Talk:Havana Conference

message: Inaccuracy: Batista was not the president of Cuba in 1946-47, when the events in the article supposedly take place, and as it is stated in the Sections 
"Background" and "Lucky and Don Vito". Batista can be described as ex-president, and at the time he was in voluntary self-exile in the United States, as he felt that the government of Dr. Grau did not offer guarantees for his personal safety. Batista was the strong man in virtual power in Cuba in 1934-1940, then elected president of Cuba in 1940-1944, and then after a coup d'etat he ruled the country again in 1952-1958. So, there is no way that Batista could halt exports to the United States to protect his supposed associate Luciano, as stated (without any references) in this article. --Jgarch (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Batista

message: this article has turned into a bad joke.. the author uses two fictionalized books "The Last Testamment" and "War of the Godfathers" as primary sources... this thing probably needs to be torn down and restarted at this point  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.20.97 (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fictionalized books

message: Article has been vandalized. —This unsigned comment was added by 200.159.136.120 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 24 March, 2006.
:In what way, and by whom? AnnH ♫ 23:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: This article implies that Siegel was murdered with a rifle, but his page give the murder weapon as a WW2 pistol. 124.185.79.206 06:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bugsy 

message: This article is interesting but doesn't give even a hint as to its sources. There are references, but in an article of this length and detail there really needs to be footnotes.--Mantanmoreland 22:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources? 

message: This article is terribly written. Spelling mistakes, typos, garbled grammar - normally I would make a few changes to help but this is ridiculous. It defies imagination that someone could 'contribute' this article without being more conscientious. Moreover, the 'tale' told here rings like mythology, wherefore the comment immediately below rings very true. This article seems to be the work of an uneducated, sloppy, semi-illiterate fanboy.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.1.120.22 (talk) 02:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, except for the invective. It needs a lot of work and I have no idea where this article came from. I am tempted to nom it for deletion, but I would like to give the creator of the article an opportunity to provide sourcing.--Mantanmoreland 04:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This article is hopelessly unreadable. One of the authors, Little Joe Shots, in fact tries to rewrite the history of the American Cosa Nostra (or rather his version of it) and does not limit himself to the actual Havana conference. He also does not mention his sources, does not check his grammar and spelling, nor has the courtesy to properly wikify the links. -- Mafia Expert 23:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My main concern is accuracy. I'd like to know where all this stuff comes from. If it can't be verified I think it might have to be reluctantly nominated for deletion. That is usually not done for articles that have been around for a while, however.--Mantanmoreland 17:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly, all very poor and unreliable sources. I really think some kind of action has to be taken, this guy is not only trashing this article, but others as well, the Apalachin Conference for instance. Moreover, he does not respond to questions about his sources or requests to do something about his grammar and spelling. -- Mafia Expert 19:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooops... almost edit conflict. I share Mafia Expert's concerns. The "references" section is actually a bibliography. What's needed are references within the text, showing what portion of the article is attributable to what book. Since this is a historical event, journalistic mentions of the Havana conference sixty years later -- probably using this article as a source -- are not good enough. Ditto for May for the same reason. As I said, I don't favor deleting this article, and would much prefer finding sources and inserting them as footnotes.--Mantanmoreland 19:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, in fairness to Little Joe Shots, the article took shape long before he arrived on the scene. The original author was an IP. --Mantanmoreland 19:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terribly Written 

message: The information on this page about Lansky's involvement in the Flamingo contradicts that found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamingo_Las_Vegas. The Siegel page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_%22Bugsy%22_Siegel also suggests Siegel initiated the plan. Anyone possess knowledge of which version is correct? Ericoides 11:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haven't the foggiest. Good question, as neither of these two lengthy articles you mention cite their sources. --Mantanmoreland 15:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Flamingo hotel

message: This article was originally rated as B on the assessment scale. I changed it to Stub for the following reasons: (1) it does not give any references; (2) the 'tale' told here rings like mythology; (3) despite the efforts of some courageous editors it is still unreadable. - Mafia Expert 21:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have up the assessment rating to Start class because the article is now readable. However, it is lacking inline citations and has multiple cleanup issues. The article is likely to say around this rating until reliable inline citations are able verify the statements made. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: ovA_165443 (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy

message: ovA_165443 (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy