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 articles
This article is part of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed library of criminal-related biographical articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized crime, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organized crime 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.Organized crimeWikipedia:WikiProject Organized crimeTemplate:WikiProject Organized crimeOrganized crime articles
Post-Revolution, "Miami Cubans", Bay of Pigs, JFK section
This section neeeds a real serious edit because it reads like it was written by a JFK assassination conspiracy nut. There's no citations and the biggest tell is that it lists Clay Shaw as the only person "convicted" by Jim Garrison in the JFK assassination. This of course is false because Claw Shaw was the only person prosecuted NOT convicted. In fact, he was acquitted. Other little trivia like how many people believe there was a conspiracy are unsourced as well as irrelevant to an article on Myer Lansky. Whoever wrote this has an obvious agenda.John Simpson54 (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Under "Sexual blackmail operations and J. Edgar Hoover", the contributions regarding Lansky's connection to Roy Cohn (i.e., Cohn as Lansky's protégé) appear to be contrived, and cited sources mention no connection between Cohn and Lansky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
The article shows 219,307 pageviews (30 days), which means the article has a lot of traffic. It has sourcing issues from as far back as 2016, with an unresolved multiple issues "Cuba" section tag concerning additional sources (2019) and neutrality (2017), and such a large amount of unsourced content that either had to come from somewhere (See: WP:UNSOURCED) or is original research.
Appendices: The "In popular culture" is very large and has sourcing issues. The "Further reading" section also has some sourcing issues and could be trimmed. The "External links" section has 11 entries which are far more than that which is commonly accepted per WP:ELPOINTS #3 and WP:LINKFARM.
There are policy issues (regardless of page views) that need to be resolved to conform to current practices which would include additional sourcing or being trimmed accordingly. The article "multiple issues" tag is certainly warranted and far more "visible", than section or inline tags that have so far shown to be ineffective. -- Otr500 (talk) 07:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
There are coatrack-type issues as well. The entire "Post-revolution, "Miami Cubans", Bay of Pigs, JFK" section, while it looks referenced, has no evident connection to Lansky. The talk about the Kennedy assassination and the Bay of Pigs is just totally disconnected from Lansky. The article really needs a close reading. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
As Meyer Lansky was born in Russia/Belarus, I am mentioning it in the article lede, as is standard for almost any other biographical article on the site. See Lucky Luciano, for example. As Meyer's nationality is complicated (born in Russia, now Belarus, considers himself from Poland) I am open to suggestions on how to present it, but one user's hasty revert does not consistute a 'consensus' against presenting basic facts about a person, as suggested. So unless there is a better argument than none at all, I don't plan on waiting long for permission to make such a basic edit. Please let me if you have a reason why it shouldn't be included. 2600:8800:2396:4600:8D8C:8063:B34D:3FAD (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Somebody whose family emigrated from Poland when they were a child, whose life was lived in the United States and whose notoriety was gained there, should be described as "Polish"? It's up to you to find consensus for such an outlandish assertion. Luciano at least retained strong ties to Italy and Italian mobsters and was born and died there, how did Lansky have anything to do with Poland/Belarus/Russia after the family came to the United States? See WP:NATIONALITY. I'm open to better wording acknowledging Polish heritage, but Lansky should not be implied to be Polish. Acroterion(talk) 16:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
That 'outlandish asertion' (sic) is how he's referred to in the source, i.e. "A Polish Jew born in the Russian Pale of Settlement..." You might not agree, but you're not a reliable source.
(edit conflict) the reverted wording I believe was "Polish-born figure in American crime". Doesn't that satisfy acknowledging his heritage without calling him Polish?2600:8800:2396:4600:8D8C:8063:B34D:3FAD (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
I would prefer "an American crime figure of Polish birth," which is consistent with standard practice, is better style, and which gives appropriate acknowledgement to his nationality, notability, and birth. Acroterion(talk) 16:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Also, the lead paragraph summarizes the rest of the article, and isn't normally referenced at all, so leaning solely on the Britannica reference (a tertiary source, which is a bit odd) doesn't follow how articles should be organized.However, the sourcing for the article in general seems disorganized and a bit scanty for such a notable person.Acroterion(talk) 17:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
That works for me. I would only ask that we move the Britannica source to the end of that sentence and not the middle. The current phrasing and placement of the source seems to suggest that it's being used to support calling him American. While I don't disagree that Lansky was American, but if anything the source specifies otherwise, so it seems an inappropriate citation in its current placement. If that works for you, feel free to make the change or I'll get around to it shortly. Thank you. 2600:8800:2396:4600:8D8C:8063:B34D:3FAD (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)