# Talk:Voltairine de Cleyre

So, I don't know for which time the hook of a DYK article featured on the main page turns out to be false and not supported by the cited source, and the very sentence that it is based has had to be changed after the article attracted attention to it by featuring it on the main page. If even the hook is false, what can we expect from the rest of the text and how many other misrepresentations of sources could there be in it?--62.73.72.3 (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the DYK hook, bring it to WP:Errors. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 18:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
 Done Replaced hook on the main page. Thanks for pointing out the error! ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 23:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


### Voltairine de Cleyre
Having taken this article to GA last year, I've put in a bit more work to prepare it for FAC and wanted to get a peer review for submitting it. I would appreciate any comments you have on whether or not you think it is comprehensive, neutral and in keeping with the manual of style.
Thanks, Grnrchst (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)


#### Czar's comments
I'll take a look hopefully in the next week! czar 13:51, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
A few initial thoughts:
First, the article is lengthy for the subject at 53kB. There is a lot of detail that may be interesting but is, I think, less important for the target general audience for this article. I'm paring this detail as I copyedit but if anything is particularly crucial, I'm not opposed to restoring bits whose weight I do not fully understand. But overall, it's too much reading and too many facts for someone who wants the general story.
Avrich is the elephant in the room. He's clearly the best source but the reference section reads as a paraphrase of his book. There are enough sources that you can drop the Avrich citation when someone else reasonably addresses a detail better.
Overcitation: I've tagged a few passages for this but as a general rule, why would a non-controversial fact need more than one source to verify it? For the sake of having been through all the sources, I can see why it might be helpful for the researcher to know where each source mentions the fact but since we're writing for a general audience, that sinewy tangle of short footnotes isn't helpful where a single source would do. Unless the claim is controversial, it only needs one (maybe two) short footnotes and even controversial claims rarely need more than three/four.
Main note on content so far is about her personal life. The Wikipedia standard is to split that content out to its own section since that content is usually divorced from their career but it clearly has more connection here so I think it's okay as is but does read as an aside from the general section, which is her political career. I'm going to think about it some more.
czar 15:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm not happy about the use of an LLM to completely rewrite an article that I have put a lot of work into. I would be ashamed if something written by a robot ended up at FAC with my name attached to it. Absolutely feel free to copyedit and par down the trivia and overcontextualisation (it definitely needs this), but I don't want an LLM anywhere near what I consider to be some of my best work. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
The LLM I disclosed is assisting me in copy editing, not writing the article, as I'm editing and confirming all outputs. I can refrain from further copy editing as I did not intend it to discourage you but hopefully my prior edits demonstrate where the rest of the text can be tightened. czar 02:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
@Czar: Apologies for snapping about this. I was quite stressed due to the Woodard investigation, and I had a knee-jerk reaction to seeing a comment saying Claude had helped edit this article. I need a bit of time off, as that was all very exhausting, but I hope to get back to your comments and build on your improvements soon. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Handled the excessive citations tags. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
I had tagged those as examples but I'd recommend carrying it through the rest of the article, as most common and uncontroversial biographical details do not need more than one good source, and definitely not three or four. czar 11:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)


##### Images
File:Voltairine de Cleyre (Age 35).jpg: I tracked down the photographer (M. Herbert Bridle in Philadelphia) but am struggling to find more info about them. Nothing for that name in cemeteries or vital records. Death of photographer needed to ascertain the correct license as it's currently using an unsubstantiated license (where is proof of first publication?) A bunch of the other images are missing this too so worth addressing before continuing with image review. czar 04:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: Hey, do you know any publication details about this photo or info on the photographer? --Grnrchst (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
The rule is generally that publication is fairly easy to have happen. If it was distributed, that counts as publication, so it's relatively hard for anything not explicotly from a family archive to fail the publication check. footnote 99 would appear to be about this photograph. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 23:23, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
And that it was spread around is strongly hinted at by the text attached to it. "
I recall now an entirely different episode: Comrade Voltairine de Cleyre arose one morning cheerful and happy, washed herself and put on her best clothes; then she went to a photographer to have her picture taken. Whoever wants to see that unforgettably lovely smile has only to take a look at that picture. But how many such moments did our dear Comrade de Cleyre feel in her life? —very, very few. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 23:25, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
For distribution counting as publication, there would have to be evidence of it having been distributed, no? We don't know that this particular image was distributed. How do you know this text is about this particular photo? The photo that was circulated most often at her death was the younger (1910?) one. czar 00:42, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm going to try and look into this photo's author/publication a bit more. It would be a shame if we had to remove it, as it's a beautiful photograph. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. I was able to find, per William Brey's Philadelphia photographers, 1840–1900 (listing with no page number), M. Herbert Bridle was active from 1893–1900 (and possibly beyond since that's when the book's scope ends). czar 11:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden and Czar: Tried looking around a bit more for information on this photograph. Unfortunately I wasn't able to find anything on Bridle; figuring out his birth and death dates may take some digging around in Philadelphia archives. I was able to find some evidence of publication of the photo: 1978 by Black Bear in London and 1980 by the Libertarian Book Club in New York, both published without copyright notice. This might put it under PD-1996 if I'm not mistaken? --Grnrchst (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Oh it's also published in Avrich 1978, DeLamotte 2004, and Presley & Sartwell 2005; all books with copyright notice. Avrich says the image was courtesy of Fermin Rocker, DeLamotte says the Labadie Collection and Presley & Sartwell don't say. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
I went down a wormhole on this one and ended up with more questions than answers. Might be worth just asking at commons:COM:CQ or WP:CQ. czar 14:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Went ahead and asked about it. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
I think I've resolved the Bridle image. Summarized on its talk page. Might be best to focus the Commons VP discussion on another image. czar 03:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)


#### Arconning's comments
Some of my comments at a first glance, ping me for more. :) Arconning (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Considering you're taking it to FAC, I'd suggest for the images to have alt-text for accessibility.
"There De Claire grew up in extreme poverty.[5][excessive citations] ", this tag should be resolved soon.
"Our Lady of Lake Huron,[20][excessive citations]", here as well.
Some of the images' source links need fixing for WP:V


#### Catherine Palczewski's comments
When I opened this peer review, I reached out to some scholars to see if they had any comments on the article. Of those who responded, Catherine Palczewski provided some very helpful constructive criticism, so I figured I should post what she said here:

You rely a lot on Avrich. While they have done some admirable work, I think they tell a story of VdC that is not entirely accurate. They paint a picture of VdC as a depressed femme fatale in many ways, and the historical and archival documents do not support this. For example, VdC had a wicked sense of humor, but Avrich consistently describes her as morose and depressed. Having spent time in archives reading VdC's letter, I can attest to the fact that the person Avrich describes bears little resemblance to the person I got to know reading their personal correspondence. I would encourage you to rely much more on DeLamotte's work -- which is more recent and corrects some of the errors in Avrich's biography.
Another place where overreliance on Avrich might lead you astray is in the interactions between Goldman and VdC. For a slightly different read on that, see:
Linda Diane Horwitz, Donna Marie Kowal, and Catherine H. Palczewski. “Anarchist Women and the Feminine Ideal: Sex, Class and Style in the Rhetoric of Voltairine de Cleyre, Emma Goldman, and Lucy Parsons.” The Rhetoric of Nineteenth-Century Reform, Volume 5 of the Rhetorical History of the United States. Ed. Martha Soloman Watson and Thomas Burkholder. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 2008. 309-353.
Catherine H. Palczewski. “Voltairine de Cleyre: Feminist Anarchist.” Women Public Speakers in the United States, 1800-1925: A Bio-Critical Sourcebook. Ed. Karlyn Kohrs Campbell. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1993. 143-55.
You spend a bulk of your time on their anarchist work, which is absolutely essential, but I think it is equally important to attend to VdC's feminist work (as my NWSA article argues). Many of VdC's insights and arguments predicted the arguments of 1970s-2000s feminism, much more than did the suffragists.
This was especially useful in helping me understand what problems were imported from Avrich, and how to balance those issues out. I plan to address these comments by integrating more from DeLamotte and Palczewski's own work. Hopefully I'll get to this some time later this month. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Very interesting—thanks for sharing! I'd be curious what reviews or those authors have published that contests Avrich. czar 11:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
I've managed to make my way through the introduction and first chapter of DeLamotte. So far I'm finding that this is leading to the expansion of the "Political thought" section, as DeLamotte's book is a literary analysis of De Cleyre's work moreso than a biography. I still have to get through chapters 2 through 4. Unfortunately this will lead to another bloating of the article beyond the standard article word limit, so once I'm done, I'll have to get back to cutting it down to size once again. To be honest, it was quite difficult finding out that the earlier version of this article did not meet the standards of comprehensiveness that I thought it had, and that I still had a lot of work ahead of me. I'll get there eventually though. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2025 (UTC)


#### Update
@Czar and Arconning: Hey, apologies that it has taken me so long to get around to addressing these comments. Unfortunately I've been dealing with some pretty heavy burnout recently and it's left me feeling in need of a wikibreak. I promise I will eventually get back to the comments in this peer review and try to improve this article further, but right now I need to take some time off. Apologies again. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:01, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Take your time and no need to apologize! czar 03:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)