Talk:Genovese crime family/Archive 1

Naming

Shouldn't this be at Genovese family, per naming conventions? There's a page there with history (but never any significant content), so we'd need a sysop/admin to delete it first. But I won't apply for it to be moved this second because a) I don't know where to ask, and b) I want to give anyone a chance to justify it's current location. - IMSoP 20:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I believe this should actually be at Genovese crime family as per the other crime family articles. A discussion for it can be found here. [1] 152.163.100.66 05:04, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Caporegime question

Can somebody clarify if caporegime=Underboss? If so, correct it on Costello's page & elsewhere if needed. And check the plural is caporegimi & N caporegimes?

And, y'know, I just don't get why Mob murders are being dignified as "assassinations". They're just murders, killings, hits... Trekphiler 07:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Plural for "caporegime" is again "caporegime", but you can use also "capiregime". In italian is exactly the same, because, as a "one word" caporegime is identic in the plural, but as the contraction of "capo" and "regime" (capo of regime) the plural will be for the word "capo" becoming "capi", so "capiregime". We use both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.1.161 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Caporegime means captain or lieutenant, not underboss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MZucker (talk • contribs) 20:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Premature end

This article needs sorting out as it seems to end abruptly with the departure of Frank Costello, and have barely anything at all on the family during the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s. If someone doesn't get there first I'll endeavour to sort it out when I get a chance. C i d 13:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

List missing

The "Bosses" list of the Genovese crime family is missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.1.161 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Genovese`s death

Genovese`s death is wrong in this article.. He was put in prison in 1959 and died in 1969(not 59)

It needs to be changes under: Drugs and the Genovese family and under: Bosses of the Genovese crime family Genoveses power ended in 1969, Tommy Eboli was given the family power before Genovese died, but I dont know if it was as early as 1959. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.4.33.137 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Corrected. The page history shows that 212.4.33.137 was the one who changed it to 1959 on 15th Aug 2006. Clappingsimon talk 21:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Leo

All of the links in the articles for a Daniel Leo take you to a samoan rugby football player... This is not correct..and makes you wonder if Daniel Leo even exists in the Genovese Crime Family... ````(just an avid reader of wikipedia.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.100.21.92 (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

About Daniel Leo: http://www.nysun.com/article/44363 Clutch Set 12:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Daniel leo has been charged with a new indictment for loan sharking so his release date is pending

The Morello-Masseria-Valenti Conflict

This whole section needs to be reworked, who ever wrote it becomes rather defensive and his or her writing breaks down into petty argument with a non-existent foe. Jesta510 20:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible Unencyclopedic Tone

Rackets such as gambling, bookmaking and loansharking are a universal mainstay for all Families and are never neglected, but when the soldiers on the streets who do the debt collecting, muscle work and murders are not happy, there is a lack of trust and confidence in the Bosses leadership abilities and this is exactly what Genovese was trying to accomplish.

The tone to me suggests a story. Referring to "the soldiers on the streets" seems somewhat poetic to me. What do others think? Iain marcuson 01:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There is definitely a mystical narrator here. Just to pick one sentence at random:

Gigante was paroled from Lewisburg Federal Penitentiary in Pennsylvania less than 5 years later in 1964 and was immediately promoted to Capo by Boss, Vito Genovese for his loyalty.

The first half of the sentence would be documented by the Lewisburg archives, but who is the fly on the wall in the second half of the sentence? The pell-mell flip-flopping between what is documented in court records and what is surmised about the internal relationships within the family, and motives behind those relationships, contributes to the feeling you're being told a story. MaxEnt 23:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The entire article is rife with spurious claims and inaccurate info. How did Luciano "invent" the term Cosa Nostra when it's been a phrase used by Sicilians for nearly two hundred years? Also, the war of '31 was not a war between old and new gangsters; it was a war, end of story. This has been proven numerous times; there was no purge of the "greaseballs", nor a top-down restructuring of the mafia along a corporate line; there has been a commission for almost as long as the mafia has existed both in America and Sicily, although it has been named different things at different times. There's so much wrong with this entire page it might be easier to just wipe the whole thing and start again. It would only really need three sections: Origins, Past Members, Current Status, maybe one or two more. I really hate these people in love with the mythology of the mob; they make reading wikipedia a serious test of one's patience due to their constant (bad) editing and uninformed, wilfully ignorant misreading of the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.10.205 (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Meeting with Maranzano

The author states that MAranzano and Bonanno met with Morello, Luciano and Masseria. Joe Bonanno's autobiography which is the only source for that meeting does not state Luciano was there, and to further complicat ematters, newspaper reports of the day have Luciano being in Europe with Legs Diamond when the meeting supposedly took place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.86.145.97 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Novella?

What has happened to this article? It's turned into a huge great piece of unreferenced prose that no-one in their right mind would want to read, concentrating on individual people rather than the family as a whole (remembering that each individual has their own page, this is not the place for such information).

There are links to the page within itself throughout. It's been battered.

It's going to have to be sorted out again and cut right down. Any volunteers? If not, I'll attempt it when I have time. C i d 14:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. You're right, this length of this article has reached epidemic proportions. As a temporary fix to make the article usable by the casual reader, I've reverted it back to the last time it was a sensible length (this version from 29 July 2006), and added categories, etc. as appropriate.

I realise this is a somewhat drastic action, but in the article's current state of 104kB, I can't see how anyone could realistically copyedit it down to a sensible length. I certainly don't think anyone would have the patience! I think a more pragmatic approach is to start from (almost) scratch. Editors who are knowledgeable about the subject can re-add material piece by piece; I (and hopefully other experienced editors) can help format and copyedit it as appropriate.

If I've gone overboard here, then please say so. However, I don't think that simply reinstating the 104kB version would be a rational course of action at this point!

Regards, Oli Filth 23:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not the only one worried about the state of this piece. I think it's right to revert to an old version - however, it's possible that we may have gone back too far. The edit of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genovese_crime_family&oldid=68198316 7 August 2006 (from myself) was a complete rewrite of the article, as at that time I set about tidying up each of the Five Families articles.

I think it would be best to revert back to this version, instead of the older one which misses a lot of important/interesting information. However, I'm reluctant to make that change myself as I would face understandable accusations that I was reverting to my own piece for nefarious reasons rather than just trying to tidy things up.

Can someone compare the pieces from 29 July 2006 and 7 August 2006 and assess whether the latter version conforms to the required standard of quality? I am happy to go with the judgement of others, but as I say I don't think it's wise I revert to the old version I wrote myself. C i d 12:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

My one concern with that version is that the tone is starting to meander away from encyclopaedic. Phrases such as "to say the least", "before he could take his revenge", "The Oddfather" (as a section title), are (in my opinion) not completely appropriate. In the near future, I'll have a go at rewording this stuff, or if you have time, perhaps you could address it? If this is done, I have no objection to moving forward to that version, with one caveat:

It would be good if we could get some references for some of the key claims. A prominent example might be the sentence that starts "Depending on who was talking about it ...".

Oli Filth 20:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be cut down that much. Let's just change some of the dodgy parts. The H-Man2 16:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok on second thoughts maybe not but it could still be expanded. I'll work on it --The H-Man2 17:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Influential Current Members

I've deleted the entire "Influential Current Members" as a WP:BLP violation. All of these accusations need reliable sources. Corvus cornix 16:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Capos/Soldatos

This page contains speculative information about former Capos but almost nothing about current leadership. There are at least 8 Capos who are under 60 years old and they have yet to be convicted so there is almost no public information concerning them. This page should be looked at more carefully due to the unique nature of the subject matter concerning the code of silence and current activities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gf8anonymous (talk • contribs) 06:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

An unsourced geocities page is hardly an authoritative source

I removed the entire section of "Current/Past Capos" due to the source "http://www.geocities.com/OrganizedCrimeSyndicates/GenoveseFamily.html"

This could easily be a made-up source as no credentials are required for a geocities page.

This page contains speculative information about former Capos but almost nothing about current leadership. There are at least 8 Capos who are under 60 years old and they have yet to be convicted so there is almost no public information concerning them. This page should be looked at more carefully due to the unique nature of the subject matter concerning the code of silence and current activities. -gf8anonymous

I agree with you there so it's prudent to remove the entire section.

--Terra980 (talk) 07:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Charlir91 unexplained edits

-Charlir91 [Charlir91]

Why do you keep reverting and adding the unsourced Geocities Page information whilst not providing an explanation? Tikidoll9 (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

A Geocities page is certainly not acceptable source material for living persons, and not generally permissable at all. This article is in desperate need of better sourcing in general. The current sources used should be reviewed for appropriateness and reliability. Vassyana (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Geocities is not an acceptable source. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources : "Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution, when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." It is unclear who made this geocities website. It is certainly unclear that they are an expert in the field. I sympathize with the situation, but it seems that it does not meet Wikipedia policy. Wikipediatoperfection (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirecting links

I don't know how to do this, but the pandering link regarding Luciano's charge in-correctly goes to the definition of pandering in regards to politics, instead of prostitution procuring/procurement. Thanks! Missjessica254 (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistancies

Will someone please provide some valid references/evidence that Paul DiMarco is the current Acting Boss? The current source (number 31) does not currently open/load, and it did not mention anything about Paul DiMarco, from what I remember. All of the recent evidence I've seen states that a "Paul DiMarco" doesn't even exist. So, some linked references would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee86 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

-Because a previous source is no longer available due to an ongoing trial, it doesn't mean the said source didn't exist. Because books are burned doesn't mean the information on them was never written. Same concept. A few of the original sources were either removed by the Feds or the Mob itself. This is a uniquely sensitive topic due to the figure in question being an active player in a criminal enterprise. There are still 4 written sources on the Paul DiMarco bio page which contain information regarding him. Just because they are written sources doesn't make them any less valid than an internet source. Some discussion would be appreciated before you "erase" a person's existence based on an opinion. Mpolizeo7 (talk) 12:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

- So I guess that fact that the New York Post just released on article claiming that Daniel Leo is still the acting boss doesn't mean anything? Also, where are the page numbers in the books that Paul DiMarco is mentioned? And you can throw out the Iceman confessions book, as it is notoriously full of lies.

Not sure why we're starting an edit war here but I checked Mpolizeo7's facts at the library and Paul DiMarco is mentioned as a capo in several occasions. Not sure about public records because there don't seem to be any recorded arrests. Since they are older there is also no information concerning the current acting boss. If we keep in mind, the Genovese family has been notoriously difficult to document and "acting bosses" frequently change. Obviously somebody had to be running street operations during the time Mr. Leo was imprisoned whether that's Paul DiMarco or not. As a compromise perhaps a rewrite or further information concerning Paul DiMarco as a capo is in order but certainly not the complete removal from the Genovese Family article. I've undone the current revision pending further information. Akouritic 5:36 EST, 11 March 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 21:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC).

What were the books -- and the page numbers -- that you looked at? I'd like to see, as well. Since the death of Vincent Gigante is has been reported that the family's capos have worked together in running the family, with one stepping up as acting boss every now and then. According to the most recent report on the Genovese Crime Family, from a March 2009 article in the NY Post, Daniel Leo is still the acting boss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.178.38.142 (talk) 03:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This whole Paul DiMarco thing is pure Wikipedia fantasy. Even if such a guy exists, he is certainly not a leader in the Genovese family like some here are claiming. His name has never even come up in any report, any article, or any statement whatsoever. So one could ask, how does the people talking about him even know about him in the first place? I post on a forum that has dozens of "mob buffs," organized crime authors, former law enforcement agents, and genuine "street guys." NOBODY has ever heard of this guy. Ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.15.84.2 (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It should also be pointed out that the average estimate for the membership size of the Genovese family for the last several years now has been around 200. This idea of them having 300-350 members is ridiculous. They haven't had that many members for decades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.15.84.2 (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

A few more things. This article on the Genovese family is missing both Frank "Farby" Serpico and Ernest "Ernie" Muscarella, who were both acting bosses earlier this decade. There is no evidence that Dominick "Quiet Dom" Cirillo is the official consigliere. According to law enforcement, James "The Little Guy" Ida is still the official consigliere, even though he is in prison for life. Also, it is likely that Daniel "Danny the Lion" Leo is no longer acting boss since he is in jail. The whole purpose of someone being an "acting boss" is because they are on the street. That usually changes once they are charged and their bail is revoked. Also, Alan "Baldy" Longo was an acting captain in the crew of Alphonse "Allie Shades" Malangone. And Salvatore "Sammy Meatballs" Aparo was an acting captain in the crew of Rosario "Ross" Gangi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.15.84.2 (talk) 04:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

More corrections. While the leadership of the family during the 1960's and 1970's is somewhat murky, and the exact positions each person held may never be positively known, there is not really any evidence that Gerardo "Gerry" Catena ever became boss of the family. Joseph Zito was never a captain, but always an influential soldier because of his close ties to family higher ups like Vincent Gigante and Benny Mangano. Also, the page is missing a number of current family captains including Ludwig "Ninny" Bruschi (New Jersey), Joseph "Joe D" Dente (Bronx), Silvio DeVita (New Jersey), Joseph "The Eagle" Gatto (New Jersey), James "Jimmy from 8th Street" Massera (Manhattan/Brooklyn), Pasquale "Patsy" Parello (Bronx), and Renaldi "Ray" Ruggerio (Florida). Finally, it doesn't appear that Vincent "Vinny" DiNapoli and Peter "Pete" DeFeo are active captains anymore. 204.15.84.2 (talk) 08:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

- It's hard to write an article based on ongoing illegal practices. The only thing I could think of comparing this to is perhaps Al Queda. How many Lieutenants are there? Who is actually in charge? We only find out who these people are when one of them makes a public statement or somebody rats them out. There's no reason to assume a mafia family such as the Genoveses operates any differently. Moreover, it's naïve to assume that the family's leadership is all in their 70's and 80's. For the sake of continuity there have to be younger members on the way up. It's well known that the Genoveses have been good at keeping under the radar until relatively recently and there's no reason that's expected to change. I would attribute the lack of news articles to the fact that DiMarco has yet to be arrested. How many capos in the other families were publicly known before they were spotlighted by the media after being charged?

I am concerned at the lack of sourcing here for both sides of this argument talking about "message boards" and sealed information. That can all be considered original research and can't be regarded. I did check one of the sources listed for Paul DiMarco, "The Five Families" by Selwyn Raab and DiMarco is mentioned on page 142 and on 149 both in the context of being a capo. Information as to whether he is acting boss or not doesn't seem to exist but I think the article is correct in using a question mark concerining that assumption. Being a former member of law enforcement this topic interests me and digging deeper I realize there is a connection between Paul DiMarco and The DiMarco Group construction. If you do an Intelius search on the owner, John DiMarco he is listed as having Paul DiMarco as a brother. It's well known the mob has frequently been involved in the construction industry in the state of New York. The Rochester Democrat and Chronicle lists several occasions where no-bid contracts were given to the DiMarco group which is fishy in itself (Ref: James Goodman, Rochester Democrat and Chronicle March 26, 2006). I would never consider adding this to the main article due to personal speculation but from what I can see it's fine as written and I can only hope more investigation of an official sort will be done in the future.--74.141.2.250 (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what "Five Families" book you're talking about but I have the one written by Selwynn Raab right in front of me as I type this. No mention of anyone named "Paul DiMarco" on those pages. In fact, nobody named "Paul DiMarco" even in the index. Well, that's interesting, isn't it? Also it's interesting that the only link to a "source" about DiMarco on the Wikipedia page goes nowhere. Just a dead end. Yeah, that's right, it was "removed" by the government or the mob. Or maybe it was the Illuminati or the Tri-Lateral Commission. Give it up pal. The jig is up. If you have nothing better to do than type falsehoods on Wikipedia that's your problem but don't expect those of us who know better to believe you. Bottom line, there is not a single source of any kind that mentions this guy as being a leader in the Genovese family. I have yet to see him even being mentioned as existing. And even if he does exist, there is no proof that he holds the rank you claim he does. Seriously, get a life. 204.15.84.2 (talk) 06:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? You seem to be using sock puppetry to support the same idea on multiple edits. Why is the undid revision done by a different IP than the commentary? What is your agenda and motive? If something is bothering you emotionally then there are are more ways to deal with it than accuse others of lying. I think the editor 74.141.2.250 had a valid point but you seem to have some emotional involvement in this issue far beyond the facts. Are you a relative or personal interest of Paul DiMarco? Akouritic (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I will keep undoing your removal of Paul DiMarco until we can receive a 3rd opinion. Akouritic (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The revisions and the commentary above your's are done by two different people. So there is your third opinion. There is absolutely no proof Paul DiMarco is who you think he is. Even the "proof" that 74.141.2.250 "supplied" doesn't check out. He said that Paul DiMarco is discussed in the context of being a capo in the Genovese family on pages 142 and 149 in Selwyn Raab's book "Five Families". Yet, Paul DiMarco is not even mentioned on those pages, and according to the book's index, he is not even in the book itself. The only online link provided for Paul DiMarco in the article leads to a page that doesn't open. So, there is absolutely no proof that Paul DiMarco is, or even may be the acting boss of the Genovese family. It is all just speculation on your part. I have provided an article from the New York Post that was released in March 2009 that states the Daniel Leo is still the acting boss, and the family consists of 270 "made" members. On what basis do you delete my revisions when I have an actual source to back them up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.231.132 (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I did check the book in question and you are correct about it not containing any information regarding Paul DiMarco. It also seems to be a relatively popular book based on the sales/reviews at Amazon.com. Why would somebody pick such an obviously popular book which would be easy to fact check when making up a claim or story. That just doesn't fit. So perhaps you aren't the same person but I would venture to say that whoever 74.141.2.250 is is trying a little TOO hard to make it seem like a falsehood. This is called straw puppetry. I don't feel comfortable removing Paul DiMarco until all of the written sources can be checked. Something just isn't sitting right here and it seems like 204.15.84.2 is having an argument with himself up there. Akouritic (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)::::::

Also, I would suggest that I not be the only one to check the other sources as I do not have a NPOV after seeing these bizarre revisions. If he really doesn't exist, let's remove his biographical entry first before we do here that way there is nothing to link to. I am open to this and I would like to have a CheckIP on Mpolizeo7 and the original author of that page.

I've undone your revision of my revisions, as, once again, my revisions are sourced from the most current information on the Genovese Crime Family -- NY Post, March 2009 -- However, this time I left Paul DiMarco in the list of "current capos". I suggest we leave it like this until Mpolizeo7 can provide some verifiable sources for his claims.

I think that's a good compromise and I agree with you here. Hopefully more information will soon be forthcoming. Akouritic (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I'd like to see this article merged with Morello Crime Family. Masseria's takeover of the family in 1922 is used a dividing line for no particular reason beyond a name change. Every crime family has changed its name, usually more than once, but in no other case is there a split history like in this case. This article is 48Kb and Morello is 19Kb. The article should be around 40Kb, but there other ways to deal with the length issue. In particular, the amount space spent on current leadership is a good example of WP:RECENTISM. Kauffner (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The Morello Crime Family page should be merged with the Genovese family page. --MrNostra 16:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the articles should stay seperate simply because there is too much info. Once an article gets too long, sub-articles like the Morello crime family should be used. --Ted87 (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Paul IS the acting Boss

I'm not sure how you people get your info besides police propaganda and old news reports about arrests but when writing about a secret organization open to Italians only, those of you who aren't Italian really have no idea what the hell you're talking about. So you can have your academic discussions while this world goes on and you can't know anything about it. Paul DiMarco is the acting boss of the family and as an associate of the family this isn't "original research," it's original fact. You have no cred if your name is "Kauffner" or Shlomowitz or Whatever. Writing about something you can only imagine is a joke at best and dangerous at worst. Watch what you say. - Askinpaisan (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

And just because you claim to know information doesn't mean you can delete massive amounts of information and add what you want. Wikipedia operates on Verifiability and No original research. --Ted87 (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

People say that Paul DiMarco doesn't exist. Can those people prove that? Remember, the Genovese is the most secretive of the five families and this DiMarco guy could be real, but like I said, if you think he is a fake, then YOU must back up your claim. Or just shut the hell up and accept him as a real person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.4.205 (talk) 06:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

By that logic, I can say anyone exists simply because you can't prove it wrong. I can make up a hundred different names and claim they are mobsters. My proof that DiMarco doesn't exist is because he is never mentioned in any reliable sources. Where is your proof that he DOES exist? --Ted87 (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't have none, there are no reliable resources that say thay DiMarco is real. Being that they are the Genovese family, they are extremely secretive and have lots of guys operating in their ranks that even the Feds don't know about. There's even the Zips, they have no criminal record in the United States until they get arrested, so until then, they are virtually untouchable. Anyway, we may live in a technological age, but that doesn't mean that we know everything about anything. As for sources, even sources on Bonanno member Vincent Asaro can't be found by myself, yet, he exists. Explain that one! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.4.205 (talk) 07:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources that confirm Asaro exists. --Ted87 (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of that and I accept that he exists, but I couldn't find any sources. Other then that, I don't look at sources for verification on a person. I just read information and let other people worry about things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.4.205 (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Good to see you've shut your fucking yap— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.4.205 (talk) 06:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No source for this comment

Mario Gigante (born November 4, 1923 Greenwich Village, Manhattan) is a New York City mobster who served as caporegime for the Genovese Crime Family.

What's the source for claiming he was born in Greenwich Village in 1923? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyj0127 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Genovese families New Jersey Factions page

There should be a page created for the Genovese families New Jersey Factions. These part on this page is to long.

--MrNostra 16:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we split this article?

This article is becoming very unwieldy. Would it be possible to spin off all the lists of bosses, underbosses, etc. into a separate article? I appreciate some feedback. Rogermx (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it should stay in the same article but needs to be referenced; the details describing the boss could be shortened to death date (murder date) or imprisonment date. --Vic49 23:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)