Talk:Emma Goldman/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Requesting atheism source

Earlier I removed the "Jewish atheists" category from this article because nowhere in the article does it say that she was an atheist, but someone has re-added it. The article does now say that she wrote essays on atheism, but priests have written essays on atheism too. The article still does not say that she was an atheist. Please remember that Wikipedia:Categorization says:

7. Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option.
8. An article should normally possess all the referenced information necessary to demonstrate that it belongs in each of its categories. Avoid including categories in an article if the article itself doesn't adequately show it belongs there. For example, avoid placing a category for a profession or award unless the article provides some verification that the placement is accurate.

Because of that I am re-removing the category. Please note, I'm not saying the category is necessarily wrong, I'm just saying that it is wrong to have an article in a category that is not supported by the article itself. If you are going to (re)add her to any category, make sure that the article supports the addition of that category, preferably with a reliable source. Thank you. -- HiEv 12:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

How about this: "I do not believe in God, because I believe in man. Whatever his mistakes, man has for thousands of years past been working to undo the botched job your God has made."

-- Emma Goldman, speaking from a Detroit pulpit in 1898, quoted from Annie Laurie Gaylor, Women Without Superstition, p. 382 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murderbike (talk • contribs) 03:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• I re-added the category, because I added sources to the article to document the category. (diff) Please note that the article now refers to Goldman's atheism in several places. --Lquilter (talk) 04:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Here's a good quote: "Religion is a superstition that originated in man's mental inability to solve natural phenomenon... [Organized churchism] has turned religion into a nightmare that oppresses the human soul and holds the mind in bondage." (Emma Goldman, "What I Believe", New York World) --Lquilter (talk) 03:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Here begins the FA process

I'm starting a massive reconstruction of this article, to start it down the road to FA status. Other users are obviously welcome to make edits, but please don't make any large-scale structural changes without discussing them here first. Thank you! – Scartol • Tok 02:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. - I have access to both Emma Goldman: A Documentary History Of The American Years, Volume 1 - Made for America and Emma Goldman: A Documentary History Of The American Years, Volume 2 - Making Speech Free if you need any primary source citations (up to 1909). These contain reproductions of original documents important in the life of Emma Goldman. Kaldari 16:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Louis

The old version lists Louis' birth as 1870, but I haven't found confirmation of that. Does anyone else have a source? As this note indicates, Wexler describes the order of birth itself as unclear. – Scartol • Tok 21:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

My notes (old) from Living also have it as unclear. This sentence ("They eventually had three sons, but their first child together was a girl.[4]") and the footnote that describes the unclarity are therefore a little unclear. One presumes that the first child was Emma; then the footnote says it's unclear; but the sentence in the text is fairly strong that it's a girl. A little rewrite, please, from someone with better access to the sources than I have at present? (If it is definitively Emma, then that would be a pleasing way to end that sentence -- one of the popular "en-dashes" and "Emma". "They eventually had three sons, but their first child together was a girl – Emma.) --Lquilter (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Image orientation

In Wexler's Intimate book, this image is reversed (Berkman's legs are extended to the right). Does anyone know which is correct? – Scartol • Tok 18:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know for sure, but the Goldman Papers project at Berkeley shows the same orientation as the photo in the article. I suspect our picture (and theirs) is right because the string on Goldman's glasses is on her right side, which is where a right-handed person would have it. Unless she was left-handed, in which case the photo probably is reversed. ;-D — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I just pulled Wexler off the shelf. The cover photo shows Goldman's glasses with the string on the right side of her face. In her version of this photo, I noticed that Berkman's pocket square is in his right pocket, which is wrong; it belongs in his left pocket, which is where the Wikipedia photo shows it. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 07:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Cheers for that. About the Union Square pic – as I'm sure you know, the MOS asks for no hardcoded image sizes, except in certain exceptions. I assume you made it bigger in order to see EG clearly? – Scartol • Tok 12:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the MOS preference but yes, I made the picture larger so that Goldman could be seen. If there's some other way to do it without hardcoding the size, it's fine. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Czolgosz as Republican

I've removed the phrase: "a registered Republican who had never been affiliated with any anarchist organization or publication". While Leon Czolgosz sources the Republican bit to You Are Being Lied To by Disinformation Press, none of the EG bios I'm working with (EG's autobio, Chalberg, Falk, Wexler, Drinnon) mention it. Does anyone have a more reliable source? (Disinfo does good work, but I'd like confirmation.) The affiliation phrase is tricky, since he did attend EG's lectures and even visited her home. – Scartol • Tok 02:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Registered Republican is what I've always heard but it could be legend. Definitely shouldn't be put in without a cite and probably worth digging up something a bit more "academic". As for affiliation, I don't think there's any problem in saying that he wasn't affiliated with organizations or publications. He wasn't. Attending public lectures isn't affiliation, and seeking someone out and having a superficial interaction with them, isn't affiliation. He was influenced by Goldman and other anarchists' writings, but he wasn't affiliated with anarchists or part of the anarchist movement. If you feel that mentioning non-affiliation elides the influence, then we should add in influence as well as non-affiliation. --Lquilter (talk) 04:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Other excised bits

I also removed a paragraph about an alleged plot to bomb Rockefeller's office because I can't find any mention of it in any of the books listed in the bibliography. Other items will likely be removed; mention will be made of them here. – Scartol • Tok 04:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the following two paragraphs, since the information doesn't appear in Wexler, Falk, Drinnon, or Chalberg (or Goldman's Living). – Scartol • Tok 20:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops! I replaced part of it after finding info in Wexler's Intimate. My bad. – Scartol • Tok 21:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

While in prison, Goldman met and became friends with Gabriella Segata Antolini, an anarchist and follower of Luigi Galleani, whom she would later meet in person. Antolini had been arrested transporting a satchel filled with dynamite on a Chicago-bound train. She absolutely refused to cooperate with the authorities or supply them with any information, and was sent to prison, eventually serving fourteen months before being released.… While in Barre, Vermont, she met Luigi Galleani, a self-described subversive, associate of various anarchist communist groups, and editor of the anarchist journal Cronaca Sovversiva as well as an explicit bomb-making manual covertly titled La Salute é in Voi (The Health is Within You), widely disseminated by anarchists. As an advocate of propaganda of the deed, Galleani was a confirmed believer in the violent overthrow of the government, a fact of which Goldman was well aware. This meeting and brief association would later come back to haunt her.

I also removed this paragraph, because I can't find any evidence that the Espionage Act was used against Goldman at any point. – Scartol • Tok 20:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

On June 15, 1917, Congress passed the Espionage Act. The law set punishments for acts of interference in foreign policy and for espionage. The Act authorized stiff fines and prison terms of up to 20 years for anyone who obstructed the military draft or encouraged "disloyalty" against the U.S. government.

I'm pretty sure the Espionage Act was used against her -- I'll try to dig that up. It's okay to leave it out until documented. (I think Mother Earth was excluded from the US mails under provisions of the Espionage Act, for instance.) Sorry I haven't had time to get to this yet. --Lquilter (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If memory serves me, I believe Goldman was arrested immediately after passage of the Espionage Act... yep same day actually. It's the arrest we mention under the WWI section. Kaldari (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added mention of the Espionage Act to the section, but my citation is a bit obscure and not very specific. If someone can find a better citation, please replace it. Kaldari (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

trivia, popular culture, etc.

Resolved

 – Trivia has been converted to useful prose content and verified. --Kaldari (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The list of media featuring Emma Goldman, while fun for all, needs to be refined. It would be great if we could write a section that, rather, addressed her reputation and treatment during her life and after her death; as an iconic figure of anarchism, revolutionary activism, and strong women. Then we can talk about treatments of her in fiction, including urban legend of haunting (which just feels trivial in her death section), and so on. Other thoughts? --Lquilter (talk) 04:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wikipedia editors love "In popular culture" sections, and few editors are bold enough to drive stakes through the sections' hearts. In my opinion, only a very small number of articles are enhanced by such sections, and this isn't one of them. (A character in Angels in America mentions that his grandmother once saw Goldman. Wow!)

A while back, I suggested that the trivia section be reworked into a section about Goldman's "rediscovery" by second-wave feminists. Red Emma Speaks, edited by radical feminist Alix Kates Shulman in 1972, was vitally important in establishing Goldman's reputation as a feminist (a label that would have made her cringe). It was Shulman who created the "If I can't dance I don't want to be in your revolution" quote that is perhaps the most widely-known "fact" about Goldman. (In fact, it's so widespread that I made it into a userbox. If you can't fight 'em, join 'em.)

The only reason Goldman is widely known outside of anarchist circles today is because of her adoption by the women's movement, and I think the end of the article should discuss that and incorporate some of the pop culture information related to that. It's probably important to mention Reds. The rest, in my view, can be cut. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

malik shabazz i love the userbox. which i may ap(ex)propriate for myself. --Lquilter (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Help yourself. I wish I knew advanced coding so users could enter "he" or "she" as a parameter. I'd make a gender-neutral version, but I've been brain-washed against the use of the singular "they". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Malik's comment is dead on. The section is huge, and too dang listy. If a few of the more interesting/relevant items could be worked into a paragraph about her legacy, that'd be way better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murderbike (talk • contribs) 06:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry! I'm getting to it. If you'll notice, I'm working my way down the article. I'm about halfway through the bio right now; then I'll fix the section on her philosophy, and then the legacy section. It'll all be sorted in less than a month. Malik is (as always) exactly right that most of the trivia can be cut, though I feel that the sheer number of popular songs, etc are indicative of how influential she's been. But again – it'll be in the legacy section. – Scartol • Tok 12:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Great - glad there's agreement. Looks like things will happen. --Lquilter (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Done -- it's a bit essay-ish at present & i'll need to dig out some cites for it but it's some draft text for folks to work with. cheers, Lquilter (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oh -- to facilitate if anyone wants to dig out the references for popular music and what-not, the diff for my changes is to this section mostly) is diff . One way of recognizing the variety and influence on popular culture would be to say "... has been referenced in multiple popular culture works, including at least n songs, n plays and dramatic works (including the widely viewed angels in america), etc." with footnotes "See, e.g."'s as appropriate. --Lquilter (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• I did think it was a good idea to mention those relatively few works that have been expressly aimed at recreating EG's life in some way, and oh yeah I just remembered the new "graphic novel" biography. Hmm. --Lquilter (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"...and a novel by Norwegian author Jens Bjørneboe, Red Emma, which remains unpublished in Norway." Does that mean it is unpublished in general, or just unpublished in Norway? Kaldari (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I wondered that myself -- I don't know but simply preserved the meaning as I found it. If it is entirely unpublished we should consider deleting, although it seems that Bjorneboe is a major writer, so it might be notable even as unpublished. --Lquilter (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Can a source be added to the article? This unclear sentence has been flagged in a peer review. – Scartol • Tok 18:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Issue is now resolved, I believe. Kaldari did legwork on this & removed the cite altogether (diff) noting in the edit summary that "Removing mention of "Red Emma". It was an unfinished novel. Fragments of it were published in 1976, but then withdrawn after protest from Bjørneboe's estate. Doesn't seem notable enough.)" Probably worth a mention in Jens Bjørneboe's article which would then be linked to this one by "What links here". --Lquilter (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

saint-tropez / guggenheim connection

This text was in an earlier version of the article:

Goldman also spent some time in France, where Peggy Guggenheim raised funds for a cottage in Saint-Tropez on the Cote d'Azur. They called her house Bon esprit ("good spirit"). There she could write and receive correspondence, but was isolated.

The Guggenheim connection & Bon esprit have been deleted. Were they not sourceable? I was going to add the material to the PG page, as part of info about her general social activism, but if there is some finding or suspicion they're not reliable then I shan't. (I had thought I remembered it from LML but maybe I was wrong?) --Lquilter (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see anything about Guggenheim, but a number of different supporters helped her obtain the house in Saint-Tropez. The Bon esprit nickname is interesting, but not urgent – and I've been worried about the article being too long (it's currently 77k and 80k is the danger zone), so I left it out. – Scartol • Tok 00:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

According to a review of a Peggy Guggenheim biography, Goldman encouraged her to leave her husband - "[Guggenheim] swallowed this treatment for six years, until she eventually left him, with the encouragement of her friend [Emma Goldman]. She had met Goldman in the mid-'20s, when both were summering in the South of France, and the feminist anarchist's influence was bracing. [Peggy Guggenheim] wrote to her, "[H]ow you gave me back my lost self-respect!!" Might be fun side-reading. Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow, Washington City Paper v.24, n.45, p.48 (11/12-11/18/2004), reviewing Affairs of the Art: Mistress of Modernism, the Life of Peggy Guggenheim by Mary V. Dearborn. --Lquilter (talk) 02:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Books by…

I'd like to remove the em dashes before the books by EG. I believe they are superfluous and unsightly. – Scartol • Tok 16:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• done --Lquilter (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

voting, human rights, free expression sections

Personally I think we can skip the voting section, or condense its content into the anarchism section. Goldman didn't devote a lot of time to voting; she advocated against it when the topic came up, in keeping with her anarchism, and it seems notable to us now. But she's not notable in the history of voting rights, and voting wasn't a notable part of her career.

By contrast, Goldman was quite active in the free expression movement, giving a lot of talks on free expression and so on. I'll buttress out that material over the next week, but it would be nice to have conversation about the desirable overall balance of content. Other people's thoughts on these issues?

--Lquilter (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think, given the widespread activism around women's suffrage at the time – and its importance to the events toward the end of the Spanish Civil War – it merits the small section it currently has. (She did write an essay in Anarchism about it.) I believe the free expression sentiments are dispersed at various times in the article. – Scartol • Tok 21:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the dispersal of free expression activities is a problem, but I'll work on it. It was a central focus of her own activism. ... As for the voting, I'll let others weigh in. I realize that we think it's a big deal, but it seems undue to me -- since Goldman was not in suffrage movement, writing a section about how she was not in the movement seems to imply that she should have been or that she should have been expected to have been. I don't believe we have sections on, for instance, Kropotkin's failure to be involved in expanding the suffrage to non-propertied men. --Lquilter (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think her non-participation in suffrage activism IS pretty notable. She talked about it quite a bit, because she WAS expected to advocate suffrage, and instead chose to speak against the validity of it. Heck, she convinced me of it. Murderbike (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

So your thinking is that because she is one of the best-known anarchists her arguments against suffrage/voting rights activism are uniquely important? I hear you, but how would you distinguish this from, say, the people who come around periodically to insert long #UNDUE sections about the views on abortion in each 19th century women's rights activist's biography? --Lquilter (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel they're analogous situations. In EG's case, the two elements I mentioned earlier (women's suffrage and Spanish Civil War) are examples of situations where people urged her to change her mind; she didn't. I believe this merits leaving in the voting subsection. – Scartol • Tok 22:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Might I offer a suggestion? When I have doubts about these sorts of things, I always go back to the sources. Rather than trying to decide for myself whether or not something is important, I try to determine whether the sources think it is important. Usually it is pretty clear whether a topic is important enough to include in an encyclopedia article that has to be condensed from a several hundred-page book. :) Awadewit | talk 22:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) In her peer review, Awadewit made the following comment:

The "Voting" section seems like it should be more about Goldman's methods of revolution (and therefore retitled). It is probably good to mention in passing her objections to voting, but it is more important to describe what she thought were the best means to achieve her ends. Perhaps the "Violence" material could be integrated into a new "Revolutionary methods" section (terrible name, but you get the idea).

While I like having a section on Voting, I'm clearly in the minority, so I'll give in to the will of The People. I'm going to combine the Violence and Voting sections into something which I'll name "Activist methods"(?). (I don't think her suggestion is terrible; I'd hate to think my own is, either.) – Scartol • Tok 18:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

None of the titles seem quite right, although I like Awadewit's general suggestion to have a "tactics" section. Perhaps "Tactics" is the right noun. I hate to say "revolution" because it echoes revolution or reform, and all those tedious debates. If violence is the key -- and I think her thoughts on violence over the years are interesting -- then "Tactical violence and social change" might work. Other thoughts? --Lquilter (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I like "Tactics". Let's keep it as simple as possible. I'll work on this during the weekend (and hopefully get it to FAC by Sunday), since I need to have a big stack of papers graded by tomorrow. – Scartol • Tok 12:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've made the changes we've agreed on here. I also de-linked a number of the geographical terms in the article, per Awadewit's peer review. – Scartol • Tok 17:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Notes

The notes section looks horrible to me because of all the multiple notes for the same source. Does anyone see problems/benefits for using the "ref name" method of sourcing so that section isn't so unwieldy? Murderbike (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• I support ref name & was going to work on it soon. Feel free to get started. --Lquilter (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• I've used ref names where appropriate. If you see multiple references to the same page of the same source, please combine them. Otherwise, please leave them separate so that readers can access specific citations on various pages. – Scartol • Tok 21:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Just to note, I think you did a pretty good job on this. I took a pass through it the other day and only found one that could be ref-named. --Lquilter (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I just always use "ref names" when there's tons of notes from a single source, and was told somewhere along the way not to worry about page numbers. But I certainly won't worry about it. Murderbike (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Insofar as I spent the last three weeks of my life worrying about page numbers, I'd really really rather keep them in. Page-number precision is something I'm rather fond of. Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 21:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• I like page numbers. My own hope is that someday the ref template will be sophisticated enough to handle cites & page numbers. In the meantime we can keep them in simply by using a format like "<ref name="Marshall-125" /> Cheers! Lquilter (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I really wish the template would accomodate them, I'm kind of amazed some bored genius hasn't figured it out yet, 'cause notes sections for long well sourced articles get really unwieldy. Alas. Murderbike (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoever told you to "not worry about page numbers" did a great disservice. Citations without page numbers are nearly worthless for doing actual research (and source verification). I would strongly encourage you to always use page numbers in your citations, even if it doesn't look pretty. Kaldari (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Referencing a book that is 400 pages long only by the title is worthless and very irresponsible, from a source verification standpoint. It is also unscholarly and won't help wikipedia's efforts to improve its reputation. Awadewit | talk 01:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of notes, I must be a true geek because I really was excited to see the new format on Freddie Mercury -- it has a "notes" section for actual notes & a references section for actual references. Things are looking up. I'm going to investigate. (We lawyer/legal scholars love our footnotes.) --Lquilter (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC) ... ah, damn, it appears to be hand-HTMLed, not a good solution for long-term maintenance. oh well. <glum> --Lquilter (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Revised paragraph on relationship with Berkman

The situation with the communal apartment and the various tristes that occured is very complicated. I think we do a disservice to talk about it unless we are going to give it adequate treatment. The implication that Goldman simply had an affair with Fedya because he liked flowers and Berkman didn't is far too simplistic (and somewhat insulting). I realize the bit about flowers was merely offered as an example to give some insight into the dynamics of Goldman and Berkman's relationship, but I feel like it's misleading to the reader. Someone could write an entire book about Goldman and Berkman's tumultuous communal living arrangement, but I don't really feel like this article is a good place to examine it, as we have many more important things to cover. In the interests of brevity and avoiding presenting something which would be misleading, I think we should just skip it for now, unless someone has a suggestion for a better way to present it. Here is my diff for reference. Kaldari (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Kaldari's revised text is fine as an introduction to Berkman. It leaves two other issues: (1) There are a couple of Goldman's lovers who probably deserve a brief mention. Fedya, the guy she lived with after getting out of prison for the first time, umm... (2) I think it would be helpful to point out early on that she was an advocate of free love; it will help contextualize her various love affairs for readers. Otherwise I think that readers will tend to wonder or suppose things about her relationships -- particular her relationship with Berkman -- that are not quite accurate. --Lquilter (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure if we need to discuss her relationship with Fedya (and possibly other lovers) or not. What about all of the important political relationships we don't mention (Voltairine de Cleyre, John Reed, etc). Wouldn't they be more relevant? However, I do agree that we should mention her belief in free love somewhere. Kaldari (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, VDC! I'm going to abstain on JR for the moment but there should be something at least briefly on Voltairine de Cleyre. Goldman thought she was amazing, enough to write a book on her; there was some hostility after Voltairine's lover was imprisoned, right? but they both got over it. --Lquilter (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of -- wasn't there extensive correspondence b/w Goldman & Ricardo Flores Magón? Or am I making something up based on anarchist fanfic? <g> --Lquilter (talk) 01:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

but they both got over it. This is definitely not the impression I get from Chalberg, Wexler, Drinnon, or Falk. To quote from Chalberg, p. 58 (after details about their falling out):

A promising friendship had fast developed into a very unfriendly personal rivalry. Aside from their commitment to anarchism, the two women had little in common.… Each criticized the other's way of life.… After 1894 [VdC] and Emma Goldman struck out on separate paths. Although neither ever surrendered her anarchist beliefs, their two paths never again became one.

In Living My Life, Goldman writes on p. 158 (after discussing their falling out): "My hope of a close friendship with her was destroyed." The abortive nature of their relationship and the vast weight of the other things in need of attention make me think it's best to leave it as a single sentence at most. Flores Magón is mentioned only once in Wexler and not at all in Drinnon or Chalberg. EG's relationship with Ben Reitman, meanwhile, is discussed in depth in all three. Thus its inclusion. – Scartol • Tok 03:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

resp to Scartol: EG & VDC: By "got over it" I didn't mean that they had become close again but that the hostilities were over, certainly enough for EG to write about VDC very highly, and I believe also for VDC to find rapprochement with EG. Regardless, the important thing is that I believe it was an important relationship that should be in the article. ... Why are you bringing up Reitman? The substance probably needs more, actually; for instance their mutual participation in the San Diego Free Speech Fight probably needs to be discussed. ... Magón wasn't a love relationship; it was a correspondence, a political relationship. I'll go through my old Magón materials & see what I can unearth. --Lquilter (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to open up a can of worms. My point was that we can't possibly cover everyone that Goldman had a relationship with. So we should choose the relationships that were the most influential and important in Goldman's life and work. I don't really feel like I know enough about Goldman to make that judgement, but perhaps others could weigh in on whether or not Fedya was important enough to be discussed. My educated guess is that he probably wasn't. Kaldari (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess the question is whether Fedya & other lovers Goldman was with for more than a trivial amount of time should be mentioned briefly, or not at all. I would prefer a brief mention of significant lovers, even if they weren't per se political relationships. Clearly more space on the more significant relationships (Berkman, Reitman). --Lquilter (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"separated from her love" ?

After the Czolgosz section, at the beginning of "Mother Earth and Berkman's release", the article says "Scorned by her fellow anarchists, vilified by the press, and separated from her love, she retreated into anonymity and nursing." Who is "her love" -- Berkman? or Havel? (because didn't they separate at this time, too?) whichever is intended, he should be named; also, i'm not sure that "separated from" quite covers her feelings at that point. --Lquilter (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It refers to Berkman being locked up. I'll clarify. – Scartol • Tok 03:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Most

Hadn't Most been on a speaking tour thru the NE prior to EG going to NYC? I'll look through my materials but for some reason I'd thought she'd heard him before? Or perhaps she'd just read Die Freiheit. Regardless, she definitely knew of him, so it's not like she just happened to go hear him & got swept up into things - she was basically seeking him out. I won't touch it until I have a chance to go back to materials but perhaps someone else can shed light in the meantime. --Lquilter (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember about Wexler or Drinnon, but Chalberg definitely represents her attendance at his speech upon reaching NYC as their first encounter. I'll check the other two later today. – Scartol • Tok 18:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

WWI quote

I don't remember who added the quote in the WWI section, but could we clarify who said or wrote it? Was it a joint statement? Clarification of the attribution has been requested in a peer review. – Scartol • Tok 18:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That was part of Goldman's address to the jury. Kaldari (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the section so that it is clear the quotation is Goldman's. Kaldari (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Anarchism and the arts

The following sentence has been flagged as unclear in a peer review. Could the person who added it clarify or rewrite the sentence? "Goldman's belief in the value of aesthetics, for example, can be seen in the later influences of anarchism and the arts." (The "later influences of" bit is unclear.) – Scartol • Tok 18:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I added it. The wording is unclear but it also needs a cite. I'll try to adduce one. --Lquilter (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Having fun looking for relevant cites. A good dissertation topic for some grad student still looking for topics, if you ask me. Anyway some discussion in a few articles that would be okay to cite but I'm still looking for one that's really on-point with a good discussion, that could serve as an intro or overview to this topic. --Lquilter (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• You know, I've just realized that there is nothing in the article about Goldman's significant work with theater -- she wrote a book, she hosted Nazimova, she managed a theatrical company, etc. This is part and parcel of the Mother Earth arts work. I know we're long, but this was quite important to her. She was also significant in bringing Nietzsche's work to an American audience; I can reference that too. I'll try to draft a short few lines that can fit in the Mother Earth section on this matter. Some of my books are in storage in California and I'll be out there after the 25th, so references to the main biographies will be a bit harder for me to pull until then. --Lquilter (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wagonload quote

According to our article on the Palmer Raids, that quote is from a Justice Department news release. No other details are specified. Kaldari (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Found it. Citation added. Kaldari (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The citation I found presents a new problem. The 1917 New York Times article claims that the police had a warrant for Goldman's arrest when they raided the office. Our current wording, written by Scartol, says that Goldman was arrested "during a warrantless raid". Does Wexler or some other authority know something that wasn't reported in the New York Times article? I'm going to remove the word "warrantless" for now until the disparity is resolved. Kaldari (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I think that was my inference of something that isn't there. Re-reading the Wexler excerpt, it says the cops "proceeded to ransack the place—refusing Goldman's request to see a search warrant…." I assumed this meant they didn't have one, but it sounds like they did, according to the NYT. My bad. – Scartol • Tok 00:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well the NYT article just mentions arrest warrents, nothing about a search warrant, but I suppose it's safer just to leave the "warrantless" adjective out to be safe. Kaldari (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

new book

I added a "further reading" section & a new book. I don't have it, so can't read & incorporate as useful -- if anyone else does seems like a potentially useful cite for References, especially if there are useful pieces in there about feminist "rediscovery" of EG. --Lquilter (talk) 07:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• The graphic novel biography is also out -- of course it's not a "serious" scholarly resource but for the 10yo looking up Emma Goldman it might be useful. We could put it in further reading and note that it's a graphic format work. --Lquilter (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Another further research that's kind of nice is the Jewish Women's Archive exhibition, http://jwa.org/exhibits/wov/goldman/ . --Lquilter (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Peer review suggestions

• The latest peer review suggests we ditch the infobox, and I'm inclined to agree. I don't feel it adds anything to the article. What do other folks think? – Scartol • Tok 15:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Visually I think it's minimally intrusive; it mostly works as a frame around the picture. However they're flag magnets and a flag would be really inappropriate (as well as difficult to ascertain!) on her page. --Lquilter (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks a lot cleaner without the infobox. Plus it would be a flag magnet as Lquilter mentioned. Kaldari (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll swipe the 'box. Also, the phrase about the "third degree" has been flagged (sorry, couldn't resist) as colloquial in the peer review. I'd advocate its removal. – Scartol • Tok 16:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

EG used the phrase in Living in describing the incident; hence the quotes. I don't object to removal although I personally like to use appropriate old-fashioned colloquialisms in minor measure in a historical article. --Lquilter (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't clear that it was a quote from her; can we get a page number? (I added a clarification that it was her wording.) – Scartol • Tok 17:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Lquilter (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

McKinley assassination

• Lquilt, you altered the discussion about Goldman's stance on the McKinley assassination attempt to say that her position had changed; Awadewit's peer review has asked how it changed, and I feel that the original wording was better. How would you feel if we reverted that change? (After all I don't feel that her stance really did change, only that she offered to nurse McKinley to show that she recognized him as a person, just as she did Czolgosz.) – Scartol • Tok 16:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and take out the bit about change in attitude -- at the time I put it in while I was wordsmithing those paragraphs. However, it is a substantive comment though and quite right to pick out that it's unsourced & inappropriate. However, I don't want to go back to the original wording for those paragraphs because it was awkward. ... Really it's just a matter of figuring out how to fit in the offer to nurse McKinley which is a colorful detail. I'll look at it in a bit to give you time to tinker with it if you like. --Lquilter (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and did it -- I put the nursing comment in with the general gloss on the assassination & the various outcomes; this leaves the Emma-supported-Czolgosz-in-the-face-of-opposition paragraph concentrated on that which is actually better, too. (I think the Clarence Darrow note is a colorful but minor detail; I left it in but am flagging it here as not really necessary and somewhat awkward.) I also split the last paragraph because it was a bit long; now the outcome of the whole business is its own short paragraph, which I think aids readability. --Lquilter (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks much better, cheers for that. I tweaked some wording for clarity. Also, I used spaced en dashes throughout the article (I feel em dashes are restrictive visually), so I'd rather keep them consistent. – Scartol • Tok 17:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Great. Just out of curiosity, what do you mean that em dashes are restrictive visually? My own usage of em dashes is not quite per style -- I like them spaced -- but what is the problem you have? (I'm not objecting, just to be clear, merely inquiring.) --Lquilter (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ragtime

• "Ragtime" came back in to the formerly-trivia-now-legacy section. And, it has extensive (relatively) credits -- I think we should just take it out. --Lquilter (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Goldman seems to have a pretty significant role in the musical. What's your reason for wanting to take it out? Kaldari (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I had thought it relatively minor but hadn't said anything about it; then I noticed that Awadewit flagged it too. I don't feel strongly, but since it's not centrally about her, it starts to slide into Angels in America territory for me. --Lquilter (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm not familiar with Angels in America, but I did think about The Assassins (broadway musical). Goldman only has a brief role in that, so I definitely don't think it would make the cut. I lean towards including Ragtime, however, since Reds is not really about Goldman either, but she does have a significant role, and we include that. I'm open to debate however. Kaldari (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
        • I like Reds because Stapleton won an Academy for the role. But, clearly, at this point there are no truly principled distinctions in what stays in or out. It's a pleasant problem to have, picking and choosing amongst popular culture representations of Emma Goldman. Not the sort of thing I would argue about, but I'd be pleased to hear people's various rationales .... as an aside, Angels in America was an amazing production of the Kushner play. A lot of dramas don't work well as films but I thought they did a great job. The Goldman reference is passing: one of the characters says that his grandmother saw Emma Goldman speak, in Yiddish, and that she spoke well and had a great hat. <g> I wonder if that was Kushner's grandmother? --Lquilter (talk) 04:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
          • For what it's worth, I only read Ragtime because it said "Emma Goldman" on the back, and two years later I can't even remember her part in it. Murderbike (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
            • Don't know about the book, but the musical has an entire song about her. Kaldari (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) It occurred to me that perhaps, if the song is the primary thing we're referencing Ragtime (and the cite currently references the musical, not the book), then perhaps we should cite directly to the song. Kaldari, you're the major Ragtime expert here; what say you? --Lquilter (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

After doing a bit more investigating, I think I've come around to agreeing with everyone else that it isn't relevant enough to include. I went ahead and removed it. Kaldari (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I know I’m arriving late at this party, but I think you should reconsider reinstating the Ragtime reference. While it may be insignificant in terms of Goldman’s life, the references in Ragtime will be, for many people, their first introduction to Goldman. Including the reference will give those for whom seeing Ragtime is their point of entry confirmation that they have found the right article and a way to find the article in a search. In short, it may add nothing to our understanding of Emma Goldman, but it makes the fine work that has been put into the rest of the article more accessible. Roregan (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm on the fence. If anyone else has an opinion about it, please discuss. So far it looks like Awadewit, Scartol, Lquilter, and perhaps Muderbike support removing it and Roregan supports including it. Kaldari (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I haven't even seen Ragtime so I can't authoritatively say. My understanding is it it's a popular work, depicting multiple historical figures of which Goldman is one, and one of the songs is about Goldman. I hear Roregan's point, but frankly that's not sufficient (in my mind) to justify inclusion of a work we wouldn't otherwise include. Roregan's point could be made about all manner of works. --Lquilter (talk) 04:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

quotes & FA & future developments

(undent) I went through and removed a bunch of quotes from the biography section. Hopefully this will keep the length down. – Scartol • Tok 17:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. The article was definitely getting quote-heavy. Nice job paraphrasing the quotes, BTW. It's not always easy :) Kaldari (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Seeing as how I feel we've addressed nearly everything in the peer reviews, I'm going to submit it to FAC. Hold onto your hats, everyone! – Scartol • Tok 20:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I'll refrain from tinkering during the FA process, but still have two pieces that I'll work on over the winter break: (1) re-synthesize & better cite the "free speech movement", and (2) work on her impact in the cultural scene, Nietzsche, anarchism & the arts/Mother Earth. --Lquilter (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I expect there will be some adjustments during the process anyway, so don't feel like you have to avoid touching it. Besides, I expect anything you add will only improve the article anyway. =) Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 21:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we get a ruling on Ragtime? While the song sounds like a significant detail, I don't know if it qualifies as a "significant retelling". Given the challenge of length here, I vote for removing it. – Scartol • Tok 02:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Where is the wording "significant retelling"? I didn't see it, though the sentence I do see in the "Legacy" section doesn't seem intrusive, and more notable than what I remember from the book. Murderbike (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

"Significant retelling" was in one of the peer reviews; the reviewer queried whether Ragtime was a "significant retelling" of Goldman's life. --Lquilter (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The wording is actually "Significant dramatic retellings of incidents in her life". Although most of Goldman's role in Ragtime is completely fictional, it does feature a musical number which is apparently based on Goldman's infamous speech at Union Square (the basis of our "Inciting to riot" section). That seems to qualify as a significant dramatic retellings of an incident in her life to me. Kaldari (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Red Emma and Intro

Right now our intro sentence reads "Emma Goldman, known as 'Red Emma'...". Is her Red Emma nickname notable enough to include in the opening sentence? I imagine it is, but I just wanted to see what others thought. How frequently was she actually called Red Emma, and was it a pejorative nickname or one that Emma claimed for herself (or both). The only explanation I was able to find is that it was given to her by J. Edgar Hoover (which could be completely apocryphal): "Her nickname, Red Emma, purportedly given her by J. Edgar Hoover, would work to equate her with the threat of communism..."[1] Unfortunately, I can't read the rest of it since I don't have access to Project MUSE. Kaldari (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Kaldari, I didn't notice your Project Muse comment; I have access & pulled it down. Let me know if you'd like to ILL ("inter laura loan") a copy to verify reference. It's a fairly passing reference to the source and is itself unsourced, saying "purportedly" given to her by JEH. My guess is that was his nickname; Shulman picked it up because, well, it was J. Edgar Hoover, and it has assumed some currency since then. I suppose we would really need to do lit review of early 20th century news to see the references but that would be WP:OR. <g> --Lquilter (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you flagged that. So far as I know it was just used in some contexts; it wasn't like a general nickname by which everyone knew her. It would be like saying "Emma Goldman, also known as the most dangerous woman in America". I think we should just take it out. --Lquilter (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Looking at the first sentence more closely, "Emma Goldman (June 27, 1869 – May 14, 1940), known as 'Red Emma', was a Lithuanian-born activist and philosopher known for her anarchist essays, books, and speeches." frankly it seems a little strange -- she wasn't known as a "philosopher" per se, she was known as an anarchist. Proposed rewrite: "Emma Goldman (June 27, 1869 – May 14, 1940) was a Lithuanian-born anarchist known for her activism and her anarchist essays, books, and speeches." Do people think it diminishes her to take out philosopher? I think that her role as "thinker" is recognized in the first sentence by recognition that she was known for her essays & books. (If we're seriously considering word counts then that could of course become "anarchist writings and speeches".) --Lquilter (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "Red Emma" can go, so I removed it. I changed the wording of the rest of the first sentence in response to Awadewit's peer review, which indicated it would be good to highlight the fact that her writings were anarchist. I don't generally like having the same root word (here, "anarchist" twice in one sentence; hence the "activist" title. I agree that philosopher doesn't really fit, so how about "…was a Lithuanian-born writer and activist known for her anarchist essays, books, and speeches."?

Writer is better; closer than philosopher. I still feel that she personally identified, and is best known as, "an anarchist"; but I'll just put that out there for discussion. --Lquilter (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think if anyone in history could be described primarily as an "anarchist" rather than as a writer, or speaker, or philosopher, it would be Emma Goldman. How about: "Emma Goldman was a Lithuanian-born anarchist known for her political activism, writing, and speeches." Kaldari (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I like this best. (I had meant to not include the second "anarchist" in front of essays, books, etc., but looking now I see I didn't take it out.) --Lquilter (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What say thee, Scartol? Kaldari (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's great. I'll make the fix. – Scartol • Tok 20:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Also, is it Wikipedia practice that we must mention a nationality? "Lithuanian-born" might make the Lithuanians happy (or not) but it seems a trivial aspect; we note throughout biographies, infoboxes, and so on, that birthplace is one of the least significant biographical locations; as for her activities, they span Europe and North America, so "international" would be appropriate, I think. --Lquilter (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think it's a must, but I do feel it's a positive thing and very unusual to leave it out. I agree with what you mean about birthplace being of marginal importance, but I'm not comfortable with "international" (pretty vague), and "American" feels inaccurate, given how much of her life was lived outside the US. Other ideas? – Scartol • Tok 17:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

From my experience, it's pretty much impossible to keep nationality out of the intro, so we might as well have it in there. Kaldari (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Given her politics and the difficulty of even assigning a location or a citizenship, "Lithuanian-born" is the most definite thing we can say, I think! While I think it's trivial that might actually be an argument in its favor. Given people's propensity to try to nationally identify everything and everyone, "Lithuanian-born" might be a convenient place-holder that meets that "national identification" urge in the least harmful & inaccurate way. Prophylactic editing; ick. Perhaps someone else will present a more principled and elegant solution. --Lquilter (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a little misleading to use the term "Lithuanian-born", as Kaunas/Kovno was a Russian province (Guberniya) at the time of her birth, and Goldman was not ethnically Lithuanian, nor did she speak the Lithuanian language as her native or second language. Kovno province was home to ethnic Poles, Lithuanians, Russians, Germans, and Jews, among others. Goldman was not known to self-identify as "Lithuanian" during her lifetime. It's bit like calling someone born in 1900 in Breslau, Prussia, "Polish-born" because Breslau (Wroclaw) is now in Poland. It would be a better idea to excise the "Lithuanian-born", as her place of birth and ethnicity are specified just a few lines later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.173.218.53 (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Death section

Two things. First, the death really covers her thinking on WW2 not just her death. So maybe "Final years" instead of "Death"? Second, the article states that "This position was vastly unpopular, ..." -- Factual assertion about opinion, so we need some cite for that or for the sentence as a whole. --Lquilter (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll change it to "Final years". I'll also add a cite (or two) later today about the unpopularity of her position. – Scartol • Tok 17:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Relatedly, I saw a casual reference in an article that I read today about Goldman & Jewish radicals that in the face of Nazi persecutions she had written in support of a Jewish homeland. If curious I can produce that cite, but it wasn't referenced itself, and I honestly don't remember this from other materials. --Lquilter (talk) 03:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • This seems really odd to me, and I think that a stronger cite would be needed, since the statement contradicts the cited "She was also critical of Zionism..." from Wexler. Murderbike (talk) 03:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, certainly -- I'm not proposing any changes to the text right now; just making a relevant note for the talk page ("note to self"). If something comes up later that's more definitive I'll post here, and the crowd can assess from the various sources if it seems reliable and corroborated. --Lquilter (talk) 04:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Waldheim, that section of the cemetery also has many other labor and radical activists, including Voltairine de Cleyre. Emma was not alone in seeking to buried at that spot. This shouldn't veer into a discussion of Waldheim, but the broader context might be worth mentioning. "with other labor activists and radicals" --Lquilter (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll make the change. – Scartol • Tok 17:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Frick assassination

I'm going to restore some of the language describing Goldman and Berkman's motivation for the Frick assassination. The sentence currently reads "When a majority of the nation's newspapers came out in support of the strikers, Goldman and Berkman resolved to assassinate Frick." Why? The article doesn't say. A reasonable reader may think Goldman and Berkman were motivated by personal animosity, which they weren't. They truly believed that their act of class warfare would start "The Revolution". And one reason they mistakenly took that view is that a majority of the nation's newspapers supported the working class against the upper class (or so it seemed).

The lede ("Together they planned to assassinate Henry Clay Frick, as an act of propaganda of the deed.") and the caption to Frick's photo ("Goldman and Berkman believed that a retaliatory assassination of Carnegie Steel Company manager Henry Clay Frick would 'strike terror into the soul of his class' and 'bring the teachings of Anarchism before the world'.") tell more about their motivations than the encyclopedia text describing the assassination attempt. I think it's appropriate for the article itself to say that the couple expected that the assassination "would rouse the people to revolt". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Kaldari (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Good catch Malik, the whole point of the term "attentat" is that the act would encourage others to join in the struggle. Murderbike (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, Malik - I thought we needed the context too but was holding off. It's better with it in, I think. --Lquilter (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, cheers for that. It's getting hard to respond to peer review comments and keep the whole article straight in my head and maintain readability and keep the size under 80k. This is definitely getting challenging. Well, things should calm down now that it's at FAC. =) – Scartol • Tok 01:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

redlinks

I did two of the redlinks -- Goldman's Social Significance and Die Freiheit, but I won't be able to get to Goldman's VdC and Die Autonomie tonight. I'll try to do them in the next day or two if nobody else does. --Lquilter (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Berkman "lifelong open partnership"

I'm a little uncomfortable with the use of the word "partnership" for Berkman, given its modern-day implications of significant other/lover. Berkman's primary partner for the last years of his life was Emmy Eckstein, for instance, and Goldman had other "partners" who were primary. The modern associations with the term "partner" also suggest that Berkman & Goldman's relationship remained sexual throughout their lifetime, and I'm not at all clear that's the case. I believe the better term would be "comrade". Thoughts? --Lquilter (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"Comrade" sounds a bit too detached to me. Lenin and Trotsky were comrades, Goldman and Berkman were... well, something. I can't really think of anything better than "partners" at the moment. Kaldari (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

BFFs? --Lquilter (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. "Comrade" has been so badly tarred by its association with Bolshevism. I hope we can find another synonym. Confederate? Collaborator? Associate? (Courtesy of the Oxford Thesaurus) BFF works too. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And yet... "It is only two weeks since our beloved comrade Alexander Berkman passed away. ... I have two letters from comrade Berkman dated June 24th and 26th. He wrote while he did not feel strong enough to come to St. Tropez the 27th, my sixty-seventh birthday, his condition was not serious and not to worry. ... Comrade Michael Cohn ... Comrade Berkman had always maintained that if ever he should be stricken with suffering beyond endurance he will go out of life by his own hand. ... Death had robbed me of the chance to be with my life-long friend until he breathed his last. ... one of the grandest and bravest comrades in our ranks--ALEXANDER BERKMAN." Alexander Berkman's Last Days, The Vanguard (New York), August-Spetember 1936 (written July 12 1936)

It looks like "comrade" wasn't an unusual appellation among Goldman's circle, despite its use by the Bolsheviks, but its use here seems cold and impersonal. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I like comrade and associate it more with turn-of-the-century radicals, generally, than marxists/bolshies particularly. Also I know that Emma frequently spoke of Sasha as comrade, as in, compañero, comrade at arms, etc. But both of you think it sounds cold? I defer to others' sensibilities. "intimate friend" or "intimate friend and comrade"? --Lquilter (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the history of "comrade" and its use on the Left. Maybe its use is appropriate. I think I like "intimate friend and comrade".

Whatever we do, we've got a similar issue in the "Most and Berkman" section, both in the text and the caption. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I've seen it used in a lot of contemporary anarchist materials, but the WP article comrade asserts (who knows how accurately) that the primary association in the US is with Communism. If so, then even if the term is proper to the time & relationship of EG/AB, it would be confusing to US readers. Maybe modified with "intimate friend and" it tones down any Communism associations. --Lquilter (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

What wrong with the wording in the "Most and Berkman" section? Kaldari (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I made the change that the above conversation appears to agree on – but after reading and re-reading the "Most and Berkman" section (as well as relevant descriptions in Wexler and Drinnon), I feel that the current wording is fair. Perhaps the caption could be reworded slightly, but I believe the article text does justice to their relationship. – Scartol • Tok 02:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

philosophy, footnotes

Hey, I really like the rewriting of the philosophy section & subsections.

But there's something funky with the footnotes, I think, starting at around 125. If you click on a note & then from the note click back to the text they're off. I can't quite see what the problem is and have to go out right now - if someone else can see it & fix it that would be awesome. --Lquilter (talk) 00:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not experiencing problems with the footnotes. Have you tried a different browser? Can you repeat the error and/or provide more detail? – Scartol • Tok 02:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Experiencing it on both safari & firefox on mac 10.5. The specific problem is actually higher up, I think. It works ok on IE (and I'll probably go to hell for saying this but I think wikipedia looks pretty good in IE). I'll test some more & see if I can figure it out. --Lquilter (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean that the note number repeats? That happens on almost every page. I've asked a bunch of people and been told "it's only one note, no one will notice, and besides, when you click, it still works". Awadewit | talk 03:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, no, if you are asking about the fact that the note number repeats I'm pretty sure that's actually the way it's supposed to display, in situations where it goes to the same (original) footnote. It's more the way they do it in science than in fields I work with, but I think it's okay. The problem I'm experiencing shows up this way: In safari, if I click on a footnote starting in column 2 or later, the link goes down to references. In firefox on the second column if I am in the references and click the ^ it responds weirdly, jumping the screen but not returning to the text; if i click the SAME footnote a second time it returns to the text. ... I imagine there's an unclosed tag somewhere; I'll keep looking. --Lquilter (talk) 03:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

What I meant was that there are two notes labeled "123" in the "Notes" section. Awadewit | talk 04:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, for me there are two notes labeled "122", and only sometimes. Kaldari (talk) 16:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[←]Seems like a bug somewhere, related to 3 column references. If I click on any of the 2nd column backlinks, all the numbers in column 3 change to the same as those in column 2. Consistently. I don't think it's anything in the article – just tested another article that uses 3 columns for notes, and same happens there. Also not apparent difference between {{reflist}} and <div class="references-small" style="-moz-column-count:3; column-count:3;"> <references/> </div>, since the other article uses the latter while this uses reflist (the only difference between the two is reflist results in an additional column-count style for webkits, from the look of it). Now, is the bug in firefox implementation of column-count, or is it in MediaWiki? IE7 anyone? (I only have IE6, and columns don't work in that anyway). Carre (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit in case anyone else is spending time on this]Found this mozilla bug which looks similar. Appears to be FF/Mozilla/Gecko bug. Carre (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Version report: Safari returns an error but not the same error as Firefox, and IE 5.2 on the mac (latest version) is clean. Could be the error Carre found because some of our references do have links. Thanks, Carre, for this detailed bug-hunting! It's much appreciated.

One way to deal with it would be to move the full references out of the numbered footnotes into the "references" section and just keep short form in the numbered footnotes. We could then make "references" have "major references" and "minor references" which might be a good idea anyway, since the refs list is a bit long right now and includes some refs that I believe were used only generally or in a few sections. --Lquilter (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Trouble is, all in-line citations built using <ref>, </ref> and <references/> will have a link in them, because the little "^" is a link. :( Carre (talk) 11:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Any other suggested fixes? We have a lot of cites, most of which are simply author & page, so three-col seems like the best option stylistically. --Lquilter (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Have raised the question at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Multi-column references and firefox_bug, to see if any of the footnote people have any ideas. Carre (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Question about Drinnon & Note about Havel

1) Is the Drinnon cited as a source Nowhere at Home or (more likely) Rebel in Paradise (which isn't included among the references)?

Good question. The Drinnon citaitons definitely need to mention which book, as I imagine Rebel in Paradise will be used as a reference eventually, if it hasn't been already. For example, I think Rebel in Paradise has info about her arrest under the Espionage Act (which would be a better citation than what I have currently). Kaldari (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

OMG! I've been using Rebel in Paradise and I foolishly thought it was the Drinnon title listed. I'll fix this ASAP when I get home today. Very sorry everyone! – Scartol • Tok 19:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I added tentative bibliographic information about Rebel in Paradise from the article cited above. Should I update the footnote references, or will we be splitting the books between "References" and "Further Reading" (or some similar division) as suggested below so that it will be clear to the reader what "Drinnon" refers to? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll go through tomorrow and add Rebel to the Drinnon refs. Thanks for adding the book. – Scartol • Tok 00:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No need. I took care of it. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for that. – Scartol • Tok 13:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

2) Havel's 1910 biography seems to be the 40-page "Biographic Sketch" that serves as the Introduction to Anarchism and Other Essays. See this article, below the header "Reasons Behind Biography". Also see the bibliographic information at the bottom of the page for Havel. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• That's correct for Havel; I should have added the first publication info in. This is why I like to have a "further research" section, and put all the notes and references into one heading with subheads. Further research can include things that weren't used as references in writing the article -- for instance, YA-level biographies, historically noteworthy materials (Havel's being the first biographical work on Goldman makes it of historical note worthiness of its own), material that is well-regarded but that hasn't been used in constructing the article, any really significant references or materials that cover the period, milieu, associates, etc. Also a note about major collections in libraries/archives/museums. To me the most important thing about a basic reference is that it provide ways to dig deeper. --Lquilter (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Images

Hey, I just found a cool picture of Emma speaking to a crowd about birth control. She's standing in a car, surrounded by tons of people. I was curious if folks think this would be a more appropriate photo for the "birth control, etc..." section than the pic of Margaret Sanger. Thoughts? Murderbike (talk) 00:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for this. It can't hurt to add it to the commons (assuming it's free content); then we can decide whether to replace it or not after viewing it. Personally I'm nervous about overloading with pix of Goldman herself, but let's have a look at the pic first. – Scartol • Tok 14:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I kind of like the idea of a picture of her actually speaking, instead of just hanging out or whatever. I think it really provides more context to an article when you can see someone in action, instead of just what they look like. Anyway, here it is. Murderbike (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a clearer version of Image:Emma Goldman - Union Square, New York, 1916 2.jpg. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right, smaller, but def clearer. Murderbike (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, now i feel silly I didn't notice it in there before. But how to resolve the difference between the two descriptions? Murderbike (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The caption in this article doesn't say that Goldman is shown urging unemployed workers to take direct action, simply that she urged workers to take direct action. In other words, the subject of her speech isn't relevant to its use in the article. I've seen the picture elsewhere with the caption about birth control; I've always found it strange that there's not a woman in sight. Maybe Emma is pointing to them, off in the distance. ;-) — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, so then does it make sense to replace the Sanger pic with the new version of the speaking pic, with an adjusted caption, and try to find something to replace the blurry one relevant to that section? Murderbike (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the caption in question is written without specific reference to the subject of Goldman's speech. I prefer to keep the images as they are (maybe replace the blurry one with the sharper). – Scartol • Tok 23:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The one that Murderbike links to has a corbis watermark in the top left which I find really distracting, personally. ... Where's the pic that's supposed to replace the Sanger pic? --Lquilter (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Crap, sorry about that, I'll reupload it without the watermark. Murderbike (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

FA

I was just about to add my comments to the FAC page, when it was promoted. But here are my ideas anyway:

• I know it's technically optional, but I feel strongly that the article should have an infobox. I see no seriously compelling reason to not have one, when it's concise rundown of basic facts could be so helpful for someone whose life was so rich.
• Blockquotes, according to WP:MOSQUOTE, must be "more than four lines, or consisting of more than one paragraph" Any blockquotes not meeting this requirement should be removed.
• Most importantly, there is little or no discussion that I could see (maybe I missed something, it's a pretty meaty article) of Goldman's faith or lack thereof, which is especially important when placed in the context of her Jewish upbringing. If I remember right, the first volume of Living My Life at the least contains some significant discussion of her religious attitudes.

Other than those, it's exemplary work. Great job. VanTucky ^talk 22:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you see this part? The last half focuses on her views of religion, though maybe that doesn't seem like much? Murderbike (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I missed that. Thanks! VanTucky ^talk 22:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll check on and fix the blockquotes (I expect some of them appeared to be longer than they ended up and I failed to un-blockquote them). As for the infobox, Awadewit suggested in a peer review that we remove it – and I agree, since I don't feel they add much. We may be going against the WikiGrain, but I just feel that they're unsightly and not very useful. Thanks for your feedback! – Scartol • Tok 22:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Expropriation

I'd like to discuss two changes made recently, with regard to expropriation. I'll start by saying that the sentence about expropriation was in the article before I began reconstruction, and I left it in as I tried to do for as much of the article as possible. (I say this only so folks know I don't have any personal connection to it.) Vision Thing removed the definition of that term, which was added in response to Awadewit's peer review, which asked for a brief description. I'd like to add the short explanation of expropriation back in.

I'd also like to switch the term "democratic" back to "capitalist" in this edit, since her objections to wars waged by the US and its allies had a strong anti-capitalist tone; she viewed the anarcho-syndicalists in Spain as true democracies, and she did not object to their waging of war. Thus, although the specific quote which follows refers to democracies, the spirit of it (the "Fascist in disguise" bit) relates to the state-capitalist orientation of those nations. – Scartol • Tok 22:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It's probably redundant for me to say "Agreed", but there it is. Murderbike (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I didn't even notice the Kropotkin reference removed, which A)should've been discussed here before removal, and B)provides context for a reader not familiar with the political uses of the term. Murderbike (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree with reverting this change back to "capitalist". The essence of her critique was aimed at capitalist governments (that happened to be democratic); not democratic governments, per se. --Lquilter (talk) 08:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem with Kropotkin's definition of expropriation is that represent a fringe POV. I have no problem with mainstream definition. For example, Merriam-Webster defines expropriation as "the act of expropriating or the state of being expropriated; specifically : the action of the state in taking or modifying the property rights of an individual in the exercise of its sovereignty." Something in that line should be fine. As for the second change, you would need a secondary source for that claim. Her quote, which is currently used as a source, talks about democracies. -- Vision Thing -- 23:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not K's def is "fringe", it's representative of Emma's view, which is the subject of this article. It appears that you are attempting to inject YOUR point of view into this article by softening the subjects views. Murderbike (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the anti-WWII quote: Wexler explains in Exile that Goldman considered WWII an "imperialist war" and viewed the capitalist nations' involvement as the reason she opposed it. Of course she was also steadfastly opposed to the Soviet Union by that time, so perhaps we need a third option. It was neither democratic nor capitalist government that she opposed, but government itself. How about "wars waged by states"?

As for Kropotkin's view on expropriation, I was merely trying to summarize my understanding of his take on it. I meant no POV, and that's the last thing the article needs. However, I daresay neither he nor Goldman advocated "the state … taking … the property rights of an individual". So that won't work. Other ideas, anyone? – Scartol • Tok 23:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think "wars waged by governments" would be clearer to more people. Murderbike (talk) 23:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. -- Vision Thing -- 23:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

To the extent that Goldman's/Kropotkin's view of expropriation is a minority view, then it particularly needs definition and not just linking to the majority view that they didn't share. The current expropriation article is very close to simply defining it as a 5th amendment takings, and that's certainly not how the 19th/early 20th century anarchists used the term. --Lquilter (talk) 08:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not just leave as it is? Expropriation is wikilinked so anyone interested in definition can go to that article. -- Vision Thing -- 23:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The current expropriation article is crap and doesn't do a good job of explaining the anarchist use of the term -- i.e., Emma Goldman's use (also Kropotkin's). It would be better, IMO, to have a short definition of Goldman's perspective here. --Lquilter (talk) 08:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can prove that Kropotkin's definition of expropriation is representative of Emma's view, it should not be a problem to source her view on expropriation from one of hers works. -- Vision Thing -- 23:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Doing a quick Google Book search, I found two (the first two!) secondary sources referring to expropriation and the relevant speech. Good enough? Murderbike (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What is your proposed edit? -- Vision Thing -- 23:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would just put it back the way it was, sans "fact" tag, with the Kropotkin note, and maybe just an extra ref to the de Cleyre book, and the other one if it's needed. Murderbike (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The language could be refined to address Vision_Thing's confusion and clarify that this is Kropotkin's, Goldman's, etc.,'s use of the term. It currently reads As described by Kropotkin among others,... and it could be rephrased as The concept of expropriation, as used by Kropotkin and Goldman among other anarchists, .... --Lquilter (talk) 08:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we should find a source that specifically talks about Goldman's views on expropriation before we discuss it in the article. Not just that she "supported expropriation", but the how and why as well. I don't even think we need to necessarily use the term "expropriation" if it is confusing to readers. Simply explaining what, exactly, Goldman believed workers were entitled to should be sufficient. Also I think it should be integrated into the first paragraph of the Capitalism section rather than awkwardly tacked on at the end. Kaldari (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Either of Kaldari's suggestions is fine with me. – Scartol • Tok 04:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)