Talk:Emma Goldman/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

falk refs

Hi all -- I just noticed that in the refs section we simply cite to "Falk, p.n", but in the bibliography, we have both volumes cited, and I presume they do not have continuous numbering. So we need to distinguish in the refs and, alas, I can't because I don't have access to most of my Goldman material. Can anyone else? --Lquilter (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually there are three Falk books in the references. It looks like when Scartol was adding those citations (there are 4 ambiguous ones), he failed to indicate which of the 3 Falk references he was referring to. I could check against the two Documentary History references, but it would probably be easier if Scartol just told us which books he was using. Kaldari (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, K -- I'll ping S. --Lquilter (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC) (oops - beat me to it!)

Sorry for the confusion, everyone. During my reconstruction I was using the 2001 book (I was unaware of the existence of the other two), and someone else added the other two. I'm not sure if they're even cited, but I'll go through tomorrow or Sunday (today's my birthday, so I'm taking the day off, heh) and put years with the citations. Apologies again! – Scartol • Tok 22:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

NP! tx for being so prompt to come back & fix it up. funny none of us noticed it before. --Lquilter (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Scartol! All three books were in the references at the time you created the citations (I believe), but you probably just didn't notice them. To answer your question, the Documentary History books are cited once, but it's a very general citation, i.e. citing all of Volume 2. Kaldari (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I double-checked, and all the Falk references (but one) are to the biography. I've fixed the footnotes. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

outstanding issues from 2007 (EG & related articles)

Adding below a shorter "to do" list of items extracted from 2007. There was lots of completed discussion there, so it seemed easiest to archive the entirety & simply refer back from here. Also we can add any other details that might improve the article. Some of these are also changes that should be made to other articles to create greater consistency or comprehensiveness. --Lquilter (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Still seeking cites & info about Louis' birth (see /Archive 3 "Louis").
• Would like better cite for Goldman & Espionage Act (see /Archive 3 "Other excited bits")
• Ref in Jens Bjørneboe's article of the unpublished EG novel (see /Archive 3 "trivia, popular culture, etc.")
• Flesh out Goldman/Guggenheim connection in Peggy Guggenheim article (see /Archive 3 "saint-tropez / guggenheim connection")
• Better description & referencing for EG's free expression work (see /Archive 3 "voting, human rights, free expression sections")
• Goldman's knowledge of Most prior to NYC? (see /Archive 3 "Most")
• Goldman & Anarchism and the arts (see /Archive 3 "Anarchism and the arts")
• Comment from user on nationality: 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)

Removed 2008/1/28 - I think that's a good idea, based not just on comments here but on earlier concern about the best way to handle it. --Lquilter (talk) 04:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• filling out other redlinks
• footnotes bug
• Murderbike's proposed picture swaps (see /Archive 3 "Images")
• Expropriation phrasing (see /Archive 3 "Expropriation")

Berkman's conviction

Apparently there is conflicting information about this. According to the New York Times, Berkman was convicted of "attempted murder" and sentenced to serve 21 years. According to other sources (Wexler?), he was convicted of "attempted manslaughter" and sentenced to serve 22 years. Anyone know which facts are correct? Kaldari (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

NYT would seem closer to the source & more likely to be correct than Wexler, who might have simply made a mistake. But maybe we can verify with Wexler's source -- who among us has it to verify? --Lquilter (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the opposite, i.e. that Wexler would have the benefit of historical consensus whereas the New York Times could have just had the wrong info (newspapers made a lot more errors in the days before the internet). Kaldari (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Alas, I returned all the books I used here to the libraries. But when I have some time (probably not for a couple of weeks at least), I'll take a look and see what I can find. – Scartol • Tok 16:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that I necessarily give individual biographers the benefit of historical consensus on specific details like this. Biographers vary widely in their abilities to synthesize material, any biographer can make a mistake, and even very good editorial review can't fact-check all the details. Newspapers print corrections, and even though they often get details wrong -- especially details involving subjectivity or permitting insertion of editorial bias -- I tend to trust them on this kind of thing. Anyway, that's as may be. I'll put in an ILL for Wexler, to see if she made a specific cite, and I'll see if I can find the actual conviction. I rarely get a chance to do very old legal research so it'll be fun. I won't get to it till later this week, though. --Lquilter (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like "attempted manslaughter" probably came from a misreading of Wexler. What Wexler actually says is: "His trial took place September 19... he was nevertheless devastated by his twenty-two year prison sentence (which exceeded by fifteen years the usual maximum sentence of seven years for attempted manslaughter)." I think Wexler was trying to say that if Berkman had been convicted of attempted manslaughter instead of attempted murder, he would have only served 7 years instead of 22. Also Wexler cites Living My Life for the sentence. The only thing I could find in Living My Life is a statement that Berkman was "condemned to twenty-two years in prison." So I assume he is just attributing the "twenty-two years" part to Goldman. I wonder if The New York Times statement that he was sentenced to twenty-one years is because he had already served a year in jail? Kaldari (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• That makes sense. ... I seem to recall information about all this in an edition of Berkman's prison memoirs, but I can't recall if it was part of the memoirs, or prefatory material written by someone else. --Lquilter (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't have access to any material directly about Berkman, but if anyone else does, I think those would trump our sources here. Kaldari (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure if anybody wants to revise this a bit, the information is available at http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives . Both Emma Goldman's "Living My Life" and Berkman's "Prison Memoirs of an Anarchist" are available in full on there.Unplusreveur (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion, but they're not particularly helpful. Berkman says:

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania — the clerk vociferates — charges me with felonious assault on H. C. Frick, with intent to kill; felonious assault on John G. A. Leishman; feloniously entering the offices of the Carnegie Company on three occasions, each constituting a separate indictment; and with unlawfully carrying concealed weapons.

Goldman writes:

He was confronted with six indictments, all manufactured from the one act, and among them one charging him with an attempt on the life of John G. A. Leishman, Frick's assistant. ... The Judge ... passed sentence on each count separately, including three indictments for "entering a building with felonious intent," giving the prisoner the maximum on each charge. ... Sasha's terrible sentence aroused Most to a virulent attack on the courts of Pennsylvania and the judicial criminal who could give a man twenty-two years for an act that legally called for only seven.

The reference to seven years comes from an earlier chapter, in which she wrote that friends in Pennsylvania told her that since Frick had survived, "the law called for seven years in prison for his attempt". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

External link problem

Emma Goldman/Archive 4 entry at the Anarchy Archives - This link comes up as "forbidden" at the moment. Awadewit | talk 19:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Link fixed and re-added. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Clinic description

An IP user recently added a description of the Iowa City EG clinic as an "abortion clinic". But the website lists a variety of services, and I don't know that I'm comfortable describing it simply as an abortion clinic. Perhaps "women's health clinic"? – Scartol • Tok 01:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I added the clarification to avoid the hysteria of the "abortion clinic" term, but I'm totally fine with just "women's health clinic". Murderbike (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I do think it's a good idea to specify that it is run by women. Murderbike (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• I had thought about this exact correction but while I was mulling it over I got pulled away, so good job. --Lquilter (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Anti-communists cat

An editor added the Category:American anti-communists category to the article. I have removed it for now, but am open for discussion. Here's my reasoning.

(1) Yes, she was "anti-communist" after she was "pro-communist", if we're talking about the Bolsheviks. Having just one of those positions reflected isn't balanced.

(2) The term and category generally (but not wholly) include right-wing anti-communists, whose reasons and critiques are generally at least in part capitalist. Needless to say Goldman's critiques were different. In fact, we could say that she was "anti-Communist" but I think it is actually inaccurate to say that she was "anti-communist".

(3) I think it's fair to say that Goldman's anti-Communism/anti-Bolshevism, although personally informed, is part of her anarchism. Many anarchists are "anti-communist" in the sense of anti-Marxist, anti-state, and anti-particular Communist states. But that rarely constitutes a "defining" aspect of their identities, which WP:CAT specifies as needed for categorization.

On the other side, she wrote a book about her disillusionment in Russia. Again, however, I think that's best described as "anti-Communism" or "anti-Bolshevism" or perhaps "anti-statist communism", none of which nuances are clearly reflected in the current "Category:American anti-communists". Thoughts and opinions? --Lquilter (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. A small "c" communism is totally different, and way more broadly defined than a big "C" communism. She was always a supporter of the former, and a very lukewarm supporter of the latter who turned into an opposer. Cat should be removed. Murderbike (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I usually feel ambivalent about cat debates, I vote for removing this one. – Scartol • Tok 16:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Quilter on point 2 - if anti-communism was in fact a defining characteristic of Goldman, there would be no problem with including her in a category with right-wing anti-communists. That's not relevant here of course, as the references do not sufficiently support Goldman being an anti-communist. скоморохъ 16:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It's more of a philosophical beef I have with certain kinds of categories. As long as we're all agreed on this application, we can hash out our possible differences another time with real live examples. --Lquilter (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Right wingers do not have a monopoly on anti-Communism, nor should they. The anti-Communist Left, including anarchists should also be included under the umbrella. In the Bertrand Russell article I put the British Anti-Communist cat there too. Russell was critical of Marx and the Soviet system, although he did propose a global government. She did write a book critical of Communism at least as it was practiced by the Soviet state. I think this alone is sufficient to merit an anti-communist cat. I don't think an author must think like Joe McCarthy to fall under the anti Communist umbrella.Smiloid (talk) 07:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

But I think you're mixing up "communism" and "Communism". Emma was fine with communism, just (towards the end) anti-Communist. Note the capital "C". The cat is a small "c". If she were anti-communist, she would've been against Alexander Berkman, who wrote the ABCs of Anarcho-communism, and that is clearly not the case. Murderbike (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

She specifies in "Living My Life" and "My Disillusionment in Russia" that she was at first a steadfast supporter of the Communists and supported the movement, but once she found out what was really going wrong and how warped it all was, she revoked her support. If I remember correctly, she was even kicked out of Russia. The answer to this, however, is that she was transitional in regards to Communism and supported anarcho-communism or small-c communism. She may have been one of the more prominent anarchists to begin advocating that Russia's mistake was to not dissolve the power structures in Russia, as well, but that is purely speculation.Unplusreveur (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Emma Goldman and homosexual rights

Collier's Encyclopedia calls Goldman "an early defender of homosexual rights". Our article doesn't mention the issue. Is this revisionist history or something that we've overlooked? Kaldari (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it also doesn't mention her husband (Jacob Kershner) getting his citizenship revoked, and how that effected her, so. The claim doesn't seem out of place to me, Berkman writes quite a bit about his homosexual feelings for another prisoner in Prison Memoirs..., I can't imagine that Emma wouldn't have been fine with this. I'll dig around for a source. Murderbike (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This basically supports the statement, but could be clearer. I'll keep digging. Murderbike (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This brief mention is a little more blatant. Murderbike (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This is even more blatant. Feels firmly established now. Murderbike (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we find out anything more about these lectures that Goldman gave about homosexuality? It would be good if we could find some specific quotations. Apparently Gay American History might be a good source. It would be nice to find some primary material. Due to the laws of the day, I don't imagine we'll find much in her writing though, as such material would have probably been deemed obscene and unpublishable, unfortunately. Kaldari (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

So far, it looks like it was the focus of her 1915 lectures. Murderbike (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Check this out: [1] — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: There are several misspellings (inlcuding Magnus Hirschfeld's name, which is rendered "Mangus"). Also, several footnote numbers are shown in the text but there are no footnotes on the page. I suspect this may be an excerpt from Jonathan Ned Katz's Gay American History. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I wrote to the email on the page asking about their source since nothing much useful came up in a google search. Murderbike (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

According to Google Book Search, "Emma Goldman" is mentioned on 28 different pages of Gay American History. Looks like someone needs to track down this book :) Kaldari (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There's also a new book out from AK Press called Free Comrades: Anarchism and Homosexuality in the United States that looks like it would probably have relevant info. Murderbike (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I finally tracked down Gay American History. It has an entire section about Emma Goldman. I tried to distill it down to a single paragraph so that it doesn't have undue weight. Feel free to copyedit or offer suggestions for further improvement. Kaldari (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good; cheers for that. Sad that Wexler doesn't mention it. (I wouldn't expect it from Drinnon, I suppose.) – Scartol • Tok 20:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it proper to use the term "LGBT rights" in this article, considering such a term didn't exist at the time? Kaldari (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that and was disquieted by it. Considering it was added by an IP, I assume the person didn't strive very thoroughly to maintain the tenor of the rest of the article (such as it is). I'd be in favor of using "the rights of homosexuals and others marginalized by society" or some such. – Scartol • Tok 15:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I decided to change the intro wording to just say "homosexuality" rather than "LGBT rights", since the concept of LGBT rights, as such, didn't really exist at the time. That should be sufficiently vague to not give the reader any misleading ideas until they get to read the actual section further down. Kaldari (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Königsberg, Germany/Prussia

Would it make more sense to refer to Königsberg in 1876 as a German city or a Prussian city? (Technically, it was both.) Kaldari (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to "the Prussian capital of Königsberg (then part of the German Empire)". Hope that is satisfactory to all. Kaldari (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 21:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

where?

Can we have a mention of what country whe was active in in the opening para?Geni 00:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Only if you read the rest of the lead, where it mentions no less than 6 countries she was in. --PresN (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"The Game" - is that vandalism? Or somehow relevant to Goldberg?

Webster Tarpley allegation

my recollection, from : George H.W. Bush - the unauthorized biography © 1992

http://tarpley.net/bushb.htm

(which I am not reading at this moment, however):

I begin to wonder if there's anything to the story of Emma Goldman having worked for perfidious Albion, in Poland, as a "spook" (false-flag co-ordinator of groups harassing Poles, while pretending to be Russian). So Emma (who also did much legitimate work) teaches "anarchism" to Leon Cholgacz, who assassinates President McKinley. And we get the rascist nationalist Theodore Roosevelt in McKinley's stead.

(The British needed us to take the Philipines, before the Germans tried.)

McKinley had changed his position and decided to take the Phillipine islands. Yet there was a danger of his flip-flopping again. By contrast, Teddy fought the war until the U.S. triumphed. 300,000 dead Phillipininos.

216.179.1.226 (talk) 04:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I feel that such a thing qualifies as an extremely fringe theory, with no reliable source to back it up. – Scartol • Tok 12:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Without Purpose

Emma did not have a happy life! Her life circled on conspiracies and negativism. While she was vocal and a socialist, her life was without purpose.Emma Goldman exemplifies liberals of today. (Without Purpose) The One and Only Worldwise Dave Shaver 05:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum to discuss whether Ms. Goldman had a happy or sad life. You'll need to take this comment to another website. – Scartol • Tok 12:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

CRAPPY ARTICLE

THIS ARTICLE IS SO OBVIOUSLY BIASED. IT HAS NO PLACE IN THE 'NEUTRAL' POV FORUM THAT WIKIPEDIA ASPIRES TO BE. HOW IT GETS TO BE THE FEATURED ARTICLE IS ABSOLUTELY BEYOND ME. I VOTE FOR DELETION.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.50.94 (talk)

Note that this IP's other edits include vandalism to the article, not an attempt to improve it. Aleta ^Sing 18:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Assuming you have good intentions, would you care to explain why you believe the article to be "SO OBVIOUSLY BIASED"? – Scartol • Tok 19:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That particular IP has since been blocked for 1 month for vandalism. Aleta ^Sing 19:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Why doesn't this article use an infobox underneath Goldman's picture? I thought that was a standard for biographical articles? --pie4all88 (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes are pretty optional. They work well for athletes, musicians, career politicians, etc. but get pretty tricky on some other biographies. What was Emma Goldman's occupation, for example? Well, there's no clear answer that fits in a little box. A small handful of editors dislike infoboxes because they feel that they "add clutter". In general I disagree, but because Emma was such a complicated character I think this is a pretty good example of an article where it's better to just deal with her basic info in the text of the article. --JayHenry (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the great explanation Jay. Couldn't have said it better myself. Kaldari (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok, that makes sense. I tend to like them, myself, because with them I can quickly find general information about the person. It's understandable why it's not in this article, though. Thanks! --pie4all88 (talk) 23:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I would argue against the 'box which has been added without regard for this discussion. Are there hordes of individuals wringing their hands and shouting "but where was she buried"? I just think they're silly for the most part. A continuation of the factoid-ization of everything online. (Oops, my prejudice is showing.) – Scartol • Tok 11:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the editor who added the box simply didn't see this discussion and yet... This box seems to give the impression that her burial in the German Waldheim Cemetery is one of the most important biographical details of her life. I couldn't consider this box an improvement. Perhaps we should remove, or contact the editor who added it to explain. --JayHenry (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• I support removal per prior discussion. Infoboxes might be helpful for people with a few particular highlights, e.g., actors or sports figures, but someone with such wideranging contributions and interests is difficult -- and even inaccurate -- to put in an infobox. --Lquilter (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I usually try not to override people's preferences, but "needs-infobox=" (yes/no) is a parameter in the WikiProject Biography banner. Why would you say they are optional, JayHenry? The I daresay standard box is Infobox:Person for any and everybody with no clear occupation. This isn't something I can argue at length, but when this article was on the main page I was dismayed to see no infobox, and grateful when it was added. My opinion is based on the interface used by WikiProject Biography, which has assessed 441,365 of Wikipedia's biographies, and shared by countless others. Hope this helps. -Susanlesch (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As a long-time member of WikiProject Biography, I have never been under the impression that infoboxes were mandatory for biographical articles. Indeed, I have only used an infobox in a single biographical article I have written. For people who fall under a certain group (writers, baseball players, etc.) I can see how having an infobox is useful, but for someone like Emma Goldman I can't see how it adds anything useful to the article. In my opinion Infobox:Person is rather useless. Kaldari (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, yes, they're not a requirement, only my expectation based on looking at and assessing only a very small part of that huge group. For example in Infobox:Person, the doc says "Remember that infoboxes are not suitable for all articles, and can overwhelm short articles". Entirely possible that the two views here mean we read different parts of Wikipedia. It's a big place. Take care and best wishes. -Susanlesch (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• It was removed, "removing infobox, per talk page". That's fine, it's your preference, but I do not think this talk page reflects consensus, thus this note. -Susanlesch (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Susan, thanks for your comments. To me saying "they're not a requirement" is just a paraphrase of saying "they are optional". It's not something that matters very much to me personally, though as I noted above, I don't think Emma Goldman being buried in the German Waldheim Cemetery is one of the most important things about her life. --JayHenry (talk) 02:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Susan, I'd like to address your original point about the WikiProject Banner. I would not expect that "needs infobox yes/no" means that an infobox is expected; for one thing, no is an option. What it comes down to is that the banner templates are ways to flag important and/or commonly-used options. They do not, in themselves, define style or articles. Those are defined in the relevant guidelines. The relevant guidelines do not say that any infobox is required, and in fact there has been long-standing discussion over when and how and so on. They are permitted but there is no Wikipedia-wide consensus that they should always exist on biography articles. Thus the decision goes article-by-article. Thus, the biography banner can only be taken to mean "yes: needs a template because I, the assessing editor, think it's appropriate or no: I the assessing editor do not think a template is appropriate. Best, Lquilter (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Where was Emma Goldman born?

For most of the life of this article it has stated that Goldman was born in "the province of Kaunas, Lithuania". As has been pointed out by recent editors, there is no such thing as "the province of Kaunas". Kaunas is a city. So where did this confusion come from? And what is the real location of Goldman's birth? I went to the library today to get to the bottom of it. First I consulted Living My Life, which states, "Years later, while on our way to America, we stopped in Kovno, our native town." So Goldman says she was born in the town of Kovno (which is now the city of Kaunas). What do the other sources say? Wexler states on page 6 that Goldman was born "in the Russian province of Kovno (today Kaunas in the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic)". She most likely got this information from Hippolyte Havel's 1910 biographical sketch of Goldman that prefaced Anarchism and Other Essays, which says: "Emma Goldman was born.. in the Russian province of Kovno." So I'm guessing that our confusion comes from Wexler, who incorrectly equates Havel's "province of Kovno" with "Kaunas", which we condensed to just "province of Kaunas". In reality, the "province of Kovno" corresponds to the Kovno Governorate which covered about 50% of present day Lithuania (far more than just the city of Kovno/Kaunas). So the current statement in our article that Goldman was "born in the city of Kaunas, Lithuania" is in fact more accurate and specific than our previous wording. Kaldari (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I expect I was using Wexler's phrasing as my definitive. Her error became mine. =) Thanks for noticing this, and I think you're right about the current wording. – Scartol • Tok 11:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits from Main page exposure

Here is the total diff from our Main Page exposure. Can everyone review the edits made and revert or correct any that are not beneficial to the article? I think a couple quotes may have been edited as well. Someone should verify the quotes and revert them back to the previous versions if necessary. Kaldari (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of the changes still in the article look good to me. Two issues I flag for fellow editors: : --Lquilter (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(1) Addition of Category:Lithuanian-American Jews. We already have Category:Lithuanian Jews, and Category:Jewish American activists, Category:Jewish anarchists, and Category:Jewish atheists. I don't think we need more than one reflecting her nationality; and L-A Jews seems better than L Jews. Thoughts? : --Lquilter (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Lithuanian-American Jews is a subcategory of Category:Lithuanian Jews, so we should delete one or the other. Kaldari (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Category:Lithuanian Jews. Kaldari (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(2) The Ragtime material came in again. I believe we had decided that it was not a significant dramatic representation of her. My own take on it (take it out) hasn't changed, but since another editor added it I put it here for consideration. : --Lquilter (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's borderline notable. FWIW, Wexler mentions Goldman's appearance in Ragtime on the first page of Emma Goldman in Exile. Kaldari (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

a suggestion for the first paragraph

although this appears to be a quite detailed article, i would suggest that the controversy introduced in the main paragraph lends too much weight towards emma as a negative (or positive) figure. instead of stating in the second sentence of the article that "She was lionized as a free-thinking "rebel woman" by admirers, and derided as an advocate of politically motivated murder and violent revolution by her critics." selecting a more neutral sentence that states her importance would be better, such as this one which appears further down in the main section: "Goldman played a pivotal role in the development of anarchist political philosophy in the United States and Europe in the first half of the twentieth century." switching the positions of these two sentences (or rewriting them) would, i think, improve the tone of the opening section. 99.233.145.194 (talk) 03:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the sentence in question existed before the enormous reconstruction which I was a part of; it was left in to honor some of the previous editors' work (and it's true either way). It's passed multiple peer reviews and the FA discussion, so it seems to be accepted by the community. I'm willing to consider the change if others share your opinion, though. – Scartol • Tok 11:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• I like the thought behind this. I'm not sure I agree, although I too think it is good to discuss it. My thoughts: I agree it would be nice to emphasize her importance in anarchist political philosophy. However, surely the strong feelings she arose and the controversies that swirled about her during much of her life are also significant. It seems the idea is to change the tone of the opening. I think that could also be done by minimizing or contextualizing (in history) the criticism, in keeping with modern thinking about her; e.g., "a controversial figure in her own time, she is today lionized by many ..." something like that. One could either add the anarchist political philosophy sentence to the intro, or add it as part of the writings and speeches sentence. --Lquilter (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Personally, I like the dramatic opening, but perhaps it's a bit much. Regardless, I'd be hesitant to endorse a rewrite without seeing it on here first. Kaldari (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Goldman in fiction

Just for my own reference:
"She emerges as a character in E. L. Doctorow's novel Ragtime, and in Warren Beatty's movie Reds, while the avant-garde filmmaker Yvonne Rainer, daughter of anarchists, quotes her throughout her film Journeys from Berlin/1971... Plays include Lynn Rogoff's Love Ben, Love Emma, Howard Zinn's Rebel in Paradise, Michael Dixon's Live Tonight: Emma Goldman, Stephanie Auerbach's A Woman of Valor, and a musical, Red Emma, by Carol Bolt. Leonard Lerman has written an opera based on Goldman's life." -- Emma Goldman in Exile
Kaldari (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No mention is made in the article of Goldman's depiction in the Stephen Sondheim musical ASSASSINS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.37.47 (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Goldman and Louise Berger

Please discuss the issue here instead of edit warring. Once this is settled, the article will be unprotected. 12.72.118.233, you may want to provide relevant quotes and passages from your cited sources below (or page numbers at the very least), so that others can assess the notability of Goldman's relationship with Berger and how this impacted Goldman's life. You may also want to explain why this particular incident is worth including in Emma Goldman's article rather than just putting it in a new article specifically about Louise Berger. Malik, please elaborate on the reasons why you believe the material about Louise Berger isn't appropriate here. Others are free to weigh in as well. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

From my own investigation... Berger isn't listed at all in the indexes of either of Wexler's books, but she is mentioned twice in Living My Life:

"...Sasha's name was dragged into the case, and the police were looking for him and the owner of the Lexington apartment, our comrade Louise Berger. Word came from Sasha that the three men who had lost their lives in the explosion were comrades who had worked with him in the Tarrytown campaign..." (p. 536)

"...Among them were a number of men and women who had worked with us in our various campaigns in the Blast and Mother Earth. The manifesto was entrusted to Louise Berger and S.F., our closest and most dependable friends..." (p. 597)

From Anarchist Voices: An Oral History of Anarchism in America (not one of the sources cited, but also by Paul Avrich):

"Louise (Carl Hanson's half-sister) was on her way to tell Berkman that the bomb was ready when the explosion took place. Caron, Hanson, and Berg were killed... Berkman was the mastermind of the plot." (p. 213, from an interview with Jack Isaacson's wife)

From The Modern School Movement: Anarchism and Education in the United States:

"...This time the bomb making was left to others, Berkman limiting himself to the organization of the enterprise, a task at which he excelled. His precise roll remains unclear. That he knew the details of the conspiracy is evident from his outline for an autobiography, drafted in 1932, a chapter of which was to recount "the inside story of some explosions."... As to Berkman's complicity, Plunkett leaves little room for doubt. "Only a few people were involved," he told me in 1975. "Caron, Hanson, and Berg, of course. Louis Berger, Hanson's half-sister, knew about it. It was her apartment, and she left it just minutes before the explosion... And Alexander Berkman. It was Berkman who organized it, though the others were to carry it out, as he was still on probation for his attempt on Frick. Emma Goldman was not involved in fact she was away on a lecture tour at the time."..." (p. 219)

Kaldari (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at home so I don't have access to any of my books, but my objection is simple: if one of Goldman's many friends or associates was involved (or allegedly involved) in a plot, what has that got to do with Goldman? Read the paragraph in question. It has nothing to do with Goldman. The incident doesn't illustrate the first sentence ("During this time, Goldman and Berkman began associating with increasingly radical colleagues at Mother Earth and at the Ferrer Center in New York."). As I wrote in my edit summary, it's a paragraph that belongs in an article about Berger, not this article.

PS: Your research confirms what I'm saying. This incident is so insignificant that Goldman's biographers don't mention it in book-length bios. (As interesting as it is, Living My Life sometimes seems like an inventory of all the people Goldman ever met.) Why does this incident belong in an encyclopedia article about Goldman, if her biographers don't bother with it? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Given what it says in The Modern School Movement above, it looks like Louise Berger might be worth mentioning in Alexander Berkman's article, but maybe not here. It says that Goldman didn't even know about the plot as she was away on a lecture tour at the time. Kaldari (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Another comment: Anarchist Voices consists of interviews with anarchists, and some of it is gossip. I take what it says with a grain of salt and, without reading the interview in question, I don't know whether it's a WP:RS with respect to Berkman's involvement in the plot. Somebody could be repeating a rumor she or he heard, or settling a score. Several of the older anarchists are really down on Berkman and Goldman. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As a third party, I must side with Shabazz on this matter. Berger does not merit mention on this article. However, I would most certainly encourage it be given a brief mention in Berkman's article, and press that the proper article for finer details would be the Lexington Avenue bombing itself. --Cast (talk) 01:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I forgot to mention, Louis Berger does not warrant her own article as she seems to be a non-notable figure who's only claim to fame is that she got herself and her co-horts killed in rather spectacular fashion, tragic as that is. An article on her would never amount to much, but the article on the incident, the Lexington bombing itself, is quite notable and there must be a large mount of buried reports on the incident that could be dug up by a dedicated researcher. I could foresee GA status for it, if only the proper sources for it could be tracked down. The sources provided above are already a good start down that road.--Cast (talk) 01:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have left a note on 12.72.118.233's talk page requesting their participation in the discussion. If we don't hear anything by tomorrow, I'll go ahead and unprotect the article, as it appears the consensus is leaning towards removing the text in question. Kaldari (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

OK by me. It's almost certain Goldman knew something violent was brewing when Berkman, one of EG's own editors, and several Latvian anarchists and Wobblies started meeting together, in some cases at Mother Earth offices, but it's fine if the Lexington bombing is in the Berkman article. It was a fascinating era. One thing I've noticed is that unlike later communists who generally denied any involvement in espionage activities, individually or collectively, the anarchists of that day often proudly asserted their right to acts of violence, only denying involvement as to avoid immediate prosecution. Don17 01:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.118.233 (talk)

Buster Keaton tidbit

What do folks this about this trivia tidbit added today? I think it's inconsequential and distracting, but I figure we should talk it out and all decide together and then have a group hug when we've reached a happy consensus. – Scartol • Tok 13:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Trivia. Let's ax it. Kaldari (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Nationality in the lead

Can something please be added? Thank you. --70.181.45.138 (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Too complicated, never mind :) --70.181.45.138 (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

edit conflict, but it's too good to waste :-) What was Goldman's nationality? She was born in Lithuania the Russian Empire, she was an American citizen until she wasn't, she was without any citizenship until she married James Colton and became British, but she lived in France (not Britain). Any suggestions? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion the question of nationality simply doesn't have a straightforward answer. Therefore the best option is to keep it out of the lead, and just explain the twists and turns throughout the article. Incidentally, this is what the article currently does. --JayHenry (talk) 00:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Quick grammar/style question

"In numerous speeches and letters she defended the rights of gays and lesbians to love as they pleased"

Should that say "right" or "rights"? Which sounds better? Kaldari (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think "right" is right correct. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Soviet Union

E. Goldman could not have been deported to the USSR, because the USSR did not exist in 1919. It should read "deported to Russia" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.138.111.109 (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. Fixed. Zazaban (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Scare quotes on "murder"

I'm not sure I understand the scare quotes added to murder in the lead. I think even Goldman's admirers would admit she occasionally supported the idea of assassination (and in the case of Frick, more than just the idea); and assassination is, after all, a type of murder. The scare quotes don't really seem necessary, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The term "murder" implies immorality or at least criminality; note its use in abortion and assisted suicide debates. I'm not sure what the best solution is here, but unscarequoted murder is not a neutral descriptor imo. The lead section is supposed to be a summary of the article, but I don't see any extended discussion of this point in the Legacy section. It would seem that the sole source for this statement is the Streitmatter book; do we have access to this, and if so, can someone quote the relevant section? Skomorokh 16:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

How about: "...derided by critics as an advocate of politically motivated assassination and violent revolution."? I think if we use a word in quotes people will assume she said it, which – at least in the case of murder, so far as I can remember from the many books I read – isn't true. Scartol • Tok 16:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

"Politically motivated assassination" is redundant. How about just assassination (without scare quotes)? Kaldari (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

For the record though, I don't see what the problem is with implying that Goldman's ideas were "criminal", as I'm sure she herself would have claimed as much. Kaldari (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflicted) I agree on the desirability of avoiding ambiguous quotes, but your proposal mutes the criticism, letting Goldman off the hook somewhat; the murder version suggests there was a sense of outrage over her positions. The "most dangerous woman in America" quote is interesting in this regard. Skomorokh 16:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Skomorokh's point somewhat. Even regarding morality, Goldman herself vacilated on the morality of assassination. Surely it's not much of a stretch to say that her critics would have matter-of-factly accused her of supporting murder. I can't really see how this is analagous to abortion. Who is seriously claiming that Goldman never supported murder (at least the "politically-motivated" type)? Kaldari (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

She certainly supported killing people in defiance of the prohibitory laws; whether that consitutes support for murder is a question of perspective. The (loose) analogy with abortion is that it is similarly lacking in neutrality to characterise pro-choice people as supporters of murder. This discussion shouldn't really be necessary if you have access to the sources from which the claim is taken, however. How do they characterise criticism of Goldman? Skomorokh 16:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course murder isn't a neutral term, but why in this case should it be? Neither Goldman, nor her supporters would claim that her ideas in this area were free from serious moral and legal problems. Note that anarchists of the day were not averse to using the term "murder" themselves when calling for assassination. See Johann Most's "Murder Against Murder" for example. (Many consider Goldman a protege of Most.) Kaldari (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

To me, scarequoting or euphemizing the word murder downplays how truly radical Goldman was and how violent the times she lived in were. We don't need to hold the reader's hand here or worry about sullying Goldman's reputation. Violence, as much as Goldman paradoxically deplored it, was an integral part of the politics of the day. Kaldari (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I do think, however, that the term "politically motivated murder" is rather awkward and loaded. I don't object so much to the "loaded" part (as we are discussing the views of her critics), but the awkwardness bothers me somewhat. Really, it should either say "murder" or "assassination", as "politically motivated murder" is just a convoluted way of saying "assassination". I can't imagine anyone actually saying that Goldman supported "politically motivated murder". They would have either said she supported "murder" or "assassination" (depending on how venomous they were trying to be). Kaldari (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that politics and assassination usually go together, but murder is a much more politically ambiguous term, and if memory serves, I wrote that sentence that way to indicate that she didn't endorse a free-for-all chaotic use of violence, but rather killing in the service of political goals. Although it might seem obvious to many of us, I think that distinction is important. That said, I don't really have strong feelings about how this sentence is worded. Scartol • Tok 17:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I can see how it is a very tricky thing to word. On one hand, we want to emphasize that she didn't advocate free-for-all murder and mayham, but on the other hand we don't want to blunt the passion of her critics. Either way, I hate the (over-)use of scare quotes. I would support either returning it to its original wording or just using assassination (which also has the advantage of being concise). Kaldari (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Lead not neutral

I am puzzled to see the lead of this article the very first paragraph of which says "She was lionized as a free-thinking "rebel woman" by admirers, and derided by critics as an advocate of assassination and violent revolution". The lead of this article consists of five paragraphs. Why mention different views on her in the very first paragraph? It may be mentioned in the last paragraph of lead, first introduce the person to the readers. We do not start the article Vladimir Lenin as "Lenin was admired by supporters as a revolutionary and criticized by opponents for imposing a dictatorial rule", we do not start the first paragraph of the article Franklin D. Roosevelt as "Franklin D. Roosevelt was admired by supporters as an effective leader and was condemned by critics for racism and for prolonging the war and causing unnecessary deaths". Different viewpoints should be mentioned, but why in the first paragraph. We mention legacy in the last paragraph of the lead. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll take the blame for this wording choice (and indicate right up front that I don't have a problem with the changes suggested by Otolemur, even if I think it's a matter of organization, not neutrality). I suppose I was influenced by the sources I used for my research, many of which make a point of noting that opinions about Goldman have been (and continue to be) very polarized. I thought it fair to reflect this in the first paragraph. But I'm okay with moving this. Scartol • Tok 19:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Any suggestions on rewording or reorganizing the lead, Otolemur? Would you suggest the sentence be removed or just moved to a different part of the lead? Kaldari (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

When did I say the information should be removed? Do not misquote anyone. Don't you see the last two sentences in my previous post - Different viewpoints should be mentioned, but why in the first paragraph. We mention legacy in the last paragraph of the lead. It is not appropriate to mention legacy in the very first paragraph, last paragraph in the lead is appropriate for this. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't misquote you. I asked you if you would specifically suggest either removing the sentence or moving it somewhere else (both seem like reasonable ideas). Asking for more specifics about how we could address your concerns isn't misquoting you! Chill out. Kaldari (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

A good lead section sets out significant facts of the subject's life and summarizes the themes to be covered in the article. Goldman was an enigmatic figure, who was seen very differently by different camps. Comparatively, Lenin and FDR are seen consistently by both supporters and detractors. I like the way the polarized views of her are presented in the lead. The fact that the statement is sourced, supports its being there. Sunray (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I also believe there's nothing wrong with pointing out the controversy in the lead. It does, in fact, seem both neutral, accurate and significant. I don't see how presenting the different sides can be though of as promoting one side. DreamGuy (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. When I said to remove the sentence? No one is reading my previous posts. Off course the sentence is necessary. I have repeatedly said the sentence with proper reference has no problem. I am just saying it should be mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead. Don't you understand what "last paragraph of the lead" means? My objection is that it is mentioned in the very first paragraph. First introduce the person, then mention the legacy i.e. different views in the last paragraph of the lead. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I for one missed your point. Perhaps it is the way you argued it (using the Lenin and FDR analogies). Also, the heading of this section reads "Lead not neutral." It sounded to me as though you were rejecting the idea of polarized views. So please, calm down. Sunray (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] I've relocated the offending sentence to the last paragraph of the lead. In so doing, I noticed biographical detail in the lead, which seems excessive. I've removed some of it, and will further edit it to retain the important aspects of her life and work, without the detail that is more properly contained in subsequent sections. Sunray (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we're moving in the right direction. I'm concerned, though, that there isn't enough context given for who Goldman was before we start talking about where she was born, how she grew up, etc. We need to make sure that the reader has a reason to be interested in who Goldman is before we start in with the boring details. Kaldari (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

What you are saying makes sense to me. I think the lead could use further work along the lines you suggest: Who she was, rather than where she was. Sunray (talk) 08:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to clean-up and revise the lead further to address this issue and also maintain a coherent flow (which was lost somewhat in the preceding edits). Let me know what you think. The lead is now organized into 4 distinct paragraphs: context/importance, birth and life in the US, deportation and life abroad, opinions and legacy. Kaldari (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, much better. Sunray (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Goldman in Canada

Apparently some people have had difficulty finding references to Goldman's influence in Canada. It is true that, until recently, her activities in Canada were not well documented. Nevertheless, she made frequent speaking tours of the country, lecturing in Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary, London and Vancouver. Furthermore, once she came to live in Toronto, given her commitment to local organizing, of course she was active, and influential. Recent biographies have paid more attention to her Canadian influence:

"[Biographies of Goldman have] paid scant attention to Goldman's activities and three extended periods of residence in Canada. According to Moritz and Moritz, this neglect can be partially explained by previous biographers' Americentric emphasis and reliance on her 1931 autobiography."[2]

So let's put paid to the overly Americentric focus. If one googles "Emma Goldman Canada," plenty of additional references can be found. Sunray (talk) 00:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Didn't mean to be Americentric, just going on the sources I had access to :P Kaldari (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this is something I struggled with as I was sculpting the first draft. There's a book (alas, I don't remember which one) which goes into some significant detail about her time in Canada – and making the same point you're making, Sunray. To be fair, she mostly gave talks in Canada, and I didn't focus much on any of the speaking tours she gave (except for the early ones when she was finding her feet). Also, I knew the article was getting long and I thought it fair to give the same weight to her Canadian experiences that the literature about her does. But I have no objection to adding more info into that section. Cheers! Scartol • Tok 15:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)