Talk:Anthony Spilotro

	Biography portal 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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Chicago B‑class High‑importance

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Buried Alive?

I understand that someone who participated in the hit on the Spilotro brothers said that the murders did in fact take place in the basement of a mobster's home, but that seems to contradict the autopsy findings. According to the coroner sand was found in their throat and lungs, thereby implying that they were, in fact, buried allive. Is there any information besides his testimony to dispute this?

I changed "the government had it all wrong" to "the government may have had it all wrong" and added the qualifier "according to Calabrese" to the statement that the two were not buried alive. Until the case is actually closed that seems appropriate. I wish the link to the newspaper story was still there.JeffStickney 22:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Web Address

The second link doesn't work. Does anyone know why?

Murder

As portrayed in the movie Casino, the character Nicky Santoro (based on Spilotro) was killed by Frank Marino (supposed to be based on Frank Culotta). Did Culotta take part in the killing of Spilotro after getting fed up of Spilotro's dirty work?

No. In real life, Cullotta flipped and tesitfied against Spilotro for the M & M murders and the Hole in the Wall gang's activities. Not to mention the fact that in Pileggi's book "Casino," Cullotta mentions that Spilotro tried to have him killed, but the guys who were suppose to carry out the hit shot up the wrong apartment. So he was probably in the the Witness Protection Program around the time of Spilotro's death in '86. There's alot of stuff going on right now about new evidence concerning the Spilotro Bros' Murders as well as other Outfit hits.

The Photograph

There's a photo of Spilotro with Oscar Goodman and Herbie Blitztein. But which one of the three is Spilotro? The one with the sunglasses or the short one?

    The short one is Tony Spilotro.

Top Hoodlum?

"Blitzstein is described by FBI agent William Roemer in his book The Enforcer as one of the mobsters tested by the FBI in the early days of the Top Hoodlum Program."

WTF is the Top Hoodlum program? Is it so famous it needs no explanation? 68.166.69.57 07:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Spilotr2.jpg

Image:Spilotr2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potential information

Defense lawyer rips mob trial witness as 'liar' - 2nd Witness dismissed as Wikipedia hopeful for 'most famous informant' might have relevance to this article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 00:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Tspilotro3.jpg

Image:Tspilotro3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linking

This article has been clluttered up with way too many links. It becomes hard for readers to follow. I have removed repeated links and links to plain English wrods per WP:VERLINK and links to dates per WP:MOSNUM. I have also tried to clean up some of the bmess caused by attempts to wedge long nicknames into piped links by moving the nicknames out of the links. I question whether the nicknames are needed here or add anything to this article. Nicknames and other personal information about the people linked can be found in the articles on those people. Why do we need that information here? Ground Zero | t 16:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel Words

"It is generally thought" - thought by whom? Would be better to change to something like "Accused by police (if that is the case and there are good citations". Pknkly (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It is suspected" - by whom? Suggest changing this to be specific and verifieable. Watch for using a citation that includes weasal words. Pknkly (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Another suspect in the murders" - who is doing the suspecting? Pknkly (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"alleged Chicago assassin" - who alleges? Pknkly (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"who was suspected " Who is suspecting? Pknkly (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"the star witness " - who says they are a star witness and what kind of testimony would make a witness a star? Simply stating they were a witness might be adequate. Pknkly (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"major mob figures" - who defines major? Removing the reference to "major" would not detract from the article. Pknkly (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"reportedly agreed to testify" - reported by whom? Pknkly (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"who was also allegedly involved " - who alleges, are they authoritative? Pknkly (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: there are others, but for me it is easier to go into the article and use the :^[who?] template to flag the weasel areas. Hope this helps future editors. Pknkly (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since writing the above I ran across a good example for what this article could become if citations are used. In the article on Anthony Centracchio the editors seemed to preface each statement by stating who said it and then used an inline citation to support who did the saying. In this article it sounds as if the editors made all the statements. Pknkly (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Class Status

I believe this article needs to be dropped to a "start status because: (1) there is inadequate use of good citations; and (2) the article has excessive use of weasel words. I requested a Peer Review to demote the class level to start. Please note that I believe this to be a "high" importance article for a ChicagoWikiProject article. Class demotion discussion may best be handled within the Peer Review article. Pknkly (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but can i say i think you care too much 78.105.206.251 (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Importance Status

For the ChicagoWikiProject Importance level I rated this article as high because of the notarity brought about as indicated within the article's section on "Film portrayal". I believe the Importance rating may drop if the proper citations are not found for the section. 17:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)