Talk:David Hennessy

Spelling of name

This site indicates the proper spelling is Hennessy, two e's not three. grimbleGrumble 18:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, most sources I've seen spell the name as Hennessey, however. I don't know that we should necessarily take that one link over the majority of sources. What we really need is some sort of original source document. Perhaps a comment in the article that there is some dispute over the correct spelling? —Lowellian (reply) 07:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"HENNESSY" is how it is spelled on his tomb, as can be seen here: Image:MetCemHennessy3.jpg. -- Infrogmation 14:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Religion

What religion was Hennesy?

For all I know, this entry may be written correctly. Indeed, I knew nothing about this event until I read the Wikipedia entry for Mafia; however, I do know about lack of balance in other Wikipedia articles (and then some), and this whole entry reads in such a one-sided manner (poor innocent immigrants attacked by bad clueless Americans), I cannot but harbor doubts as to its authenticity. Asteriks 08:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a name for that kind of fallacy, but I can't remember what it is, so I'll call it the "both sides are always equally valid" fallacy. Like, why does the article on the Holocaust make the Nazis look so bad, it's not fair. Rosekelleher (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move

It is spelled "Hennessy" not "Hennessey" on his tomb, and the New Orleans website [1] notes that "Hennessey" is an incorrect spelling. Note also a book about the incidents [2] also spells it "Hennessy" on the cover. -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As there has been now objection, I have moved it. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

American Heritage

Not clear on why this external link I added was deleted — there was nothing in the edit summary about it — but I've restored it. If there's some valid reason for not including this link, please comment. — WFinch (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on David Hennessy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070108031707/http://www.jpmacheca.com:80/df-tim.html to http://www.jpmacheca.com/df-tim.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Confusion

For a while now I've been wondering why there was only one paragraph about this lynching in Wikipedia, because I was looking at the article about the lynching itself, March 14, 1891 lynchings, which is a stub. Most people who are searching for information about a mass lynching of Italians in New Orleans aren't going to know to search for "David Hennessy". Depending on how they search, they could end up finding the stub article and thinking that's all there is.

For now I've added a "Main article" link from that article to this one. I do think it's odd, though, that all the information about this lynching is filed under the name of David Hennessy, like he's the focal point. Who cares about David Hennessy's early life? Imagine if all the information about Emmett Till's lynching could only be found in a biography of Carolyn Bryant. Rosekelleher (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

It occurs to me that there's another problem with this setup. There's more information that could be added that's relevant to the lynching but doesn't quite belong in a biography of Hennessy. For instance, in Gambino's book, on which the movie was based, he points out that "Shortly after the lynching, the city passed an ordinance giving control of all dock work in New Orleans to the just-formed Louisiana Construction and Improvement Corporation, a business headed by prominent lynch mob leaders. This action essentially froze out Italian businessmen from the multi-million dollar dock trades. Numerous other revelations either refute accepted beliefs or offer plausible alternatives." This suggests that Hennessy's death was not even the real motivation for the lynching. [3]

Of course that's not the only way of looking at it, but it's worth mentioning. Gambino was a respected scholar, not just some bozo off the street, and a movie was made based on his book, which makes it notable. There's also more to say about the investigation, the trial, the press coverage, and so on.

I propose that this biographical article about David Hennessy be pared down to the facts about him personally, and the bulk of the information about the lynching, and the events leading up to it, be moved to the March 14, 1891 lynchings article. Then, in this article, under "Aftermath", there should be a "Main article" link to the article about the lynching, and an inline link to "David Hennessy" from there.

Agree? Disagree? Rosekelleher (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Citing 1891 news articles

I don't think it's appropriate to cite newspaper articles from 1891 to support claims that any Italian was involved with the Mafia. Rosekelleher (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

iUniverse

Deep Water: Joseph P. Macheca and the Birth of the American Mafia by Thomas Hunt and Martha Sheldon, cited several times in this article, was published by iUniverse, a self-publishing press. Judging by his author bio on Amazon, Hunt is not a historian in the usual sense, but a Mafia buff. He actually lists as a credential the fact that "he moderates a Yahoo discussion group on Mafia topics." He also mentions, defensively, and irrelevantly, that he's half Italian. I can't find anything on Martha Sheldon. Not saying we shouldn't cite this book, but I think sources like these are best used as a source for incidental details or as backup for other sources. Rosekelleher (talk) 14:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Some of the other sources are also books about organized crime. Do you see the underlying implication? That the victims of the lynching were all involved with the Mafia? That this is a story about good citizens fighting the Mafia, and not a story about several possibly innocent people being brutally killed by a mob?

p.s. Sorry to keep harping on the negative. It's just that I was planning to copy a big chunk of this article to the lynching article, but I've decided to do some rewriting in my sandbox first, and thought I should explain why. Rosekelleher (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)