Talk:Guardian Angels

Wikipedia is not intended to be a sounding board for biased, libelous, frivolous, unfounded, and bizarre accusations or claims about subject matters just as much as it should not be a platform for institutional propaganda. There are certain general facts about the Guardian Angels which are not biased, such as it was founded 1979 by Curtis Sliwa. Anyone who adds stuff like they look like Yakuza and enter bars with expensive drinks is being absurd, unfair, mean spirited, and unethical. When I want basic information on subject matters such as America, I don't want some politically motivated hack telling me America is a dictator run by corporations founded in 1953. People like that just destroy Wikipedia's usefulness and turn it into some stupid chat room for teenagers with nothing better to do with their lives.

I disagree with the opinion above, I think people should be allowed to express and say what they want. It has nothing to do with America nor corporations taking over the world, it has to do with free speech. If people want to criticise the GAs I don´t have a problem, as long as the end result is balanced!

Please sign you posts with ~~~~,

Also, I was informed that the Angels do not have any official presence in germany; their main page seems to corraborate this. Please justify your re-addition of germany to this article, seeing as there is no GA-specific information in the section.

Also, so you are forewarned: the first amendment right to free speech protects your freedom from political repression by the government. Do not confuse this with universal free speech right; esp. on a private website. humblefool® 23:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

No disrespect, but I am not from the USA and therefore do not adhere nor acknowledge your first amendment. I believe in the right to communicate opinions and accurate information. If someone places inaccurate information which he or she does not clarify as an opinion I agree... remove it. Going back to Germany, you are correct in stating that there are no active Guardian Angel groups in Germany at this moment in time nor has there been since at least 1999. However, because there used to be a presence in Germany for well over 5 years I think that whoever wrote the original text about Germany should be allowed to keep it in place.

Nazis

The text regarding Germany is irrelevant. Unlike the German style of preemptive self-defense (i.e., the invasion of Poland and Russia) the Angels do not practice preemptive self-defense. We provide medical assistance to those in need on the street and call the police if we see a crime occurring like a group of thugs beating up a gay person. We stop gangs and thugs from oppressing and persecuting others, not the other way around.

Once again someone is trying to compare the Angels to nazis or fascists or whatever, and this is once again pure libel. I could go to the Boy Scouts page and say, the Boy Scouts look like Hitler Youth. I could go to the page on Islam and say Muslims all act like terrorists. How could all that possibly help advance knowledge and understanding which Wikipedia is intended for? Once again, this is not a forum for disgruntled, chip-on-the-shoulder, pissed off adolescents who are trying to blame the world for their parents neglect or abuse. Wikipedia is supposed to help fight myths, disinformation, misinformation, propaganda, and igornant conjecture. Hey the Guardian Angels started out from a McDonalds store, how bout add that McDonalds is a fascist corporate mogul trying to poison the world and their Big Macs are made of pigeons and rats. Real mature, about as mature as comparing Angels to German neonazis and Japanese yakuza. GROW UP!!!

Other comparisons

This entry may be more useful if we are going down the path of exhibiting misconceptions about every subject in Wikipedia:

Out of pure ignorance and misinformation, the Guardian Angels have been compared with and associated with: Neo-Nazis, Democrats, Republicans, anarchists, pro-establishment, anti-establishment, Yakusa, the Italian mob, the CRIPs, the Bloods, Latin Kings, Hells Angels, Blue Angels, Charlie's Angels, Mutant Ninja Turtles, conspiracy theorists, Free Masons, Catholics, atheists, agnostics, Satanists, witches, Smurfs, Communists, Capitalists, venture Capitalists, socialists, nihilists, neo-classical post-modern progressive fascists, para-military left-wing occult humanists, environmentalists, Norwegian Death Metalists, punks, rappers, industrialists, Cubists, narcissists, evolutionists, Creationists, libertarians, autocrats, theocrats, Boy Scouts, Girls Scouts, Eagle Scouts, Rotarians, Elks, Skull and Crossbones, pirates, metallurgists, Canadians, aliens, devils, bowling clubs, baseball players, Yankees, Puerto Ricans, gay, gay bashers, gay protectors, bi, Q patrol, nondiscriminatory, discriminatory, racists, anti-racist, misogynists, Amazons, feminists, skinheads, SHARPS, straight-edgers, Jamaican, white power, black power, KKK, Aryan Nation, lesbian, and French.

This is not about Nazis it´s about inaccurate information

Yet again I need to clarify my view, I only agree in so far as to say that if someone places inaccurate information then DELETE it unless it is a clearly stated as a personal opinion. Otherwise, you are advocating CENSORSHIP. BE CAREFUL, for one may become the very evil one is trying to fight!

" New York ...city then known as the crime capital of the world " . Please , this is just plain stupid . Anyone who has bothered to spend a little reading news archives and encyclopedias will see New York has never been close " the crime capital of the world ." Whatever .

NPOV

added npov to this article. there is virtually no treatment of criticisms of the ga except for a short statement about the mayor of detroit. frymaster 21:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This NPOV-tag should be re-added, this article seems like a total fluff piece (especially with regards to the graphic used and the lack of criticism). I'm not surprised since someone from the group has flooded this comments page with endless defences. This is one of the drawbacks of wikipedia, that people in groups themselves who are PR-savvy can just edit the article to make themselves look great.. Dan Carkner 01:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

207.228.15.21, please stop taking away the npov-check until some people come and check it and comment here as to whether or not it is npov enough. Yes, we know that you think it is a good article, I didn't put the tag there for *you* to check it. I don't know what your interest is in this group but you seem to not really have edits on any other subject on wikipedia. So, simmer down, this is supposed to be a balanced article, not your website. Dan Carkner 15:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

207.228.15.21, you seem quite offended by the NPOV-check tag and I expect you will take it off as many times as I (or previous people) try to put it up. So..what can I do? But wikipedia articles shouldn't properly be the "turf" of an overinterested user..Dan Carkner 01:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No criticism?

"Some argued that the Guardian Angels were naïve vigilantes causing more trouble than good." "[Curtis Sliwa] was accused of being attracted to media attention and publicity stunts. He admitted that he had fabricated a six criminal incidents "that clearly had not taken place" in the late 1970's and early 1980's, in order to attract favorable media attention."

Sounds like pretty harsh and fair criticism to me. What are you smoking?

Angel haters

It should be noted that the Angels don't get thrown out of cities or disband due to lack of public support or whatever. They close because the leaders and members quit.

Those who hate the Angels I think are strange bed fellows, life long bureaucrats who resist any kind of public initiative and new ideas and so-called anarchists and teenage rebels who think the Angels are fascist stormtroopers out to ruin their fun. These groups should get together and plot the end of the Angels eh. Fact is, anyone has the right at least in America to walk around the streets reporting crime, helping people, talking to people. There's nothing wrong with that. I understand the concerns however. Idiots will join the Angels and act like bullies or dorky hall monitors. Every organization faces the invasion of people with their own agendas, and the Angels does its best to weed out those who give it a bad name. However, if you're seriously confused or don't know what the Angels are about, I suggest going up to one and talking to them. Don't just go around spreading rumors. As a minority I know what it feels like to have people think I'm something I'm not without even giving me a chance to open my mouth. Fight ignorance. Have the balls to talk to someone you don't know and quit assuming and spreading rumors.

Proof of effect

Can anyone point to any studies of whether the Guardian Angels have had any effect on crime rates? There also should be references to studies of whether people feel any safer with Guardian Angels around. Lastly, the article should document the actual frequency of patrols, distance of coverage, and frequency of citizen arrests. Without this, there's no proof Guardian Angels provide any help whatsoever.

Proof of No Effect

The only comprehensive study of the Guardian Angels was conducted from 1984 to 1985 titled "Guardian Angels: Citizen Response to Crime in Selected Cities of the United States, 1984" http://webapp.icpsr.umich.edu/cocoon/ICPSR-STUDY/08935.xml

It concluded that there was no conclusive evidence of crime rates dropping in areas where Guardian Angels patrolled. However, it did collect public surveys indicating that the presence of Guardian Angels made people feel safer. The study however was limited to several cities and is now dated. In 1994 and 1995 Sacramento, California, the Sacramento Police Department partnered with the Guardian Angels to patrol the worst crime area of downtown Sacramento (based on 911 crime-related calls). Within six months of Guardian Angels patrolling this area twice a week, 911 crime-related calls fell by over 60%. This result indicates that when Guardian Angels focus on a highly concentrated crime area and work together with the police, they do make a significant impact on crime.

At the same time, the true effects of the Guardian Angels patrolling is hard to quantify. Seeing Guardian Angels on the streets also has a psychological impact on the public just as seeing gangs and thugs does. If a small group of gangs or thugs loitered on a corner, you could quantify the negative impact of this by the number of crime incidents in that area. However, it would be hard to quantify the psychological effects they have on the public such as fear. One of the most important factors in fighting crime (and similarly terrorism) is public attitude. If the public is overwhelmed by fear, it leads to either an increased desire for centralized authority and order or an increased feeling of victimization and despair leading to a short-term mentality with irrational behavior. However, if the public feels there is a constructive mechanism for them to deal with their fear, if they see others constructively creating solutions and succeeding, they are more likely to respond constructively and intelligently to the problem. How can you quantify this? The greatest contribution the Guardian Angels made to crime was showing the public that they were not helpless victims of fear but could stand up for themselves, get involved, participate in an area historically reserved for the government (which at that time was failing), and generate activism and positive action.

I am always confused by people who fail to see the benefits of citizens actively participating in dealing with social problems. What else are we left with but government and corporate solutions that do not necessarily serve public interests? Of course, if you tell someone who is feels like a total victim he has an option to help himself, of course, he'll try to convince you that this option is flawed a million ways. This enables him to sit back down comfortably in his despair and self-pity without reason to change. I understand that completely.

Please sign your posts

Could people please start signing your posts? Just type four tildes at the end of your posts, or click one of the two 'add signature' buttons in the edit window. Anchoress 17:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikification

Could someone please wikify this article? Im not an expert on wiki format, but this seems quite off. I'm disturbed that none of the arguments about the content have made even the slightest reference to wiki policy. A group interested in law enforcement with a strong ex-military presence ought to have a wiki page that conforms to wiki policy. The NPOV tag is quite well founded. The page is obviously written mostly by members or ex-members, and the fact that a single attributed criticism has been allowed to sit on the page doesn't make it not POV. Please keep in mind that adding criticism is not or at least should not be considered an attack on the group. The strongest and most frequently made arguments on both sides ought to be given weight. Every news article I've read about the GAs mentions that they have come under criticism from both police and anti-surveillence minded interests. These criticisms need to be aired on the wiki page.

"When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view." - editorial policy

"Self-promotion. You are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself." WP:NOT

To pre-empt the inevitable. I am not in middle school, I do not use wikipedia as a forum and I am not an anarchist, petty criminal or street gang member. I am writing the same things about this article that I would about any other that struck me as this one does.

"The Guardian Angels instigated a social and political debate about the role of government and citizens in society. Following the rapid growth of the Guardian Angels in the early 1980s, city governments have increasingly reached out to their citizens in search of public participation and involvement in their communities."

GA's instigated a social and political debate?? as in, started one?? as in, before curtis sliwa no one had ever considered the possibility of having a debate about the role of government and citizens in society?? A list of famous people who support a group is not proof that it is influential. A longer list of much more famous people could be gathered in support of scientology or anarchism or maoism. Keep in mind that I am not comparing the GAs to any of those things, simply pointing out that famous supporters is not the same as widespread influence.

The external links page is also almost entirely GA chapter sites. This borders on advertisement. Im also a bit put off by what ive seen on the talk page. It seems to me like some admittedly POV lines are being forced into the article by offering to revert as many times as necessary. Keep the 3 revert rule in mind. These lesser visited wiki pages ought to be as good as the more frequently edited ones, but in practice they tend to be full of POV.

And by the way, whoever thinks its cute to compare GAs to yakuza and nazis, the only people who look bad by that are yourself and wikipedia. 66.222.62.214 13:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Points well taken

I created the subject on Wikipedia, and there was a lot of vandalism, and then someone added text straight from the official webpage which was not neutral. I'm not a wiki-expert and don't claim to be, and I'm too lazy to sign my name and post references, but anyone who is more diligent and neutral is more than welcome to. BTW, instigating a political debate such as with friends does not imply your friends have never debated politically ever before. It is a good point but not entirely neutral. Whether government became more open to public involvement and community outreach because of the organization or not is debatable. Keep in mind however back in 1979 even the idea of private security was novel and opposed. Now there are more private security officers than police officers. In many cities the police are even hired by business groups or associations to patrol certain areas of the city.

Political Issues

"Since the organization is primarily involved in helping to maintain law and order, they are often viewed as a conservative or right-wing group." I do not like that only the terms "conservative" or "right-wing" group have been used to describe the guardian angels as "helping to maintain law and order". This gives an idea that only right-wing groups maintain law and order, and that left-wing groups are against maintaining law and order. This is not true. Left-wing and liberal groups are just as concerned as maintaining public safety as right-wing groups are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.154.17.182 (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Political Issues

"Since the organization is primarily involved in helping to maintain law and order, they are often viewed as a conservative or right-wing group." I do not like that only the terms "conservative" or "right-wing" group have been used to describe the guardian angels as "helping to maintain law and order". This gives an idea that only right-wing groups maintain law and order, and that left-wing groups are against maintaining law and order. This is not true. Left-wing and liberal groups are just as concerned as maintaining public safety as right-wing groups are.--216.154.17.182 19:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)