Talk:Guardian Angels

Wikipedia is not intended...

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.

Not without a reliable, verifiable source.

As for the first amendment, if you read Humble's message carefully (and for the matter, knew anything about the First Amendment), you'd notice that your right to communicate opinions is precisely what the First Amendment protects. Humble was merely stating that it has nothing to do with a private website, which has rules and guidelines for the inclusion of material.

Also, please sign your posts. Nightscream (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed Cyber Angels Section

They are not related to the GA and this article is not about them. They are an organization supported by the President of the USA, the GA are not.

Fr33kMan 01:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

For the talk page history I just wanted to add the comment in the edit history that reverted Fr33kman (talk · contribs)'s change: "The Cyber Angels is a division of the Guardian Angels and created by them." which is easy to verify if you visit the cyberangels web site. - Owlmonkey (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

They were established in late 1993 early 1994 by Curtis Sliwa as part of the GA

Source:https://www.c-span.org/video/?181936-1/reflections-careers-community-activism

during the Q&A he talks about it 204.128.182.14 (talk) 06:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

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!!!

Yakuza? Nah, you guys are all big pussies, the Yakuza are all hard-pipe-hittin' niggaz! 64.231.14.235 00:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Really? Take a look at this video. "Self defense" means taking down some harmless old guy and putting two armlocks on him, because he was trying to walk away, then charging him with battery. The guy taking the video says he took a swing at them, but there's no evidence of that. On the video he said the "assault" happened down on the train platform, but on this YouTube page it says it happened just before they detained him -- and neither "assault" is captured on film. The page is full of claims of "self-defense". Negative comments are simply deleted. If you don't want to be accused of being fascists, how about not pulling stuff like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMC9djQ1nw0 --Mujokan (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

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?

____

This entire article sounds like a panegyric. Where are the discussions of the problems with Guardian Angels? (No, one small paragraph is not enough). Where is the contextualisation of vigilantism? Where are the details of the problems the founder has had with the law?

This Wikipedia entry is extremely poor, and a disservice to the community that seeks information from Wikipedia rather than simply advertising. There needs to be a section dedicated to "Criticisms", that is not clearly written by a fan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.9.167 (talk) 05:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I came here exclusively because I just heard a bad story about them harassing people. I'm surprised to see no criticism here. 123.3.74.253 (talk) 08:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

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. And also, normal, decent people who don't want untrained, attention seeking vigilantes taking serious matters into their own hands. 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.

I really doubt they have any significant effect. They hardly cover much area at all, and aren't a serious societal presence, to put it mildly. They might have an effect on an incident or two here or there, but who knows? I wouldn't be shocked to find out they cause more problems than they help solve.

As to whether people feel safer, I highly doubt that too. Would you feel safer if a bunch of brown-shirt looking guys who conferred some sort of civil status on themselves to use violence where they decide it's necessary, started walking around your neighborhood? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.182.5 (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

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)

Orlando Comment

I would like to request a source/edit for the statement regarding the Guardian Angels patrolling the streets and subways of Orlando in response to an increased crime rate.

Orlando does not have a subway/rail system.

130.134.81.16 19:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Does US usage of "subway" not include "underpass", a pedestrian walkway beneath a road? Either word would be applicable in England. I'd assumed that was what subway meant as I was reading the article. A cite would obviously clear the point up. JohnHarris 08:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Anecdotally...

I don't know how one would go about quantifying the effect of Guardian Angels patrols, from a statistical viewpoint. Anecdotally, I do know this: on many occasions Bad Guys in the process of doing No Good have run away from the Patrols I have been in. From this I conclude that, at those specific times and places, crime was deterred. 222.152.24.146 14:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)chieftain@guardianangels.org.nz

Presence in Glasgow

I hear there were patrols on the Glasgow Underground around the time the London patrols were common (and also were the London patrols focussed on the Northern Line?) - anybody got any dates or info on this Zagubov (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The Angels were invited to come up to Glasgow to assess whether it was possible to start patrols but they never actually started full time patrols (79.190.69.142 (talk) 08:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)).

More Photos

The one photo in the article is exemplary, but since they have such a distinct visual appearance the article should have another picture or two. A few are available on flickr with appropriate free commercial use licenses, what do you all think about adding some more to the article? I just posted a free picture of Sliwa on his article, fyi. - Owlmonkey (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

South Africa

I added a tag in the South African section, most of it is POV and not really factual.
The angels are in more towns than just Cape Town, I also don't understand the relation between a US mayor and a South African policeman.

The picture painted of South Africa is far from true and no verifiable facts are given about the angels and their apparent impact on South Africa. FFMG (talk) 04:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversy Section

In addition to being devoid of any real content, specifics or concrete examples it reads like someone's general opinion of this group with a bit of rambling about New York City thrown in.

Really should be re-written entirely if not removed.66.39.160.38 (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should be removed entirely — the group has had some controversy as a group — but I agree some specific citations and examples would be a great improvement. Do you have some time to do the research and improve it? Thanks - Owlmonkey (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

South Norwalk

The Angels apparently were thrown out of a housing project for the first time in their history right in my former neighborhood. I'll leave a link for a news article if anyone thinks its worth noting in the article: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakamusha (talk • contribs) 14:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, they were also thrown out of New Haven, Connecticut as they were disliked by police officers: http://www.cpbn.org/guardian-angels-expand-protection-new-haven ; I think Connecticut is notable. Twillisjr (talk) 11:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The Main article is being used as an advertising billboard PLEASE STOP THIS

The GA is a fantastic organisation and I personally am a fan, however I do recognise that it can be controversial and do believe that its controversy should be stated. The main article is far from balanced and appears that anyone that writes anything negative about the organisation it gets deleted. As a former GA with over ten years experience with the organization in both Europe and the US I really do believe that the article should give afair and well balanced approach. A section detailing the controversy of the group is warranted. I would welcome this section and would ask current members to PLEASE NOT DELETE THIS SECTION. As long as information is well balanced and factually accurate it should be kept, this is not an advertising site for the GA. People are not stupid and can make up their own minds on what they think about the GA organization, by deleting negative comments you are actually doing more harm than good. So please, someone add something to this section responsibly and please I ask others out there not to delete it. Thank you! WARNING TO WHOEVER IS DELETING INFORMATION "THEY" DON'T LIKE ON THIS ARTICLE. IF YOU PERSIST I WILL LOBBY FOR THE WHOLE PAGE TO BE DELETED. BOTH YOU AND I DON'T WANT THAT. I TRULY BELIEVE THE GA IS A FORCE FOR POSITIVE CHANGE SO LETS NOT GO CUTTING OFF EACH OTHERS NOSES TO SPITE ONES FACE. Do you dare to care enough about this page? YOU DECIDE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.158.104.236 (talk) 02:40, 7 November 2008

You are welcome to add a controversy section, just don't add your own personal point of view or pleads.

This is an encyclopedia, so your section must be neutral and referenced. FFMG (talk) 04:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

References

Are newspapers proper references? I added info on Sliwa's 1992 public apology and used a couple articles from the Times as ref. (Unfortunately the other NY papers don't have archives that are easily available.) Did I source incorrectly?Njsamizdat (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

i'm not sure what the other editor had a problem with. but i think you're drawing a conclusion that it warrants a 'controversy' section or that the general sentiment is that this is controversial, instead of just part of the odd narrative that was the early story of the group, or that the time's opinion on it in 1992 is a good long term summary. the trick here would be how do we remove our own opinion, and try to report on what the general sentiment is historically. could be that those cites would support a statement about how the NY Times thought in 1992 that the early publicity approach was controversial, but didn't the Times and others think the group was pretty controversial generally? - Owlmonkey (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

maybe... I don't remember the Times editorializing about them at the time. Certainly the NYPD and Transit Police were no fans. Still, the Times is generally considered a pretty sturdy source, it's referencing a very public event. It was the ref tags that were pulled. I thought I had the newspaper format correct but who knows. I'm still searching out other sources. Thanks for the thoughts! Njsamizdat (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Newspapers are more than acceptable, in fact the Times is a great source, but the references "Sliwa Admits Faking Crimes For Publicity, November 25, 1992" and "Police Union To Sue Sliwa Over Hoaxes, November 26, 1992" cannot be checked at all, we have no way of knowing if the passage is quoted correctly or even if it exists at all. Are there no links on the web at all? Even another source would be enough, but for the controversy section it would be better to give a more solid references.

Furthermore two distinct claims are been made, (the apology and the publicity patrols), they cannot both be in the same references you gave, (the titles do not make it clear), either that or the references are misplaced.

As an aside, did the word "rescues" have double quotes? Or did you add them? If so, why? If we could see the original reference we could see the context. FFMG (talk) 05:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The Canada Section is far too long

Can we summarize the Canada section? It reads like an extensive series of newspaper articles about the topic. Lot 49a^talk 21:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it follows the inverted pyramid that all 'hard' news stories follow, expanding to a point about a graduation ceremony not being held in a retirement home because of trespasssing and then coming full circle again to the municiple government and their thoughts on it. When comparing the amount of information compiled about Toronto to the four other cities mentioned it's obvious the article needs cleaning up. Also I don't understand why there is so much focus on the perceived prejudice against GA's in Toronto, it doesn't breed a NPOV. Just because the city doesn't like the organization doesn't mean it's wikipedia page has to whine about it. 99.246.21.170 (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Everything between citations 14 and 15 reads like a newspaper article or a transcript taken from a news program. Just read it aloud. 99.246.21.170 (talk) 01:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This entire page reads like an advertisement for the organization with no mention of controversy, incidents, expulsions, etc. It's not neutral.Tomekeeper (talk) 10:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced material in need of sourcing

I'm moving the following unsourced material from the Casualties section until it can be properly sourced per WP:NOR/WP:V:

Frank Melvin was shot and killed by a police officer in Newark, New Jersey on December 30, 1981. The officer alleged that Melvin was running toward his partner in a hostile manner. Members on patrol argued that Melvin was approaching the officer to ask if he could help him. The two officers were responding to a call about a commercial burglary. Juan Oliva was shot by a gang member in New York City on July 30, 1983. They were the only two to die while in uniform and on patrol.

Nightscream (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Statistics are wrong

As per usual, Wikipedia references are incorrect. '13 countries (in 140 cities) around the world.' mentioned in this article counters the stats in Curtis Sliwa's article of 9 countries and 82 cities, Can someone please correct in both articles?207.38.156.111 (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Update them with what? What values are correct? Do you have any references we could use? FFMG (talk) 04:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"Casualties" Placement

I find it odd that ancillary information, group casualties, is posted in as the first paragraph. I really don't think it belongs there. Can we move it down closer to the bottom?The Saxon (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect Info

The article lists Boston as a city with an "established chapter" of the Guardian Angels. In fact, Boston does not have a chapter. There is an attempt to start one. Currently, Guardian Angel members from Bedford, Mass. and Florida are patrolling in Boston. See http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20101012guardian_angels_fly_back_to_hub/srvc=home&position=0. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.229.114 (talk) 06:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

English and Swedish Chapters

In addition to the London Chapter there was also a Manchester Chapter in 1990's (since disbanded, I believe). Likewise there was a chapter in Malmo, Sweden ( met one of the Swdish Angels whilst interviewing the manchester and London chapters). A Liverpool chapter was considered but never came about.(79.190.69.142 (talk) 08:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC))

There was a Nottingham Chapter too. Sasquatch 19:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChupacabraUK (talk • contribs)

Citizen's arrests?

The lead says, "The organization originally trained members to make citizen’s arrests for violent crimes" -- the implication being that they no longer do so. The article would benefit from further details about when or why this training may have changed. 174.24.62.59 (talk) 05:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

This reads like a press release

I'd try to add in a much-needed acknowledgement of the criticisms of the group if I hadn't read the talk page and realized that GA partisans would just delete it. Just FYI, when people see curated pages like this it does not endear them to the organization in question. People aren't so stupid that low-grade propaganda of this kind will fool them. You'd be better off backing off and letting people include a criticism section. Whatever, it's not my fight, enjoy your press release.

Does GA solicit contributions from subway riders?

I am a long-time NYer and I understood that the GA NEVER solicit contributions from riders on the subway. Does anyone know if this is correct? Can someone find a reliable source? Rip-off artists often used to dress up as GA members and request money from riders, but I understood the actual GA never do. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Guardian Angels. 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/20101125061029/http://guardianangels.org/chapters.php to http://www.guardianangels.org/chapters.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.japantoday.com/jp/feature/954
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303174522/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm198889/cmhansrd/1989-01-30/Writtens-1.html to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm198889/cmhansrd/1989-01-30/Writtens-1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080328215534/http://www.shellseeker.co.za/ga.html to http://www.shellseeker.co.za/ga.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828152554/http://www.tangsoodosa.com/guardian_angels_potchefstroom.htm to http://www.tangsoodosa.com/guardian_angels_potchefstroom.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080605205208/http://www.guardianangels.org/safety_full.php to http://www.guardianangels.org/safety_full.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Front/882168.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080321204235/http://greenbay-guardianangels.com/History.aspx to http://greenbay-guardianangels.com/History.aspx

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 23:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE: Real members of the Guardian Angels do not solicit money on the subway

I have found a reliable source (NY Times) which confirms: real members of the Guardian Angels DO NOT ask for money on the subways. Since they the organization may be making a comeback, readers need to know this. If someone on the subway claims that he is a member and asks for money, he (or she) is lying. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 05:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Removal of pop culture references

There was a large removal of content in the pop culture section, saying it was unreferenced. Most of the entries did have links to the subjects, but they're not technically referenced. I will try and provide some references with the caveat that I know little to nothing about the subject(s). Ifnord (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Reflist has typo in first item

First item in References shows "guiardanangels.org", when it should have "guardianangels.org". The letter 'i' needs to be moved to the correct place. Actual hyperlink seems to work ok. Dunno how to edit the Reflist or I'd take care of it. thipdar@comcast.net 2601:648:8402:88F0:3849:3413:B4EF:76BF (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I have fixed it. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Guardian Angels are just violent vigilantes.

I don't like the fact this article is framing the Guardian Angels as a "non-profit international volunteer organization with the goal of unarmed crime prevention." They are nothing more than racist violent vigilantes who assault people with no evidence beyond the color of their skin and the language they speak. Made evident when the group founder lead a group to beat a man on the streets of NYC for speaking spanish... Shion-ko (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you verify this with citations from reliable sources? Otherwise this appears to be either biased comments or original research. Peaceray (talk) 03:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

"On live TV, Guardian Angels rough up a man in Times Square then misidentify him as a 'migrant'". AP News. February 7, 2024. Retrieved February 8, 2024. 70.162.141.100 (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

That citation, if someone would care to add the citation (I am here but briefly this morning), would be:

<ref name="Offenhartz 2024">{{cite web |last=Offenhartz |first=Jake |title=On live TV, Guardian Angels rough up a man in Times Square then misidentify him as a 'migrant' |website=AP News |date=2024-02-07 |url=https://apnews.com/article/guardian-angels-times-square-migrants-curtis-sliwa-dacb23b7cfe0679d12642bca116543d4 |access-date=2024-02-18}}</ref> :::

Peaceray (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Frank Melvin Shooting

Maybe in controversies or history something could be added about the shooting of Frank Melvin? It was a pretty significant issue when it happened. The Clash even wrote a song about it (Red Angel Dragnet). 74.135.229.202 (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)