Talk:United Blood Nation

Untitled
bloob ecuador fujitivo encargado del norte

WTF
Why do people keep deleting mass amounts of info? It is retarded. I fixed this page last night, then I log in not even 8 hours later and 6 different sections (history, identifiers, territory, etc.) are all gone. And if you are deleting it because it isn't referenced properly or something, then why don't you reference it yourself, instead of just deleting mass amounts of info. But jeeze, like half the page is gone. Crew90 (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(B/C It's Bullshyt) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.14.120.252 (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

gangster miller blood
gangter miller bloods are real right in east harlem

the number of bloods on the eastcoast is highly wrong only 5,000 from nyc to miami come on do some more research the actuall numbers are 70,000. I spent 9 months on rikers island and the bloods alone outnunber every gang on the island all togethor and have a stronghold thats is stronger than the latin kings hold previously. You forgot to mention that the latin kings arent a street gang anymore they were dismantled and the bloods were a big reason to thisl.

Harlem4lif3"


 * Your personal experience is worthless on here, as is mine. It's only what you can prove. Find a source for this 70,000 number. Also, you are localizing your info. While the Latin Kings may not be a factor in your area, they are in other areas of the country. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

all i have to say is i honestly find nearly evere thing about the ubn to very vice lord like and not very blood like —Preceding unsigned comment added by Insert account (talk • contribs) 19:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC) There realy is no real determination of how many ubn bloods there are because no doubt the east coast has a lot of bloods but not all of them are ubn bloods the ubn is very old and a lot of the original sets no longer exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolmgeorge37 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Um, what?!
The first paragraph ends rather abruptly: "In 1995, a meeting between OG's of the West Coast and East Coast had a meeting, and said that there are no just West Coast Bloods and East Coast Bloods, but Bloods. This is one of the messages from The Game's"

Anyone know where the rest of the sentence/paragraph is???

As it stands, this article is atrocious, and should be recommended for deletion, imo. Kailey elise (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

@Miller Bloods topic
You food and Millers wasn't put of the UBN at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloods gang (talk • contribs) 14:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are trying to say. I think you mean "fool" instead of "food". The article doesn't say anything about "Millers" (or anything that you might have meant). In any case, the version you created used a broken link as a source. The domain used (enterthebabylonsystem.com) doesn't work and you didn't give a name for the source, so there is no way for anyone to actually find what you are attempting to link to. The only archive I can find for the domain is a blog. Blogs are not reliable sources. Your version associates several named individuals with criminal behavior. We would need very solid sources for this, per our policy on biographies of living persons. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

"Triangular shaped circle"?
What the heck is that? Hah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.230.243.230 (talk) 17:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced content/unexplained reverts
Another editor or editors (using various IPs and suggesting several nicknames) have been copying and pasting various versions of this article, claiming that they are correct and other versions are wrong.

Discussion on my talk page hasn't been productive so far.

All of the versions have a mix of sourced and unsourced info. The main body of the article currently contains zero sources.

Articles such as this typically attract a lot of unsourced material and unexplained changes for various reasons. I am proposing to end that. For openers, I am collecting sources from the versions that have been showing up.

I will use this to shore up the infobox, removing any material I cannot source. Next is the main body of the article. As there is nothing sourced, there is nothing verifiable. I will start with a mere prose regurgitation of the infobox, adding in whatever other info I find along the way. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Sources currently used
I have not currently checked any of these to see if they are available, reliable or on-topic. Please do not edit the list; comment on the sources by number.

1)

2) (duplicate of #1)

3) }}
 * ethnic makeup      = Primarily African- American

4)

5) (duplicate of #1)

6)

7)

8)

9)

10)

11)

12)

13)

14)

15)

16) History of the Bloods and United Blood Nation

17) Bloods at Knowgangs.com

Please comment. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Source 1 has no information, other than random forum comments. There is nothing there that is usable.


 * Source 2 is a duplicate of source 1. No help.


 * Source 3 seems to be a copy of a partially redacted USDOJ report. I have used it to build what is there now, but stopped when I looked a bit closer. We do not have an original of the report or a copy (redacted or otherwise) from a reliable source. We have what is purportedly a copy of a report from a highly questionable source, cryptome.org. I have asked for input at the WP:RSN. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 15:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * While a USDOJ report would be reliable, this copy is not. Cryptome directly states that they do not attempt to verify that the files they receive are correct. As a result, we have no way of knowing if the file there is merely a copy of a USDOJ report, a doctored version of the report or altogether fake.


 * For the moment, I have left all of the information from the source in, removing all of the cites. After reviewing all of the other sources, I will remove anything the remains uncited. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 22:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Source 4 is self-published and essentially useless for this article. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 23:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Source 5 is a duplicate of source 1. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 23:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Source 6 is a duplicate of source 3. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 00:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Source 7 looks good. I've added the little info available there. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Source 8 is from a vanity publisher, clearly not a reliable source. Heck, they couldn't be bothered to capitalize proper nouns. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Source 9 is apparently reliable but says virtually nothing about the gang. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Source 10 looks to be reliable and has a bit of info. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 00:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There wasn't a whole lot there. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 00:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Source 1: Streetgangs.com isn't a RS.
 * Source 3 is a legit publication. It can be properly cited as an offline source if you are uncomfortable with the site hosting it.
 * Source 8: Agree, it's not a RS.
 * Source 11: One of the most over used sources I've seen in gang articles, but still a RS
 * Source 12: Wasn't a RS when it wasn't a junk site.
 * Source 16 isn't coming up for me.
 * Source 17 also isn't coming up, but knowgangs was never reliable before. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Source 11 does seem to be reliable. Unfortunately, the cite for it will be pretty crappy. All I can come up with is "unsigned, undated. Sampson County Sheriff's Office, "Gang Profile - United Blood Nation". Accessed May 17, 2017. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 00:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with 's assessment of source 12. Based on this archived page from the site, I see nothing to backup the authorship claims and nothing to indicate it is a reliable source whether the claimed authors wrote it. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Source 13 is a copy of source 8. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Source 14 is a copy of source 9. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Source 15 is a copy of source 10. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Source 16, based on this archived copy, is apparently self-published. Though it seems to say it is a "book summary", no book title is mentioned. No help. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It would appear to fail V, wouldn't it? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It really doesn't clearly say what it is. Every indication is that it is a self-published source and of no use here. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Source 17 is available as an archived page here. An archived copy of the "About" page isn't promising. Other than crediting the company to "Jared Lewis" and vague mentions of the company's trainers, they ask you to contact them for more info. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Wrap up
I've been through all of the sources that I could find having been used in the article within the recent past. As detailed above, most of those sources were not reliable.

What is here now is reliably sourced. Undoubtedly, there will be unsourced and poorly sourced changes to the article that we will need to continue reverting. Such is Wikipedia.

Disagreements and discussion about the reliability of sources, my interpretation of what they say, etc. are welcome. Changes based on "I know" claims are not. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)