Talk:Folk Nation

message: The references section needs clean up, but it seems to be buried in the repeated text from the paragraph above.  It was beyond my wiki knowledge. User:Ransdy  —Preceding undated comment added 23:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: La Raza is a Mexican based gang started in the South Side of Chicago they are part of the Folks Nation alliance.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oyesabrosura (talk • contribs) 21:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm wondering why "La Raza" is listed as a gang?  I've only ever heard La Raza used as a collective self-descriptor by Mexicans and as the name of a Spanish-language newspaper on newsstands in stores, taquerias, bus stations. Jaguara 03:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: La Raza

message: Removed Crips from the list of Past and Present Gangs, as they never have been and probably never will be Folks. Also added Imperial Gangsters.
* I added the Crips back. They have been Folk affiliated and still are in many areas. And I added a ref for it, so you won't just revert. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You guys (particularyly the IP) are arguing over a moot point. The Crips are currently listed in the article as one of the gangs Allying with the Folk Nation. What's the big problem?Drew Smith What I've done 07:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

text: The only thing I'm arguing is against the removal of properly represented sourced material. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And I agree with you, as I expressed at WP:EAR. It appears the IP is arguing that the crips are not "part of" the folk nation, but rather "have an alliance with" the folk nation. Whether this is true or not doesn't matter, as the article already says they are "in alliance with" not "are a part of". Look at the last word of that section's header!Drew Smith What I've done 07:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Well, I've read the source, and it says they are allied with the "Folk" gang. As the section says "Gangs in alliance with", it seems it should be allowed to stay. However, if you can find a source that shows that there is a difference between the "formal" alliance most gangs have with "Folk", and the "informal" alliance the Crips have, then we can start to work on a compromise. Unfortunately at this point, you are introducing original research, or rather, using original research to remove content from the article. His source is shaky, I'll give you that, but until you can find a source that positively proves otherwise, we have to go with it. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. On a seperate, but related point, do either of you claim membership in any of these gangs?Drew Smith What I've done 09:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

text: *The title of the section is "List of past and present Folks alliances". The source clearly says alliance. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edited some things 

message: Why would you remove this link from the external links section and call it link spam?: http://www.thehoodup.com/content/view/15/44/
I think it's a very informative page on this subject.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElevationalMentality (talk • contribs) 20:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link spam? 

message: This page is written horrendously. Can someone put up the "Editorial Standards" thing and maybe add some references?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.108.255 (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Everything in this article is original research and violtaes the NPOV Guidelines established by Wikipedia.  Either find some sources for things in the article, and remove the NPOV violations or just delete the whole thing because it is a wast of everyone's time.JoeyFNK 19:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Original Research and NPOV 

message: I have commented out the unsupported sections. When sources are found, add them and remove the  to let the text display again. DGG (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see an anon. editor deleted the material entirely. I can't say I object. But if anyone can source material on this, they should certainly return that portion to the article. DGG (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: unsourced material

message: CLEARLY EAST COAST BLOODS AND CRIPS NEED TO HAVE THERE OWN ARTICLES BECAUSE THEY HAVE ALOT TO DO WITH THESE NATIONS BUT THE WEST COAST ONES CLEARLY DO NOT  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Insert account (talk • contribs) 03:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article currently has two reliable sources. If you would like to add, remove or change anything, we will need independent relaible sources. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  THIS NEEDS TO BE FIXED

message: I notice their is no mention of the big factions in Folks on this page, like the Insanes (Insane Cobras, ect) or the Almighty Famalias (Imperial Gangsters, Simon City Royals, and others). Or of course, the Disciples. I've also noticed no mention that each diffrent gang in folk uses a diffrent pitchfork, if any at all. The Manic Latin Disciples draw their Pitchforks and postion them diffrently then the Satan Disciples do who do it diffrently then the Gangster Disciples do. And the Imperials and Royals don't even use pitchforks in their tags. In fact in hand signs they throw down the forks, to show they are still Folks but are not allianed with Disciples. Actually the only universal sign of Folks is the Star of David, though the Disciples are by FAR the largest faction and it's understandable why people think it's the pitchfork.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.172.207 (talk) 07:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factoids 

message: Crips are not part of Folks Nation because Crips themselves it's own nation of smaller gangs united under the Crips alliance. The only alliance Folks and Crips ever had was the 8-Ball Alliance that was not sanctioned by Folks leaders in Chicago. Just because Crips wear Blue and Gangster Disciples use Black & Blue does not mean they are allies... there are many gangs under Folks who do not wear Black & Blue like example Imperial Gangsters = Black & Pink, Spanish Cobras = Black & Green, Harrison Gents = Black & Purple, Satan Disciples = Black & Canary Yellow. Folks is an alliance of other gangs that only unify in Prison and most of the time fight on the streets depending if they have a peace treaty or not.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.91.74 (talk) 08:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted Crips and Vandalism

message: They are not part of Folks Nation. It's very simple, Crips and Bloods started in L.A. Folks and People Nation started in Chicago. THERE ARE NO CRIPS OR BLOODS IN CHICAGO TO START AN ALLIANCE WITH EITHER NATION.
Crips and GD's get a long because they're both black gangs and they both wear blue. That doesn't mean they are allies or part of each other's gangs. Half of these "GOVERNMENT" websites are crap and have false information.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.91.74 (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Why are Crips put back on the list?

message: This Gangster Disciple I knew told me F.O.L.K.S. stands for "following our lord king Satan." He said not all the homies knew this. The "follow all laws the king sets" theory advanced above also gets some hits on the net. I think it is worth mentioning that F.O.L.K.S. is a common spelling of the gang and that different acronyms are attributed to it, including the two above. Let's put the Satan one first, though, because of the pitchforks and because Satan is cooler than Larry Hoover.
Isn't it cool that I know a for-real gangster?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.158.88 (talk) 23:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's from a faction called The Satan Disciples, who where originally led by a guy who called himself Satan. It does not mean the Folks worship the Christian devil Lucifier. And as far as it being cool to know a for-real gangster, if he thinks that what FOLKS stand for he's probably a net-banger who just read a bunch of (fake, made up, or purposely placed misinformation) online and started calling himself a disciple. Or maybe joined the gang of someone who did the above. I sometimes wonder if the southern Folk Nation should be classifed as a whole nother entitey then the midwestern F.O.L.K.S. I wouldn't say they are fake gang bangers. Not all of them anyway. But they are certianly not really part of the G.D.s or SCRs or IGs or what have you. All the gangs suffer from this, I suppose, but it seems really bad with Folks. Maybe it's just the mispelling of their name makes it stick out though.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.35.163.210 (talk) 02:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: F.O.L.K.S.

message: Just because a reliable source mentions an alliance, that doesn't mean it is that notable. For something like BGD, it would be because BGD is notable enough to have their own article. Their notability has been established. Where is the article for the Two-Sixers? Their notability hasn't been established yet. To illustrate: The book and film for Blackhawk Down are each notable. They name many people. Some, like Gary Gordon or Randy Shughart, have their own notability. Others, like Casey Joyce, did not. How notable can an alliance be when the gang isn't notable enough for an article? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Lack of an article does not preclude notability, it just means nobody created an article yet.  A reliable source says certain sets are notable, and that fact is good enough for me to include them in the list of notable sets.--Asher196 (talk) 12:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *Lack of an article doesn't preclude it, but it does make you establish notability. Just because there is a mention in a source doesn't mean it needs repeated here. As I said above, we can reliably source a ton of people in the battle in Mogindishu, but listing them all in the article wouldn't make sense. If there is no inidication that they'd pass WP:N or have some special significance, then they shouldn't be listed. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

text: *Great. Just bring the reliable source..... Niteshift36 (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

text: *Bro, everything in Wikipedia needs a reliable source. Read WP:V. You might also find WP:TRUTH interesting. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

text: *Well, for one thing, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. Secondly, the sources in use it. Third, the source in the Outlaw GD article isn't a RS and has been removed. Besides, this article doesn't use BGD in the first place. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable alliances 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Folk Nation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080110064322/http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2001/december2001/dec01p6.htm to http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2001/december2001/dec01p6.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A TRUE GANGSTER WILL NEVER.              FOLD UNDER NO PRESSER TO SPIT YOUR LIT WITH ANYONE 2601:245:C701:1660:646F:55F9:B39F:8695 (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gangsters the real one