This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. California: Los Angeles This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Organizations This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: FBI Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject FBI (assessed as High-importance). Law Enforcement This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

{{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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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.^[1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• "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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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