Talk:1891 New Orleans lynchings

Coordinates
I have added the coordinates of the site of the attack. The old parish jail is now a parking lot for Louis Armstrong Park.

Ktkvtsh (talk) 04:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Refs
There is a Gambino 1977, Maselli 2004, Biamonte 1992, Wiley 1978 and Donohue 2004 in References but not in Sources.

There is a Woolf 2015 in Sources but not References (consider moving under Further reading if it's not used as a source). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Fixing... Rosekelleher (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's a weird thing I've noticed: short citations don't work if there's more than one author listed in the source. As a workaround, I'll comment out the second authors in the "Maselli 2004" and "Wiley 1978" sources, and hopefully later figure out how to fix them the right way. Rosekelleher (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * They should always work if you use the following format: . – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Ah, of course! Bless you. Will fix for real now. Rosekelleher (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

"largest known mass lynching in US history"
I understand why this claim is surprising to some readers, but it does come from a reliable source, and is footnoted as follows:

"Gambino notes that it was the largest 'as measured by the number of people illegally killed in one place at one time, the victims' identities predetermined for some specific alleged offense.' This would not include massacres, such as the Chinese massacre of 1871, in which victims are chosen 'without regard to their individual identities and in which no specific offense on their part is alleged.'" — Preceding unsigned comment added by MopTop (talk • contribs) 21:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC) (This is a duplicate sig; the post is signed further down, but was interrupted by interpolated material by IP and others. Tagging first half of post here for proper attribution. Continuation of this post resumes here.) (UTC)


 * This should be read as "This is not the largest "lynching", it is however the largest X where X is defined as ("lynchings" - "massacres")". 198.84.171.88 (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * lynch
 * lin(t)SH
 * verb
 * gerund or present participle: lynching; noun: lynching
 * (of a mob) kill (someone), especially by hanging, for an alleged offense with or without a legal trial.


 * "Lynch" is not synonymous with "massacre". They are two different words because they are two different things. --MopTop (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That goes without saying. As does: "Coin" is not synonymous with "money"; They are two different categories with overlap. If a source writes "Z is the oldest example of a coin (distinct from similar older other metal disks not used as money)".  This means that there are older "coins" but the source is identifying a subcategory Y=("coins" - "coins not used as money") where Z is the oldest Y. 198.84.171.88 (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What overlap? A lynching targets people who have been accused of a crime, a massacre does not. Pardon me for saying so, but I can't help suspecting that the reason we're seeing so many objections to that particular sentence has less to do with its phrasing than it does with the Oppression olympics. --MopTop (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are seeing many objections there is a good chance the consensus is that the sentence doesn't abide by WP:NPV. If you read this wikipedia article you may note that it indicates the fact that the massacre may be defined differently by different sources.  You can check this article:  "Commemorating LA's Chinese Massacre, possibly the worst lynching in US history",  Robert Petersen,  Off-Ramp®, October 21, 2016 for an example of a massacre by lynching. 198.84.171.88 (talk) 12:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

This is the second half of a post started above. The first half can be found here. Of course it's possible that new information will come to light to disprove this claim. If you have new information from a more reliable source, by all means, change the text accordingly, being sure to cite your sources. Otherwise, please leave it alone. Just because something surprises you doesn't mean you should go in and rewrite it to fit your expectations. MopTop (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I see people are still editing that passage - maybe they think it's a contest or something, and they're upset that their demographic didn't "win". Do we need to rephrase it to make it clearer exactly what's being said? Maybe incorporate Gambino's definition in the text? Like this:


 * "It was the largest mass lynching in U.S. history, 'as measured by the number of people illegally killed in one place at one time, the victims' identities predetermined for some specific alleged offense.'"


 * Adding "known" before "largest" might help, although technically it's redundant, since that's what history is. Any thoughts? --MopTop (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * While I agree that it's annoying, the definition and explanation is already included in the note, where I personlay belive it belongs. To include it in the bread text would feel clunky.
 * I don't think that it should have to be changed to cater to some people who just can't believe that a group of people not widely known to be victims of lynchings were the victims of the largest one of all. If get worse the page should be protected to avoid them drive-by fiddling.★Trekker (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * A concern is that the Dakota War of 1862 occurred as a result of US treaty violations, ultimately culminating with the execution of 38 Dakota on December 26, 1862. Considering the US violated the treaties which led to the war, the US finding these 38 "guilty of crimes" may be considered an illegal act by the US as being a victor in a criminal act does not make your judgement sound or legal, thus interning this as the largest mass lynching in US history.  Thoughts?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.208.0.107 (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean: the executions weren't "unofficial," but arguably illegal. I notice the Dakota War of 1862 article doesn't mention the word "lynching" anywhere, though, nor do the categories contain the word "murder". Compare to Emmett Till. Maybe address that first? --MopTop (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Please read more about how "lynching" is defined. The executions of Native Americans related to the Dakota War were conducted in a formal process by government officials. Lynchings are extrajudicial actions that take place outside the courts and civil or military authority (although they have sometimes occurred with tacit consent by authorities.)Parkwells (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

There is a misreading of Gambino here: What the text is saying is that this incident is one of the largest lynchings, not the largest. The author is aware that there have been larger "lynchings" in the USA, however his research indicates that this incident is the largest of a subcategory of lynchings where "the victims' identities [are] predetermined for some specific alleged offense.". Gambino might restrict his definition of lynching to take poetic license to make his work seem more important. The important difference is that he wasn't writing an encyclopedia article. It saddens me when it seems that wikipedia editors sometimes do the same. I don't think it's necessarily intentional, some editors are just a little less bright than others. I laughed out loud when I read the all caps comment "PLEASE DON'T EDIT THIS SENTENCE..." because I thought it illustrated the difficulty that wikipedia editors can face when trying to establish a consensus with other editors who literally don't know the difference between "this" and "that". I decided to leave that sentence, but updated the article for veracity. I added a reference from lynching and a comment in the citation note explaining. It's relevant and well sourced that this incident is significant because it was one of the biggest lynchings in the US, but any comment as to disagreements of scholars on what exactly constitutes lynching is better suited only in the article specifically about lynching. 198.84.171.88 (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't have rollback privileges, so I'm going to have to ask an admin for help here. --MopTop (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay, I submitted an edit-warring report. As to Gambino's text, I have his book right here in front of me, and I did not "misread" it, nor was he using "poetic license." Just because a statement conflicts with your preconceived notions doesn't mean the author is mistaken or being "poetic." It says on page ix, "It is the largest lynching in American history.*" and the footnote reads, "As measured by the number of people illegally killed in one place at one time, the victims' identities predetermined for some specific alleged offense. 'Lynching' here is distinguished, as is usual (emphasis mine), from race riots and other forms of civil disorder in which victims are chosen without regard to their individual identities and in which no specific offense on their part is alleged." : "as is usual" implies that he considers his definition the normal one, and I assume he's going on about it for the same reason I'm being forced to go on about it, not because his definition is unusual, but because what he's saying is somehow not supposed to be true. He continues:
 * "The 1974 edition of the Encycopaedia Brittanica defines lynching as 'a form of mob violence in which a mob executes a presumed offender...the summary killing of an individual for a real or supposed crime...' Lists of lynchings kept by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People confirm that the lynching described in this book is the largest." --MopTop (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand what I'm saying. The footnote is used to clarify to the reader that the author is using a special or non-standard definition of lynching that specifically omits other incidents that may be considered by some as lynching. This article in no ways benefits by trying to aggrandize the incident by professing that it ranks #1 on an arbitrary list.  When you apply a neutral point of view to the information from the source, the result should read "...one of the largest..." not "...the largest...".  I'm going to revert your changes; As you mentioned earlier in this section many people have had an issue with the sentence and that seems to pretty clearly indicate that the consensus is on the side of an edit.  I hope my explanation helps clarify. If you still don't see what I'm saying you can ask for a third opinion or request other editors comment on this talk page and weigh in towards consensus on article content. 198.84.171.88 (talk) 12:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I do understand what you are saying, it's just incorrect. The author's use of the words "as is usual" clearly indicate that he is NOT using a special or non-standard definition. He's preemptively defending his statement, knowing that there are going to be knee-jerk reactions to it, because the victims in this particular case were not black. If the victims were black, there would be no controversy. We would not be arguing about the definition of "lynching," which is easy enough to look up on Google. As for "many people" having an "issue" with the statement, that is irrelevant. Many people misspell "its" every day, it doesn't mean they're correct. And many people add unsourced text to Wikipedia every day, and have their changes reverted.


 * Provide reliable documentation of a lynching - not a massacre, which is something different - but a lynching of more than eleven people at one time, and we have no problem. Notify the NAACP while you're at it, so they can update their records. That is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. But all you're doing right now is redefining "lynching" to suit your purposes, making condescending assumptions about Dr. Richard Gambino (an academic with a PhD), and trying to gaslight me.


 * One more thing. There's no need to "aggrandize" an international incident that sparked rumors of war. In a way, the incident is notable precisely because it's news, and surprising, to so many Americans nowadays. Italian-American history is not very well known, for a number of reasons. --MopTop (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi there, from the tone of your writing I'm not entirely sure that you are interested in pursuing a civil discussion, but I will assume in good faith that you are.
 * There is some contention as to what the largest lynching is/was. The Chinese massacre of 1871 has been reported by reliable sources as the largest lynching.  Dr. Richard Gambino (an academic with a PhD) explicitly excludes that incident from his definition of lynching.  This is a conflicting point of view so the article is best served by taking a neutral point of view and acknowledging that it was "one of" the largest lynchings. In the intro, the citation note specifically indicates that Gambino calls it "the largest" lynching. Later in the article claims of "sensational" and/or "partisan" language is noted.  198.84.171.88 (talk) 09:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You're confusing civility and objectivity with deference to you. I'm not being rude, I'm just asking you to say something definite, other than "Gambino must be exaggerating because you know how emotional those Italians are." The onus is on you to make your case. If this particular lynching is not the largest, then which one is, and according to whom, and by whose definition, and why is that source more reliable than the Encycopaedia Brittanica and the records of the NAACP? If Gambino's definition of lynching is incorrect, then which is the correct one? When I Google "lynching" I see a definition very similar to the one Gambino cited. Which dictionary are you using that defines lynching as a synonym for massacre? And if lynching is not a form of vigilantism, then how do you explain the many references throughout history to "lynch law" and "Judge Lynch"? You suggest Gambino's "partisan language" makes him unreliable but you neglect to note that the same critics (one of whom, IIRC, was from New Orleans, but I'm sure he's not "partisan" at all) acknowledge that he did his homework. He based his claim on the records of the NAACP. Is there any reason to suppose that the NAACP's records are not a good source for information about lynching, or that Gambino misinterpreted or lied about what he found there? Why doesn't anyone else go and look at the NAACP's records and see what they find? --MopTop (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I am absolutely open to the idea that there's something Gambino missed, but if so, you have to say what that is, and cite your source, not just cast vague aspersions on him, and on me. --MopTop (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Commemorating LA's Chinese Massacre, possibly the worst lynching in US history" this source describes itself as "Member-supported news for Southern California", it doesn't seem to be a WP:RS, ie from an acknowledged historian or similar. Just because some people use the word 'lynching' loosely or rhetorically, doesn't mean we should do so. Pincrete (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Definition of non-technical words like lynching are what the the words mean to everyone not just "historians". 198.84.171.88 (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * That's is an argument for linking to a clarifying article - not an argument for us deciding what is/is not a lynching. People in the real world use many words in a 'loose' or rhetorical fashion - especially words that relate to different kinds of killing. Pincrete (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no objection to the current sentence's ("It was a large mass lynching in American history.") thrust, but the syntax is horrible and does not convey any new information not obvious from the preceding sentence, if not from the title of the article itself. I suggest:

"It is among the largest mass lynchings in American history,[1][2] considered by some to be the largest.[note 1]"

If there are no objections, I will go ahead with this minor edit, given that it does not change the content of the sentence in a way that has been heretofore objected to and in fact clarifies this discussion.-A-M-B-1996- (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I now see that this poor syntax was due to an edit made without discussion (in order to manipulate search results), so I have reverted that edit. Nonetheless, I still hold out the above version as superior and will go ahead with that small change if no objections are voiced.-A-M-B-1996- (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment
See previous section. We're on the verge of an edit war, and I'm starting to get pretty exasperated. People seem to be offended by Gambino's claim that this was the largest lynching in American history, but he based that claim on the definition of lynching in the Encyclopedia Brittanica and the NAACP's records on lynching. I also cited a page on the Library of Congress website that says the same thing. If he's wrong, so be it, but you have to do the work and show your sources. Don't just try to browbeat me into submission. --MopTop (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I see in the edit history that user 198.84.171.88 is claiming a "consensus" has been reached. Whose consensus? I see one anonymous editor making the same changes over and over again. If a number of reasonably serious editors manage to arrive at a REAL consensus after a serious discussion, I will accept it. --MopTop (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I based the claim that there was consensus for an edit on edit history (including edit summaries) and your specific statement that there were "so many objections to that particular sentence". Also other wikipedia articles favours the language included in my edit. 198.84.171.88 (talk) 09:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * A "consensus" of anonymous editors who haven't discussed the issue or provided reliable sources is not a valid basis for making a change. The purpose of the request for comments is to arrive at a meaningful consensus among editors who are familiar with the Wikipedia guidelines and understand the importance of citing reliable sources. And it was also meant -- I'm surprised I have to spell this out -- as an opportunity for OTHER Wikipedia editors to have their say, not for you and I to keep going around in circles. --MopTop (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment If you were talking about a lynching of Afro-Americans, you wouldn't be talking about definitions of lynching. You're upset because the statement that the lynching of Italian-Americans was the worst in American history is upsetting to your prejudices.


 * The NAACP considers this lynching of Italian-Americans to be the worst instance of lynching in American history. They do a lot of research before they say such things and I think they know what they're talking about.


 * And I'll tell you something else that will get you even more bent out of shape--There were blacks among the crowd that was lynching Italian-Americans.


 * You can't change history to suit your bigotry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RosaBeatrice (talk • contribs) 20:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment this is not a well-phrased, clear WP:RFC, it might be better to ask a simpler clearer question. However, as far as I can see, the claim that this was the largest lynching seems to be adequately sourced and if there are other claimants, this claim could be attributed. I see no nead for the 'textual' mention of 'as opposed to massacres', since the author's definition and that distinction is made clear in the footnote - and in English the terms are generally understood to be distinct. Lynching is an international term/phenomenon and only in the US has it been historically associated with killings of black citizens. Pincrete (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment The request is not well phrased. The question should be this simple: "Is it an undisputed scholarly consensus(wp:v) that this incident is the largest lynching(by all definitions) in U.S. history?" The answer is no.  The simple way at coming to this conclusion is to realize that the source cited(Gambino), while claiming it was the largest, makes a footnote indicating that more were lynched in L.A. in 1871.  The article Chinese_massacre_of_1871 indicates the same. 198.84.171.88 (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Then why isn't the article named "Chinese lynching of 1871"? Because it was a massacre, not a lynching. --MopTop (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment At this point, since user 198.84.171.88 has reverted my edit once again, I believe this is an edit war and I would like to turn this over for mediation. I don't think I'm irrationally attached to this. A while back an editor commented that the Dakota War executions, being illegal, could be considered lynchings. That makes sense to me, and if the user were to cite reliable sources backing his claim, there would be no problem whatsoever. (It could well be that that editor is objectively correct but can't cite sources because historians haven't caught up yet. That happens too, unfortunately.)


 * Italian-American history has often been ignored because it doesn't quite fit the black-and-white view of history that prevails in this country. The horrors of slavery and Jim Crow have naturally eclipsed some of the lesser injustices, and while that's understandable, it's still a form of erasure and it lets certain offenders off the hook. As an analogy, I think of people who ridicule American women for complaining about sexual harassment, pointing out that women in certain other countries have it worse. The fact that some women have it worse is no reason to sweep sexual harassment under the rug. But nobody wants to be called a crybaby, or be accused of insensitivity to someone else's plight. It's a way of discouraging people from speaking out and demanding change. I have literally been told, to my face, that "Italians are dumb," "they're all in the Mafia," and so on. That's pretty minor compared to, say, being shot at a traffic stop for no good reason, so there's a tendency to let it go; but just because something hasn't been talked about doesn't mean it didn't happen.


 * I hope some other editors (that is, experienced editors who understand the Wikipedia guidelines) will step in and settle this one way or another. --MopTop (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The mass executions of 38 Dakota men following the Dakota War were conducted by the military, an arm of the government, following trials of these men by a military tribunal. Lynchings are defined as extrajudicial punishment, taking place outside the formal government justice system. One can argue about the inequities of the war and executions, but they were committed by government forces following at least nominal trials. Parkwells (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Not 'the largest lynching'  - as incorrect WP:PARAPHRASE by not reflecting all the caveats attached and that RS have a variety of phrasing. It looks like about as many say 'one of the largest' as say 'the largest', and that the Chinese massacre of 1871 or Elaine race riot are also designated as lynchings and have more involved, which means some sources claim they are the largest.  Also I note the New York Draft Riots had 11 lynched over a 5 day period, matching the number here.   Which may be why Gambino felt he had to footnote it to a reduced case.  So for phrasing here, 'one of the largest', 'some say the largest', and 'the largest single event in one location'  all seem decent captures to me.  But a plain 'the largest' disregards weight of sources and the precise language used.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not "the largest lynching", per Markbassett. It doesn't matter how many sources wrongly state it was, all it takes is a single RS pointing to a larger one to invalidate that wording. WP reports the facts, not popular mistakes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, to classifying this as "the largest lynching" . I agree with MopTop and Pincrete above, as Gambino has used Reliable Sources, and this event is generally classified as the largest mass lynching according to the academic and documented treatment of lynchings. Historians have distinguished between murders that occur during race riots (which the "Chinese massacre of 1871" can be defined as), and lynchings such as the murders of the Italians in New Orleans as suspects in a killing. The fact that several people were hanged during the LA race riot does not qualify their murders as lynchings. Sources in the Lead on the Chinese 1871 article that describe it as a "mass lynching" are Hart, in a summary California history; a reporter of the LA Weekly; and a reviewer of Zesch's book, described by its publisher as a "trade book". They may disagree with the academic consensus on this topic, but are not sufficient to overturn the consensus for a field of history that has been extensively studied. Lynchings are extrajudicial murders of specific persons, usually by a mob, often of suspects who are taken from jail before trial, or after a verdict with which the mob disagrees. The argument about comparison between the New Orleans and LA cases makes it seems as if we are going from the past of ignoring or hiding lynchings, to muddying the understanding by incorrectly broadening classification in the 21st century of other racially based murders as lynchings. Yes, there were other recorded lynchings of Chinese and Mexicans in the US. The murders in the course of the 1871 race riot, or during the many other race riots in the US, are generally not classified as lynchings, even if accomplished by hanging. See difference in discussion of Elaine Race Riot: Parkwells (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


 * All sources are not equal - it is not a matter of adding up quotes simply from this article to say whether or not there is consensus. The lynchings of the Italians took place in a context in which race riots, like that in Elaine, Arkansas, 1871 Los Angeles, and the NY draft riots have a different pattern. Markbasset, please note that the NY riots resulted in a total of 119-120 deaths over five days, not 11. The Equal Justice Institute, an advocacy group, is the source that has added victims of the Elaine race riot to its 2015 compilation of lynch victims in the South, but this is not the general consensus of historic interpretation of this multi-day riot. Parkwells (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


 * There are two different issues at play here: an understanding of the consensus of historians about this and other events, and also about how they interpret lynchings and murders committed during race riots. Three articles by historians writing specifically about the Chinese massacre, who might be seen as likely setting the accepted interpretation, do not characterize it as a mass lynching - Zesch, De Falla, and Spitzerri. Secondly, there is an issue of consensus among editors on this article. Neither consensus requires 100% agreement among the participants in the discussion.Parkwells (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You added that this is the "largest... as distinct from a... race riot" but the wikipedia article race riots has the following entry: 1891: New Orleans Anti-Italian Riot
 * So there's that. I think it's best to leave the article as is until more people can comment. Like, I know that it's best, true, and neutral to say it's one of the largest lynchings and then note that Gambino et al consider it *the* largest when discounting other "lynchings", but sometimes editors have a case of emotions so logic eludes.  Hopefully the hive mind will give a decisive judgement. 198.84.171.88 (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the note. I've looked for race riot, but always get a jump to Ethnic conflict, which seems to be operating on a different plane altogether. Oh, just saw that there is a List of ethnic riots. Will check it out; try to see who made up the list - not necessarily the best source. Parkwells (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That List of ethnic riots is not very good; in fact, it's rather useless. First, it is largely unsourced! Secondly, it is biased toward events in the US, particularly more recent ones. It is absent what must surely be numerous riots in other countries that predate the 20th or 21st century; I know for sure it excludes anti-Chinese riots in the Philippines and other Asian countries of the 19th century and earlier. And it numerous riots were listed, what's the point of this kind of historic shorthand with no references? In the US, it totally excludes colonial riots, such as those in response to slave revolts, or fears of a suspected one, in which whites killed blacks at very high rates compared to the number of whites killed. I certainly wouldn't rely on it as a source for the events in this article. Parkwells (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: Wikipedia's guidelines on verifiability, reliable sources, and consensus do not demand that an Rfc question which is posed in such a way as to suggest a binary choice necessarily be resolved 100% for one side or the other. When the available sources seem hazy or divided about this question, and/or editors seem divided on what the sources say, then probably the article should simply express that uncertainty; either by a "some say, but others say"-type formulation, or some other non-binary solution. Seems like this might be one of those cases.  Mathglot (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Not to muddy the waters even further, but couldn't the nineteen men hanged on October 16, 1862 as part of the toll in the Great Hanging at Gainesville be considered the largest lynching? Forty-one men were actually hung in total, but there might be a gray area whether some of that toll was extrajudicial or not, since a (non-legally constituted) "jury trial" was held, with majority vote or 2/3 vote sufficient for a "death penalty," some of which were carried out within hours.  Wherever one comes down on the question of the legal legititmcy and whether the deaths of the 41 men were a massacre or a lynching, the case of the fourteen men hanged on the 12th and 13th seems more clear-cut as a lynching, and the nineteen hung on the 16th even more so. Naturally, this would require verification of the reference to see if it holds up. Mathglot (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: As per User:Mathglot above, the fact that sources differ on this should simply be stated plainly in the article. Wikipedia is not an arbiter of which point of view is right and which is wrong.--Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 12:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The Great Hanging at Gainesville was a result of actions initiated by appointed Confederate and state military officials, who constituted official authority in the state. Parties included the regional commander who ordered men arrested for failing to report for the draft, the provost who supervised the round-up, and the colonel who organized the Citizens Court and selected the jury (biased toward slaveholders), and the people who conducted the hangings (probably appointed by the military officials). Sources report that it was considered a wartime military atrocity, because the militia officials had exceeded their authority and failed to protect innocent residents. While I agree that the jury gave the mob 14 names and those men were killed without trial, I think it's better not to sub-divide the events. The frame was acts done by military authority in wartime. Parkwells (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - Yes to using the phrase one of the largest lynchings in United States history. Given all the qualifications editors have introduced, this is accurate. Let's leave it at that, and don't clutter the article with every possible comparison or case. (e.g. Zesch did describe the "Chinese massacre" as lynchings within his first article on the topic, but did not describe the event as a mass lynching or the largest.) Parkwells (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I have no particular objection if the closer wishes to resolve this as the "largest lynching" and they are free to do so, but to give as the rationale for that conclusion that, "While there might be more people killed by a mob at other times in US history, reliable sources have been provided to show this event was when the most specific persons were killed in a mob action," won't wash because it is factually incorrect. You'll have to change your close reason to something else, since 14 named persons were lynched as noted above. Mathglot (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Other issues - Sources
While several editors are looking at this article, I recommend that Maselli's book, published by Arcadia Publishing, be moved to "Further reading" and deleted from citations and Sources. It's not a secondary source at all, as the several-page section on the lynchings presents only scanned images of contemporary newspaper articles, plus a scanned newspaper review of the late 20th-century film Vendetta. With better sources available, let's use them. In addition, the New York Times articles can always be accessed directly. If the cite refers to a newspaper article, it should be referenced, not just the page in the Maselli book. Parkwells (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Who killed the Chief?
Behind all the claims of Italian criminality and anti-Italian feeling is a simple crime story. Who killed the Chief, and why? Has anyone investigated this just on a true-crime story level? 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:E836:EF0D:C684:7E42 (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Punch Cartoon
This suggests the jury was intimidated by criminals, as a later generation saw Al Capone intimidate juries in 1920’s Chicago. There is nothing about this in the article; only that allegations of bribery were ‘unsubstantiated’. What contemporary accounts support the intimidation idea? 213.205.242.84 (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

"African-American lynchers"
I see that Colonel James Lewis was a member of the committee that pressed for an "investigation" into Hennessey's death by accosting Italians and allowing extrajudicial means, but what are the specific incidences of black Americans attacking Italians in New Orleans? I don't see anything beyond the Gambino source. I intend on acquiring the book to understand more and investigate that claim. G.Swan0 (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The Great Gambino
I understand that Richard Gambino wrote a popular book on this subject way back when, but it was received with a lot of negative reviews from scholars at the time (who disputed the idea that the lynching was connected to a conspiracy of "elites" in New Orleans rather than an isolated eruption of mob hysteria/violence), and even as recently as 2017 there have been challenges to Gambino's use of sources.. Gambino's argument was that the 1891 NO lynching was the culmination of years of anti-"Italian" (or "Sicilian") prejudice in New Orleans, at all levels of society, and to make this case he relied heavily on sentiment in newspapers that were often not NO papers. Link one covers the flaws in this methodology and why the conclusions this sort of analysis yields are problematic in a New Orleans context.

In addition to that, his claim that this was the "single largest lynching" in US history is dubious, and the way he defines a lynching is certainly unconventional. This term is mainly used to refer to any extrajudicial executions (by mobs) of people who may or may not have had a legal trial. Really the only distinction between "mass lynching" and "massacre" is that a massacre does not necessarily have a criminal element (people can be, and have been, massacred for reasons that had nothing to do with allegations of crimes).

This article also claims, in one place, that "Italian immigrants" (Sicilians?) were "often referred to as white n*ggers" in the US, and then cites an opinion piece in the New York Times (interestingly, Gambino also used the same publication to gauge sentiment in New Orleans). The Times editor who wrote this essay does not have a background in history and does not make any attempt to back this statement up. In another place this article claims Italian immigrants were always "legally white", but this, too, is sourced to another opinion columnist who similarly has no credentials in history. As to the last claim, I would recommend using a more scholarly source that addresses the issue directly, such as. Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)