Talk:Chicago Gaylords/Archive 1

Archive 1

This article previously survived a vote for deletion archived here. Given the limited participation and sockpuppeteering, this survival should not be a barrier against a possible future nomination.--Scimitar ^parley 15:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Recommendations you see fit to make the nomination possible?--Joe ^parley 15:50, 12 November 2005(UTC)

Thank you No_Parking for the great page cleanup. 138.89.18.73 03:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you 138.89.18.73|138.89.18.73 for the great page cleanup. jbutera 03:18, 5 Febuary 2006 (UTC)

Who's oldest?

This article says "The Chicago Gaylords is the oldest Chicago street gang." The article at Vice Lords says "The Vice Lords is the oldest and the second-largest street gang in Chicago." While both are People affiliated, neither indicates that it's the same gang as the other and the histories differ. Thus the question is, which is correct? One of them must be older than the other.

There may be other gang articles that make similar claims, as I have not checked them all.

The Vice Lords claim they started in Ill. correction in 1957. We have old Gaylord's (in their late 60s) say they started in the early 1950's. I had the Chicago Public Library do a newspaper article search on the Gaylord's - both as a social club and a street gang, and they found an article about a gang fight between the Gaylord's and the Outlaws dated 1954. I have not found any articles that are that old about the Vice Lords. I have also read where the Vice Lords claim to be the oldest Black gang in Chicago - and that makes perfect sense. Here is a link pertaining to the age of the Gaylord's by Gang Research (try paragraph 16.): http://gangresearch.net/ChicagoGangs/latinkings/lkhistory.html68.162.62.87 05:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC) jbutera

Who knows if they've been around longer than the Vice Lords? That's pretty obvious. The VL started in St. Charles in 1957, and there were sets of Gaylords up and running before then. As far as the VL being the oldest Black club, no, not by a long shot. The Stompers, the Clovers lots of older clubs, but documenting it? Good luck.Sieg 13:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

POV POV POV

Quote:

To their credit they held their neighborhoods [...]

To their credit? How can you give a criminal gang any credit for 'holding' a neighbourhood? *Sigh

Sigh ! It is part of history! Sorry if you do not agree with gang history - but gangs were a big part of Chicago history - like it or not. jbutera

To their credit...

First of all, the Gaylords were NEVER a criminal gang in the sense that gangs are today. They weren't drug-dealers, or extortionists, or anything of the kind. They were strictly an old-line turf club, concerned with protecting their parents homes and their neighborhoods from vandalism and worse being done by members of gangs that were, demonstrably, criminal. No one wants an organized gang dealing drug in the park at the end of the block. THAT'S what the Gaylords were fighting. It's easy in retrospect to say that they were terrible people out being criminals, but the reality is that most of the members were just normal, working class kids trying to survive the best way they could.Sieg 13:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing I love more than cowards who change websites using ip addresses instead of an account. They are nothing but cowards. Internet bangers. jbutera —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.244.75 (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Largely Unreferenced Article

The vast majority of this article provides no specific references for it's content. Some of the references are actually cobbled from references used in a book dealing with gangs, it's impossible to attribute any of the more suspect references to the article's content.

The external links section is unecessary altogether. The first link is for a site that is presently inactive. The site (when accessed via archive.org) was set up to facilitate the sale of a particular book. No other editors have chosen to include this link, only a single editor so far has steadfastly attempted to keep the link in place. I think it might be acceptable if pages of the site were used as references, but it shouldn't be an external link as it's commercial in nature. I also think its a little transparent that this article was originally created by the ongoing link contributor with only two paragraphs and a link to that site.

The gangresearch.net external link contains no content about the Gaylords, it only contains a link to the book site. The UIC page (also run by the owner of gangresearch.net) contains no content about the Gaylords, it only links back to the book site. They add no encyclopedic value to the article.

I've written several gang articles on Wikipedia. If this organization is notable enough to include in Wikipedia, I think someone can at least find some credible sources (i.e. not Youtube videos, not message boards, not wikipedia mirror sites, not "fan" sites that are largely POV). But the whole purpose of the article should not be to promote the sale of a book, or to provide unreferenced and speculative info. 74.228.158.68 (talk) 02:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems like this subject of conflict of interest started awhile ago...many people didn't realize about the spam until you came in, then you guys started wheel-warring, and here we are in the now times. Where is Jbutera? BoL (Talk) 03:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll invite him to participate. In the meantime, let's start discussion on a consensus on the changes.

The present version of this article is largely unreferenced and contains questionable external links. If you agree that all external links should be removed and unreferenced content removed until it can be properly sourced, vote Agree. If you feel the article is presently referenced correctly and the links are acceptable, vote Disagree.

• Agree, the article contains almost no specific references, the links are all redundant and contain no encylclopedic content save for the one pushing the book for sale. 74.228.158.68 (talk) 04:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a bit early to start polling on things like this. Have a discussion first, then see what consensus is drawn out of that. Metros (talk) 04:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I am here. You banned me when 74.228.___ was not editing POV, but listing my personal references from classmates.com and publishing personal remarks which I understood to be illegal. My reference to gaylords712.com is perfectly legit as that website is used as a reference by the U of I Chicago campus on their gang research forum. I would think the fact that I am wikipedia subscriber and have the guts to create an account and not use an ip address would give me some credibility.

74.228.___ was banned from entrance to the gaylords712.com website and message board.

PS: Thank you for putting a hold on the vandalism. (JButera) [[Special:Contributions/] (17:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree It is very hard to reference an organization considered to be subculture, let alone one that has not been active in over a decade. Most reference materials are from former members, who give insight into said subculture that very few would have been able to expreience, unless they were from the immediate area. It seems the topic of gangs was deemed worthy enough to be picked up by the History Channel, and to have a small mini series based on them, though there are no "official" records of any major gangs in United States History, let alone reference material for the smaller ones. The article was written NPOV, did not demonize any other streetgang, who were either on friendly terms, or enemies of, the Gaylords. Interviews were used as reference materials, as were personal experiences. There were no outlandish claims made, no threats against other streetgangs, either active or inactive, and no "props", if you will, given to the Gaylords themselves. It was a purely NPOV article, and it would be a shame if it were to be deleted, as the Gaylords were a part of Chicago History, much the same as the Northsider Gang, the Chicago Outfit, the Latin Kings, etc, are based on personal expreiences, that gave a reader an inside look at the "modus operandi" of these subcultures. The only official records would be arrest reports, and staements made under oath in a court of law. But again, statements made in court could be false, but the authorities seem to think that is good enough.

Your vote will not count towards consensus. All you have said is that it's hard to find references, that doesn't indicate why the article should remain unreferenced. If Material can't be referenced, it needs to be removed. Wikipedia is not based on "personal experiences". 74.228.158.68 (talk) 06:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

My recent problems with 74.228.___ consisted of him adding tags over and over again to a recently deleted page called , "The 12th Street Players", another Chicago-area based street gang. The page was deleted, with User:Jon513 causing it's deletion. There was no discussion, aside from me calling him out on it, to the effect that an unregistered user should not have the authority to delete pages. Seems his buddy User:Jon513 did it for him. Nathraq (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any "buddy" on Wikipedia, why a page was actually deleted is both beyond my control and not within my own discretion. Furthermore, this is completely irrelevant to discussion on this particular article. Your "Disagree" also doesn't count as you are basically saying that your vote is a retaliatory one because an unreferenced article you contribute to was deleted. You haven't made a single edit to this article, you are only here because you have been following my past edits and ended up here. Wikipedia articles are not based on "personal experiences" like you state, but require references. Your vote doesn't count, as you make no real argument supporting or disagreeing this article' status in question. 74.228.158.68 (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• It is relevant as, a). you vandalized the page, 12th Street Players, on 5 different occassions, b). you seem to have an obsessive fascination with editing pages concerning streetgangs, and c). not one day after I reverted your last vandalism on the deleted 12th Street Player page, it was removed. The page was up for over a year, and was a continous work in progress.

Your definition of "vandalize" means to add tags requesting references. If that's the case, every admin on wikipedia "vandalizes" articles. As far as the page being deleted, again, only an admin can do that, voice your concerns on an admin noticeboard. Pages that have been up longer than a year have been deleted for simply not being noteworthy, and no admin noticed it yet. 74.228.158.68 (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If a person follows the edit history of 74.228.___ , they will see a continuous stream of vandalism against pages concerning various subcultures, streetgangs in particular. As Wiki is also " a work in progress", constantly bettering itself and the pages it provides, so are the articles pertaining to various out-of-the-mainstream lifestyles. Because there are no official reports and documentation on many of these groups, does not mean that they did not exist, or that the information is invalid. If the Chicago Gaylords page should be removed, then all pages concerning every streetgang, and every subculture, should also be removed. peace Nathraq (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

From Metro's page:

Hey 74.228.158____, Since you know so much about me, from classmates.com in which you posted classmates.com information on the 'page history' provide proof that I am - as you stated above - a gang member. You make a lot of accusations without providing proof. Where is your proof that I am either Michael Scott or an ex-member of the Chicago Gaylord's? You also claim that you opened up a talk dialog, but that was after I was banned for reversing your changes. I could not update any wikipedia articles or talk dialog for 12 hours. Now I want to post proof that I am a Chicago Gang member for which you accuse me of being?JButera —Preceding comment was added at 23:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We're getting completely off point. The talk page is not to make accusations of who is who. I have never said Jbutera is a "gang member" at any point, I have never said that he is Michael Scott. What I have said is that Jbutera owns the Gaylords712.com website which he continually spams since the day he created the article. This is now evidenced by the fact that he posted above that my IP address is now blocked from accessing that website and it's message board. So what we know is: Jbutera created the wikipedia article to promote the site, Jbutera repeatedly spams the link when it's removed, Jbutera concretely knows that my IP address has been blocked from viewing the website. The only two contributors (Nathraq + Jbutera) that disagree are ones who have yet to include proper references, neither actually states why an unreferenced article should remain as is and with spam links. 74.228.158.68 (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want to see an off topic discussion just review your page history log where you stated Michael Scott, personal information from classmates.com which is vandalism. Vandals are blocked from gaylords712.com per the board. Why is gaylords712.com a legitimate reference? Because U of I Gang Research includes it as a reference. You still haven't provided proof that gaylords712.com is making a profit off of referring links to book sales? I can tell you that Michael Scott is the only ex-Gaylord making money off of book sales and not the website or the GrayLords who are non-profit. So tell me again - what was gained in the debate over this issue - by posting classmates.com material on the page history? jbuterajbutera 12:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

DISAGREE Please enumerate which external references you would like to see. At the same time, why don't you explain your interest and or relevance to the topic at hand? There are many rational points I could make, but if I don't even know who I am making them to, why bother? If you have a legitimate reason or complaint, fine, why the secrecy? ~~Sieg~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sieg (talk • contribs) 14:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

So far, I have yet to see a contributor that wants to keep the unreferenced section and external links, that actually provides a reason for keeping the article unreferenced. The article is almost completely unreferenced, that can't be disputed. Why can't anyone tell me why it should remain that way?

As far as the external links, I explained why all three should be removed. Two contain absolutely no content on the Gaylords, not a single sentence. So why are they even there? The Gaylords712.com site pushes a book for sale, if you look at the coding for the links for the book, they are actually affiliate links (the site gets paid every time a book is purchased). Jbutera creates this article with two paragraphs and a link, he continues to add the link to the article every time it is removed, and before I myself even knew it, Jbutera tells everyone that my IP is now blocked from that website. How on Earth is that not seen as a site owner spamming his site to wikipedia? No one here is focusing on the issue at hand. The article is unreferenced, it contains two useless links and an inappropriate one added by the site owner. Can anyone make an actual argument as to why either of these things are acceptable? 74.228.158.68 (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You were asked to be blocked because you post information from classmates.com on a forum where is is uncalled for. I requested that you be blocked! You don't like it just continue to whine and cry like you are doing. You still haven't stated why you brought such material to wikipedia? But let it be known that I am still alive and typing and your page history postings did little to intimidate me. I challenged you to make your move and I am still here. gaylords712.com, which you are blocked from accessing, is a non-profit information only website. It does not make money off of "Lords of Lawndale," but uses "Lords of Lawndale" as a reference because it is the first book written by a Gaylord. The book gives the website, which you are blocked from viewing, a legitimate reference.

The website contains references and one you keep deleting and I will continue to add. As far as credibility, you seem to be the one without any since you had to post none debatable classmates.com information on the page history. I will admit my part in the edit war which you fail to own up to. You seem to be a professional victim here. When I find that someone is posting references to places I have been in a debate, I have to take that as either a threat or an intimidation. Well it did not work as I am still here and not afraid to defend myself or the article, so you have failed. You still haven't addressed your references to classmates.com. jbutera —Preceding comment was added at 00:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

First off, it makes no difference to me that you blocked me from the site you own. And second, when you decide to actually explain why an article should remain almost completely unreferenced, you let me know. The only thing you have done so far is launch into a bizarre rant that has nothing to do with the article itself. 74.228.158.68 (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre rant? Maybe you had better look at the bizarre behavior of posting information from classmates.com as a reason to delete an article. And following someone around from another forum. I would call that VERY bizarre behavior which you have never addressed. jbutera —Preceding comment was added at 12:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to spell this out for the only contributors that want to keep articles unreferenced.

1. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia with NOTABLE articles.

2. Wikipedia articles requires sources, references, otherwise people are free to make up anything they want, and the site has no credibility.

3. If there is a lack of sources available for a particular article, that means that it's not notable and doesn't belong on the site.

To dismiss these three points is to say that it's okay for anyone to create a fake gang, and then make an article for it without sources because "we're using our personal knowledge". It doesn't work that way.

When the page protection expires, unless a majority of contributors can convince me that Wikipedia has changed it's policy about use of unreferenced content, I will delete anything in the article that is unsourced. Anyone wishing to re-add content will be required to use a proper reference per Wikipedia policy.

I also intend to delete the three External links, unless someone can convince me that: 1. The Gaylords site does not encourage sales of a book which they have an affiliate referral link for, 2. The remaining two links contain more than ONE sentence about the Gaylords.

This is non-negotiable at this point, since everyone is arguing bizarre points that have nothing to do with why references aren't needed, and why a commercial link and two sites with zero content about Gaylords are needed in the externals. Either address these issues now, or start looking for sources for the content which will be removed. I have written and rewritten mutiple articles using dozens of well-researched sources, I'm the only one here that seems to understand the concept of this.74.228.158.68 (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You haven't even attempted to address the issue of following me here from classmates.com and how a listed school was a valid argument for changing the Gaylord's content? You don't seem to want to explain your irrational behavior and your meltdown. The gaylords712.com website is not commercial. It does not make money off of referring links or direct book sales. The reference to the book is like the gang research web site's reference to the books "My Bloody Life" and the "House of Lords". talk —Preceding comment was added at 12:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not your classmate, I'm not a member of classmates.com, nor have I ever posted that site address on wikipedia. Your bizarre behavior seems only to distract from the point that you still haven't responded to why the article should remain unreferenced. As far as your site gaylords712.com, the link to purchase the book is a paid affiliate link, the site generates a profit from it, so the site does make money from book sales (unless you've since attempted to change the affiliate link since blocking my IP from visiting your website). Like I said, no one has convinced me why the article should remain unsourced, or where on those two removed links there is more than a single sentence about the gaylords. 74.228.158.68 (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Anything you say - Pedro! Page History entry: "03:05, 1 April 2008 74.228.158.68" proves you are entirely wrong, since that information was only posted on classmates.com under my profile. Pedro - define bizarre behavior when you use personal information from another forum to change an article and then claim you were never there? I know that you did it to try and intimidate me but you failed at your attempt. No one has knocked on my door since your intimidation attempt. If you used it as legitimate page history then it is up for discussion and should be considered as a resource in this debate.

talk

SOURCE MATERIAL

It is my understanding that all reference materials come from source materials. If that is the case, then the information provided on www.gaylords712.com, as well as by the movie "Great American Youth" on YouTube, is indeed valid reference material. All of it is verifiably traceable to the individuals who participated in the historical events described, whether as Gaylords or their enemies.

Every historical accounting begins with eye-witness accounts, either from participants or spectators. These eye-witness accounts and related reporting are the source materials from which references are derived.

Given that, how can you argue that the eye-witness accounts presented on the above referenced website and in the above referenced movie are not valid documentation?

As to the Gaylords notability, they were part and parcel of a culture, a time in Chicago history, and to some extent, still are. This is not a fact to be proven, it is a given. Whilst looking through the reference material included in the Wiki article, I believe you'll find a map of club areas drawn up by the Chicago Police indicating large swaths of the city they feel are influenced to some degree by the Gaylords. I would think that given the expertise available to the Chicago Police Department, they would be the best judges extant of what constitutes a "notable" club.

Sieg (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem #1 with your argument is that Wikipedia does not allow Youtube videos as references per copyright reasons. Problem #2 is that I already stated that the Gaylords712 website could be used as a reference (using actual reference tags), just not as an external link because Jbutera initially added his site when he created the article as a commercial spam link.

I'm not arguing, just stating facts. I appreciate your feedback and will work on modifying the entry per your suggestions. I will remove the reference to YouTube and refer directly to the movie, which I have permission to do from the copyright holder. Sieg (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that if you want to use the video itself as a reference, the video has to appear on the site of the copyright owner (ex. the infamous "Kramer" video could only be used as a reference if you sourced the page of TMZ.com that it's on, as they are the copyright owners). Or, link to a news site that describes (in detail) the Kramer incident, etc. I don't even recall a movie being mentioned in the article, though. 74.228.158.68 (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Where is your proof that www.gaylords712.com has made a profit off of the book - Pedro? You are making unproved accusations about the website. Remember - you assumed it was a Gaylord's Fan website originally. You assume that the website is making money off of the book "Lords of Lawndale" so that makes your accusation correct?

jbutera (talk)

You are confusing external links with references. There should be no external links for this article. The problem is that no one is even attemping to use the gaylords website or other websites as sources for specific sections of the article. There is only a blanket "references" section which doesn't tell us what parts of the article those publications support, and a useless external links section.

I will reference the specific sections of the website that address a section of the article. Sieg (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In the past, when the gaylords712.com section's (or sets) map page was used as a reference, it was deleted. It will not work if we have classmates lurkers claiming that the website is for profit and selling books. You have to have open minded editors working on the article instead of individuals bent on an agenda trying intimidate people from writing by search and destroy tactics and the posting of personal information. jbutera--jbutera 18:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

When the article is unprotected, anything that is unsourced will be removed, all the external links will be removed. If someone finds information on the Gaylords712 website and decides to add it back to the article, they should do so (given it's not copied verbatim and given the references are done correctly after every addition). This has never been an argument about what can't be used as a reference, it's about the fact that the article is completely unreferenced and no one has made the slightest attempt to add sources the right way. 74.228.158.68 (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume that you will use more classmates.com personal information in the page history when you delete links? That was a real class act - Pedro. Unfortunately, your intimidation attempt did not work.

jbutera (talk)

If everyone can refrain from posting personal information and edit warring, I will: 1) Get the block for 74.228.158.___ removed so that the process can proceed; 2) I will work with Sieg to rewrite the content and add links to the appropriate parts of the website. That is if we can agree to not edit war over links without first debating them? If every link that is added is deleted because someone states that gaylords712.com is a revenue generating website then we will solve nothing. I would like to hear what Sieg has to say on this issu?jbutera --jbutera 22:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not you unblock me from your site doesn't realy matter. Otherwise, I'm all for you, Sieg or whomever else adding references to anything that is presently unsourced, or anything that will be added (and if a book is used, making sure to specify what sections of the article the book supports, rather than just listing it as a blanket reference). As far as external links, I still maintain that the article shouldn't have them. Two of the links didn't contain any text about the Gaylords (one only had a map, the other only a link to a Gaylords related site). I have no problem with gaylords712 being used as a reference for any section of article, just not an external link. 74.228.158.68 (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I had 74.228 unblocked from the website so that we can make edits and have checks and balances. I did what I thought was the honorable thing to do. I am not asking anyone to go against their beliefs, but I hope that we can show respect towards each other.

Thank you! jbutera--jbutera 14:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)