Talk:James Connolly

History

what age was james connolly in 1901 2A01:B340:61:7C1D:58EE:2961:6FCB:AB82 (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Political views/Legacy

Connolly's life cannot be described without covering and revealing his political views--it was a political life--so that restoring a separate, interpretative section onn "Political views" has led to repetition (and to some inconsistency). Might some of the material in this section be re-incorporated into the biographic narrative?

Are we certain that there is no place for a discussion of Connolly's "Legacy" (or of different takes on "Connollyism"). A critical element of any political actor or thinker's bio is their (often disputed) legacy--thus no presentation of Marx without some reference to Marxism (although, yes, the interpretation and uses of Marx merits a separate article), or of Darwin without some reference to various notions of Darwinism.

Some material from the former Legacy section has been retained, particularly with regards to different views on the relationship between Connolly's nationalism and his socialism, Might we not restore a little more about the different ways Nora and Roddy Connolly claimed and carried forward their father's legacy. Yes they have separate articles, but we are concerned specifically with what they claimed their father intended and would have endorsed.~~~

ManfredHugh (talk) 08:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Might some of the material in this section be re-incorporated into the biographic narrative?

I think that readers who wish to learn about the subject's politics should be able to jump straight into them without having to go through the subject's entire biography first. This is how most articles about political figures on Wikipedia are formatted. For example; Vladimir Lenin#Political ideology, Joe Biden#Political positions, Martin Luther King Jr.#Ideas, influences, and political stances and Angela Merkel#Political positions.

If there's repetition in the article in regards to politics, it should shift towards the political views section rather than being placed in the biographical section. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and has to summarise the subject rather than following the more linear style of a book or a thesis.

discussion of Connolly's "Legacy"

I don't have a problem with this as such, as long as it is it's own individual subsection. However, I think it needs to be trimmed down from the version that was here [1] . I also think it also has to be broader than just what Roddy and Nora felt. Dozens of left-wing groups in Ireland have claimed the legacy of Connolly. For example the Labour Party regularly invoke that they are "the Party of Connolly", while many other Socialist-Republican groups contest that and claim it for themselves.

but we are concerned specifically with what they claimed their father intended and would have endorsed

I don't agree that we should be specifically concerned about what his children felt. He was a political figure, not a monarch. Their views may be noted, but placed on equal footing as anyone else who claimed the legacy. CeltBrowne (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the above. Yes, while the narrative of a political life cannot but touch on political ideas, let's see about shifting some material to the Political Ideas/Views section.

No Connolly was not a monarch, but Roddy and Nora (who took it upon themselves, each in their own way, to represent their father's politics), were used by several groups to legitimate their claim to his legacy. But okay, maybe limit a short discussion to their political activism and views to the section on his wife and children.~~~ ManfredHugh (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

But okay, maybe limit a short discussion to their political activism and views to the section on his wife and childre

Rather than putting their political activism in the "personal life" section, I'm suggesting a subsection entitled "Legacy" that discusses all the groups who have tried to claim they are Connolly's successors. Nora and Roddy's endorsements should be noted, such as Nora's endorsement of the IRSP and Seamus Costello, but so too should other political figures and groups who have invoked the name.

To be more specific, I think all of the following can be cut:

It is a perspective for which his son Roddy Connolly sought vindication in the United Front strategy of anti-colonial struggle adopted by the Third International. In 1920, and in 1921 as the president of the then Communist Party of Ireland (CPI), he consulted with Lenin in Moscow. Together with his sister Nora Connolly-O'Brien (who in Belfast had helped organise protestant workers into James Connolly Workers' Republican Clubs), in 1934 he participated in a new republican-socialist initiative, the Republican Congress. But this broke up when he and others refused Moscow's directive to seek an "anti-imperialist" accommodation with Éamon de Valera's new Fianna Fáil regime.

The issues I have with it are:

1. The opening sentence depending on the reader reading a previous sentence in a different subsection. Wikipedia is typically not formatted this way; readers should be able to understand the full context from the individual subsection alone.
2. Unless the CPI tried to claim they were the successor of Connolly, they shouldn't be in the subsection
3. Unless the Republican Congress, tried to claim they were the successor of Connolly, they shouldn't be in the subsection

However, I think much of the subsection previous called "Roddy and Nora Connolly" could be brought back if it was trimmed down and expanded to be about other groups too. CeltBrowne (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

"Feminism"

Again, coming under the heading, "Political ideas", I think this is a bit of a misnomer, because what the subsection discusses is not Connolly ideas about feminism. He doesn't address himself to the theory or practice of feminism, but rather to its object, women's emancipation. But yes, you could say he emerges as a feminist. So leave that.

The wording suggested is summary, and I think less of a jumble that what's preceded it. Its opens with C's summary of his essential position: "opposition to the domination of nation over nation, of class over class, or of sex over sex". It then briefly list his policies/actions consistent with that: support for the Suffragette movement, his work with women in the labour movement, the admission of women on an equal basis to the ICA.

Then, para 2, his conceptualisation of women's emancipation (from The Reconquest of Ireland), tracing women's oppression to the structure of capitalist society, but seeing emancipation as a task that will be completed by women themselves: "none so fit to break the chains as they who wear them, none so well equipped to decide what a fetter is”--surely a significant and critical statement. ManfredHugh (talk) 02:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Political ideas

To begin the section on Connolly's Political ideas with the statement "Connolly was not simply a socialist, but specifically was a Syndicalist" is problematic. All accounts agree that his "socialism" evolved and changed over time, while at the time disputing its interpretation. It is more appropriate to acknowledge that and structure the discussion accordingly. Please see the extended revision, and its sources~~~ ManfredHugh (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

ManfredHugh, Look, I think you're acting in good faith and making lots of great contributions to the article that are well sourced. You should be commended for that.

However, I wish you might take onboard some of the commentary I've made in the edit history. As I've stated before, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and needs to summarise information rather than tease it out and examine it from every angle. My fear with the section labelled "Political views" is that you're completely wiped what was there previously, and replaced with something that is very academic and very academic essay/thesis style. In particular, you're introduced cases where information in one subsection depends on reading the previous one. On Wikipedia, a subsection should (in my view) be totally understandable independent from reading any other subsection.

For example, one subsection opens with

An alternative interpretation proposes that the key to Connolly decision to act with the IRB is that...

An alternative interpretation to what?

There is also too much emphasis being given to how different writers interpreted Connolly rather than simply straightforwardly stating what he believed. While Wikipedia sometimes engages in that style/format, it typically does so briefly and not at length like is current in the article. I believe this style is making the "Political views" section too large and unwieldy to read. It, in my view, has to be more condensed. I've condensing it myself several times in edits and you've effectively undone those. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. I would like to work with you in improving the article, and not be sidelined.

One particular point I've tried to make is that Connolly's views on Jews and Protestants should both be under a unified heading of religion. You dismissed that on the point that Connolly's views of Irish Protestants covers their ethnicity as well. Well, my counterpoint is that you can't discuss Jews/Anti-Semitism without also discussing ethnicity as well, so there's isn't a disconnect there. And I think my point about navigability has not really been acknowledged.

I am currently very busy "in real life" and cannot keep up with the pace of change you're making to the article. All I can ask at this point is to take on board the points I'm making. CeltBrowne (talk) 00:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this. There are points that are well taken, and on which I will act.

I appreciate you summarising your central contention: with regard to Connolly's Political Ideas

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" and needs to "simply straightforwardly" state what Connolly "believed".

Any summary is an interpretation, any interpretation summarises. So, when no one interpretation prevails in the secondary literature (when the only consensus is that what C' believed is not simple and straightforward) what are we to do as encyclopaedists: independently decide upon, and impose, a view of what he stood for. Would this be doing the reader a service, and would it not be open to challenge from all angles? Not an academic point.

But, yes there can be too much teasing out of differences, and at times I stuff too much in--matters that are not really highlighted by the scholarship. For example at one point, I had reference to the changing Soviet view of Connolly (who cares?). I have started paring things down, and perhaps there is a lot more that should be cut (although, in general, the length of this article, as it stands, is not wholly out of proportion to that of comparable figures--considerably shorter than the entries for James Larkin and for De Valera).

"On Wikipedia, a subsection should (in my view) be totally understandable independent from reading any other subsection".

Yes, up to a point, although I am not sure whether you mean to apply that rule to material under sub-headings. But, in any case, I agree "An alternative interpretation proposes ...." is a poor and unnecessary way to introduce any section.

One particular point I've tried to make is that Connolly's views on Jews and Protestants should both be under a unified heading of religion.

I have two problems with this. First, there is no connection between these sections. Religion is not the common theme.

"Socialism and Religion" is about C's rejection of De Leon's aggressive materialism.: socialists, he argues, should not, and don't need to disparage religious faith or comment on spiritual matters.

What is the link with the section on Unionism? Here C. dismisses actual questions of faith as irrelevant, so that Non-conformism associated with progressive politics in Britain, is in Ulster the marker of a community, the Presbyterians, that has wedded itself to Toryism. Similarly Catholicism, associated in, say Spain with reaction, is in Ireland the marker of a people with a "zeal for democracy". It is a all a matter of historical circumstance. Similarly the section "Anti-semitism" doesn't present C's view Judaism, something about which he has nothing to say.

The second problem is that if we make his views on unionism a sub-section of a sub-section we are hiding away what all accounts hold as central facet of C's politics, and for which the reader might be searching.

This might seem to leave the section "Antisemitism" an orphan, but then maybe what little C. had to say on the matter is expendable. Although expressive of his humanism and commitment to class solidarity, in no account is it central to his politics.~~~ ManfredHugh (talk) 10:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)