| Revision as of 14:38, 10 September 2015 editJesseRafe (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users71,492 edits →Dutch Schultz's Judaism: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:01, 10 September 2015 edit undo4.35.70.123 (talk) →Dutch Schultz's JudaismNext edit → | ||
| Line 129: | Line 129: | ||
| It is a defining characteristic of him throughout his life as one of the more famous members of the ] 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 ] 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. ] (]) 14:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC) | It is a defining characteristic of him throughout his life as one of the more famous members of the ] 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 ] 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. ] (]) 14:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :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 are this: | |||
| 1. They always emphasize being "Jew" and "Jewish" | |||
| 2. 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. | |||
| 3. 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? ] (]) 16:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
Revision as of 16:01, 10 September 2015
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dutch Schultz article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cleanup
Noting the obvious that this article needs a cleanup for style, organization and content. Eusebeus 11:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Dead link
The link to Schultz's last words is dead. Kakashi64 16:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Style
I would suggest that phrases such as "on that fatefull night" and "oozing faintly" are not appropriate in an encyclopedia format and have removed them —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seveb (talk • contribs) 04:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Also "ballot box stuffing" has nothing to do with the Restaurant extortion racket —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seveb (talk • contribs) 04:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Some guy wanted to note this
I did a google search and came accross very dirty article. I noted that the wiki article has left his use of germs to make a poor man blind. It may be controversal to introduce that fact though.
The guy's name was Joe Rock, another gangster. Schultz didn't use germs, he had Joe Rock strung up by his thumbs, and then he (Schultz) smeared a piece of gauze with discharge from a gonhorrea infection that he had and taped the gauze over Rock's eyes. Rock wasn't found for over a day and by the time they got him to a hospital he'd gone blind. Schultz later said that he didn't expect it'd take his men that long to come for him. The germs case you're thinking about occurred at a meeting when someone made a snide remark about not wanting to be around Schultz (who had the flu at the time), so Schultz went over to the guy, grabbed him by the shirt collar, and coughed into his face. A few days later the guy was diagnosed with the flu. 70.243.32.96 00:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- The guy in question in that story would be Joe Adonis and it actually never happened. It was an event in "the Last Testament of Lucky Luciano" which has been proven to be a falsified autobiography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.252.167 (talk • contribs)
Famous last words
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)
- The link to the last words is broken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.234.243.2 (talk • contribs)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Identity of "Piggy" and his Role in Schultz's Murder
The section of this article under the heading, "Death," describes the third participant in Schultz's murder as " . . . a third, unidentified man known only by his alias "Piggy. . . It is unknown whether "Piggy" was armed, if he fired any bullets, or if he was simply the getaway driver."
In his excellent book, Bummy Davis vs. Murder, Inc.: The Rise and Fall of the Jewish Mafia and an Ill-Fated Prizefighter (New York: St. Martin's, 2003), author Ron Ross answers these questions. His story is that Murder, Inc. needed an experienced driver who knew his way around Newark, to drive the getaway car for the assigned hitmen, Charlie "The Bug" Workman and Emmanuel "Mendy" Weiss. A small-time, Brooklyn mob-affiliated hoodlum named Willie "Big Gangy" Davidoff (incidentally, the older brother of Al Davis, the protagonist of the book), recommended they hire a self-employed truck driver named Seymour "Piggy" Schecter for this job. Davidoff was acquainted with Schecter because he (Schechter) took and delivered produce orders for the neighborhood pushcart operators and greengrocers under Davidoff's "protection" rackets. Apparently Schechter had earned the nickname Piggy because he spent most of his day driving his truck from farms directly to the markets in different neighborhoods all around New York and New Jersey (i.e., "this little piggy went to market . . . "). Schechter was not affiliated with the mob but was fascinated with the gangster life and jumped at the opportunity to rub elbows with real hit-men and take part in the murder of so infamous a mob figure as Schultz, without getting himself directly in danger.
The job turned out to be fatal for Piggy anyway, because immediately after the shooting Weiss jumped into the car and ordered Piggy to drive off without Workman. The next day, after Workman had made his own way back to Brooklyn, he complained to the "board" of Murder, Inc. that he had been abandoned by Weiss and Piggy at the crime scene, an offense punishable by death. Despite Piggy's protestations that he was only following Weiss's orders, the board decided he was more expendable than Weiss. Therefore, Weiss was "acquitted" and Piggy instead ended up being tortured to death by Murder, Inc., as punishment for this "crime." Dave in Milwaukee 01:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Internal links
The link to "Julie Martin" in this article is not to the gangster who is referred to in the article but to a character from the Australian soap "Neighbours".
That to "Charles Workman" seems equally bogus, connecting as it does to a British theatrical personality who died in 1923, twelve years before the events described in the "Dutch Schultz" article.
Also, the link to "Schultz's last words" is broken.
Jason Finch 20:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Death scene very off..
People who update these pages should do their own research rather than quoting error filled accounts by others. Experienced crime experts know that Schultz was in fact shot mistakenly by his own men. That explained why his men had a different caliber of bullet than Schultz himself, who had the type of bullets his men would have been using in him. The laytout of the restaurant supports this since the shooter likely would have been standing between the bathroom door and the tabel where Schultz's men were sitting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.252.167 (talk • contribs)
- No, you can't. WP:NOR. --Mantanmoreland 14:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
10/12/2006 - I changed the wording of the argument that Schultz was killed by his own men to a more professional, encyclopedic style. "This is all wrong" should be a comment in the discussion page, not in the body of the article itself. If you have a differing opinion than the one that has been previously entered in the article it should be presented in a courteous, non-derogatory manner. Additionally, any counter-claim should be supported by evidence in the form of citations and, whenever possible, the inclusion of non-copyrighted material (see article Misplaced Pages:Citation templates). rallymonkee 12:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
ALSO the murder of the 5 year old boy actually had nothing at all to do with Vince Coll or Dutch Schultz. If you read the newspaper articles and trial documents (you can search the NY times database), you find that the confusion began when a burgler decided to tell the police he knew who did the crime to escape conviction. He said it was members of the Vince Coll gang, but identified Mike Coppola (a Luciano man). Schultz's name became involved because they say in the initial article that the men were looking for Joey Rao whow as falsely assumed to be a Schultz man(he also worked for Luciano).
Admittedly Copolla had shot Rao a year earlier during the masseria-maranzano mafia war when they were on opposite sides. But anyway the man shot at was one Anthony Trobino an alleged narcotics dealer, which just adds to the notion it was a Luciano affair. Joey Rao wasn't even present. In an ironic twist Joey Rao and Mike Coppola would go on to become great friends and co-defendants in a murder case years later.
- I took out the unsourced paragraph about Schultz being shot by his own men, as it was never sourced. The only authoritative source, Sann's bio, makes no reference to it. If it can be sourced, it can go back in, but it can't be original research.--Mantanmoreland 14:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Can't be original research? The problem with that is that Sann and others don't do research and thus wikipedia is constantly made fun of because it frequently permits highly inaccurate articles, especially on this subject.
Paul Sann is no authority... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.86.116.65 (talk • contribs)
Who Shot Schultz?
It would be good if someone could dig out the Police report from the time, or perhaps a Newspaper report. There are no other "authoritative sources" because gangsters are self serving liars who's versions of events cannot be relied upon. We are therefore left to deduce what we can from the physical evedence.
Leaving aside the shotgun, as all the dozen or so bullets found in Shultz men were .38 calibre it would seem reasonable to say that their assailants were armed only with .38's. Schultz was the only person hit by a .45. Schultz men were armed with .45's, therefore it is not unreasonable to suggest that Schultz was shot accidentaly by one of his men as they tried to drive off their assailants. Severely wounded, they were only functioning on blind rage and instinct, coming out of the back room firing at anything that moved. If Schultz happened to appear at the door of the urinal at the same time, it could have happened that way. It would be strange and ironic, but reality is often stranger than fiction. However the fact that there was a second bullet found that could only have been fired from inside the mensroom is what really blows this theory out of the water
It is also easy to pick holes in Weiss' version of events, as passed down to us. He apparently claims Workman shot the man at the urinal before attacking the men in the back room, which would have removed any element of surprise, yet they were shot in the back. Also He claims Workman went back to frisk Schultz body for money and yet Schultz still had a significant amount of money on his person when he reached the hospital.
So really we are left to form a consensus of what seems most likely to have happened Seveb 07:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
There is a story that Schultz was asked by the police, 'Who shot you, Dutch?' The reply was something like, 'I ain't never been shot.' Is this spurious? Anyone know?
sources?
Unless I'm missing something, this article doesn't cite any of its sources. I'm skeptical that there's NO published general consensus about Schultz's death, so I'm gonna try to find something that can be used for this article. Until then, I'm gonna tag it with 'unreferenced article'. Jodamn 02:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Observation
The image of Schultz's (Fleggenheimer) grave shows small pebbles/rocks on the headstone, three on the left (as well as several in the grass) and one on the right. This is a Jewish custom when visiting a grave site; it suggests one or more persons linked to them personally had been to the grave within a year of the photograph's date. Does anyone have any information on this? Shir-El too 16:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Tax troubles language...
The section of "tax troubles" is written using lingo and generally conversational language.
I cleaned up some language, but it needs more work. Anyone who is keen will be able to see what I mean.
Regards,
S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diggers (talk • contribs) 05:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Famous last words discrepancy
The wiki quotes him as saying, "Oh, Oh, dog Biscuit, and when he is happy he doesn't get snappy."
The external link (http://www.feastofhateandfear.com/archives/dutch.html) quotes him as saying, "Oh, oh, dog biscuits and when he is happy he doesn't get happy."
Septantrionalis 21:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Dutch Schultz in Movies Ommission--216.173.59.13 (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
For some reason there is no reference to the movie "Portrait of a Mobster". It is an autobiography (albeit very fictionalized) of the life of Dutch Schultz. Vic Morrow of The Television series "Combat" played Dutch Schultz. He famously was killed along with two children on the set of "Twilight Zone; The Movie".
No citation
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).
Edit needed regarding Dewey assassination plot
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)
Born 1902 or 1901?
This edit changed 1902 to 1901, but without an edit summary or any citation. Which year is correct and why? -- Jack of Oz 09:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Dutch Schultz's Judaism
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)
- 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 are this:
1. They always emphasize being "Jew" and "Jewish" 2. 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. 3. 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? 4.35.70.123 (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
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.
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- B-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Start-Class Crime-related articles
- Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- Start-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- Start-Class FBI articles
- Mid-importance FBI articles
- WikiProject FBI articles
- WikiProject United States articles