Talk:Frank Lucas

Do not use the movie as a source

To all participating authors please do not rely on the movie for quotes/basic information/fact finding for this article, doing so is rather inappropriate for an encylopedia. It is ok to mention the movie or even give avery short description of it, but this needs to be clearly separated from the information and parts about Lucas himself. Also there should be no speculations and rather personal assessments, statement about his "power" (more than the mafia or similar) or his "influence" need to be sourced if they are more specific than the general "he was an influential crime figure". There's enough information for short article in the online newspaper articles listed as sources. If somebody wants to contribute more details, he/she should use the book about him,the NYC archives, court or police reports but not the movie. Keep in mind the movie is fictionalized/dramatized story of his life and not a documentary, so you cannot rely on details/events of the movie for historical facts.--Kmhkmh 00:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is this protected?

Although this is a short article, it's definitely not "one of the worst" as the poster below me wrote. My question is, why is this article protected? Gregsinclair 08:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The quality of writing might not be the worst, but the actual information content is truly atrocious, even for a stub. Michael.A.Anthony 19:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Not an Absolute Mess but Lacking information Whoever has time and is a member should try to help cause Frank Lucas is an interesting person and with the movie coming out there is going to be more interest here is an interview and story that will help out http://nymag.com/nymag/features/3649/

Lacking vital information http://nymag.com/nymag/features/3649/

An Absolute Mess

This is one of the worst articles I've ever seen on wikipedia. (And given the abysmal quality of articles in general, that's saying something.)

I can't believe this hasn't been pulled!!

There's no dates for Lucas (we don't even know if he's still alive!).

There's no birthplace for him.

And it isn't even in proper wikipedia/encyclopedia format.

Despite that the so-called "Cadaver Connection" (a group of sergeants major shipped the heroin inside coffins of soldiers killed in Vietnam) was obviously what gave Lucas the ability to control the smack market in New York, there's no information about it.

Nor is the fact that the government was beginning to systematically dismantle the Mob families mentioned. Without the weakening of the Italians, Lucas would have ended up in a swamp in New Jersey. hey

But how did he organize it? My guess would be vets returning to Harlem somehow hooked up with Lucas. They had the dope and needed an, ah, customer for it. But the reader has to guess because the editor doesn't tell us.

And given Ridley Scott's penchant for massive alterations of history (just watch Gladiator or Kingdom of Heaven, excellent movies but to call the rewriting of history poetic license is being polite)...we're unlikely to get the real story in American Gangster.

But there's nothing in the article which explains this.

PainMan 19:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well i completely agree that the article is by no means in a good state and needs a lot of improvement, however i see no reason to pull it. It contains at least some information which is properly sourced and that is better than no article at all. And there's no reason to rely on Ridley Scott for factual information, somebody just has to make an effort and dig into archives of newspapers and magazins to get the most important facts. The given sources for the article can probably used to improve it as well.--Kmhkmh 19:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the article isn't about Ridley Scott's film, any comments about that are irrelevant. The article needs work and after the film comes out, there will be a lot more information about Lucas coming out. In the meanwhile, there is no valid reason for gutting the article down to the opening and removing the bulk that is there, which has some references. Wildhartlivie 01:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Was that a reply to me ? I didn't edit anything other adding another source (forbes). The Poster before me is somewhat correct about the shape of the article, however as i pointed out that is no justification or reason to pull the article, even in its current shape it is still much better than no article at all.--Kmhkmh 05:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually another thing I`ve noticed that some of the content (regarding conviction and jailtime) does not match the information in the cited sources. For example he was released in 1981 due to cooperation with the police not 1991 (that is fase simplified info from the film), then he was arrested again in 1984 for another drug felony and received another 7 years jailtime, from the latter he was released in 1991. If i have time, I`ll fix that in the article later on.--Kmhkmh 05:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No, no, it was just a comment in general. I checked the history and an errant <ref> cut out a fairly large section, but that wasn't intentional. I've run across two or three interesting things since I looked at this yesterday. I didn't realize his son was a rapper (check Frank Lucas Jr.) and he was his father's liaison for the film. I've put this on my "to do" list so I can keep an eye out for any new information that starts coming out. Now that you mention it, I did wonder about those dates, but I was distracted trying to find a date of birth. I just re-read the OP on this and wanted to note that if Lucas was successful because the mob families were weakened, that probably only merits a passing comment, since Lucas wasn't a part of them. Wildhartlivie 09:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildhartlivie (talk • contribs) 09:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

ok i fixed the prison dates and reorganized the article a bit closer to wikipedia convention for biographies. I also noticed that new NYT has quite some information on it in its archives, but unfortunately i have no access to it. If you do you could use it to extend the article and add additional references. regards--Kmhkmh 15:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

besides all the citing, its just bad english. i mean seriously i couldnt get through a sentence without thinking wtf. Robkehr 17:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure - i had no problems reading it. Be that as it may you are more than welcome to fix/improve uncomprehensible or hard to read formulations.--84.174.203.116 23:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

he was even higher than the italian mafia

The problem with all these things is that a lot of them would be next to impossible to find; the only people who would really know more about Frank Lucas than what's in American Gangster are D.E.A. agents who have studied up on heroin dealing in the '70s, frankly. There was an article called "The Return of Superfly" about him, mostly written from points he himself had given to a reporter, but I don't think any of them mentioned his child-hood, and only his operations in New York City during the late '70s as a dealer. I just watched the last half hour of a special that involved him, along with Leroy Barnes and several other people. What I do know is, he's still alive, though he's reduced to a wheel-chair because of a car accident that broke both of his legs and diabetes crippling his hands, though I don't know when either of these things happened. I also believe it's relevant, if not already added, that when Lucas first came into the spotlight of dealing with whatever his product was dubbed (Blue Magic? I forget, something like that), a lot of people over-dosed on his heroin because of it's extreme potency. 12.107.246.221 04:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ritchie Roberts

Can someone make a page for Detective Roberts? I'm really interested, and I'm sure other people will be too now that the movie is out. 98.194.5.153 07:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

==LOL!==--84.174.233.3 00:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• "Within the movie American Gangster it was said that at the height of his career Frank Lucas was more powerful than any other criminal organization including the "Mafia" when it came to dope dealing (not overall)."

Well, that's a good quote. He's more powerful than the Mafia and other crime groups in the dope trade at that time because that's what a character in the movie American Gangster said. Please, people, don't use quotes from movies to write historical articles. It seems as if most of the information in this article was written by somebody who saw the movie and the recent documentary on Frank "Superfly" Lucas and used those two sources (and those two sources alone) to write this article -- despite a few references being linked to fool readers into believing actual research went into writing this other than watching a movie or a television show.

As for the "Cadaver Connection," that was just what the narrator of that documentary said -- instead of continually saying "Coffin Connection" like what was in the subtitle of the documentary. So somebody here heard that, and BOOM, all of the sudden it's fact and the actual name of this supposed heroin pipeline Lucas claims to have organized and operated is the Cadaver Connection.

Also, a lot of information that has come out lately has been proven to be lies told by Frank Lucas. The movie (and the recent documentary on Frank Lucas) is based on lies told by an inventive ex-heroin trafficker. To read more about the myth Frank Lucas has invented about himself see the below link. There are other recent, credible articles announcing that Frank Lucas is an imbellisher, if not outright liar, of the truth; however, the below article has the best layout and covers all the bases. (Also note that Lucas was little more than a flunkie to Bumpy Johnson and not Johnson's self-proclaimed "right-hand man in Harlem.")

American Gangster Myth

Lock & Key 05:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree using the movie as a direct resource is definitely not a good idea and there is enough information available in various newspaper articles at least for a reasoanble short article. Since this is an important point I'll start a separate paragraph for it.--84.174.233.3 00:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Several sources (this one for example) cite Lucas as confiding that only "20 percent of the film is true", so it definitely is not a reliable biographical source. --MPerel 02:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

He fathered 7 children, as far as he knows.

Why "as far as he knows"? This qualifier needs to be elaborated on or removed.