# Talk:Marie Goldsmith

Here are some sources and notes that didn't fit for whatever reason:

https://libcom.org/history/goldsmith-marie-her-life-thought
Did not sign the Manifesto of the Sixteen?[1]
Plus Loin
Dictionnaire biographique du mouvement ouvrier français translation: [2]
Encyclopedia article based on DBMOF but licensed under GPLv3? Unclear how user submissions/reliability works here http://militants-anarchistes.info/spip.php?article2329
Nettlau: http://www.fondation-besnard.org/spip.php?article600
revisit French sources fr:Marie_Goldsmith
short/low circ: [3][4]
if necessary try Le Mouvement social scans (v46p16); http://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/74ysd3bk9780252075438.html p 157 and v 1 p 433, 531–2
unverified photo: http://piter.anarhist.org/goldsmith.jpg
czar 04:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a reliable source for her birth year. It lists both 1871 and 1873 but as a typo, not because there is historical discrepancy, though that certainly is separately the case. czar 08:11, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I can confirm that her birth year was 1871. Highly recommend this new (July 14, 2023) article which contains heavily sourced information about her life, including the fact that she was not Jewish (but was of Jewish descent): https://mariegoldsmith.files.wordpress.com/2023/07/soren-hough-marie-goldsmith-scientific-luminary-anarchist-militant-1.pdf 78.87.126.13 (talk) 08:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Just updating to add the Wayback link: https://mariegoldsmith.files.wordpress.com/2023/07/soren-hough-marie-goldsmith-scientific-luminary-anarchist-militant-2.pdf 78.87.126.13 (talk) 11:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
We can't cite that source directly because it was not published in a publication with hallmarks of reliability but if it is republished elsewhere in a professionally edited book or journal, please do repost it. czar 12:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

A variety of facts throughout this article need updating. For example, Goldsmith was born in Saint Petersburg in July 1871, not 1862. She was an anarcho-syndicalist for sure, but also an avowed anarchist communist. She probably shouldn't be described as a Jewish anarchist, as she was born to a Russian (non-Jewish) mother. Her father was born Jewish but was baptized well before her birth into Lutheranism along with his siblings. Her mother did train in medicine but also completed a PhD at Zurich in biology (her thesis was in botany). Marie did, in fact, naturalize as French in 1924. A new biographical article in Black Flag magazine covers many of these points (and more) and points directly to archival sources for the claims. https://web.archive.org/save/https://mariegoldsmith.files.wordpress.com/2023/07/soren-hough-marie-goldsmith-scientific-luminary-anarchist-militant-2.pdf 131.111.84.206 (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Per above, we can't cite that source directly but can potentially use its references if they point to reliable, secondary sources. For the case of the birth date, that is original research analyzed between primary sources, so we need an independently verified scholarly source to make that determination, i.e., a piece like this one published in a vetted journal. Because ostensibly the Black Flag Anarchist Review is not performing a peer review of the material prior to publication. czar 12:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
You might also be interested in this essay ("The Undue Weight of Truth on Wikipedia") on a similar situation in which a scholar attempted to change the historical record by editing Wikipedia rather than first publishing his findings in a vetted venue. czar 12:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi Czar, thanks for that feedback. I can say the piece was reviewed by two historical scholars (entirely external to the project) prior to publication even though that is not Black Flag's policy. As to vetting beyond this step, I'm not sure what per se can be done - just wanted to flag in general that this article does have a number of clear mistakes going off of primary sources (government documents, university degrees, etc.). For instance, the idea that Goldsmith was Jewish seems to have been a supposition in the English record based on her name and the fact that she wrote frequently for Yiddish journals. Of note, there don't appear to be any Russian-language texts that even make this claim, much less source it. 131.111.84.111 (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Do you know Hough, the author of the Black Flag piece?[5][6] And do you know why the peer review wasn't included in that Hough Black Flag article PDF?
The current Wikipedia article doesn't use primary sources itself. The claims about Jewish background and birth year all come from secondary sources. Those authors might themselves cite primary sources as is their prerogative as academics. We're relying on the secondary source authors and their publications to vet their claims. They might be wrong, but we're outsourcing to their expertise rather than making it up ourselves as Wikipedia editors. Are there no other reliable sources that back up Hough's revisions/scholarship? czar 15:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
To answer the first question, yes. As I noted, this "peer review" was informal hence not being included in the article. I don't think it would be appropriate to refer to the article as peer reviewed; the point was more for general interest that scholars did, indeed, review the piece before it was published at the request of the author.
I completely agree that the Wikipedia article cites secondary sources. My point was that the secondary sources do not back this up in primary sources because there aren't any (that I'm aware of) that support many of the claims. They seem to only reference other secondary sources or nothing at all (i.e. Falk doesn't seem to cite anyone for the year of birth). I might add that Falk uses the birth year 1873, which is much closer to the actual year of 1871.
Unfortunately, the Black Flag article was written in part to correct the record on a lot of the misinformation out there about Goldsmith that's been repeated in secondary sources (both academic and non-academic), so there probably aren't corroborating sources beyond the primary sources cited in that article. I do know that the articles and biography from the MG Project will eventually be published by PM Press (who also put up a blog version of this same biographical article: https://blog.pmpress.org/2023/07/19/marie-goldsmith-scientific-luminary-anarchist-militant/) in a series of books, but that's likely a few years out.
Totally understand the policy at Wikipedia - just wanted to flag this for the record, and note that even if the Black Flag article doesn't end up being cited as a source/its info isn't used, the Wikipedia article itself cites sources which, in turn, often do not cite any primary sources to back up their claims. That said, I get that that Wikipedia editors can't really fact-check articles in that way. 131.111.84.206 (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
@Czar: Hey there, I hadn't noticed this thread (or that you had previously done work on this subject) when working on the article. I ended up using the above-mentioned Black Flag source, as I found it to be the most complete and in-depth biography of Goldsmith. As all of it was thoroughly sourced, and as it was republished by PM Press, I also felt it met the standards for reliability. I was planning on submitting this for a GA nomination as part of the Women in Green edit-a-thon, but I'm happy to hold off until I hear back from you on this. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
This one has been on my list to revisit for a while so glad to see it get the Grnrchst touch. Don't hesitate on my behalf!
re: the source, per the discussion above, I'd only consider it possibly as an expert source, but publication in a magazine without editorial review or a publisher's blog (which also doesn't have editorial review) usually doesn't entail reliability. If the same essay is later published as a book, it doesn't make the original content any more or less valid, but books often come with editorial oversight whereas those other forms of publications often do not. czar 02:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Ok, so the issue is more with the medium than the content? I only stopped to ask because source reliability is one of the GA criteria, and I wanted to make sure I wouldn't be nominating it just to immediately fall at that hurdle. Unfortunately I also think this article would be incomplete without citing it, as biographies of Goldsmith are sorely lacking. --Grnrchst (talk) 07:03, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
@Czar: I've gone ahead and nominated, but can pull the nomination if necessary. I'll also direct the reviewer to this talk page thread to see what they think. --Grnrchst (talk) 07:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Right, the medium and not the content. For example, a scholar can post an essay on their website, where it's unreviewed but can be potentially deemed an expert and considered reliable for citation, but that's different from the same scholar publishing the same essay in a peer-reviewed journal, where the peer-reviewed part (and the journal's pedigree) confers reliability on the article. Agreed that this source is more complete than others, but alas that's why I'd wait for its reviewed publication. czar 20:09, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

... that Marie Goldsmith (pictured) anticipated the development of population genetics by proposing a unified theory of adaptation and speciation?

ALT1: ... that Marie Goldsmith (pictured) emphasised the central role of cooperation, rather than competition, as an evolutionary response to harsh living conditions? Source: La Vergata, Antonello (2023). "Struggles for Existence". Images of the Economy of Nature, 1650-1930. Evolutionary Biology – New Perspectives on Its Development. Vol. 7. Springer. pp. 496, 506. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-31023-2_9. ISBN 978-3-031-31023-2.
ALT2: ... that Nestor Makhno described the evolutionary biologist Marie Goldsmith (pictured) as one of the "titans of anarchism"? Source: Hough, Søren (2023). "Marie Goldsmith: Scientific Luminary, Anarchist Militant" (PDF). Black Flag Anarchist Review. Vol. 3, no. 2. p. 96. ISSN 0045-2157.
ALT3: ... that the NKVD burnt a pamphlet about revolutionary syndicalism by Marie Goldsmith (pictured)? Source: Hough, Søren (2023). "Marie Goldsmith: Scientific Luminary, Anarchist Militant" (PDF). Black Flag Anarchist Review. Vol. 3, no. 2. p. 96. ISSN 0045-2157.
Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Shiver, Frye and Big Man; Template:Did you know nominations/Asian baby girl

Grnrchst (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC).

Starting review...
Article is new enough and long enough.
No copyvio issues.
QPQ done.
The photo is excellent, I strongly urge this gets the image slot.
 All four hooks seem reasonably interesting, but ALT2 ("titans of anarchism") stands out as the best, so let's go with that one.  The problem is, the sourcing is a bit odd.  The hook is cited to Black Flag Anarchist Review, which doesn't look like a WP:RS to me.  Digging deeper, BFAR in turn cites Makhno, “Over the Grave." which I can't locate (I tried Google and WorldCat) so I have no idea if it's a RS or not.  @Grnrchst: can you help me out here?  Looking over the Bibliography, most of the sources look fine, but we need to nail down this particular one. RoySmith (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
@RoySmith: There has been extensive discussion about citing Hough, both on the talk page and the GA review. Consensus was that although the medium isn't ideal, the source was written by a subject-matter expert, so it meets standards for reliability. As for the original primary source by Makhno, you can read Malcolm Archibald's translation of the article, originally published in Probuzhdeniye in 1934, in which you can see him referring to Goldsmith as one of the "titans of anarchism". --Grnrchst (talk) 11:02, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
 OK, that's good enough.  For the purpose of this DYK review, all I really needed to verify is the accuracy of that quote, and I'm satisfied that I've done that.  ALT2 approved.  RoySmith (talk) 12:40, 8 November 2025 (UTC)