Talk:Almighty Vice Lord Nation/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

People Nation

They say Crips in both rivals AND allies and Bloods in allies, but there is NO way that crips would be allies with an ally of the bloods, wich means that either one is wrong. (sorry for my bad english, i am finnish.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.131.111 (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ya, I keep changing that and someone else keeps changing it back. Makes no sense. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The Chicago Crime Commission Gang Book

I am questioning a specific claim from that book. The ref is saying it is from page 18-20. There is no way that single sentence is taking 2 pages. An editor is claiming to have to book.....fine. It's a govt. document, so I don't see why we can't scan that page. WP:V seems to apply here since the claim and common sense don't match. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

So you want me to make a photocopy of a copyrighted book and post illegal copyright infringements online? It's not a government document, the Chicago Crime Commission is a nonpartisan, private watchdog group. I own the book, the 18-20 is the complete section in the book about the Vice Lords, and I'm telling you it says what it says, so kindly WP:AGF. Dead tree references are accepted and don't need to be available in the interwebz, and exact page numbers are not mandatory for each citation. The page numbers here help readers find hat they're looking for: the section in the book about the Vice Lords. I see many book references that use no page numbers at all. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 15:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• You say AGF, then have the nerve to lecture me about how dead tree references are acceptable? Are you kidding me? You even get sarcastic about the whole "interwebz" thing. I'd say you abandoned AGF by that point. The claim is very specific. Cite a page or don't cite it at all. I don't give a rats furry butt what books are cited in other articles without page numbers. This single sentce claim must have a page number, so do what you are supposed to do and cite it. If you're too lazy to crack the book you allegedly own open and see which page it is, I'd suggest some vitamin B-12. You asked for a discussion, yet fail to discuss anything without sarcasm. Yeah, lots of AGF from you.Niteshift36 (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
• The whole thing is questionable because "vice" doesn't mean "tight grip". that is a "vise". No other reliable source is making this claim, so the claim is dubious. I might even dispute whether is belongs at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• I have the book and you're being a dick. You're also wrong. This sounds to me like yet another case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT on Wikipedia. Go fly a kite. The template you want is one that requests a specific page, not "dubious". - Who is John Galt? ✉ 17:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I find the whole claim dubious, including the assertion that the single fact takes 3 pages to state. Just because that commission said it doesn't make it something should shove into an article. When only one source makes a claim that makes no sense, it is getting into WP:FRINGE territory. Numerous reliable sources talk all about their history and never make this claim. Add in a little WP:COMMONSENSE and look at their preferred symbols like the Playboy bunny and martini glass (vices), connected to their illegal activities like drug trafficking, and "vice" seems much more plausible than an incorrect use of "vise". I'll take your allegation of being a dick under advisement since you are clearly accomplished at being one yourself. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The single fact does not take 3 pages to state, as was clarified above. The citation is used a single time and repeated in its entirety for each case in which it is used... which is why you then went off about specific page numbers. And WP:CITE does not say that specific senntences need to be cited to a pinpoint page, only that books should include "page number(s) where appropriate". So now you're saying the Crime Commission's book is not a reliable source. My entry at the reliable source noticeboard will determine whether or not you are correct. And my allegation of you being a dick was made only after you basically called me a liar. What do you expect people to do? There's a whole world outside of Wikipedia where people who are called liars for presenting verifiable information respond with tart language of their own. I see no reason to moderate my language in the face of such violations of AGF and NPA. Your whole argument is that it's dubious because you said so. Power trip much? - Who is John Galt? ✉ 19:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, you justified "clarified" your laziness above. The book passes RS, but just because a RS says something doesn't make it true and sdoesn't mean we should shove it in as fact. For example, CNN passes RS too, but when they aired claims about the US using nerve gas in the Vietnam era, that turned out to not be true. My argument is that it's dubious because it makes no sense and no other source backs it up. Cite does say "when appropriate". It was requested, so stop your laziness. As for your dickish behavior and your lame justification of it....whatever helps you sleep better dude. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• The funny part here is that despite all the gnashing of teeth, the info hasn't been removed (despite allegations to the contrary). It was simply tagged as dubious. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Additional Citations Needed

Much of the information cited in this article comes from a single source which is difficult to verify online. There are several other sources which satisfies notability, but additional sources would help resolve any POV accusations that might arise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.141.6 (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

References don't need to be verified online. Complaint is without merit. Kindzmarauli (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Enemies/Allies

I've removed these portions of the infobox entirely. I don't think any content there has ever been sourced. These two things seem to have been the cause of the majority of unsourced anon edits on the article, nearly all of which have been reverted.

The problem is, that we are reverting these editing for being unsourced, but we are reverting to an equally unsourced version. So if someone can find a good reference for this information, we can re add it into the infobox, and revert changes to that version based on it actually being based on something. Otherwise it should say out of the infobox as WP:OR and as a huge WP:OR magnet besides.TimothyJosephWood 13:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Why are the Bloods both the CVL's allies and rivals?

So which one are they? and are any of them verified/cited?

50.200.87.102 (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Almighty Vice Lord Nation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110228194543/http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs32/32146/appb.htm to http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs32/32146/appb.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)