Talk:People Nation

Bloods are not part of People Nation.

Bloods is it's own nation out of Los Angeles with it's own Gangs under the Bloods Alliance of Gangs. People Nation and Bloods have nothing to do with each other only in places like New York City where the Bloods are unofficial Bloods with no ties to Los Angeles and they use the 5 point star and People Nation symbols. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oyesabrosura (talk • contribs) 21:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

WHAT YOU SEE IS NOT WHAT YOU GET

If you didn't know this 99% of information on the internet about The VLN is wrong. The only way to truly know what it is like is to join. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.118.144 (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussing the merits or downsides of ganglife. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.254.16.201 (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• You don't have to join a gang to know their history and activities. I wasn't even alive in WW2, but I still have a pretty good handle on what the Nazi's did. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Revisions

Removed the word "Nation" after People, as the People alliance was not a Nation; the seperate gangs were considered Nations. Everone involved, or who were involved, understands this. When I get time, I will clean up some more, and add more references, especially pertaining to Fort and the foundation of both People and Folks in Stateville Penetentiary in the late '70's. And no, the Crips and Bloods were not part of the Alliances.... this is a Chicago area phenomenom only.Nathraq (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Side reppin'

It says in this article the Bloods are associated with the People Nation, and the Folk Nation article says some Crip cliques associate with them. The articles also state that the the People Nation is associated with the left side of the body and the Folk Nation is associated with the right. This is an inconsistency, as the Bloods wear red bandanas which hang out of the right pocket and wear red bandanas draped over the right shoulder, and the Crips wear blue bandannas from the left pocket and over the left shoulder. As an example, Snoop Dogg, a Rollin' 20's Crip, states in his song Drop It Like It's Hot: "I keep a blue flag hangin' out my backside, but only on the left side. Yeah, that's the Crip side." Ζρς ιβ' ^¡hábleme! 06:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

In-side terminology and POV?

The article seems to use terminology that's somewhat unexplained, specially reading the comments above. "Nation" seems to be used in a way I'm unfamiliar with, and it's unclear if "People Nation" means that the alliance is called "People" and that this is a "Nation", or if it means something else. The opening description also seems rather vague with regards to the origins ("This started much the same way as ..." without citing what exactly that means). Lastly, the entire section "Facts" should not be named thus. If it's not a fact, it shouldn't really be on Wikipedia, and while most of the information seems credible, most of it is about hand signs and identifications. Hopefully, someone with better knowledge of the subject can help clean this up, as I have very little clue about the subject... KristianLyngstol (talk) 02:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

El Rukins came later

I'm 99% sure the Stones where Black P Stones long before they lost their damn minds and decided they where all (heroine selling, booze gulping) muslims. Wheren't they still the Black Part Rangers when People formed? Wasn't El Rukins some kind of tax dodge from the late 70s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.159.89.194 (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Bloods are not part of People Nation

their not part of it their just allies change it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.173.73 (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on People Nation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071210162916/http://www.polksheriff.org:80/library/gangs/identifying.html to http://www.polksheriff.org/library/gangs/identifying.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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} 08:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

The standard for including information in this article is verifiability, one of Wikipedia's pillars. What you know or think you know about gangs is irrelevant. Wikipedia articles are based on independent reliable sources.

If you think another gang is an ally or rival, do not add them unless you can cite an independent reliable source for the information. Unsourced changes will be reverted.

If you think a gang listed no longer exists but a reliable source lists them as an ally or rival, do not remove them. You will need to cite independent reliable sources for the change. Wikipedia articles are not meant to be a "current" snapshot of subjects. Obviously things change over time. Unsourced changes will be reverted.

If you thing dates, names, locations or anything else in the article is simply incorrect or out of date, you will need to explain changes. Unsourced/unexplained changes will be reverted. Merely asserting that you are right is meaningless. If the information is not sourced, you can use that as a reason to remove it. You cannot add unsourced info in its place. If information cites a reliable source, you will need to discuss the issue. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Dead External Link

Just to note, the external link is dead, and the page doesn't seem to be archived on the Wayback Machine. Mpaniello (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

There's more than 6 gangs in the people nation

I know what you're doing. People have done this before, and it's annoying. You can't lie or deny gangs out of existence. You can't make gangs seem like a race problem. And you're not going to kill the gang by "destroying their street cred". You can only watch as the lower class neighborhoods (which, statistical fact, includes over 60% of the white population, and a VERY large amount of others) in BOTH the city AND the country go from gang to gang as the generations pass by. Unless you do something about it. But blissful ignorance isn't gonna help. Everyoneatonce (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• Nobody is making it a race problem or trying to kill "street cred". Likewise, nobody is going to allow non-notable, minor sets to inflate their notoriety artificially. Wikipedia works on reliable sourcing and notability. What you are suggesting is more WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

  1. If nobody's making it a race problem, why have you ONLY NOW added 1 white gang? 2. You clearly are trying to kill their cred, primarily under the false belief that doing so will dismantle the gang, but there might be other reasons. And to that, I say that you DO realize that gangs mainly thrive on others NOT knowing they are a gang, right? So taking them off the list for "not being famous enough" will only accelerate their numbers until they ARE famous enough? Famous enough to where, like the vice lords and latin kings did, will still have nationwide territory and a NEAR PERMANENT EXISTENCE, all because you thought they thrived on obviousness towards their extremely dark criminal activity, which often includes human sex/labor slave trafficking and various victimizing acts of retaliation for hire? Do you even hear yourelf? I mean, come on. "Inflate notoriety"? You're CLEARLY the type of person who thinks the average person WANTS to be in a gang. The only thing that will happen if the gangs become more notable is that more gang members get arrested, and we take down an ever-evolving problem BEFORE it evolves further. But you seem to not be able to do anything but watch, as you don't have the guts to make them more notable (aka easier to track, and easier to indict) out of fear that people will go out of their way to join them. So please, do us a favor and stop aiding gangs, intentionally or not.

  P.S. all of the gangs on this list, the folk nation list AND the "gangs in Chicago" list had EXTENSIVE research on them. I'm sorry there wasn't a pre-existing wiki page on them. Since, can we REALLY believe you know what you're talking about when you put bloods and Crips as folk and people nation gangs? Lol I think "suburgatory" is more of the wiki page for you Everyoneatonce (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• When you want to have an actual, productive discussion about the article, using Wikipedia policies and guidelines, let me know. But all your guesswork allegations and nonsense are so ridiculous that they aren't even worth addressing. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)