Jump to content

Talk:James Larkin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Date of birth

[edit]

Although Larkin himself, and many subsequent writers, thought he had been born in 1876, his birth certificate actually shows (pace O'Connor) that he was born in 1874. Hence the discrepancy between the date cited and the title of one of the references.Palmiro 00:59, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have a copy of the parish records for James Larkin, the son of James & Mary Ann (McNulty)which state that he was was baptised in St Patrick's church,Toxteth Park, Liverpool, 04 Feb 1874 (Born 28 Jan 1874). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daulby2011 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be updated to show a birth date of 1874. The baptismal record and the England & Wales, FreeBMD Birth Index, 1837-1915 show his birth in January 1874. The incorrect birth date from here and FindAGrave (another key genealogical source) is propogating inaccuracies.AJCottrell (talk) 09:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would recommend updating the "early years" section (either via a footnote or in the text) to qualify that different sources offer different dates. In Nevin's James Larkin: Lion of the Fold: The Life and Works of the Irish Labour Leader (2006) for example he notes that "Larkin believed his birthday was 21 January 1876; in fact it was 28 January 1874". Otherwise it will only lead to confusion. And perhaps even edit warring. Not to mind, for example, questions as to why his gravestone gives 1876. While the statue on O'Connell street was updated after its erection/dedication from 1876 to 1874. If nobody has other thoughts, I might update to reflect and explain these differences. Rather than bulldozing one over the other... Guliolopez (talk) 11:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Issues outstanding for work

[edit]

1. Larkin as editor (The Harp in 1910, the Irish Worker in his ITGWU period, and several other organs) 2. The tempestuous nature of Larkin's relationships with colleagues and his autocratic manageent style, which was a factor in many of his rows and failures, perhaps needs to be pointed out in a more general way. 3. Account of Belfast strike is as per Boyd (cited in article) and may need to be re-examined 4. More detail on period 1907 - 1913 Palmiro 01:43, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

5. Someone can add in that his aim was to help unskilled labourers to unionize. Most skilled / craft workers had their own unions by 1900.Red Hurley 08:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:PicofJlarkin.jpeg

[edit]

Image:PicofJlarkin.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Family origins & Co Down

[edit]

The article has nothing about his parents' place of birth in Ireland, and his mother's surname. This would make it better. It also doesn't tell us why he ended up living his final years in Co Down, when he retired, and how many children he had. 109.77.86.100 (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


march in liverpool

[edit]

a march comemorating him took place in liverpool this week , there was an oposing demonstration giving out leaflets saying larkin was IRA and that this march was for the IRA here a local news link http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/2012/07/21/massive-police-operation-keeps-rivals-apart-at-james-larkin-march-100252-31445627/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.43.34 (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above post is somewhat misguided. A local paper (Liverpool Echo)some years ago highlighted the Liverpudlian marching drum and fife band as connected to Irish Republican Activists such as IRA/INLA/RIRA etc (call them what you will) therefore the protestations were not aimed at James Larkin himself but the band. The band its'self issues a regular blog promoting such organisations classed as 'statements' http://jimlarkinrfb.blogspot.co.uk/ of which the last one ends "Victory to the IRA" I do enjoy the St Pats parades but clarity and not personal allegience should not be confused for the success of James Larkin's memory to prevail, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.132.134 (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair day's work, fair day's pay

[edit]

An editor recently added a claim that Larkin created the phrase, "a fair day's work for a fair day's pay", providing the citation of a recent article. The article made a bit less of a claim, stating that it was, "one of his less well-remembered slogans," which might simply mean he said it often. The claim he coined it seems highly dubious to me. The American Federation of Labor had a similar phrase ("a fair day's wage for a fair day's work") as a slogan since the 1800's. Unless Larkin himself coined it for them, he surely would have heard of the slogan at least from being involved in the IWW in the 1910's. The Industrial Workers of the World had a criticism of that motto in the preamble to its constitution since its founding in 1905. If this claim is true, I think it needs better citation than a passing mention in an evergreen opinion piece, and there's several articles to update to reflect the information. If no objections, I'll remove the claim. djr13 (talk) 08:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Larkin. 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: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Larkin. 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: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Larkin. 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: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Commander-in-chief"

[edit]

(The following thread is from a discussion in the UserTalk namespace. I have moved it here as, it seems, the topic is not closed.)

Moved from User talk:Slade121
 – Guliolopez (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello, I'm Guliolopez. Your recent edit to the James Larkin article appears to have misrepresented the source. I have reverted it. Specifically, the source you reference (Brian Hanley, 'The Irish Citizen Army after 1916', page 40) is clear in that this title (overtly put in quotes by Hanley) was ascribed to Larkin by a limited number of dissenting ICA members. These "airquotes" make it quite clear that this was not an official or more broadly ascribed title. The passage is quite clear on this:

In June a number of ICA officers including McCormack, de Couer and John Hanratty, attacked the Worker's Army idea as a plot [and] Claiming to owe allegiance to Larkin as 'commander-in-chief', the [limited number of dissenting] officers berated the 'Judases' who had stood aloof from the ICA

Please be careful not to misrepresent sources. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a misrepresentation, the context of the comment made in the reference, (although nothing is "made clear" as you attempt to claim) does indeed show that this was a limited and unofficial group, however this is irrelevant as their claims relate to Larkin's previous position as commander of the ICA following Jack White's decision to leave for the Irish volunteers, and his continuing legacy and influence over the philosophy of the group. Slade121 (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If Larkin's previous position was titled "commander-in-chief" of the ICA, then please provide a source that doesn't involve "airquotes" and confirms its use beyond (by your own admission) a limited number of dissenting/schismed ICA members. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given a recent edit and reversion, I would repeat the request that an editor seeking to make a change would provide a source for that change. As per my recent edit summary, the infobox should reflect the body. And the content of the body should be supported by reference. Neither is the case with these recent edits. "Commander-in-Chief" is not a title that someone "inherits" or is "assumed", so - if to be retained - there should be something concrete to support it. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spy from Ireland?

[edit]

Can someone please explain why Larkin is categorised as "Spy from Ireland"? The article itslef doesn't mention any such activitities.--Nico b. (talk) 06:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That category was added in March 2008 in a series of edits relating to Larkin's apparent association with the Black Tom explosion. Covered in the "In the US" section. In which Larkin is linked with other "German agents" (spies). Guliolopez (talk) 08:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Having re-read the article as well as Black Tom explosion all I find is that Larkin was suspected but denied being part of an operation carried out by german spies. In my opinion that is not nearly enough to classify him as a spy.Nico b. (talk) 11:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm not advocating the inclusion of the category (or the related text) one way or the other. I was just addressing your question. If you are proposing a change, then other editors may be interested to hear the suggestion. And may be interested to comment. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 11:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Checking the sources I have at hand plus what can be found online I find no reference to support the claim that he was a spy. In his anti war activities he certainly followed the old motto "England's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity" and ready to ally with anyone he saw as possibly helpful, but no source known to me claims that he spied. This article in the Irish Times is interesting: [1]. If no reliable sources are available to support the claim of Larkin being a spy I suggest to remove the category.--Nico b. (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I remove the category now as long as noone comes forward with sources.--Nico b. (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Some commentators'

[edit]

The usage of the word some, does read poorly as i stated in the edit. It comes across as a countering to the point that is trying to be made, with the deliberate tempering of the statement by its limiting to 'some commentators' does not as perhaps was intended deliver accuracy but rather gives the impression that this respect was largely at odds with the general consensus on Larkin, that or the edit relates to the editor's (User:Guliolopez) personal opinions on the subject. Using the word various not only improves the read, but delivers the same level of accuracy in that its usage does not seek to claim that respect and support for the subject was unconditionally and unanimously the case. User:Grosseteste

Hello. Again. Yes. It is tempering the point being made. And yes, that is deliberate. Because, no, "support for the subject" was NOT "unconditionally and unanimously the case". In the subject's lifetime. Or in the 100 years since. As is clear in the body. Which the lead should reflect.
I say this because the body is quite clear (in the "Return to Ireland" section) that Larkin was not "unconditionally and unanimously" supported. Either by his contemporaries, colleagues or later commentators.
For example, as reflected upon by Donal Nevin (otherwise an admirer of Larkin) in his bio James Larkin: Lion of the Fold (2006/chapter 40) through Larkin's personal attacks and death-threats (on William O'Brian, Tom Johnson and other erstwhile colleagues) "not only had he alienated practically all the leaders of the movement, he had distanced himself from the mass of trade union members". To claim that this suggests unconditional and unanimous support is disingenuous. At best.
Or, for example, in Emmet O'Connor's objectively titled Big Jim Larkin: Hero or Wrecker? (2016), he covers how Larkin was perceived. At the time. And since. And not through the subjective lens that you seem to be trying to impose on the reader. Which is neither supported by the text, the sources, or the facts.
(FWIW. Unlike your good self, who seems intent on ignoring the facts/sources/text in favour of your own POV, I have no "personal opinions" on the subject. Rather my role is to temper the subjective options being imposed by other editors. Including the several profiles which you have opted to use to push that POV.)
Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps tempering was too fair a description, as in reality it is deliberately trying to say the opposite to what the sentence would otherwise say, which as i said did not suggest unconditional and unanimous support despite what you have previously just said. 'Various', as i said implies some rather than all commentators supported Larkin, which of course is never the case with any figure who takes a particular line or stance in a nationally important issue, perhaps an additional countering point on his opponents could have been added. However this does not change the fact that your edits rather than level the issue take it the other way and give completely the opposite implication. I appreciate your use of references for your statements which as i said could perhaps be added as a counter point, i note that my additions relating to Bernard Shaw and James Connolly are also referenced. What reason could i possibly have for trying to create a subjective lens through which to view this article, as a scholar of history my remit is to take into account both sides of the divide with the intent of giving a fair and impartial view on a subject matter rather than influence opinion to give an overwhelmingly positive portrayal. Moreover i do not appreciate the seeming descent into playground attacks in your closing points, as i have in no way ignored facts/sources or texts having referenced the edits i have made to this article and other articles which i have seen fit to to contribute to, nor have i intended to push a POV. Nor do i appreciate your attempts to negate the points or i have made or otherwise damage their legitimacy by raising a separate issue which is not only extraneous in relation to this matter, but has been resolved by and admin (something which at least ostensibly you are not). The intention of end point is seemingly particularly deceptive as as you well know there is one other account which i have made use of not 'several' (which as i'm sure you know is defined specifically as more than two) and which is no longer in use and had never been in use at the same time and had never sought to masquerade as some completely unconnected account (again, as you know from discussion elsewhere). Regards Grosseteste (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.
I am more than happy to add the counterpoint. And to attribute it (as the Shaw and Connolly points are attributed). And to support it (as the other points are supported). And am delighted that you suggested it.
I am less happy with the suggestion that I have engaged in "playground attacks". Or that it is a mischaracterisation to suggest you've "ignored facts/sources or texts". When, in the talk page section almost immediately above this one (involving your other user profile), there's a discussion about the representation/misrepresentation of a source.
I am happy to continue to discuss article content issues here. And to discuss any other topics elsewhere. If needed.
Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 13:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The term 'good self' was pretty clearly used in a sarcastic manner, and in combination with claims that i was intent on ignoring facts it is hard to see it as anything but an attempted personal attack. Especially when this comes off the back of an attempt to have me permanently banned from wikipedia seemingly for nothing other than having a different opinion on an ultimately minor issue. I would say that it was a mischaracterisation because the previous discussion on whether or not Larkin was Commander-in-Chief was not a mis-representation of a source rather based on the use of a source which made that claim, and to then claim that this is somehow evidence of me being intent on ignoring facts and sources is rather unfair. You then go on to say 'I am happy to continue to discuss article content issues here. And to discuss any other topics elsewhere. If needed.' Which was the exact point that i was making, that issues relating to other discussions we may have had elsewhere did not need to be relayed here, especially not misleadingly so.

With that said, i am glad that we have found an agreement on the subject matter and hope that we can put any silliness and hostility behind us for the betterment of the content on this article and any other in which our paths may cross. Best Regards Grosseteste (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.
In terms of content, I have replaced "some" (implying "not all") with "several" (less charged). And have added the counterpoint you suggested instead. With references, as discussed, to the biographical works by Nevin and O'Connor. The latter which overtly attempts seeks balance and an avoidance of whitewashing.
In terms of engagement, I am happy to engage in good-faith. Which, as with the term good-self, is not intended sarcastically.
Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Irish name

[edit]

Opening a discussion about use of Larkin's Irish name due to difference of opinion with Guliolopez. Larkin was a proud Catholic and Irish nationalist. More than one source is not usually required. Note use of Irish name on James Connolly's page. Opinions welcome. Grosseteste (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As noted by Spleodrach (in Jan 2019 and again in Sep 2019) as well as by me (in Jan 2019 and again in Mar 2021), the relevant guideline here is the IMOS guideline for in-article use of Irish names. In short, the Irish version of a subject's name may be given in the lead "if it is a well-known, commonly used name for that subject". There is no evidence that Jim Larkin is or was well-known by (or even himself went by) the Irish version of his name. The suggestion that "Larkin was a proud Catholic", and therefore would have used (or wanted us to use) the Irish version of his name, is an OR argument. "James Connolly's page includes an Irish name", and therefore so should Larkin's, is an OSE argument. Neither of these arguments sway against the IMOS convention/guideline. (If anything, given the comparatively high volume of sources which use "Séamas Ó Conghaile", relative to the equivalents for "Séamas Ó Lorcáin", the latter is probably even an argument against inclusion.) Guliolopez (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note. According to this bio on Seán O'Casey on the (Irish language) National Database of Irish Biographies, "Jim Larkin wasn't an Irish speaker". I would also note that in every other biographical article from the same source (like this one on trade unionist Seamus Hughes or this on Larkin supporter Proinsias Mac Cana), while other subjects are referred to by their Irish name, Jim Larkin is always referred to as Jim Larkin. There no evidence that Larkin ever went by (or was/is commonly known by) his Irish name. There is every evidence to the contrary. The guideline therefore doesn't support inclusion. Guliolopez (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:James Larkin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MrLinkinPark333 (talk · contribs) 20:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hello! I'll be reviewing this article for Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/January 2022 --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced content

[edit]

I'm seeing a lot of uncited content, both full & partial paragraphs. Specifically:

  • Fully uncited: Early years Paragraph 1, Formation of Irish Transport and General Workers' Union and founding of the Irish Labour Party Paragraphs 2 to 4, Build up to the lock-out, and its proceedings Paragraphs 3 to 5 & also 7, Formation of the Irish Citizen Army all section, End of the lock-out Paragraphs 1 and 2, Formation of the Irish Worker League and involvement with Soviet Union Paragraph 2, Death full section, Songs full section, James Larkin Way all 1 sentence, Liverpool Irish Festival 2008 all section, People all 1 sentence
  • Partially uncited: Belfast Dock Strike partial section, Build up to the lock-out, and its proceedings Paragraph 2, After the lock-out partial section, Arriving in America - activism and links to espionage Paragraph 2, Time in prison partial section, Release and departure from the United States partial section, Formation of the Irish Worker League and involvement with Soviet Union Paragraph 1 and 7, Religion and personal life Paragraph 2, Literature partial section, Songs Paragraph 2 and 3

As you can see, there's a lot of uncited content. While the partially uncited sections are concerning, sections that are fully uncited are the most concerning. Of these, I'm mostly concerned with Formation of Irish Transport and General Workers' Union and founding of the Irish Labour Party, Build up to the lock-out, and its proceedings and End of the lock-out as these have the most uncited paragraphs. There is at least 10 fully uncited paragraphs, not including ones with sections that only have 1 sentence.

There is also 3 citation needed tags (1 each at Belfast Dock Strike, Literature and Monuments). The monuments citation needed tag is the most concerning as it's from 2011.

Other issues

[edit]
  • I notice that there a lot of citations that are cited but do not provide page numbers. These are for Nevin 2006, O'Connor 2016, O'Connor 2002a, Dennison & McDonagh 1998, and O'Connor 1999. Of these citations, O'Connor 2002a (21) and O'Connor 1999 (19) are used the most but do not provide page numbers. This makes it difficult for verification and would need to be fixed before this article is resubmitted to GAN.
  • Some sections look very hard to read and looks like a wall of text. Specifically, Arriving in America - activism and links to espionage and Formation of the Irish Worker League and involvement with Soviet Union could use some more paragraphs. This is a suggestion outside of GAN.

Overall

[edit]

With the huge amount of uncited paragraphs, plus the 3 citation needed tags, I'll have to quickfail this nomination per WP:GAFAIL as "It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria". Specifically this article is a long way from passing Criteria #2 Verifiable with no original research. There are too many fully uncited paragraphs & partially uncited sections to proceed with a full indepth review. I highly recommend working through these uncited parts while also adding the missing page numbers to help fully verify this article. Once these issues are fixed, it'll help fix a lot of the outstanding issues. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Good article criteria to see the criteria that GAN reviewers are looking for. I hope this review doesn't discourage you from addressing these issues or resubmitting this article to GAN. Thank you for submitting this article to GAN! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Larkin&oldid=1247888402"