Talk:Emma Goldman/Archive 3

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Requesting atheism source 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Here begins the FA process 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Louis 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Image orientation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Czolgosz as Republican 

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Other excised bits 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: saint-tropez / guggenheim connection

message: 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)
thread_title:  Books by… 

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

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: voting, human rights, free expression sections

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

text: * 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 " Cheers! Lquilter (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Notes 

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Revised paragraph on relationship with Berkman 

message: 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)
replies: text: It refers to Berkman being locked up. I'll clarify. – Scartol • Tok 03:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "separated from her love" ? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Most

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Anarchism and the arts 

message: 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)
replies: text: Found it. Citation added. Kaldari (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wagonload quote 

message: 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)
thread_title: new book

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Done. Lquilter (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Peer review suggestions 

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: McKinley assassination

message: * "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Ragtime

message: (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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: quotes & FA & future developments

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

text: *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)
thread_title:  Frick assassination 

message: 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)
thread_title:  redlinks 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: No need. I took care of it. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers for that. – Scartol • Tok 13:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about Drinnon & Note about Havel 

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes, I missed that. Thanks! VanTucky talk 22:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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,  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)
thread_title:  FA