Talk:James Connolly

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)

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)