Talk:Mary Harris Jones

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

POV[edit]

"her grandfather was hanged by the British for participation in the Irish national struggle."

This does not sound like an objective description of events to me. Perhaps 'twould be more objective to express the two-sidedness of the war. also was a writer

Yes, lets provide an objective perspective for the colonial occupier —Preceding unsigned comment added by LamontCranston (talkcontribs) 15:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Birth date[edit]

I have changed the date given for Mother Jones's birth from 12 May 1830 to 1 August 1837, based on the 1830 claim being made by Mother Jones herself in order to augment her very-old-lady image and also establish a connection to May 1 workers' protests. The source for this is the last major biography of Mother Jones, "Mother Jones: The Most Dangerous Woman in America" by Elliott J. Gorn (Hill & Wang, 2001, ISBN 0809070936 & ISBN 0809070944 paperback)

Web opinion is divided on the issue, some sites go with the 1830 date [2] [3] [4] and others with 1837. [5] [6] [7] and [8] which is an article by Elliott J. Gorn and I suggest he counts as the leading authority as her current biographer. GhostGirl 15:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


My Encyclopedia Britannica lists her as born in 1830.68.219.227.56 12:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


Also, isn't the 'most dangerous woman in the world' a biased POV? And, what is the history of May 1...could it have been the other way around...R Young {yakłtalk} 12:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe if you are to 'debunk' someone, the evidence must be clear. A book with a negative title doesn't sound like it.

Note the April 1, 1930 census lists Mary Ann Jones as 99 years old, living in Maryland:

Search > Census > U.S. Census > 1930 United States Federal Census > Maryland > Prince George's > Vansville > District 1R Young {yakłtalk} 13:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


You typed:
...isn't the 'most dangerous woman in the world' a biased POV? ... I believe if you are to 'debunk' someone, the evidence must be clear. A book with a negative title doesn't sound like it.
It isn't in "the world," but rather, in the country, i.e., America.
In my view, these questions indicate unfamiliarity with the history of Mother Jones. The expression is historical, an accurate statement of a description of her from the period, and doesn't originally come from Gorn:
On June 7, 1902, a strike began that led to arrests, and to the increased threat of violence on the part of authorities. Mother Jones herself was put on trial, during which the district attorney called her the "most dangerous woman in America." [9]
Mother Jones wrote about this in her autobiography. Seems unlikely that she was intimidated by such a description; rather, she seemed to dish back everything they threw at her. Here's an excerpt:
The prosecuting attorney jumped to his feet and shaking his finger at me, he said
"Your honor - there is the most dangerous woman in the Country today. She called your honor a scab. But I will recommend mercy of the court - if she will consent to leave the state and never return."
"I didn't come into the court asking mercy," I said, "but I came here looking for justice. And I will not leave this state so long as there is a single little child that asks me to stay and fight his battle for bread."
The judge said, "Did you call me a scab!"
"I certainly did, judge."
He said, "How came you to call me a scab?"
"When you had me arrested I was only talking about the constitution, speaking to a lot of men about life and liberty and a chance for happiness; to men who had been robbed for years by their masters, who had been made industrial slaves. I was thinking of the immortal Lincoln. And it occurred to me that I had read in the papers that when Lincoln made the appointment of Federal judge to this bench, he did not designate senior or junior. You and your father bore the same initials. Your father was away when the appointment came. You took the appointment. Wasn't that scabbing on your father, judge?"
"I never heard that before," said he.
A chap came tiptoeing up to me and whispered, "Madam, don't say 'judge' or 'sir' to the court. Say 'Your Honor.'"
"Who is the court?" I whispered back.
"His honor, on the bench," he said, looking shocked.
"Are you referring to the old chap behind the justice counter? Well, I can't call him 'your honor' until I know how honorable he is. You know I took an oath to tell the truth when I took the witness stand." [10]
Does that sound like she was in any way intimidated? Not only did Mother Jones relish being called "the most dangerous woman" in the country, her supporters promoted the absurdity of such a characterization in cartoons, posters, and articles. One famous cartoon shows Mother Jones being arrested by dozens of militia, all of them pointing bayonets in her face, and she stands before them, unflinching.
There are nearly two thousand references to her, using the description "most dangerous woman in America" on the web, that do not refer to Gorn's book.
Now, whether Gorn's book should be used as a reference, i cannot say-- because i don't have an answer to the date question. But rejecting the book just because one jumps to the conclusion that it is a "biased POV" based upon the title is, in my view, a significant error.
best wishes, Richard Myers 21:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I updated the death date part to include the infobox's stated birth date. A balanced view may give alternative birth dates, but saying "born 1837, died 1930 (aged 100)" is just wacky. It now reads 93. 173.34.9.149 (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I added month and day to the birth date as otherwise an error was returned. 24.64.95.151 (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Grandmother of All Alligators?[edit]

The link to List_of_people_known_as_the_father_or_mother_of_something is broken. Maikel 08:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

... i. e., she's not listed there. Maikel 14:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Citecheck template removed[edit]

The citecheck template is for articles that may misrepresent references sources, such as quoting statements out of context. I see no discussion of that sort of problem on this page. Please refer to Wikipedia:Cleanup resources if some other template is needed and post the reasons on talk so that other editors can address the problem. Durova 02:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion in Anarchism template[edit]

From my understanding, Mother Jones was a radical socialist, but not explicitly anarchist. Murderbike 18:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the tag anarchist probably doesn't belong, even as a stub.
From The Autobiography of Mother Jones at [11]
The anarchists took advantage of the widespread discontent to preach their doctrines. Orators used to address huge crowds on the windy, barren shore of Lake Michigan. Although I never endorsed the philosophy of anarchism, I often attended the meetings on the lake shore, listening to what these teachers of a new order had to say to the workers. [emphasis added]
Unless someone else can provide evidence that she considered herself an anarchist at a later time, i'd suggest removing the anarchist category and the stub links, for they appear to mislead. Richard Myers 02:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Mother Jones wasn't explicitely an Anarchist, but she can fairly be called a friend of the Anarchists. I guess this a bit like the IWW. The IWW wasn't Anarchist either, but it was widely endorsed by Anarchists, and featured many amongst their number. 121.45.226.70 (talk) 01:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
That situation is considered here: Industrial_Workers_of_the_World_philosophy_and_tactics#Anarchist_swing.3F
Richard Myers (talk) 06:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Gaps in article[edit]

I just dropped by to have a look at this article, and I could see at a glance that it was considerably shorter than I expected. The article's been around for quite a while, so there's way too much history to go through all of it. Large parts of her life have gone missing, and it jumps abruptly from one part of her life to another, so I suspect that material may have been removed at some point. It's very puzzling, so I'm wondering if perhaps somebody who's worked on the article can explain these big gaps. Cgingold 10:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I hardly no anything about the subject. I only watch this article because I stumbled upon some vandalism that stayed for nearly 12 hours; I was reading other topics related to early 20th century U.S. history. I've taken a quick look through the history through 2007 using a function in my screen reader to count the number of lines in a page. I was able to find this piece of vandalism which was reverted in a somewhat unusual way. I have restored the text removed in that vandalism. There may be other instances of unreverted vandalism in the history. I'll check after dinner. Graham87 10:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I can't find any more text that has been removed doing a simple line count. Graham87 11:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Great work! There are still gaps, but that was a really big chunk of text you restored. I've done similar things on other articles -- I wish people would be more careful when they revert vandalism. Glad you spotted that! Cgingold 13:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Folk song[edit]

Try as I might, I've been unable to locate any credible confirmation for the assertion that MJ was the inspiration for the folk song "She'll Be Coming 'Round the Mountain". I had never even come across that notion until I saw it in this article, despite having read extensively about Mother Jones for an article I wrote about her 15 years ago. As near as I can determine, all of the references to this suggestion that turn up on the internet, originate with the Wikipedia article She'll Be Coming 'Round the Mountain — which provides no citation. (I've added a request for one there.) Unless somebody can provide a credible source, this line should probably be removed. Cgingold 13:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Without citation, it def looks dubious. I'd remove it until somebody can cite it. Murderbike 07:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I just checked on the talk page for She'll Be Coming 'Round the Mountain, and according to the editor who originally added this claim, it appears that there may some support for it in an old book by Carl Sandburg. I've asked him for additional details. Cgingold 11:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I've got a copy of Sandburg's American Songbag right here. The song is on paeg 372 and there is absolutely NO reference to Mother Jones anywhere on the page. ~Charles Priest~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.16.238.126 (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

arrest stories[edit]

This appears twice I think after two separate incidents - "she was soon released when the attackers were identified as associates of a prominent local business person." Is that supposed to be there twice? - Tbsmith 04:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't - the first one wasn't meant to be there. That is related to the #Gaps in article section above. I've fixed the text so it corresponds with this revision. Graham87 05:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Corrected "Mine Riot" link[edit]

Reference to the Virden Mine Riot of 1898 is now correct (it's external to Wikipedia, but at least it goes to the right place, pending the creation of a Wikipedia article covering the subject). It originally linked to Virden, Illinois. Now to correct a similar problem in United Mine Workers, which refers to the same event. 24.178.228.14 (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Your link fails WP:EL. One Night In Hackney303 04:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello One Night In Hackney, your revert was incorrect according to the justification that you used in reverting. Specifically:
  • Regarding WP:EL - quoting the style guide of EL, "As the occasional exception may arise, it should be approached with common sense." Quoting the page-in-a-nutshell just below the style guide, "Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article."
  • Application to the article: the pre-modified article contained a link-to-nowhere or a link to an inappropriate location, and it described a historical event with an apparently made-up name, whereas the event is known by an accepted name .
  • The article modifications more than satisfied the criteria in the EL style guide and nutshell summary. The article improvement was quantifiable, providing useful information where none had existed before, and using the accepted name of a historical event where a made-up name had been used before.
This was all explained on the talk page, in a compact but understandable form. Patrollers who attempt to improve Wikipedia are a good thing, and mistakes are understandable. Regards, 24.178.228.14 (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
We don't link to self-published unreliable sources. One Night In Hackney303 17:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Catholic?[edit]

An anon IP added the Category "American Roman Catholics", but the only mention of this is that her parents were RC. Does anyone have a source substantiating the claim that Mary herself was RC? Murderbike (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed. The anon has been busy adding the cat to various articles, often in violation of BLP. I'll check the other recent edits now. One Night In Hackney303 20:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Cool. Murderbike (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Haymarket riot[edit]

As the Haymarket riot was on May 4, the section of the article that says she might have chosen May 1 as her alleged birth date in commemoration of that affair, would seem incorrect. Alpheus (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. The magazine and the lady both seem to have a primary topic claim so a dab page is probably the best. The title of this article should probably be debated separately. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 10:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Mary Harris JonesMother Jones — Relisting discussion to generate more input. —harej (talk) (cool!) 22:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Common name. That's what the sources call her, anyway. - Jafeluv (talk) 11:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Comment: it's been listed at WP:Requested moves as an uncontroversial move. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 15:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I have unlisted it there. It's better to let this discussion play out normally. -kotra (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Note. When it was listed as uncontroversial, the movereq template was removed, and was not replaced until now. Note to closing admin - you may wish to relist for that reason. 199.125.109.135 (talk) 05:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Conditional support (per Aubergine). "Mary Harris Jones" - who on earth? When I saw it listed I was going to object on the grounds that there was a Wobbly called "Mother Jones", who almost certainly had an article already. Well, she does, and it is this ;-) "Mother Jones" is a far more common name for "Mary Harris Jones". I'm veering towards keeping both articles DAB'ed, and Mother Jones as a DAB page, but I'm still slightly inclined towards this Mother Jones being the original and primary topic. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 15:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. If someone can demonstrate this is the primary usage of "Mother Jones", otherwise see my comments below. Aubergine (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Not convinced about primary usage, so would prefer a DAB. Aubergine (talk) 02:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. The magazine is a derivative usage and hardly primary topic. Srnec (talk) 04:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Seems to be the primary usage of 'Mother Jones', per the arguments made by other editors. YeshuaDavidTalk • 20:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Since there is another "Mother Jones" on Wikipedia (Mother Jones (magazine)), this proposed move is reliant upon this Mother Jones being the primary topic in current usage. Is there evidence that the original Mother Jones is still the primary topic? Or is "Mother Jones" used more often to refer to the magazine now? -kotra (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Difficult. I'd never heard of the magazine before now, and I'd assume that the original MJ is the primary topic outside the US. However, the magazine (named after the original, by the way) is "the most widely read liberal publication in the United States". Given that both subjects are US, it might be worth considering this solely from a US perspective? Either way, I suspect this debate would benefit from having some input from editors at Mother Jones (magazine) - I'll leave a message them directing them here. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 22:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • If it isn't clear cut, then I think the Mother Jones page should remain as a disambiguation page. By all means rename this something more appropriate like Mother Jones (activist) , or whatever an appropriate disambiguator is. Aubergine (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Now that I've checked the page view statistics, it does seem that this article and the magazine get about an equal number of page views.[12][13] That would suggest that this article isn't primary topic, and in that case Mother Jones (activist) or a similar bracketed title would be preferable. I still think that would be better than having this article at Mary Harris Jones, for the reason stated by TFOWR above: the current name isn't a very easily recognizable name for the subject. Jafeluv (talk) 05:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Though far from overwhelming, the person actually shows consistently more page views than the magazine over time. This can be seen more easily in February and prior, when Mother Jones the person was moved to Mary Harris Jones. It's no doubt true that many of those viewers clicked through to the magazine, but the person was getting more than double the views of the magazine, so still was ahead. After February, you must also take into account the page views of Mother Jones the dab page, which are close to the views of the magazine, high for a dab page. On the other hand, the reason given for the move in February was that Mother Jones was attracting too many incoming links intended for the magazine. This is true; I just disambiguated links from 15 articles to Mother Jones (some multiple) a few days ago, and every one was intended for the magazine. That's not a good enough reason by itself to keep Mother Jones as a dab, of course, but is an indication of what editors assume is meant by "Mother Jones". Bottom line is you can make a case for making this article primary topic or for keeping things as they are. What I would be opposed to is changing this to "Mother Jones (activist)"; when there's a choice between two legitimate real-world names, it's a bad idea to give the article a qualified name made up by WP editors. Station1 (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I disagree with the last part. A reader is much more likely to recognize Mother Jones (activist) than Mary Harris Jones, because the person isn't really known by their full name. According to policy, we should prefer the most easily recognized name of a person. Jafeluv (talk) 05:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • She's much more well known as Mother Jones, but is certainly not unknown as Mary Harris Jones (it's on the masthead of the magazine, for instance). What she's never called in any source is "Mother Jones (activist)". Why "activist"? That's not used in the article to describe her and might be POV. Sometimes we need to make up article titles, but we shouldn't if we don't. Station1 (talk) 23:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  • One of the categories is "American activists". This encyclopedia says: "Activism, in a general sense, can be described as intentional action to bring about social change, political change, economic justice, or environmental wellbeing". This fits the subject here well. I don't think using the word activist expresses a point of view either way. Aubergine (talk) 02:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I have nothing against the word "activist". But judging by other categories or the lead, you can as well call her labor organizer, community organizer, Wobbly, socialist, labor leader, unionist, or IWW leader. If you prefer a verifiable, reliable third-party source (Mother Jones magazine), it would be "orator, union organizer and hellraiser." The U.S. Senate called her "agitator" and she apparently agreed.[14] My point is only that a choice of any one of those is necessarily subjective, whereas using either Mother Jones or Mary Harris Jones is objective. WP:QUALIFIER does say of parenthetical disambiguation, "try to avoid this type of disambiguation where possible". Station1 (talk) 06:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • What is clear, however, is that the name of the magazine is a derivative of the name of the person, and as such the person is the primary topic, in my opinion. I suspect that everyone at MJ magazine would agree. 199.125.109.135 (talk) 05:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    • It's not unusual for a derivative usage of a term to become famous than the original, and it isn't a criterion mentioned in the naming conventions. Aubergine (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Exactly. For example, The Godfather is about the film even though the film is based on The Godfather (novel). Primary usage in article titles doesn't depend on which usage came first. It's about which usage most of our readers will be looking for. Jafeluv (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
        • All three of the above comments are correct in my opinion. The magazine's name is clearly derived from the person's name, and there's no reason that can't be a consideration. Derivative names can certainly become much more used than the original, and when they are that's the more important factor, but that doesn't appear to apply in this case. There's nothing in the naming conventions that says derivation can never be a factor. In cases like this, there's no reason not to use it as sort of a tiebreaker, if there's consensus that it makes sense to do so. Station1 (talk) 23:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
          • I was under the impression that if one usage isn't clearly more prevalent than another, then a disambiguation page is most appropriate. From WP:DAB:

If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)".

Aubergine (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The problem is that everything here is pure speculation. One usage isn't clearly more prevalent because none of us is an expert the activist and the magazine. That doesn't mean there isn't a primary usage, however. Srnec (talk) 03:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    • You will notice that it says "may be a sign", not "is a sign". It also "may not be a sign" (of no primary topic). Whether it is mentioned in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or not, it certainly often comes up, and there are many examples, of the original being considered the primary topic and the derivative, even though much better know, is disambiguated. That is often the case, for example, of well known books which have been made into well known movies. It may be like the now defunct (in Britain) rule of i before e except after c, that though it was taught as a rule, had more exceptions than cases that followed the rule. I for one would certainly vote for Mother Jones (the person) being the primary topic. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Indeed I did note that, however in this case it does seem to be a sign given the debate. There is a certain amount of speculation, but we need to consider the average reader with no specialized knowledge. If anyone has some solid evidence of a primary topic, it would be helpful. Aubergine (talk) 02:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I would also vote for Mother Jones (the person) being the primary topic, if simple preference becomes a selection criteria. In so much of the world, corporations have precedence over people. I'd like to see Wikipedia promote people over corporations as a general guiding principle. (Nothing against MJ the magazine, it is a fine magazine.) Richard Myers (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
      • It's a nice thought, but it isn't part of the naming conventions and isn't neutral point of view. We need to decide based of the merits of the articles in question here, other articles about people and corporations are not relevant. Aubergine (talk) 02:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

haymarket riots/ Labor Day/International Workers' Day/MayDay[edit]

1 a link to the Haymarket Affair Chronology is [15] and is the Chicago Historical Society website.

May 1st, 1886 Was a call to strike(May Day/International Workers' Day) for the 8 hour work day. May 4th, 1886 was the Night of the Haymarket Affair also known as the Haymarket Riots.

2 Prior to congress making Labor day the first Monday in Sept., Labor Day was celebrated on the 1st of May, also known as May Day. [16] is the link to the Office of the Clerk, for the US House.

3 for International Workers' Day see wiki [17] 98.214.115.51 (talk) 06:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)thestuffman@yahoo.com

excised "music and the arts" trivia preserved here[edit]

Someone removed the following. I'm not overturning that decision, but someone may wish to make use of this info in some way:

On the album Fellow Workers, by Utah Phillips and Ani DiFranco, Mother Jones is the subject of the song The Most Dangerous Woman.
In November 2007, at the Crystal Theater of South Norwalk, Connecticut,[1] the original musical Mother Jones and the March of the Mill Children[2] by Crystal Theatre cofounder and director Cheryl Kemeny, was performed. Based on the life of Mother Jones, the production (first staged in 1997) featured about 40 middle- and high-school students from South Norwalk and the surrounding area.[citation needed] \
Mother Jones' case is included in a Riot Folk Collective's singer Shannon Murray's song Daughter, where Jones is mentioned among historical anarcha-feminist activists[3].
Mother Jones is also referenced in the song The Most Dangerous Woman in America, by Tom Russell, on his 2009 album Blood and Candle Smoke.[citation needed]

Richard Myers (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Crystal Theatre Main Page at www.crystaltheatre.org
  2. ^ Crystal Theatre web page about the play
  3. ^ Lyrics at Riot Folk Collective's website [1]

"The most dangerous woman"[edit]

Someone has just removed this info, claiming it was neither accurate nor notable.

"The most dangerous woman" a spoken word performance by indie folk singer/spoken word performer, Utah Phillips, with music and backing vocals added to it by indie folk artist Ani Difranco, can be found on their collaborative album, "Fellow workers". The title refers to the moniker that President Theodore Roosevelt gave to Mother Jones, referring to her as, "The most dangerous woman in America", at the age of 83.

There are books that say Mother Jones was called "The most dangerous woman in America" by a judge, or by a practicing attorney. There are also books, such as this one, who describe President Theodore Roosevelt using that description for her, mentioning her age of 83 at the time.

Deep community: adventures in the modern folk underground, Scott Alarik, Black Wolf Press, 2003.

I will revert the edit. However, further information on this history would be welcome. Richard Myers (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"The most dangerous woman in America" has prominently been used to refer to either Mary Jones or "Typhoid" Mary Mallon (especially after PBS Nova covered the latter) 96.26.235.255 (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a book of this title that is indeed a bio of Mother Jones, due to her union activitiesCoal town guy (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Social Democratic Party[edit]

I'd like to understand the rationale for adding Social Democratic Party to this article. Please explain in detail, for example, to differentiate from Social Democratic Party (United States).

It seems to me a contrivance; if Mary Harris Jones was in fact a member of Social Democratic Party (United States), then why should that not be the link here? And if Mary Harris Jones was not a member of Social Democratic Party (United States), then neither link seems to belong in this article, the proper relationship then belonging in the socialist party articles themselves. Richard Myers (talk) 08:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

ISBN for books referencing Mary Harris "Mother" Jones[edit]

The listing for The Autobiography of Mother Jones is currently listed as a Dover edition "first published in 2004 . . . an unabridged republication of the work originally published in 1925 by Charles H. Kerr & Company Chicago (Illinois)." It has been issued ISBN 0-486-43645-4

The listing for Mother Jones Speaks appears to have been edited by Phillip S. Foner with the full title Mother Jones Speaks: Speeches and Writings of a Working-Class Fighter with a first edition published in 1983 (sixth printing in 2010) by Pathfinder Press and issued ISBN 978-0-87348-810-5

Penny Colman did write a book entitled Mother Jones and the March of the Mill Children but it appears that no version of Mother Jones Speaks that is edited by her is in existence.

Douglas Willis (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Child workers are slaves[edit]

Could you please add that she called all child workers slaves? http://spartacus-educational.com/USAchild.htm Thank you. See (4) lower down the page. Pepper9798 (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC) Pepper9798 (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Also if you go down farther to (12) you'll see John Spargo also spoke of "the enslavement of children. Pepper9798 (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mary Harris Jones. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 19:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mary Harris Jones. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 16:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Keeney[edit]

Keeney is first mentioned only by last name with no context. No link to anything about him. At least the first mention should be Frank Keeney, union president and the subsequent mention as Keeney. But ideally there should be a link to an article about him.--Jrm2007 (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

A good suggestion – it's now fixed. Ewulp (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 25 January 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not done (non-admin closure)  samee  talk 20:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)



Mary Harris JonesMother Jones – The move was approved in 2009 but never carried out. The person, Mother Jones, is the most common name. TM 18:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

At the very least, would you support renaming this article Mother Jones (activist)? Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, Mary Harris Jones is not her common name.--TM 12:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I think Mother Jones (activist) or Mother Jones (person) would be better than the current title. She's much better known as "Mother Jones" than as "Mary Harris Jones". There's a reason she didn't title her book The Autobiography of Mary Harris Jones. Face-smile.svg — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, its not her common name, it is however, her actual name.Coal town guy (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, the first consideration for an article's name has to be recognizability. Her birth name is not material to the conversation.--TM 18:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Thats not her birth name, she is known as Mother Jones, Jones was her married name, her children died, she kept the name. While yes she is known as Mother Jones, and yes, will be seen that way, a redirect should take care of itCoal town guy (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.