Talk:Westies

Revisions Made / Revisions Needed

In terms of revisions needed, there needs to be a disambiguation article identifying these three: Westie criminal gang of New York; Westie criminal gang of Dublin, Ireland; Westie as synonym for dog breed West Highland White Terrier.

There also needs to be far more material on who the Westies were and what they did that made them notorious. When I found the stub, it contained just a little about the end of the gang. I was able to clarify and expand that, and add a little of the history of the gang's origin. However, I did not cover specifics of the gang's most horrific activities (gruesome murders, among other things) which ought to be here. The fate of the incarcerated Westies should be covered in more detail also.

In terms of revisions made, I altered this stub to more accurately reflect the double-crosses between the leaders of the Westies that resulted in the gang's 1985 demise, based on the detailed history in "Paddy Whacked" by T.J. English. I also pulled the unverifiable tangential reference to 1930's Vincent "Mad Dog" Coll as a "lone gangster" and an early Westie. I could find nothing to indicate that he used the Westie name and I could find material indicating he worked with crew, not alone. -- Lisasmall 04:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, this article needs to be distinguished from the slang term of Westies, as used in Australasia. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 07:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

NOTICE

The next time someone erases half of the entire page, please leave some justification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.142.210.188 (talk • contribs)

members

Can articles be made for the Mobsters in the westies members section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Rowe (talk • contribs)

Irish???

Unless somebody is actually born in Ireland, could the word Irish-American be used? The word Irish gets flung around irresponsibly by Irish-Americans whose ancestors were undoubtedly Irish, but whose culture and lifestyle is decidedly American.

Secondly, some of the style of this article leaves much to be desired; phrases like "on the lamb" may not be understood by a reader who is not familiar with the slang of this milieu!--PeadarMaguidhir 19:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Despite being highly Americanized, it is important to identify them as Irish-American. At this point in New York City’s criminal underworld, nationality was usually a given. Ethnicity, however, often provided extensive influence for cultural division. During the 1970s, Manhattan was a collage of unassimilated ethnic enclaves where cultural differences displayed by the original immigrant groups were preserved through strong community tradition.

For instance, while living in a American neighborhood that has fiercely resisted all outside influence since the potato famine still won’t make you culturally identical to an off-the-boat Irishmen. It is guaranteed to make you a lot different from the unassimilated equivalents of other ethnicities (for example: Americans of Italian heritage living in NYC’s Little Italy will be a little different).

No one is trying to say these people are completely culturally Irish, just that their Irish ancestry has shaped their identity enough to distinguish themselves from Americans of other ethnic heritages.

Oh, and read the Wiki page on Irish-American for more on this definition. Thedeparted123 04:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct, many of the gangs self identify with various ethnicities and this often had more to do with the culture of the gang or area in which they opperated rather than direct blood ties.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ryan Houser?

Who came up with this stuff? It has to get deleted. Pretty much the whole page needs to be redone. Radonjich has been seen and the part about his disappearance is completely untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.112.134.125 (talk) 05:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop editing text

The fact that the Westies dismembered and tortured people to death has been documented in three books. "The Westies and "Paddy Whacked" by TJ English, and "the five families" by Selwyn Raab. So when it's put back in the bio, LEAVE IT THERE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.1.202 (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

No, you provide a proper citation or forget it. Either way, it does not belong in the lede. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 03:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course it belongs in the lede, it is part of the lead in story, I did a whole paper on the Westies I know thier history back to front. You have never even studied them. I put in the requisite information and citations, and will change this post daily if I have to .SO IF YOU WANT TO ,PLAY THIS GAME WE CAN DO IT ALL DAY LONG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.1.202 (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You clearly do not know how to write nor how to edit properly. If you continue to add this information, I will get an administrator involved. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 03:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I write just fine, and far better then you, get an administrator involved, I will keep on changing this article since I have done so in the proper way, unlike your edits which are based on a guy who knows nothing about his topic. If you don't know that the Westies dismembered and tortured thier victims you haven't even read the "Westies" book by TJ English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.1.202 (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Editing out the personal attack was probably a good idea. I'm kind of confused here. Why do you refuse to properly cite the material you are adding? If it is correct, wouldn't just doing things the right way be the best way to go? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia and am trying to cite the pages corectly, but am unsure of how to do it. If Republican Jacobite would help instead of being a jerk about it and not even allowing me to put in well known info then we could solve this problem. I am editing one small part of the page whic I know to be true from the books I have mentioned, isn't that what Wikipedia isall about...accurate info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.1.202 (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• To be blunt, when you start talking about how much better you write and screaming (via all caps) about how you can do this (an edit war) all day long, you start losing the "I need help" card. In any case, you would probably do well to read WP:CITE. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This is the disputed passage from the lede:

According to the books "Paddy Whacked" by T. J. English, and "The Five Families" by Selwyn Raab, most Westies victims were dismembered and in some cases tortured to death.

Can we hash this out here and be done with it? I do not think this belongs in the lede, or even in the article at all, but I would rather put an end to the argument. The fact is, this article needs a lot of work, including references, and we have wasted enough time with this trivial matter. The above needs to be cited properly, including page numbers. Do you have that information? ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 02:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes! but you have to understand something. The whole "Westies" book deals wit the topic of Westies dismemberment of thier victims. T.J. English goes into depth about it in the book on almost every page...so how can you say it doesen't belong in this article. Selwyn Raab details the torture aspect on Page 376 in his book the five families. If the 60-100 murders aspect is going to be in the lede then there is nothing wrong with noting that the Westies tortured and dismembered their victims...this is common knowledge about the Westies, I am curious as to how you don't know this stuff. I don't think you should be editing this article at all quite frankly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.1.202 (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

hmmm, anyone care to review WP:CIVIL? If you all need help sorting this out, help can be obtaining, but the yellin' and cussin' needs to stop. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• FWIW, I don't think the info belongs in the lead either. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It does belong in the lead, because it is a short sentence and not a long paragraph on the Westies. I am sick of myself being the expert on this subject and Republicanjacobite getting the support. I am trying to follow the rules of wikipedia, but I don't appreciate a know-nothing telling someone who wrote a college level paper on the subject what and where to put a simple one sentence aside about the behavior of the Westies...that's why it should go in the lead. And by the way, before Republican jacobite came along IT WAS in the lead for a very long time and nobody had a problem with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.1.202 (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• I haven't been uncivil to you and I expect you to act civil. Whether you are an "expert" on the topic or not is really not relevant as to whether or not something belongs in the lead. If you are in fact an recognized expert (and just writing a paper on them won't do it), then you will need to familiarize yourself with WP:SPS, WP:COI and WP:EXPERT. You might want to look at WP:TRUTH too. It's fairly enlightening. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Niteshift I have never been uncivil towards you, and like I said before this info DOES belong in the lead. It is one sentence as an aside note, where else would it belong? If I need help citing the sources then I would expect one of you would show me how to do that so we can put this established material in the page and get this idiocy overwith. It belongs in the section, in the lede, it was there for a very long time before you or repubicanjacobite started meddling and no one had any problems with it. I am more then wiling to reslove this situation but I need some help doing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.1.202 (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• I HAVE given you help. I told you exactly where to go to learn how to cite sources properly. The fact that you refuse to go read it and learn it is not good faith on your part. Neither is reverting proper edits like you have been doing. For example, contract killing is still murder. It doesn't make any sense to put both in the infobox. Yet you have reverted that multiple times, without even offering a good reason, let alone addressing the perfectly logical one I presented. Finally, just citing the info doesn't mean it belongs in the lead. That is something decided by consensus and so far, it's just you, a WP:SPA just using WP:ILIKEIT as a reason. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Just reverting, over and over, while refusing to cite the info and without addressing the policy issues is pure bad faith. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Yet again, reverting without discussing. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I am trying my best to do the right thing here. I am writing another college paper on shakespeare and my professoe explicitly said NO WIKIPEDIA. This is sad and shows why wikipedia is not taken seriously, because when people try to put in valid info it is taken out by egotistic editors like Repubicanjacobite. If someone will work with me to show me how to source my info correctly I will stop re-writing the Westies page, but this info SHOULD be included in the lead as it was before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.1.202 (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• You get blocked for edit warring and the first thing you do when you come back is to make the same reverts? First, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. Everyone knows that. You know why? One good reason is that anyone can come in and write anything without even regstering an account. Then, when established editors correct it, they edit war. You want to be constructive? Fine. Riddle me this: Why do you keep reverting the entries from the infobox? Explain to me why contract killing isn't murder? Explain the difference between robbery and hijacking. Explain why "car theft" is a better choice than just theft. Explain why you have reverted those over and over, then we'll start talking about what belongs in the lead. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what the hell you are talking about niteshift. All I have changed is the lead nothing else, maybe you can stop throwing 5 year old hissy fits long enough to act like an adult and stop banning people from making knowledgable changes to this article so we can all act like adults here. All I have changed is the lead NOTHING ELSE! The info I put in the lede is sourced via boos and if it needs to be done a different way then tell me how to do it on the discussion page and I will be happy to comply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.1.202 (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Listen sport, you've reverted the edits I just outlined. Just because you aren't smart enough to figure out how edits and reverts work doesn't excuse them. You clearly are incapable of discussing civilly and following the policies regarding consensus and the other policies I linked you to. If you won't act in good faith, you won't be treated with it. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Improving this article

Instead of the tedious, ongoing edit war, we could all decide to work together to improve this article. Between the two English books, everything in this article could be sourced, if we made a little effort. I suggest that we use this space to discuss what information we believe needs to be added, the proper place in the article for said information, and what sources can be used to reference that information. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 21:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I am fine with that. I have three books that reference the dismemberment part of the Westies. The Westies book and Paddy Whacked by TJ english and the torture part is refrenced by Selwyn Raab in The Five Families. The dismemberment part is not just referenced on a single page, it is referenced throughout the entire "WESTIES" book, it is just common knowledge about the gang. I will be happy to find AND PROVIDE THE EXACT PAGE NUMBER OF THE "FIVE FAMILIES" book which discusses the westies use of torture and provide it on the discussion page. I have nothing against you Republican jacobite or against Niteshift, who I respect as a fellow veteran. I just want this small bit of info to be put in the lead where I think it belongs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.1.202 (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Again, why does it have to be in the lead? Nobody is really contesting including the info in the article. What HAS been contested is putting it in the lead. Also, why do you keep reverting the infobox info? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You are clearly intent on being disruptive, which is why I am now reporting you to an admin., in the hope that you will receive a lengthy block. Your decision to remove the reference I added 2 days ago was the final straw. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 00:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• There is no reason to be redundant. Contract murder is still murder. The infobox is supposed to be a snapshot of activities, not an exhaustive list. Murder covers both contract and non-contract. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Long-term warring by anonymous editor

See a discussion elsewhere for why this article has been semiprotected. If you are unable to edit this article but think you have information to contribute, please make suggestions here on the talk page. Specific claims about this gang are more credible if you can supply page references. EdJohnston (talk) 04:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I have added to this page. I apologize for not sourcing, but I am a bit new to Wikipedia and don't quite know how to do that. I have both books by T.J English (The Westies) an d (Paddy Whacked)...which prove what I have written. If someone would be kind enough to e-mail me the correct way to insert these sources into Wikipedia, I can provide the books and page numbers, for verification Thank You:) devinleonard1979@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.50.79.45 (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Issues

I added referenced content that was reverted (Undid revision) with the edit summary "Inadequate ref.; inappropriate use of boldface".

Some serious issues arise when an article has an abundance of citation tags, simply because it has so much presented as original research, and someone adds referenced content that will also serve as a source for other edits, that is reverted (edited out) with what is considered a subversive (bogus at best) edit summary.

The reference I added ([1] (dated 1987), a NY Times article, has the heading THE LORD'S OF HELL'S KITCHEN (In bold) and the reference was in quotations. If that is not liked, then it simply could be changed (Ref. formatting) , but is not a reason (inappropriate use of boldface) to take any reference out, let alone one that provides sourcing to back up so much unsubstantiated content. The reference also gives source that the area known as Hell's Kitchen became "Clinton". I find it hard to imagine any sane editor would offer that a perceived "Inadequate ref.", apparently thought somehow lacking, is better than a page full of "Citation needed" tags. The reason for removal is highly questioned as "inappropriate". The content providing an alternate name: "referred to by the police as the Irish Mafia", is backed by the reference in the third paragraph, "Federal and state prosecutors had already been investigating the gang - also known to the police as the Irish Mafia...". The same source also provides sourcing for the boundary of the area known as Hell's Kitchen and that it is also now referred to as Clinton. The removed reference also supports content in the non-referenced Coonan and Featherstone section, a connection with Gambino family, "The Westies became, as Schlanger puts it, the Gambino family's Coonan crew". The same reference corroborates Featherstone "singing" to the cops.

The title of the article, thus the subject, is a gang referred to as the Westies being from the "West side". This gang replaced the "Arsenal gang" that ended in the 50's, known for stealing weapons from battleships, that replaced the "gophers" (ended 1910), known for hiding in basements. The gangs were considered the collective "cultural institution" of Hell's Kitchen. This article has a beginning of the "West side gang", and a resurfacing in 2012. In the middle, in 1992, in the "The Yugo era" section there is content: When Michael G. Cherkasky, chief of the Investigations Division of the District Attorney's Office, was asked how much still remained of the Westies, he said: "Too much," and that "it's not the end" of the gang.". The section: The alleged return of the Westies discusses the resurfacing meaning a reference to some ending is appropriate. A "History" section would certainly be in order.

Aside from the fact that the article is plastered with tags, severely lacking references, it would seem a reliable source, that is added providing source also sourcing for the boundary of the area known as Hell's Kitchen, would be welcome. In 1987 the Chief of detectives of the New York City Police Department, Robert Colangelo, proclaimed Let's put up a sign, Westies - R.I.P. Make it as big as you can!.

The reference I added was not only "adequate" for the content provided it gave source and perspective to the rest of the article. This was removed. It would be interesting to actually know the agenda here. If it is a question of some ownership I have documentation provided by Wikipedia that states "no editor owns an article" as well as: "Should conflicts arise, discuss them calmly on the appropriate talk pages, follow dispute resolution procedures...", to help clarify any mistakes. It might be helpful to note that particular page also discusses things like neutral point of view, citing sources, verifiability, and identifying reliable sources. This means adding unverifiable content is bad, as well as deleting sourced material, or sources in particular, so I would ask, in order to prevent the taking of more drastic steps, that such actions be discussed in the future. I could go on with examples but trust that I have provided ample evidence that the deleted reference was not only adequate it is a more than adequate reference. Otr500 (talk) 05:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Alternate names

Wikipedia 101: It is common and expected, for more than one reason, to list the title name as well as any alternate names (also covered in the manual of style), in bold on first instance of use. This is usually done, of course with exceptions, early in the first paragraph, and either sourced or also listed in a section in the body with reference(s). I will be adding back content that contains such alternate names, and other referenced content, to help rid the article of some of the plastered citation tags. This will include the deleted reference discussed above and I trust there will be some cooperation. Otr500 (talk) 03:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Removed Content

In 2012, the New York Post reported that the Westies resurfaced under the leadership of John Bokun, who was caught, along with accomplices, smuggling marijuana into the US. The New York Times noted that, aside from being the nephew of former Westies, Bokun had no connection to any group using that name.

In late November 2012, the FBI indicted Daniel Hanley, an alleged member of the gang, on charges of extortionate extension of credit, extortionate collection of credit, and conspiracy of the aforementioned crimes. Hanley was charged, along with James Ferrara, a member of the Gambino crime family, and Peter Kanakis, a member of the Demon Knights Motorcycle Club, a support club tied to the Hells Angels. The New York Times claimed this implication remains dubious as Daniel Hanley had neither in fact lived in Hell's Kitchen or had associations with those who had lived in Hell's Kitchen.

I put this removed content on the talk page. It has claims to the Westies. --Vic49 (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)