Talk:Tammany Hall/Archive 1

Archive 1

Restored edits

I restored the edits made by User:68.161.26.201. A post on the help desk (from a different New York IP) identified that user as a professor of urban studies at NYU. Although I know little of the subject matter, I looked at the changes and thought they looked like improvments, so I restored them. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• disambiguate; history; etymology; tammany:

Everything tammany should have disambiguation, including Louisiana, as well as etymology, history.

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 23:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Status of secret society

Tammany Hall is sometimes called the Tammany Society. Wasn't it some kind of secret society that combined various Roman Catholic elements ? If so, wouldn't it be accurate to say that Tammany Hall was a potential rival and even an opponent to Freemasonry ? ADM (talk) 10:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No, that would not be acccurate. Tammany was founded as a political society (supporting the Jeffersonian Democrats), not as a secret society. Like many other fraternal organizations, they borrowed the organizational structure of Freemasonry in creating their society. In fact, several of Tammany's founders were Freemasons, who created Tammany because Freemasonry in NY insisted on staying politically neutral.

Tammany was never specifically Roman Catholic... However, starting in the 1840's it did become heavily identified with the Irish immigrant community in New York City (The Democratic Party machine, which was run out of Tammany Hall, was quick to see the Irish community as an important voter bloc). And, of course, the Irish community was predominantly Roman Catholic. Blueboar (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Tammany Hall (Confusing) - Building vs Political Machine

I think the article needs to be heavily rewritten to disambiguate the differences between the place/society and the politics within.

At the moment the name Tammany Hall is used with no interchangeable difference between the two meanings. This use seems to suggest a concurrency between the original building and the one that opened in 1927.

It's like persistently calling the office of the US President the White House but not clarifying that this is a euphemism for an executive branch of the US government based on the synonymous building in Washington.

But as can be seen, there is an article for the US President and one for White House. This should be the case for Tammany Hall, or at least, a separate section pertaining to the building and its locations, throughout its history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.254.87 (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggest merger from the Tammanies

It seems to overlap heavily, and Tammany Society has already been merged into this article. Ray^Talk 06:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

John F. Curry

The link for John F. Curry seems incorrect. The list of political leaders includes that name, and such a person actually existed. However, the link goes to a John F. Curry who was the first national commander of the Civil Air Patrol. Broadcaster101 (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

William Mooney

William Mooney of Tammany 1700s links to a soap actor of the 1980s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.46.240 (talk) 04:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

"Leaders" section

Are the people listed in the Tammany Hall#Leaders section supposed to be the Grand Sachems or some other leadership position within Tammany Hall? If the list is supposed to be that of the Grand Sachems, the 19th century portion doesn't match the list given in Euphemia Vale Blake's History of the Tammany society from its organization to the present time. It looks like an anonymous editor added the contents of the list back in 2003]DanielPenfield (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I've editd the article substantially, but I've never touched the list, simply assuming it was correct. I took a quick look at your source - can you tell me if there's an equvalent list there, or will someone have to read through the book and construct a new one? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Search for "GRAND SACHEMS" (it's in "CHAPTER LXII") or check WorldCat (OCLC 1294977, OCLC 10849194) to see if it's available at your local library. DanielPenfield (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at the list, and it seems to me that the scanning process has severely corrupted it, enough so that I do not think it can be said to be a reliable source for this information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a much better scan on Google Books, but I'm not convinced that this 1901 book is the best source for this information. Modern research may have filled in many of the gaps. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, the unsourced contributions of an anonymous editor using a Russian IP address are better than what appears to be an extensively researched history of Tammany Hall that readers can verify for themselves. We should wait for this "modern research" that you've mentioned to magically appear someday. DanielPenfield (talk) 03:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You like the info so much, do your own damn work and put it in the article. And signatures do not go on a seperate line, chief. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Three observations:

1. I never asked anyone to do anything other than answer the original question, to wit: "Are the people listed in the Tammany Hall#Leaders section supposed to be the Grand Sachems or some other leadership position within Tammany Hall?"
2. Your claim that "signatures do not go on a seperate line" is not borne out by Wikipedia:SIGHOW, and yet your repeated "correcting" (viz., [1], [2], [3]) of my signature is explicitly called out by WP:TALKO.
3. Wikipedia:Verifiability requires that "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question." You seem to believe, somehow, that this article is exempted from that requirement.

-- DanielPenfield (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Citations from Time mag article and Myers book

They both clearly state what I have published. You need to keep your opinions to yourself.75.72.35.253 (talk) 12:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you need to assume good faith about the actions of other editors, since I have no ideological vew if Tammany I'm pushing. I do not have the book to read, but I did read the Time article, which says nothing about applicants having to prove their Americanism. There's one passing remark about Tammany starting as a "superpatriotic" organization, and that's it. If the book you're citing says that, then you need to actually cite the book as support for the statement, as you have now done in your added paragraphs. Any information added to Wikipedia articles needs to be supported by a citation from a reliable source, and if it is not, it is subject to removal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's please discuss this calmly. One statement you added to the article was this:

The society was originally developed as a club for "pure Americans" who would only join the club after they did various tasks to demonstrate just how pure American they were.

and the citation you provided to support this was the 1955 Time magazine article. That article says:

The story begins in May 1789, just a few weeks after the U.S. Constitution took effect, when New York City's Society of Tammany adopted its own constitution as a superpatriotic club for 100%-pure Americans.

and that is all it says on that subject. As you can see, that specific citation does not support the statement you added, about a series of tasks which had to be done. If that information came from another source, then you need to provide that particular source as a citation, the Time mag article is not sufficient. As such, I have again removed the part of the statement which is not supported. Please do not re-add it without a citation which supports it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The remainder of my editing today has been to clean up the formatting of refs. I have made no other content changes. I am going to change the title of this section so it's not a borderline PA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Editor changing lede photo

User:86.160.72.159 has been changing the lede photo of the article, from one of Boss Tweed to pictures of the Tammany Hall building, on the argument that the article is about the institution and is better represented by that image. I believe this is wrong and have reverted his bold edit.

I agree that the article is about the institution, but disagree that the building is the best way to represent it. Tammany Hall was only incidentally a place (actually, two places, as there were two different buildings), it was instead a political machine through which powerful men controlled the destinies of New York City and New York State for many decades.* Although Boss Tweed may not have been the most powerful of those Tammany bosses, he is certainly the best known of them, and it is therefore very appropriate that his picture be the lede one. User 86 compares Tammany Hall to the Capitol Building and the White House, but this is a falacious comparison: those buildingsl will continue on even when the current crop of leaders is gone, and so the instituions they house are best represented by the buildings, which are iconic representation of the institutions, but it took the personal qualities of the Tammany bosses, and their greed, corruption, energy, and zeal, to make Tammany what it was. Once that was gone, and the forces of reformism had grown, Tammany Hall died. Nor is the building, a rather non-descript one which is not even landmarked, iconic in any way shape or form -- everyone who looks at the Capitol Building or the White House knows what it is amd what it represents, but no one -- baring a few scholars, historians and building fans -- would look at Tammany Hall and know what went on there or what it meant to New York's history.

If the lede image needs to be improved -- and I don't necessarily think it does -- the thing to do would be to do a two-fer, and include one of the other Tammany leaders with Tweed, but the building is a poor substitute as a represntation of the real power of Tammany, which was the people who ran it.

This is not an issue of my not liking the photos User 86 is elevating to the lede: I added both of them to the article, and took one of them myself.

* Also, in actuality, only a small part of the Tammany Hall building was used by the political machine. It was, in fact, primarily a performance venue -- as is mentioned in the article.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Opening date on 14th Street

In paragraph 2 of both the lead and the "Headquarters" section, "1830" should read "1868" (Burrows & Wallace). Vzeebjtf (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

So fix it. Esrever ^(klaT) 16:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you specify which page(s) in Gotham so I can verify? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The page that the quotation is taken from. (995? I have the kindle version.)

Actually, it was their second hall -- and fourth home. Here are sources:

Kilroe, Edwin Patrick Saint Tammany and the Origin of the Society of Tammany or Columbian Order in the City of New York (New York: 1913, n.p.) chapter 4, section 5, "The Wigwam," pp. 189-91

---

Myers, Gustavus The History of Tammany Hall (New York: 1901, self-published):

p. 6 "The name "Wigwam" was given to their meeting-place, and Barden's Tavern was selected as their first home."

p. 7 "the Wigwam at Barden's Tavern"

pp. 13-4 The Tammany Society "shifted its quarters from Barden's Tavern to the "Long Room," a place kept by a sometime Sachem, Abraham or "Brom" Martling, at the corner of Nassau and Spruce streets. This Wigwam was a forlorn, one-story wooden building attached to Martling's Tavern, near, or partly overlapping, the spot where subsequently Tammany Hall erected its first building — the present Sun newspaper building."

pp. 257-8 14th Street building

---

Perris, William Maps of the City of New York, Vol. 1 (New York: Perris & Browne, 1852), Plate 10 Vzeebjtf (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Self-published books are not considered to be reliable sources. See WP:SPS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You are correct that Gotham gives 1868 as the date for the 14th Street headquarters. I'm not sure if 1830 came from another source, or was just a typo, but I've changed it. If I come across another conflicting source we can cite both. As for the info in the Myers book, let me see if I can confirm it with the sources I have available to me here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I've confirmed most of what you cite from Myers, using Oliver Allens' The Tiger as a source. I'm going to start integrating that information into the article. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's another source:

The Story of The Sun, p. 229 Vzeebjtf (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's a photo at the NYPL. Here's a lithograph from Valentine's Manual:

File:Printing House Square, New York City.png. Vzeebjtf (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I've added the new info to the "Headquarters" section. Also, it seems as if the Myers book was published (see "Bibliography") and has actually been cited numerous times in the article, so if there's any more to be added from that source, that's fine. (Although I think that the stuff from The Tiger covers pretty much everything to cited above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Added the Sun info. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Brown v3:80-7 has material relevant to 14th Street; on p. 85 he calls the cafe "Amusant".

The New York Times of 1869-01-03 has a description of 14th Street (first column, half-way down) as entertainment venue. Vzeebjtf (talk) 22:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Main photo caption

I'm not sure how a political system can be both corrupt and efficient at the same time. I'm not sure what was meant to be expressed there, but there must be a better way of doing so. 71.246.9.58 (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)