body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents

Template:Vital article

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2018 and 20 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jakovnewman (article contribs).

Map of MS-13 presence

This map: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MaraSalvatruchaLocation.png

1 - It is a user created, unsourced (four are dead links, one is in a foreign language) work. 2 - There are no numbers or percentages used to describe the amount of gang members. What amount of MS-13 members qualifies as a "light" or "heavy" presence? What is the minimum number to have a "lighter presence?" Where is the threshold between "lighter presence" and "heavy presence"? 3 - What determines presence? Frequency of incidents? Number of identified members?

I suggest either providing context to what "lighter" and "heavy" presence mean, or remove the map entirely, for it is misleading. Thank you. 2604:2000:C693:DA00:68B8:B0DE:246A:59E4 (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm requesting an edit for image in article.

I'm requesting an edit to the image that shows the "prominent and less prominent" areas where the gang is concentrated. There are no maras in nicaragua. The amount is miniscule to non-existent. If that means Nicaragua is "less prominent" area, then Costa Rica should be shaded, as well as Panama and Belize. There are also no citations for the maras in either of the 4 countries I noted, so please make revisions to the image. 108.185.22.229 (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC) 7/1/18[reply]

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

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Kyran's Peer Review

I have occasionally heard of MS-13 and thought your input in the Wikipedia article has been clear and detailed. Without your research, the "History" section would be less-detailed and less-informing, so good job there! What you implemented into through your edits has been continuing evidence from what the "Lead" shares in the beginning of the article. Knowing that this is only the first draft, perhaps adding more information to different sections or creating a new section would be a good idea. Doing so, could help the overall quality and rating of the Wikipedia article. Another thing that could help potential users of the article is adding links into the paragraphs, so students could see important key words or phrases that may lead them to other Wikipedia articles. I'm not finding citations at the end of sentences or thoughts in your sandbox, so make sure that you add those. It seems like your data comes from different sources, so that seems great. Overall, great work so far! The MS-13 is one of the most influential gains, and I wasn't aware that Salvadorians had that much influence in its rise to present day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyrandb (talk • contribs) 04:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV issues

I've marked this article NPOV. I don't think that this article in general and the lead in specific are places to talk about the current administration and their opponents' rhetoric on the subject. Those would go better on some more directly related page to the current presidency. Jtrainor (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "opponents' rhetoric" in the lede. It should obviously be mentioned in the lede that the party in control of the world's largest democracy has made this gang a core aspect of its messaging in campaigns and during policy debates. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I rather disagree and think it's a violation of WP:UNDUE. The article is supposed to be primarily about the subject matter and not about the current administration in the US's policies on the subject. Jtrainor (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is about the subject matter. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I came to this article with little background information about MS-13, just yesterday. As I read through it, I thought, "This article doesn't seem NPOV in places where it mentions President Trump." Not that I disagree with the points about Trump making statements that may lack evidence, but the way it is presented seems to have a vendetta of sorts against Trump. Anyways, I am just sharing my thoughts about the way the information is presented, not the information itself. So I concur that the article could use some cleanup for NPOV. One thing would be to remove the word "rhetoric". That word is often loaded with NPOV issues whenever used, because whoever disagrees with a statement can stigmatize that statement as "rhetoric". Mikeatnip (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no mention of "rhetoric" in the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I"m busy this weekend, but I think I'm just gonna file an RFC about this, since there seems to be fundamental disagreement here. Jtrainor (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with the above editor, while noting that such a subhead already exists. A sentence in the lead referring to the gang's relevance in American (U.S.) political discourse is probably appropriate, though, as it has become more or less the standard synecdoche for gang violence in the U.S. despite its relatively small numbers. CodyIsIn (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. As well as RECENTism it fails to provide a global view. Why should a short term political dispute from one country receive so much focus? The article says the the USA isn't even the country with the most members or activity. Ashmoo (talk) 11:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that 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. A145GI15I95 (talk) 05:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Areas of concentration

These areas were removed on January 14, 2019 from areas of MS-13 concentration: Compton, California; Los Angeles, California; Boston, Massachusetts; Fresno, California; Santa Cruz, California; New York City|. Did the gang presence end there, or was it originally incorrect to list there areas?Dogru144 (talk) 01:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Canada presence

There was an edit removing the category, Gangs in Canada, from the article. However, the National Post of Canada reported that "The MS-13 was started in the 1980s by Salvadoran immigrants in Los Angeles and has had a presence in Toronto for at least 10 years." https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/toronto-mans-boast-of-being-in-notorious-ms-13-gang-leads-to-deportation-order Dogru144 (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary status as Republican talking-point

"The gang is a core component to Republican Party messaging on immigration policy in the United States."

I guess this is accurate for now but not exactly a 'timeless' entry. Is it going to be changed in five years when they are no longer relevant in that context? An encyclopedia should be more robust and timeless than this. The entry is likely an instance of partisan activism. I.e. does not belong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.3.239.91 (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • It does smack of WP:RECENTISM. They were the first to be called a transnational criminal organization and that happened under a Democrat administration [1]. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As of 3/1/2019, the entire paragraph is a hit piece against Republicans. Republicans say they are dangerous. No, they are less than 1%. Trump wants "hardline" immigration policies against them. "Family separation" The straw man argument that "sanctuary cities" don't contribute to MS-13 activities, when Republicans are not making that argument (sanctuary cities encourage illegal aliens to come here). Republicans are accused of falsely accusing Democrats of supporting MS-13, but the editor who is accusing Republicans of this doesn't cite a source. Other than being recentist, the entire paragraph is politically biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.129.194.211 (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geographic portals

I noticed several geographic portals, but none on Maryland or Metro D.C., both of which areas where there are many reports of MS-13 activity.Dogru144 (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Claptrap

"The Trump administration and Republican politicians have argued that hardline immigration policies are necessary to combat MS-13, and have for example justified the Trump administration's implementation of a family separation policy to deal with MS-13. There is no evidence that weak immigration enforcement or sanctuary city policies contribute to MS-13 activity. Republican politicians, President Trump in particular, have falsely accused Democratic politicians of supporting MS-13."

This whole section is unsourced and total liberal claptrap. The fact that this article is restricted and this section left up is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.46.252.14 (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wording Changes?

Listen, we lose neutrality with this kind of wording:”There is no evidence that weak immigration enforcement or sanctuary city policies contribute to MS-13 activity. Republican politicians, President Trump in particular, have falsely accused Democratic politicians of supporting MS-13.” How about this: “While Donald Trump’s new brand of Republican politics focuses heavily on MS-13 and how weak border policies lead to the gang’s rise, statistics have yet to decisively support this, causing this issue to be widely debated.” This maintains neutral wording while still establishing that these claims are unproven. We state the facts, and also maintain neutrality. I know it’s semantics, but every little bit helps. ShayminOfSpades (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Falsely accusing Democrats.

It would be nice if a company would quit showing their bias towards a political group. Wikipedia is not any better than any of the other news groups that have caused this divide in our country. It's obvious if you don't want to screen anyone coming over here then you support who ever is coming and their affiliations. With all the scandals in the democrat party, you know its for votes. They are more worried about votes than the MS-13 gang. Pathetic. You should post this comment since its actual fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C2:4104:3EC0:E1E2:A390:384E:FEE (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I agree. Wikipedia. Stop getting source only from the Drive-By Media. they are all not neutral and just report lies. --196.247.50.108 (talk) 04:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with this process

My experience lately with Wikipedia is well-illustrated with my experience trying to improve this article. Like many users, judging by the previous discussion contributions, I was disturbed by the political bias in the article as well as unsupported statements of sheer opinion in the first paragraphs. So recently I removed two sentences that were unsupported opinion and clearly are a violation of the "neutral content" commitment and policy. As I predicted, my edit was immediately reversed, the biased, unsupported lines restored. This happens literally every time now. I have also edited for grammar (other articles) and sentence structure - as a professional editor of 30-odd years with a stellar rep, I doubt there are many here who can rival my qualification. And yet, the changes are always reversed to the bad grammar, etc. I am so tired of this garbage, I doubt I'll contribute much to Wikipedia anymore, both because I'm sick of arguing with people who have more a political agenda and ego issues than they do any real education, and because Wikipedia doesn't seem committed to truly monitoring bias - or quality - in their content. The platform has lost much reputation the past few years, and unfortunately it's deserved. If you at Wikipedia want to allow a bunch of half-educated college kids with a political agenda to hijack the platform and railroad the rest of us, so be it. I'm getting off the train. (BTW, I am well educated on the subject matter, a trained journalist and researcher with 35 years experience on the subject. I don't edit or write when I don't know it that well. So yeah, I'm one of those you could have benefitted from.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Momspack4 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Momspak4: Wikipedia is infamous for funding the democrat party. Not only that that do alot of shady dealing behind the scenes. Look at this link http://mywikibiz DOT com/Top_10_Reasons_Not_to_Donate_to_Wikipedia --196.247.50.108 (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We are not a election pamphlet.

Quite frankly, the opening paragraph is horrible. Encyclopedias are to inform, not persuade. I tried to correct it to make it more neutral, only for it to reverted immediately. I'm not interested in a politicized editing war, but this is not right. Remember what Wikipedia is supposed to be, not what you want it to be. Ryan Christie (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Please see my response to this here [2].PaganPanzer (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Furthermore, there is consensus in the section above [3] 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)[reply]
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. [reply]
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)[reply]
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. [reply]
"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)[reply]
"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. [reply]
but not in the lead PaganPanzer (talk) 10:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The lede summarizes the body of the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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. [reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
You have half the lead dedicated to one small section in the article. PaganPanzer (talk) 10:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
If you want to learn about the academic research on sanctuary cities, you can go here.[4] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Done with slightly shorter wording. Much better now. PaganPanzer (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
It's not a small section of the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 [5]. I would also point out that it is risible that someone who makes edits like this [6] would suggest that I try out Conservapedia. PaganPanzer (talk) 08:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree. A145GI15I95 (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The last paragraph could definitely be reduced in size significantly without losing anything important. zzz (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 test 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).[reply]

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)[reply]
Categories