Talk:Jarrow March

message: 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)
thread_title:  expansion 

message: 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)
replies: text: A fascinating article.  Unfortunately, the link in citation 82 would appear to be broken.KJP1 (talk) 05:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for noticing it. I’ve added a link to an archived version.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 06:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

text: Many thanks.  It now works perfectly. KJP1 (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article improvements 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Jarrow's earliest claim to fame was as the home of the 8th-century Saint Bede" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Jarrow song