Talk:Jarrow March

Untitled
Could the name of the article be changed to the "Jarrow Crusade" please? User:Alnu 09:50, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Poor editing
I'm a new editor, could someone please give the first external link a name?

Jebob

NPOV?
The second paragraph in "The Jarrow March In Popular Culture" doesnt seem to be NPOV or particularly well written (The terms "arty-media darlings" & "It was a fiasco, but a great laugh !!!!" seem out of place.). I feel it should be either amended or removed. Deckchair 11:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a poor quality article, worse than I'd expected it to be.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 21:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi! I believe this paragraph needs revision and an expansion of the information "or 'crusaders' as they preferred to be called" the tone of the writer who wrote this is: excitement. There should be a time when this excitement is expressed in it's own right.
 * Sentance:
 * The petition was received by the House of Commons but not debated, and the march produced few immediate results.
 * Could be revised:
 * The undebated petition was received by the House of Commons and the march produced few immediate results.
 * Sentance: Jarrovians went home believing that they had failed.
 * Could be revised:
 * Jarrovians went home believing they had failed.
 * Sentance: Around 200 men (or "Crusaders" as they preferred to be called) marched from Jarrow to London, carrying a petition to the British government requesting the re-establishment of industry in the town following the closure in 1934 of its main employer, Palmer's shipyard.
 * Could be revised:
 * Around 200 men (or "Crusaders" as they preferred to be called) marched from Jarrow to London, carrying a petition to the British government requesting the re-establishment of industry. In the town following the closure in 1934 of its main employer, Palmer's shipyard.
 * The Jarrow March of 5–31 October 1936, also known as the Jarrow Crusade, was an organised protest against the unemployment and poverty suffered in the English town of Jarrow during the 1930s. Around 200 men (or "Crusaders" as they preferred to be called) marched from Jarrow to London, carrying a petition to the British government requesting the re-establishment of industry in the town following the closure in 1934 of its main employer, Palmer's shipyard. The petition was received by the House of Commons but not debated, and the march produced few immediate results. The Jarrovians went home believing that they had failed. Carrionvasti601 (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

expansion
I've just added a large amount of content to this article, though I am not expert on the subject I'd still judge this needs article to be checked out to ensure the facts are correct.--Mas 18 dl 19:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

question about route to London
As a Geordie living in Hertfordshire, I'm curious about the route given in the article. Why would the route go from St. Albans to Edmonton? Luton to St. Albans is on the old A5, which continues on from St. Albans through Edgware, Cricklewood and Kilburn, to Hyde Park Corner, Marble Arch and Paliament.

Curiosly, there is a reference to a route from St. Albans to London Colney and then to Edgware. Also a curious route, but more logical than going to Edmonton.

http://www.londoncolneynews.org/82/LCN_jarrow.php

I see Tom Pickard's book is in the Uni. library at Hatfield. I'll check it out to see if there is a definitive version.

Alan Clark Creative and Cultural Industries University of Herts.

Article improvements
There will be considerable activity on the article during the next few weeks, aiming to improve it to featured standard, with a view to its being TFA next year, on the 80th anniversary of the march. This will involve new sections covering background material, a fuller and   accurate account of the march itself, and a study of its aftermath. I will be able to use much of the material which I researched last year when I expanded the Ellen Wilkinson article to FA. Brianboulton (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A fascinating article. Unfortunately, the link in citation 82 would appear to be broken.KJP1 (talk) 05:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing it. I’ve added a link to an archived version.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 06:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Many thanks. It now works perfectly. KJP1 (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC) KJP1 (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

"Jarrow's earliest claim to fame was as the home of the 8th-century Saint Bede"
A lot of great work has gone into getting this article to FA status (kudos to those responsible). However, I would like to raise concerns about the appropriateness of "Jarrow's earliest claim to fame was as the home of the 8th-century Saint Bede". We have this statement in the lede but frankly I am a little perplexed as to why it is there. Of what relevance is the fact that Jarrow housed a famous person in the eighth century to the fact that the Jarrow March took place in the twentieth? Granted a very brief mention of Bede in the article body could be warranted, but I really cannot see any good reason why he needs to make an appearance in the lede. If there are no significant objections, I suggest removing it from this part of the article? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * On balance I would prefer that it remain. It's a very brief part of the lead, and I see nothing wrong in highlighting that the industrial town of Jarrow had a long prehistory. Such background detail is not, I consider, without interest. If a consensus  favours   removing it, I won't object. Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brian. Let's see if anyone else chimes in. If not, perhaps an RfC at some point. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd keep it in, but there must be a better way of phrasing it than calling it a "claim to fame", surely? I'm drawing a blank for alternatives at the moment, ironically... EditorInTheRye (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We could reword it so as to avoid the mention of Bede (which I think is basically tangentially connected trivia here) while retaining mention of Jarrow's early medieval origins. In which case we could have something like "Jarrow had been a settlement since at least the early medieval" or "Jarrow had been a settlement since at least the Early Middle Ages". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As it's just the lead we're talking about, I'd be happy with a slight variant of Midnightblueowl's latter suggestion: "Jarrow had been a settlement since at least the 8th century". Bede keeps his brief mention in the text. An Rfc seems somewhat heavy-handed for so minor an adjustment, so let's avoid that. Brianboulton (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. I'll make the change in the article lede. Once again, well done on all the good work that you've put into this article Brian. It looks really nice and is well written. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Jarrow song
IP, Please stop adding the trivial information about a song onto the Jarrow March article. Firstly the information is of sufficient importance to be included (a minor pieve of pop trivia isn't part of the lasting legacy of the March); secondly, even if it was of importance, information unsupported by a citation from a WP:reliable source is needed to include all information in all articles. Thank you. – The Bounder (talk) 11:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Don't do it because it contains a link to youtube, don't do it because it doesn't cite a reference, don't do it because I think it's irrelevant. You sir are a pedant of the first order. It is relevant, it did happen and people have a right to know! I have complied each time by removing the youtube link and citing a published reference. You are being petty and obstructive over two lines of text.

93.155.222.209 (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I will leave others to discuss whether they think your edit warring to include the trivia is suitable or not (I obviously don't think such trivia should be in), but next time, please don't just edit war to force your version onto the page: discuss the matter (as WP:BRD suggests we do). If you could also do it without being insulting to others, that would be nice. – The Bounder (talk) 15:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if you feel I insulted you. You were obviously born prior to 1936 and had first hand knowledge of the events in question. I on the other hand was born after the March and my first introduction to it came in the mid 1970's when Alan Price released a song about it. I was not taught about it in school and the Jarrow Song was the first I heard about it. I'm sure other people of my generation can claim the same. It is as relevant as an opera released in the 90's and I don't understand your reticence in including it, unless in your opinion, popular music is not as important as opera.

93.155.222.209 (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I've trimmed the details of the song to what is in the cited book ref, and have repositioned it among the other cultural derivatives – it's worth a mention, but not worth a paragraph of its own, let alone the sign-off para. The citation has been properly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Splendid. 93.155.222.209 (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)