Talk:Terence V. Powderly

Powderly On Strikes

The statement in the lead paragraph, Powderly "downplayed the use of strikes to achieve worker goals," is a near-acceptable summation of Powderly's complex stance on strikes. Another notion, however, pops up in the body of the article. In the section on the Knights of Labor, we see the gross oversimplification "Powderly disliked strikes." Strangely, the source cited is Craig Phelan's "Grand Master Workman," a book that argues much the opposite. The same book also refutes the importance of Powderly's so-called "personal ambivalence" toward strikes, as his stance was consistent with that of many contemporary labor leaders. "(L)ike virtually all labor leaders, Powderly recognized that workers would continue to address grievances through strike action, that the strike constituted an essential weapon of last resort, and that strikes could be an effective means of organizing the unorganized." (Phelan, pp. 57-59)

The record shows Powderly's attitude to be one of caution.

"When violence is once invoked in a labor trouble, the odds are from that time against the success of the strikers." (Phelan, page 27)

"I believe that when you begin [a strike], you should make a success of it by every means." (Phelan, page 58)

By 1880, the Knights established clearer definitions for strike procedures "designed to curb unauthorized walkouts and more ably assist authorized ones." (Phelan, page 105)

"If we are to support strikes...let us adopt some means of providing for those who are engaged in the battle." (Phelan, page 120)

AECwriter 03:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

As noted, this piece is tongue-in-cheek in parts

Powderly's family, by the time he was a young man, were solidly middle class, by the local standards. His father was already a local pol, if memory serves, and one of the Scrantons thought enough of the then-single Powderly to formally introduce him to a daughter or niece, again, IMS. Powderly's identification with the working class was real enough, but his family was already rising to middle-upper end of bluecollardom. Anmccaff (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The piece says verbatim: "I was born of poor Irish parents". If you have a source that says otherwise you're welcome to add it. But simply tagging because memory serves isn't terribly helpful. TimothyJosephWood 18:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

And to boot, on page eight he describes in pretty vivid detail the shack they lived in, and how snow would come through the walls and coat the insides. TimothyJosephWood 18:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's the full paragraph, correct?

Born without previous notice, and when I wasn't expecting it, I didn't note the date until reminded of it later. With defective vision to start with I didn't see many of the bad or cruel things transpiring around me. I began to catch things early. The first was scarlet fever, after that came measles; the former deprived me of the use of one ear, in consequence, I did not hear half of the disagreeable things that others had to listen to. In addition to these advantages, I was born of poor but Irish parents and that made up for a whole lot.

That's a variant of "poor, but honest", and not unique to Powderly; it's a stock phrase, and was still into me mick-ridden yout'. It is not always meant entirely literally.

Note also it does not say verbatim: "I was born of poor Irish parents". Perhaps with an ellipsis, but not "verbatim."

By 1851, when TVP was..at most two, right?... TP,sr. was one of the founding fathers of Carbondale, a member of the first Common Council (ref). He may have started as a day laborer, but he didn't stop there long. Anmccaff (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

one of the founding fathers of Carbondale Well apparently he was one of less than a hundred living there, so it's not really that surprising. And that doesn't really explain the detailed description of their living conditions as pointed out above. TimothyJosephWood 20:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing it with Carbondale, Illinois (pop. then about 500); the PA version had a population of about 5000. (The cite above gives 4,954 for the (wider) township in 1850, a few pages back on p 439.) Carbondale, PA was the seat of the local court, and the end of a railroad; its effective population was probably higher still. Being a political figure there was meaningful.

They lived in a six-room frame building, that was hardly the bottom of the barrel then and there. And you do realize that the paragraph directly above claims that the author was not born in the time-honored fashion at all, but found in a hollow log, and deposited with the nearest household? Should we work that into the article somehow? JC and Mithras are getting a little complaisant, they could prolly use a little competition. Seriously, you gravely underestimate how far the tongue is pressed into the cheek here at times. Anmccaff (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

If you haven't notice, I've already worked that bit into the article as an amusing footnote. But you're still doing a bit of original research to start with "founder and soon to be local politician" and actually trying to decipher their income from that. You need a source that addresses the subject, and not just dances around it. TimothyJosephWood 21:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

There's no OR whatsoever; Terence, sr. was a part of Carbondale's first government, and had to have some standing based on that. Doesn't mean rich, of course, and didn't. You, on the other hand, appear to need a source that he was actually born, if you are taking his autobiography quite literally. (And, let's face it, he does have that changeling look about him...) Anmccaff (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

had to have some standing based on that That's the original research bit. TimothyJosephWood 21:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Not in the least, although you could argue that it need not be mostly monetary. The OR, though, is yours: you've taken a stock phrase, one often used as a joke, and based judgement about the family income on it. It's entirely possible the mere fact of his 8 or nine living siblings explains putting off plastering, not real poverty. Anmccaff (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

No thanks. But you're welcome to try again if you have a source that you don't have to go beyond. TimothyJosephWood 21:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm equally welcome, as are we all to mark it disputed. Anmccaff (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

And I'm free to remove it if, after a substantial period of time, you haven't actually come up with a source other than your opinion and original research for why it should be disputed. If you're interested in improving the article, I'm willing to work with you. If you're more interested at arguing about the article at length, I'm not. TimothyJosephWood 22:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The thing is, adding a sometimes jocular primary source and defending it against any criticism may not be improving the article. First, you have something sourced directly to the subject, using a phrase which is often a stock joke. You also have someone who is a public figure reminding his readers and himself of his humble roots. A look at almost any political campaign bio and a good deal of corporate autobios would suggest that the rest of us were born with three silver spoons in our mouths, our lives were so easy. This also is partly generational, of course, reminding the whippersnappers about the snow trudged through uphill both ways. The Path I Trod is not a good source for the state of his parent's finances at the time of his birth. There's no disputing that they were blue collar, and had started out dirt poor, but they also started out at the beginnings in Carbondale, and had connections, roots, and reputations. Remember, Bill Scranton helped the younger Powderly get or keep a job twice. Powderly senior went from day labor to mine super to machinist, according to Phelan's Grand Master Workman, which also explicitly notes that the D&H provided jobs and avenues of mobility for a handful of early settlers such as Powderly's father and instructor. During his youth, his older brothers, who were already machinists, foremen, &cet, were living at home until marriage. They weren't rich, no, but they were in a very different position from the usual immigrant day labour. If you want to keep to a position that's based on [you own interpretation of] a primary source with a conflict of interest...i.e. an autobiography, then open an AfC or DR or whatever, but your sourcing is inadequate here. Anmccaff (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

</WP:OR> TimothyJosephWood 00:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

No, explicitly sourced to Phelan's Grand Master Workman. That's about as unORical as it gets, a published scholarly source, and all. If you think that providing a different interpretation of a primary source from your own, is OR, then I think opening this at DR is the best course. Anmccaff (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't particularly care about this source, it happened to be the one I chose first. If later ones contradict it, I fully understand that this one is primary. If you're such an expert, then use that expertise to improve the article rather than arguing with me. If this were already a WP:GA then I wouldn't be here. And if you're such an expert, you should easily be able to bring it to that level rather than nitpicking word choices. TimothyJosephWood 01:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Marking something wrong, or disputable, or doubtful is improving the article. The article says something is so which isn't so, or isn't surely so, or might not be so? Warning the victims readers of it is a good thing. Much better than leaving the BS in place unmarked, so it looks neat and shiny.

If you wanna source to somebody's own autobiography, that means you have to use the words "wrote that" a lot, and you have to make judgements about which things are literal and which are figurative; which are real and which are mistaken; which are precise and which are exaggerated. People even lie when writing about themselves, you know, and they even more often fool themselves, or try to. All autobiographies and memoirs need a grain of salt handy, some need the whole salt mine. There's always going to have to be some personal judgement using these sources, and condemning the other guy's as OR while doing the same yourself doesn't help anything. Anmccaff (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing to "checked out" sources

While they are handy to use, it's often better to source to other online versions, which allow more than one person to view them. Anmccaff (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

This, on the other hand, might belong. With a note that it is his own telling, until a secondary source shows.

I entered upon the duties of an apprentice on August 1, 1866. By James Dickson I was duly and truly prepared to travel in foreign countries and earn journeyman's wages. Dickson served his time in the old country as an apprentice under George Stephenson, the inventor and builder of the first locomotive, and worked on its construction. Stephenson gave to Dickson, when his term expired, a number of machinist tools of his own make. Among them was a pair of four-inch calipers. Dickson loaned these to me, I used them during my apprenticeship, and on its expiration he presented them to me with his blessing. Through the hands of James Dickson they passed from George Stephenson to me so you needn't wonder that I prize them highly. A kinder man or a better mechanic I never met than James Dickson; he was a strict disciplinarian and whenever he saw me indulging in anything not specified in the articles of indenture or the statute in such case made and provided, I was punished. He didn't punish me often—my works of mischief were performed when he wasn't looking. . . . One of the first tasks assigned to me was to take the old locomotive, Stourbridge Lion, apart. It had been standing back of the machine shop for a number of years; the company wishing to utilize the space it occupied, sold the boiler to a Carbondale foundryman who made use of it for many years; it is now in the National Museum, Washington, D.C. The wheels and frame on which the boiler rests are not the originals. These I took apart in 1866 and saw them go to the blacksmith shop to be forged over into something new.

"The Path.." p20

The important dates are already included. The rest is fluff. TimothyJosephWood 00:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

George Stephenson and the Stourbridge Lion are "fluff." Kewl. Anmccaff (talk) 00:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Arthur Fickenscher connection

This might be worth adding if the article expands enough to justify it (along with the Whistler bit. Anmccaff (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Legacy: not totally sure why this was removed. its pretty customary when including original formatting in a direct quote.)

I don't have Dubofsky handy, but it'd be worth checking the quote; even if the original did say Grompers, that still needs fixing. The part about carrying the quote intact as much as possible, emphasis and all, you are completely correct on. Anmccaff (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Was able to find a snippet view; Jensens's other correction appear to be, well correct.

"No other worker in these years, not even his rival Samuel Gompers, captured as much attention from reporters, from politicians, or from industrialists. To his contemporaries Powderly was the Knights of Labor, and the Knights of Labor were a..." So, it looks like a worthwhile part got nuked while correcting what look like OCR/Spill Chucker errors. Anmccaff (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

the text i used is at google Rjensen (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Same text I used. Still in the original. TimothyJosephWood 00:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

probably no need for entire special footnote re "emphasis in original" when reader can click and read the full context. Rjensen (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Nope. here's the dif. Your words introduced some typos or some OCR failures:

No other wiser in these years, not even his rival Samuel Grompers, captured as much attention from reports, from politicians, or from industrialists. To his contemporaries Powderly was the Knights of Labor

His corrected them. There isn't any change in emphasis on was there, and I don't see any other edits by Jensen.

No other worker in these years, not even his rival Samuel Gompers, captured as much attention from reporters, from politicians, or from industrialists. To his contemporaries Powderly was the Knights of Labor.

Anmccaff (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

References

The Powderly section in Dubofsky

Richard Oestreicher's Terence Powderly, the Knights of Labor, and Artisanal Republicanism, explicitly states that Powderly probably exaggerated his family's poverty at the time of his birth, and notes both TP, sr.'s mine holding, his, and Powderly's brother Hugh's political career etc. see p 32. Anmccaff (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Terence V. Powderly. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090510075037/https://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/laborhall/1999_powderly.htm to http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/laborhall/1999_powderly.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 19:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)