Talk:Bloods/Archive 1

message: theres been a lot of vandalism
I agree  Jmm6f488 23:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: we should lock this

message: The final sentence doesn't make sense to me
:The Bloods' use of red was originally inspired because the Pirus already had red so the other blood gangs like Brims, Bounty Hunters and other gangs wore red and called themselves Bloods.
'...originally inspired...'.  Does that mean there is now another reason for the red?  Or should it just read '...was inspired...'?
Why was red inspired by the Pirus?  Were the Pirus the founders of the Bloods?  Did other gangs join the Pirus and then the Pirus renamed themselves the Bloods?
Jenks 07:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsensical sentence? 

message: What purpose does an article like this serve other than to advertise criminal organizations? A load of nonsense about peace treaties etc that is only of interest to the thugs involved. If a need arises for WikiGangs or WikiThugs, then create it seperately. I don't enjoy being referred to a page like this, and it certainly doesn't contribute to any sort of pleasing impression of Wiki as such.
I guess you probably don't like the page on nazism either and would like it erasedJmm6f488 05:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we really need to know about this? 

message: What Purpose does an article....lol....fucking little pussy man what the fuck are you babuling about you sound like a little bitch man what is your problem getting all but hurt cause it talks about gang violence some people do learn about this ok dumb ass so just shut the fuck up and kill your self for being fucking dumb you fucking dick....lol.....lol....bitch!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.15.235.10 (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do have to say that this article, as well as the one on the [Crips], definitely seems to make light of the activities of said gangs. The articles say much more about their alliances and "peace treaties" then their criminal activity, and I think that paints them with a very amiable brush. 68.83.122.84 04:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fuck The Article On Top 

message: : The article was created because some of us live in the real world. I have heard about the Crips and the Bloods but have not had any background information on either gang. If you want to find out whether this kind of article is 'nonsense' or not - I suggest you go take a bus ride to South Central Los Angeles and shout "Hey Bloods, you Faggots" and see what kind of response you get. Perhaps you will realise your mistake a few nanoseconds after you notice the gaping hole in your chest, which will be shortly after you have succumbed to the effects of being shot.
I really do not like the way that deletionists suggest that an article is not worthy of wikipedia just because they thing it should be subcategorised in to some other project. I mean, where do you stop? Perhaps we should have a Zionistpedia or a Nazipedia as well? Wikipedia, as an encyclopædia should be accessable to everyone, not just white middle class American college graduates. (Please note I do actually fall in to at least one of those stereotypes).
--
I agreeJmm6f488 05:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why we would create an article about this - Part I

message: Before I continue, I would just like to say I was very interested to read your opinion and take it fully into account. However, I do not agree with your point.
Firstly, this article is here to inform, as is the Wikipedia site itself. 
Secondly,  organised crime is extremely relevant in todays society and people may want to learn more.
Thirdly, I don't believe this is an article that advertises criminal organisations.  If anything, it would inform people of how these gang members live and it would inform people of exactly why they act in such ways.
Furthermore, there are documentaries on TV of more commercial, or in some ways, more widespread gangs such as the Sicilian/Italian Mafias.  Are these documentaries advertising criminal organisations?  If they were, then why does the media make them, the Government allow them and society watch them?  Is this Wikipedia article any different from those documentaries?  If those documentaries were so wrong, then would they be screened?  You need to ask yourself these sorts of questions. 
In addition to this, have you at any point see any signs of advertising in this article?  Have you seen any evidence that shows any of the writers are in favor of these people's actions?  Have you read of any glory or people raving about these gangs and congratulating them?  I have been an editor of this article ever since I first joined Wikipedia and at no point have I seen evidence of this.  
Going back to one of my first points, Wikipedia is here to inform.  This article gives people like me, who share an interest in the Bloods or know information about their way of life, to write about them and share this information with others.  It also gives us a chance to learn.  I believe we are not advertising the Bloods, we are learning off eachother.  Is this not the point?
Finally, people on Wikipedia may choose to write about Al Qae'da or the Mafias etc etc...Ok let's take Al Qae'da.  This is a big issue for most of the world at the moment.  Therefore, somebody has decided to create a Wikipedia article on them.  People have added to it and it has become a damn sight larger than this article.  So would you suggest that this is wrong?  Or that someone should create WikiTerror for this material?  Are they advertising Al Qae'da?  After browsing that page, I have found they have done nothing but inform.  Browsing our Blood article, we have also done nothing but inform.  I have found no discussion comment on the Al Qae'da site like the one you left on this Blood discussion page.  How is this article any different or less important?  Al Qae'da could be considered a lot more deadly than the Bloods, so why is this article wrong and the Al Qae'da one not?  Does the Al Qae'da page serve a different purpose to this one?  Or are they both on this site to inform?  
I believe that your statement doesn't reflect why we, the editors of this article, write up on the Bloods.  Have we raved about the Bloods and praised them?  Or are we writing as normal, neutral, interested people?  Why is this article so wrong?  Are we doing any harm?  Are we blatently increasing support for the Bloods?  
If you do not wish to read about the Bloods, there are thousands of other articles you may wish to read.
TC 
Tachante
Nicley Done!!--71.116.65.241 19:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why we would create an article about this - Part II

message: Right now, I am doing research on the Bloods and Crips, and the wikipedia articles on the bloods, Crips, Raymond Washington, and Tookie Williams have been excellent starting points.
More importantly, street gangs are part of the world we live in, they are a fact of life, and there needs to be solid, accessible information about them available to those who wish to learn.
If you are interested in "a pleasing impression of wikipedia"--????--I suggest you start you OWN wiki.  One that would have no references to war, death, racism, drugs, pollution, genocide, or any other fact of life in this world that isn't nice, and that we wish would just go away, and maybe it will if we pretend it doesn't exist.
:I'm not against gangbangers having articles on wikipedia. I'm against gangbanging period. It's a two-way street - either you end up in jail or dead. Stupid, but it's your life. DonMEGĂ|60645 13:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why we would create an article about this - Part III

message: I merged some stuff over here from another page.  Poorly written for sure.  Not sure deleting it wholesale is the best way to make the article better.  I have nothing invested as it's not my text.  Just making a suggestion for those active on this page.  peace, Tedernst 21:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge 

message: Does anyone know if the Bloods are into the drug trade or not? Do they smuggle weapons or make people pay protection money. If so please up date.
They're not in protection or weapon smuggling, but the Bloods are heavily involved in the drugs trade, inparticular Crack. 212.139.255.191 14:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Money 

message: The Bloods are involved in the sale of crack cocaine. In fact Bloods and Crips make up 35 percent of the national sell of crack.
:Not sure if that can be verified, but if it can it belongs in the main article. Also not sure who posted that!Reggaedelgado 07:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crack 

message: Recently a few new items were added to the trivia section.  Great stuff, can we get a source for the additions?  I'm fairly certain I've seen a source for the handsign, I'll see if I can dig up whether or not that was in Ice-T's book.  Not sure about the initiation and Baby Blood additions though, so I've marked those as needing a citation. For anyone who's not familiar with our policies, please see the verifiability and sources pages for more information. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 05:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Additions to the Trivia section 

message: I've removed this portion from the hip-hop section:
:Many of these claims are frabricated, exceptionally in relation to aspiring mainstream rappers. Becuase of this the claims of the Game and assocciates has been refuted by minor assocciates within the Bloods.
:It has also been said that the late Tupac Shakur was affilated with the Mob Piru Bloods, mainly because of his close relationship with CEO of Death Row Records, Suge Knight and this link actually brings a fair bit of credibility with it. The Los Angeles police (and a three second shot in Tupac Ressurrection) caught Tupac with Bloods stomping a man who attempted a clumsy assault. Tupac's affiliation with the Bloods bred Biggie's own with the Crips as both rappers used the gangs for security purposes
All of the statements need to have a reference.  Please see our policy on citing sources (WP:CITE).  For example, the first sentence appears to be an opinion (probably held by a lot of people) -- to be written to fit into an encylopedic tone, it could go something like: John Doe has reported that many of these claims are fabricated, often by aspiring rappers.  The other statements just need some kind of a source; I'll see what I can do to dig some up.  The reference system can be a bit confusing at first, so feel free to just leave the source information here (as much as you have, links are especially helpful), or click this link to leave me a message and I'll be happy to help explain it (or any other questions you may have). .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 04:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferences additions 

message: What has happened to this article? A couple of months ago it was of good quality, with concise NPOV info that had references and tallied with other accounts. 
Now it's peppered with street-corner braggadocio, and in many places is barely readable, badly formatted, unreferenced and highly POV biased. 
Right now this article just isn't worth the bandwidth, and is one of the worst on Wikipedia. I really do recommend a revert to one of the older versions.
I rather agree with your analysis.  I added the cleanup tag, and I must say I'm surprised it didn't get locked like the Crips article did.  --72.35.146.211 18:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete mess 

message: I think this article is a good start from apparent insiders, but it really needs viewpoints from people who are victims of this gangs crimes, like relatives of people murdered by this gang, or killed by their crack dealings, or the police, or local people who have to live with them.  Otherwise this article is kind of like Saddam Hussein tooting his horn, interesting, but only one sided.  The same goes for the article on these guys' compadres -- 'the Crips'.
::IMHO, what would serve ~Wikipedia~ better is a single balanced neutral account. Trying to balance something with opposing POV statements doesn't give good results. Right now the article is in a reasonable state regarding NPOV though - what's more of an issue is some of the language style used in the History section.
Everyone knows the Bloods are criminals, this page doesn't need testimony by its victims or it would be many volumes too long.Jmm6f488 05:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for an Balanced Viewpoint 

message: The Crips page has restricted editing due to people vandalizing it. The Bloods page has the same problems as the Crips page did - perhaps it would be a good idea to restrict editing by anonymous and newly registered users here too. Comments?
I agreeJmm6f488 05:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restrict Editing? 

message: Article needs an approximate number of members.  Also, why is it not mentioned that there have always been many fewer Bloods than Crips?  Badagnani 06:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Need to find a source for it. Also, I think that estimates for the total numbers of gang members are going to be vague and varying at best, just because of the nature of the beast - criminal organizations, with many pseudo-branches and wannabes - though that's just an observation, not a reason not to put those estimates in. I'm really mentioning it on the off-chance that there is argument between people using two conflicting sources. Doctor Atomic 22:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number 

message: It is very underdeveloped, and very biased. Why is it that the Crips page has so much more information? 
The Bloods didn't start out as criminals, and even today not all of them are. I'll have to work on the page when I have time. Matt Hughes
I can only imagined how many people have been swayed by the falsifications and brainwashing set up, and the "external refernces" comes from an outdated U.B.N. book that was used 1993-2001. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheBringerofTruth (talk • contribs) 01:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page needs work  

message: These two men should be taken out of the blood page and put into the Piru page. Bloods and Pirus are two different gangs piru means pimps in red uniform but they use burgundy bandanas while blood sets use red. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.77.17.217 (talk) 23:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game and Suge Knight 

message: umm my freind is in the bloods but he just got muged and i want him out do you know a good way for him to escape without geting shot?AND he is only 13 years oldTridentdc24 14:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HELP! 

message: Will someone please add the fact that like the Crips, the Bloods are one of the most notorious gangs in the USA, let alone Los Angeles. Thanks 80.43.49.168 19:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bloods Notority

message: This article is very breif and uniformitave, and some stuff is plain worng.  "they spell Bloods with their fingers"...? this is not really a real Blood gang sign, its simply made up by white kids. id expand but i cant reference stuff so i suppose there is no point
71.231.123.65 21:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article

message: Half of the rappers that are said to be affiliated are not bloods they are pirus. They are two different gangs they used to be the same gang but the split so now there is pirus who wear burgundy and bloods who wear red. Also many of those rappers have no affiliation such as DMX or juelz santana or lil wayne there are very few bloods sets in new york(many which are thought to be fake compared to california gangs) and there is next to none in new orleans. Also Ras Kass is not gang affiliated in anyway he even says he never "banged".
Juelz Santana and Lil'Wayne are certainly affiliated with bloods. And i think DMX is also. The talk about the split is also suspecious.
The pirus are bloods there is no splitJmm6f488 05:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rappers with blood affiliation 

message: Tupac was not a member of the bloods.  I created an account just so I could change that info on this page.  I guess this page is blocked for editing by new users.  As soon as my probationary period is up, I will be back to change it.  Anybody who can edit the page now and wishes to remove it first, then please, do so
Saying that Tupac was a blood is pure slander.
-There is no reference to back it up
-Tupac spent the 70's and 80's growing up in New York and Baltimore before blood sets even reached the east
-Tupac moved to the west in 88, in the Bay area, and lived there until 92.  Not one reference shows him being gang affiliated at this time
-In mid 1992 at the Truc Picnic in LA, Tupac had members of the Bloods and Crips sign the "Code of Thug Life," where he acted as a neutral party with no gang affiliation
-Pac spent the next 4 years of his life producing multi-platinum albums.
Now, tell me, where in all this was he ever a blood?  I ain't gonna let nobody shit on my homie's name, beleive that.
Oh and don't tell me that his tattoo that said MOB stood for Member of Bloods, it was Money Over Bitches.
Just because he was seen in some video footage wearing a red bandana doesn't make him a blood.  He also has been seen wearing blue.  Dont get it twisted.
If anything, he was a Black Panther.  His mother, step-father, godfather, and closes influences were all panthers.  To top it off, he had a tattoo of a panther's head on his left arm. Wakamusha 13:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed Tupac pending a relaible source being provided. All the sources I have read state Tupac knew some bloods but was careful NOT to be affiliated with them in any way. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Killer.  As for my anonymous friend, I'm sorry but I know exactly what I'm talking about.  I studied Pac's life like a law student would study for the bar.  He was the first to coin the phrase Money Over Bitches (Not Man Of Blood or Member Of Bloods).  If some Blood sets took it and twisted it then that just goes to prove how these rumors got started in the first place.  Member of Blood, 662, Mob Piru, none of these have anything to do with Pac.  Definitely Suge, but not Pac. Wakamusha 02:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TUPAC 

message: http://www.gofish.com/player.gfp?gfid=30-1023465  BoriquaStar 02:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gang fight? 

message: Why do people keep saying The Game isn't a Blood member.  The Piru's are definatley part of the gang.  They are called a set of the Bloods.  The Game always refers to himself being a Blood and is always wearing a red bandana or a red t-shirt or something red.  He is definatley a member of the Bloods gang and should be left on the page. 79.74.52.31 21:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Game and Bloods