to the Mexico border is extremely notable. The coverage of GOP messaging about this group is entirely commensurate with RS coverage of MS-13. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Just because it's notable doesn't mean it needs to go into the lead. It also can be discussed in a unbiased way. PaganPanzer (talk) 01:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

We're required to reflect the sources in an unbiased way, which is what it does - if the sources say something is true or untrue, we have to reflect that. Determining for ourselves what "unbiased" looks like and then downplaying, omitting, or failing to accurately represent the sources is WP:FALSEBALANCE and is a failure to adhere to WP:NPOV. --Aquillion (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Please see my response to this here .PaganPanzer (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Since I have not received any response about my proposal to include right-leaning articles that contradict the claims made in the left-leaning articles, I will go ahead and include them. The claim that we should accurately reflect what is said in the sources can no longer be used as an excuse to revert neutral language changes. PaganPanzer (talk) 04:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's hard to say without seeing the sources you're proposing to add? I'd look at the List of Perennial Sources and do a search on WP:RSN's history to get a sense of what sources are considered reliable. Notionally, if you feel a notable perspective is missing from the article, searching for sources on it is the way to go - but if it's only covered by WP:FRINGE sources or ones that fail WP:RS, then it might not be as notable as you think. I'd also object to using opinion pieces for statements of fact, of course, which generally goes against WP:RS. The best sources are generally reputable non-opinion pieces from mainstream publications. --Aquillion (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, there is consensus in the section above that the contents in the lead pertaining to the Trump administration should be reduced to one sentence, and I agree with that consensus. There is no need to dedicate so much space in the lead to this issue. PaganPanzer (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

But not necessarily in the lead. This is an encyclopedia article about a gang, one of the most famous gangs in the US with a history spanning several decades. It is absolutely undue weight to dedicate half of the lead of the article to a rebuttal of Republican talking points, mostly focused on the last 3 or so years. This is a shameful attempt to turn this article into a political soapbox. 199.247.43.85 (talk) 03:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC) — 199.247.43.85 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Those are the aspects of the topic that have received the most coverage, so it makes total sense to discuss them in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 04:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Ludicrous. Those are the aspects of the topic that have received the most coverage recently. 5 years from now not one person coming to this article to learn about a criminal gang is going to care that they were passingly mentioned as political talking points for a year or two in the late 2010s.199.247.42.74 (talk) 05:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC) — 199.247.42.74 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"passingly mentioned as political talking points for a year or two in the late 2010s". The gang is a core aspect of GOP rhetoric on immigration, and has been used to justify the current administration's proposed and implemented immigration policies. 10, 20, 50 years from now, this is precisely the kind of content that stands the test of time. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

"A core aspect of GOP rhetoric on immigration" is a gross exaggeration and one that's not supported by any of the RS in the article. One could argue that they're being used to justify policy but the only RS for this assertion is one article that cites a single statement regarding a single policy. Almost all of the sources cited by the Republican Discourse section are from the last year, with about half of them from the last 6 months. The content that stands the test of time in an article is generally content about the article, not the POV-pushing you insist on to stick it to Chester Cheetah. 199.247.42.74 (talk) 10:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC) — 199.247.42.74 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

but not in the lead PaganPanzer (talk) 10:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The lede summarizes the body of the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Look at the ratio of the content in question in the lede, now look at the ratio of it in the article as a whole, then think really really hard about why this looks so ridiculous to more neutral observers. 199.247.42.74 (talk) 10:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC) — 199.247.42.74 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The overwhelming majority of the article is devoted to lots of individual criminal cases associated with the gang. If you have suggestions of how they can be summarized in the lede in a sensible manner, please make a proposal. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Right, almost like it's an article about a criminal gang or something, which is defined by crimes. Would you at least concede that the "summary" in the lede could afford some trimming? It's about half the size of the information it "summarizes". 199.247.42.74 (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

You have half the lead dedicated to one small section in the article. PaganPanzer (talk) 10:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The rest of the article is already summarized in the lede. The only content that is not summarized is the content that you keep edit-warring out of the lede (even violating 3RR) because you personally disagree with what reliable sources say. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

You did not address my comment at all, so I will repeat it. You had half the lead dedicated to one small section of the article. I do not personally agree or disagree with anything that is said in the sources; in fact I can't even check the validity of the claims made by the Washington Post and NBC News articles since they do not provide sources and merely make statements. I would be happy to concede ground if academic sources were used instead and the language used was more neutral, i.e. it describes the conclusion of the sources and does not simply make statements like "there is no evidence that sanctuary cities cause an increase in crime". PaganPanzer (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

If you want to learn about the academic research on sanctuary cities, you can go here. Given that the academic research meshes with the WaPo and NBC News descriptions, I trust that you will self-revert after familiarizing yourself with the academic research. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The paper that reviews four studies done on crime in sanctuary cities notes that each study has limitations and that there is limited empirical research on this topic. In any case, the section in Sanctuary cities that you've linked to contains language that is far more neutral than the language used in this article; I contend that this article should use similar language. PaganPanzer (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so the text should say: "Studies on the relationship between sanctuary status and crime have found that sanctuary policies either have no effect on crime or that sanctuary cities have lower crime rates"? Go ahead and make the change. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Done with slightly shorter wording. Much better now. PaganPanzer (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Why did you water down the language? If you are going to stick to what the studies say, the studies show that sanctuary cities have "no effect on crime or that sanctuary cities have lower crime rates". Not just that sanctuary cities do not increase crime. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not a small section of the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

It is less than 10% of the article contents by my estimation, yet you had half the lead dedicated to summarising it. PaganPanzer (talk) 11:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of the article lists and details various crimes associated with MS-13, which does not lend itself to a summary in the lede (the infobox already covers the range of activities that the gang engages in). The section on GOP discourse covers approximately one quarter of the non-list style content in the article. If someone wants to add more about the characteristics of the gang (also a sizable section) and the history of the gang (a sizable section) to the lede, they can do so. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

As I said in February, putting the stuff about 'Republicans this or that...' in the ;ead smacks of WP:RECENTISM. What existed yesterday was terribly POV, almost pleading a case. It was restored with the flimsy excuse of 'it's been here 2 months', which isn't a valid reason at all. It has since been pared down to a less POV version. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The depth and extensiveness of RS coverage, as well as the fact that administration policies and election campaigns center on this gang, belies that WP:RECENTISM applies. This obviously has long-term encyclopedic value. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Furthermore, it is mind-boggling that this concise section gets attacked with spurious WP:RECENTISM claims when the overwhelming majority of the article details dozens of individual crime cases in the US related to the group, nearly all of which are sourced to contemporary news coverage, often from local news sources. I've not heard a peep about any of the content in the article, except the content which coincidentally happens to put GOP messaging in the appropriate RS context (e.g. cover what the academic literature says about immigration and crime, fact-check brazen lies about the gang). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Have you read RECENTISM? The number of sources or how deep isn't the issue if it is a relatively short time. Recentism suggests a 10 year view. If 2000 sources today talk about Kylie Jenner's latest Instagram pic, it doesn't become notable in her bio based on that criterion alone. The "concise" section I was talking about, the part I removed from the lead, was over 50% of the total lead. Over half of the lead was completely POV and written in a manner to argue and support a position. I have not tried to remove the current 2 sentences that mention the issue in the lead. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing POV about the text in the lede. It adheres strictly to RS. In fact, it adhered so strictly to RS that the text didn't even note that some research on the subject found that sanctuary policies were associated with reduced crime rates (the text only mentioned that sanctuary cities did not increase the crime rate). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same thing? I'm talking about the lenghty paragraph I removed (and had restored with a bogus reason), not the succinct 2 lines in there now. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The "lenghty paragraph" summarized the body of the article. The "succinct 2 lines" do not do that. If you have any constructive inputs on how to summarize other parts of the body, please suggest how we could do so. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

You think that over 50% of the lead should be devoted to describing a single section of the article (a section that is approx. 10-15% of the article), but somehow I need to explain that? How about if you explain why 50% should be devoted to 10% of the article? If that can be justified, then we can talk about wording. Right now, your math is very skewed. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Excluding the list of individual crimes associated with MS-13, approximately one quarter of the article is devoted to this section (note also that this section is way more concisely written than other parts of the article). Another paragraph can be added about the characteristics and history of the gang. With such a paragraph, the lede would summarize the entire body of the article fully. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The idea that there is too much coverage of the political aspect is belied by the fact that the overwhelming majority of the article is largely non-notable "tick-tock" of awful, but generally run-of-the-mill, crimes committed or allegedly committed by members of the gang. If there's anything that should be trimmed as unencyclopedic, it's that — see, for example, our articles on the Crips or the Bloods, which do not attempt to be hyper-detailed chronicles of individual examples of gang activity, but rather discussion of how those gangs arose and operated. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Quoting recentism is somewhat smoke and mirrors here. When an apparently otherwise insignificant (1% of all gang membership) gang becomes a significant factor in US immigration policy, we've moved far beyond "Kylie Jenner's latest Instagram pic" and it is disingenuous and insulting to suggest otherwise. Neil S. Walker (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

It's an illustration. Try not getting your knickers in such a twist over it. Once again, I'm not talking about the current 2 lines, I'm talking about the very POV paragraph that WAS over 50% of the lead. As for your "insignificant 1%"..... the number is less important than the deeds. Don't get hung up on simple numbers. I'm not saying the use in campaigns is correct, just that your reasoning is flawed. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Since you're so hung-up on "50%", how about I just go ahead and summarize the other parts of body in the lede? Would that alleviate your concerns? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Lengthening the lead solely for the purpose of adding POV material? And somehow you don't think that sounds like you driving an agenda? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Your argument (as best as I can understand it) is that the lede devotes disproportionate space to summarizing one part of the body. The solution to that then is to summarize all the other parts of the body as well. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Once again, your position is to lengthen the lead (not a lede) solely to add POV material. That is ridiculous. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The existing lede is fairly short for an article of this length. Your suggestion that this article is "driving an agenda" is certainly reflected by the sources, but not in the way you think. We have a multitude of sources discussing how MS-13 relates to American politics at this current moment because the President is using the gang to drive his agenda. That our article reflects that fact is entirely necessary and proper. Once again, are you arguing that it's more encyclopedic to include the minute details of how many pounds of meth were seized in a bust in Colorado than it is to include how this gang is being used by the President of the United States to drive his anti-immigration agenda? Sorry, but that simply doesn't compute. One of those two facts has lasting encyclopedic importance to people and historians 50 years from now, and the other does not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Once again, you confuse number of sources in the current news with the overall relevance of the topic. The two sentence summary is fine and it's expanded on in the body. Instead, you want to argue the point in the lead (not lede) then repeat it in the body. That's not a NPOV approach. In the history of a gang that is over 30 years old, half of your version is talking about the past 6 months. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, we're required to reflect the content and focus of the sources. It's WP:POV to ignore them, or to omit something like this that they clearly present as a major aspect of the topic; looking at the topic and saying "I feel what these sources are saying has non-neutral implications, so we should omit it" is WP:FALSEBALANCE. In this case, the rhetorical use of MS-13 by the Trump administration is clearly the main reason they're as notable as they are and therefore needs a brief summary in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not that what the sources say has non-neutral implications, it's that they are presented in a non-neutral way. Making curt statements like "there is no evidence that sanctuary cities increase crime" and justifying it by saying some random journalist over at the Washington Post said it is not neutral, and it does not sound neutral to any reasonable person. The tone of the language makes it seem as if the article is pushing an agenda, and NorthBySouthBaranof mentioning "Trump's anti-immigration agenda" only further reinforces suspicions of bias on the part of the editors pushing to keep the current structure.
No one is saying to omit the sources or remove the Republican discourse content, they are saying that dedicating 50% of the lead to it is undue weight.
It is quite tiring to have NorthBySouthBaranof revert my change citing zero consensus when I reached consensus with another user in this very section of the talk page. Why do you insist on restoring non-neutral language? PaganPanzer (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

That you disagree with the reliable sources cited for the statement that "there is no evidence that sanctuary cities increase crime" is of literally no relevance here. Sorry, but that's how Wikipedia works — we report what reliable sources say. If you want to edit an encyclopedia where reliable sources are ignored in favor of ideological nonsense, perhaps you should try out Conservapedia. I did not mention "Trump's anti-immigration agenda" in the article; though that would not be in any way a violation of any policy, because it's quite clear that he has an anti-immigration agenda, and it would be trivial to find a multitude of reliable sources saying so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

You're arguing about "sanctuary cities". This article is solely about MS13. If you feel the need to inject your politics, maybe you should try Liberapedia. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Are you purposefully misrepresenting my position? I'm not sure how many times I have to state that I do not agree or disagree with the contents of the sources, my contention is that they should not be used to make such a strong factual claim in such a non-neutral way. I would think that my wilful inclusion of an academic source that supports the claims made in the sources would be evidence of this. Here we are relying on commentary by random journalists, who do not provide any sources for their claims, to make statements of fact on a complex topic in Wikipedia's name. Even with the academic source included, the statement is still too strong: there are only 4 studies on the topic that do not all reach the same conclusion and use limited methods (e.g. one of the studies simply compares crime rates in sanctuary cities with crime rates in non-sanctuary cities). As noted in the conclusion of the paper "relatively little empirical research examines the impact that local limited cooperation policies have on crime". The paper never asserts that evidence does not exist, and instead states "The studies we are aware of [...] have yielded an inverse or null relationship between limited cooperation policies and crime". The language in this Wikipedia article should reflect that of the paper. My contention has nothing to do with my beliefs, although I'm not sure the same can be said of others here.
The discourse discussed in this article is regarding MS-13 members illegally entering the USA and being shielded by sanctuary cities, it has nothing to do with immigration policy. PaganPanzer (talk) 05:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Since I haven't heard back from you yet, I am going to go ahead and change it to the previous consensus. If you want to include the statement in the article, then it should be attributed to the author as recommended here . I would also point out that it is risible that someone who makes edits like this would suggest that I try out Conservapedia. PaganPanzer (talk) 08:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I stated in the NPOV section above, but since there's related activity here too: Trump and the GOP don't belong in the lede (undue weight, too recent). Regarding the section "Republican Party discourse", I wish this section or another had more to say of Democrats' discourse, or notation of lack of discourse if they lack such. Thank you, A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Falsely accusing Democrats.

Political discourse

I am not well versed in the strange ways of American politics, however I do have a little experience in following references. For this reason I made this change. The edit summary says it all.

I was quickly reverted, by an User:Snooganssnoogans claiming "much more than correlation"... and reintroducing the two "no evidence" references.

The text of the abstract says:

The few empirical studies that exist illustrate a “null” or negative relationship between these policies and crime.

Since I do not have the full text, I cannot comment on the details of the "relationship", nor indeed whether there is any statistical significance, or which of the varied definitions the abstract mentions are relevant to the empirical studies reviewed. However the abstract does not support the causality claim.

I propose to re-apply my changes shortly, unless there are cogent reasons not to.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC).

How about you actually bother to read the contents of the study rather than add your own OR description of its contents and then threaten to edit-war your false original research back into the article? The four studies all measure causality. Also, are you seriously asking for a pat on the back for "following references" but at the same time admitting to not bother actually reading the references? Strange. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I do not have the full text Please go and read WP:AGF, it will stand you in good stead. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC).

Having found a copy of the paper, I think you are wrong to say that all four studies measure causality.

Wong (2017) is a cross sectional study that "reveals existing differences (or similarities) ... as opposed to longer-term consequences".
Lyons (2013) is also cross sectional.

This leaves two studies which use time series

Gonzalez (2017) finds "no statistically significant differences in crime rates between 2000 and 2014" and "no uniform shift in crime rates in the year after".

Had Gonzalez found such a change it could be hypothesized to causal, but it would only have been at that point, a correlation. Certainly not a measure of casuality.

Martinez-Schuldt and Martinez is an unpublished paper by the two academic authors of the review, and the only cited study to indicate a drop in robbery (but not homicide) after sanctuary policies are brought in.

Leaving aside the fact that this unpublished paper had not been peer-reviewed, it too, at least as presented in the review, does not establish, let alone measure, causality.

All in all I stand by my changes.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC).

The study that you couldn't bother to read up until now explicitly says that the studies use causal-inference matching strategies. All the studies in question use IV methods and control for relevant variables. Furthermore, the study you say is unpublished is now published... in one of the top criminology journals. None of the studies just do "correlation". Here's a tip for the future: studies that just do "correlation" do not get published in top social science journals. Furthermore, academics are not idiots who have never heard of "correlation =/= causality" (a mantra that every internetperson trots out when they encounter a study that they disagree with and which has become a meme among academics). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the intro

The intro is fine except the last two sentences. It lends undue weight to the political usage of MS-13 when the Republican section isnt even that big relative to the rest of the article's more informative sections. The sentences also repeat the exact same information regarding studies later in the article, which is redundant for the intro summary.

Also, the Republican section focuses too much on one political party. should include more POV from other political entities, not just use the section to debunk republican talking points.Thelovelyconch (talk) 07:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. A145GI15I95 (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree. I would go even further and completely remove what republicans think or say about the gang, it's not essential.Sourcerery (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Although I am adamantly opposed to the lack of WP:NPOV language, I believe the opposition has a point that it is indeed notable and therefore should be given at least some mention in the lead (though it should certainly not take up 50% of the lead). PaganPanzer (talk) 06:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The last paragraph could definitely be reduced in size significantly without losing anything important. zzz (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The intro can mention the political angle if it wants to, it just shouldnt take up 50% of the lead when most of the article isn't even about politics but history and activity of the street gang. So I propose that the last two sentences of the second paragraph of the intro be cut out, but should remain in the political section of the article body, since that section only makes up a minor chunk anyway and the same information is repeated twice in one article. There seems to be some kind of gatekeeping on keeping the intro the way it is for some reason, in my opinion. I don't really understand the point of the undue focus on politics that much at all for this article. Hard to gauge if there's really a consensus on it.Thelovelyconch (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

"the same information is repeated twice in one article." All the info in the lede is repeated in the body of the article. That's how a lede works. It summarizes the body. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

You just did a new edit to the summary, which is better. Good job.Thelovelyconch (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm absolutely shocked that the intro paragraph to this article is about American politics regarding the gang. Why is the gang's political talking-point status so absolutely central to the gang itself that it has to be the second paragraph from the top? Politics should be much farther down the list of significant topics in an encyclopedia article about a violent street gang. Combine that with the fact that the entire paragraph's purpose is discrediting the Trump administration and Republicans, and the whole things smacks of political bias. Does Wikipedia just ditch the idea of neutrality when Trump is the topic of discussion? Is that what's happening here? 199.192.11.5 (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Because an activist editor declared a false consensus and inserted more material solely to make his agenda seem less apparent. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Where is the consensus?

Please link me to the discussion where consensus was reached over the lead (not a lede). Niteshift36 (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Re "long standing version": The material was introduced into the lead (not lede) less than 4 months ago. It has been removed, questioned or challenged by several different editors. To claim there is a "long-standing version" is simply dishonest. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

If you want to remove long-standing content from the article, the burden is on you to obtain a consensus. You can do that through talk page discussions or by starting a RfC. You instead opted to edit-war the content out. The version of the lede that you have repeatedly edit-warred into the article summarizes the article in full, with the exception of the section on GOP messaging. Leaving out one section (which takes up approx a quarter of the non-list content in the body) from the lede is a violation of WP:LEDE and an example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, the addition of "in the current political season" is your own original research. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, the lede was already changed per talk page discussions before you started edit-warring your OR into the lede. The paragraph on GOP messaging was shortened and other parts of the body were summarized in the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I didn't restore the "in the current..." part. So that's a non-issue now. Less than 4 months is not a long-standing entry, especially when it has been opposed numerous time. And it's not a lede. Sorry you can't read the MOS. You didn't give a rat's butt about this article until you found you could co-opt it for your political purposes. You've contributed nothing non-political to it. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I've contributed a substantial part to the article, adding multiple studies and text sourced to dozens of reliable sources. This is irrelevant, but since we're comparing contributions, I'm pretty sure that your sole addition of content to this article was ten yrs ago when you added some text sourced to a 2007 book by Republican paleoconservative Pat Buchanan (yet you still insist that GOP focus on this gang is some kind temporal thing tied to 2019) and someone at the far-right conspiracy group Center for Security Policy (sourced to the embarrassing fringe site Newsmax)... Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Your "substantial" contributions are all political in nature, all favoring a particular POV. What I have done, consistently over the years, is remove junk and clean it up. Once again, I ask you to show your consensus. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

"What I have done, consistently over the years, is remove junk and clean it up." Your sole contributions were to add ramblings by far-right crackpots to this article... Your ten-year old contributions also belie the rationale (that conservative rhetoric on this is some kind of temporary 2019 thing) that you've now cobbled together to exclude content describing facts and reality on this subject. So, not only bad contributions but zero internal consistency and principles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, you can't read an edit history. Once again, where is the consensus you achieved? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Four months is more than sufficient for text to be considered stable; more importantly, consensus has to be based on policy. The text in question is well-cited, reflecting both the article and the overwhelming thrust of coverage on the topic in a way that captures what makes MS-13 as notable as it is; therefore, it belongs in the lead. Also, please remember to assume good faith - we can disagree about what the sources say or which sources are appropriate without throwing aspersions at other editors. --Aquillion (talk) 04:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Just because you arbitrarily declare 4 months as long enough doesn't make it policy. And periodically, during that 4 months, it was challenged. So just because the same editor reverted others, you can't call it "stable".

Nobody has said that the material doesn't have sufficient sources. It is covered adequately in the body and nobody is really challenging that. What is contested is the undue weight and recentism of putting so much material in the lead (not lede). Beyond that, the material is being presented in a very POV tone. AGF isn't a suicide pact. You can call a duck a duck. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Four months is absolutely enough for it to be longstanding. More generally, though, if you have issues with the wording, suggest alternatives - don't just blanket-remove a huge, well-sourced section of the lead. There clearly isn't a consensus to make such a drastic change, and the sourcing is clearly enough to make it WP:DUE for the lead (it's the main source of the topic's notability), so what you ought to do is figure out what you consider POV about it and suggest alternatives that would address the problem. As an aside, it clearly isn't WP:RECENTISM - as you said, the text has been in the article for months and coverage still generally reflects the idea that this is the most notable aspect of the topic. --Aquillion (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't stable for 4 months. Essentially one editor, the one who added it, kept reverting multiple editors. That's not consensus and just because he was willing to keep reverting, you don't get to claim "long-standing" status by default. Recentism doesn't go away after mere months, it's a much longer-term view. Your own argument is part of the problem. Even you call it a "huge part" of the lead. That's been part of the problem all along. And your claim that it's the main source of the notability is completely ignorant. This topic was notable in 2004 when it started. Neutral sources like National Geographic were discussing this gang and border crossings back in 2008 . You may have just disovered it recently, which explains your recentism view, but we're using sources in this article that are over a decade old. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

All major criminal gangs have substantial RS coverage, in particular of the individual crimes that it's associated with. What makes this gang unique and what sets it apart from the 18th Street Gang (which has a similar demographic makeup and is way larger) is that the gang is a core aspect of GOP messaging on immigration and has been so for more than a decade (I mean, you yourself added the ramblings of Pat Buchanan and a guy at a far-right conspiracy think tank approx. 10 yrs ago, so it's a bit rich for you to claim that the GOP focus on the gang is a temporary 2019 thing). This is why this article is large while the 18th Street Gang article is small (even though the latter is a way larger gang). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

They really haven't been a "core aspect" of the GOP for the past decade. The fact that a person or think tank talked about them doesn't make it a "core aspect" of the GOP. Here's a fun request: In 2008 ("over a decade" ago), John McCain was running for president. Can you show me evidence that he used MS13 as a "core aspect" of his platform on immigration? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

McCain did not AFAIK reference MS-13 during his presidential campaign. McCain is however unlike many Republicans. We wouldn't for example dispute that repealing Obamacare is a core aspect of GOP policy on health care by citing McCain's vote agains repealing Obamacare. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

How would the party nominee not reference a "core aspect" of the GOP immigration platform? That's pretty curious. Ok, how about Mitt Romney in 2012? Can you show where he was using it as a core aspect? That's less than a decade, but still...... Niteshift36 (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I overstated that this has been a "core aspect" of GOP policy for more than a decade in that comment, but it has definitely been so for the last five years, and the far-right anti-immigration extremists within the party (the ones you yourself tried to add into this Wikipedia article as if they were reliable sources) have been on this gang for longer than that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

You continue to harp on some source I don't even remember trying to add 5 years ago. Without knowing the context and seeing it again, I can't really discuss it. And even if the source did mention them, the context is paramount. In any case, you've not shown consensus, not shown "more than a decade" of focus and really, what I'm mostly seeing is the use by a narrow segment (Trump) and for a relatively short period of time.....ie undue weight and recentism. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's your edit. Furthermore in 2005, the SPLC wrote, "MS-13 is a favorite bogeyman of the anti-immigration movement," substantiating that it has been common in anti-immigration discourse for a considerable time. Your claim that MS-13 is solely a Trump thing is completely false, and I suggest you actually bother to read the body of the Wikipedia article and the sources in it, as it clarifies that the gang is a core component of the party's discourse and that multiple state candidates and congressional candidates made it the central aspect of their runs. It defined the 2017 gubernatorial campaign of "moderate" Republican Ed Gillespie. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, let's look at what actually happened. I added a reliable source stating that "FMLN sympathizers were part of the formation of MS-13" I don't see where I said it was a core aspect of immigration policy. Nor was Buchanan speaking as a representative of the Republican party. It talked about FMLN sympathizers and the formation of the gang. The SPLC article (an organization that is losing credibility rapidly) talks about Minuteman Project, as a group, and mentions a single Republican congressman. The "anti-immigration" (a misnomer) movement in this case is the Minuteman Project, not the Republican party and nothing in the source comes close to calling it a main idea in Republican party positions. Sorry, your repeated 'oh that edit almost 10 years ago' (not 5 years like you keep repeating) really doesn't show what you've been claiming it did. And yeah, I've read the article. Been reading it for a decade (unlike you). Niteshift36 (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

You did not add a reliable source. You added a far-right anti-immigration politician's (and Republican presidential candidate) book and commentary by a guy at a far-right conspiracy think-tank. And no "anti-immigration movement" does not "one anti-immigration group", this is not difficult. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Um, not exactly. First off, Buchanan hadn't run for president for 7 years before that book was published and, when he last ran, he ran as the Reform Party candidate. Second, whether you like him, agree with him or not, his book, published by a legitimate publisher and subject to editorial oversoght, is a RS. It may be inaccurate, but it passes the RS test enough to make it usable. Extent of use would be a discussion on the tsalk page. The source you cited was focused on an anti-immigration group, not the Republican party. Republicans are mentioned once, related to a single person. Trying to claim this is evidence of the Republican platform (let alone a core aspect) is simply not accurate. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

It's under no circumstance a RS. Thankfully, your ten-yr old contribution (which is as far as I can see is the only substantial addition of content you've made on this page) has been scrubbed out of the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

If the source was still relevant to the discussion, I'd love to take it to RSN, but it's not. We've devolved to you complaining about an edit made a decade ago. Some progress has been made though. You've finally realized that your bogus claim of a "core aspect" was crap and you've finally abandoned defending that false assertion that you had some sort of consensus. Now it's just you tossing some red herring about a single edit made a decade ago in hopes that nobody realizes that you never did demonstrate your original claim. If history is any guide, you'll ignore this for a wile, restore the material and claim there was some sort of consensus by longevity. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Please do take your sources to the RS noticeboard. That would be just peachy. We all know how that would go. My claim has always been that MS-13 has been a core aspect of GOP messaging on immigration policy for years, and sources bear this out. One talk page comment said it had been so for ten yrs (which was inaccurate), and which you're now hung up on. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Why would I? Unlike you, I've moved past the 10 year old edit.Your claim has not been borne out and you actually had to walk your overstatement back when challenged. It's pretty humorous that you're worried about my being 'hung up' on a talk page comment you made 3 weeks ago, yet you keep referencing a source I added 10 YEARS ago. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think "Minuteman" SPLC writes about are notable, they are volunteers who were not part of political discourse, didn't find anything on them when googling. 2017 is still Trump era, if you could name those state and congressional candidates and years in which they campaigned that would be helpful.Sourcerery (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

It's all in the body. It's frankly astonishing that you're having an input on what should / shouldn't be in the Wikipedia article when you haven't bothered to read any of the content in question. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Political discourse focuses entirely on Trump era. I'm asking for pre-Trump era, per your claims of 10 years.Sourcerery (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I've already stated that it wasn't a core aspect of the GOP ten yrs ago, only among anti-immigration hawks (per the cite I've already provided). Keep up. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Well who are those immigration haws, that was the original question, you haven't named a single one? You provided volunteer group, that wasn't notable, part of political discourse.Sourcerery (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The source I provided literally says "MS-13 is a favorite bogeyman of the anti-immigration movement" - not the "favorite bogeyman of a volunteer group". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

And they go on to talk about volunteer group without mentioning single politician? Minuteman group of 150-200 volunteers, pretty sure they aren't notable and didn't get a single endorsement from elected official. Of course zero mentions of MS-13 which is what this article is about, except in closing parts but not notable or relevant for gang.Sourcerery (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it was even discussed seriously until Trump's 2016 campaign. Who was tough on immigration in GOP, in pre-Trump era?Sourcerery (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I support full removal of Republicans, Democrats and Trump from lead.Sourcerery (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC) I also support of putting gangs motto in the lead "Rape,control,kill".Sourcerery (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Check sources for accuracy

We are not a election pamphlet.

RfC: MS-13 lead

Ten editors expressed a clear opposition to retaining the bolded text in the lead, while four expressed a clear support for maintaining it. Among those opposing were those who opposed the text in bold based on its detail and length, but might support a more limited summary. Several other editors expressed more nuanced opinions generally vectoring towards opposition. The most frequently expressed reason to oppose was WP:UNDUE which was rebutted by supporters by noting that a substantial portion of the body of the article in fact mentions the information bolded. However, concerns about WP:COATRACK were largely unrebutted. The consensus is that the bolded text should not be kept, but a single, short sentence might be appropriate. Chetsford (talk) 00:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the following text in bold be kept in the lede (minus the sources - which are all in the body of the article): Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Mara Salvatrucha popularly known as MS-13, is an international criminal gang that originated in Los Angeles, California, in the 1970s and 1980s. Originally, the gang was set up to protect Salvadoran immigrants from other gangs in the Los Angeles area. Over time, the gang grew into a more traditional criminal organization. MS-13 is defined by its cruelty, and its rivalry with the 18th Street Gang.

Many MS-13 members were deported to El Salvador after the close of the Salvadoran Civil War in 1992 or upon being arrested, facilitating the spread of the gang to Central America. The gang is currently active in many parts of the continental United States, Canada, Mexico, and Central America. Most members are Central American, Salvadorans in particular. As an international gang, its history is closely tied to U.S.–El Salvador relations. In 2018, the gang accounted for less than 1 percent (10,000) of total gang members in the United States (1.4 million), and a similar share of gang murders.

The gang is a core component to Republican Party political messaging on immigration policy in the United States. Republican politicians have argued that hardline immigration policies are necessary to combat MS-13.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] There is no evidence that weak immigration enforcement or sanctuary city policies contribute to MS-13 activity.^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9] Republican politicians, President Donald Trump in particular, have falsely accused Democratic politicians of supporting MS-13.^[1]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13]^[14]^[6]

References

[1]
Siddiqui, Sabrina (2018-10-18). "Republican attack ads echo Trump's anti-immigration message to whip up fear among supporters". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2018-12-27.
[2]
"Republican Closing Ads: Immigration". FactCheck.Org.
[3]
"The Trump immigration message is about turnout". Axios. Retrieved 2018-12-27.
[4]
Dreier, Hannah (2018-06-25). "I've Been Reporting on MS-13 for a Year. Here Are the 5 Things Trump Gets Most Wrong". ProPublica. Retrieved 2018-12-27.
[5]
"Ed Gillespie's 'Sanctuary Cities' Attacks". FactCheck.org. Annenberg Public Policy Center. 2017-09-26.
[6]
"Fact check: 7 things Trump got wrong about the border and immigration". NBC News. Retrieved 2018-12-27.
[7]
Yen, Hope (2018-06-30). "AP FACT CHECK: Trump's week of faulty claims: MS-13, Russia". AP NEWS. Retrieved 2018-12-27.
[8]
"Trump's MS-13 Miss". FactCheck.Org. 2017.
[9]
Dreier, Hannah (2018-06-25). "I've Been Reporting on MS-13 for a Year. Here Are the 5 Things Trump Gets Most Wrong". ProPublica. Retrieved 2018-12-27.
[10]
Nirappil, Fenit (2017-10-06). "Trump backs Republican for Va. governor, accuses the Democrat of enabling 'violent MS-13 killer gangs'". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2017-10-07.
[11]
Kiely, Eugene; Gore, D'Angelo; Farley, Robert (2018-11-02). "Republican Closing Ads: Immigration". FactCheck.org. Retrieved 2018-12-27.
[12]
"Anatomy of a Trump rally: 76 percent of claims are false, misleading or lacking evidence". The Washington Post.
[13]
Folley, Aris (2018-06-27). "Chris Cuomo confronts GOP lawmaker over claim that Dems support MS-13". TheHill. Retrieved 2018-12-27.
[14]
"Trump's and Pelosi's Immigration Spat". FactCheck.Org.

Please indicate whether you support or oppose something similar to the above text, along with your reasoning. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Survey

Support. A substantial part of the body is devoted to the role that this gang plays in political discourse about immigration policy in the United States. MS-13 plays a huge role in discourse on immigration in the US, with politicians using the gang to justify the family separation policy, closing the border with Mexico, curbing sanctuary cities and so on (the first bolded sentence). In other words: it's a huge deal. The second bolded sentence clarifies the existing academic research on the activities of the gang. The third bolded sentence debunks a popular conspiracy theory that the US President and a large number of his party members promote. The text is informative and of long-term encyclopedic value. If the bolded text is to be excluded, it would be the only part of the body that's not concisely summarized in the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Support. Yes as that would be pretty significant, and makes up a fair chunk of the article.Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
No (This is a yes/no question people, not a statement to support/oppose). This is an article about MS-13, not about Republican politics. It could possibly be expanded a little, but not with the overt WP:POV, partisan tones in the suggested version. There's a hell of a lot more detailed material in the body of the article without any summary in the lead. Going out of our way to say what the Republicans are doing wrong in the lead is just...well...tacky. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

What content in the body is not summarized in the lede, except the lists of crimes that MS-13 are associated with (which do not lend themselves to a summary in the lede)? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - and remove existing blurb on Republican messaging. While Wikipedia seems like Trumpedia in US politics - this WP:RECENTISM doesn't have to creep to topics that are (mostly) not political in nature - in this case an actual long-running gang that under Trump has also been discussed in politics. While I can't find in WP:NOT where Wikipedia is not a fact checker - Wikipedia is not a fact checking service for recent political subjects. The content which is proposed to be added to the lead is probably a correct reflection of current fact checking on Trump/Republican MS-13 discourse in the past couple of years - will this stay correct in the future (e.g apply the 10Y test - will this content appear ridiculous once Trump is out of office?)? Is this about the gang or about political talk that uses the gang as a prop? Icewhiz (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

When children are being separated from their parents ostensibly to protect the US from this gang (representing 1% of all gang members in the US), the President threatens to close the border to Mexico (and fire his DHS secretary) over the gang, and entire political campaigns on the gubernatorial (e.g. Ed Gillespie's 2017 Virginia gubernatorial run), congressional (multiple 2018 congressional campaigns) and presidential (Trump) level are run on this gang, then yes, it has long-term encyclopedic value and is not just the harmless and inconsequential rambling of one politician. There is a reason why the Wikipedia article is huge and news coverage of the gang is enormous whereas the much larger 18th Street Gang has a tiny Wikipedia article and gets no attention. The political discourse around the gang is in large part what makes it notable (and it's the main reason why most readers go to this page today and why they will go to this page 20 yrs from now). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Debunking the MS-13 political/Trump narrative of the moment may be due on a number of US politics articles (e.g. Trump administration family separation policy - where MS-13 is hardly noted, or Immigration policy of Donald Trump (no MS-13 at all), or any number of US politics articles (that I personally try to keep clear of)) - this doesn't mean we have to move US politics of the day into subjects that are notable in their own right and are used as a trope by US politicians for some period of time. I'm sure that the discourse in US politics has steered Wikipedia editors to edit (and hopefully improve) this page - however this doesn't mean that this article should be a US politics article - in particular when we are discussing political claims of rather dubious validity.Icewhiz (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

We are not a wp:soapbox take it outside.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Yet most of the proposed text is a soapbox position. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose and I agree with Icewhiz about removing the mention of Republicans. I've read the article through a few times now, and I disagree that A substantial part of the body is devoted to the role that this gang plays in political discourse - the political discourse section is relatively brief, compared to their crimes, characteristics, opposition, and history. Although MS-13 in political discourse seems particularly relevant to U.S. readers here-and-now, we're not writing just for the U.S., and highlighting our parochial concerns in the lead seems WP:UNDUE, particularly since the concerns are less about the gang itself and more about fact-checking Trump. Schazjmd (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

By my count, one quarter to one third of the body is devoted to this content if you exclude the 'lists of crimes'-style content (which cannot be summarized in the lede). Is there any content in the body that you feel should be summarized in the lede and which currently isn't? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans, no, I think the lead is adequate and neutral with just the first two paragraphs. Schazjmd (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

So everything in the body of the article should be summarized except the section which takes up 25-33% of the non-listy part of the body? Also, what is WP:NPOV violation that you are suggesting is in the bolded text? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Even though I think the single (current) sentence about it being a core component of Republican messaging should be removed, I can see the reasoning for keeping it. But the bolded text that goes into the details is out of place in the lead. Schazjmd (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose.In favor of removing all mentions of Republicans from the lead.Sourcerery (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. Based on UNDUE and Recentism. We've established that MS13 hasn't been a core aspect of Republican immigration policy for the previous 2 elections. Your focus is solely on the current occupant of the White House and very recent events. Further, the passage, as written, is very POV. Spending half of the lead (it's not a lede) talking about the Republican recent use is not proper weight. An interesting note: Just over 1/3 (5 of 14) of the sources in that list are from the same source. Should I be surprised when the same organization finds the same "fact" to be factual more than once? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Support. Extensive coverage in sources dating back over two years makes it hard to explain how it could be considered "recentism"; most of this indicates that the political debate over MS-13 is their primary source of notability. Beyond that, the passage accurately reflects the sources; arguing that we should tone it down or omit it to avoid the appearance of taking a side are WP:FALSEBALANCE. NPOV means reflecting the sources according to whatever they say, not adjusting their weight to appear neutral. The relevant text also covers a large part of the article (appropriately, given the extensive sourcing over the course of multiple years), making a summary of it in the lead necessary per WP:LEAD. --Aquillion (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Since recentism suggests a 10 year test, 2 years isn't all that amazing. Any claim that this is the source of notability is simply ignorance of the subject. While you may not have heard of MS13 before that, others in the media clearly did and this article itself far exceeds the 2 years you claim this issue has been important. NPOV doesn't require the weight to be adjusted, but it does require neutral wording. The proposed text flat out argues for a specific position. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. Is WP:UNDUE and not WP:NPOV. The apparent biased tone of the paragraph has been pointed out by numerous users in the past. PaganPanzer (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. The intro as it is now is fine: short and accurate. The section on the gang's impact on U.S. politics is brief compared to the size of all the other information on the gang in the body of the article (WP:UNDUE) and the intro should reflect as such. Not necessary to include such U.S.-centric political diatribe in the intro of the article of a largely latin american street gang (WP:NPOV and WP:RECENTISM).Thelovelyconch (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Not as written, being UK, I only recently became aware of this 'gang', and only because of them being used as a US 'political football', so I would argue against removing any mention of 'Republican accusers', since many non-Americans like myself would appreciate some mention of this 'controversy'. However suggested text is trying to argue the case too much, detail that should be in the body not the lead. "There is no evidence that weak immigration enforcement or sanctuary city policies contribute to MS-13 activity" is excessive IMO and the final sentence "Republican politicians, President Donald Trump in particular, have falsely accused Democratic politicians of supporting MS-13" could be pruned to something like "Republican politicians including President Donald Trump have accused Democratic politicians of supporting MS-13, which they refute". The objective of the mention in the lead should be to establish the character of this controversy - not to prove/disprove either side. Even the first additional sentence could be pruned a bit so that it runs into the pre-existing text.Pincrete (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Democrats don't refute that Democrats support MS-13, WP:RS refute that Democrats support MS-13. It's not a "A said, B said" issue. It's a "A lies" issue. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate that A is crudely misrepresenting the position of B. My suggestion was simply a starting point. I stand by my conviction that you can only 'outline' the nature of the controversy in the lead and this text is trying to pack too much in, to the point of itself becoming crud-ish. Pincrete (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Support abridged mention (pinged by bot). My feelings are similar to Pincrete. The Republican "political football" is part of the notability of the gang. So, retain the first bolded sentence, and move the rest to the body. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 05:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Is it? The gang was notable for years before it became an issue in 2016. If you completely removed the whole Republican issue of the last 2.5 years, the gang easily passes notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I mean its present notability, which is way beyond what it had before. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean "popularity". Notability doesn't come and go. The topic is either notable or it is not.Niteshift36 (talk) 13:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Not quite sure what the topic is for this discussion. Some editors are reaching beyond the sources to make unwarranted inferences. We must always check the sources before commenting.BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Probably no, but the current version isn't good either - The biggest problem with this proposal, as I see it, is that the content being added is disproportionate to the size of the section it's summarizing. In other words, insofar as the lead summarizes the rest of the article, a quarter of the lead shouldn't be spent summarizing what looks to be maybe a twelfth of the article (eyeballing). That said, an edit is in order, because the section it's summarizing isn't proper summarized by saying it's a core component of Republican messaging. Most of that section is about the ways in which that messaging is misleading, so if we're going to summarize what's in the article, something succinct would be preferable. For example, instead of "The gang is a core component to Republican Party political messaging on immigration policy in the United States." something like "MS-13 is frequently referenced in political discourse to argue for stricter immigration laws, often based on exaggerated or incorrect claims about the gang." — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Much of what you're saying is what I've said all along. The proportion is undue weight and simply adding fluff to the lead to make this edit a smaller proportion isn't the answer. The question I have is about using this idea that it's a "core component of Republican messaging". When challenged to show where it was a "core aspect" beyond the past 2 years, the proposer couldn't and walked back the "core aspect" wording. What I asked for, and he admitted didn't exist, was using MS13 as a significant part of the previous 2 presidential campaign. So really, we're left with the past 2-2.5 years. Taking the long term view an encyclopedia should be taking, calling it a "core component of Republican messaging" is more like commenting on the recent news cycles, not the historical view.Niteshift36 (talk) 14:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I could go along with your proposed version. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. per WP:COATRACK. One sentence is enough. I don't think this article should be so focused on U.S. immigration politics. R2 (bleep) 16:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Oppose (Remove this entire paragraph) - Snooganssnoogans seems to have a bit of a habit of including semi-related and weakly-sourced disputable sentences that suit their opinion, in this case the "There is no evidence that weak immigration enforcement or sanctuary city policies contribute to MS-13 activity", which is absolutely not appropriate for the beginning paragraph of this article. There is a section on politics later in the article for that sort of thing. If this article was about usage of MS-13 as a political tool, then it would be appropriate to include something like that in the summary, but not on the main article. Miserlou (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Oppose, based on NPOV, COATRACK, UNDUE, etc. This is an article about MS-13, not about Republican or immigration politics, specially should not be added in the lead of the article. Barca (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Etymology

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2019

Wording Changes?

"Criminal activities" list

Something is jumbled here.

The status quo version was:

Trafficking (drugs, arms, human), racketeering (murder, money laundering, extortion, kidnapping), larceny (robbery), illegal immigration, battery

@Niteshift36:'s version was:

Trafficking (drugs, arms]], human), racketeering (murder, money laundering, extortion, kidnapping), larceny (robbery), illegal immigration, battery

Yes, the first list is a sea of blue and some of those links should go away.

The second list, however, carries over some existing confusion, which is where my confusing edit summary came in.

From the current list, I see:

drug trafficking - I think this is a common enough idea that we can probably skip the link
arms trafficking - ditto
human trafficking - I think we need a link here. Given "illegal immigration" listed later, the common usage in the media (for forced prostitution) may not be entirely correct. Perhaps a link to Human trafficking in the United States
racketeering - The usage here is likely referring to extortion (protection money and such), rather than the usage meaning organized crime. This makes the parenthetical confusing. It seems to be saying either that the listed items (murder, money laundering, extortion and kidnapping) are organized crime or somehow part of the extortion. Neither of these makes any sense. If it's the first, does that mean the various forms of trafficking are not part of their criminal enterprise? If it's the latter, how is extortion part of extortion?
larceny (robbery) - I don't know what the addition of robbery here is for. Larceny is basically theft. Robbery is a more specific form of theft -- by force or threat of violence. If the source(s) say robbery, we should simply say "robbery". If the sources say larceny, the parenthetical is misleading. If the sources say both, robbery is redundant.
illegal immigration - This may be trying to say they work as coyotes. Or maybe it's the human trafficking restated. Or both.
battery - How this is a singular criminal activity is beyond me. They hit people? Perhaps as part of robbery, kidnapping, murder, etc., but it's likely not a stand alone activity. Heck, if we're going to break everything out, we certainly have tax evasion, assault, attempted murder, smuggling, conspiracy, etc.

Long story short, I think we need to revisit the sources and start this list over. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

First up, the "status quo version" is only a month old. I simply haven't been as active lately or it wouldn;t have lasted that long. The edits I made are pretty in line with many other gang articles. Human trafficking is not just prostitution. In fact, numerically, forced labor is the bigger number on the global field. Racketeering doesn't mean organized crime. It was never lumped together until the single editor gave us the "status quo version". Same with the larceny/robbery mention. I don't like the so-called status quo version, so write it however you want. All I did was remove unnecessary wikilinks, that you reverted and I removed again. I think you're on the right track in terms of content etc. I simply worked on overlinking. Given the relative newness of the current layout, I honestly don't think we have an "it's been this way" issue to overcome. I say make the edits you feel are appropriate. Your judgement is usually correct. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

NPOV issue with lead not adequately representing the section on political discourse

I'm not sure how I ended up at this article earlier this month as I don't seem to have edited it before, but I noticed that the lead simply said "The gang is often referenced by the United States' Republican Party to advocate for anti-immigrant policies." To my eyes that wasn't an NPOV description of MS-13#Political discourse. So I looked at the section and simply summarised it. I did not read the talk page. Maybe I should have, but does everyone read talk page before editing? This didn't seem contentious to me.

So my first question is do people really think that single sentence, which leave out what I see as important context, meets our NPOV requirement, ie does a good job of summarising the relevant section? If everyone does, then of course there's no point in my continuing to argue that it needs rewriting. Looking today at Chetsford's close, I see he said that the bolded text should not be kept that that a single short sentence might be appropriate. So, what's wrong with "Republicans have argued that sanctuary cities (jurisdictions which do not prioritize enforcement of immigration law) contribute to MS-13 activity with Trump and his administration making false claims such as the claim that towns have been "liberated" from MS-13 rule during his presidency." If it's too long, how should it be shortened to still represent the section and meet our policies? Doug Weller talk 19:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with the proposed sentence. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Personally I am fine with the existing sentence about Republican Party to advocate for anti-immigrant policies ect which is what the community decided was appropriate. If anything the political discourse section needs to be trimmed a bit. It reads to much like "Trump falsely uttered X". I get it, these days everything he says is important and gets a lot of coverage, but it is quite apparently it did not have any stiction. PackMecEng (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The party in control of the Western world's largest democracy ran on MS-13 in 2018, and the anti-immigration policies of the last few years that have had a profound impact on millions of lives are defended with reference to MS-13. The primary reason why this gang, unlike most other gangs (many of which are larger and more violent), has such notoriety is because the Republican Party has decided to prop it up. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Certainly true, I did not purpose moving everything. PackMecEng (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Also really Doug Weller? Drop a NPOV tag over the whole article because you dislike the outcome of a well participated RFC? PackMecEng (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

"Referenced by the United States' Republican Party to advocate for anti-immigrant policies"? That's not remotely correct English, and unsurprisingly, I can't see the community specifically decided it was appropriate, PackMecEng. "A single, short sentence" is something else. Also, really, you think Doug Weller 'dropped a NPOV tag over the whole article'? Please read the tag again. It's {{POV-section}} and says "The neutrality of this section is disputed." This section = the lead. The lead's neutrality is disputed. Bishonen | talk 10:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Yes I am aware it is about the lead, I was referring to the it's physical location. Literally over the whole article. The premises of the tag is the actual problem. You do not tag a section because you dislike the outcome of a RFC, I count that as disruptive. Do you disagree? PackMecEng (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

"Drop a ... tag over the whole article" was meant to indicate the physical location of the tag? How strange. Where else but above the first section would you put a section tag disputing the neutrality of the first section? What makes you think Doug Weller dislikes the outcome of the RfC? I won't repeat my query of your claim that the community decided the incoherent sentence "The gang is often referenced by the United States' Republican Party to advocate for anti-immigrant policies" was appropriate, because I don't doubt you meant something else by that too. I'm done here. Bishonen | talk 16:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC).

I don't blame you. PackMecEng is making the unacceptable demand that the lead not be tagged because then the tag is at the top of the article, failing to note that my NPOV complaint wasn't even addressed by the RfC (although to be fair Rhododendrites did suggest it be changed) but falsely claiming that my tag was because I didn't like the RfC, and ducking my first question. If I'm being disruptive, take me to WP:ANI and explain where I should have put the tag (and I guess what it is disruptive). Doug Weller talk 17:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Since there seems to be mass confusion over a simple issue let me clarify my concern with the NPOV tag. The RFC determined the original text by Snoog was way to much detail and that maybe a single sentence would be fine. A single sentence was added. Now you add the tag right after your addition was removed with me citing the RFC. Where you two are getting the idea that my argument was that the tag was at the top is beyond baffling but I hope this clears up your confusion. PackMecEng (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Just responding to the ping above. My opinion hasn't really changed since the RfC. Specifically, most of the section it's summarizing is about the ways the messaging is misleading, so what's there doesn't seem ideal. I still like "MS-13 is frequently referenced in political discourse to argue for stricter immigration laws, often based on exaggerated or incorrect claims about the gang." — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Illegal immigration and human smuggling

Illegal immigration and human smuggling

267 arrests Nov 16, 2017

Survey

Related Articles