Talk:Bloods

Image

I added the image from the "Gangs" article of the guy doing a blood sign. I put it under Identification. If anyone thinks it should go somewhere else, feel free. I just remember seeing the pic in the gang article and thought it would fit well here and make the article a little less bland looking. Maybe another image near the top would be good too, if anyone has any suggestions...Saberswordsmen1 (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Is the image of the white boy doing a "blood" hand sign supposed to be a joke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.81.225 (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, his hands are really pale and stuff. 97.255.228.85 (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

We get it. He's white (and stuff). The image we are using is the free image we have. If you have what you feel is a better one, please let us know. Otherwise, pick up the shattered pieces of your life and try to move on. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's be a bit more believable. This is a black gang, quit blaming whitey for the violent behavior of blacks. 66.141.235.58 (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

That's not a blood gang sign, it's an invention of white suburbia. In this case, I feel like the onus should be on the image poster to find a reliable source, i.e. a photo, of an actual blood gang member using the sign. I have never in my life, in real life, gang documentaries, or rap music videos, seen ANY gang member use that nonsense. Dalesy617 (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Anybody not have any problem with the white people in the blood gang pictures, even though there are white people in the gang it is still a black affiliated gang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Promo Academic (talk • contribs) 10:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

This is NOT a forum

I've noticed even though there is a talk header about using this for actual improvments, I'm still only seeing IP holders using this for disscussion about the Bloods....please stop and discess it at the appropiate sites, and discuss actual issues with the article and provide actual reliable, verifiable sources. If people, don't I may end up removing very irrelevent sections.. THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 03:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

History sources?

the owner of bloods is Young_ysf he created the gang at 1957 in the west side, From what I understand everything the Bloods history section is correct, but there really should be citations to verify it all I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.143.6 (talk) 04:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It is correct? it talks about the crips for all i understood and says nothing about the bloods —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.141.179.232 (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I know this is a very old comment but holy crap this is not even remotely correct. The Bloods were formed some time in the 60s as a direct response to the rise of the Crips, supposedly heavily influenced by the Compton based Pirus street gang including adopting the Piru's color of Red. I've also heard several times they called themselves Bloods because at the time black men, especially in Vietnam, calling each other 'Blood' or 'Young Blood' was a term of endearment and racial unity. I don't have a clue who "Young_ysf" is but I kind of doubt anyone was rolling around Compton in the late 50s going by the name. The Bloods have no single leader, or any form of centralized leadership, much less an owner. The LA Bloods and East Coast Bloods are also generally cool with each other but not actually related, with the NYC "United Blood Nation" being founded on Riker's Island in the mid 90s. While no one can claim the east coast Bloods are fake gangsters, the fact of the matter is their founder was a poser false claiming membership in the Bloods who actually didn't know all that much about them. This is why UBN Bloods do things like use the 5. And God only knows how many teenagers from every nook and cranny of the world watched a movie or heard a song, started wearing red, and founded a Blood gang which isn't actually affiliated with the traditional groups in any way.

More info on the United Blood Nation

I wrote the page on the UBN, and keep checking up on it, but it needs more work. Please somebody post a picture to it. I'm not sure how to properly do that myself. Also, if you have more info on them, feel free to add that in too, of course. Crew90 (talk) 00:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay number 1, THE BLOODS ARE NOT ALLIES WITH LATIN KINGS. they are just not at war, i find that rather insulting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BSG's (talk • contribs) 03:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Bloodline Latin Kings

Whoever keeps changing "Latin Kings" back to "Latin King" please stop. There is a difference. The Latin Kings are a complex gang and only a few of them have beef with Bloods and the UBN. These few who have problems are called "Bloodline Latin Kings". So please stop changing it back. The Chicago Latin Kings are allies with the Bloods since BLOODS were affiliated with the people nation, most New York Latin Kings are the same. Only the Bloodline have beef. So please stop changing it. Thnaks. Crew90 (talk) 04:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, except that you aren't documenting that at all and re-directing to an article about the LK's that doesn't even mention Bloodline LK's. Just fix it when you re-add. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Also Bloods have no affiliation with the People Nation or any of it's gangs. The story of how they started using 5s is complicated, but the UBN is not in or even allied with the People Nation. There are a lot of similarities, strangely similar in areas, but their histories are not actually intertwined in any way and long story short only gangs based in Chicago can actually be in the Nation. Crips are also not Folks/Folk/GDs/Ect or vice versa. I'm also not an expert on New York gang politics but in my day Latin Kings in general despised Bloods in general. This may no longer be true but I highly doubt it's "most" LKs are allied with the Bloods. Don't confuse "we don't default to shooting at them on sight." with "we are allied."

oh, ok. Sorry Crew90 (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible WP:BLP issue

An editor added a name of celebs that are Bloods. While I know the list is mostly correct, we might have a BLP issue since it's not referenced. Labelling a living person as a member of a criminal organization without references is a problem, don't you think? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC) i agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.215.133.20 (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

clicks within Bloods

A newly formed group in Bloods is REDMOBB. They have been found strong in Tuscaloosa AL. We have heard and seen the some of the things the members have been involved in. ne of the founding members of the Redmobb gang is June a male who we recored and watched to be a very dangerous member. His original set is westside campanella park piru. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.63.178 (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Good for them. Until they meet the notability requirements for inclusion, entries about them are going to get removed. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

"The Bloods"

This article still perpetuates the notion that there is a single Blood gang that is made up of hundreds of sets. In reality, there are several distinct Blood gangs (many with sub-sets or clicks) that make up a very loose federation of Bloods. The same can be said of Crip gangs. There is no "The Bloods," and "The Crips." There are however, several gangs that claim Blood, and several gangs that claim Crip.24.181.225.253 (talk) 04:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If you can back up your statement with reliable sources, then please feel free to cite those sources and change the tone of this article. Plus, please put new topics at the bottom of talk pages. Thank you for your input. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Crips and Bloods should be worldwide

You guys shouldn't both Crips and Bloods be labeled as worldwide because they have known sets in Africa(mainly southwest), Britain and France, Australia, the Caribbean islands, New Zealand(mainly Maori area), Samoa and other islands and both gangs are known to widely recruit such nationalities(see Crips in Alaska). So I think with so many of them located in other countries though for the most part relatively small minus the Caribbeans and certain african countries mainly in South Africa who are allied with the Numbers gang should be labelled as worldwide —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.173.73 (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

As soon as we have a reliable source saying they are in Africa, Britain, France, Australia, the Caribbean, New Zealand and Samoa, we would be able to say they are worldwide. However, we don't have that, so no, we can't say that. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Look up Belize gangs you will have your answer Moneymake10000000r (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

21 Scorpion

The 21 Scorpion are a street gang founded in Kajang,Selangor,Malaysia.The gang is widely known for its rivalry with the Dirty Tigs. They are identified by the red color worn by their members and by particular gang symbols, including distinctive hand signs. The 21 Scorpions are made up of various sub-groups known as "sets" between which significant differences exist such as colors, clothing, and operations, and political ideas which may be in open conflict with each other. Since their creation, the 21 Scorpion gangs have branched out throughout Malaysia.[3]File:4822 1113458767948 1571303674 30255335 3660191 n.jpg21 scorpion

Founded:21 July 2001 In Kajang,Selangor

Years active:2001-present Territory:Nationwide Ethnicity:christians,indian,punjabi Criminal activities:Murder ,Robbery, Extortion Allies Private [1] Rivals Private —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chainmaster77 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Piru...?

I'm pretty sure its Corner Block Piru or CBP but thats just what I have heard from anyone who bangs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerone55555 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Member Count ?

It used to say 30k-50k, it doesen't anymore, i haven't been on this article for a long time though, i do remember that there were more crips then bloods but could somebody help me here and re-add that content to the article? T-oliveira (talk) 01:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Rapper name Mozzy from Sacramento is a blood member from oak park gangsta bloods Ive s (talk) 03:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit

Um, the gangs bloods have problems with needs to be more specific... I've been in OYA with a lot of youth members and who they beef with really depends on the clique... it says bloods beef with surenos but I've NEVER seen that. Ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.9.106 (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from TnrTheKiller, 7 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} their is a new breed of blood gang member apearing they are mostly known as dangers or assasins they are the most dangerous member in each set they have one sole purpose to assasinate rival gang members and people who disrespect the set

TnrTheKiller (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• A controversial statement, such as that, would need multiple source references (to WP:Reliable sources), and is unlikely to be allowed because it attempts to ascribe intentions ("one sole purpose") about a person's motives. Wikipedia cannot even state one sole purpose in a nun's article, without a direct quote from a specific nun, because intent is difficult to prove, even for one individual's non-criminal activities. The most we could do is put a partial quote from a reliable source based on a gang expert's opinion. Do you know a source document? -Wikid77 11:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 173.15.143.218, 15 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Rivals: KKK, Crips, Folk Nation, Sureños

173.15.143.218 (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done. No reliable source provided. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Gang sets

Can someone please add either to "allies" in the infobox or in a new section titled "Gang sets" that one of the biggest, most populous sets in the Bloods in the United Blood Nation? TomUSA My talk page 20:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Bloods graffiti.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Bloods graffiti.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

unknown set

There is a blood clique in robbins illinois called "Central Park Bloods" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.145.176.138 (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Blood Gang Allumini

you guys need to add that famous people like Waka Flocka Flame, Gucci Mane, Lil Wayne, Wooh da Kid, Slim Dunkin (now deceased), Gudda Gudda, Nicki Minaj, YG Hootie, The Game & Frenchie are bloods too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.145.176.138 (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

another set

there is also a set in Atlanta called "Grove St. Bloods" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.145.176.138 (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 May 2012

add a picture of the bloods using this picture http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd240/ghostface754/bloods.jpg as the top photo.File:Http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd240/ghostface754/bloods.jpg MoiseLHG (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

For us to use that image, we need licensing info to confirm it is appropriately licensed for use on Wikipedia, can you provide a link to the license? Until then, we cannot use it. Monty₈₄₅ 16:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Age

The article says that membership is for life, yet earlier on says most members are late teens or early twenties. What happens when one 'grows ups'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.146.7 (talk) 11:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Ever consider the fact that many of them are dead by their early twenties? Or in prison for extended periods of time (making them not really count for the active street population). Plus you can "retire". You're still in, just not active.Niteshift36 (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• The article is wrong. I personally know Bloods in Texas in their 30s and 40s. Most of the youngstas in that particular area (Arlington/GP border) claim Crips, but the old schoolers' flag is red. 71.209.209.183 (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• So? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It needs to be removed. That was more than likely only added to make the gang sound dark and cool. It's unnecessary false information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotboyxroshi (talk • contribs) 06:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Generalized Statements

In an effort to create a more descriptive article, I attempted to change Niteshift36's version in "History" from:

• "and allied with other smaller gangs" to "the brims, and the bishops"
• "during an internal gang war" to the actual reasoning of the use of "bloods" calling each other "cuzz"
• adding the mention of Lyle Joseph Thomas, an original leader of the Pirus

Sources: xii of http://books.google.com/books?id=zDZX0LfDzgEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=blood+gang&source=bl&ots=ThgG5BG25A&sig=HLY0OMyZa3JWf k8KeBDxX_Kgh20&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kbFAUJb8I6X00gHSjYCIDQ&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=blood%20gang&f=false

Page 13 of http://books.google.com/books?id=d-QZIBtgiMYC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=pirus+gang+blood+history&source=bl&ots=8exH4hJdDe&sig=BVnFeBHUu3kPfXiw6J9eJlZqE-Q&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LrVAUPbIFOTo0QH6mYDwCw&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=pirus%20gang%20blood%20history&f=false

I'd like to know if anyone believes this information should be documented as new information to replace the old. It's becoming a "tug of war."

Twillisjr (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• First, this wasn't "Niteshift36's version". I didn't write it. It is, however, a well sourced and you removed the information entirely. You removed more than 2 short sentences. What you removed was : "The Bloods gang was formed initially to compete against the influence of the Crips in Los Angeles. The origin of the Bloods and their rivalry with the Crips dates to the 1970s, where the Pirus street gang, originally a set, or faction, of the Crips, broke off during an internal gang war, and allied with other smaller gangs to found the gang that would eventually become known as the Bloods. At the time, Crips sets outnumbered Bloods sets by three to one. To assert their power despite this difference in numbers, Bloods sets became increasingly violent, especially against rival Crips members. The Pirus are therefore considered to be the original founders of the Bloods. During the rise of crack cocaine, the gang's focus shifted to drug production. Bloods sets operate independently of each other, and are currently located in almost all states." that was removed completely. You replaced it with some info based on a source, but with some inferences of your own. You are, however, correct that THIS is the place to discuss it and to discuss specific changes. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright, Niteshift36 prefers to keep it "as is."

My Version of the Above Initially, the Crips called their fellow gang members "blood." In 1972, they began to call each other "cuzz" which is slang for cousin. However, there were Crips that preferred to continue calling each other "blood." So, it was decided that Crips who called each other "blood" instead of "cuzz" were considered enemies. Eventually, they became a rival to the Crips. <==== Cited by an interview by Time Magazine conducted with a founding member of the Pirus, and found in a book no less.

My version continues as: "The first bloods to assemble in an effort to rival the Crips were known as "Pirus." The leader of the Pirus was Lyle Joseph Thomas, aka "Bartender." In 1975, they merged with a gang called the "Brims" to battle the Crips. As a symbol of their kinship, they adopted red bandannas"

Please also note that "bandannas" are not mentioned in the article, which is by far a sign that the article's original author was not paying attention to detail.

Twillisjr (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• You don't have to remove all the other stuff to add in a few more details. Do you not understand that simple fact? And maybe the original author felt that all the talk about bandannas belongs in the identification section. If we say "red clothing", why does that exclude bandannas? They also didn't say "necklaces", but allowed us to use enough common sense to know that it is (properly mentioned) jewelry. What you are failing to understand is that your "critical information" isn't necessarily being excluded, it's your uncalled for removal of cited material that is at issue. Learn to integrate it appropriately, not just remove parts you don't like then make up allegations about a "vendetta".Niteshift36 (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

To follow up: I also welcomed Niteshift36 to collaborate on my talk page, but it was on the condition that they review the information provided in my sources. Rather than doing so, I am being accused of writing inferences. While some inferences may exist, the new information should have been amended rather than purged.

Twillisjr (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• UYes, right after you told me I clearly had a "vendetta", you "invited" collaboration. You made several inferences and you can't dispute that. Further, in other articles, you make completely wrong conclusions. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I've also noticed that you have a problem with my work on the Crip article. Again, it is no secret that you have taken this to some kind of personal level. Locating my changes and purging them outright in several articles, and making no attempt whatsoever to look at my facts or reasoning can only mean one thing. It's a vendetta.

Again, it is the principle by which you are making changes to Wikipedia. Rather than amend, you purge, and when asked to review, you purge elsewhere.

Twillisjr (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Um, here is a news flash for you......I'm not following you sport. You are making changes to articles on my watchlist. Look at the histories on those articles. I've made edits at all of them, long before you started spamming misinformation about MS13. I guess if I were self-centered and paranoid enough to think that someone was following me, I'd make up charges of vendettas too. But I'm not, so I get to laugh at those who do. You need to realize the changes aren't about you or following you. Even when you were blatantly wrong in presuming the Mexican Mafia and MS13 were the same thing, you couldn't just admit a mistake. Instead you came off with "It is possible that I did infer that MS-13 and the Mexican Mafia were the same thing" there is no "perhaps to it. You were dead wrong and simlpy can't admit it. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Look, the bottom line is this. I don't care who's "wrong" or "right" about any of this arguing. If I wanted to fight, I would not have gone through the trouble of providing my sources to you. That, was intended to create a compromise, where two adults that want to improve this article could use new information to do so. In all of this "purging" we, together, could have done far more good than this. Please own that and lets see if we can do this for the readers.

Twillisjr (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• You are REQUIRED to show the source of ANY item put into an article. You didn't do me any favors sunshine. Please don't ask me to "own" anything when you can't even admit your glaring error (one that was spread through multiple articles and that you even reverted when I informed you of it the first time) and keep repeating allegations of a "vendetta" (and now a charge of wikistalking). Sorry my friend, AGF is not a suicicde pact. I was assuming it when I reached out to you in the first place and explained the difference between MS13 and La Eme and you promptly pissed on that. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

If we can't agree on anything else, we're both Vets, and we both know how far we go with our opinions. Let me know if you've changed your mind, I'd like to put our passion to good use.

Twillisjr (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

References

Juggalo affiliations - NGIC report

Someone removed the reference to Juggalo gang affiliation from the article for some reason claiming that it is "not in the source". I've re-added the reference to the National Gang Intelligence Center report (in PDF format) from which this information originates. Additionally, here are several excerpts from said report verifying this information:

The Unified Police Department of Greater Salt Lake City, Utah, reported Juggalo alignment with Kearns Town Bloods because they wear the same color (red).

Reporting from the Arizona DPS indicates that most Juggalos on the Indian Reservations align with the Bloods gang and have been involved in a number of drive-by shootings as a result.

Juggalo sets such as Eastside Juggalos have been in contact with several Blood sets and some have accompanied Bloods during or have been present when crimes have been committed.

In Tempe, Arizona, last year several Juggalos were determined to be part of a Blood set called Southwest Bloods. On the Navajo Nation, the Eastside Juggalos are a Blood set as well. Its unclear as to why they align themselves with Blood sets.

The Lackawanna County Prison of Pennsylvania reported that the Bloods and Crips dominated the local criminal Juggalo groups and used them for recruitment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnerTown (talk • contribs) 04:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• "Juggalo" is not a gang, it is a music fanbase. You have been making numerous non-neutral edits alleging that Juggalos are involved in gang activity, when, in fact, there is no evidence connecting a music fanbase to gang activity. An individual gang member who happens to be a fan of some rap group does not qualify a music fanbase as a gang affiliation. These sources should especially be called into question when they are, in fact, local assessments made with NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE for these claims. BigBabyChips (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The National Gang Intelligence Center is -- unquestionably -- a reliable source for this claim. They unequivocally state, "Juggalos are classified as a gang in the states of Arizona, California, Pennsylvania and Utah." If you still have problems with the source, please take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed multiple times, with the issue that Juggalo is a music fanbase being stressed by multiple neutral observers, and that this issue affects real, living people who may face real danger from actual gangs because of the false classification. Describing Juggalo as a GANG definitely violates NPOV. BigBabyChips (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

So the FBI and 4-21 states considering it a gang does not madder because it is not a real gang to you? The link should connect to the article about the criminal activity not the article about the music fanbase. STATic message me! 03:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• I understand the editors confusion. Many Juggalos are simply young people with horrible taste in music and ridiculous tastes in fashion. However, enough of them involved themselves in gang activity and the Juggalos got themselves tagged as a gang. The sources here are impeccable. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Objection — Your bias is very clear from your statement of "horrible taste in music" - which is purely subjective nonsense (and, incidentally, has ZERO basis, and is merely muddled by your bias against the Insane Clown Posse; how do you know that you are not the one with "horrible taste in music"). Secondly, there is NO EVIDENCE of Juggalo gang activity. I've already made this point. This is the reason why ICP is suing the FBI, because they provided NO EVIDENCE for classifying a music fanbase as a "gang". If you are going to comment on an issue involving real living people, you should refrain from insulting them because you don't care for their music and alleging that simply liking a band that you don't care for equals being a gang member. There is NO CALL for saying that "Juggalo" equals "horrible taste in music" (which is false) in relation to the subject of "is this a gang?" BigBabyChips (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Objection? Where do you think you are? You're not in court and I assure you that you wouldn't want to be in court about this. Yeah, I have an opinion about the music and I stated it? So what? I'm allowed to state it. I'm still properly interpreting and applying the applicable policies and guidelines. The ICP is suing the FBI? Really? Could you provide the link to that docket entry? And stop misapplying BLP. This isn't a BLP issue. Now, this would be a BLP issue if I named a specific person as being a Juggalo because Juggalo's are.....wait for it......a criminal gang and an allegation like that would require a solid third party source. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Juggalos are NOT a criminal gang. Stop using Wikipedia promoting your bias and bigotry. The gang classification is false and has been widely criticized even by people with no affiliation with ICP. Wired and numerous other publications have said that "Juggalo" is not a gang. The FBI has NO EVIDENCE, which is why they are being sued. For you to say that WP:NPOV doesn't apply here indicates that you do not understand the concept of NPOV. The claim of Juggalo being a gang cannot be verified because it is false and contradicts verifiable information that it is a music fanbase. Criminal activity by an individual who is alleged to be a fan of a music group does not make his fanbase a gang. Why do you not understand this? BigBabyChips (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Dude, thank you for the wonderful example of WP:IDHT. I didn't say NPOV doesn't apply here. It applies everywhere on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, you think Neutral means that nothing negative can be said. And again I ask for the link to where I can see this lawsuit you keep claiming has been filed. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• That is very obviously not what I said. I said that we are discussing real, living people. We are not discussing fictional characters in a movie. We are discussing a music fanbase that has been incorrectly and falsely classified as a gang with zero factual basis behind it. There is no evidence supporting the claims that you have pushed. The lawsuit against the FBI has been mentioned in numerous sources, including this one, which is cited on Wikipedia. There is a very obvious issue of NPOV here, when one alleges that a music fanbase is a gang with no evidence connecting music fandom to gang activity. BigBabyChips (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Um, have you read the article you link to? They're not suing the FBI for calling them a gang (a libel suit). They're claiming the FBI didn't comlpy with the FOIA and trun over everything that was requested. There is a big difference. Please try actually reading the words and not just making up your own meaning. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I have little doubt that the band has filed suit. From what I've read, it looks like they filed a FOIA request, seeking information on an FBI investigation. The requested information apparently was not released. The band is claiming this is because the FBI does not have a reasonable basis for their conclusions. The FBI, AFAIK, has not yet responded. I'd be willing to bet the FBI will claim the "law enforcement purposes" exemption from FOIA. Basically, anything that might compromise an investigation or disclose personal information is exempt. If the FBI investigation involved informants, disclosing their identities would obviously be a problem. Until the FBI responds and a judge rules, we have no idea, of course. (A reasonable question might be why the FBI would seek to smear the fan group if they did not have reason to believe there is significant reason to call them a "gang". The simplest answer is that the FBI has something. Whether or not their assessment is correct is, obviously, an open question.) In any case the sources cited are reliable sources for the claim that the FBI, various states, etc. have called the group a "gang". It is verifiable that several law enforcement groups have connected them to various gangs. Removing this information is not "balance", it is whitewashing. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not "whitewashing". Juggalo is a music fanbase, not a gang. Referring to music fans as gang members IS contentious. And there is a precedence for the FBI targeting Juggalos. SST Records was targeted by the FBI in the 1980s. The FBI has kept files on Groucho Marx, Lenny Bruce, Elvis Presley and John Lennon. As one comment on the article I linked to points out, the FBI has been targeting youth cultures ever since the 1950s. There is a very clear NPOV issue in alleging that Juggalos are a "gang". For you to deny this and to assault my edits as if they are invalid and what I was saying was somehow false, despite clear rules that justify my edits, but NOT yours and NOT Niteshift's, it is very clear that you have an obvious prejudice against Juggalos that is preceding any judgment on this matter, especially since several celebrities, including Chuck D, Slash, Charlie Sheen, MURS and Vanilla Ice have described themselves as "Juggalos" - thus your allegation is that these individuals are somehow "gang members" and allies of the Bloods and/or Crips? BigBabyChips (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

"Some residents of New York City are pedophiles." I did not just slander Ed Koch. "The FBI has called Juggalos a gang." I did not just slander Charlie Sheen. The FBI HAS called Juggalos a gang. Whatever else you would like to discuss about Elvis and youth in the 1950s, it is a simple, verifiable fact that the FBI has called Juggalos a gang. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

LISTING "JUGGALO" AS AN ALLY OF A CRIMINAL GANG IS CALLING "JUGGALO" A CRIMINAL GANG. Saying that the FBI has called "Juggalo" a gang on the page Juggalo is different from going to ARTICLES OF GANGS and REPEATEDLY CLAIMING that a MUSIC FANBASE is a gang despite CLEAR EVIDENCE that JUGGALOS ARE NOT A GANG. How do you NOT understand this? BigBabyChips (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• We listed the US as an ally of the Soviet Union during WW2. Does that mean we called all American's communists? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• More evasion. This is not a war, this is an encyclopedia. You are implying that there is a war between Juggalos and non-Juggalos, and that gangs such as the Bloods and the Crips are somehow "allies" of Juggalos, hence, implying that Juggalos are somehow a gang, for being "at war" with non-Juggalos, which has not actually occurred and exists only in your right-wing mind. Also, it directly contradicts your repeated insistence that Juggalos are "a gang", which proves your bias. BigBabyChips (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Implying there is a war? That's on of the most idiotic responses I've heard. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You compared this issue to WW2. Stop evading. BigBabyChips (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2014

Somewhere on this article, someone should state what the main reason why the rivalry started. It started out with the two main rappers back then, Tupac representing the West Coast and B.I.G. representing the East coast. When Tupac got shot people were blaming BIG for the shooting and it happened again but not with tupac, it actually happened with a blood named Tray lane who got given a medallion by Death Row and he was inside a store with two other bloods when he got jumped by seven crips who stole his death row medallion which was only a minor incident but it was later that it was proved to be the spark of a brawl with West and East coast gang members, that's when the Main rivalry started. My facts are from knowledge I've learned in recent months. (here it says what happened with tupac and big and the west and east coast gang members.)http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/celebrity/shakur_BIG/2b.html This is just a try to edit that by the way. (I also learned some of this info from Wikipedia) Theatunechi24 (talk) 03:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sam Sailor ^Sing 09:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

dead reference links

I noticed that some of the reference links are dead. I tried to find them anew but was unsuccesful as there is very little info (maybe just a url or a title that is very general and could be several distinct pages). In terms of reliable references.. this page has basically next to none. Tpylkkö (talk) 12:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2014

piru is not the 1st blood set LA Brims were n the UBN is not a gang. also crips which are origionally known as cribs were mispronounced by the newspapers which stands for clandestine revolutionary independent blood soldiers... also piru was never a crip set they say that because piru backward spells crip with the u being an upward c. piru is a street name and Compton piru was the second blood set. cribs were founded by Raymond Washington and tookie Williams. they wanted 2 be blood and were denied because of their territory but they were told to start their own thing as long as they foolowed blood rules and they became a branch of blood. that's why cribs say from the cradle 2 the grave. from the crib 2 the grave. idk where u got ur info from but its all incorrect. I am a Fruit Town Brim member for 15 years now in case u question my validity. u can check I am even in the gang unit as a member. please be more aware when u put fictitious info on the web. thank u.

174.57.139.235 (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Aside from the fact that this isn't an actual edit request, the grammar is horrible, it's completely unsourced and probably a COI issue too. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Biased description of gang activities?

This article's frequent use of the phrase "criminal" seems biased to me.

For example, consider the sentence "Associates" are not full members, but they identify with the gang and take part in various criminal activities. I think that should say "gang activities", not "criminal activities." The gang is first and foremost a social club. Just as Shriners do not exclusively raise money for children's hospitals, gangs do not exclusively engage in violence and drug vending. Many rappers, for example, report that they engaged in lyrical activities with fellow gang members.

I think a simple rephrasing could acknowledge the presence of both criminal and non-criminal activities.

67.175.146.68 (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

What a bunch of mealy-mouthed BULLSHIT. If the shoe fits............WEAR IT. These "people" (using the word loosely) are first, second and last, CRIMINALS. It's what they exist for and all they know. And rap "singers" (also using the word loosely) promote their criminal agenda. Get real, you stupid git. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.138.95.78 (talk) 06:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Grammar in section [United Blood Nation]

In an excerpt of the final sentence ("…and it's gang members…"), the "it's" should be replaced with "its" as in this context "its" is meant to denote a possessive form and not a contraction of "it is".

Grammar in section [Membership]

The first sentence in the fourth paragraph states, "Recruitment is often influenced by a recruitee's environment." The word "recruitee" is not a word in the English language and should be replaced with "recruit," or more specifically, "recruit's" for this instance.

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2016

420Stonerzone (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 18:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bloods. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.military.com/news/article/gangs-increasing-in-military-fbi-says.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2016

Add Boston Red Sox to team apparel they wear

96.233.173.230 (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Perhaps you made the request to the wrong article. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

wrong mmbership

The right number of bloods is 35,000 look up how powerful street gangs on YouTube Moneymake10000000r (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per Talk:Crips#Wrong_membership. --McGeddon (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Bloods

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? -> Not all facts are cited from reliable references.

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? -> Nothing was distracting, it was all relevant to the topic.

--Camillewyman (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bloods. 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/20081206052937/http://gangs.umd.edu/wfrmGangsinmdDetail.aspx?id=Bloods to http://gangs.umd.edu/wfrmGangsinmdDetail.aspx?id=Bloods
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.streetgangs.com/magazine/070406racial.html

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) 01:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bloods. 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/20141217000730/http://www.ncgangcops.org/Bloods.html to http://www.ncgangcops.org/Bloods.html

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) 03:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Real Bloods

• The Game
• DJ Quik
• Suge Knight
• Birdman
• Lil Wayne
• Tech N9ne
• YG
• Mack 10
• 21 Savage
• Cardi B
• Trippie Redd
• 6ix9ine
• lil Chalk
• Young Thug
• Jay Rock
• Ty Dolla Sign
• Shorty Rossi
• Mitchy Slick
• Big Fase 10
• O.Y.G Redrum 781

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2018

2601:549:4400:B250:9455:99AA:5A88:AB81 (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 02:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2018

Change the rival "Crips" to "Crips (certain sets)" BASSROUGE (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Not done: No reliable source provided. --Laser brain (talk) 15:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Obf

Absolutely no one calls the bloods the "original blood family". This is completely made up. Hotboyxroshi (talk) 06:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

Change "Ball ou was beaten to death" to "Ballou was beaten to death". Rattlebones Sam (talk) 11:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Removing OBF

I don’t know why you keep removing Original Blood Family but keep Original Crip Homies. They’re from the same source. The source I provided seemed reliable enough for the OCH but not OBF? RelatedToMarioPrayer (talk) 08:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• It's a crap source. Thank you for pointing out that it was missed at the Crips article. It has been removed there too. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2021

Change “African-American” to “Predominately African-American” for Ethnicity as it is for the Crips page.

This is accurate and relevant. AnonymousHummingbird (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Another Wikipedia page is not a reliable source. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Notable Members

Cardi B | Gucci Mane | YNW Melly | Birdman | Young Thug Adonis7411 (talk) 10:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The 'notable members' field isn't intended to be a replacement for Wikipedia's categories. Currently Category:Bloods has 83 pages. It would be arbitrary for editors to pick-and-choose who to include, and if we tried to list all of them in the infobox, it would get too crowded. The usual way to handle this is to limit it to people who are primarily notable for being members of the gang, not just people who are notable and also happen to be members. Grayfell (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Are you the wiki police ? You are curtailing

The membership of these individuals for what reason ? You also seem to have an issue with individuals updating outdated information. Refrain from dogmatizing users. Adonis7411 (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

This article article has been on my watchlist since at least 2018. Like it or not you have to work with other people, and you have to cite reliable sources. This isn't personal, it's just how Wikipedia works. Grayfell (talk) 05:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I just added 'See Category:Bloods' to the field. Grayfell (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

There are also a lot of "famous bloods", including a couple you've mentioned, that have never officially acknowledged being in the gang. It's actually rather common for many rappers to make it very obvious who they are down with, including flashing rags and doing gang signs, but never publicly admitting to membership in a gang. It's probably worth noting one of the most common reasons for this is they are not actually members. 67.177.112.52 (talk) 08:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

External link

There's currenty one external link, to a PBS page. From what I can tell, the page only lists information about Crips and Bloods: Made in America. For that documentary's Wikipedia page, it might be a useful external link, but not here. The full documentary is on the official Cineverse YouTube channel, so you could link there, but it's already linked to from the documentary's article, and the documentary is already mentioned in this article in the See also section. I suggest removing the External links section. --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:152:B01F:B3F8:E000 (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

By the way, the same goes for the same external link in the Crips article. --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:152:B01F:B3F8:E000 (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)