Talk:Dutch Schultz

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

Famous last words[edit]

I'd come across the famous a boy has never wept...nor dashed a thousand kin--though not from Burroughs, whom I don't take seriously. I felt they were worth adding, but also a sample of the other rubbish he talked. --GwydionM 18:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason the article says 'a boy has never wept, nor dashed a thousand kim' which didn't make much sense to me... I'll change it. VenomousConcept (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it back. Please don't "correct" direct quotes without verifying that your "correction" matches the original text. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No citation[edit]

There's no citation to his birthplace. This article generally has a lot of flaws and a lack of citation too. It seems pretty common in these mobster articles. TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Edit needed regarding Dewey assassination plot[edit]

The article currently says, "While some Commission members, including Albert Anastasia and Jacob Shapiro, supported Schultz's proposal, the majority were against it on the basis that the full weight of the authorities would come down on them if they were to murder Dewey, and they voted unanimously against the proposal." First, it says that some Commission members supported it. Then it says that they were all unanimous in their opposition to it. Which is it? 12.155.58.181 (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Born 1902 or 1901?[edit]

This edit changed 1902 to 1901, but without an edit summary or any citation. Which year is correct and why? -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 09:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=flegenheimer&GSbyrel=all&GSdyrel=all&GSob=n&GRid=109456786&df=all&

Find a Grave says he was born 1895 24.184.171.144 (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Schultz's Judaism[edit]

It is a defining characteristic of him throughout his life as one of the more famous members of the Jewish Mafia at a time when they existed independently, or Italian gangs worked alongside or among significant Jewish figures within their associated ranks. These people would always be identified as Jewish Gangsters. In the contemporary press and in the reams and reams of literature after the fact, still published today. That he converted to Roman Catholicism at his deathbed is a mere footnote. This is ignoring the issue of Jewishness as an ethnicity as well as a religion. Even if he were a famous Baptist gangster who converted to RC at death, his lede should still say he was Baptist, no? There already is enough ink given to his trivial death-bed conversion, but he was raised Jewish, he was perceived as Jewish, and he identified as Jewish. The fact that this IP editor thinks this is a problem speaks about their NPOV or anti-Semitic issues. To wit, same IP has made edits to downsize the Jewishness of Arnold Rothstein as well. The fact this IP user has now started posting on my Talk Page accusing me of having a Pro-Jewish POV is not only humorous, but also indicative of the type of "Jews control all media" paranoia which lends credence to the idea of dismissing this IP editor's edits entirely. JesseRafe (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"To be honest with you, you want Dutch Schultz to be Jewish because you are probably Jewish, to be honest with you. If you were not Jewish, you really don't care if Dutch Schultz was Jewish. The reason is you are afraid that Jews are abandoning the Jews and becoming Christian. Here is a number of problems with the article. I'm ok of Schultz's Jewishness, but inserting Jewish-German Jewish, Romanian Jewish. The problem with Jewish editors is this:

- They always emphasize being "Jew" and "Jewish"

- They never say "Jewish-German" instead like "German-Jewish" because the most important thing is being "Jewish" and make sure the word "Jewish" is the last word on the articles and categories.

- They never want to identify Jews into one country like Germany, so they always say "German-Jewish," "Ukrainian-Jewish", "Romanian-Jewish" because identifying Jews into like Ukraine would make them more Ukrainian because they might absorb. Right? Is that correct?

You are Jewish friend, and you are working from a pro-Jewish point of view, and I'm just countering that. You are POV editor. Don't act like you are innocent. 4.35.70.123 (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This clear bigotry unambiguously stated I am taking as license to revert all edits by this user, irrespective of 3RR until an admin can finally do something. JesseRafe (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You will be reported to Wikpedia admins and have your account blocked and don't use sockpuppetry. I'm not being bigoted, I'm stating the truth, which you don't like. You don't have any license, don't think you have license to begin with? What license? You are reverting stuff. I'm not reverting anything.
Work with the editor and get 50%. You can't get 100% and the other one gets 0%. Work with it, edit it a little bit and move on. You are being absolutist right now. I'm open to some change.

4.35.70.123 (talk) 18:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this and don't have the time to review it in detail, but am going to take it to WP:ANI for review. Both of you should please consider this a notification accordingly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note discussion on WP:ANI#Dutch Schultz and Arnold Rothstein and a second topic below WP:ANI#Dispute and comments on Talk:Dutch Schultz Jim1138 (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dutch Schultz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murder Weapons[edit]

It always is said that the two pistols used were a .38 revolver and a 45 automatic. I found this pic of the supposed weapons, which show a Colt New Service and a S&W .44 special or model of 1917. Not the three expended shotgun shells. Don't know if the photo is not just from another gangland killing and was mismatched with the schultz murder, but I think it might be legit looking at the collection it is with plus it shows two handguns with shot shells which matches the killings, AND I always thought it would be difficult using rust coated bullets in a semi auto, and naturally one would use them in a revolver so that the chance of jamming decreases. Just my two cents. -Anonymous 15:36 03 April 2017

Image is halfway down the page, labeled as weapons used to shot Schultz and his associates. http://www.deathhousebarber.com/photo_gallery/Mobsters_and_Molls.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.8.89.86 (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This would be "original research" as one editor's anonymous opinion of what a weapon looks like doesn't count as a source. If someone wrote a published material that stated this, it would be includable here. Thanks. JesseRafe (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dutch Schultz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dutch_Schultz&oldid=1208708452"