Talk:James Connolly/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Initial text

i think the title should be changed to James Connolly (socialist and nationalist) because that is a more accurate description. I don't think Jim would be happy with the ommission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevolution (talk • contribs) 19:27, 14 February 2004 (UTC)

Agreed

I agree with the previous contributor - Connolly would certainly have described himself as a socialist before a nationalist. I feel the article, while generally good, is also mocking of the Labour Party - (his legacy is claimed by...even the Labour Party) - which regards him as one of its founders, along with Larkin and O'Brien. Articles on Larkin and the 1913 Lockout would also be a helpful addition.

In terms of article titles I think the shorter the better, so "socialist and nationalist" would be a step in the wrong direction. If anyone wants to change it to just "socialist" I wouldn't oppose, but I don't think it's too important. The article makes it perfectly clear he was a socialist. -R. fiend 14:36, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree that "James Connolly (socialist)" is better --Ryano 16:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Started making some additions but realised I need to go and check a few things. Connolly's career to 1903 and especially the SLP connection is important for understanding his general outlook and socialist convictions, so want to try to clarify this a little. Didn't he go to the USA for a long time between 1904 and his activities in Ireland? Mattley 22:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Connolly cannot be claimed by any tradition - Marxist or Irish nationalist. He formed an alliance with nationalism, donned the pose of a Catholic and endorsed the physical force tradition of Irish history. We might ask why and we may never know the answer but a hint comes from his reply when questioned on how he came to know so much about military matters: "you forget that my business is Revolution". Connolly's one driving force in life was to see the socialist revolution and the benefits it would bring to the working classes of Ireland and the world. This desire was so great that he was prepared to use any tactic ('end justifies the means'). He adopted his socialism to suit the conditions of the time. Connolly's writings do not belong to either the Marxist or nationalist but to all who share his vision of a fair, equal and free socialist society.Donagh 10:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC) Donagh

Irish socialist

Surely the Irish socialist is by far the better known of the two, and ought to be the primary meaning on Wikipedia. To suggest otherwise is US-centric. PatGallacher 12:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

As nobody has responded to this suggested change in around 28 hours I will carry it out. PatGallacher 16:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Can someone put up a picture on this article please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exiledone (talk • contribs) 15:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Easter Rising Role

I came to this page looking for something about Connolly's role in the Easter Rising but it seemed to jump pretty much into his execution from his early life. Does anyone know enough about it to write something? because I don't... Helen-Eva 10:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Surely there's a sufficiency, between the Easter Rising and Irish Citizen Army articles, to cobble something together? --Orange Mike 17:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you're probably right, but as I hadn't heard of him until yesterday, I'll defer to someone with a bit more knowledge do the cobbling! Helen-Eva 08:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, bless you for thinking of it! I recommend reading a good biography of the man, as his is one of the most inspiring stories in Ireland's history, even though (like most of them) it ends tragically. --Orange Mike 18:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Years of service : mistake ?

He died in 1916 but years of service are supposed to be 1913-1923. Is it a mistake ? Poppypetty 22:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Stonebreakers yard

Why in the world do you not mention the Stonebreakers yard by name. Also missing is the commemorative cross that is placed in the spot that Connolly was shot. All of the others were executed at one end of the yard, Connolly's is on the opposite end. This cross, which I took a pictue of while lying on my stomach in the yard in 2000, became part of a photography and poetry exhibit I did about Kilmainham and Glasnevin shown in Dublin and New York, hangs above my bed now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.220.229 (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Birthplace

Whilst it seems generally accepted that Connolly was born in Edinburgh, the 1911 Census returns show that he gives his place of birth as Co Monaghan. Millbanks (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

As does the 1901 census. But see today's Irish Times letters page (sorry, no link, requires subscription for online version) - his parents' census return from Edinburgh in 1881 lists him as being born there. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 15:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I saw the letter. Interesting. Millbanks (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Last to be executed?

We can split hairs here but Roger Casement was the last. Also the "uproar" on each side of the Atlantic is a bit POV; it was not universal.Red Hurley (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, only his supporters were in an uproar. A soldier wouldn't mind being shot in a chair if he was dying for a cause.86.42.199.40 (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent editing

Recent editing has resulted in the article becoming somewhat jumbled. There are two descriptions of his execution which don't differ from each other significantly. Perhaps the person editing this section could consider finishing what he's been doing so that we can judge whether it's actually an improvement. --Mia-etol (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've dropped 'em a friendly note already. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

James Connolly statue, Troy, New York

Regarding the legacy of James Connolly, There is a statue of the great man in Troy, New York, USA There's a pcture of the statue at the following WWW address. http://www.wageslave.org/jcs/projects/troy/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.132.204 (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Work Required

This article is in need of a lot of work.

No sources/references given.
Nothing about his (lengthy) time in a America.
Very little on his contribution to Irish politics.

Also, is it right to have him in the Scottish/British soldiers category when it is merely an allegation? GiollaUidir 22:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

There is some repitition re his death between the section on republicanism and the specific section on his death. Monalisaoverdrive (talk) 09:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Nationality

Since Connolly was born in Edinburgh and took an active role in Scottish politics could we not call him an Irish and Scottish socialist in the introduction? --BRFC98 (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt that he was 'Scottish by virtue of his birth, residence and speech' which should cover that aspect of his nationality, and he self-identified as Irish 'in Ireland and especially in the United States'. See p 16 James Connolly: A Political Biography by Austen Morgan which covers the Irish aspect. RashersTierney (talk) 00:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

'Irish socialist' again

An IP has changed "Scottish and Irish socialist" to "Irish socialist". I agree with this change. Connolly was born into an Irish family in the Irish area of Edinburgh. He would have been considered Irish both by his own community and by those outside it. Although he first became involved in socialism in Scotland, it was only seven years before he left the country forever, and he wouldn't have been a major figure in Scottish socialism. If the Scots are really anxious to claim him, how about "Scottish-born Irish socialist? Scolaire (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Irish name

I am aware that there is an informal convention not to use the Irish version of a person's name unless that person used it him- or herself, but that convention is not universally applicable, nor should it be. The purpose of the convention was to stop editors randomly adding Irish versions of names taken from a dictionary of Irish names. Séamas Ó Conghaile, however, is a well-known, commonly-used name for Connolly, notable enough to appear in the first sentence of the lead. For instance, Connolly Station is Stáisiún Uí Chonghaile in Irish (compare Heuston Station / Stáisiún Heuston). At any rate, I have now provided a citation to a biography of Connolly by a notable author, so WP:V and WP:RS are satisfied. Scolaire (talk) 11:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right; it gets a bit unreal when Roger Casement is "Ruairí Mac Easmainn", where "Ruairí" is modern Irish and "Mac Easmainn" is just phonetic. For JC the station makes the difference and Uí Chonghaile is accurate.Red Hurley (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"Séamas Ó Conghaile" is neither well-known nor commonly used. The railway station translation is a translation of the name of the railway station (which just happens to be named after Connolly). Mooretwin (talk) 08:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Mooretwin, the railway station was only an example. To anybody who knows both Irish and history the name "Séamas Ó Chonghaile" is well known. The book I cited is by a reputable author and refers to him as "Ó Chonghaile" throughout. Please do not assume that because you are not familiar with something it is therefore not well known. If you look at my contributions you will see that I am not on any campaign to add Irish names. Please refrain from knee-jerk reverts. Scolaire (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

IMOS says "the mere fact that an Irish name appears in certain sources is not sufficient evidence that it is commonly used". The onus is on you to demonstrate that the Gaelic version of Connolly's name is commonly used, and also to seek consensus for its inclusion. In the meantime, you should remove it from the article. If you can demonstrate its common usage, I will support its inclusion, but not before. Mooretwin (talk) 09:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrong way round. The stable version includes the name, it is up to you to gain consensus for removal. Something I will never agree to, as a matter of principle. O Fenian (talk) 11:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

If IMOS is going to interpreted so pedantically and inflexibly, then perhaps it needs to be re-worded to reflect a more 'common sense' approach. I'm not in favour of the application of 'novel' Irish names, but that is not the case here. RashersTierney (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"The mere fact that an Irish name appears in certain sources is not sufficient evidence that it is commonly used" was my wording. "Certain sources" means things like the Oireachtas database of members, which are not particularly recommended by WP:RS. RS specifies, and I quote, "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." That is what I have cited here. Please don't give me that "the onus is on you" stuff. I was careful to source the information before I put it in, and you need a better reason than that for removing it, especially when consensus is obviously in favour of keeping it. Scolaire (talk) 11:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Having said all that, the SOC article as Gaeilge here is very, very much shorter than the one in the Asturian dialect here. Can the Asturian miners' strike of 1934 be the only reason?Red Hurley (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

IMOS doesn't define "certain sources" and Scolaire has no authority to impose his interpretation of what is meant by "certain sources". We need evidence that the Gaelic name is commonly used. So far that is lacking - a single source doesn't demonstrate common usage. Mooretwin (talk) 11:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I see the patrol has arrived. It was only a matter of time. No point in trying to comply with the guideline now. Goodbye. Mooretwin (talk) 11:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Connolly occasionally signed his articles using the Irish form of his first name. See for example pages 3 and 4 in http://www.redbannermagazine.com/HC%203.pdf - Conghaileach (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Removing the Irish name again

IMOS says, "An Irish version of a person's English-language name may be given in the first sentence of the lead of an article on that person if it is a well-known, commonly-used name for that person." It does not say "if it is well-known and commonly-used among people who have no knowledge of Irish", nor should it. "Séamas Ó Chonghaile" is well-known: no publisher would attempt to sell a book on a person called "Séamas Ó Chonghaile" if that was a name that was unknown. Authors and publishers do not "translate a name into Gaelic", they use a Gaelic name for those people whose Gaelic name is well-known. For instance, a book on Ian Paisley would not be entitled "Eoin Mac Pháislaí" because if it was it wouldn't sell a single copy. The citation is more than sufficient evidence that the name is well-known and commonly used, and removing sourced content against consensus is disruption, pure and simple. Scolaire (talk) 06:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It does not say "if it is well-known and commonly-used among people who have no knowledge of Irish", nor should it." - who said or implied that? The source used to back up the name is a Gaelic language source not an English source. An English source using the Gaelic name would be better. The Ian Paisley annology makes no sense either unless the book was likewise written in Gaelic.

"The citation is more than sufficient evidence that the name is well-known and commonly used" - Also read the IMoS policy again Scolaire. What does the last line say in the paragraph you culled your quote from? "On the other hand, the mere fact that an Irish name appears in certain sources, such as databases, is not sufficient evidence that it is commonly used." - we have one source written in Gaelic and not English that uses the Gaelic name (i wonder why). That is hardly proof that it is commonly used. Maybe you could provide better and more relevant sources?

Also i am within right to make the edit, and you are in your right to perform WP:BRD. Accusations of disruption were its not merited is bad faith, so please WP:AGF Scolaire. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I have just noticed the above discussion as i was wondering why you titled it "again". Conghaileach gave the best evidence for it with that PDF, however it only shows James using Seamus, and not the full name. I'm willing to act in good faith and remove my objection, however Scolaire if it is as well-known and commonly used as you claim - provide better sources that make it clear for you've provided nothing to back up your arguement. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I called it disruption because I assumed you had read the previous discussion before reverting. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect somebody to read the talk page and ascertain what the consensus is before making an edit that is bound to be controversial. I also can't help wondering why the inclusion of an Irish name on this one article of many that include an Irish name suddenly became so important to you, if you were unaware of previous discussions. Or how you managed to come up with the same arguments as Mooretwin (Who says that that is what IMOS means? IMOS says that a name appearing in sources is not enough. A book is not a reliable source!) without being aware that he used them. Since you say you will act in good faith and remove your objection I will now assume your good faith. There is no need to say more. Scolaire (talk) 13:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

False claim about birthplace

I inserted the word "falsely" into the sentence dealing with Connolly's claims on the 1901 and 1911 census forms to have been born in County Monaghan. This was reverted. It is clearly accurate, and relevant that Connolly felt the need to lie about this. I will reinstate after a suitable period for discussion. Irvine22 (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any proof he did it falsely, maybe he was under the impression that was his birthplace? Given the mention earlier of his birthplace then this contradictory admission, it is clear without the word. O Fenian (talk) 09:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason I reverted was not that I thought it was inaccurate, or irrelevant, but that it was unnecessary, per my edit summary. If Connolly was born in Edinburgh, and he stated Monaghan, then it was obviously incorrect. The addition of the word "falsely" is therefore commentary, not fact. If you want to assert that he "felt the need to lie about this", then you need only find a reliable source that says he felt this way. Scolaire (talk) 08:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I put the information where it belongs, as a note next to the accepted birthplace.Colemcginnis (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a very big difference between the place you were born - which you can't help - and putting your name to false information when you are an adult (and a prolific writer, not least on history). Twice! I think that deserves more than a note as it reflects on his mature perception of truth (negatively) and on his pride in his Irish origins (positively).Red Hurley (talk) 08:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source we can go to for a discussion of this? If so, it should be easy enough to add the content to the article. If not, it comes under the definition of original research, which is not allowed on WP. I said this ten months ago (just three posts up from this one) but nobody seems to have found a source in the meantime. Scolaire (talk) 09:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not original research as it was mentioned in the Irish Times in 2007. Recently the Irish censuses have been digitised and put online, and the article arose from that. It's hard to think how he would have married without a birth cert, which would have given Scotland. He was picky about other people getting elementary details wrong.Red Hurley (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You'll find him in the 1911 online census, aged 43, living at Lotts Road Dublin, occupation "National Organiser Socialed Service" (sic), place of birth "Co Monaghan". There was one other Dub JC in that census, at Rutland Place, a tram conductor born in Co Meath. None born in Scotland.Red Hurley (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's the family page online but the occupation now looks more like "National Organiser Socialist Party". Wife Lillie still with the Church of Ireland. Two children born in "Scotland", but JC himself in Monaghan. That's not original research now, just confirming what was in a paper of record.Red Hurley (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

That he put "Monaghan" on the census form is on record, albeit a primary document; I'm not disputing that. What I'm asking is, is there a reliable source that says it "reflects on his mature perception of truth (negatively) and on his pride in his Irish origins (positively)"? Can you give us the date of this Irish Times article, or tell us what exactly it said? Scolaire (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No, "negatively/positively" is my own mature view of what makes it interesting, having read most of his work with interest. The IT cite is Irish Times (Dublin): p. 17. 12 Dec 2007, in the notes, and as I recall it only mentioned the bare but interesting fact that he had entered Monaghan as his POB in both the 1901 and 1911 censuses. Obviously he knew it was untrue, as he must have had his birth cert to marry Lillie, and obviously (to me anyway) the entries reflect "pride in his Irish origins" as his parents were from Monaghan. Maybe you have a better take on it, and my notions don't have to go in the article. But I don't think we can disregard two primary documents completed by the subject of an article. Here they are in the 1901 census. Editing out this sort of detail or relegating it to the notes comes across as Wikipedia:I just don't like it and hero-worship. History is all about newly revealed aspects coming out of the woodwork, and if not it becomes blind faith and propaganda. Both have their place on wikipedia, as even past propaganda is also of historical interest.Red Hurley (talk) 11:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This is about Wikipedia policy, not about hero-worship, blind faith or propaganda. Wikipedia is not a history journal, it is an encyclopaedia. Anything that's not in reliable sources, preferably secondary sources, cannot go in the article. If the IT only "mentioned the bare but interesting fact" then that's all that this article can do. Commentary is not allowed. Scolaire (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Although unlikely, it is just possible that he may have been genuinely confused about his place of birth. As far as I am aware there is not and never has been a requirement to produce a birth certificate when marrying in Scotland. Remember that compulsory registration of births only began in Scotland in 1855 and many working class families might not have bothered keeping the certificate. PatGallacher (talk) 12:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well then, "Though proud of his Irish background" in the lede with no cite is commentary as well, but most of us would agree with that. I suggest we put "Monaghan" in the text, citing the IT as a reputable secondary source, and also linking the census pages for those interested. PatGallacher, again we would need a cite from a reputable source that his parents had not registered the birth or had lost the cert; but certs can be copied.Red Hurley (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

...and here is his birth cert from 1868. An online fan suggests that he may have put Monaghan to avoid trouble having deserted the British army. Can anyone say what the desertion legal outcome was?Red Hurley (talk) 13:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

His desertion from the army was the reason for putting Monaghan, and for his move back to Ireland, where there were lots of James Connollys. It was done to put officialdom off his trail. It's in the two biographies I've read.86.42.219.120 (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

If you could give the titles of the two biographies, and the page number where that information is, it would be really useful. Scolaire (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Religion

What's with the comparatively huge section on religion (compared to socialism, politics, revolution)? Propose cutting it unless there are objections... Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 15:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Per the note and template I added, the editor who created this section seems to be depending on original texts to convey Connolly's views on religion. (And other people's interpretation of those views.) If the question of Connolly's religious beliefs is relevant (and I'm not convinced it is) then this should be imparted with a SUMMARY based on those texts. Rather than a verbatim copy and paste of "quotes". Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedic interpretation of available texts, facts, quotes, comments, etc. Rather than a verbatim source for them. (Leaving it up to the reader to trawl and interpret.) I'd say summarise away. If you want to create a "sandbox" to do it,I'll gladly chip in to help summarise. Guliolopez (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It should be transwiki'ed except for comment on the last-minute confession, and Pearse's comment on that.86.42.194.109 (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the question of his religious views is relevant and important, but not to the degree that that section makes it seem. His religious views (Catholic or otherwise) are certainly not more important than his views on, for instance, socialism. The section should be trimmed, though not deleted in its entirety. Whatever remains, of course, must be referenced. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The deathbed confession is a classic of its sort; was he insecure or just anxious to ensure his future fame within a Catholic-nationalist movement?Red Hurley (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think that the section concerning his religious views ought to be "trimmed down", perhaps the other sections need to be expanded? His religious views are important, especially given that his most ardent supporters (today) are usually secular liberals or socialists and if wikipedia.org is to have any useful function, it ought to be to educate. Unfortunately the man has been appropriated by various groups and historians, much of what is in the public domain concerning Connolly's life and views are due largely from C. Desmond Greaves' Selected Works, which although interesting, is not a complete or even entirely accurate reflection of the whole man. Also, the problem with a summary is, who will summarize? The original texts allow the reader to 'make up their own minds', without depending on the objectivity of others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.229.15 (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not trimmed down, or not much, but religion was not that important to him. A new section on his writings would be a plus, as he covered a huge range of subjects for a man who was self-taught.Red Hurley (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

As requested (per tag), and based on the comments above, I have moved this section to Wikiquote. I moved one sentence to the Family section, and removed one sentence (about row with De Leon) which appears out of place in the article unless further details are provided. Hohenloh⁺ 09:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Writings

This article badly needs some information on his writings and work as an editor. Hohenloh⁺ 09:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

When did Connolly go to America?

This is a badly written article. ( No offence ) but considering his huge contribution to Irish life - his writings, his trade union involvement, his political involvement, his contribution to the 1916 rising, his approval of the Suffragette movement and what it stood for etc. Well, the article as it is now seems clumsy. We suddenly find he was in the USA, yet we're not informed about when or why he went there. Too much of an emphasis on religion in this article. I've read most of writings and with the exception of the booklet 'Labour, Nationality and Religion', his writings aren't about religion at all. PS - John Lennon mentions James Connolly at the end of a recorded live version of the song 'Woman is the nigger of the world' - He says 'Connolly was right'. TonyK

I firmly agree with your comments about the lack of details presented. Really made a gap in the bio by failing to give the dates (in & out)/reasons (why & how)/happenings (what & results)

JoeF — Preceding unsigned comment added by ::SilentFilms101 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

A serious lack indeed! I've added a bit now. Scolaire (talk) 10:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Best man at Arthur Griffith's Wedding?

This edit says that Connolly was best man at Arthur Griffith's Wedding. There is a ref to a book by Anthony J. Jordan. However, I can find no corroborating evidence in either Google Books or Jstor. The claim seems highly dubious to me. The editor in question has edited a number of articles over the past few years, most citing books by Anthony J. Jordan, all of them using the same unconventional citation format, and several of them quite incoherent. Also, going by his user talk page, he has apparently tried unsuccessfully to have an article on Anthony J. Jordan created. I am reverting that part of the edit pending some sort of corroboration. The other part, about the Boer War protests, is certainly true. Scolaire (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Anti-war category

The article states that Connolly was an Irish republican and socialist leader. It is in the Irish Marxists, Irish revolutionaries, Irish socialists, Irish soldiers in the British Army and Irish trade unionists categories. It makes no sense to change the anti–World War I activists category from "Irish" to "English". Place of birth is not the only, or even the primary, determinant of a person's nationality. Scolaire (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree a very pointy edit. I have yet to read any description of him as a British leader of the Easter Risiing. been born in a stable doesn't make you a horse, we go by what sources say and if they say Irish we go with that. Murry1975 (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. "Irish" is the proper category. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

One, Irish is not the proper category and maybe one needs to be set up but this is an encyclopaedia and at the moment James Connolly is listed as an Irish anti WW1 person of importance. He was not Irish, in fact none were as they were born Subjects of the United Kingdom (abet with even less "rights" than English subjects). Connolly was an international socialist. Edmund Patrick – confer 18:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Being "born a subject of the United Kingdom" did not stop a person from being Irish, any more than it stops someone from being English today. Connolly was a member of the Industrial Workers of the World, but he still proclaimed his Irishness, and fought for Irish independence. His anti-war activism was specifically in the context of the refusal of Irishmen to get involved in a British war. Scolaire (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

He wrote in favour of a German victory; he knew that Germany had declared war first (on Russia); so how can he be described as anti-war? That's more important surely?78.19.216.87 (talk) 08:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Connolly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100910205309/http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Ireland_society__economy_1870-1914 to http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Ireland_society__economy_1870-1914

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Connolly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090807174437/http://multitext.ucc.ie/viewgallery/356 to http://multitext.ucc.ie/viewgallery/356

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Legacy

Is part of his legacy not the fact that many orgainisations were named after him such as the Connolloy Column in the Spanish Civil War? Whilst it is probably that he would not claim all of these organisations as being congruent with his version of socialism had he lived to have seen them, does not the very fact that they were named after him constitute a part of his legacy nonetheless? 2600:1004:B140:760D:A40D:84FD:8113:9250 (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on James Connolly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Syndicalism?

Article consistently refers to Connolly as a straightforward syndicalist, but all of the sources are highly partisan and each acknowledges that this interpretation of him is not uncontroversial. It seems dishonest not to acknowledge the controversy and difficulty in categorising his thought in the article. It would appear that the person(s) involved in these edits has taken a specific side in the interpretation, which goes against the neutral point of view policy. Also referring to De Leon as his primary influence without a source seems very suspect, especially in the opening paragraph.Sosialachas (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Apollo! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I think I should explain here that in January, a user named CumannachEireannach was blocked as a sockpuppet of Apollo The Logician, a disruptive editor who edited articles related to Irish republicanism. So when a new user appeared the same month named "Sosialachas", it did look suspicious. However, since Sosialachas has only contributed to the James Connolly article, and makes valid points in what is a murky area, I think we have to assume that he/she is a good faith editor. Scolaire (talk) 07:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah okay I was a bit confused, thanks! Sosialachas (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the references to syndicalism and De Leonism come from the biography by C. Desmond Greaves, a Marxist historian. If I have time, I'll look at Greaves's book and see what he actually said about it. In the meantime, I'll leave these edits as they are, but move them down into the article body. Scolaire (talk) 07:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Cool, I just thought saying he was "aligned with De Leonism" without a source was a bit much and super nonspecific, especially since the Irish Times article I cited basically said he was only briefly involved with De Leonists during his time in the states Sosialachas (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for linking to that, by the way. It was a very good article. Scolaire (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

No problem! Sosialachas (talk) 08:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Anti-semitic prejudice?

This edit adds the sentences "When he finally broke with de Leon's Socialist Labor Party (SLP), Connolly displayed an anti-semitic prejudice. James A. Stevenson has said of Connolly 'As he saw it, the only SLP members to which a personality of de Leon's type could appeal were Jewish'." It cites a 1988 article in Saothar, which is available on jstor here. In the very next paragraph of that article, the author says, "but it would be a mistake to read too much into such a casually-made ethnic joke in private correspondence." Using such a sentence, without the rider and without any wider context, to make a claim of anti-semitism is undue weight on a massive scale. Scolaire (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

He displayed an anti-Semitic prejudice, rather than he himself was anti-semitic. Because of course, Connolly was not particularly anti-semitic despite associating with them at various times and having a few moments himself. I'd happily preface it or add as an addendum that he was not on the whole anti-semitic and this comment was largely out of character. Irishpolitical (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

If he was not anti-semitic "on the whole" then there is no reason to put anything in the article. Does anybody in the last 100 years other than Manus O'Riordan in 1988 and James A. Stevenson (unpublished) in 1978 make any mention of this momentary untypical "antisemitism"? I've never seen it. An encyclopaedia article is not a dump for fun facts you pick up in out-of-date journal articles. Scolaire (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:UNDUE and not worthy of inclusion. It would indeed be a mistake to read too much into such a casually-made ethnic joke in private correspondence. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Marxist theorist

He "became one of the leading Marxist theorists of his day".

This, taken from the lead, has no citation and is not repeated in the body of the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I removed this.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Marxist

User:FDW777 seems hell-bent on denying that Connolly was a Marxist. This all started when I added Connolly to the Irish Marxist category. Similarly, I added “Marxist revolutionary” (with a source) in the lede and FWD777 revered it back and claimed that he was a socialist, not a Marxist. Let’s bear in mind that Connolly is listed on the Marxist bibliography as a Marxist writer, many of the references on the article are from Marxist websites. A quick Google search provides more than enough evidence (sources) that he was a Marxist, and not just a Marxist, but a Marxist revolutionary. I’m interested to know if anyone has any objections to including “Marxist revolutionary” in the article.--EsotericJoe (talk) 12:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Since you are incapable of understanding my position despite it being repeatedly explained in clear language, I suggest you don't say what it is.

WP:CATV says Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories.
WP:LEAD says Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

You have persistently failed to make, or propose to make, a change to the article that takes those into account. FDW777 (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Your reason to revert my edit was, “ and a quick browsing of biographies of Connolly suggests to describe him as a socialist and a Marxist is not correct)”

Do you want me to cite some reliable source which state he was a Marxist?--EsotericJoe (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Um, no. Anyone reading can see since your claimed reason begins with "and" that there is something before it. Luckily the edit history is available for everyone to see, so they can see the reason stated was "rv. See WP:LEAD, and a quick browsing of biographies of Connolly suggests to describe him as a socialist and a Marxist is not correct". WP:LEAD would be the second bullet point referred to above. FDW777 (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

In addition your erroneous wording was "Irish republican, Marxist revolutionary and socialist leader", as stated he was not a socialist and a Marxist. FDW777 (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, I can quote easily provide biographies that mention he was a Marxist. I even provided a source when I added “Marxist revolutionary”, but you just reverted the edit because according to you biographies state he was not and so forth. Secondly, there is nothing “erroneous” about those words. Is there a reason why you’re so reluctant to accept that he was both a Marxist and a socialist? I mean, you are even engaging in personally attacking me now! It doesn’t matter what evidence I provide, you seem to want to exclude the fact he was a Marxist from the article and think the article should only be the way you want it to be.--EsotericJoe (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

You can keep making the same false statement, it won't make it true. Your edit was reverted as a violation of WP:LEAD. FDW777 (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Below are a couple of quotes from biographies:

For most of his life he was a Marxist and an atheist.
— Samuel Levenson, James Connolly: A Biography, p. 12

All of Connolly’s writings on economic and social issues are infused with the basic premises of Marxism as propagated in Britain in the last decade of the nineteenth century when he was imbibing his ideas from Marxist leaders of the British socialist movement in parties which were avowedly Marxist, the Socialist League and the Social Democratic Federation. The language used by Connolly up to the end of his life is replete with Marxist phrases and mottoes. The two issues of socialism, class struggle and international solidarity, were to be the focus of his life-work.
— James Connolly: A Full Life, Donal Nevin

Now, where is your evidence that he was only a socialist and not a Marxist?--EsotericJoe (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

You might want to read Nevin more carefully. He, as does James Connolly: A Political Biography by Austen Morgan, points out when Connolly was a socialist they accepted principles that at the time went under no other name than "Socialism", despite being known as "Marxist" today. The latter goes on to say Connolly would call himself a socialist throughout a political career in which he would acknowledge the political paternity of Marx . . . The street was his arena of intervention, where he would preach a socialism rooted in Marxist theory. FDW777 (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

So you now want to argue this from a semantics point of view, righto. Heck, once upon a time there wasn’t really a distinction between communism and socialism and the two terms were for the most part interchangeable, so what? The facts are that what Connolly preached, believed in and the ideologies of the parties he was a member of or founded were for the most part by any definition Marxist.--EsotericJoe (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The exact quote from E.P. Thompson, “Almost all Socialists accepted a certain body of principles then which today would be known as “Marxist” but which at the time went under no other name than “Socialism””.

Basically, you are clutching at straws and ignoring the evidence. Whatever.--EsotericJoe (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

You're the one arguing he was a Marxist and a socialist, despite the reference you provided saying differently. FDW777 (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Connolly was a Marxist. It's referenced. More can be provided if needed. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Read WP:LEAD. Then read the article. Specifically James Connolly#Socialist involvement. FDW777 (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Even two parties Connolly was involved with, namely the Irish Socialist Republican Party and the Socialist Labor Party of America, both specifically mention “Marxism” and the Marxism sidebar is included in the article. It’s a fact that Connolly was a Marxist, as well as being referenced, but yet people have to keep reading replies from you argumentum ad nauseam that he was a socialist not a Marxist without you providing any proof for that claim. It’s almost as if you have incredulity to accept that he was a Marxist even though it’s referenced. Another user has also commented that it is referenced and there is no reason for it to not be included in the article and then in the lede.--EsotericJoe (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Sources say he was a Marxist and that should be the end of it.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

If you had read the references, you would know it's not a factual claim, but opinion. I have fixed the cherry picking and claim that E. P. Thompson said something about Connolly, when he didn't. Also, claiming other articles contain claims about Marxism while ignoring what biographies of Connolly say is a non-argument. Wikipedia articles are not references. I did provide references for my argument, your selective reading of them notwithstanding. FDW777 (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

William O'Brien

I think there's misunderstood in the socialist involvement, he founded the labour party with Larkin and O'Brien (trade unionist) not O'Brien of Dublin Mac O'Donnell (talk) 06:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed link in the Socialist involvement section: William O'Brien → William O'Brien (trade unionist). HLE (talk) 11:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Inconsistency

At the beginning of the article, James Connolly is said to have left school for the working life at age 11. Yet in the Early Life section, it says "He had an education up to the age of about ten in the local Catholic primary school." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aythya affinis (talk • contribs) 00:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)