ebooksgratis.com

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.

CLASSICISTRANIERI HOME PAGE - YOUTUBE CHANNEL
Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Terms and Conditions
Talk:Emma Goldman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk:Emma Goldman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Emma Goldman article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
Featured article star Emma Goldman is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 19, 2008.
Emma Goldman was featured as the Anarchism portal selected article for January 2008.


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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")

[edit] 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)

[edit] External link problem

Emma Goldman 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -