Talk:Folk Nation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

References[edit]

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).[reply]

La Raza[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Encourages imitators[edit]

Posting the 'meaning' of the Six Points - or any other gang symbols - only encourages imitators, or 'wannabes' (kind of like the old saying "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"). I would suggest keeping that kind of info off of all entries on street gangs. How they dress or what colors they use etc. might help someone to recognize gang activity in their area - but knowing the inner 'literature' of a gang only helps people who want to pretend to be affiliated.

You seem to misunderstand what Wikipedia is all about, 65.116.103.138. —RaD Man (talk) 07:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of the "knowledge is power" school. Gangbangers are a part of American culture and history. If someone takes information and uses it to be annoying on the internet or for destructive purposes, the responsibility is on that person, not the provider of information.

Edited some things[edit]

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)[reply]
    • And by that logic, how do you explain the 3crips? The 3 represents a broken 8 ball, cause their a people set. What about reports of some pirus claiming Folks? Your own source says SOME crips in SOME areas ALLY with Folks in Florida (and it's only talking about Prison at that). It also says they war in others and have nothing to do with each other in still more. It dosen't say Crips are Folks, because they are two diffrent gangs with two diffrent agendas and philosiphes from two diffrent parts of the country. So I'm taking them back off. If you want to write up something about Crips and Folks being the bestest freinds ever where you're from go right ahead, but crip does not and never will belong on a list of Folks gangs. Disciples and a handful of other Folks wear blue is the only thing Folks and crips really have in common on a national level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.172.207 (talk) 05:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're talking about one faction.......It is sourced material. Removing it is bordering on vandalism. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourced material that says and I qoute "This alignment may vary for local jurisdictions due to competition for drug territory or violence against one another." Look Niteshift. Your putting Crips under a section called "Past and Present Members of Folks Nation." No matter how common Crips and Folk/Folks gangs being freindly with each other is in Florida or any other part of the country, CRIPS ARE NOT FOLKS. And they never have been. Your putting up false information and using a source that outright says they are not the same gang and even kill each other from time to time as your proof. I'm taking it down. And I'm going to keep taking it down, because it isn't fucking true. It's perfectly reasionable to add a comment about Crips and Folks being freindly with each other. Something of an over simplifaction, but whatever. It will never be reasonable to say Crips are Folks and Folks are Crips. They are two diffrent gangs from two diffrent cities.
  • I am very awae of what the source says. I have never claimed that in ALL cities, they are allied. However, they are in many and, due to treaties, are on a national basis. I have provided a reliable source. You have provided nothing except original research WP:OR, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Aside from this, you need to tone down your responses and address editors in a civil manner. Removing the sourced information is vandalism. Read WP:RS, WP:V also. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Niteshift. Try and understand me my freind. You are not saying they are allied. By listing Crips as a Present or Former member of the Folks Alliance, you are saying they are one and the same. Or rather, that Crips is a part of Folks. Or at one point ones. Your not even saying in some areas. You are saying all over the country, all over the world, all Crips are Folks. It just isn't so. Your source does not say it is so. It talks about an alliance. It also says the alliance is of convince, because in Florida (your site can only speak for Florida, my home state by the way) Folks and People out number Crips and Bloods so they choose sides and Crips TEND to ally with Folks. Your source also points out in other areas they are not even freindly, but kill each other over drug turf. Your source is not backing up your claim, there for it is invalid to your argument. Maybe your not meaning to say Crips are Folks. But by putting them there, thats exactly what your saying. You, niteshift, are being the vandil here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.172.207 (talk) 07:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We'll see what the result of the complaint you put on the editor assistance board is. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

BTW, it is common practice to place a new discussion thread at the bottom usually using the "new section" button. It is also common practice to use :'s instead of *'s. When responding to a comment use one more colon than the previous editor used. When starting a new comment simply add it. No need for *'s or :'sDrew Smith What I've done 07:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I'm arguing is against the removal of properly represented sourced material. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • You've basicly hit the nail on the head drew. The Proper name of "Folk" would be The F.O.L.K.S. Nations Alliance. A group of Chicago street gangs united by Larry Hoover and his Gangster Disciples under the six princles represented by the Star of David. When that section says "Members of the Folks Alliance" it doesn't mean freinds of Folks. It means members. Crips are not, never have been, and never will be members of the Chicago based Folks Nation. That's my point. As I've said, I see no real problem with listing something about Crips being allied to Folks. But the way he is listing them, he is calling them members. A common and annoying misconception from the "Folk" (as someone else said on this talk page, Folks is an acrynom) crowd. As for removing his sourced material, that very source doesn't back him up. While it does mention, due to be vastly outnumbered, Crips and Bloods in the south tend to choose sides between the Chicago super gangs. It also goes on to say it's not always the case, and the Crips and Folks are even at war from time to time over drug turf, which actually denies his claim to some kind of panglobal alliance. As for starting the talk at the end of the page, when I made this post I just clicked "Start New Section" and it ended up at the top.
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)[reply]
  • Absolutely no membership in any criminal street gsng. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


From what I can determine, you are arguing over what can be inferred from or attributed to a reliable source. In this case anyway, perhaps a direct quote would do with little comment on context or many contrasting comments attributed to qualifying sources ( " various community groups dispute this official police characterisation "). There may be an issue with the reliability of various sources but a biased source can speak for itself when you need to factually describe someone's opinion- be that the opinion of Ted Turner, George Bush, or the leader of a cult like Jonestown. If you can find a primary source that may be acceptable. For example, " the offical dept of corrections position is that the groups are organized as [], ' direct quote from them ' , but various community groups have published different characterisations of their relationships[local groups citaitons]"

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]


The goal here is to try to describe existing knowledge of the topic. If there is significant documented debate about relevant relationships ( "he said, she said" in reliable form ) or a source can be shown, without original research, to use a term in a qualified, specialized ( say a legal term), idiosyncratic or even incorrect manner, then it is reasonable to reorganize the text to make that clear to the wiki reader. If a section name doesn't capture the situation you can change the name. Again, I don't know enough to comment on the merits, just that you don't need to resolve a conflict, just document that it exists.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


As a member of the Gangster Disciples, the Crips are NOT a part of the Folk Alliance! In many places that we both exist we get along and do have a kind of "treaty" with each other but they are by no means part of the Folks Alliance and for that matter probably never will be either. The Crips and the members of the Alliance get along because we have common enemies. Oh and MS-13 is not a friendly gang to us either. we associate with some Mexican gang, MS are from El Salvador and hate the Mexican gangs in most places especially where I live and get in to it with GDs all the time too.71.150.251.251 (talk) 04:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.150.251.251 (talk) 00:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Congrats on your membership. It still doesn't make you a reliable source. And what your particular set may or may not do is not indicative of the entire organization. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well considering I know who is part of said alliance I would say I'm pretty reliable, at least more than you are as I am actually a part of it and you are not, just a thought. You are no more reliable than anyone you could possible say isn't. The very first link under references will show you that you are wrong as well. IF they are considered part anywhere it is the fault of the police for assuming that. Yeas we do hang out with Crips but in some places there is fighting too. The Crips are a nation/alliance in themselves, they have many different factions similar to the Folk Nation. Until you are a part of something don't assume that you know what you are talking about just because you read it somewhere, it doesn't matter where you read it if you are not a part of either the Crips or Folks you don't actually know. Trust me the police a lot of times think they know but the are assuming a lot of those things.71.150.251.251 (talk) 04:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.150.251.251 (talk) 04:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • and the second link also was put out by the FBI take a look at that one, if you still don't believe myself or anyone else, then sir you are the most ignorant person I have ever talked to. Congrats!71.150.251.251 (talk) 04:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.150.251.251 (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What second link are you talking about? Oh, here is an idea: Learn how to NOT be a dick. You're hardly reliable. Show me where you are published and maybe I'll take you seriously. Until then, the REAL reliable sources used here will be given weight over your limited personal experience. BTW, learn to sign your posts. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The second link under references. For that matter any of them, none of the links on the page show that Crips are part of Folks. I don't know where the link you were talking about before is but none of the ones on this page says anywhere that Crips are a part of Folks. I'm not trying to be a dick but you have argued with just about everyone on this page and I would think at this point maybe you would understand that your "source" is wrong and just admit that that YOU do NOT know everything about gangs. You are not part of one and unless you are you cannot pretend to know what you are talking about. I just think that after this many people have said the same thing over and over that maybe you would do some more research and find out for yourself what is really true and not rely on this ghost link that doesn't exist on this page anymore. I'd be willing to bet you aren't published on the matter either so you can stop that argument there. Post the link in the discussion that you so adamantly abide by on this discussion please, I want to see who actually believes what you are saying is true other than you. I'm just telling you ask ANY Crip, GD, MLD, BD, Royal, or any other FOLKS and they will all give you the same answer as myself. 71.150.251.251 (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone removed the link. What you fail to understand is that I have a reliable source (which will be restored shortly), stating that they are affiliated. None of you have ever brought a reliable source that says they are not. All you (and the others) have done is come in and say "I'm a gang member and I know". Well guess what? That means less than nothing on Wikipedia. Of course I'm not a gang member. You obviously haven't bothered to read this discussion much because I clearly stated that on June 3. I actually have been published on the topic. I will no, however, use it since it provides my name and I have no interest in providing my name to people like you. What you fail to realize here is that your experience isn't universal. The source I used clearly states that in some areas they will align and in others they will oppose each other. (I added that disclaimer to make it simpler.) Just because the conditions are what they are in your limited area doesn't mean it holds true everywhere. Bottom line: Provide a RELIABLE SOURCE that supports your claim that they are never aligned or quit whining about it. Your limited personal observations are useless in the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What you are failing to read apparently is that I have said yes, even in my area we get along and could be classified as "affiliated" BUT that does mean that they are by any means part of Folks. We are friendly in most places but again they are not Folks. I honestly could care less what your name is. I'm not a common thug who starts violence and commits stupid crimes because I think it is cool. We are simply talking in a discussion board and that apparently make everyone so hard all of a sudden. There is no way, sir, that I can believe that you are published on the matter of the Folks without seeing, as you like to point out a lot it seems, PROOF! It seems to me that it was removed because it was not credible. I mean if yours is so much more credible than you might as well delete ALL the links under the references cause that would mean that they are all wrong then huh? Doubtful. The only truly "credible" source on this page that is not a gang member would have to be the FBI and on their page (linked under references) it clearly states the same thing that I am. 71.150.251.251 (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Get something straight. I am using a reliable source. I am not relying on my own expertise or anything I have written. Therefore, I don't need to provide you evidence of anything I've done. My experience isn't being used. Get it? Of course your request (demand) is laughable since you haven't bothered to prove anything except that you don't read policies. The FBI link does NOT say that Crips and Folk are never aligned. It recognizes the considerable influence of the 4, but does not state that Crips and Folk never align and always fight. I made a notation in the article that it is area variable. That should be sufficient. BTW, given what you're trying to put into the article, you really need to read WP:RS. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What you are missing is that I have said many time, some of the gangs from the Folks and the Crips DO get along, mostly where Crips are vastly outnumbered, but they are NOT part of the actual Folks. That is all I, and others, have been trying to get you to realize. Like I said before where I live we get along great with the Crips, but they are not part of the Folks. Yes they are friendly for the most part around the south and midwest and if there was a section started on friendly gangs or something of the such there would be no argument from me or most people if they were in there it's just simply that they are under "List of major gangs under the Folks alliance" which they are not part of. I'll say it again in case you aren't actually reading what I'm typing. Crips are friendly/allies but NOT part of the Folks Alliance. 71.150.251.251 (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's simple. The heading says ALLIANCE. It doesn't say MEMBERSHIP. Crips are frequently aligned with Folk. I provided a reliable source that supports that. I noted that it is area dependant. You have shown no reliable source for anything, let alone that contradicts what I put there. Unless you bring a reliable source, there is nothing left to discuss. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link spam?[edit]

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)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

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)[reply]

No Original Research and NPOV[edit]

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)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

thank you for deleting the earlier vandalism earlier today.

unsourced material[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Content[edit]

This Article used to be long, but now it's short. I think somebody should lengthn it again.--ItsJodo (talk) 02:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

anyone who wants to add appropriate properly sourced information should certainly do so. Properly sourced, according to WP:V. DGG (talk) 04:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop posting that crips are part of the Folk Nation or bloods are part of the People Nation those gangs do not exist in midwestern states especially Chicago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicagofacts (talk • contribs) 22:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AND ITS FOLKS not FOLK. FOLKS please FIX THIS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.30.231 (talk) 08:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The actual name is Folk Nation. "Folks" is a colloquialism. I will add that to the article.Asher196 (talk) 13:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asher,listen. FOLKS is an acroynmn whihc I shall not reveal. The term folk came from Southerners who took away kin outta kinfolk and it is used by rival People (or Brother) Nations as a disrespectful term. Its FOLKS, and its not a "Nation" as it is a alliance of nations. Get yo shit straight kid! Its FOLKS Alliance.

Take a look at this link - chicagogangs.org It uses the term "Folk Nation" many times. Look at this one also - Florida Dept. of Corrections. Asher196 (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your using a website that the info is mostly incorrect. I know an actual GD from CHICAGO and he can tell you the same thing and he from a Renegade deck which I shall not reveal but he can even tell you its FOLKS!!! And its not a nation but its an Alliance. That Folk nation is shit police identify and shit brothers/people gangs use to disrespect folks mobs. Get it right!
If we have it wrong here, then come up with sources to back up your claims. If you need help, try reading WP:CITE, WP:RS Asher196 (talk) 03:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THIS NEEDS TO BE FIXED[edit]

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) Crips are not FOLKS and should not be throwing up the 6 or pitchforks unless the are 473 or 4Trey( Devil Crips aka Triple 6 Crips aka Devil Gangsta Crips) and in that case should not be using the Star of David in any way shade or form. If so they are confused Kansas City originate 8 Ball Crips and should be educated and relieved of their ways.[reply]

Insane GDs are not FOLKS they are are their own nation that originated in Detroit.They adopted the name GD and came to Chicago to expand. Contrary 2 popular belief they are not apart of the Growth and Development movement what so ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.225.82 (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be FOLKS NATION not folk , the S stands for something. BriteD (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And thats right it is an Alliance of gangs not a nation with a leader or board. BriteD (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Factoids[edit]

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)[reply]

  • You think you're educating me. Please stop thinking that. You have to understand something here. It's not about what you or I know, it is what we can SHOW with RELIABLE SOURCES. That is the standard here. There is a lot of stuff I know, but can't show. I have reams of information from the US DOJ that I can't source on here. I have stacks of material from every gang conference I've attended that I can't show here. Seriously, read this WP:Truth and it will put some of this into perspective. Just the first lines should tell you something: Truth is not the criteria for inclusion of any idea or statement in a Wikipedia article, even if it is on a scientific topic. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." I know that sounds strange, but that is how it ends up working here. I don't like it. You probably won't like it. But that's how it is. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • While it's been some time since I posted this, I can't help but notice from your tone you seem to be under the impression this is YOUR page to edit or keep up. Fact of the matter is, I was talking to anyone that felt like doing a write up on it, not you. Tell me Niteshift, if I where to complete redo this page with some actual history and pics and explaining the diffrent factions and all that, would you simply revert it back five minutes later because I didn't list the Crips as members? Or maybe because you seem to think anyone but you changing the page = vandilisim? Actual members of these gangs are screaming at the gates something is wrong, but you keep declaring some old little snipit of a website kind of backups your arguments if you don't read half the article. This is everyone's page to edit and niteshift, whatever creditantials you think you have does not over rule anyone else.
      • Perhaps you should look again. There are several editors that routinely revert unsourced changes. The Crips are sourced as being affiliated as allied with the Folk Nation. You can't just go around removing sourced information without cause. That is called vandalism. I know what my credentials are, so save that line. Everything I've done here is in line with wikipedia policy. Read them, use them, especially the ones about WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:COI. You might even read WP:TRUTH while you are at it. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't you source DOJ? If it is a FOIA request result, it is freely available even if not available via a link. Does wiki require online only or just as a courtesy you have highly controversial results that can't be easily checked online? Primary sources make great references even if you are afraid of original research. Personally, I run into this problem with Dendreon since I've been following them for so long- no hidden sources just my own theories and attitudes. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've used some off-line DOJ material once on another article, but I had to battle to get it used. Other materials are designated as "law enforcement sensitive". It's a low grade classification, but prevents legal reproduction on the web (in other words, I can't upload the file). It could be released under FOIA, but some of the material would be redacted. Frankly, it's more work than I want to do right now. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Crips and Vandalism[edit]

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)[reply]


Why are Crips put back on the list?[edit]

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)[reply]

  • It doesn't matter if there are Crip in Chicago. While the Folk Nation started in Chicago, it's not limited to Chicago, nor do alliances have to be limited only to that local area. The material is referenced. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Yes it does, because if there are no Crips in Chicago how the hell are they part of Folks Nation alliance??? Niteshift seriously stop editing gang wikipedia's since you seriously don't know anything about the subject. To become a part of FOLKS NATION and it's F.O.L.K.S NOT F.O.L.K because it stands for something FOllow all Laws the King Sets the King being Larry Hoover chairman of the Gangster Disciples the guy responsible for making the alliance in Joliet Correctional Facility in Illinois.

To become a part of it every leader from every gang under the Folks alliance in Prison would vote a gang into the alliance. NO ONE VOTED IN THE CRIPS!!! BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT FROM CHICAGO! It's real simple. Crips and Gangster Disciples got confused for one another in other states because they both wear Blue and they're both Black gangs. Crips are not Folks. Whats the point if your giving everyone wrong information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.91.74 (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know plenty about the subject my friend. Again, it doesn't matter if Crips aren't from Chicago. The Folk Nation is not limited to the Chicago area. And it's not Folks. I can provide you plenty of reliable sources, which is what Wikipedia requires, as opposed to your urban legend WP:OR. So far, you haven't contributed a single reliable source to refute the reliable source that is referenced here. All you've done it say "it's not true" and tell everyone what an expert you are. Either follow the policies or stop wasting time. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • it is F.O.L.K.S. and History did an episode of Gangland called Ganster, Inc check that out if you still believe that the Crips are Folks. You will never hear a Crip say to another Crips "what up folks" you will only hear that between members of the actual Folks Alliance. Crips refer to each other as "Crip", "C", or "cuz" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.150.251.251 (talk) 04:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Play all the spelling games etc you want. Reliable sources trump WP:IHEARDOFIT every time. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

F.O.L.K.S.[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Notable alliances[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

The GDs dropped the B years ago. RelatedToMarioPrayer (talk) 09:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bro, there doesn’t need to be a reliable source. It’s called common sense and the fact that the Wikipedia article pertaining to the Gangster Disciples isn’t titled “Black Gangster Disciples.” RelatedToMarioPrayer (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

Why would it need a reliable source when the Wikipedia article “OutLaw Gangster Disciples” says it for you? RelatedToMarioPrayer (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it need a reliable source when the Wikipedia article “OutLaw Gangster Disciples” says it for you? RelatedToMarioPrayer (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Folk 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 13:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to add gangs[edit]

I’ve tried repeatedly to add known valid street gangs from Chicago and for some reason some gangs that don’t even exist in the folk alliance are still here but others are not PickleJeuce (talk) 04:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The section you are trying to add names to, "Major sets", has two potential problems. First, the source cited in that section is -- as it says -- a "1995 report from the Florida Department of Corrections' Security Threat Intelligence Unit". If the set is not in that source, it cannot be added to that section unless you find and cite a reliable source for it.
Second up is the title, "Major sets". Wikipedia has a lot of lists. Some, by there nature are comprehensive: a list of the mayors of Philadelphia should list all of them, even the ones from the early 18th century who served for just a year as a figurehead. Others couldn't possibly by comprehensive: we wouldn't want a list of everyone from New York City. In this case, we have no way to know that we have listed every set (it's not like they have an official website listing members), so the question becomes which ones to list. Unless there is a sourced reason for inclusion, we generally go with "notability". Much like List of people from New York City lists only those people from NYC who have articles, this list of "Major sets" lists only those sets that A) have a source saying they are a set of Folk Nation and B) have their own article. - SummerPhDv2.0 14:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. Just because they exist doesn't mean they get added. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gangsters the real one[edit]

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)[reply]

That true cause you can't get nothing out me and you can't tell me I ain't no Gangster. 

Poohg333 (talk) 00:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Folk_Nation&oldid=1204698819"