Talk:Patrick Hennessy (painter)

'The Life and Works of Patrick Hennessy'
The article cites 'The Life and Works of Patrick Hennessy' by Kevin Andrew Rutledge, but fails to provide further details. At minimum, we need a publisher and publication date - I can find nothing via Google to confirm either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Tag removal
When articles are tagged as having problems those problems should be address before the tags are removed, not just removed without any action being taken. Who better to fix them then the person who know the topic best or asking for help if they don't understand the problem. There is no dispute problem here, Seascaper you just don't like the fact the article has been tagged as having problems and you have not bothered to do anything about them. For your information some articles have been tagged for years. I previously pointed you to the issue about the lede but you just disagree with the policy on how article lede should be and how the citations should be done. The problems still persist even after you again removed the tags. Remember that I was not the only editor to tag the article User:14GTR reinstated them when you previously removed them stating that the issues still had not been fixed, so there is more than one editor who disagrees with you. On 19 August with this edit User:AndyTheGrump also indicated that the lede was a problem. He was the one who also added the biblio tag 3 days before. Maybe you can see a pattern here; your view is the minority; others disagree with you. So take some positive action or ask for help but don't remove the tags again until they have been dealt with. ww2censor (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The Life and Works of Patrick A. Hennessy (Thesis)
Having discussed the background to the above thesis with a number of Wikipedians last Sunday it was agreed that this thesis warranted inclusion in the article provided that the full background history of the document should be clearly shown in the reference section of the article.See 8 in the referance section."snowpatrol 20:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seascaper (talk • contribs)


 * Please provide a link to those discussions you gad with others, because a thesis is generally regarded as original research and as such is not acceptable as a reliable source. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 18:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I would also question, to say the least, the use of 1rish census 1911 and DJCAD student record as referances.Thanks 14GTR (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The 1911 Irish census is online but I can't tell which John Hennessy was Patrick's father; it might be this entry. I don't know but 46 would be about the right age in 1911 for a man who had been in the military for 21 years when he died in 1917 but this John is not listed as being in the military; simply as "farmer's son". I could accept that of we know the correct one. We could also do with the mother's census record. The student record would appear to be WP:OR unless it was reported in some newspaper or other reliable source. ww2censor (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that the student record is WP:OR and needs to be removed but I don't think a census record, particularly without an accompanying commentry or some added context, meets WP:SECONDARY. The reference given in the article dosn't appear to specify a page and the one you found, as you pointed out, is not quite right either. Thank you. 14GTR (talk) 12:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The comments above are helpful- but this is beginning to feel like an FA-Review, rather than an emerging article being steered by a very new Wikipedian. In such circumstances I have found it is more productive to roll up my sleeves, and lead by example- and post a revised paragraph on the talk page so the new editor can incorporate it himself into the article or discuss the problems further. Perhaps you can advise on the correct way to upload an image of this painters work using our Fair Use procedures.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 11:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * That's been looked at before - see discusion here, but obviously that dosn't say anything about using a thesis as a source which, after all is the subject of this section. Cheers.14GTR (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry- your link is too broad for me to make any sense of it- are you commenting on Fair Use? Or are you trying to write an example of how you could improve the a particular paragraph on this page- in a manner that a new editor could follow? I am more concerned about getting an Infobox up- you could help with that, writing the inline links in a more approved way without losing data, and getting some or at least one image on the page- could you assist with that. The issue of whether a deposited thesis that is used by experts in the field as the definite source and is accessible to view on request is esoteric at this stage of an article development- but will become problematic as FA review. Do you ever get to any of the wikimeetups- it is a worthwhile and enjoyable method to spend a Sunday. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The question is whether the thesis is acceptable as WP:RS especially because it is the only source used extensively for many citations in the article. If there was a discussion, as claimed, then the main editor could easily respond but has yet to do so. The infobox is whole other issue and if you are desperate to have one I am sure you could do it but right now I see that as a far less important issue than a frequently used source. For the next 3+ weeks I can't help out at all. BTW an FA review would be nit-picking each sentence and we are nowhere near that. ww2censor (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I was at the London Wikimeetup 98 (or 97) where Seascaper came to discuss the problem. It was thoroughly discussed- I think it was me that explained that problem was that it was a frequently used source. We all did a little mentoring and concluded that in this case the thesis was an exception to the usually rule- to carry on writing the article and develop it, and look to ways of introducing better references as they became available. We don't take minutes at a Wikimeet. My concern is that we knock this into shape by being positive and helpful- and we as old hands can go in and fix it in a few weeks time- at this moment the infobox is the positive thing to do next as it leads to Wikidata involvement and it is what journalists look at- particularly if they have to write up a current event. I know what you mean about the next 3+ weeks. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * By "was an exception to the usually rule" I take it you mean it was an exception to the usual rule, actually a policy, that WP dosn't use a thesis as a reference. Why did you think that ?14GTR (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * No not quite-'exception to the usually rule of thumb used by editors to summarise a policy that is open to debate'. The guideline that applies here is WP:BITE- we are both short of time so I suggest you leave it there knowing that User:Seascaper has heard your POV- broadly agrees and will replace the references when one emerges. Have a good week. --  Clem Rutter (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * An editor who has been editing more or less daily since at least August 2014 is hardly a 'newbie' as in WP:BITE, but leaving that aside I may be in a position in the next week or so to access some better sources for this article. If so I should be able to replace the references in question as you suggest. Many thanks.14GTR (talk) 08:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Good news ! I've managed to find alternative sources for most of the material attributed to the Rutledge thesis and will start adding them to the article at the beginning of next week. Best regards. 14GTR (talk) 11:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Patrick Hennessy(painter)
The validity of this thesis and whether it merited inclusion in the article was discussed at some length by a number of editors at the recent Wikipedia meetup in London.After listening to the background of the document and more importantly the background of it's editor and where it is currently stored and made available to the public their consensus was that it did merit inclusion with the proviso that the background was clearly stated in the reference section.I thanked them. Kevin Rutledge is the authoritative voice on Patrick Hennessy in Ireland.This Friday(27/11/15)Kevin Rutledge will be giving a lecture at the Crawford Gallery(the main public gallery of Cork city)titled "Dreaming Realisms:Patrick Hennessy Centenary Lecture"snowpatrol 16:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seascaper (talk • contribs)

Furthermore.It would be nice to think that as these people head off to this lecture next Friday night that some of them who may not be that well acquainted with Hennessys life would be able to look on Wikipedia and get some information that just may make their evening more fulfilling80.42.123.227 (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC).

An image?
I think now is about the right time to introduce 'one' fair use image to illustrate the painters style. Fair use on wikipedia is a minefield- but as there is nothing happening over the next 10 days there is plenty of time to read the help pages. Basically you are allowed to introduce one copyrighted image to an article is you follow 6 conditions. It must be very small under 500px wide, and contain this tag Template:Non-free use rationale but we are all here to help you! I have used this technique for many mills File:Manor Mill, Chadderton 0005.png for example-- Clem Rutter (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

An Image
Yes.I will get going on this over the Christmas. The image I have in mind is Self Portrait with Cat. It is a good example of Patrick Hennessys unique style and his artistic ability.It also contains a portrait of the artist.Seascaper (talk)


 * This painting is a better example of what the current style of non-free image details are like. ww2censor (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)