Talk:Bloods

question

why do you think gang violence has spread so much?

Why Gang Violence has spread so much

It's only natural that there would be violence. The Bloods are like a nation within a nation; and nations fight wars - Usually over Territory, Commerce, and/or Social Dominance. These are three big issues and each of these things affects the other.

Since generally people don’t give away turf, or money, or customers for drugs, and since they generally don’t like to be dominated or abused by others – in this case other gangs, violence breaks out.

GANG Nation

Bloods are actually associated with a much larger gang nation group called the people. Conversely, the crips are in the folk nation. Bloods are often called Piru or Pirus gangs. This is because the original blood gang in Los Angeles was called the Piru's. Gangs have been known to join nation sets due to the need to ally against more powerful gangs. Nation sets also allow for drug trafficking and distribution. In addition, gang nations are important in prisons because prisoner's come from a vareity of cities and gangs. This allows individual gang members to be allied in prison and form gangs without dishonoring their local gang. The People nation, wear everything to the right and use the 5 pointed islamic star. For information regarding gang nations: [http://www.gang-busters.com/dress%5Chtml%5Cfolks_and_people.aspx Gang nation

Okay, I tried to include most of this in the main article.--Polyparadigm 01:53, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your site is not overly helpful. It is hard to navigate, and not very inclusive. I would not say it is integral to this topic.-Observator

Above, references are made to 'Pirus', 'Piru' and 'Piru's'. Which is the correct term? Jenks 07:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

-- The correct term is Piru (a member), Pirus (a group of Piru members). User:tachante

See also: Pirus (gang). -Willmcw 23:02, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Nonsensical sentence?

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)

Good question, the sentence doesn't make sense

User:tachante 18:55GMT 24 Jun 2005

i've also heard bloods refered to as damus. ("damu" is reportedly the swahili word for "blood'. thus, damus=bloods)

Gringo300 20:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand this sentence:

 the Bloods in New York City have realized that slashings are not the reason for 
 Bloods banging and to stop cutting non-gang members.

I know it's got something to do with stabbings but what does it actually mean?

Patrick Beverley, 15 August 2005

Do we really need to know about this?

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.

Why we would create an article about this - Part I

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).

--

Or take a ride to South Central mortuary...that's how nonsense the Bloods are...half of South Central are right there - Ta'Chante

Why we would create an article about this - Part II

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

"Black Liberation Organization Of Defense"?

I am extremely dubious of the putative acronym origin of the Bloods' gang name; I think the acronym should be deleted unless the claim can be documented. Matt gies 23:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree. -Willmcw 02:59, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I also agree. I think this is what is known as a backronym. -Dudepal 10:22, December 12, 2005

merge

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)

Bloods & hip-hop

I'm not sure we need so much listing & conjecture as to the affiliations of individual rappers (especially unknown ones). It does not provide any useful information... The part about Suge Knight I feel is appropriate because his affiliation became public when he when on trial and was a partial cause of his recent incarceration. However, the affiliation of others (especially their specific sets) is not useful, accurate, or very fair to the people listed. It also cheapens the article a bit and may be the cause of some people's complaints that the article glorifies gangs. If you disagree, please say so other wise I'll make changes within a week or so. Reggaedelgado 17:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I do disagree. I think it's relevent information because it connects this gang to pop culture, and many Wikipedia pages I see will connect their subjects to pop culture in some way or another. I also don't understand why you think it's "unfair to the people listed", since the rappers listed have often made their gang connections quite public. Also, I have only posted rappers who have specifically claimed those 'hoods in interviews. Notice that I have also refuted popular misconceptions about certain rappers having Blood connections - for example, Tupac, Dipset, and Lil Wayne. I believe my information is quite accurate - if you wish to see links, I can provide those. Also be aware that I am a former Los Angeles resident myself, and I am quite familiar with gang culture and who claims what.

My comment is only because I thought that the main message of the page was being lost a little because of the lists. I agree that many wiki pages (rightfully) connect to pop culture, and in the case of gangs I feel that this is especially relevant, considering how most people who access this page intially even heard of these gangs. However, I did think that the errors and conjecture (most of which you (i guess it was you) corrected) did take away from the page and was not really topic appropriate (rappers no one has heard of, rappers in new zealand with crip affiliation, etc). I believe that your information is accurate, most of it IS widely known. The only thing I think would be unfair to anyone would be if they are trying to distance themselves (ie no recent mentions in songs, etc) or if they are straight studio gangsters. Perhaps the page would be best served by a quick intro sentence about hip hop and gangs, and a reduced list of key rappers who claim. I think that it is important, as perhaps two of the only people with real working knowledge of the issue, to avoid the impression that gang affiliation is necesary for hip hop success and to be clear that although crips/bloods are RELATED to hip hop, they are seperate phenomena. I have seen too many articles in wikipedia about "african american" subjects that lump together racist/ignorant ideas and cheapen the (often ugly) truth. I think that together we can make this a nice article that informs and gives a fairly complete picture of the so-called "black" gangs of LA. By the way, I was a reggae/hip hop DJ for years in LA and came accross WAY too much gang business as well, so at least two of us have some real experience in the area....(no offense to others, but expert opinions are always valued, right?)Reggaedelgado 03:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, you are correct, it would be unfair to people who don't want to be associated with gang culture anymore (which is why I have left off DL Hughley, who is a former Blood, and Tone Loc, who is a former Crip), but for entertainers who continue to associate with their sets, I think it's fine. You are correct that it's wrong to associate hip-hop culture in general with Crips and Bloods, but it's not as inaccurate when it comes to West Coast gangsta rap specifically, because it is true that this style of hip-hop came straight from the gang culture in Los Angeles County, regardless of whether or not the rappers themselves were gang members (like Ice Cube pretending he was a Crip). I'll admit that it does sadden me to see that the infamy of Cali's gangsta scene has often obscured alternative artists such as Digital Underground, the Hieroglyphics family, Blackalicious/Soulsides, etc. Still, the section above the list briefly describes the relation of hip-hop to Bloods, and I think it does its job, though if you wish to add additional info, that would be great. As you've said, we both clearly know what we're talking about, so it's good that we can both bring our opinions to this page.

Suge Knight

How could Suge Knight have managed Death Row Records, with Eazy-E and Snoop Dogg, while he is a Bloods-member and they are Crips?

Its all about the cash. That overrides all other squabbles.

Eazy-E was never on Death Row. Crip and Blood-affiliated rappers collaborate with each other on record all the time - a perfection example is Ice Cube's group Westside Connection (WC is an NHC Crip, while Mack-10 is a Queen Street Inglewood Blood). There was even a rap album released in 1993 called "Bangin' On Wax" which had rappers from various Crip and Blood sets working together. Contrary to popular belief, Crips and Bloods are perfectly willing to put aside their differences (or lack thereof) and work with each other when they have mutual interests invested in a project. This whole concept of gangs as completely cutthroat organizations is BS.

No Bandanna picture?

I was wondering can somebody put a picture of the "Bloods" bandana up like the one of the Crips site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hailey C. Shannon (talk • contribs)

Well, the one that is on Crips (as well as the one that used to be here) is highly misleading in that it implies there is a single "gang bandana" -- which is not true. Basically, any bandana will do, and the bandana in question may be worn for non-gang purposes or by non-gang members. I didn't remove the one from here, and I am not going to remove the one on Crips, but I am not sorry to see it go. --Nlu (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I've heard horror stories about people who weren't in gangs who got killed, because their clothes were a certain color, here's more about non-gang uses for bandanas is found at kerchief.--Hailey 23:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The blue/red bandanas are played out these days, as if the practice of "flagging" (carrying a folded-up bandana in either your left pocket for Crips, or right pocket for Bloods). If you go out to L.A., you won't see any Crips or Bloods doing that anymore. Bangers don't do anything that will draw attention to them, and dressing heavily in red or blue and carrying a red or blue bandana makes it all too obvious.

Page deletion

The IPs 69.211.221.48 and 68.194.244.23 have deleted the article... I'm restoring it to the 23:06, 13 December 2005 version. I might also note that the entire article was changed to "Crips Rule" ~20 seconds after the deletion... perhaps someone should lock this.

• It seems the so-called "Gang Wars" just never stop, not even in cyber space! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hailey C. Shannon (talk • contribs)

Yes and no. In many way, "gang wars" are overblown. There are many petty acts, criminal or not, that the police and prosecutors simply slap a gang motive on for. Somehow, they don't do this for white teenagers who do the same thing. --Nlu (talk) 01:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)