Talk:Hutch–Kinahan feud

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Organised vs. organized[edit]

Does WP:ENGVAR apply to categories as well as articles? Seeing as the spelling of "organised" is used in Ireland whereas "organized" is used in the USA, should there be categories that use the former spelling in parallel with the latter? Autarch (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Name change[edit]

Propose changing name from 2015-16 to 2015-17 as the feud is ongoing. Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded.Autarch (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible markup issue[edit]

Looking at H:DL, it says that Do not use a semicolon (;) simply to bold a line without defining a value using a colon (:). This usage renders invalid HTML5 and creates issues with screen readers. Probably best to have section headers instead. Autarch (talk) 13:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have updated markup to follow H:DL. Autarch (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Background and context[edit]

I tagged the article because there is no context or background provided (other than that there's a "feud") for a long list of murders. There's a background section in place that nobody has ever provided content for. It appears that the article has been like this for several years. Hopefully the tags will motivate someone who's interested in the topic to provide information to help readers make sense of it all. Schazjmd (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are now sources in the further reading from which a background can be written. There are more where those came from, albeit that one has to watch out for tabloid sources. Be bold. Uncle G (talk) 10:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 August 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: MOVE to Hutch–Kinahan feud. Although Kinahan–Hutch feud may be slightly more prevalent, as acknowledged by the OP, Hutch–Kinahan feud is "actually marginally less prevalent". As pointed-out by participants, consistency urges us to give the title in alphabetical order more weight as that is common practice in similar article titles. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2015–19 Irish gangland feud → Kinahan-Hutch feud (EDIT: or Hutch-Kinahan feud) –

The important rules here are WP:CRITERIA and WP:COMMONNAME:
1)Recognizability - Kinahan-Hutch feud is far more easy to recognise since it refers to the specific gangs involved in the feud.
2)Naturalness - Kinahan-Hutch feud is the common-name for this and therefore what people are likely to look for.
3)Precision - There are other Irish gangs, and other feuds, and it is unclear whether this feud actually did start in 2015 since there are incidents before that mentioned in the article, so the current name is imprecise. Kinahan-Hutch feud refers to the specific gangs involved in the feud and is therefore more precise.
4)Conciseness - Kinahan-Hutch feud is 18 characters including the space vs 27 for the present title.
5)Consistency - other family-based gang feuds are typically known as "x-y feud" (see, e.g., Hatfield–McCoy feud, Early–Hasley feud, Sutton–Taylor feud, Reese–Townsend feud etc.).
6)Common Name - a GNews search for "Kinahan-Hutch feud" returns 246 hits, whilst there are no GNews hits for exact matches for the present title.
FOARP (talk) 09:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 00:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that if the AFD discussion closes as keep, this rename will be entirely non-controversial. I would have just boldly done it. I was close to just boldly doing it in the middle of the AFD discussion (which one can do, as long as one tidies up the relevant hyperlinks in the AFD discussion page header). I would like to know what Lottolads' thoughts are on the title. Uncle G (talk) 10:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The AFD is pretty much in WP:SNOW territory now that the one delete vote has flipped to keep, so we might as well deal with this now. I think this should be an easy pass for renaming, but I can't count how many "uncontroversial" renamings attract at least a few oppose votes though. Particularly, WP:RM states that "The move is potentially controversial if ... there has been any past debate about the best title for the page", and I see that the title has been discussed above. FOARP (talk) 10:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose current title more recognizable. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • To whom? It would seem not so to people wanting to know about more that Kinahan-Hutch feud that they've heard mentioned. Uncle G (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Hutch-Kinahan feud because of alphabetical order, and more common use in GoogleNews search.Bogger (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • (I'd honestly forgotten that I'd already created the Hutch-Kinahan feud redirect 6 months ago) Bogger (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Either's good but if Hutch-Kinahan feud is more prevalent in reliable sources I'm OK with going with that (EDIT: @Bogger "Hutch-Kinahan Feud" gives 231 GNews hits, so it's actually marginally less prevalent - always remember to page through to the last page of results to see what the actual number of hits on Google is!). Shows why it was a good idea to have this discussion - and since it would have to be a move over a re-direct we have to have this discussion anyway. FOARP (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, I have no objections to either order. In the AFD discussion I simply used the name that was in the sources that I read. Uncle G (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Bogger and Uncle G: - Sorry for the ping, but I think it might be helpful to the closer if you unambiguously indicate support/oppose/neutral, and if support, then support for which name(s). As it is, a closer may think that only one actual !vote has been cast here, and that for oppose. I support either ordering but lean towards Kinahan-Hutch feud based simply on the marginally higher number of GNews hits (246 v 231). FOARP (talk) 07:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Hutch-Kinahan feud or correct mdash/ndash equivalent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogger (talk • contribs) 08:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support based on sources mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015–19 Irish gangland feud, Kinahan-Hutch feud seems better and more common. Hutch-Kinahan feud can still remain a redirect for those who might try to find it in that name order. ww2censor (talk) 12:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Kinahan–Hutch feud, as its the more common name. Note, use of ndash. Spleodrach (talk) 10:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Hutch–Kinahan feud. In the first place, MOS:DATERANGE advises that the date range in the present title, "2015–19", is incorrect and should be "2015–2019", so that would have to be changed in any case. Let's look at the examples supplied by the nom: Hatfield–McCoy feud, Early–Hasley feud, Sutton–Taylor feud and Reese–Townsend feud. Four cases, and in each case the names are in alphabetical order, H–M, E–H, S–T and R–T. So unless someone thinks the Kinahans are somehow better than the Hutches and should come first, then the names should be in alphabetical order, H–K, to indicate equal treatment of the names. Also, in each of the four cases those names are correctly separated by an endash (–) (see MOS:ENDASH), not by a hyphen (-), because an endash indicates equal treatment of the names and a hyphen actually indicates a close association, like a person who has a hyphen in their surname. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 00:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

IP edits in August to October 2019[edit]

I noticed this evening that some IP edit have added murders that do not seem to be related to the Hutch-Kinahan feud, including some that predate the start of the feud (which was in 2015). At least one has removed sourced material related to the feud. The users involved are: 213.202.136.217, 88.202.161.17 (deleted Clive Staunton shooting), 78.19.254.214 (added murders preceding start of feud),78.18.18.60 (added unsourced claims, including a version of Clive Staunton murder without references - added shooting that may not be related to feud, was temporarily blocked for disruptive edits), 137.191.229.4, 78.18.115.211 (added possibly unrelated murder), 78.18.238.156, 78.18.19.209 (added multiple apparently unrelated murders, was warned about disruptive edits), 213.202.136.217 (added murders possibly not related - was warned about edits to other articles).

At one point the IP address edits had the article in such poor shape that it was nominated for deletion. It seems to be one person doing these IP addresses as they have the following traits in common:

  • Poor grasp of English grammar (including use of capital letters and full stops).
  • Poor grasp of how to add references to article (frequently putting numbers in square brackets as references.
  • They are not clear on which murders are actually part of the Hutch-Kinahan feud.

The original name of the article may have given someone the impression that all organised crime murders were covered by it - but some of those added may not be related to organised crime. The editor is possibly editing in good faith, but seems to lack the skills to write clearly and to reference articles. At the very least the article needs a cleanup to:

  • Remove murders that are not related to the feud.
  • Restore sourced material that was deleted.
  • Fix references where possible.

Given that the edits are made by someone using only an IP address it may be necessary to get the page protected. Autarch (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a duplicate in the list of users above - the accounts have these edits: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Autarch (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Protection request was declined. Autarch (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Removed shooting of Brendan Kilduff - it was unrelated to the feud, instead it was a case of someone mistaking his neighbour for an intruder and shooting him: [1],[2] Autarch (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Removed murder of Vincent Parsons - no evidence that it is related the feud. People have been arrested on suspicion of murder. [3] Autarch (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Removed murder of Derek Reddin - he had a criminal record but was not involved in organised crime. Coverage mentions a local feud, but does not mention Hutch or Kinahan gangs. [4] Autarch (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Removed murder of Mikolaj Wilk as there are no reported connections to feud. [5] [6] Also deleted all murders listed as pre-2015. Autarch (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Restored earlier version of section on Clive Staunton murder - that one had references at least. Autarch (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed a number of sections that were improperly sourced - better to trim back to reliably sourced items and add any that might have been overlooked from the history. Also trimmed sentences without sources and deleted blank background section. The number of deaths needs to be checked, as that has been edited by the IP editor who has added improperly-sourced entries, some of which seem to be randomly-selected stabbings and shootings, several of which have no connection to the feud. Autarch (talk) 03:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Further nonconstructive edits by 78.18.124.217 and 78.18.99.249.Autarch (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Motive for shooting of Gary Hutch[edit]

  • This link claims that Gary Hutch was shot after being accused of being an informer by the Kinahan gang.
  • This link claims that Gary Hutch tried to shoot Daniel Kinahan, causing the feud.

Which should be followed? Where they agree:

  • Hutches try to make deal with Kinehans and pay them €200,000.
  • Kinehans break deal and shoot Gary Hutch anyway.

Autarch (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Total number of fatalities[edit]

The total number of fatalities was one of the details vandalised by anon IP editors late last year. The reference in the infobox puts it at 18 - this is consistent with the number of subsections with the word "murder" in them. Autarch (talk) 14:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The latest editor to change it to 20, @Saoreire72: has a long history of disruptive editing relating to infoboxes including, but not limited to, adding unreferenced material. FDW777 (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2020[edit]

Murders of Sean Little and Vincent Ryan respectively are not in any way linked to the Hutch-Kinahan feud. This is clear mis-information. Please remove both texts completely from this article. 79.97.40.111 (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now:
The reference for Sean Little says He was also close to people centrally involved in the Kinahan-Hutch feud, and although not currently cited in the article (I will add it shortly, since the current reference doesn't mention the feud) RTÉ say Vincent Ryan was the fifth victim of the ongoing Hutch-Kinahan feud. I am happy to further discuss whether Sean Little needs to be removed though. FDW777 (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This reference says that Little had close links to Kinahan gang members, but nothing about whether his death is considered part of the feud. He's already listed in Coolock feud. I'm not sure whether to remove him from this article. Autarch (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overlap with Coolock feud[edit]

The RS state that the total number of dead in the feud is 18 - but the total number of deaths on this page is more than that. The excess deaths are part of the Coolock feud, so I suggest merging information from this page that overlaps with the Coolock feud there. Autarch (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged the four murders that were part of the Coolock feud into that article, using the thejournal.ie associated with them. I also created a separate article on Murder of Wayne Whelan as that murder doesn't seem related to this feud, but there is nothing on that murder elsewhere in the wiki that I can see.Autarch (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Name Change August 2021[edit]

This article should be renamed Kinahan-Hutch feud. More sources call it that than Hutch-Kinahan. 7 cited sources have Kinahan-Hutch in the title, 3 have Hutch-Kinahan. Xx78900 (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read the discussions above?

Improvement tag removed[edit]

After rebuilding the article I have removed the tag.... please feel free to return it or part of it if you feel items are still missing. Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hutch–Kinahan_feud&oldid=1205684528"